The Fathers Of Modern perVersions

[Guest Teditis]

Erasmus, wrote on the reasons why he edited the critical-texts; "It is only fair that Paul should address the Romans in somewhat better Latin."

Which should indicate to anyone that the TR was "polished up" with the intention of making the original authors "better educated". Erasmus

intentionally altered the Word of God, as it suited him. Not only that, he relied on previously translated texts that were in Latin... rather than going

to the older Greek texts, as source material.

In short, the KJV is relying on transliterations rather than translations of critical-texts and furthermore, it's is purposefully altered for the reason of

trying to make the Apostles something they weren't.

[Enoch2021]

On 10/3/2017 at 8:14 AM, Teditis said:

I think that Satan is very subtle sometimes and use small tactics to destroy.

KJ-Onlyists tend to look down on other Christians because they look down on the versions of their Bibles... thereby implying

that others don't have a fuller understanding of God, as they do. This causes division amongst Believers and that's something

that Satan revels in. The Pride that KJV onlyists show is self-apparent and pride is not from God, right?

On top of all that.. the mere notion that the KJV is without error is erroneous in itself... it's not "truth". And I think that Satan is

the Father of Lies... ergo, the KJ-onlyists are following lies and even preaching lies to others... confusing many. What of all the

non-English speaking brethren in the world? Are they to be without the whole Truth of God's Word, simply because they speak and

read other languages? Of course not... other Versions have been shown to be as accurate if not more accurate to the earliest writings

and God has made His Word known in many tongues. Why would anyone dispute this as vociferously as a KJ-onlyist would? I think

that's it's because they're deceived by Satan's lies.

What on Earth??

 

Quote

I think that Satan is very subtle sometimes and use small tactics to destroy.

Well... what are the TWO Tactics (and Practical Examples) that God told you that satan uses? ...

1.  Create Doubt in The Word...

(Genesis 3:1) "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"

Then...

2.  Outright Denial/CHANGE The Word of God...

(Genesis 3:4) "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:"

 

So how do you CHANGE the Word of God down through the millennia??  How many "Bibles" we got?   

 

Quote

KJ-Onlyists tend to look down on other Christians

1.  Stereotype Fallacy.
2. Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy.

 

Quote

 

KJ-Onlyists tend to look down on other Christians because they look down on the versions of their Bibles... thereby implying that others don't have a fuller understanding of God, as they do.

 

Non-Sequitur Fallacy.  Your Conclusion doesn't follow from the Premise---which is Fallacious to begin with (See directly above).

 

Quote

 

KJ-Onlyists tend to look down on other Christians because they look down on the versions of their Bibles... thereby implying that others don't have a fuller understanding of God, as they do. This causes division amongst Believers and that's something that Satan revels in.

 

1.  Non-Sequitur Fallacy (as shown above).
2.  So because some Christians have taken it upon themselves to research the Source Documents...and the known/SELF ADMITTED Heretic Translators (Westcott and Hort)... and brought these facts to the light; THEN...shared this Information with their Christian Brothers and Sisters; Therefore, these brothers and sisters are divisive and should be dismissed and we should go back to following the words of Established Documented Heretics to keep the peace??? 

Yes, makes perfect sense.  I'm sure The Lord would approve.

(Hosea 4:6) "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children."

 

Quote

The Pride that KJV onlyists show is self-apparent and pride is not from God, right?

1.  Stereotype Fallacy
2. Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy Premise.  Leading to a... 
3.  Non-Sequitur Fallacy Conclusion (Again).

 

Quote

On top of all that.. the mere notion that the KJV is without error is erroneous in itself... it's not "truth".

Straw Man Fallacy.  Whoever says that there are not ERRORS in the AKJV is just ignorant.

ps.  And, Please define what you mean by "errors"...?

 

Quote

And I think that Satan is the Father of Lies... ergo, the KJ-onlyists are following lies and even preaching lies to others... confusing many.

Great Googly Moogly !!! 

 

Quote

What of all the non-English speaking brethren in the world? Are they to be without the whole Truth of God's Word, simply because they speak and read other languages?

What on Earth are you talking about?  You do realize that the AKJV is 'translated' into other languages, right? (Obviously Rhetorical)

 

Quote

...other Versions have been shown to be as accurate if not more accurate to the earliest writings and God has made His Word known in many tongues.

1.  What 'Other' Versions, specifically??  And please provide the Source Documents (Codices)...?

2.  'Earlier' doesn't make something more accurate.

 

Quote

Why would anyone dispute this as vociferously as a KJ-onlyist would? I think that's it's because they're deceived by Satan's lies.

Well because each of your arguments are premised on Logical Fallacies.

Please post satan's lies then dovetail them with the AKJV to SUPPORT your claims...?

 

regards

 

ps.  I personally use: AKJV, Septuagint (LXX), ISV, and ESV.

[Enoch2021]

On 10/2/2017 at 8:47 PM, Marilyn C said:

Hi Oakwood,

Also a lot of Bibles have the word `she` in Eph. 5: 25 & 26, in reference to the Body of Christ, when in actual fact the word is `it.` Meaning His body, and not a female.

