/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

To state the obvious, Tischendorf could have been motivated to lie because it brought him fame and wealth, or to establish credibility for the reliability of the greek new testament.

It would be kind of like how a greek manuscript including the johannine comma was fabricated so that Erasmus would put it in his greek new testament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma#Inclusion_by_Erasmus

>>849044

It's high time that people stop mistaking them for them Baptists. Baptists are a legitimate denomination with world class scholars, contributing to both text criticism or many bible translations. They are not this meme group on anonymous boards. The bulk of the Baptist world doesn't want anything to do with that. Even their biggest opponent is a real Baptist: James White. If you want some solid teaching from an actual Baptist, read his King James Only Controversy book. Sinaiticus is a reliable manuscript unless you've lived in a bubble for the past hundred years. To say otherwise requires the most deep seated conspiracy in every branch of the church, of every denomination plotting against all of humanity (which is precisely what KJV Onlyists think too. This is their meme of the "NWO". Where Tischendorf is transformed into some kind of cackling lynchpin who laid the foundations for the Antichrist). This goes beyond merely being pessimistic about the world. It's downright Satanic. It's a worldview that hates the Church as much as atheists hate it. Seriously. I don't know any other group other than atheists that views the Church so badly and so worthless as these guys. Everything they say and espouse is about kicking the Church down and denigrating anything that comes from it. Who does this? Satanists.

As an aside, KJV Onlyists also act like the worst kind of women. You can try getting a discussion out of them, but it will always turn to slander, emotional appeals, and shifting the discussion to their opponents' "hidden" motivations and then completely devolving into global conspiracies reaching every area of the Church. And when I say worst kind of women, I mean cokehead strippers. It might sound funny, but I'm serious: there's a lot of parallels in both of their argument styles. But good luck.

>>849054

No I'm asking for a particular fellow baptist who has read into this issue and posted about it before

Where have you come across tischendorf criticism? Can you explain it to me in simple terms?

>>849044

>I'm looking for the baptist poster who has strong opinions about Tischendorf and Codex Sinaiticus

Ok.

>I want to get to the bottom of the reliability of sinaiticus, or critical text sources more generally.

The reason is pretty simple. To say its variations are accurate is to say that God failed to preserve his word for every generation. It was not discovered until 1859 at the earliest, and published much later.

This goes against prophecies stating that the word of God neither changes, nor will it pass away until the end of the world. The only way you could implicitly say those prophecies are false, is if you do not believe them, which the majority do not believe. Christ said that the way is wide that leads to destruction. Therefore the current situation exists.

>>849045

>To state the obvious, Tischendorf could have been motivated to lie

I have no idea on his part. The problem isn't the quality of work here, but the underlying assumptions about God's word being lost that are inaccurate.

Now as far as Westcott and Hort, there may have been some real animus against the Scripture, just going off of some of the things they said, but again, that isn't the point.

>It would be kind of like how a greek manuscript including the johannine comma was fabricated so that Erasmus would put it in

Then why did Stephanus, who corrected and made a more accurate Greek New Testament still include it? Stephanus corrected most of the minor inaccuracies of Erasmus' rushed text in his Greek column, which according to Erasmus himself was more of an aside to the column containing his own Latin edition. It is actually surprising how close he got to correct despite not putting much work into it, but Stephanus' 1550 T.R. corrected these flaws and they of course kept 1 John 5:7 unchanged. This is because the real evidence is in its favor and always has been.

But regarding the thing you just mentioned:

>"What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus' promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H. J. DeJonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion." Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of The New Testament, 3rd Edition, p 291 fn 2.

But of course, the real reason is because Stephanus and those that came after him all unanimously made the same conclusion about 1 John 5:7 as Stephanus. There were a few places like 1 John 2:23b or Luke 17:36 that they were less sure of back then (today there is no doubt about these two), but 1 John 5:7 nobody doubted.

>>849054

>James White

He does not believe that the Bible has always been the same.

