PDA

View Full Version : Do You Know?



tgallison
Apr 23rd 2009, 10:33 PM
A while back there was a thread by the Parson titled, "The manuscripts, an investigation.

In that thread there were 572 posts, but there never was a true investigation of the manuscripts.

Some facts that you may not be aware of will be posted periodically in this thread.

Feel free to post, but please try to restrict your post to an individual point, condensed as much as you are able.

This is about facts that have been reported in the past and recorded.

There has been one side that believes the findings of early manuscripts has been an excellent reason to produce new translations. There is the other side that believes the newly found old manuscripts are corrupt, and have brought more corruption in the form of new translations.

If the new manuscripts are corrupt, there should be a primary source from which that corruption emanated.

The first "Did you know?"

One man had his hand on, and in, four of the first six ranked manuscripts found. (01)The Codex Sinaiticus, (03)the Codex Vaticanus, (04)the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, and (06)Codex Claromontanus.

Best regards, Terrell

gophgetter
Apr 24th 2009, 02:31 AM
Who is this man?

tgallison
Apr 24th 2009, 02:52 AM
Who is this man?

gophgetter greetings

He is the magic man. The paragraph below will give you a clue.

"The work I advert to was this. There lay in one of the libraries of Paris one of the most important manuscripts then known of the Greek text. This parchment manuscript, the writing of which, of the date of the fifth century, had been retouched and renewed in the seventh, and again in the ninth century, had, in the twelfth century, been submitted to a twofold process. It had been washed and pumiced, to write on it the treatises of an old father of the Church of the name of Ephrem. Five centuries later, a Swiss theologian of the name of Wetstein had attempted to decipher a few traces of the original manuscript; and, later still, another theologian, Griesbach of Jena, came to try his skill on it, although the librarian assured him that it was impossible for mortal eye to decipher a writing which had disappeared for six centuries. In spite of these unsuccessful attempts, the French Government had recourse to powerful chemical reagents, to bring out the effaced characters. But a Leipzig theologian, who was then at Paris, was so unsuccessful in this new attempt, that he asserted that it was impossible to produce an edition of this text, as the manuscript was quite illegible. It was after all these attempts that I began, in 1841-2, to try my skill at the manuscript, and had the good fortune to decipher it completely, and even to distinguish between the dates of the different writers who had been engaged on the manuscript."

This is how (04) the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, on the list of most ancient manuscripts was produced.

It is getting my bedtime, but if you can't figure out who it is, stayed tuned for it will be revealed.

Best regards, Terrell

tgallison
Apr 24th 2009, 12:54 PM
Who is this man?

His name is Constantin von Tischendorf, born January 18, 1815 and died December 7, 1874.

Every Greek Text since has cited his work in Codex Sinaticus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, and Codex Claromontanus.

Terrell

RabbiKnife
Apr 24th 2009, 01:05 PM
I didn't know that truth picked sides.

tgallison
Apr 24th 2009, 05:45 PM
I didn't know that truth picked sides.

That is all that should be desired, the truth.

Terrell

tgallison
Apr 24th 2009, 07:23 PM
D0 YOU KNOW? that after the magic man made words appear on a Codex that had not been seen by the eye in 600 years, he went to Italy. During his thirteen month visit to Italy he had a private audience with the Pope, and hence was allowed to collate the Vaticanus.

The details on the Codex Vaticanus are very sketchy. There were two known collations of the Vaticanus. One done by a Cardinal Mai, prior to Tischendorf’s collation, which was said to be inferior to Tischendorf’s, as it did not read the same. Tischendorf stated that Cardinal Mai’s rendition was a pseudo facsimile.

It was stated that someone had inked over the letters and that it was difficult to read because of all the corrections. Added(This is in relation to the manuscript, not to Cardinal Mai's rendition.)Added

In the Codex Vaticanus on page 1512, next to Hebrews 1:3, the text contains an interesting marginal note, "Fool and knave, can't you leave the old reading alone and not alter it!"

No one outside of the Vatican has ever seen this Manuscript. How was it that a declared protestant was allowed to copy it?

Would you change your Bible in preference to the readings of this one?

Terrell

Sojourner
Apr 24th 2009, 07:44 PM
If the new manuscripts are corrupt, there should be a primary source from which that corruption emanated.
Is this a question that you are asking of us? I am not well versed in ideal of texts such as you mentioned. All I know about is the Minority Text and the Majority Text (Textus Receptus or the received text). I do understand that the Minority text is corupt and that only 5% of the oldest manuscripts agree with it. On the other hand, 90% of the oldest manuscripts agree with the Majority Text.

I sure all you Bible student have heard that the Minority Text was thrown out by monks into a trash heap at the bottom of Mount Sinai because they knew that it was faulty. Someone recovered it and Droctor's Hort and Westcolt translated it and from their translation the "Good News For Modern Man, and NIV, and all the modern translations spewed forth. By the way this Doctors of degree were heritics.

Let me put on my flack jacket.

tgallison
Apr 24th 2009, 08:48 PM
Is this a question that you are asking of us? I am not well versed in ideal of texts such as you mentioned. All I know about is the Minority Text and the Majority Text (Textus Receptus or the received text). I do understand that the Minority text is corupt and that only 5% of the oldest manuscripts agree with it. On the other hand, 90% of the oldest manuscripts agree with the Majority Text.

I sure all you Bible student have heard that the Minority Text was thrown out by monks into a trash heap at the bottom of Mount Sinai because they knew that it was faulty. Someone recovered it and Droctor's Hort and Westcolt translated it and from their translation the "Good News For Modern Man, and NIV, and all the modern translations spewed forth. By the way this Doctors of degree were heritics.

Let me put on my flack jacket.

Sojourner greetings

Truth and facts is what I am looking for. While I understand your sentiments, no argument should ever be won on feelings.

Sojourner
Apr 24th 2009, 08:57 PM
Sojourner greetings

Truth and facts is what I am looking for. While I understand your sentiments, no argument should ever be won on feelings.That is very mystically of you to think what I wrote was sentiment. The statement of Wescolt and Hort are all documented. I researched it very throughly. There wasn't a smiggin of sentiment in my statement and I resent your implication to the contrary. :o

tgallison
Apr 24th 2009, 09:29 PM
That is very mystically of you to think what I wrote was sentiment. The statement of Wescolt and Hort are all documented. I researched it very throughly. There wasn't a smiggin of sentiment in my statement and I resent your implication to the contrary. :o

My apologies Sojourner.

Saying the minority text was thrown out at Mt Sinai has several problems.

1. There is only evidence that some of one Manuscript in particular was thrown out.

2. The reason they threw it out was not stated by them. It may be it was manuscripts that could no longer be read.

I just do not want to give those in favor of the CT more ammunition.

In Jesus Christ, Terrell

Sojourner
Apr 24th 2009, 09:34 PM
My apologies Sojourner. TerrellI forgive you. Rap with you later.

tgallison
Apr 24th 2009, 11:52 PM
DID YOU KNOW? that after the magic man made words appear on a Codex(04) that had not been seen by the eye in 600 years, that he then went to the Vatican and had an audience with the Pope, and then after having been given access to a Manuscript that had never been allowed to be seen by an outsider, collated the Codex Vaticanus(03), he then went straight to St. Catherine’s Monastery and found the Codex Siniaticus(01) in a basket destined to be burned.

Why would a protestant be allowed access to the Pope, Gregory XVI, and his Codex Vaticanus, and then go straight to a Greek Orthodox Monastery, and find the most touted Codex Siniaticus Manuscript. He now has three of the top four manuscripts coming out of his hands.

If I was one of those conspiracy guys, I might think that the Pope said, that villainous Textus Receptus, the one with which those vile Protestants wrested power from the Vatican.

I do know that Tischendorf said that villainous Textus Receptus.


Hold on, there is yet to come, more mysterious events.

Terrell

While I believe that Tischendorf was given access to the Vaticanus in 1843 it is strictly my opinion and is not based on fact. What has been reported is that Tischendorf was given access to it for three hours a day for two weeks at a later date. This would be amazing that he could copy this in just such a short time, when it took him over two months with the help of two other Germans to copy the Sinaiticus when he was in a hurry.

