BATTLE TALK ~ Battle Royale IV - JALTUS vs. s9s27s54
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
C
cirisme
Guest
:nono: :shocked:
We are saved by grace through faith through the Lord Jesus Christ. :kiss:
CRC_FChristian
New member
KJV was not inspired...God preserved his word in the KJV translation...
Greek work/meaning for Inspired is: theopneustos - divinely breathed - given by inspiration of God.
So...Thats not to say the KJV translators couldnt have been inspired at the time of their translation in sense of God gave them inspiration.
To prove/back up my statment is simply this only the original scripture authors were truly inspired to write what God had revealed/illuminated to them.
It's pretty clear to anyone who read the debate that the KJV is not only not inspired, it is at best only on par with most of the more modern translations.
So let me ask you this...Do you even know which manuscripts were used for the newer translations ? Better yet do you know their origins ? Before I make statement I certainly try to know what I speak of before I make any statement(s). I may not have all the facts(most if not all dont) but I try to be somewhat informed of topic before I speak on it. If I'm not informed then I try to ask questions in order to become more knowledgable before making any statements about said subject.
CRC_FChristian
New member
Originally posted by s9s27s54
Why wait? Why not ask Him now?
I believe my scripture reference should answer your question:
Romans 1:
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools
...and...
1 Corinthians 1:
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty
bill betzler
New member
From Jaltus
I believe in God and trust the KJB to be the word of God. And I fear no scholarship.
You have a high opinion of your "modern" scholarship.
Here's a quote from Jesus.
"But wisdom is justified of her children."
I believe in God and trust the KJB to be the word of God. And I fear no scholarship.
You have a high opinion of your "modern" scholarship.
Here's a quote from Jesus.
"But wisdom is justified of her children."
Yes, I do know. The newer translations are based on the text of the NA 26 or 27 (ESV is 27, most of the rest are 26). The NA 26/7 is based on an eclectic mix of the oldest manuscripts of the NT. The basic text comes from the combined Sinaticus/Vaticanus text. However, the papyri were used as the main corrections to this (the papyri can predate the two above manuscipts by up to 225 years) along with the oldest, most reliable manuscripts (most reliable refers to those where obvious and intentional errors did not occur, such as accidently skipping a sentence or the like).
The KJV is mainly based on two late Greek manuscripts and a Latin version, as Erasmus complied them for his edition around 1516. The two manuscripts he used dated from the 11th century and 12th century, and both were missing the end of Revelation (one was missing the entire book). Therefore, he translated from Latin into Greek the last 6 verses (Rev. 22:16-21), a translation which did not and does not match ANY known Greek manuscript ever found.
Does that answer your question?
Huldrych
New member
Hey Jaltus
Hey Jaltus
Would you say that modern scholarship, and the manuscript evidence that has come up since the days of Erasmus, supports the Textus Receptus?
Shields down, brother. I'm not looking to discredit you nor get embroiled in a debate over the matter. It's just genuine curiosity on my part. I have a friend (Dr. Thomas Holland--his website can be found here . He is pro-KJV, but has a more balanced view on the matter than most in that camp) who is an expert on Textual Criticism, made that remark (that modern manuscript evidence supports the TR).
Great work on BR IV, J. :thumb: However, like I said before, it was kind of like watching a tank take on an ice cream truck. Still, I'm happy to see that it didn't degrade into a bunch of ad hom's.
jth
Hey Jaltus
Would you say that modern scholarship, and the manuscript evidence that has come up since the days of Erasmus, supports the Textus Receptus?
Shields down, brother. I'm not looking to discredit you nor get embroiled in a debate over the matter. It's just genuine curiosity on my part. I have a friend (Dr. Thomas Holland--his website can be found here . He is pro-KJV, but has a more balanced view on the matter than most in that camp) who is an expert on Textual Criticism, made that remark (that modern manuscript evidence supports the TR).
Great work on BR IV, J. :thumb: However, like I said before, it was kind of like watching a tank take on an ice cream truck.