>"Often the Textus Receptus is claimed to be the "text of the reformation" or the "text of the reformers." The claim's desired effect is to add to the TR's weight the witness of such great men of God as Martin Luther and John Calvin. Is this claim tenable though? Everyone admits that the Greek text utilized by Luther in his preaching and by Calvin in his writing and teaching was what would become known as the Textus Receptus. But we must point out that they used this text by default, not by choice. In other words, it was not so much a matter of their rejecting other text types as it was a matter of using what was available. One cannot assert with any level of confidence that Calvin, were he alive today, would hold to the Textus Receptus as the inspired text. In fact there is good reason to think otherwise." James White, The King James Only Controversy, pp. 113-114.

So James White thinks that the only text that was available was false. But what does Scripture say?

1 Peter 1:23-25

>23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

>24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:

>25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Luke 16:17

>17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Matthew 24:35

>35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Proverbs 30:5-6

> 5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

> 6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Isaiah 30:8

8 Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever:

Isaiah 59:21

21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

Psalm 12:6-7

6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

>>849070

So its really just that you hold as a higher conviction the doctrine of the preservation of scripture, and the historical data doesn't matter? A doctrine that was first articulated in the Westminster confession?

This is the argument which I find refutes the preservation of scripture TR position, just for the sake of discussion

https://bible.org/article/inspiration-preservation-and-new-testament-textual-criticism

Here's the most relevant portion:

>Only three brief points will be made here, in hopes of stimulating a dialogue on this issue.

>First, the doctrine of preservation was not a doctrine of the ancient church. In fact, it was not stated in any creed until the seventeenth century (in the Westminster Confession of 1646). The recent arrival of such a doctrine, of course, does not necessarily argue against it—but neither does its youthfulness argue for it. Perhaps what needs to be explored more fully is precisely what the framers of the Westminster Confession and the Helvetic Consensus Formula (in 1675) really meant by providential preservation.

>Second, the major scriptural texts alleged to support the doctrine of preservation need to be reexamined in a new light. I am aware of only one substantial articulation of the biblical basis for this doctrine by a majority text advocate. In Donald Brake’s essay, “The Preservation of the Scriptures,” five major passages are adduced as proof that preservation refers to the written Word of God: Ps. 119:89, Isa. 40:8, Matt. 5:17–18, John 10:35, and 1 Pet. 1:23–25.73 One of the fundamental problems with the use of these passages is that merely because “God’s Word” is mentioned in them it is assumed that the written, canonical, revelation of God is meant.74 But 1 Pet. 1:23–25, for example, in quoting Isa. 40:8, uses ῥῆμα (not λόγος)—a term which typically refers to the spoken word.75 Brake’s interpretation of Ps. 119:89 (“For ever, O Lord, your word is settled in heaven”) is, to put it mildly, improbable: “The Word which is settled in heaven was placed there by a deliberate and purposeful act of God Himself.”76 It seems that a better interpretation of all these texts is that they are statements concerning either divine ethical principles (i.e., moral laws which cannot be violated without some kind of consequences) or the promise of fulfilled prophecy.77 The assumptions that most evangelicals make about the doctrine of preservation need to be scrutinized in light of this exegetical construct.

>Third, if the doctrine of the preservation of scripture has neither ancient historical roots, nor any direct biblical basis, what can we legitimately say about the text of the New Testament? My own preference is to speak of God’s providential care of the text as can be seen throughout church history, without elevating such to the level of doctrine. If this makes us theologically uncomfortable, it should at the same time make us at ease historically, for the NT is the most remarkably preserved text of the ancient world—both in terms of the quantity of manuscripts and in their temporal proximity to the originals. Not only this, but the fact that no major doctrine is affected by any viable textual variant surely speaks of God’s providential care of the text. Just because there is no verse to prove this does not make it any less true.78

So if the doctrine of the preservation of scripture is weak, the cause to use a TR/majority text manuscript base would just need to be an evaluation of the available manuscripts. I'm even willing to consider some conspiratorial takes, like Steven Anderson's suggestion that the DSS were fabricated by Zionists to prop up the founding of the state of Israel.

Looking at the KJV itself as a translation there's also plenty of other reasons to use it like its historic significance, its influence on English, its public domain status and so on.

>>849077

Question 1: Why should I be convinced to disbelieve what the Bible says based on this person's literature?