Sojourner
Apr 25th 2009, 10:50 AM
I forgive you. Rap with you later.But tgallison, I don't agree with your premises.

I remain your discussion buddy.

tgallison
Apr 25th 2009, 02:50 PM
DO YOU KNOW? that after interpreting a text that could not be seen by anyone else, Codex Ephraem Recriptus(04), and then going to the Vatican to transcribe his version of the Codex Vaticanus(03) [I say his version because it varies from Cardinal Mai’s version, which was transcribed prior to Tischenforf’s version.], Tischendorf then sets out to transcribe a third manuscript of note, the Codex Claromontanus(06).

It should be noted that while Tischendorf has found fragments of what he calls the pearl of Mt. Sinai, he has not transcribed the complete manuscript (01) [Codex Sinaiticus ], since he has not yet found the complete manuscript. He has transcribed fragments which he found in a basket destined for the fire, which he named Codex Frederick Augustus. This manuscript therefore has 2 names, one for the portion that he first transcribed,Codex Frederick Augustus, and one for the completed manuscript, Codex Sinaiticus.(01)

We now have three of the top six manuscripts, which have produced the new versions. They were transcribed by one man and cited as the source material for these manuscripts by both Westcott & Hort, and Kurt Aland. The fourth and number one rated manuscript has yet to be transcribed, the reason being that at this point the complete manuscript has not yet been found. [Codex Sinaiticus]


More of the mystery of how we have ended up with so many varied translations will follow.

Grace and peace, Terrell

While I believe that Tischendorf was given access to the Vaticanus in 1843 it is strictly my opinion and is not based on fact. What has been reported is that Tischendorf was given access to it for three hours a day for two weeks at a later date. This would be amazing that he could copy this in just such a short time, when it took him over two months with the help of two other Germans to copy the Sinaiticus when he was in a hurry.

tgallison
Apr 26th 2009, 01:57 AM
I have to retract my last correction in Red in regards to Tischendorf getting access directly to the Vaticanus, after visiting with the Pope. It is in fact true that in 1843 Tischendorf was given access, and that access far exceded that which is published as history on the Codex Vaticanus.

I have found so many misleading and false statements, that it is unbelievable.

There can be no doubt that there has been so many misleading statements on the connection of Tischendorf to the Vatican by CT people in regards to the history on the internet that there has to be a conspiracy.

In the future when the CT people demagogue the King James people, I will but only be able to laugh.

Everything that has been found so far on Tischendorf spells Vatican, Vatican, Vatican.

The DO YOU KNOWS? will be continued.

Terrell

Sojourner
Apr 26th 2009, 10:32 AM
By the way these Doctors of degree were heritics.

HORT AND THE ATONEMENT

The authors of a 1881 translation of the Greek New Testament are Dr Hort and Dr. Westcott, their work is based upon certain manuscripts which are different from which the KJV is translated; Dr. Hort and Westcott disbelieve the Atonement.

The New International Version is based entirely on their translation. The following is some communications of Dr. Hort.

INTRODUCTION : The two most famous attempts at restoring the original text of the New Testament are the [I]Textus Receptus, dating from the Reformation and post-Reformation era, and the Greek text of B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, first published in 1881. These two texts were based on differing collections of manuscripts, following differing textual principles, at different stages in the on-going process of the discovery and evaluation of surviving New Testament manuscripts, and, not surprisingly, with often differing results.(1) (http://www.bible-researcher.com/#N_1_) There is much dispute today about which of these texts is a more faithful representation of the original form of the Greek New Testament.

HORT AND THE ATONEMENT

It is often only a step from confusion regarding man’s origin, to confusion regarding that which determines his destiny, that is, his attitude towards the atonement.
In Hort’s case it was so. He found great difficulty in accepting the truth that our Lord and Saviour “bore our sins in His own body on the tree.” 1Peter 2:24
In spite of the fact that the Scripture plainly teaches, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us” (Gal 3:13), Hort found the doctrine of “substitutionary atonement, most unacceptable.”

HORT TO F.D. MAURICE November 16th, 1849
“O that Coleridge, while showing the notion of a fictitious substituted righteousness, of a transferable stock of good actions, obscured the truth of man’s restoration in the Man who perfectly acted out the idea of man, had expounded the truth, (for such I am sure, there must be) that underlies the corresponding heresy, (as it appears to me) of a FICTITIOUS SUBSTITUTED PENALTY.” Ibid., Vol. 1 page 120

HORT TO WESTCOTT, October 15th 1860
“I entirely agree ... with what you there say on the Atonement, having for many years believed that the absolute union of the Christian (OR RATHER OF MAN) with Christ Himself, is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit ... Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ’s bearing our sins and suffering to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy.” Ibid., page 430

DR. HORT BECOMES EXAMINING CHAPLAIN FOR BISHOP ELY. (DR. HAROLD BROWNE)

“Before accepting this post he candidly explained to the Bishop that objection might be taken to his views, especially on the doctrine of the Atonement; but to his great relief, the Bishop was perfectly satisfied to take him as he found him.” Ibid., Vol. 2, page 57
Let us at this point keep in mind the words of Paul to Timothy: “THOU HAST FULLY KNOWN MY DOCTRINE...” 2Tim 3:10a
The question before us is this; did Bishop Ely fully know Hort’s doctrine on the atonement when he accepted him as examining Chaplain?

HORT TO BISHOP ELY, November 8th 1871
“My fear is that, partly in views and still more in sympathies, I do not sufficiently conform to any of the recognized standards to be a fit person for the special post which you offer me ... I have, I trust a firm and assured belief in the reality of revelation, the authority of scriptures, the uniqueness and supremacy of the gospels ... Moreover Mr. Maurice has been a dear friend of mine for twenty three years, and I have been deeply influenced by his books ... but they have led me to doubt whether the christian faith is adequately or purely represented in all respects in the accepted doctrines of any living school.” Life & Letters, Vol. 2, page 155
Maurice, a son of a Unitarian minister, was dismissed from his position as Professor of English Literature and history, at King’s College London, in 1853, because of his unorthodoxy on the subject of eternal punishment.

HORT TO BISHOP ELY, November 12th, 1871
“I feel entirely with you that a fundamental difference on that subject of the atonement, if it existed, would place me in a false position as your examining chaplain ... If there be any difference, it concerns only the relation of the Atonement to other doctrines ... Christian peace comes not from sin denied, or sin ignored, but sin washed away. If it was not washed effectually away once for all upon the cross, an awakened conscience has no refuge but in futile self efforts after a heathenish self-atonement. (See Rape of Hort’s Mind. Page 7 for an illustration of erroneous thinking that completely negates the value of this apparent orthodoxy.) About the matter of the Atonement, we must all feel that it lies in a region into which we can have only glimpses ... It is the vain attempt to bring the Divine Truth down to the level of our own understanding, that has created all the dark perversions of the Atonement which have justly offended sensitive consciences, and so given to the denial of the truth itself.” Ibid., Vol. 2, page 157
Let us keep in mind the fact that Hort considered the idea of substitionary suffering an offense, and felt that the ransom could well be offered to Satan but never to the Father.
“So also the uniqueness of the great Sacrifice seems to me not to consist in its being a substitute which makes all other sacrifices useless and unmeaning, but in its giving them the power and meaning which of themselves they could not have. He (Maurice) may have dwelt too exclusively on the idea of sacrifice which is suggested in Hebrews 10:5-10, AND HE MAY HAVE FAILED TO MAKE CLEAR THAT SACRIFICE IS NOT THE ONLY WAY OF CONCEIVING THE ATONEMENT.” Ibid., page 158

THE CORRECTIVE OF SCRIPTURE

Leviticus 17:11 “For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.”
Obviously Dr. Hort and the Word of God differ on the Atonement.
Ephesians 5:2 “And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us and hath given Himself for us AN OFFERING AND A SACRIFICE TO GOD.” (Not to Satan as Hort suggests)
Hebrews 9:26b “now once in the end of the world hath He appeared, TO PUT AWAY SIN BY THE SACRIFICE OF HIMSELF.”
Hebrews 10:12 “But this man, after HE HAD OFFERED ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS FOR EVER, SAT DOWN ON THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD.”
1Corinthians 5:7 “Christ our Passover is SACRIFICED FOR US.”
Bishop Ely’s reply to Hort is enlightening, as to what he did not know about Hort’s theology.