Still, I'm happy to see that it didn't degrade into a bunch of ad hom's.jth
Last edited:
drbrumley
Well-known member
In 1898, Eberhard Nestle published the NESTLE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT, which underlies the modern versions. He followed the Hort and Westcott New Greek Text used for the English Revised Version and three other editions of the 1800’s. In 1950, Kurt Aland assumed ownership and the Nestle Text became the NESTLE/ALAND TEXT. The editing committee was comprised of Kurt Aland and Matthew Black, who were unbelievers, Roman Catholic Cardinal Carlo M. Martini and two apostates, Bruce Metzger and Alan Wikgren. Again, the question arises concerning the qualifications of those who translate or edit God’s Word. History provides clear evidence that the divinely inspired Word of God was often altered by men who received their inspiration from a source other than God.
The Protestant Reformation of 1517 released many from the unscriptural teachings of Roman Catholicism. However, since that historic period, Catholic theologians have quietly moved into the revision committees in order to introduce their doctrines into Protestant Bibles. Gail Riplinger observes, "Since both the Catholic and "New" Protestant bibles are now based on the identical critical Greek texts (UBS/Nestles), which are based on the same 1% minority Greek Manuscripts (Vaticanus B), the Catholic doctrinal bend in the NIV and NASB and other ‘New’ bibles is substantial." Bible prophecy indicates that the Counter-Reformation strategy of the Catholic Church will succeed at the end of the Church Age and that many will fall away from the true faith into a unified world religious system which is led by Rome. (II Thessalonians 2:3; Revelation 17:9)
The Protestant Reformation of 1517 released many from the unscriptural teachings of Roman Catholicism. However, since that historic period, Catholic theologians have quietly moved into the revision committees in order to introduce their doctrines into Protestant Bibles. Gail Riplinger observes, "Since both the Catholic and "New" Protestant bibles are now based on the identical critical Greek texts (UBS/Nestles), which are based on the same 1% minority Greek Manuscripts (Vaticanus B), the Catholic doctrinal bend in the NIV and NASB and other ‘New’ bibles is substantial." Bible prophecy indicates that the Counter-Reformation strategy of the Catholic Church will succeed at the end of the Church Age and that many will fall away from the true faith into a unified world religious system which is led by Rome. (II Thessalonians 2:3; Revelation 17:9)
bill betzler
New member
Good to read the above posts.
Here is a question.
Why didn't Jesus lament that the advent of modern scholarship was so far off and the unlearned would just have to wait for the Truth?
Here is a question.
Why didn't Jesus lament that the advent of modern scholarship was so far off and the unlearned would just have to wait for the Truth?
This is just false. He did not "follow" their versions, he sculpted a new text by comparing them, and that was only for the first edition. Later editions brought in all the manuscripts they could find.
Not only that, but Aland did not take over the text, he in fact joined Nestle's son in working on the text until he died.
Martini is on the board of the UBS, not the NA, along with the rest of that group. for that matter, Martini did not join the group until the second edition, when the text was essentially set in stone already. He only helped with the rating system and text criticl apparatus. The board for the NA is a group of German scholars.
Few who have talked to Metzger would call him an unbeliever or apostate (besides which, Calvinists can't believe in apostates, LOL).
I can see why few take Burgon seriously anymore, though his disciples are actually making a bit of a comeback.
1% minority? This guy is just WRONG! There is more support for Vaticanus than for the TR (though not the MT, but that will wait until my next post). There is no RCC "doctrinal bend" in any eclectic text Bible, and I dare anyone to prove otherwise.
Not the TR, everyone is certain it is a bad group of manuscripts. It is based on miniscules 1 eap, 1 r, and corrected with 2 e, 2 ap, 4ap, and 7 p. You will notice that there is only one copy of Revelation in there, and it was missing the last 6 verses. all of those manuscripts are old, and in fact many of them show scribal changes.
I think you mean the MT (Majority Text). Currently there are 2-3 qualified people in the field making a push for the MT, but it is not too big a push. Some findings have validated readings in the MT, but not the entire MT.
(for the difference between the MT and the TR look at I John 5:7-8, which is in the TR but NOT in the MT)
I hope that helps. For specific works, look at the bibliography I listed on the debate's first page.
CRC_FChristian
New member
It wasnt a question that I had in my mind :thumb: because I already know the answer.
- Status