Let's have a look...

(Ephesians 5:25-26) "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;  {26} That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,"

I'm trying to figure out what your actual argument is here?

ps.  "...and gave himself for "it".  So Christ gave himself for Christ "IT" ? 

 

This is the ACTUAL Argument...

(Ephesians 5:27-32) "That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.  {28} So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.  {29} For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:  {30} For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.  {31} For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.  {32} This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church."

And This...

(2 Corinthians 11:1-2) "Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me.  {2} For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ."

And This...

(Revelation 19:7-9) "Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.  {8} And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints. {9} And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God."

Who is Christ's Wife...?

 

Quote

(1.) Both these errors have led to people believing that the Body of Christ is female  (2.) and comes back to earth. Very different from the truth

1.  Your first 'alleged' error is a Straw Man (Wrong Argument); SEE Above.

2.  This one isn't so clear, and gives me pause.  Many people conclude that because ... 

(Revelation 19:8) "And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints."

and...

(Revelation 19:14) "And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean."

...That "The Church" (Wife) is a part of the armies and follow Christ back.  IMHO...

a.  I don't think both are Mutually Inclusive.

b.  Wives don't battle/engage in Warfare.

So... I will not commit here  

 

Quote

the Body of Christ is Christ`s body, He is the head...

The Body of Christ is clearly "The Church" (Wife).  The Head isn't "The Body".

 

regards

[Enoch2021]

On 10/3/2017 at 2:12 PM, Omegaman 3.0 said:

the only thing makes me scratch my head a little, is the "Alexanderian (SIC) influence". I have to wonder why Alexandrian influence is of necessity of any more concern that European influence - or more to the point, the influence of Erasmus (a Roman Catholic humanist who wrote in Latin) on the Textus Receptus - not sure how that is any better.

Well...

*Codex Alexandrinus: found around 1630 brought to England.  A fifth Century Manuscript containing the Entire New Testament.

*Codex Siniaticus: found early 1800's by German Scholar Constantin von Tischendorf discovered it in a trash can  in St Catherine's Monastery at the Traditional Mt Sinai.  Dated around 350 AD, is one of the 2 Oldest manuscripts of the Greek New Testament.

*Codex Vaticanus: in the Vatican Library since @ least 1481 but not made available to scholars until the middle of the 19th Century.  Dated around 325 AD, complete Greek New Testament.

German Biblical scholar Constantin von Tischendorf wrote about his visit to the monastery in Reise in den Orient in 1846 (translated as Travels in the East in 1847), without mentioning the manuscript. Later, in 1860, in his writings about the Sinaiticus discovery, Tischendorf wrote a narrative about the monastery and the manuscript that spanned from 1844 to 1859. He wrote that in 1844, during his first visit to the Saint Catherine's Monastery, he saw some leaves of parchment in a waste-basket. They were "rubbish which was to be destroyed by burning it in the ovens of the monastery", although this is firmly denied by the Monastery.
Skeat, T. C., "The Last Chapter in the History of the Codex Sinaiticus". Novum Testamentum. Vol. 42, Fasc. 3, Jul., 2000. p. 313.

All three believed to originate in Alexandria Egypt; Home of the Gnostics.  
In 156 AD, Irenaeus (talking about the Gnostics): "Wherefore they and their followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures which they themselves have shortened."
*There are over 3,000 confirmed contradictions between the Vaticanus and Siniaticus in the FOUR GOSPELS alone !!

See it now?

These are the Codices the Heretics Westcott and Hort used in all their translations. 

 

A Side Note:  When the Lord decided to knock this wretch off the fence, I was directed to researching the TRUE Word of God.  After about 6 months of making sure all the "I's" were dotted (I needed to be sure ), I remember thinking what's an easy way to Absolutely CONFIRM what I found??  Well, what Bible do former satanists/luciferians (SEE: free masons) reference WITHOUT EXCEPTION ?   Well...

That would be the Authorized King James Version. 

Am I saying it is without error?  NOPE.  But for me, it's in Slam Dunk Territory.

 

Hope it Helps

 

[Marilyn C]

4 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

Let's have a look...

(Ephesians 5:25-26) "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;  {26} That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,"

I'm trying to figure out what your actual argument is here?

ps.  "...and gave himself for "it".  So Christ gave himself for Christ "IT" ? 

 

Hi Enoch2021,

It`s been a long time since we had a `chat,` discussion. So we know when reading God`s word that He interprets what He means, and thus we look at the context and also the whole epistle (in this case) & of course it needs to fit in with all of God`s word.

So...Eph. 5: 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it.` 

`it,` the church .....`and gave Him to be all things to the church , WHICH IS HIS BODY.` (Eph. 1: 22 & 23)

Quite clearly the Apostle Paul by the Holy Spirit, declares emphatically what the church, (ekklesia - called out ones) is - the Body of Christ. Now why does he do this? It is because there is another ekklesia, called out ones, Israel, so the Holy Spirit through Paul is clearly revealing that this is another group of `called out ones.`

Thus the `it` is the ekklesia, the called out ones, the Body of Christ, the New MAN.