BISHOP ELY TO DR. HORT, November 18th, 1871

“I believe from what you kindly write that there is no fundamental difference between us on the doctrine of the Atonement, and I am disposed to flatter myself that there may be great sympathy between us on many points.” Ibid., Vol. 2, page 159
Either Hort deceived the Bishop or the Bishop himself was also heretical concerning the Atonement.

BISHOP ELY continues to DR. HORT

“I hope I may have misconceived Maurice; for on the subject in question, I have been a good deal pained by his writings. I entirely feel with you that it is quite possible to believe the sacrifice of Christ to be the acting out and manifestation of an eternal principle, WITHOUT DISPARAGING THE ATONING POWER OF THAT SACRIFICE. What I fear is that Mr. Maurice does substitute the one thought for the other, AND DOES NOT COMBINE THE TWO.” Ibid., Vol. 2, page 159
Bishop Ely probably could not know the tremendous influence of Maurice on the thinking and theology of Hort. Throughout his life, Hort constantly referred to Maurice in the most glowing terms of adulation and praise. Hort Jr. tells us the sad story in A SHORT SENTENCE.
“MAURICE’S TEACHING WAS THE MOST POWERFUL ELEMENT IN HIS RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENT, SATISFYING MANY A WANT WHICH HAD HITHERTO DISTRESSED HIM.” Life & Letters, Vol. 1, page 42
Hort never seems to have lost his supreme confidence in Maurice. We find him as a young man submitting himself and his thinking to the verdict of Maurice on the most important doctrines.

HORT TO MAURICE November 16th, 1849

“Since you have been chosen rather to guide us in the old ways, which God made, and not you, surely the aid you have already given is a pledge of your willingness to assist us again in discerning the eternal order among all the confusions that beset us, and to bear with the perverseness which more than anything blinds our eyes. (2Cor 4:4) I have therefore resolved to ask you to guide me, if you can, to a satisfactory solution of a question which has long been tormenting me ... I mean the question whether any man will be hereafter punished with never ending torments, spiritual or physical.” Ibid., Vol. 1, page 116
There then follows a string of questions and doubts and guesses which reveal how completely Hort’s mind was confused.
If Hort had not already rejected the full authority of the Scriptures he could have this vexing question settled by referring to the Bible; rather than to a man who was to be dismissed from his position for heretical views on that very question.
John 3:36 would have settled the issue. The words are clear. “He that believeth on the Son [Lord Jesus Christ] hath everlasting life: And he that believeth not the Son SHALL NOT SEE LIFE: BUT THE WRATH OF GOD ABIDETH ON HIM.”
Rev 20:15 “And whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into the lake of fire.” Vs 10 clearly states that in the lake of fire the inhabitants shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
[See the complete documentation of Dr. Hort’s (and Wescott’s) beliefs at the following link: THE THINKING, THEORIES, & THEOLOGY OF DRS. WESCOTT & HORT (http://www.mag-net.com/~maranath/ttt.htm)]

Sojourner
Apr 26th 2009, 10:37 AM
DR. HORT WITH REGARD TO THE NEGRO SLAVES

"They have shown themselves to be an immeasurably inferior race, just human and no more, their religion frothy and sensuous, their hightest virtues those of a good new-foundland dog.” Life & Letters F.J.A. Hort, Vol. 1, page 458

Finally, this is to demonstrate that in exalting the exceedingly strange manuscripts Vaticanus and Sinaiticus over the Textus Receptus, Dr. Hort was more terribly wrong than he was in his desire to see the American Nation shivered to pieces, and in his blasphemy against the Negro people. THINK ON THESE THINGS.

Keep your NIV and other modern versions based on the translation of Drs. Hort and Westcolt of "Textus Sinaiticus" and I'll read the KJV (or I should say, The Textus Receiptus/Majority Text). I can't literally said, what I think of Textus Sinaiticus and the good Drs. in this open forum.

tgallison
Apr 26th 2009, 12:19 PM
DO YOU KNOW? that most all the information given on the Vaticanus indicates that no outsiders were allowed to sit down and copy it. In one place it indicates Tischendorf had only a cursory look at it. According to Wikipedia, Tischendorf was allowed to make a facsimile of only a few verses in 1843.

Tregelles said this, “They would not let me open it without searching my pockets, and depriving me of pen, ink and paper, and at the same time two prelati kept me in constant conversation in Latin, and If I looked at the passage too long, they would snatch the book out of my hand.” This is in reference to the Codex Vaticanus.

With this being said, and much more like it in the media online networks such as Wikipedia, Tischendorf published a rendition or collation on the Codex Vaticanus in 1867. The only time it is admitted to that he had access to the Codex Vaticanus was in 1843. How did Tischendorf do a complete rendition of the original Vaticanus if he wasn’t given complete access to it?

It is recorded that Tischendorf’s rendition of the Codex Vaticanus was superior to Cardinal Mai’s. This is so stated numerous times. One of the times it is stated that it was superior in part due to the excellent help he had. The help was named as Tregelles, the one who said he couldn’t even have a pen and ink with him.

Can you picture Tischendorf and Tregelles sitting down in the Vatican Library and only getting cursory glimpses at the Codex Vanticanus, and then going out and then doing a collation of the Codex Vanticanus, which rendition is then heralded as far superior to that of Cardinal Mai’s time and time again. Cardinal Mai’s rendition was made in 1828-1838.

One news source said this of Cardinal Mai. “This edition of the Codex Vaticanus (http://www.bible-researcher.com/codex-b.html) was really a revision of the Received Text according to the Vatican manuscript as collated by the Italian Cardinal Mai and his assistants (who, despite their evident lack of competence, were given privileged access to the manuscript until their work should be published).”

Doesn’t the above expression (who, despite their evident lack of competence, were given privileged access to the manuscript-), indicate to you that they are saying Cardinal Mai as well as his assistants are incompetent and had no right to access of the Codex Vaticanus?

Cardinal Mai’s rendition of the Codex Vaticanus was called by Tischendorf, Pseudo-fasimile, or a false copy.

Who was Cardinal Mai? From 1819 to 1833 he was keeper of the Vatican Library. From 1833 to 1838 he was elevated to Secretary of the Congregation of the Propaganda Fide, which is an extremely high office of the Vatican. In the catholic encyclopedia he is ranked as one of only three top Secretaries. He was promoted to Cardinal in 1838, five years before Tischendorf was allowed entrance to the Vatican Library. He was probably the man that invited Tischendorf to do his rendition. The office of the Congregation of the Propaganda Fide is the branch of the Vatican that is in charge of promoting Catholicism and demoting Protestantism throughout the world.

Was it true that Cardinal Mai was not qualified to do a rendition of the Vaticanus?

This account is found in the Catholic Encyclopedia, “-on account of his proficiency in palæography he was appointed in 1811 to a position in the Ambrosian Library, Milan. This led to his initial discoveries: Cicero's orations: "Pro Scauro", "Pro Tullio", "Pro Flacco", "In Clodium", and "In Curionem" (1814); the correspondence of Fronto, Marcus Aurelius, and Verus (1815); the speech of Isæus, "De hæreditate Cleonymi" (1915); a fragment of the "Vidularia" of Plautus, and commentaries on Terence (1816); Philo, "De Virtute"; a discourse of Themistius; a fragment of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1816); a Gothic version of St. Paul; the "Itinerarium Alexandri"; a biography of Alexander by Julius Valerius (1817); and an Armenian version of the"Chronicle" of Eusebius (1818). So many new texts, almost all of which were found in palimpsests, not to mention some editions of already known texts, drew worldwide attention to Mai.”

You might say what is the point of all this. The point is Tischendorf’s rendition is exalted above Cardinal Mai’s for what purpose and why? It can only be for his Critical Texts theories. Cardinal Mai’s rendition was prior to Tischendorf’s, and since Cardinal Mai’s opinions did not fit well into Tischedorf”s Critical Text theories, Tischendorf and all those that desired to elevate these manuscripts to a higher position, which was the Vatican as well, had to degrade Cardinal Mai’s work.

