Jim Lincoln wrote:
As I asked before which AV is the right one? the one of 161l or the one of 1769?--or the various revisions between those dates?

Jim Lincoln wrote:
I said the 1984 or earlier versions of the NIV.

BTW On Your NIV....

Quote
"Martin provides dozens (perhaps scores) of REALLY BAD TRANSLATIONS in the NIV. He groups these inaccuracies under seven categories:

1. Elimination of complex grammatical structures (pp. 18-21). Long complex sentences are broken into several shorter sentences. To do this, the translators had to make interpretive decisions about the *theology* of the passage in question. Thus Ephesians 1:3-14, which the AV breaks into three sentences, the NIV breaks into eight. 2 Thessalonians 1:3-10, which the AV keeps as one sentence, is broken into eight by the NIV. Compare also Acts 1:1-5 & Hebrews 1:1-4." [URL=http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/bacon-niv1.html]]]Really Bad Translations[/URL]

Jim Lincoln wrote:
The NIV is the most popular version because

Hort in one of his letters wrote..

October 17, 1865 – to B.F. Westcott -- On Roman Catholicism

"I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and ‘Jesus’-worship have very much in common in their causes and results…we condemn all secondary human mediators as injurious to the One, and shut our eyes to the indestructible fact of existing human mediation which is to be found everywhere. But this last error can hardly be expelled till Protestants unlearn the crazy horror of the idea of priesthood."" (F.J.A.Hort)
_______

Westcott in one of his letters wrote

Second Sunday after Epiphany, 1847 -- To His Fiancée -- On Mariolotry

"After leaving the monastery, we shaped our course to a little oratory which we discovered on the summit of a neighboring hill…Fortunately we found the door open. It is very small, with one kneeling place; and behind a screen was a ‘Pieta’ the size of life [i.e., a Virgin and dead Christ]…Had I been alone I could have knelt there for hours.’" (B.F.Westcott)

Jim Lincoln wrote:
History

""Now I submit that it is a sufficient condemnation of Codexes B/Aleph/C/D as a supreme court of judicature (1) That as a rule they are observed to be discordant in their judgements: (2) That when they thus differ among themselves it is generally demonstrable by an appeal to antiquity that the two principal judges B and Aleph have delivered a mistaken judgement: (3) That when these two differ one from the other, the supreme judge B is often in the wrong: and lastly (4) That it constantly happens that all four agree, and yet all four are in error." [Dean Burgon, The Traditional Text]

Not only are these four old uncials distorted and mistaken, but they contradict each other as well as the Traditional Text. Dean Burgon also said of these old uncials:

"No progress is possible in the department of Textual Criticism until the superstition--for we are persuaded that it is nothing less--which at present prevails concerning certain of the old uncials (as they are called) has been abandoned." [Dean Burgon, The Traditional Text]

Jim Lincoln wrote:
no we don't

""It is precisely this consideration which constrains us to pay supreme attention to the combined testimony of the Uncials and of the whole body of the Cursive Copies. They are (a) dotted over at least 1000 years: (b) they evidently belong to so many divers countries,--Greece, Constantinople, Asia Minor, Palestine, Syria, Alexandria, and other parts of Africa, not to say Sicily, Southern Italy, Gaul, England, and Ireland: (c) they exhibit so many strange characteristics and peculiar sympathies: (d) they so clearly represent countless families of MSS., being in no single instance absolutely identical in their text, and certainly not being copies of any other Codex in existence,--that their unanimous decision I hold to be an absolutely irrefragable evidence of the Truth." [Dean Burgon, The Traditional Text, p. 50-51]

This is a tremendous testimony in favor of the Traditional Text! Twelve or more countries, and parts of the world, witness to this same kind of text without collusion, cooperation, or complicity of any kind. This is true "variety."" (Dean Burgon Soc)

Jim Lincoln wrote:
NASB

"Professor Hort Tampered with the Facts of History in order to Sustain the Westcott and Hort (B and Aleph) Text."

