• 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!

Why don't the MV's keep their principle, the Oldest the Best?

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
Have you read C.H.M.s commentary on the Pentateuch? I have no doubt he was a great man of God but I doubt that I would find anyone today who would agree with all of his allegorical apporaoch to the first 5 books of the OT.
I read one of his books, about Leviticus, not all 5 books. His approach to Pentateuch is not different from what Jesus taught us fundamentally. His approach is quite correct in the direction, but I do refine a little further because I also read them in Hebrew, and try not to refer to other human being's before I discern thru the Holy Spirit. Maybe I may want to refer to them after I finish the translation. Pentateuch portrays so much about Jesus Christ.

Many people are overlooked unknowingly though they are PB.
Joseph Scrivener is a great PB, who wrote " What a friend have we in Jesus", who lived single after his fiance was died, helping the poor people near Toronto.
George Muller, Hudson Taylor were PB. David Livingstone was PB though he got some assistance from COE.

Now, Dave Hunt is proudly PB too !
 
Last edited:

EdSutton

New Member
Arthur Farstad, the main translator for NKJV and HCSB, was PB as well as Zane Hodge is. I think they gathered together in Dallas Assembly.
I believe your 'history' and 'facts' offered here could stand a tad bit more research.

The late Dr. Arthur Farstad (d. 1998), although the 'originator' for the HCSB, was not "the main translator for ...HCSB," but was the initial General Editor of that version. However, he was called home at the end of August, 1998 (like maybe the 28th, if my memory is right about the exact date), almost as the project began to get underway, in any significant manner.

Dr. Farstad was succeeded by Dr. Edward Blum, who was the Associate General Editor, 'under' Dr. Farstad, initially. As you said, Dr. Farstad was, in fact, the General Editor and a primary NT translator (and could properly be characterized as "the main translator") of the NKJV.

Dr. Farstad was not PB (either Plymouth Brethren or Primitive Baptist), but would have been more accurately described as Conservative Baptist. I do not know what local body of believers he regularly associated with.

The late Mr. Zane Hodges (D. Nov. 2008) was the Senior 'pastor' of the Victor Street Bible Chapel for more than 45 years, until his own homegoing. He would properly have been characterized as "PB" as you said. While he may have been elsewhere on occasion, he was certainly usually to be found here, and if Dr. Farstad fellowshipped with his friend and mentor, Mr. Hodges, Victor Street is where they most likely would have gathered, I'd say.

Interestingly enough, neither Dr. Farstad nor Prof. Hodges ever married, although both came from fairly large families, and both 'adopted' many of the students, at Dallas Seminary, over many years.

Ed
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
I believe your 'history' and 'facts' offered here could stand a tad bit more research.

The late Dr. Arthur Farstad (d. 1998), although the 'originator' for the HCSB, was not "the main translator for ...HCSB," but was the initial General Editor of that version. However, he was called home at the end of August, 1998 (like maybe the 28th, if my memory is right about the exact date), almost as the project began to get underway, in any significant manner.

In some points you are right. Art Farstad couldn't finish HCSB due to his sudden death on Sept 1, 1998.
You can find the Eulogy for him here:

http://www.plymouthbrethren.org/byauthor/52

I do not know how much he influenced on HCSB, but HCSB was originated by Art Farstad and he was the chair of the committee. But he was originally a scholar of the majority texts, while HCSB became almost the same as the most of the MV. So, I must accept he should remain only as the Originator for HCSB, not the main translator.
He also started the project for Logos 21, but died even before the John was finished.

Dr. Farstad was succeeded by Dr. Edward Blum, who was the Associate General Editor, 'under' Dr. Farstad, initially. As you said, Dr. Farstad was, in fact, the General Editor and a primary NT translator (and could properly be characterized as "the main translator") of the NKJV.

Correct.

Dr. Farstad was not PB (either Plymouth Brethren or Primitive Baptist), but would have been more accurately described as Conservative Baptist. I do not know what local body of believers he regularly associated with.