It is of my position that the Vatican first contacted Tischendorf and not the other way around. The only time that I could find a record of Tischendorf having a private audience with the Pope was from Tischendorf’s own mouth. He was quite braggadocios, which was probably quite a problem for the Vatican.

More to come of DO YOU KNOW?

Terrell

tgallison
Apr 26th 2009, 01:18 PM
DR. HORT

Greetings Sojourner

I was hoping to keep this thread from deteriorating into hostility, and thus having it removed. I am not implying what you are saying is incorrect, only that it is highly inflamatory.

My plan was to present a linear picture of Tischendorf and how it affects what has proceeded it, which would eventually be Westcott & Hort.

There is much information out there on Tischendorf that has not been told, and neeeds to be.

Grace and peace to you in Jesus Christ, Terrell

Sojourner
Apr 26th 2009, 01:25 PM
Greetings Sojourner

I was hoping to keep this thread from deteriorating into hostility, and thus having it removed. I am not implying what you are saying is incorrect, only that it is highly inflamatory.

My plan was to present a linear picture of Tischendorf and how it affects what has proceeded it, which would eventually be Westcott & Hort.

There is much information out there on Tischendorf that has not been told, and neeeds to be.

Grace and peace to you in Jesus Christ, TerrellYou are 100% right, I have highjacked your thread.

On the other hand, what I wrote about Hort and Westcolt is not imflamable, unless the truth is imflamable. It is all documented, it is not hear-say.

I will leave the thread if I can't respond to your thought and presentation.

Prufrock
Apr 26th 2009, 04:11 PM
On the other hand, what I wrote about Hort and Westcolt is not imflamable, unless the truth is imflamable. It is all documented, it is not hear-say.

Indeed it is. And the truth, like a vaccination against disease, can often cause inflammation. It is difficult to discuss Westcott and Hort, in an honest manner, without presenting their dark side; just as it would be difficult to discuss Al Capone without mentioning his legal difficulties. Having said that, I see tgallison's point, and look forward to more of his presentation on Tischendorf, to which he has obviously devoted considerable study.

Tomlane
Apr 26th 2009, 07:49 PM
Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus and the other ones that sounds like Wrekus Maximus, and has the charactistics of the New Babylon that sits on seven hills. That place loves mystery and old relics. Good things to stay away from and continue with faith in God being able to keep His word intact or is man now wiser than God now?

Tomlane

tgallison
Apr 27th 2009, 05:47 PM
DO YOU KNOW ? about the Society of Jesus? (Jesuits)

Before going farther, we should take a look at this society and how it affects the Critical Text Studies.

It was formed in 1540 by St. Ignatius Loyola. The stated goals were to reform the Catholic Church and to counter the Protestant reformers.

When first founded its three major activities were (1) founding schools in classical studies and theology, (2) to convert non-Christians to Catholicism, (3) stop Protestantism from spreading.

It is from this society that humanism has evolved, going from good works to protecting the rights of gays.

The Society is consecrated under the patronage of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which means to the Society that Mary is their intercessor. They pray to Mary.

Their constitution stresses absolute obedience to superiors and the Pope. St Ignatius, the founder, was known to have written, “I will believe that the white that I see is black if the hierarchical Church so defines it.”

It is in this setting that we find Tischendorf, having an audience with the Pope. It should be noted that Cardinal Mai was a Jesuit. He was the Vatican Librarian from 1833 to 1838, and thereafter obtained a higher position in the Vatican.

(Cardinal Mai had to resign from the Society at the request of the Pope so that he might take his position as librarian. The Jesuits were suppressed for a time, evidently due to a bankruptcy in France, that involved the Catholic Church, and the Jesuits who held the purse strings. This did not free Mai from his vowels to the Society as they are to be obedient to the Pope. This suppression did not include Russia.)

This proves nothing but shows a reason for wanting the demise of the King James Bible.

tgallison
Apr 28th 2009, 01:35 AM
DO YOU KNOW? 1. that after taking a parchment that had been washed and pumiced of all evidence of its original text, and then written over with new writing, Tishendorf took this parchment and made the original text reappear. That is how (04) Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus came about. 1841-42

2. that after going to the Vatican. and with only a cursory look. transcribed and collated the (03) Codex Vaticanus. [l843]

3. and then going to Mt. Sinai and finding a portion of the (01) Codex Sinaiticus, Tischendorf transcribed it, (fragments of the Old Testament), and named it Codex Frederick Augustus. 1844 (The picture gets a little fuzzy here with the Codex Frederick Augustus, since it is never described as part of the Codex Sinaiticus.)

4. and then transcribes and collates (06) Codex Claromontanus. 1852

5. and then 10 years after his first trip to the Monastery at Mt Sinai, Tischendorf goes back to Mt. Sinai to look for what he calls the pearl of St. Catherine’s, the rest of the Codex Sinaiticus. 1853 (It seems sort of silly for him to wait 10 years to look for his pearl, and even more so to expect to find it.) He didn’t find it.

6. and then 6 years later we find Tischendorf back at Mt. Sinai claiming he went there to find his pearl, the (01) Codex Sinaiticus, of which he had found a few fragments 16 years earlier in a trash bin. Does it seem strange to you? What is even more strange is that he found it. 1859.

Two of the top four “late found oldest Codex,s” were never seen by a human eye that had ever attested to there contents, prior to Tischendorf. They are classified (01) and (04).

The (02) Codex Alexandrinus was given a class I designation in regards to accuracy in applying the Critical Text theories in every part, but the Gospels, where it was given a class III. They classified it III because it exemplified the Byzantine type text which was in line with the Textus Receptus. This was essential if they were going to give the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus top spot in their promotion of their Critical Text theories, and come up with readings that are more at odds with the Textus Receptus.

Another note on Alexandrinus, it had in 1 Timothy 3:16, God manifested in the flesh when it was transcribed by Carl Gottfried Woide for the British Library in 1786, but the Critical Text crowd insists it doesn’t belong their, that it was a mistake, which Carl Gottfried Woide adamantly denied. They managed to have it removed 74 years later in 1860.

More do you know? later.

Terrell

tgallison
Apr 28th 2009, 06:14 PM
DO YOU KNOW? the greatest forger of the nineteenth century made the claim that he forged the Codex Siniaticus, and this claim was printed in the The Guardian, the British newspaper in 1862. It was quite a topic for awhile, but now has been obscured.

Do you know that this forger was in Sinai in 1843, the same year that Tischendorf first found the fragments of the Codex Sinaiticus. Cannot confirm that they met.

I do not know what the truth is, but this sure puts an odor on Tischedorf’s work, and it isn’t a sweet odor.

The Word of God is pure, and we should try and keep our translations the same way.

Jesus Christ is good, and all men are liars.

Terrell

RabbiKnife
Apr 28th 2009, 06:22 PM
DID YOU KNOW

that no one really cares a rip snort about any of this?

There are plenty of "odors" to go around...

RogerW
Apr 28th 2009, 06:36 PM
DID YOU KNOW

that no one really cares a rip snort about any of this?

There are plenty of "odors" to go around...

Oh sorry Rabbi, but you are very wrong! I care a great deal and appreciate greatly all the effort that Terrell is putting into this to bring true light on how so many abominable translations of Holy Scripture came into existance. Please continue Terrell, I for one am being benefitted greatly!

Many Blessings,
RW

Prufrock
Apr 28th 2009, 08:55 PM
DID YOU KNOW

that no one really cares a rip snort about any of this?

There are plenty of "odors" to go around...
Au contraire, my friend. I care deeply, and deeply appreciate this brother's time, effort, and insight. I'm learning a great deal. What more do you want from a message board? Egg in your beer?

fuzzi
Apr 28th 2009, 09:08 PM
I'm enjoying this thread as well.

Thank you, Brother Terrell.

tgallison
Apr 29th 2009, 02:01 PM
DO YOU KNOW? about the embarrassment of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, according to Tischendorf?

This is all that I can find on this edition of Tischendorf’s. It would make really good reading if someone could find it. I cannot find it to be in print, but maybe someone else could. Or at least find it online. Surely one of our Greek Scholars could find it.

