Frank wrote: ..this issue is simply misdirection where â€śsomeâ€ť conservatives can pretend to be pro-life as outlined in scripture. Reminds me of Palin saying Roe V. Wade should be overturned and the right to abortion should be left up to the states. So, the states can then decide to murder these innocent lives What they should be protesting is the murder of these innocent lives. Let them show videos of these little babies being torn apart or burned to death in the place that should be the safest for them. It was the mothers of these children that volunteered their children to be slaughtered, so I donâ€™t have a clue how they were betrayed. I guess what I am saying is these body parts didnâ€™t belong to anyone and they are making a distinction between putting the parts in a trash can versus selling them. Both acts are barbaric, but I simply donâ€™t see much of a moral difference, except the buyers of these body parts are now complicit. Now since my comment is odd, let me add this so that no one misunderstands me. I think that the mothers, doctors, and anyone who assists doctors in performing an abortion should be charged with murder. And those that support this movement by their votes, etc. will answer to the Lord.
pennned wrote: ....older folks that grew up with propaganda ... .. Until you are willing to do the research you'll have to follow popular opinion ... you come to modernists and want them to give you reasons why its ok, its ok, because they've been brainwashed. ..
Just out of interest, and on a tangent, why can't/won't you see the same with the Bible versions issue Penny?
John UK wrote: Bro Mike, I sure will, although speculation is difficult...
Good morning to you John.
The question is a tricky attempt to sweep the textual issue under the carpet. One could with equal validity ask what impact the false teachers of the early NT church had on you personally, and if you answer none, then the question is why were the NT writers so concerned to preserve the Revelation given to them by God? Duh! It's because they fought to preserve the truth that you're not affected!
And lest we forget, the following verses from Rev 22 could be directly applied to the whole science of modern textual criticism, or as I prefer to call it "unholy hands on God's Word":
"..For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
As I have said previously, this is no light matter!
ladybug wrote: Jim Lincoln, Please, enough already.
He won't relent because the man is unhinged!
One minute he's busy telling us that Erasmus was a Catholic and couldn't be trusted with the TR because of his Catholicism, and the next he's busy telling us that the Catholic church condemned Erasmus' work!! Duh!
So what's it to be Jim, Erasmus producing a Catholic TR for which he got condemned? Lol
Dorcas wrote: Since this thread is going no where at break neck speed... was wondering if some of the folks would comment on what age they were, when it pleased the LORD to open their eyes, and to turn them fom darkness to light, and the power of Satan unto God. Might be a little more edifying and bring glory to our LORD. I was 50. Anyone else?
What a great idea. Could be a refreshing change.
I was 19 when he abased me, crushed my self righteousness and drew me to himself through his word. For months I felt broken by his grace and love, and his word was the tenderest love letter to my wounded soul. The attachment I then felt to his word has only grown stronger and stronger with the passage of time. Blessed be the Savior. All glory to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit!
Jim Lincoln wrote: First of all getting back to the most important part of the whole topic which I think most of you ignore, except saying it isn't really important that a person can understand the Bible, Apparently you can put the KJV on a table lay your hands on it, and you'll be infused with Biblical knowledge!
Jim the KJV is still written in English and for the most part (approx. 99%) is understandable by most with a basic education in English, unless one has some sort of brain defect.
Hmmm now there's a thought, which could explain a lot. Lol. Could also explain why you prefer to be spoon fed by the "experts" instead of thinking and researching things for yourself. This is all beginning to make sense now!
Jim Lincoln wrote: .. the critical texts are more accurate than the Textus Receptus. .......I also you gentlemen have a true KJV with the marginal notes where the KJV translators weren't sure of how something should be translated? blah blah blah
Jim your arrogance knows no bounds! What proof have you offered that the critical text is superior to the RT? Since you've never seen the autographs, how would you know? Oh wait, I bet it's because Combs tells you so, eh? Lol
As for your statement about the KJV translators not knowing how to translate some things, what they did was render the word they thought most fitting but in the margin state what else it could have meant. That's called faithfulness, not that you'd ever understand what that means.