`..so as to create in Himself one NEW MAN from the two...` (Eph. 2: 15)

Marilyn.  

[Enoch2021]

3 hours ago, Marilyn C said:

So...Eph. 5: 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it.` 

`it,` the church .....`and gave Him to be all things to the church , WHICH IS HIS BODY.` (Eph. 1: 22 & 23)

1.  Why are you arguing a Straw Man??

You said "The Church" isn't a Female.  Well...

This is the ACTUAL Argument...

(Ephesians 5:27-32) "That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.  {28} So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.  {29} For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:  {30} For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.  {31} For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.  {32} This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church."

And This...

(2 Corinthians 11:1-2) "Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me.  {2} For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ."

And This...

(Revelation 19:7-9) "Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.  {8} And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints. {9} And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God."

Who is Christ's Wife...?

 

2.  Now for the Straw Man, initially You said: 

"Also a lot of Bibles have the word `she` in Eph. 5: 25 & 26, in reference to the Body of Christ, when in actual fact the word is `it.` Meaning His body, and not a female."

After I challenged you with...:  "So Christ gave himself for Christ "IT" ?" 

Then you say:  "`it,` the church."

As just shown to you above, "The Church" IS Clearly... Female.

 

Quote

Quite clearly the Apostle Paul by the Holy Spirit, declares emphatically what the church, (ekklesia - called out ones) is - the Body of Christ.

Yes, "The Church"-- Born Again Christians.

 

Quote

Now why does he do this?

Well because it was Paul's honor that the Lord bestowed on him to reveal a Mystery ("The Church") which was NOT known until then ...

(Ephesians 3:1-6) "For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,  {2} If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:  {3} How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,  {4} Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)  {5} Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;  {6} That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:"

 

Quote

It is because there is another ekklesia, called out ones, Israel, so the Holy Spirit through Paul is clearly revealing that this is another group of `called out ones.`

Israel is NOT "The Church".

They have different Births, Roles, and Destinies.  

In fact, from then (See Matthew 13:10-11) till currently...

(Romans 11:25) "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."

The "Wife" ("The Church") isn't Blinded.

And Israel was known long before Ephesians was penned.

 

Quote

Thus the `it` is the ekklesia, the called out ones, the Body of Christ, the New MAN.

The "it" is Christ's: Bride, Wife, Chaste Virgin =  "The Church"; They are ONE Flesh.

 

regards

[Marilyn C]

2 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

 

The "it" is Christ's: Bride, Wife, Chaste Virgin =  "The Church"; They are ONE Flesh.

 

Hi Enoch,

as you said `one flesh.` Christ is man, and we, the Body of Christ are referred to as one new MAN.

If you want to continue this discussion, may I suggest we start another thread as we are going off topic as to greater detail.

regards, Marilyn.

[Enoch2021]

On 10/7/2017 at 12:11 AM, Marilyn C said:

If you want to continue this discussion, may I suggest we start another thread as we are going off topic as to greater detail.

Continue the discussion about what? ... "The Church" being Non-Female or "The Church" being Non-Israel? 

If so, both 'discussions' are quite over... don'tcha think? 

 

regards

[Marilyn C]

4 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

Continue the discussion about what? ... "The Church" being Non-Female or "The Church" being Non-Israel? 

If so, both 'discussions' are quite over... don'tcha think? 

 

regards

Glad you see a connection there, bro.

[frienduff thaylorde]

On ‎10‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 10:40 AM, Enoch2021 said:

Let's have a look...

(Ephesians 5:25-26) "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;  {26} That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,"

I'm trying to figure out what your actual argument is here?

ps.  "...and gave himself for "it".  So Christ gave himself for Christ "IT" ? 

 

This is the ACTUAL Argument...

(Ephesians 5:27-32) "That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.  {28} So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.  {29} For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:  {30} For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.  {31} For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.  {32} This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church."

And This...

(2 Corinthians 11:1-2) "Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me.  {2} For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ."

And This...

(Revelation 19:7-9) "Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.  {8} And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints. {9} And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God."

Who is Christ's Wife...?

 

1.  Your first 'alleged' error is a Straw Man (Wrong Argument); SEE Above.

2.  This one isn't so clear, and gives me pause.  Many people conclude that because ... 

(Revelation 19:8) "And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints."

and...

(Revelation 19:14) "And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean."

...That "The Church" (Wife) is a part of the armies and follow Christ back.  IMHO...

a.  I don't think both are Mutually Inclusive.

b.  Wives don't battle/engage in Warfare.

So... I will not commit here  

 

The Body of Christ is clearly "The Church" (Wife).  The Head isn't "The Body".

 

regards

Christ the BRIDEGROOM the church the BRIDE.    and no its not transgender or IT.   way too much pc in the world today , oh let it not be in the Bride of Christ the church.

OUT of all the bibles I have read their is no beauty like the KING JAMES .    FORWARD MARCH PEOPLES ,forward in the Lord.