Tischendorf, 1869 b. Constantinus Tischendorf, The New Testament: The Authorised English Version; With Introduction, and Various Readings From the Three Most Celebrated Manuscripts of the Original Greek Text. Leipzig: Bernhard Tauchnitz, 1869.


Here is printed the King James version with a full English apparatus of variants from Codex Vaticanus (http://www.bible-researcher.com/codex-b.html), Codex Sinaiticus (http://www.bible-researcher.com/codex-aleph.html), and Codex Alexandrinus (http://www.bible-researcher.com/codex-a.html). On the average, there is one variant given for every verse; and in fact, many significant readings given here are not to be found in the apparatus of Aland et al. 1979 (http://www.bible-researcher.com/bib-a.html#alandetal1979). The reader should take note, however, of the words on page xv of Tischendorf's Introduction: "Many obvious blunders which are found in the manuscripts are passed over in silence." Hence, such embarrassments as under a candlestick in Mark 4:21 (a clear error found in both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) are not indicated.


Cannot find the details of this blunder, but do remember reading about it some time back.


Someone who can read Greek should be able to present them from a facsimile of these two manuscripts.


But think about the ramifications of this. If the Vaticanus an Sinaiticus both have the candle under the candlestick instead of under a bushel or bed, how did this come about?


They both have about 10 correctors. Why didn’t one of these 20 correctors make a correction here when it is such an obvious blunder.


The critical text people will say they were both copied from the same earlier copy that had this error in it. But think about it, we are getting pretty close to the originals.



Do you think the originals had 14,800 corrections in them.


An analytical person would say these two manuscripts were from the hand of the same person and there could have been no correctors afterwards, otherwise they would have caught such an obvious blunder.


According to Tischendorf there were other blunders as well. Tischendorf had to acknowledge these blunders, though he did it in silence, because they had to be acknowledged, otherwise those of his day would have run with them. He was trying to shut the door on his critics.


Why did Kurt Aland not present the blunders, that Tischendorf speaks of, when Aland presented his critical work. Was it because he would have had to try and explain them?


Terrell

tgallison
Apr 30th 2009, 02:02 PM
DO YOU KNOW? much about Constantine Simonides

The greatest forger of the last century was undoubtedly Constantine Simonides, a Greek, who was born in 1824. To meet the requirements of modern critics, who know styles of writing, the colours of the ink and paints of different times, and the very kinds of parchment used, there is need of such a combination of intellect with versatility, industry with ingenuity, as is rarely found. Yet, as even Juvenal could instance the audacity of the Graeculus esuriens, so in modern times that mixed race has shown many of the qualities which, when perverted to a base use, produce the skilled forger. Simonides started by becoming a citizen of the world. From 1843 on, we find him successively on the shores of the Euxine, in Asia Minor, Thrace, Athos (where he wrote a hagiography), the Aegean, Cyprus, Alexandria, Cairo, Sinai (1844), Syria, Babylon, Persia, Russia, and Constantinople (in 1846). His next journeys were from Greece to Constantinople again, Odessa, St. Petersburg, and Germany ; then again to Egypt, the Aegean coasts, and finally to Liverpool (in 1853) and London. His stock-in-trade was a large number both of genuine MSS., obtained largely from Mount Athos, and of forged ones written by himself ; and his custom was to present first some genuine ones, and when his customer was off his guard, some of the second sort ; while he paid England and Germany the dubious compliment of selecting them as the field of his operations, as possessing either the largest amount of hard cash, or the greatest number of probable dupes. Even in 1846 he is stated to have been in possession of 5000 MSS., which he exhibited to savants at Athens.

__________________________________________________ ____________


After this Simonides appeared only once with any prominence before the public, when in 1861 he boldly asserted that he himself had written the whole of the Codex Sinaiticus, which Tischendorf had brought in 1856 from the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. The statement was, of course, received with the utmost incredulity ; but Simonides asserted, not only that he had written it, but that, in view of the probable scepticism of scholars, he had placed certain private signs on particular leaves of the codex. When pressed to specify these marks, he gave a list of the leaves on which were to be found his initials or other monogram. The test was a fair one, and the AIS., which was at St. Petersburg, was carefully inspected. Every leaf designated by Simonides was found to be imperfect at the part where the mark was to have been found. Deliberate mutilation by an enemy, said his friends. But many thought that the wily Greek had acquired through private friends a note of some imperfect leaves in the MS., and had made unscrupulous use of the information.

These two extracts are from--
Literary Forgeries


( Originally Published 1893 )

Prufrock
Apr 30th 2009, 04:32 PM
This is great stuff, brother, and I thank you again for sharing. I'm going to save this thread in a Word file.

RabbiKnife
Apr 30th 2009, 05:47 PM
I am going to save this stuff in the round file.

Prufrock
Apr 30th 2009, 05:59 PM
I am going to save this stuff in the round file.
Like Sinaiaticus?

tgallison
May 3rd 2009, 09:54 PM
DO YOU KNOW? thatthe Trinitarian Bible Society was formed out of what was the base for the UBS. What was known as the British and Foreign Bible Society. The reason it separated from the BFBS was because the BFBS was ecumenical in nature. They had open arms for those that did not believe in the Deity of Christ, (Unitarians) as well as those that did not believe in the inspiration of Bible?


Do you know that J.J. Wetstein, the first man acknowledged by Tischendorf to attempt to revive the Codex Ephraemi, did not believe in the Deity of Christ? 1716


Do you know that William Whiston, the only man to have an English translation in print compiled from the Codex Bezae, the Codex Claromontanus, and the Codex Alexandrinus, did not believe in the Deity of Christ? 1745


Do you know that Hort made a concerted effort to get a Unitarian on the translation committee of the ERV 1881-1885 Bible, and he was successful? Dr. George Vance Smith did not believe in the Deity of Christ, and was the reason for the first chairman of the committee of the 1881 revision, Bishop Wilberforce, to resigned in protest.


Do you know that Westcott believed that at least the first three chapters of Genesis was a myth.? How can you not believe the Bible to be true and yet believe in the Deity of Christ?

DO YOU KNOW? the names and what they believed of the five preparers of the (fourth edition) UBS/4 [1993]

1. Cardinal Carlo Martini, Archbishop of Milan from 1979 to 2002, had over 2,000 priests under him. Was a prime potential candidate for Pope. Have no idea what he believes. Editor since 1967. A Member of the Society of Jesus. Brought over a hundred religious leaders together to promote a new age, one world religion. Posted in Time magazine.

2. Bruce Metzger, editor of Reader’s digest condensed Bible. He removed 40% of the Bible in this edition, including the warning in Revelation 22:18-19. Claimed he believed in the Deity of Christ, he also believed the Bible was a combination of myth, legend, and history.

3&4. Kurt&Barbara Aland did not believe that the Bible was verbally inspired, thus they had no problem changing it.

5. Johannes Karavidopoulos?

Are you content having these people rewrite your Bible?

TrustGzus
May 3rd 2009, 11:33 PM
Feel free to post, but please try to restrict your post to an individual point, condensed as much as you are able. Are you sticking to this rule so far?

TrustGzus
May 3rd 2009, 11:34 PM
Feel free to post, but please try to restrict your post to an individual point, condensed as much as you are able. I'll stick to this as much as possible since that is your wish. Get ready for a bunch of posts then as I separate the individual points.

TrustGzus
May 3rd 2009, 11:39 PM
D0 YOU KNOW? that after the magic man made words appear on a Codex that had not been seen by the eye in 600 years, he went to Italy. During his thirteen month visit to Italy he had a private audience with the Pope, and hence was allowed to collate the Vaticanus.

The details on the Codex Vaticanus are very sketchy. There were two known collations of the Vaticanus. One done by a Cardinal Mai, prior to Tischendorf’s collation, which was said to be inferior to Tischendorf’s, as it did not read the same. Tischendorf stated that Cardinal Mai’s rendition was a pseudo facsimile.

It was stated that someone had inked over the letters and that it was difficult to read because of all the corrections. Added(This is in relation to the manuscript, not to Cardinal Mai's rendition.)Added

In the Codex Vaticanus on page 1512, next to Hebrews 1:3, the text contains an interesting marginal note, "Fool and knave, can't you leave the old reading alone and not alter it!"