"Again, in order to prop up his contention, Dr. Hort is obliged to conjure up the shadows of two or three phantom revisions, of which no recorded evidence exists. We must never forget that subjective theory or individual speculation are valueless, when they do not agree with facts, except as failures leading to some better system. But Dr. Hort, as soon as he found that he could not maintain his ground with history as it was, instead of taking back his theory and altering it to square with facts, tampered with historical facts in order to make them agree with his theory." [Dean Burgon, The Traditional Text, p. 93]

This is an inexcusable tampering with truth and historical facts. It is an example of what they call "historical revisionism." It was to be deprecated as much then as it should be today!" [URL=http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/DeanBurgon/dbs2771.htm]]]Dean Burgon Soc.[/URL]

Jim Lincoln wrote:
by Erasmus

"To cast away at least nineteen-twentieths of the evidence on points and to draw conclusions from the petty remainder, seems to us to be necessarily not less even than a crime and a sin, and only by reason of the sacrilegious destructiveness exercised thereby upon Holy Writ, but also because such a method is inconsistent with conscientious exhaustiveness and logical method." [Dean Burgon, The Traditional Text, p. xii]

Westcott and Hort used only partial evidence and a very unrepresentative sample agreeing with less than 1% of the manuscript history. Ximenes and Erasmus, on the other hand, though also using partial evidence, had a representative sample agreeing with over 99% of the manuscript history." [URL=http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/DeanBurgon/dbs2771.htm]]]Dean Burgon Soc.[/URL]

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Erasmus was the supporter of Satan, so you really should stop, Westcott & Hort: Victims

But I really wish you were more aware of heretics like Erasmus proved that he was...

"Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466-1536) had travelled to England in 1499 to meet with Thomas More, and Erasmus had ample opportunity to observe the corruption and cynicism of the Roman Church. In 1509 Erasmus published his Ecomium Moriae, or The Praise of Folly, which stirred theologians to an uproar with its biting satire on the absurdities of Church teaching, its ridicule of the Pope and celibacy and other sacred tenets of Catholicism. Erasmus reserved his chief scorn for his fellow clergy:

Jim Lincoln wrote:
What is there to really point out anything about, original James? Only a fringe have the cultic belief in King James Onlyism

D Mike Canard wrote:
He can't argue with that but I can.
God used Jerome's Latin Vulgate far more! For over a thousand years.
Can't argue with God, can you TS.

It was written in a language few people could understand. LATIN!!!

Remember history.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
As I've pointed out in another thread, about Erasmus and his Novum Instrumentum omne by Erasmus The Textus Receptus, was a very Catholic document

God used the Textus Teceptus
AND
God used the King James Version of His Holy Word to build His Church over the last four centuries.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
by Erasmus

"In any event, the fact that Erasmus had only a handful of manuscripts during his preparation of the 1516 edition is irrelevant in regards to the reliability of the text underlying the KJV. First of all, no scholar disputes the fact that Erasmus had studied variant readings of the New Testament throughout his life prior to publishing the Textus Receptus. In fact, the study of variant readings in the Greek New Testament did not begin with Erasmus but with scholars such as Thomas Linacre (1460-1524) and John Colet (1467-1519), and even as far back as Jerome (347-420). Although Erasmus spent only two years in front of a handful of Greek manuscripts to compose his first edition, his knowledge concerning the Greek New Testament and its variants did not come solely from looking at these few manuscripts in the two year period. Secondly, the KJV was completed in 1611 – almost a century after Erasmus composed his first edition of the Textus Receptus in 1516. The KJV translators most likely used the 1598 edition of Beza. At least three-quarters of a century of scholarship had gone into the Textus Receptus by the time of the KJV...." (kjvtoday.com)

Mike wrote:
1) Back dating the TR for the purpose of giving it more credibility is a mite unethical, regardless of its value.
2) The AV is called "authorised" because it was authorised by King James.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
just what the people said who wanted to give up the Latin Vulgate

Whereas God intervened in history to translate into english and other languages and called this the KING JAMES VERSION of His Holy Word.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
I would suggest you look at this commentary, you'll see that Erasmus did write the TR.

GOD authorised the AV - King James Version, by translating the 1500 year old Textus Receptus into english and other languages in Europe. America and the western nations and used the KJV to build His Church.

Mike wrote:
Is that why "Textus Receptus" is Latin?

So we see that, even though the name "Textus Receptus was coined twenty-two years after the Authorized Version was translated, it has become synonymous with the true Greek Text originating in Antioch." (Sam Gipp. The Answer Book)

Jim Lincoln wrote:
the writer of the Textus Receptus, Erasmus