I know there is no adequate answer to this question, but I will proceed with it anyway for instructive value. Let us see what the first 10 major mistakes are in this piece.

>And with the publication of the New King James New Testament in 19792 (in which the KJV was rendered in modern English), the translational differences are diminished…

This is false and misleading. In the NKJV New Testament, Matthew 7:14, the word "narrow" is mistakenly retranslated as "difficult" to give a false impression. See the lexicon definition given below for context on this word:

Θλίβω, f. ψω, p. τέθλιφα, a. l. ξφλιψα, p. pass. τίθλιμμαι, to press upon, encumber, throng, crowd, Mar. 3. 9; met. to oppress, afflict, 2 Co. 1. 6; 4. 8, et al. ; to compress, confine in narrow limits ; pass. to be compressed, narrow, Mat. 7. 14.

This change also changes doctrine by making it seem like it is supposed to be difficult to work your way into heaven according to the NKJV version of what Jesus Christ said.

The NKJV also changes John 5:39 from imperative mood into indicative mood, removing the command to search the scriptures.

The NKJV changes Acts 3:13 and 26 from "his Son Jesus" to "his servant Jesus" for textual reasons.

The NKJV changes Hebrews 3:16 to say the opposite of what the KJV says.

The NKJV explicitly changes Jude 1:3 to match the modern "critical text" reading.

It also changes Jude 1:19 from "separate themselves" to "cause divisions" which is the same as what the modern versions all do.

The NKJV changes 2 Corinthians 2:17 from "corrupt the word of God" to "peddle the word of God." Corrupt and peddle have two different definitions according to the 1755 and 1828 dictionaries, the latter implying implicitly that the word of God is a "cheap ware" and removing the concept of corrupting or degrading the quality from pure to impure which is what "corrupt" means.

I have more examples if this is not convincing.

So that is one major misleading statement, let's find nine more before calling it good.

>The average modern American Christian who lacks the requisite educational background to read Elizabethan English

This is false and misleading. The Authorized version was updated in 1769 to account for modern standard English spelling. It is not as hard to read as the 1611 first edition was. Common working-class people have been reading from the KJV for many generations into the 20th century without significant educational background. The evidence for this is found in the existence of thousands of church records indicating that average, working-class English speakers were and have been reading from the KJV for centuries up to and including today. By overwhelming evidence the English style is not illegible to the average English reader. The average Christian therefore, does not lack the "requisite educational background" to read the English language. And additionally, the Elizabethan era ended in 1603. The 1769 revision of the KJV occurred over 160 years after the Elizabethan era ended. So another inaccurate and misleading statement again.

>What is the textual difference, then, between the (new) KJV NT and other modern translations?

The NKJV NT is not the same as the KJV NT.

>while the (new) KJV NT is based on a printed edition of the Greek New Testament (called the Textus Receptus or TR) which, in turn, was derived from the majority of medieval manuscripts

The TR was not derived from the simple majority of manuscripts, the process was more refined than that. The TR is usually close to but not the same thing as what the majority text is, so this key distinction needs to be maintained which the author failed to do.

>the question, “Which manuscripts are closest to the original—the few early ones or the many late ones?”

The question turns on some unstated assumptions and also rejects other assumptions that should be made.

It assumes that the most important difference between manuscripts is the (assumed) age and not the accuracy of their text to the received form. It fails to assume that we have always had the received text, which is what the Bible itself teaches. With that in mind, the question really becomes "where is the uncorrupted original version of the words located, and who has been using it?"

>In this paper it is not my objective to answer that question.

Then why did he ask it? Except to call to mind false assumptions that age of the manuscript is the only factor? If we found a clearly altered gnostic manuscript that was old, it would not be allowed to alter the Bible, obviously. There have always been heretics making corrupted forms, so age is not sufficient to show anything. Meanwhile, the key fact that we have always had the right text of the Bible should help narrow the bounds of finding the correct text for the New Testament.

We'll count that as five so far.

>>849077

This one is a minor misleading point so I will not count it as the sixth counterpoint:

>Inspiration (and inerrancy) is also used for the Byzantine text’s correctness in two other ways: (1) only in the Byzantine text do we have an inerrant New Testament; (2) if any portion of the New Testament is lost (no matter how small, even if only one word), then verbal-plenary inspiration is thereby falsified.