No one outside of the Vatican has ever seen this Manuscript. How was it that a declared protestant was allowed to copy it?

Would you change your Bible in preference to the readings of this one?

TerrellNo one outside the Vatican has ever seen this? That's false. You can actually buy entire copies of it on the internet. I've seen portions of it -- not in person, but photos.

Plus, wikipedia states . . .
In 1889-1890 a photographic facsimile of the whole manuscript was made and published by Giuseppe Cozza-Luzi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Cozza-Luzi), in three volumes.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus#cite_note-Nestle-13) Another facsimile of the New Testament text was published in 1904 in Milan.[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus#cite_note-21) As a result the codex became widely available.Multiple sources have stated this. So I don't know how you can claim no one outside the Vatican has ever seen it. Plus, Napoleon took it to Paris. Is Napoleon part of the Vatican?

TrustGzus
May 3rd 2009, 11:42 PM
Everything that has been found so far on Tischendorf spells Vatican, Vatican, Vatican.

The DO YOU KNOWS? will be continued.

TerrellHow come new versions such as the NASB, NIV, ESV, etc. don't teach any Roman Catholic distinctives then if this all screams "Vatican, Vatican, Vatican"? I don't find purgatory, infant justification through baptism, rosary, prayer to the saints. Doesn't seem to scream Vatican to me.

TrustGzus
May 3rd 2009, 11:45 PM
DO YOU KNOW? that most all the information given on the Vaticanus indicates that no outsiders were allowed to sit down and copy it. In one place it indicates Tischendorf had only a cursory look at it. According to Wikipedia, Tischendorf was allowed to make a facsimile of only a few verses in 1843.

Tregelles said this, “They would not let me open it without searching my pockets, and depriving me of pen, ink and paper, and at the same time two prelati kept me in constant conversation in Latin, and If I looked at the passage too long, they would snatch the book out of my hand.” This is in reference to the Codex Vaticanus.

With this being said, and much more like it in the media online networks such as Wikipedia, Tischendorf published a rendition or collation on the Codex Vaticanus in 1867. The only time it is admitted to that he had access to the Codex Vaticanus was in 1843. How did Tischendorf do a complete rendition of the original Vaticanus if he wasn’t given complete access to it?Sources all over state Tischendorf had very little access to Vaticanus. You claim otherwise and expect us to believe you on blind faith in your claim as you provide no source. What's your source?

TrustGzus
May 3rd 2009, 11:58 PM
DO YOU KNOW? thatthe Trinitarian Bible Society was formed out of what was the base for the UBS. What was known as the British and Foreign Bible Society. The reason it separated from the BFBS was because the BFBS was ecumenical in nature. They had open arms for those that did not believe in the Deity of Christ, (Unitarians) as well as those that did not believe in the inspiration of Bible?Interesting. Then how come the UBS text is 94.9% identical to the TR and modern versions teach the deity of Jesus more clearly than the KJV in Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, John 1:18 and Romans 9:5?

Prufrock
May 4th 2009, 12:04 AM
How come new versions such as the NASB, NIV, ESV, etc. don't teach any Roman Catholic distinctives then if this all screams "Vatican, Vatican, Vatican"? I don't find purgatory, infant justification through baptism, rosary, prayer to the saints. Doesn't seem to scream Vatican to me.
Those versions do not translate Vaticanus in its entirety. Vaticanus includes the Apocrypha, which does teach those doctrines; but the publishers of the versions you named are in the business of selling books, and the Protestant market is bigger (in the United States) than the Catholic market, so they omit the Apocrypha. You may rest assured that they will eventually publish versions for the Catholic market that do include the Apocrypha, just like Vaticanus.

TrustGzus
May 4th 2009, 12:06 AM
Do you know that J.J. Wetstein, the first man acknowledged by Tischendorf to attempt to revive the Codex Ephraemi, did not believe in the Deity of Christ? 1716So what does that mean to us today? It is what Codex Ephraemi says that matters, not what Wetstein believed. Do you have evidence that this manuscript rejects the deity of Jesus? In fact, this is the manuscript that you claim in this thread has God in 1 Timothy 3:16.

TrustGzus
May 4th 2009, 12:06 AM
Those versions do not translate Vaticanus in its entirety. Vaticanus includes the Apocrypha, which does teach those doctrines; but the publishers of the versions you named are in the business of selling books, and the Protestant market is bigger (in the United States) than the Catholic market, so they omit the Apocrypha. You may rest assured that they will eventually publish versions for the Catholic market that do include the Apocrypha, just like Vaticanus.The KJV had the apocrypha. I have a KJV apocrypha. So I guess I should reject the KJV, right?

TrustGzus
May 4th 2009, 12:09 AM
Do you know that William Whiston, the only man to have an English translation in print compiled from the Codex Bezae, the Codex Claromontanus, and the Codex Alexandrinus, did not believe in the Deity of Christ? 1745Again, but does it matter what Whiston believed, or does it matter what the manuscripts teach. Interestingly, Alexandrinus reads in John 1:18 the way you think it should read.

Anyway, what evidence do you have that teaches these manuscripts deny the deity of Jesus? If you don't have that kind of evidence, then you are committing either a guilt-by-association fallacy or a non sequitur or both.

TrustGzus
May 4th 2009, 12:10 AM
Do you know that Hort made a concerted effort to get a Unitarian on the translation committee of the ERV 1881-1885 Bible, and he was successful? Dr. George Vance Smith did not believe in the Deity of Christ, and was the reason for the first chairman of the committee of the 1881 revision, Bishop Wilberforce, to resigned in protest.Yet the modern Bibles still teach the deity of Jesus more clearly than the KJV. What does your point prove other than that you are trying to spread fear and conspiracy thinking about modern versions?

TrustGzus
May 4th 2009, 12:12 AM
Do you know that Westcott believed that at least the first three chapters of Genesis was a myth.? How can you not believe the Bible to be true and yet believe in the Deity of Christ?Non sequitur. Just because someone from 125 years ago doesn't accept your interpretation of Genesis 1-3, doesn't mean the modern versions don't teach the deity of Jesus. Non sequitur again.

Prufrock
May 4th 2009, 12:15 AM
The KJV had the apocrypha. I have a KJV apocrypha. So I guess I should reject the KJV, right?
The King James translators included the Apocrypha between the Testaments, separate from the authentic words of God: Catholic Bibles, such as the New American Bible, do not, but integrate the Apocryphal writings throughout the Old Testament. While acknowledging that the Apocrypha included some valuable historical material, the King James translators rejected it as inspired scripture for seven specific reasons, which they enumerated.

Including the Apocrypha in the KJB did not imply its divine origin, any more than one implies John MacArthur's footnotes to be divinely inspired in the MacArthur Study Bible.

TrustGzus
May 4th 2009, 12:16 AM
D0 YOU KNOW? That the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Society's Greek texts agree with the TR 94.9% of the time and that all the essential doctrines of the faith are intact?

Don't be afraid to trust the modern versions. God rules in the translation field, not Satan. But this thread would have you believe Satan rules the translation field. Sorry, but my God is omnipotent. Satan is defeated.

TrustGzus
May 4th 2009, 12:22 AM
Here's what you originally said . . .
Those versions do not translate Vaticanus in its entirety. Vaticanus includes the Apocrypha, which does teach those doctrines; but the publishers of the versions you named are in the business of selling books, and the Protestant market is bigger (in the United States) than the Catholic market, so they omit the Apocrypha. You may rest assured that they will eventually publish versions for the Catholic market that do include the Apocrypha, just like Vaticanus.When I stated I have the KJV apocrypha, you replied with . . .
The King James translators included the Apocrypha between the Testaments, separate from the authentic words of God: Catholic Bibles, such as the New American Bible, do not, but integrate the Apocryphal writings throughout the Old Testament. While acknowledging that the Apocrypha included some valuable historical material, the King James translators rejected it as inspired scripture for seven specific reasons, which they enumerated.

Including the Apocrypha in the KJB did not imply its divine origin, any more than one implies John MacArthur's footnotes to be divinely inspired in the MacArthur Study Bible.Most modern versions do not include the apocrypha.