I have heard that he also attended the same church as Zane Hodge did, Victor Street Bible Chapel. We don't call our churches PB, but usually call them " Gospel Chapel, Gospel Hall, Assembly, Bible Chapel"
You can find here that Art listed his article about the Lord's Supper which is typical to PB ( Unfortunately the site missed the contents).
The reason why he doesn't look like a PB is because, I guess, he had many disciples from DTS and they listed him as one of the leaders for their society. Once I communicated with a chapel where William McDonald attends, and they confirmed Art Farstad was one of our elders in Dallas assembly. I think Victor Bible Chapel started to disappear from the Address book of PB since some years ago. I don't know why, but there can be many reasons for it. But I am quite sure that they have been with PB for a long time. This may be the same case with Harry Ironside who spent 1/3 of his time with Salvation Army, 1/3 with PB, 1/3 with Moody's memorial. Harry Ironside has never left the basic belief shared with PB since he had departed from Salvation Army. He respected the viewpoints of PB assemblies all the time in his messages.


The late Mr. Zane Hodges (D. Nov. 2008) was the Senior 'pastor' of the Victor Street Bible Chapel for more than 45 years, until his own homegoing. He would properly have been characterized as "PB" as you said. While he may have been elsewhere on occasion, he was certainly usually to be found here, and if Dr. Farstad fellowshipped with his friend and mentor, Mr. Hodges, Victor Street is where they most likely would have gathered, I'd say.

Interestingly enough, neither Dr. Farstad nor Prof. Hodges ever married, although both came from fairly large families, and both 'adopted' many of the students, at Dallas Seminary, over many years.

Ed

I think Zane Hodges is still alive, but I don't know the latest status about him.
You can find his articles on PB site here.

http://www.plymouthbrethren.org/byauthor/395

Not all the people listed there are the PB, but some of them may be ex-PB.
PB are nothing but the extremely fundamental group of independent Baptists. "Brethren" was another name for "the Baptists" outside RCC throughout history.

Some of the typical aspects of PB are:
1) they celebrate the Lord Supper every week.
2) they baptize only the Believers by total immersion.
3) their women believers wear head covering in the service.
4) No pastor, but plural elders.
5) They call themselves only as Brothers and Sisters.
6) Don't call the churches with any name of denomination. If anyone call himself or herself as PB, he or she is not PB any more. PB is originally attached by outsiders.

One of the common reasons why some PB assemblies depart from PB is because their leaders try to have mono-pastoral system, which is common among the protestant churches.

Some elders already call themselves as Pastors outside the chapels while they are called "Brothers" inside the chapels.
PB people consider both Farstad and Hodges as PB.

As for the Bible translation, both Art Farstad and Zane Hodge are the men of Majority Texts. Even Darby the initiator for PB movement was rather pursuing the Majority Texts in general.
Logos 21 is very interesting because its stance is unique, neither TR nor WH-NA, even though it has only Gospel John. You can get the free copy of it by asking.
 
Last edited:

EdSutton

New Member
Zane Clark Hodges (1932-2008)

I think Zane Hodges is still alive, but I don't know the latest status about him.
{Sigh!}

Zane Hodges passed away some 5 1/2 mos. ago. This occurred presumably on Nov. 22 or 23, 2008, when his body was discovered at his home, that Sunday, Nov. 23, after he did not make the Lord's Supper service, as scheduled.

The late Zane Hodges was 76, at his death.

Ed
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tater77

New Member
Oh, dear ! you can read it ! Great achievement for you after finding it by the English remark underneath, right?



Your Ignorance is here and this tells what you are !

You carry the banner of Saint Augustine. Do you call such a man as a Saint ?

The following is the summary about Augustine :

I have noticed the following summary from the book "What Love is this p55-58" by Dave Hunt, but some points may be confirmed from Confession and City of God by Augustine.

