-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Questions From A KJV-Onlyist
- Thread starter Baptist in Richmond
- Start date
Wishfull thinking, still waiting for an answer on the follwoing questions regarding the only begotten god reading:Originally posted by Phillip:
I guess I put him to sleep. Oh, well.
Why are their no quotes prior to the third century that support it?
Why do all of the quotes prior to the third century refrence the "son" reading?
Why do all of the other geographic areas in which text types come from render it "son"?
Why is the "God" reading isolated to a single area?
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Mid terms? My adultOriginally posted by David Rea:
I took a nap today... planning on staying up all night for mid-terms...
son goes to University of Oklahoma and says
two more weeks of classes, a week of finals
and that is the semester done. I hope then
he will be a Senior.
Are you going to Heartland Baptist
Bible College which your church helps sponsor?
Anti-Alexandrian
Member
I think you'll find they will skirt the issue with hackneyed clichés and attacks..You'll also will note that they will bend over backwards to defend the JW's Arian rendering of John 1:18,in spite of Deuteronomy 32:39.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
I do a search on "LXX" and "3ed Century BC";
I get 280 hits on Google. First Hit is Amaxon.com trying
to sell a copy. They think it was started writing
in the 3rd Century BC. Here is the link:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/guides/guide-display/-/2HCM9YGMKNYF6/104-8936479-7012763
This page:
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Septuagint
(I can't copy stuff from this page)
Anyway there are 2ed century BC fragments of Leviticus and
Deuteronomy, 1st Century BC fragments of the Five first books
of the Bible and the minor Prophets.
The first complete copies of the whole O.T. is, of course,
the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaitcus both dating
from the 4th Century AD.
I doubt the Arian Heresy influnced the the pre-Christian era
translation effort.
I'm not going to write anybodies Graduate Thesis for them,
but a cursury look seems to indicate that the LXX translation
of the OT existed, at least in part, before Jesus was born.
I've also heard, but can't check out this morning,
the Writers of the Gospels apparently had access to the LXX
for they quoted it as holy scripture.
How do i get my user name changed to pro-Alexandrian?
[ April 27, 2004, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: Ed Edwards ]
I get 280 hits on Google. First Hit is Amaxon.com trying
to sell a copy. They think it was started writing
in the 3rd Century BC. Here is the link:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/guides/guide-display/-/2HCM9YGMKNYF6/104-8936479-7012763
This page:
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Septuagint
(I can't copy stuff from this page)
Anyway there are 2ed century BC fragments of Leviticus and
Deuteronomy, 1st Century BC fragments of the Five first books
of the Bible and the minor Prophets.
The first complete copies of the whole O.T. is, of course,
the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaitcus both dating
from the 4th Century AD.
I doubt the Arian Heresy influnced the the pre-Christian era
translation effort.
I'm not going to write anybodies Graduate Thesis for them,
but a cursury look seems to indicate that the LXX translation
of the OT existed, at least in part, before Jesus was born.
I've also heard, but can't check out this morning,
the Writers of the Gospels apparently had access to the LXX
for they quoted it as holy scripture.
How do i get my user name changed to pro-Alexandrian?
[ April 27, 2004, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: Ed Edwards ]
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
What do you think of this in the preface ofOriginally posted by David Rea:
They make some claims like "the majority of mss say this"
These notes do not reflect the reality of the MSS evidence. If they said "one ancient mss and a paparus fragment render it this way" I would be much less critical of them.
the nKJV?
"However, some scholars have grounds for doubting
the faithfulness of Vasticanus and Sinaiticus,
since they often disagree with one another, and
Sinaiticus exhibits excessive omission."
BTW, have you read my writings on
the history of the nKJV?
skanwmatos
New Member
Actually the NKJV never says that. The text critical notes in the NKJV simply say, "NU, M" to distinguish a reading found in the TR from the reading found in the Nestle/United Bible Societies and the Majority Text as published by Hodges and Farstad.
Or it may simply say "NU" to distinguish the reading of the TR and M from that of the Nestle/UBS text.
Or it may simply say "M looked up" vice "raised himself up" as the TR reads.
No claims are made by the NKJV publishers regarding the numerical superiority of a reading. All they state is the readings of the three primary texts, NU, M, and TR.
Let us just use some common sense and logic here. If Jesus is God. If the Son of God is Jesus. If the only begotten Son of God is Jesus. Then obviously there is nothing wrong with saying the only begotten God. The begotten simply shows that He was born as a man. You can say that is Arian influence all you want to, but there is no evidence that the documents which were saved in the Alexandrian area were kept by anybody, but good Christian people, some of which were Jews which stayed away from the Palestine area during the rule of their country by outsiders.
Like Dr. Bob has mentioned, it only shows God's providence in being able to maintain His Word in such an evil location.
Many scholars believe that the documents nearest the originals tend to be more concise and seem to have less "addition". Much of this addition was done by well-meaning scribes who copied the verses and added a word here and there in an attempt to clarify what they thought it should be saying. This is one reason the Byzantine documents seem to have a few more verses and words, but none of these have a doctrinal effect on the Word of God. Regardless of the spin placed on it such as that found in John 1:18 there is no proof or even evidence of Arian influence on the Bible. As I indicated above, the verse is very clear whether or not it says God or Son. By the addition of "begotten" it is very clear that we are discussing Jesus. What is so unclear about that?
The last few verses of Mark were mentioned. We do not have any idea if they were in the original autographs or not. It is not important because nothing changes doctrine.
As Skan indicated, the snake and poison business was referring to the people in the first century who also had the powers of healing and other signs and gifts that many people today try to claim, but have not been promised to them. So, therefore, if we find out that there were no verses in the original, then there is no doctrinal loss.