The New American Bible does, but Prufrock, give me a break, it's a Roman Catholic Bible. Of course, it has the apocrypha.

You claim the KJV translators rejected it and valued it as valuable historical material. So do modern translators! The New Revised Stadard has it, but just like the KJV, puts it between the testaments.

Who's omnipotent in your theology: Satan or God? If God, then don't let these fear spreading conspiracy theories suck you in. God rules. He's not stuck in 1611.

Prufrock
May 4th 2009, 12:48 AM
D0 YOU KNOW? That the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Society's Greek texts agree with the TR 94.9% of the time and that all the essential doctrines of the faith are intact?
Of course they do! The Textus Receptus is the majority text. The vast, overwhelming majority of New Testament fragments attest to the TR. Nobody ever said that Aleph and B contradicted the majority text on every point; however, those manuscripts do indeed impugn the Deity of Christ, the virgin birth, and other doctrines in numerous areas, even if they affirm the doctrines elsewhere. And the fact that the major doctrines can be found in these manuscripts means very little: if you know where to look, you can even find the Deity of Christ in the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses!


Don't be afraid to trust the modern versions. God rules in the translation field, not Satan. But this thread would have you believe Satan rules the translation field. Sorry, but my God is omnipotent. Satan is defeated.God is indeed omnipotent, but that does not mean that He "rules" the "translation field" or any other field of human endeavor. And, yes, Satan is gloriously, permanently, utterly defeated: but he has not yet been bound, and to think that he would not be interested in corrupting God's words is very naive.

An example? In the KJB, Is. 14:12 reads, How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! Whereas the NIV reads, "How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!"

Huh? I thought that Jesus Christ was the bright and morning star (Rev. 22:16)?

Oh, well. Probably not an "essential doctrine".....

TrustGzus
May 4th 2009, 02:39 AM
Of course they do! The Textus Receptus is the majority text.Not true. It is said the TR and Majority differ in over 1800 places. I couldn't give you all 1800 as I've never counted them all up. But I can tell you several. How about three to start:

The Majority does not have 1 John 5:7, Acts 8:37 nor through his blood in Colossians 1:14. I can give many more but those are a good start.
The vast, overwhelming majority of New Testament fragments attest to the TR. Nobody ever said that Aleph and B contradicted the majority text on every point; however, those manuscripts do indeed impugn the Deity of Christ, the virgin birth, and other doctrines in numerous areas, even if they affirm the doctrines elsewhere. And the fact that the major doctrines can be found in these manuscripts means very little: if you know where to look, you can even find the Deity of Christ in the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses!Really? Could you please tell me where Sinaiticus and Vaticanus impugn the deity of Jesus and the virgin birth? I'd like to see this.
God is indeed omnipotent, but that does not mean that He "rules" the "translation field" or any other field of human endeavor. And, yes, Satan is gloriously, permanently, utterly defeated: but he has not yet been bound, and to think that he would not be interested in corrupting God's words is very naive.I'm sure Satan would love to corrupt God's word. He has done so through humans with the NWT you mentioned. I'm also sure Satan would love to have people feel forced to read a version in which the language is so outdated that they can't understand as clearly as if it was in the language of their own day.
An example? In the KJB, Is. 14:12 reads, How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! Whereas the NIV reads, "How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!" Lucifer is a Latin word. It's not a translation of the Hebrew into English. Look it up in a Latin-English dictionary (http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=lucifer&ending=) and it will tell you Lucifer means morning star. I actually own a hard-copy Latin-English dictionary and it says the same thing.

So the conclusion . . . the KJV just brought a Latin word into English. They didn't translate. The NIV actually translated. By the way, my KJV has a note indicating it means day star.

Now Revelation does state Jesus is the morning star. But Jesus is also described as a lion and so is Satan described that way by Peter. Why? Satan is always trying to imitate God (see 2 Corinthians 11 where he disguises himself as an angel of light).

Another explanation is that if you take Isaiah 14:12 and read it in its entire context, many Bible scholars don't think this is even talking about the devil, but a human ruler. Most of those who reject modern versions accept their view of Isaiah 14:12 by tradition that they've been taught rather than by reading the entire context of the whole chapter.

Bottom line, those who try to discredit the modern versions on Isaiah 14:12 have a case which is brutally assaulted by the facts. Why translate the Bible into English but leave in one Latin word (which means day star or morning star when translated)? You can maintain your position. But in order to do so you must never learn Latin or look in a Latin dictionary.

If the facts were against modern versions, I'd have no problem rejecting them. But I don't think the facts support that case.

All of this rejecting of modern versions is just placing Christians in bondage to English they don't understand and placing them in fear. And it's not based in facts. It's based in conspiracy. Satan's at work. Just not the way those against modern versions think that he is.

Grace & Peace to you, Prufrock.

Joe

Laish
May 4th 2009, 03:54 AM
Hi all from looking in to the topic of how the modern translations are corrupt an how they supposedly became that way. It seems to me more reminiscent of a new Dan Brown novel than fact . For every thing to have happened as many post suggest or seem to infer would require a evil an all powerful Dan brown style villain.Along with the villain's supremely powerful organization that has fooled the whole world .
Just my take
Your brother in Christ
Bill

Prufrock
May 4th 2009, 05:18 AM
The Majority does not have 1 John 5:7, Acts 8:37 nor through his blood in Colossians 1:14. I can give many more but those are a good start.
If we are to discuss these things, you have a right to know my position, however much you may dislike it. My primary loyalty, textually speaking, is to the Authorized Version, not the Textus Receptus. I defend the TR as against the great corrupt uncials Aleph and B, but my primary interest is God's word in English. I would be glad to discuss the verses you mention, and why they were included in the AV, but not in this thread. I am conscious of tgallison's study and effort, and do not want to hijack his presentation.


Really? Could you please tell me where Sinaiticus and Vaticanus impugn the deity of Jesus and the virgin birth? I'd like to see this.I would be more than happy to cite the verses, but in another thread. I am simply attempting to be courteous to tgallison.


I'm sure Satan would love to corrupt God's word. He has done so through humans with the NWT you mentioned. I'm also sure Satan would love to have people feel forced to read a version in which the language is so outdated that they can't understand as clearly as if it was in the language of their own day.The Authorized Version has been demonstrated, by secular educational experts, to be more easily understood than the modern translations. Again, I will be glad to provide documentation of this fact.

I am unaware of anyone in the Western world being "forced" to read the AV. Indeed, if there is any pressure or bullying, especially by the scholars and booksellers, it is against reading the AV, which is subjected to ridicule and patronization every day.

I have no desire to argue or debate. Do not make the assumption that I have not studied this matter; indeed, I only came to the Authorized Version after 13 years of using the NASV, as a new Christian. But if we can discuss the matter in a civil manner, I'm your boy!

I wish you all the best, and have no desire for our Christian fellowship to be sundered by this matter. On the other hand, it is not a subject I intend to duck or avoid. I await your convenience. Do you want to start a new thread, or shall I? But if we discuss these things, we simply must do it in a manner that will not bring reproach on the Name of Christ. We were not saved to be witnesses to this or that translation; we were saved to be witnesses to Jesus Christ. On that, I'm sure we're agreed!


:wave:

fuzzi
May 4th 2009, 04:48 PM
Hi all from looking in to the topic of how the modern translations are corrupt an how they supposedly became that way. It seems to me more reminiscent of a new Dan Brown novel than fact . For every thing to have happened as many post suggest or seem to infer would require a evil an all powerful Dan brown style villain.Along with the villain's supremely powerful organization that has fooled the whole world .
Just my take
Your brother in Christ
Bill
Thank you, brother. You actually have come close to the truth: the enemy, the devil, Satan, is indeed subtle and works deceit in order to make us less effective for Christ, to bring reproach upon His glorious name!

"But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." (2 Corinthians 4:2)

TrustGzus
May 4th 2009, 11:44 PM
If we are to discuss these things, you have a right to know my position, however much you may dislike it. My primary loyalty, textually speaking, is to the Authorized Version, not the Textus Receptus. I defend the TR as against the great corrupt uncials Aleph and B, but my primary interest is God's word in English. I would be glad to discuss the verses you mention, and why they were included in the AV, but not in this thread. I am conscious of tgallison's study and effort, and do not want to hijack his presentation.Thanks for being upfront about your position. Also, it's good to not hijack the thread. This is so easy to do.