Augustine believed and claimed;

1) He believed in the Coercion of Faith unto the unbelievers by Force
He misinterpreted Luke 14:23- and believed that the Force can be used as long as it is available.
This may mean that Augustine was the "Father of Inquisition"

2) Predestination of the Unbelievers that they may not believe in Jesus and thereby they should go to the Hell, even though God could save them all, for it pleased God.
( In this case, god of Augustine is responsible for the unbelief of the people and therefore the god of Augustine should go to the Hell !)
Calvin quoted Augustine 400 times in his Institutes calling him " Holy Father"

3) Infant Baptism

4) Baptismal Regeneration

5) Mary was sinless, Augustine promoted Mary Worship

6) Grace can be obtained thru Sacraments

7) Lord Supper as the spiritual presence of Body and Blood

8) Catholic Church alone is the body of Christ, Outside this body, the Holy Spirit gives the life to No One.

9) Purgatory

10) Acceptance of Apocrypha ( while admitting that the Jews rejected this)

11) Jews must be killed by double edged swords.

12) Rejected the literal interpretation of Creation like 6 days and other details of Genesis

13) Rejected the literal reign of Christ Jesus for thousand years.

14) Satan was already bound and the abyss was in the heart of the unbelievers - Christ Rejecters.

15) placed the Tradition to the first place over the Bible, incorporating the Greek philosophy, Platonism.

He hated Donatists and praised Constantine for killing Donatists and confiscating their properties.

Was Augustine a truly born again Believer in Jesus Christ? give your thoughts!



St. Augustine (c. 354-430 A.D.), Confessions, 12.14
How hateful to me are the enemies of your Scripture! How I wish that you would slay them (the Jews) with your two-edged sword, so that there should be none to oppose your word! Gladly would I have them die to themselves and live to you!

http://www.yashanet.com/library/fathers.htm

http://davidbrett.blog.ca/2006/12/20/christians_jews_and_the_passion~1459087/


Yes there is some English on the banner, because I put it there in photoshop you idiot !!!!!

So I quoted a true statement by St. Augustine and you want to go off and insult and attack the person I quoted.

What kind of sick twisted freak are you ?!?!?!?!
 

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
Yes there is some English on the banner, because I put it there in photoshop you idiot !!!!!

So I quoted a true statement by St. Augustine and you want to go off and insult and attack the person I quoted.

What kind of sick twisted freak are you ?!?!?!?!

The level of your criticism is very low. Can a suckling baby criticize what the KJV translators did?

You don't know about Augustine, do you?

You Idiot !

Moderators must have banned this type of posters earlier before I post in this way !
 
Last edited:

EdSutton

New Member
EdSutton already covered that a while back.
True.

However, I did miss the date of the death of Dr. Arthur Farstad by a few days, relying on a poor memory, for it was actually Sept. 1, 1998, and not the end of August, as I had thought, even though I do have some recollection of the event, as I had just purchased my copy of the NKJV, shortly before his death.

Ed.
 

EdSutton

New Member
Tater77 said:
Yes there is some English on the banner, because I put it there in photoshop [Personal attack removed by me! - Ed]!!!!!

So I quoted a true statement by St. Augustine and you want to go off and insult and attack the person I quoted.

[Second Personal Attack removed by me! (I see no reason to wait for a Moderator in this, frankly! - Ed)]
The level of your criticism is very low. Can a suckling baby criticize what the KJV translators did? [These two statements almost merit removal, as well, because of the insinuations! - Ed]

You don't know about Augustine, do you?

[Blatant personal attack removed! (No reason to wait here, either!)- Ed]

Moderators must have banned this type of posters earlier before I post in this way !
This childishness displayed by you two with the overt personal attacks on each other's intelligence is entirely uncalled for! :(

Ed
 

EdSutton

New Member
The level of your criticism is very low. Can a suckling baby criticize what the KJV translators did?
Didn't you just describe yourself as a "suckling baby" considering I have seen multiple places where you have questioned the KJV renderings in the OT?

No wait! On second thought, I believe you hold a much higher opinion of your own abilities, at least in Hebrew, if I recall.