Your thinking is so immature it beggars belief. And to think that you've got away with posting such infantile rubbish on this forum for years! Smh!
Lurker wrote: Hey brother, I was chuckling at Jim's comment too. Perhaps Jim can explain to us how a discipline which is entirely subjection can ever be "right". But, then again, Jim likes dealing in opinions.
Spot on, as ever!!
The science is as subjective as macro evolution, and when you look at the dolts who bolster it up and make money from it whilst injecting doubt in the minds of believers that they have the Word of God, one has to wonder at those who name the name of Christ but whose discernment is at such a low ebb that they hail these numbskulls as people we should all look up to!!
Jim is too easily swayed by someone's educational achievements. So we must pay particular attention because Combs is a doctor?! Laughable!
Well here is the gist of Combs' article - this great expert on textual criticism, discusses the various viewpoints on the preservation of scripture, throws a great deal of doubt that it is a theological necessity, even though there are quite a few verses that hint at it (in his great opinion), and seems to hold to God's revelation being contained in the totality of the manuscripts present (what a surprise - maybe an element of self preservation there?!) BUT this is his grand conclusion (are you ready for it?):
"While it is not possible to produce a text that is in all points identical to the autographs, nevertheless, carefully produced texts and versions are able to convey Godâ€™s truth to the reader â€świth competent adequacy for all the needs of the Christian life.â€ť
Get that? For over 1800 years the Christian churches have NOT had a text "with competent adequacy for the needs of the Christian life". We had to wait for rationalists and liberals to give us that. All we can say is WOW!! Unbelievable!!
Not according to the Textual critics, none of whom can agree among themselves, let alone with anyone else. And they're supposedly the experts!! How many critical editions have we had to date? And none of them agree with the previous critical version!! Telling, eh?
Have you seen Jim ducking and diving to mask his palpable ignorance of the issues? He is one of the biggest phoneys around here and so full of himself. How many rabbit trails do you think will satisfy him?
He has yet to answer a single question that has been asked of him. Does that remind you of another insane troll around here who has dogged you for years? Ha!
Oh well ... time to retire from this tiresome subject.
One day even trolls will have to answer to the Lord. Pity the fool who's prepared to play fast and loose with God's Word!!
BTW John, I have an interesting book that you may like to read. I have a copy of John Bois' notes of the committee of review whilst preparing the final version of KJV - as you know these are now the only account we have because the other minutes were all supposedly destroyed by fire. If you're interested, let me know. I'll get it to you.
You think that an unbeliever really cared about the quest to discover the text of the autographs, when he brings higher critical theories (basically unbelieving methodology) to the table? You think he will do a better job than believers who have a high regard for the Word of God?!
Its like you'd be ok with the LGBT crowd teaching sex to our kids. Same logic Jim!
Your insanity on this subject is very telling Jim. I think you need to go see your psychiatrist.
As for your links, I'm not even going to bother to read them.
If you were serious about engagement you would give your own thoughts rather than constantly refer others to articles that you've not even bothered reading.
Really Penny?!! Sad to see you on this gravy train!
Re: Bruce Metzger:
BRUCE METZGER believed Moses did not write the Pentateuch, Deuteronomy was not written until 700 years before Christ, the Old Testament is a mixture of â€śmyth, legend, and history,â€ť the record of the worldwide flood of Noahâ€™s day is exaggerated, the book of Job is a folktale, the miracle accounts about Elijah and Elisha contain â€ślegendary elements,â€ť Isaiah was written by Isaiah plus two or three unknown men who wrote centuries later, the record of Jonah is a â€ślegend,â€ť Daniel does not contain supernatural prophecy, Paul did not write the Pastoral Epistles, Peter did not write 2 Peter, etc. All of these unbelieving lies can be found in the notes to the Readerâ€™s Digest Condensed Bible, which were written by Metzger, and in the New Oxford Annotated Bible, of which Metzger is a co-editor.
If only you had studied the subject before contributing, you might just have seen the connection between German rationalism and Textual criticism! The same rationalism that infected Evangelicalism in the 19th century and ran amuck in the 20th century, is the root cause of the Bible versions controversies.
