"valid" versions

Check the preface and see if it mentions Alexandrian text or something like texts diligently compared and revised.
Check also if 1John 5:7 from the KJV is in there or if it has been deleted.

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

[Modern versions with the Alexandrian corruptions don't have that verse. They have the KJV 1Jn. 5:8 in its place. 5:7 was deleted by the gnostics that did not believe in the trinity in the 4th century in Alexandria Egypt.]

 

2 Timothy 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

It is your post that I turn away from.
I repeat. I read the teachings of Smith Wigglesworth and they match the KJV scriptures and are genuine.

To all of you saved (or unsaved) people using these boards, I want to tell you:
God still does miracles today, as in the first century, and will continue doing them until the end of the age, when Jesus returns, and beyond that.
There are men of God that heal the sick, cast out devils and preach the true gospel today as in the first century.
If you don't have faith enough to do miracles or healings or excorscisms, then that is your problem.

 

My best friend during my senior year of college went to the country of Mali to do mission work.

She came back, unbeknownst to her, with a case of malaria.

After a valiant struggle, and much suffering, she died.

She had more faith in her little finger than you (or I) have in our entire body.

So...whose fault was it she wasn't healed?

This oughta be good.....

 

That statement of yours, "she had more fiath in her little finger...etc.," is a supposition on your part. You are supposing that.

Smith Wigglesworth had faith to heal cancers, syphillis, cast out devils, raise the dead, many ailments, yet for years he suffered with kidney stones. He would pass the stones with his underwear drenched in blood, with much pain, and then do a healing service with many healed the very next day. But after years of this he was finally healed. He was resolved to never see a doctor unless he was dying. [He and his wife resolved to not be cut by a doctor unless it was a home call, as he described it.]
Faith to do healing and miracles requires that you [stubbornly] believe it will happen and continue to believe it will happen without wavering and no matter how long it takes, and no matter what you see or hear.
If she prayed for healing and did not stubbornly believe but wavered, the healing would probably not happen.
[By the way, each new use of faith is separate from all the others and does not depend on past failures or successes. When you do it right it works, and when you don't do it right it don't work. Past failures or successes has nothing to do with it.]
I have cast out devils, prayed for healing and miracles and saw it happen. Commanded the rain to stop, and it did, several times. Commanded the wind to blow and it did, many times; to cool off the inside of my vehicle on hot days before I drove off. I used to experiment with the use of faith. It works when you do it right.
Stubbornly believe it will happen.
My main religious background is Assemblies of God. About the only thing I disagree with them about is the pre tribulation rapture.
The rapture is post tribulation.
But, alas, there are so many fake healers in the pentecostal churches, placed there by the antichrist system, ---the pentecostals are more easily deceived by fake miracles than the churches like baptist that don't practice the miracles.
Religion is big business with money to be made and faking the miracles is a way of making alot of money.
There are real men of God doing miracles in God's power.
But there are many fakes.

 

So, you believe that the Gnostics were so successful that out of thousands of New Testament Greek manuscripts, only a single-digit quantity has the `correct' reading.

You believe that this was able to occur despite the fact that Trinitarians have been dominant in the church from ancient times onward? Just a single digit quantity of Greek manuscripts and all from well after the ancient period, despite
1) thousands of Greek manuscripts from ancient times onward, and
2) Trinitarians being dominant in the church?

You might think that. I think it is unlikely. More likely, majority of manuscripts, including the ancient ones, have the correct reading. Rather, the added text is a late insertion by Trinitarians, and so late it was unable to get a substantial following among the manuscripts.

Oh, and lest you think I am in some conspiracy, I do believe in the Deity of Jesus Christ and I am not Oneness. I am just following the evidence about whether the added text is original or not.

 

This is patently untrue. The gnostics had nothing to do with this. The gnostics had their own writings and not only did they deny the Trinity but they denied that Jesus came in the flesh. So why didn't they take out everything in the bible about Jesus incarnating as man? That is one of the major things they disagreed with! Why didn't they remove the line in 1 John 4 that he who confesses that Jesus came in the flesh is from God? They would have definitely removed that!