For I believe I have seen multiple instances where you have questioned not only the KJV renderings, but effectively the collective judgment of literally hundreds of Hebrew translators, most notably with your own 'addition' of "then" in your mistranslation/interpolation/interpretation/rendering of Ezek. 45:21.

If my memory serves, I believe the old adage of 'country folk' is that of

"What's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander!"

Ed
 

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
This childishness displayed by you two with the overt personal attacks on each other's intelligence is entirely uncalled for! :(

Ed
You are very much wrong !

If Tater 77 didn't post such insulting first, I wouldn't have done so. You must have beend diligent enough to know what was the cause of the problems.
We must track back to the root cause first, then it was more than the optimum amount of reaction to the cause, then the reaction itself must be disciplined as well.

What I did at most was to return back the same words uttered by the person since the bad words tend to return to the original source.

It is not the first time that Tater insulted me in this way, and I already appealed this matter to the Board before. Look at the whole posts by him since end of March.
Whose job is this ?
 

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
Didn't you just describe yourself as a "suckling baby" considering I have seen multiple places where you have questioned the KJV renderings in the OT?

No wait! On second thought, I believe you hold a much higher opinion of your own abilities, at least in Hebrew, if I recall.

For I believe I have seen multiple instances where you have questioned not only the KJV renderings, but effectively the collective judgment of literally hundreds of Hebrew translators, most notably with your own 'addition' of "then" in your mistranslation/interpolation/interpretation/rendering of Ezek. 45:21.

If my memory serves, I believe the old adage of 'country folk' is that of

"What's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander!"

Ed
When I said " suckling baby", I said it because I have found enough reasons for that.

I already explained you about Eze 45:21 many times.
If you dislike any addition in Eze 45:21, you can remove it, but I can still interpret the verse in such way, which is the case with KJV and NKJV, I believe. We can still leave the verse without any conjunctive, but can interpret that comma didn't mean the equality of the seven days with 14th of the month, but the continuation of the period.
The original text had nether Comma nor Semicolon in that sentence. The translators added them in the sentence, which can affect quite a lot in the interpretation.

I already showed you the addition of the conjunctions by the translators.

I already showed you Numbers 11:11 which has thou in English but no subjective for " lasum" - there is nothing wrong with it though the translator added " thou"

Now I will show you a new example:

Read Number 12:6
..... I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and speak unto him in a dream.


There is no word for and in Hebrew text. No comma.
The translator added Comma and And there.

Is it wrong ? Are only the famous people allowed to add the conjunctives?
 

Tater77

New Member
You are very much wrong !

If Tater 77 didn't post such insulting first, I wouldn't have done so. You must have beend diligent enough to know what was the cause of the problems.
We must track back to the root cause first, then it was more than the optimum amount of reaction to the cause, then the reaction itself must be disciplined as well.

What I did at most was to return back the same words uttered by the person since the bad words tend to return to the original source.

It is not the first time that Tater insulted me in this way, and I already appealed this matter to the Board before. Look at the whole posts by him since end of March.
Whose job is this ?

Uhm, NO............ There is a BIG difference between calling you out on the content of your post and a personal insult. I called you out first , but YOU started with the insults. When I make a post, its up for grabs to be picked apart, scrutinized and even tore down. This goes for you too, its called debate, get used to it online.

I'm no special case here. In every thread you take part in Eliyahu, you make personal insults against anyone and everyone who disagrees with you.

Yes, I lost my composure with you. :BangHead: And from here on any personal insults from me will STOP even if you insult me. But that doesn't mean I wont reply :rolleyes:

If I have offended you personally then I apologize.

The fact remains you don't know me. We are on an online message board. You know nothing about who I am, where I've been or where I'm going.

I will not stand by while you make such posts asking "who is you morning star" (another thread). Like I said, you don't know me so who are you to even call my faith into question???? Things like that are all to typical of a KJVO mindset. I have little tolerance , which I need to work on, for such attacks. You are constantly on the prowl looking for something to pounce on, so please do not play the victim now.

Have I questioned your faith yet? No, But I do think you to be misguided...........but faithful and I don't question that. If you were not, you wouldn't have such zeal.
 