Ladybug wrote: Observer, It is good to see you posting and standing firm. You are in my prayers, as are all the brethren. May your health improve, may God receive all glory regardless of our earthly circumstances.
Dorcas wrote: Observer, Have been praying for your health...do hope you can continue on the forum, you have been missed.
Thank you so much dear sisters for your prayers. Means a great deal to this saved sinner.
Dorcas, I've also missed many good friends here, like you.
Ladybug, so very sorry to hear about those youngsters who have taken their lives. Their families are in my thoughts and prayers and I agree whole heartedly with you that the young desperately need to hear the good news of Jesus Christ.
Mike wrote: ..while being critical of what is deemed science, they use math as one basis for reasoning. A majority of texts say something, therefore they must be more reliable because there are more of them. ... Almost funny..
I always found Math an easier subject to handle than evolutionary science!!
What's also funny is those who maintain that God's preservation of His Word is evidenced by the widest differences between the thousands of scripts to hand, and that the 2 that have the most differences are the authentic article, even though they differ from each other just as much as from the rest! Ha!
Here's how it works: God says make faithful copies of the NT. Folk centuries down the line then find the many scripts, most which agree with each other and some that are wildly out. But according to this perverse way of thinking we have to discount the majority as aberrant, and unfaithful, because apparently we must not expect any mathematical correlation between faithfulness and agreement of the scripts (duh!), and treat the ones that don't agree with others let alone with each other as the genuine article!! Go figure!
And we're supposedly the cranks!!
Don't worry folk. We're safe in the hands of the experts!!
pennned wrote: ....There are more original Greek manuscripts (earlier, closer to Christ) TODAY ..the middle ages...Today we can go back to copies very close to the time of Christ that say in Greek what we are reading in English today.
Penny the job of preserving the NT revelation was entrusted to the churches (not scientists), just as the OT was preserved by the nation of Israel. The majority of texts (which come from the Byzantine or Greek churches) agree with each other. The issue is that, in the main, 2 texts discovered in the 19th century, which are believed to be older were held to be more reliable witnesses even though they differ in hundreds of places from each other and from the majority. Westcott and Hort argued exactly as you do that the older must be better and therefore must be closer to the autographs. The difficulties start when one asks on what basis the older is better? What science can they use to justify their view. And also regarding all the differences (or variant readings) how would they scientifically determine which are genuine scribal errors and which are purposeful changes by heretics. The "science" however is a house of cards, like evolution, one conjecture upon another with no proof of anything. Study it yourself.
Dorcas wrote: Jim wrote: When that viciousness... ... Many of us who hold to the AV have engaged with you Jim with the utmost civility and respect....but you have responded with sarcasm, and vitriol towards the KJV, and want to classify us as a cult... Now who is vicious ?? Better turn your magnifying glass into a mirror....
Hello dear sister.
Liberalism is a spiritual cancer, and we don't expect the devil to abate a campaign that has been so successful down the centuries.
Jim can't help himself, and as I pointed out in my previous, the ones in that article to whom the finger is pointed is not the likes of the TBS but the KJVO folk. Problem is that Jim's willful mental myopia results in classing all folk who support the traditional text with the KJVOs! Duh!
Hope today has been a blessed day for all true saints and lovers of Jesus Christ to whom be the glory now and for evermore.
B. McCausland wrote: Some textual variants, along with some out-of-use wording, unusual syntax (word order) and obscure renderings might be part of what Spurgeon mentioned: "that the common version may be purged of every blunder of transcribers, or addition of human ignorance, or human knowledge â€¦â€ť. Pondering if TBS would consider KJV in these lines.
Not sure, but here is an excellent article on the suppositions of the liberal textual critics and the orthodox traditional text folk like myself:
Jim has clearly not even bothered to read the last link he provided in his previous, which clearly states that the position of the TBS is not KJVO, nor are we dealing with people who do not know their Greek and Hebrew, or people who do not understand the difference between the received text and he majority text etc. In his conclusion his criticisms are leveled not at such folk but the KJVOs!!