You never did answer MY question. To which TR compilation do you subscribe to today, as being the most accurate?
Like Dr. Bob has mentioned, it only shows God's providence in being able to maintain His Word in such an evil location.
Many scholars believe that the documents nearest the originals tend to be more concise and seem to have less "addition". Much of this addition was done by well-meaning scribes who copied the verses and added a word here and there in an attempt to clarify what they thought it should be saying. This is one reason the Byzantine documents seem to have a few more verses and words, but none of these have a doctrinal effect on the Word of God. Regardless of the spin placed on it such as that found in John 1:18 there is no proof or even evidence of Arian influence on the Bible. As I indicated above, the verse is very clear whether or not it says God or Son. By the addition of "begotten" it is very clear that we are discussing Jesus. What is so unclear about that?
The last few verses of Mark were mentioned. We do not have any idea if they were in the original autographs or not. It is not important because nothing changes doctrine.
As Skan indicated, the snake and poison business was referring to the people in the first century who also had the powers of healing and other signs and gifts that many people today try to claim, but have not been promised to them. So, therefore, if we find out that there were no verses in the original, then there is no doctrinal loss.
You never did answer MY question. To which TR compilation do you subscribe to today, as being the most accurate?
Mid terms? My adultOriginally posted by Ed Edwards:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by David Rea:
I took a nap today... planning on staying up all night for mid-terms...
son goes to University of Oklahoma and says
two more weeks of classes, a week of finals
and that is the semester done. I hope then
he will be a Senior.
Are you going to Heartland Baptist
Bible College which your church helps sponsor? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes.
Technically not midterms till next week, but this is t4h week all of the projects, papers, and notebooks are due.
I would agree with you. The Arian Heresy did not influence the pre christian era, It did not even influence the early church.Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
I doubt the Arian Heresy influnced the the pre-Christian era
translation effort.
That is why thier are only two mss, and two paparus fragments that bear witness to it.
In addition the two mss do not even agree with each other - many contridictions between them exist.
In addition to this, Aleph, has three as many as three readings - all conflicting in many passages - results from revisers making changes and correction.
These few contridictory copies are evidence that the Arians did not influence christianity beyond their limited reach in Egypt.
The better question is why should we accept these two mss, and P66 & P75 over all of the rest of the mss & paparus fragments, and against the unified voice of all of the church fathers prior to the Arian heresy of the late 2nd and early 3rd century?
Why is thier a bias for these mss's?
Lets take a look at Mark 16:9-20:
First only two mss omit this section, Aleph, and B. This is the total evidence for its removal. This stands in opisition to all of the other 1000’s and 1000’s of documents that contain it.
What does this prove? I think it shows that if every piece of evidence is to be rejected in favor of these two witnesses, they had better be accurate!
In Mark 1:14 the NASB reads “preaching the gospel of God”, this is supported by Aleph, but rejected by “B”. The two oldest and best mss disagree, what should we do? In this case the textual critics rejected “B” as false and accepted Aleph as correct.
In Luke 11:2 the NASB reads “When you pray, say Father, hallowed be our name.
Your kingdom come.” Again this follows the reading given in “B”, Aleph contains the phrase “who art in Heaven” inserted after God.
Here are two examples of insertions by Aleph, or deletions by “B”. The NASB has thus far accepted the validity of Aleph, while rejecting the readings of “B”. In each of the above passages, The NASB has been translated after the readings in Aleph, and It has rejected the authority of “B” – or Vaticanus.
Then in Mark 8:26 the NASB reads “And He sent him to his home, saying, “Do not even enter the village.”. But Aleph, which has been thus far followed faithfully, is now rejected! It reads, “Go into your house and tell no one in the village” (bold added). Vaticanus (B) is also rejected! It adds “and tell no one in the village”
Where is the logical consistency? If both Aleph, and “B” are wrong in Mark 8:26, how can we trust them on other passages? If “B” is rejected part of the time, and conflicts with Aleph often, how can it be a reliable witness?
Everyone agrees that in these cases these manuscripts are wrong, so why am I attacked when I claim they are wrong on John 1:18? It seems like they may be oldest but they ain’t best…
By the way, these did not come out of some kjv only book. I went through the NT myself and found these – MANY more exist, I just pulled the first few I found.
Also, Mark 16:9-20
The two MSS that support the deletion of these verses are also used to delete other verses: Mt 18:11, Acts 8:26
The way I see it either the new versions are guilty of addding to the word of God with Mk 16:9-20, or guilty of taking away from the word of God in the other verses.
I mean the same authority omits both? Why do the new versions like the NIV include some and exclude others? Is that not inconsistant? I mean if you believe that these verses were added, and were not in the originals, then remove them! Why are only some omited?
If these are the oldest and best, why are bible printers not true to them? Why do they omit some and leave in others?
The two MSS that support the deletion of these verses are also used to delete other verses: Mt 18:11, Acts 8:26
The way I see it either the new versions are guilty of addding to the word of God with Mk 16:9-20, or guilty of taking away from the word of God in the other verses.
I mean the same authority omits both? Why do the new versions like the NIV include some and exclude others? Is that not inconsistant? I mean if you believe that these verses were added, and were not in the originals, then remove them! Why are only some omited?
If these are the oldest and best, why are bible printers not true to them? Why do they omit some and leave in others?
Pastor KevinR
New Member
Little 6-year-old Jamie Grace in KJVO church: Preeecher-- what does PISSETH mean?
Your answer? </font>[/QUOTE]or, "what does bowels mean?"
skanwmatos
New Member
Uh, urinate.