Tater77

New Member
Does Satan teach you about his tool?

Is that an accusation? Here's another one of Satans tools. Causing Christians to fight over a TRANSLATION of what was written making to busy to see what really matters.

Do you know how to read it? Have you ever read the manuscript? Or do you just show it ?

Actually yes I can. I have high resolution scans of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus and Vaticunis and several of the P series. In all I have 4 gigabytes of nothing but manuscript scans, transcripts, English bibles, Greek Editions, Hebrew Editions, Latin mss and revision transcripts and so on. Then I have a stack of printed Bibles that would be several feet tall when stacked up. If I don't buy it in print, I find somewhere to download it.

Whats with the insults anyway? :rolleyes: Oops I forgot , your a KJVO, its in your nature after the style of Peter Ruckman.


And I will be the first to tell you that Aleph has a correction in John 3:16. A word was missing and later penned in. Which is why I chose to use A for the sig. Besides the brown look of the paper looks better for effect, Aleph is off white.

This is pretty much how it started. Things were almost civil up until then.
 

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
Uhm, NO............ There is a BIG difference between calling you out on the content of your post and a personal insult. I called you out first , but YOU started with the insults. When I make a post, its up for grabs to be picked apart, scrutinized and even tore down. This goes for you too, its called debate, get used to it online.

I'm no special case here. In every thread you take part in Eliyahu, you make personal insults against anyone and everyone who disagrees with you.

Yes, I lost my composure with you. :BangHead: And from here on any personal insults from me will STOP even if you insult me. But that doesn't mean I wont reply :rolleyes:

If I have offended you personally then I apologize.

The fact remains you don't know me. We are on an online message board. You know nothing about who I am, where I've been or where I'm going.

I will not stand by while you make such posts asking "who is you morning star" (another thread). Like I said, you don't know me so who are you to even call my faith into question???? Things like that are all to typical of a KJVO mindset. I have little tolerance , which I need to work on, for such attacks. You are constantly on the prowl looking for something to pounce on, so please do not play the victim now.

Have I questioned your faith yet? No, But I do think you to be misguided...........but faithful and I don't question that. If you were not, you wouldn't have such zeal.
Tater, I have no intention to fight against you too much. I didn't have time to look at even your personal profile and didn't check any of your posts addressed to other persons before. In the meantime, as your posts were mostly short and attacking me all the time, I thought you might be attacking others all the time. But I spent some time, find the most of your posts are rather normal except the ones against me.

I hope you distinguish between the insult and the strong refutation. My posts are rather in a strong tone, but they are not containing the insults if you closely look at them.

The refutation to your post in the manner like " who is your morning star? Is Satan your morning star?" was a response after I was attacked by you first. Anyway, if you feel sorry about that, I must have said the same to you, and I am sorry to you indeed.

As for questioning the faith, the criteria by which the Believers discern the faith may greatly differ between certain groups. Many of the KJVO or KJV supporters may have more strict criteria for the salvation, which may require a clear testimony of salvation, while many protestant churches may consider the most of the attendants are the saved.

In my case, I have lived so-called Christian life for about 10 years before I was born again. During that 10 years, I was active in the church and was baptized by sprinkling.
In case of John Wesley, he confessed he was born again on May 24, 1738, which is celebrated by Methodists even today, which took place after he had been to Virginia as a priest and missionary of COE.
Harry Ironside had the same experience, so did Pascal, Martin Luther, George Mueller, and there are many more who had clear testimonies among the believers. Therefore it is not unusual that one believer exchanges the testimony with another.

As this is prohibited on this board, I didn't argue about it, but asked about the guidance by the Holy Spirit many times.

I believe that God is alive, and the Holy Spirit works in the believers. The guidance by the Holy Spirit is not limited to common life, but applies to the Biblical discernment.