The earliest manuscripts, from which the the modern versions are translated from, do not have these words (remember, the original manuscripts do not have any verses - verses were added later). The later ms, from which the KJV was translated from, do have these words which some believe were added. It's more likely that the earlier ms are correct since it's more likely for scribes to add things in (sometimes from the margins) in the later ms than to leave things out.

 

HP: How would you go about ‘proving’ that the ‘earlier manuscripts’ do not have these words?

 

Marcia, when you have proved that the earlier texts did no contain the words of 1John 5:7. your next assignment is to show us that just because portion of a preserved text is in your estimation 'older' that somehow that supports the notion that it is more accurate. That should round out your weekend in a studious style. :smilewinkgrin:

 

I find your type pitiful--akin to the pharisees.

"You aren't healed because you didn't have enough faith."

Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. Judgemental, unbiblical, theologically uninformed, and absolutely mean.

Not to mention...I think you're lying. I simply don't believe you did half the junk you claimed.

You have absolutely no concept of faith, and the god you serve is little more than a personal Santa Claus.

You should be ashamed posting this garbage on a Christian board.

Furthermore: The girl I described earlier prayed as Jesus did--"your will be done." Thank God she had real faith, instead of the pseudo-faith, I'm-gonna-boss-God-around, "I know what's best" filth you are describing.

 

Your double standard is showing
You condemn the HCSB for doing what the KJV Translators (but not the KJV changers) did: picking the most likely original text from among the variant texts available to the translators. (I note the HCSB translators /Baptists and other conservative protestants - not baby baptizing Anglicans/ had more variant sources than the KJV translators had). (I note also that those who made the unauthorized changes to the KJV had started dropping the translator notes that told what the alternate readings AVAILABLE to them were).

KJV

Mat 1:11 (KJV1611 Edition):
And ||Iosias begate Iechonias and his brethren, about the time they were caried away to Babylon.

Margin note:
|| Some read, Iosias begate Iakim, and Iakim begat Iechonias


Matthew 1:11 (KJV1611 Edition, alternate reading):
And Iosias begate Iakim, and Iakim begat Iechonias and his brethren, about the time they were caried away to Babylon.

(If your KJV does NOT have the Translator's margin note - something is missing from it - probably have a MV of the KJV )

HCSB:

1 John 5:7 (HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/ ):
For there are three that testify:*

*footnote:
Other mss (The Lat Vg and a few late Gr mss) read: testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit and these three are one

1 John 5:7 (HCSB, alternate reading):
For there are three that testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit and these three are one:

I stand by what I say AND CAN PROVE IT FROM SCRIPTURE (not from revisionist/fictional history)

 

The manuscripts exist and they don't have these words. This is a fact. Do you even know that the King James and versions like the NASB are translated from different manuscripts? The ms are very similar - differences are very minute and don't affect any doctrines.

No one answered my question about why the gnostics didn't remove more damaging verses than one about the Trinity. The Trinity was not their big issue - Jesus coming in the flesh was. Funny how they left in a lot of other stuff about that and passages from which we can show the Trinity, like the end of 2 Corinthians.

 

Ed. The idea is to find the real original text; that is the one written by the original authors and inpired by God. You don't want variant texts. Variant texts are error.
Even in Paul's time (many) had already started to corrupt the Word of God.

2 Corinthians 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

God promised He would preserve his Word.
So which text is it?
The KJV texts; massoretic and majority text

Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psalms 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

To show that the Alexandrian texts are corrupted, they vary from the massoretic text of the Jews, Old Testament, which has been preserved. It is obvious that the old testament in the Alexandrian texts was changed by someone. So that is good reason to not trust the New Testament Alexandrian texts.
Most modern versions, and all catholic bibles, have the Alexandrian text mixed in there. Whenever the Alexandrian text disagreed with massoretic or byzantine, they chose the words of the Alexandrian text.
The changes made are not trivial.
They attack fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith.
Like, atonement for sin, deity of Christ, virgin birth, inerrancy of scripture, trinity, etc.
Let's weigh the evidence, by Barry Burton goes into details on this.

