Why I "rant-n-rave" so much...

You have made soooooo many assumptions here. You assumed your sources were correct. Did you look into this objectively or did you come in with a preconceived notion. If you stare at the clouds long enough wanting to see a rabbit, eventually you will.

As far as a Roman Catholic Bible goes and its influence therein to modern Bibles, you seem to read into too many conspiracy theories. The RCC is a prime example of people not questioning tradition and tradition gone bad. Wait................people did question it, and here we are as Protestants, hooray for them.

If Rome had something to do with MV's then why dont they sanction them? Your argument seems to draw from a textual one, mainly Vaticunis (B). B is given a third rank because of its age and its not a papyri. B is typically given weight when it agrees with Aleph and A. In case you didnt know they go like this:
Aleph= Codex Sinaiticus
A= Codex Alexandrinus
B=Codex Vaticunis

Your view of Aleph seems to be a little distorted. I could debate it here but I really suggest you Tischendorf's actual account. I doesnt go as you say. The monks didn't realize what they had either. Once it was pointed out, they stopped and haven't burnt anything since. You seem to place weight with geographic origin or manuscripts. Now just where was St. Catherines? Well at the foot of Mt Sinai of course. Think about that one. You praise Antioch, but what about the traditional location of Mt. Sinai.

I have a high resolution pic set of Aleph, A and B so I can clearly see the corrections and yes they are taken into account.

In case you didnt know, the Epistles of Paul in modern translations mainly pull from P66 and P75 as they are the oldest known copies of them and predate Aleph, A and B.

You assume that the KJV is the end all be all for word counts. You start with a later compilation and use it to judge manuscripts that predate the KJV base texts by an average of 600 years. This is not wise at all. The KJV used texts from the 10-15 centuries, MV's use 2nd to 5th century manuscripts.

Aleph has two NT apocrypha because it is a Pre-Nicean Bible, which is what makes it so valuable. You see, the canon wasnt concrete till about 390 AD after the councils of Carthage and Hippo. And Jerome was the first to fully separate the Apocrypha from the Canon in the Vulgate. But wait ,you say any Roman influence is bad right?

As far as the rest of you post goes. I'm not even gonna bother with the insane conspiracy theories you suggest. Wescott and Hort have been demonized by Gail the Ripper and Petey Wreckman in a series of lies and false accusations.

You idolize the Reformation Fathers but did you know that Martin Luther wanted the remove James and Jude because he didn't like them? And that King James the First commissioned the KJV just because he didn't like the Geneva and Bishops Bibles margin and study notes. Did you know he hated Baptists and burnt one at the stake in 1612? I'm sorry I cant place my faith in the works of the 17th century Angelican Church of England which is nothing more than a warmed over Protestant version of the RCC.

James hated the Puritans and Anabaptists which is where we have our roots as Baptists. He wanted to "harrow them out of England". So why should I place any consideration to a work done by a denomination that persecuted mine?

 

Where is your source for this statement?

 

The letters between wescott and hort exist and they clearly were not biblical.And you will trust these men translating your bible?

All modern versions attack our precious Saviours nail scared hands in a prophecy to come and yet you could care less.{Zech 13:6}

The pre-KJV English and post KJV Lamsa`s bible is the only bibles that get this prophecy correct.One false prophecy tells you that messenger can`t be trusted.Just like the evidence shows the septuagint is a hoax.


God bless.

Steven.

 

The only hoax here is the stuff you are espousing. Have you read Westcott's and Hort's letters? If you bothered to you might find out that their words have been heavily edited by the KJVO's in such a manner to appear to say things that they did NOT say. Of course you won't bother to check it out for yourself....

WILL YOU??

 

My time is a bit limited this morning, but I can put together something here soon. The material is pretty easy to find though. This is supported by clear history.

Just do some google searches for the time being :smilewinkgrin:

You can start with King James wiki page though here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_I_of_England

Go through the links in the section "Religious Challenges". This will start you off.

 

I didn't start it, I just listened to the arguements and made the right decision.

When one diligently compares versions he is faced with making a decision according to the facts. When one studies in depth the etymologoes of our words he finds why the people decided the KJV is their Bible and others aren't.

I am not minding anyone's "business". I have not even alluded to any version you have. You are trying to turn this into a versions arguement, I am not.

I can read other versions, but I don't do this without taking the time to compare them to the KJV and make a decsion about the verses I've read. If a question mark comes to my mind I study more in detail. I listen to the arguements made about other versions and find them to lead absolutely nowhere.

What I see is wasted time arguing against those who stand on the KJV. I find this nowhere in any principle or precept in the Bible but rather we are commanded to take the Gospel to a lost and dying world, not spend countless hours complaining against something we really don't understand.

It's sort of telling when we see numerous versions in English, each trying to explain things "better". I cannot do the work of the Holy Spirit in revealing to others the word of God into their understanding, neither should men lower the standards of comprehension to meet with illiteracy as an excuse.

I have known many who could not even read understand the KJV. These same ones also don't see the need to argue over versions, they just stick with their KJV and let the contentious slide off into their own pit.