The Byzantine text is the majority text, which, as I already discussed is not the same thing as the received New Testament although it ends up being close to it. It is important to maintain this distinction to avoid confusing the issues and this author clearly fails to do this.

As for point (2), this is also misleadingly presented, because if one concluded that part of God's word was lost, it would not falsify verbal-plenary inspiration. Rather, it would mean whoever made the conclusion had a mistake somewhere.

>Even in the works which are dressed in more scholarly garb, this theological presupposition (along with the witch-hunting invectives16) is still present.

In his footnote 16, no example is given that is comparable to the Salem witch trials or to the medieval inquisition. He also makes several quotations with the implicit modern-millenial implication that because someone said mean things, that must mean they are wrong. But nothing in any of these voluminous examples of this footnote approaches anything like the inquisition or Salem witch trials held by the puritans.

>But this assumption begs the question in the extreme, since there is not one solid shred of evidence that the Byzantine text even existed in the first three centuries of the Christian era.

There is evidence if you read the Holy Bible. See 1 Peter 1:23-25. If you are more dedicated to various theories of higher criticism, which is indeed the position of many people with many worldly accolades, then maybe the witness of Scripture does not appeal to you as much.

More to say on that in a later post.

>Not only this, but as far as our extant witnesses reveal, the Byzantine text did not become the majority text until the ninth century.

He is talking with limited certainty. I am talking with absolute certainty in the word of God that it is true. I have absolute, not limited, certainty that the Holy Bible is the word of God, and it's not based on dating some parchments, it is based on a faith-based accepting and receiving of the words of Christ which I have heard and am convinced that God has literally given to us his inspired word.

>Furthermore, for the letters of Paul, there is no majority text manuscript before the ninth century.

How does he know this? Does he have every manuscript that was written before the ninth century, or only the surviving ones? So then how does he know this?

>No majority text advocate would tolerate such a fideistic leap regarding the person and work of Christ;

First of all, we need to keep clear the difference between the TR and the majority text.

Secondly, I have no idea what this sentence is talking about. What is an 800-year leap of faith exactly?

>it also is a cavalier treatment of historical evidence

Is the Bible not historical evidence in itself? Is "historical evidence" supposed to be a term excluding the Holy Bible?

>What confirms this further is that in several placed Origen, the great Christian textual scholar, speaks of textual variants that were in a majority of manuscripts in his day, yet today are in a minority, and vice verse.

The only thing that matters is that the received text has never been destroyed. The majority of printed copies could very well change, people could create numerous corrupted versions in some ages, but the uncorrupted received text will always remain. What he is arguing against is a majority text position, not a received text position.

>>849077

>Ehrman has ably pointed out the logical consequences of such linkage: Any claim that God preserved the New Testament text intact, giving His church actual, not theoretical, possession of it, must mean one of three things—either 1) God preserved it in all the extant manuscripts so that none of them contain any textual corruptions, or 2) He preserved it in a group of manuscripts, none of which contain any corruptions, or 3) He preserved it in a solitary manuscript which alone contains no corruptions.

No it is not required. This is a false statement. The word of God existed in fragments among the best-preserved manuscripts, some of which may have only been partial books, from which we were able to naturally derive the TR by legitimate textual criticism. Thus we have always had the correct readings in every place. Furthermore, the variants among the places where the TR sources disagreed are exaggerated out of all scale (most of them are spelling differences) while at the same time, the drastic differences between the TR and the modern critical text which do affect doctrine (they are obviously not qualified to tell us this and that assertion is easily shown to be false) are minimized by the same people.

Ok, that should be at least ten major problems with this article. Let me know if you are somehow able to refute any of these counterpoints. Better yet if you could show me why I should believe such a man instead of the Bible, that would be the only real way to counterargue my original question 1.

Now as to your own excerpt here, I would say his exegesis is wrong because ῥῆμα and λόγος actually are used together in 1 Peter 1:23-25 (he didn't note that, even though both words actually do appear) and also in other places such as John 12:48 which visibly demonstrate against his idea. His so-called "better interpretation" and "exegetical construct" is wrong, wrong, wrong.