You pointed out my posts as Insulting others. However, they cannot be construed as insults, if you carefully checked them. As I said, they were quite strong and straightforward, except the posts to you. Even the word Satan was used by you first. On this occasion, I feel sorry to remind you about the past, but let me shortly show you some of the causes:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes there is some English on the banner, because I put it there in photoshop you idiot !!!!!

So I quoted a true statement by St. Augustine and you want to go off and insult and attack the person I quoted.

What kind of sick twisted freak are you ?!?!?!?!

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=59381&page=3
Oh the true nature of the KJVO comes out !!!!! All you can do is insult, belittle, taunt and basically make a fool of yourself.

Isaiah 14:12 is a taunt to the King. No reference to Satan there.


http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1404343#post1404343
It may mean a rhino or ox but idiots still think it means the mythical unicorn, so it needs to be changed.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1402231#post1402231
Is that an accusation? Here's another one of Satans tools. Causing Christians to fight over a TRANSLATION of what was written making to busy to see what really matters.


http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1401736#post1401736
Satan likes the easy road, making you an atheist or agnostic even. Have you heard of " The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. Now that's Satans tool right there.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Again, sorry to remind you of the past. This was provided for your understanding for the better future. please understand that I don't keep anything against you in my mind now.
 
Last edited:

Tater77

New Member
I took the morning star comment as questioning my faith since you used the pronoun "your".

That is the one that "lit my fuse" per say.

It may mean a rhino or ox but idiots still think it means the mythical unicorn, so it needs to be changed.

That one wasn't directed at anyone here. But I do know more than one person that actually believes in a horse with one horn because of this. Thus my disapproval of it remaining in the text.

Satan likes the easy road, making you an atheist or agnostic even. Have you heard of " The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. Now that's Satans tool right there.


I can see how you might take that one wrong. But it was not directed at you as a personal remark. BTW, that book is a tool of Satan.

But sometimes I rant a little. But not just you Eliyahu but anyone, please don't take my rants as a personal attack. If I make a comment directed at someone, I will be clear about who its directed at and why.
 

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
The Spirit working behind Modern Version works to defend Vatican Texts B. All the other manuscripts supporting WH-NA like Aleph, A, P75 are the bridesmaids or groomsmen for Vaticanus.
Vatican Text B has been modified and preserved by Roman Catholic, the center of Idolatry and Goddess Worship. Virtually Vatican Text B was tailor-made for RCC theology. God only knows when such modifications were done by RCC, but it contains many erasures, scratches, and cut-outs.
If Mark’s longer ending is wrong and the shorter ending shown in B is correct, God must owe something to Vatican for the preservation of His Words. It means that God owes something to the Idol Worshippers and Goddess Worshippers for the preservation of His Words. Sinaiticus was preserved by Orthodox Monastery, which persecuted the Believers like Paulicians, and it came with Septuagint. It contains too many errors for the Bible text. I showed some of the ridiculous errors shown in the Aleph-Sinaiticus.

My God owes NOTHING to the Idolaters and Goddess Worshippers for the preservation of His Words.
If B was wrong in Mark, we can move on to another.
Does God owe something to the minority texts like Aleph, B, C, P66, P75 for the preservation of John 1:18 as Only Begotten God, then God must owe something to the minor texts again, and B and P75 have been preserved by Vatican which prohibited the Bible and persecuted the Bible translators, and Aleph was preserved by Orthodox monastery which persecuted the Believers like Paulicians.

Hundreds of manuscripts support “ Only Begotten Son” against “ Only Begotten God”
Only Begotten was used in Acts 13:33 when it mentions Son “ Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee
John 1:14
14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth.

Isn’t this talking about the Father and Son?
John 3
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Did God give the world His Only Begotten God?

John 3:
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Should it be “ Only Begotten God of God” ?

Hebrews 1:5
Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

He shall be to me a God?

1 John 4
In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

Did God sent His Only Begotten God into the world?


Does God owe anything to the Alexandrian Texts? NOPE !

The Words of God stand without any need of Alexandrian Texts !

I owe nothing to Roman Catholic either!

( All Bible quotes are from Bible Gateway.com)
 
Last edited:
Top