All I am trying to do is reason with those and place a ladder down into that pit for all to climb out.:wavey:

 

You didn't start it, that is correct. But you continue it with statements such as these-

" I just listened to the arguements and made the right decision."

- implying that those who came to a different conclusion came to the wrong decision.

"I can read other versions, but I don't do this without taking the time to compare them to the KJV..."

"What I see is wasted time arguing against those who stand on the KJV."

- yet there is no "wasted time" by those who argue against other good versions? I quite disagree.

"I have known many who could not even read understand the KJV. These same ones also don't see the need to argue over versions, they just stick with their KJV and let the contentious slide off into their own pit.

All I am trying to do is reason with those and place a ladder down into that pit for all to climb out."

I am in no "pit". The only ladder I need is Jacob's. And the Gospel truth and all solid doctrine is found in the NASB, ESV, NIV, RSV, etc. as well as in the KJV. You just have to look a little harder to find it in the KJV- IMHO.

With that said, I pray everyone has a great day tomorrow and that God blesses the preaching of His Word in each assembly and from each version.

 

Who is this group of "the people"? That's right, they're just KJVO folks.

Come on now. Of course you're turning this into a versions argument.

So the KJV is your standard. If the wording in another version differs from the KJV family then it fails your test. Your test methodology is flawed.

The argument is against those who insist that the KJV is the only legitimate Bible -- not against those who prefer the KJV.

When a version in any language is in the current form of that language -- it's a good thing.

Thanks for being so humble.

Your statement is a bit incomprehensible. Practically all modern English modern versions are more understandable than KJV-speak. That's a good thing, of which God approves.

Someone who is illiterate can't read at all. Perhaps you meant semi-literate.

You are confusing. You have known some who could not read the KJV yet "they just stick with their KJV"?!

You are a troublemaker. The word "pit" as used in the Bible (not just the KJV) refers to the wicked who are bound for destruction. Surely you don't believe that those who prefer versions other than the KJV are headed for the pit because of their selection.

No you're not.

You really need to choose another word Bud.

 

Harold,

THe spirit of your post and vitriol of your personal attack speaks volumes. Thanks for enlightening us.

If you had bothered to read my posts, you would find that NOT ONCE had I ever attacked the KJV. Not once.

But, since that messes up your "cause," you just go right ahead...

My points were never addressed. Not that I'm surprised...

 

OK, just what is my decision?

Yes, you can disagree, but that would not profit you any. Why settle for good when you can have GREAT?

Ah! So do you climb this ladder? At least you admit that one needs to study to show himself approved!:smilewinkgrin:

God did bless! I preached on the Law of God out of Psalm 19. Does this make me a legalist?:smilewinkgrin:

 

are you sure about this? I believe you've come to a rash conclusion and are acting out a preconceived notion.

Actually this began with a poster making excuse for his ranting and raving about versions

No, you've come to another rash conclusion. I spoke of the etymologies of words, you seem to intentionally forget this as a means of winning an arguement.

Duh? I have seen no one here say this. Where do you get the audacity to make this claim? It would have to be that you're carrying on an arguement from another forum or something.

Even when gross obscenities are used? I think not!

I doubt God would approve of the pereversions of words that fit the modern terms verses the etymological root meanings whioch most men understand.

Your view only applies to a select few. The KJV applies to all in the usage of the words and in their original meanings.

Some one who is completely illiterate can't read at all.

Um, when one doesn't know how to read, then learns to read and sticks with the first Book they learned to read from. Nice attempt to twist words. Do you often use the devil's tools to win an arguement?

First of all, using name-calling doesn't do much for winning any arguement, in fact it makes you look juvenile. Was that your intention?

A pit is not The Pit. Now may I educate you?:laugh:

I should report your calling me another name. I believe it is a direct insult against me personally and is against the rules.

Should I call you any names? Tell you what, think of a few, get really angry and then :BangHead:

 

Actually you are just another who comes to rash conclusions, plays the victim, then turns and rends another. I've seen too many of your posts already and know how you operate.

I'll apologize for any offense I made upon you personally and can only hope you'll forgive me.

I have yet to realize how so many BB members are now appointed judges over my spirit.

I have had to put some on the ignore list so they would eventually get the message they will no longer provoke me to respond to them, I suppose you'll be next.:wavey:

 

I am not being audacious. You obviously think that the KJV family is the only real Bible and that all other versions are not God's Holy Word.

The more common English Bible versions which conservative Christians use are the NIV, NASBU, ESV, HCSB, and NKJ. Kindly point out the "gross obsenities" which you think they employ.

Do you realize that you are breaking BB rules with your words above? You are being reported.

Yes, as I pointed out to you earlier when you meant semi-illiterate.

I am not twisting your words. And please don't charge me with using "the devil's tools". You are being needlessly provocative.

Since when is calling someone "Bud" considered name-calling?

It's close enough whether you use the indefinite article or not.

Harold, please have a real gripe instead of issuing your peevish complaints.