 

See Let's weigh the evidence, by Barry Burton.
The changes attacke fundamentalist Christian doctrine
trinity, blood atonement, deity of Christ, inerrancy of scripture, virgin birth, etc.
1John 5:7 can be found in the byzantine Peshitta, AD 150, and in the italic version of the Waldenses, around AD 250.
Accurate copies of the texts are in existence.
Oldest manuscripts come from Alexandria because the Arid climate preserved them. They are the oldest manuscripts but they don't contain the oldest texts.
Alexandrian texts date only to the 4th century.

 

Like someone else pointed out above - if the gnostics were out to corrupt the scriptures they did not do a very good job, did they?

 

I'm looking at post #53 and quote from it. I am talking to anybody who wants to read. I have Nuclear Spiritual Weapons. What I say is what God says.

// Variant texts are error. //

This statement is self-contradictory. If, a variant text is an error, then we must presuppose that some text is correct. If there is a right text, then God has preserved it. The right text will be found in the set of all variants. So the set of 'variant texts' contains the preserved-by-the-Divine Providence-of-God Written-Word-of-God. QED: "Variant texts are error' is shown to be self-contradictory. If the statement is true, then it is false. (God leaves the proof for "If the statement is false, then it is true" to the student/s/ ):

I'm tired of showing the misinterpretation of Psalms 12:7. Psalms 12:7 is talking about the salvation of the people mentioned in Psalm 12:5 NOT the 'words' in Psalms 12:6. Go read the KJV1611 Edition translator margin notes - the translators of the KJV know I'm right. Why do people insist on twisting the Written Word of God found in the KJV1611 Edition into something it is not? Why then do they still call it the KJV when they contaminate God's Word?

// The changes made are not trivial. //

One cannot have one's cake and eat it also. If the changes made among the MVs, are not trivial - then the changes made among the KJVs are not trivial either.

// Even in Paul's time (many) had already started to corrupt the Word of God. //

'Corrupt' is a word frequently misunderstood in the KJV. Here is the comparison:

CORRUPT

2 Cor 2:17 (KJV1611 Edition):
For wee are not as many which corrupt the word of God:
but as of sinceritie, but as of God, in the sight of God
speake we in Christ.

Strong's sez:

G2585
καπηλεύω
kapēleuō
kap-ale-yoo'-o
From κάπηλος kapēlos (a huckster); to retail, that is, (by implication) to adulterate (figuratively): - corrupt.


As usual, Strong's lists what the KJVs use, not what makes the
most sense. Why do the KJVs use 'corrupt'? Here is
a text that precede the KJVs:

2 Cor 2:17 (Geneva Bible, 1599):
For wee are not as many, which make marchandise of the woorde of God:
but as of sinceritie, but as of God in ye sight of God
speake we in Christ.

Why did the KJV Translators choose to confuse 21st Century readers when the Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition made it very clear what was being said in the word of God???

 

If a god couldn't defend his word against a gnostic, an agnostic, or an aggie-nostic* - then that god is a wimp#

* note - 'aggie-nostic' the country cousin of the urban agnostic
# note: wimp = woefully ineffective minuscule person

 

HP: If I would have offered such a remark, I would have most likely been met with a ‘bordering on blasphemy’ comment.


What is amazing to me is that God waited so long to preserve His Word. According to some, or at least it might appear, God obscured and held from the view of Godly men for over 1800 years the best and most accurate text, preserving it in the waste basket of the convent of St. Cathrine, only to be discovered by a lone German critic!

Then to think that God’s Word, that had stood the test for hundreds of years, would be remolded and patterned after this lost and obscure text, that up until that time the survival of that text was most likely due to the faithful neglect of godly men who saw obvious reasons to allow it to remain in obscurity to the point of its final (or at least they thought it was final) resting place in the waste basket, only to be saved from that doom by that German critic.

Amazing! Simply amazing! Any ideas as to why Ed?

 

Tell us how you really feel about this. Don't soft-pedal it so much. :saint:

Ed