Feel free to start a thread to discuss this or we can do it via PM. If you start a thread, PM me and let me know about it.

I am fallible. I used to hold to TR only. I've sinced changed my view. Being fallible, I realize, I could be wrong now and am open to evidence contrary to my position to switch back to TRO or even KJVO if the evidence warrants it.

I must ask, are you open to the possibility that your older position may have been the correct one? If you can't honestly say yes to that, then I'm not too interested in the discussion. I own and have read many books from the KJV only side and so have heard most of the arguments. It's possible you have one or more I haven't heard. So I always remain open.
The Authorized Version has been demonstrated, by secular educational experts, to be more easily understood than the modern translations. Again, I will be glad to provide documentation of this fact. In my field experience, I don't find this statement credible. You can share the studies, but I've been teaching teens and adults for decades. Neither teens nor adults, in general, understand the KJV more easily. And as I discuss the issues with KJVO advocates, I think most of them really understand the KJV less than they think they do.
I am unaware of anyone in the Western world being "forced" to read the AV. Indeed, if there is any pressure or bullying, especially by the scholars and booksellers, it is against reading the AV, which is subjected to ridicule and patronization every day.I didn't say anyone was forced. I stated people can feel forced. If they become convinced that no modern version is able to be trusted, then what choice do they have: either abandon the Bible entirely or the KJV. Do scholars "bully" people to read modern versions? I don't think so. KJVO writers often employ ad hominem approaches. That's much closer to bullying than anything true scholars do.
I have no desire to argue or debate. Do not make the assumption that I have not studied this matter; indeed, I only came to the Authorized Version after 13 years of using the NASV, as a new Christian. But if we can discuss the matter in a civil manner, I'm your boy! Well, it is arguing and debating. However, I think your point is civility looking at your context. I agree. But I would re-emphasize open-ness. Why discuss this if one or the other isn't honestly open to the possiblity of being mistaken? Can you agree about that?
I wish you all the best, and have no desire for our Christian fellowship to be sundered by this matter. On the other hand, it is not a subject I intend to duck or avoid. I await your convenience. Do you want to start a new thread, or shall I? But if we discuss these things, we simply must do it in a manner that will not bring reproach on the Name of Christ. We were not saved to be witnesses to this or that translation; we were saved to be witnesses to Jesus Christ. On that, I'm sure we're agreed!Well said. Again, if you choose to, I'll await contact from you about a thread you start.

Grace & peace to you, Prufrock. Nice discussing this with you. Off to the grocery store and my son's baseball game.

Joe


:wave:
[/quote]

Prufrock
May 5th 2009, 01:31 AM
Thanks for being upfront about your position. Also, it's good to not hijack the thread. This is so easy to do.

Feel free to start a thread to discuss this or we can do it via PM. If you start a thread, PM me and let me know about it.
I'll do it within a few days. Like yours, my schedule is hectic right now. I made one post in your other thread, about new versions, but will not follow up there; I don't want to be a party pooper.


I am fallible. I used to hold to TR only. I've sinced changed my view. Being fallible, I realize, I could be wrong now and am open to evidence contrary to my position to switch back to TRO or even KJVO if the evidence warrants it.

I must ask, are you open to the possibility that your older position may have been the correct one? If you can't honestly say yes to that, then I'm not too interested in the discussion. It's like looking in the mirror, isn't it? You used to be TR only; now you enjoy newer versions. I used to dote on Williams and Phillips and the NASV, and now I believe the Authorized Version. We may have an interesting discussion brewing here....

Of course I'm open to the possibility that I'm mistaken. I've been mistaken about some very serious things during my four decades as a Christian, and I've probably made every mistake a Christian can make - - - except for doubting God's existence, or His mercy. By the grace of God, I've never done that.

If my position on this matter can be proven to be ill-founded, to my satisfaction, I'll change my position. You have said essentially the same thing. I appreciate your courtesy and look forward to a great discussion: one in which, by the way, we do not hesitate to laugh. The weight of God's kingdom is not riding on our deliberations!

Do you know? how much I want tgallison to come back and continue his presentation?

tgallison
May 5th 2009, 11:41 AM
DO YOU KNOW? the man that laid the ground work along with Dewey Lockman of the NASB, wrote the format, interviewed some of the translaters, sat with the translator, and wrote the preface, later, declared the finished work to be a work of SATAN? Dr. Frank Logsdon






The New American Standard Bible



The Preface to the New American Standard Bible, published in 1963, states that, “In most instances the 23rd edition of the Nestle Greek New Testament was followed.” Dr. Frank Logsdon, former pastor of Moody Memorial Church, along with Dewey Lockman (The Lockman Foundation), laid the groundwork for this modern version. After its publication, questions by friends caused Dr. Logsdon to examine the translation closely. The following is his renunciation of every attachment to the NASB. This renunciation takes on added meaning since the NIV and NASB used the Nestle/Aland Text in the revision process and many changes are common to both.
“I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I’m afraid I’m in trouble with the Lord…We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface…I’m in trouble; I can’t refute these arguments; it’s wrong, terribly wrong; it’s frighteningly wrong and what am I going to do about it…When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended… I used to laugh with others… However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not quite right in the New American Standard Version. I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can’t refute them… the deletions are absolutely frightening… there are so many… Are we so naïve that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?
“Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachments to the NASV. The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times…I don’t want anything to do with it…”
Riplinger, op. cit, front page.

Prufrock
May 24th 2009, 02:00 PM
bump


You're not finished with this, are you, brother?


:confused

tgallison
May 25th 2009, 10:22 PM
bump


You're not finished with this, are you, brother?


:confused





Prufrock greetings

DO YOU KNOW?

The KJB was the accepted English text, but there were some men that were saying, has God really said the words that we find in the KJB. They said this because, while they were Godly men, there minds could not ascertain the power of God that could create a world by merely speaking. Nor could their minds comprehend how three separate personalities could be one. There had to be errors in the Bible. Thus they set out on a quest, with a bias, to find anything that would assuage their minds.

Let us take a look at one verse and how it was handled by men with a bias. The bias was that while Christ was our sin offering, he was not God, the Son of God. In their hearts they felt that men must have added words in the Bible to make this false statement. Therefore setting aside that vile book with the added words they set about to produce a true Bible. While they have accused others of adding to the Bible, look at what these men themselves have done to produce the Bible that suits their thoughts

These men found this written in that vile book, Philippians 2:6 “Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.”

This book that they consider vile is saying that Jesus held that he was equal with God. And they said how dare he say that?

So they took their new book and fixed the problem. Instead of saying as that vile book said, Jesus was equal with God, it would now say, “equality with God could not be grasped”. These are two completely opposing statements.

You be the judge which is right, the New American Standard Bible, or that old vile King James Bible.

In this verse Philippians 2:6 the Codex Vaticanus B, the Greek NT: WH/UBS4/NA27, the Greek NT: Tischendorf 8th edition, the Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text, all have the same 12 Greek words.

Tischendorf’s work varies with a slightly varied form of the same words, but the others all agree word for word as published in the Codex Vaticanus B and as presented in the online Parallel Bible Weaving God’s Word.

ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 2:6 Greek NT: Greek NT: Westcott / Hort, UBS4 Variants (http://ubs4.biblos.com/philippians/2.htm)
ος εν μορφη θεου υπαρχων ουχ αρπαγμον ηγησατο το ειναι ισα θεω

It reads;-who-in-form-God-existed;-not-robbery-regard-the-be-equality-God.

The translators of the NASB came up with this translation.

Who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped.

The added words,-although-He-did-a thing to-. Isn’t it amazing how a few well placed words can change the meaning of a verse. The Greek word ἁρπαγμός is translated either robbery or plunder by all the Greek editions, and yet we find it translated by the NASB as grasped. This word occurs only one time in the Bible. The words grasped or seized are modern day CT definitions of this one time found in the Bible Greek word ἁρπαγμός.


Did Jesus consider himself equal with God?

John 5:21-23 “For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that hounoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.”

John 10:30 “I and my Father are one.”

Your Advert here


Hosted by Webnet77