>Not only this, but the fact that no major doctrine is affected by any viable textual variant

Yes it is and I can prove it and will be glad to. This is a flat out falsehood, no other way to describe it.

>>849079

>But nothing in any of these voluminous examples of this footnote approaches anything like the inquisition or Salem witch trials held by the puritans.

I should also note that it is quite unbecoming of Wallace to choose this analogy, because it was usually the "educated, ministerial" clergymen who were the ones performing the witch trials and the common people who simply believed the word were the ones being burned at the stake.

This is getting a little too nitpicky

I can only view the preservationist proof texts as a post hoc. It does not follow that God would be unfaithful if for centuries Christians only had less reliable manuscripts, especially considering how nuanced the differences are. The new testament church had no bible, and the first missionaries preached the gospel practically illiterate with a third hand idea of christian theology.

>>849079

I am not here to argue in favor of the translation choices or the manuscript choices of the new king james translators. I am asking myself the question of what is the most reliable approach to manuscript sourcing and welcoming your insight.

In most of your points here I think you're missing wallace's objective of stating the general context while focusing on the single issue of his article.

To rephrase: why should I trust the TR as more reliable, or why should I suspect the critical text approach as relatively unreliable?

Maybe the word is "retcon" or just eisegesis

>>849098

>why should I trust the TR as more reliable

Why should we trust the Holy Bible as more reliable? Answer that question first and that answers this question.

>why should I suspect the critical text approach as relatively unreliable?

Because they don't believe the prophecies about preservation. Out of their own words this has been shown.

Glad we could have this discussion. I have noted that all of the counterpoints above, particularly the ones about how the modern critical text changes doctrine as compared to the original (which by far is the single most important point and cannot be dismissed in a mere sentence of denial), and Wallace's poor mistranslation of the word λόγος on the textual basis of 1 Peter 1:23 and John 12:48, are still true and there is no reason for anyone to think otherwise. So far no attempt has been made to answer the first question either, why anyone should believe a clerical guy (who argues against and unsuccessfully tries to redefine preservation) instead of believing the sure words of prophecy contained in numerous clear places in the Bible itself.

It is not a surprise that there are many people who are trying to falsify the Bible. That's not a surprise at all, There always have been. But also, there has always been the true word of God available for our Lord to bring to our remembrance as He wills to have done. In the face of that, you have not managed to present much if any of a case against it.

>>849119

Because the Bible is Gods word. Our source material for the bible is various manuscripts.

So to distill the argument like we said before you hold the doctrine of preservation above evidence. Is that unanimously the argument in your reading?

>>849098

>It does not follow that God would be unfaithful if for centuries Christians only had less reliable manuscripts, especially considering how nuanced the differences are.

Then clearly you have not understood just how much of a difference one word can make.

If I went through a book and changed one word on every page, do you think I could falsify it? The answer is yes. The critical text has systematic changes, some of which are based on textual alterations that have a similar aim, other of which are systematic translational changes in the modern day that have the exact same aim in mind (because there are always people that want to falsify), which falsifies doctrine related to soteriology, preservation itself, and the doctrine of the Trinity, among other things. Consider the NASB and ESV version of Philippians 2:6 and how it makes Christ seem like he did not claim to be equal to God. Consider how Luke 2:33 and Luke 2:43 are changed to make Joseph the father of Jesus.

Consider how Jesus Christ is removed from Ephesians 3:9 and 3:14 and how the Father is removed from Colossians 2:2.

In 1 Timothy 3:16 "God was manifest in the flesh" is changed to "he was manifest in the flesh."

The name of Jesus Christ is removed from 1 Corinthians 16:22 and 1 John 4:3.

His eternal pre-existence is attacked in the modern versions of Isaiah 63:16 and Micah 5:2 as well as Revelation 1:11.

Prophetical statements about Christ such as Acts 2:30 and Isaiah 7:14 are altered in modern versions.

The critical creates plain contradictions in places like Mark 1:2 and completely reverses the statement in Colossians 2:18 by removing the word for "not." So if you say that none of these changes affects any doctrine, you must think all of these verses do not affect any doctrine. But Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 that ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine and other things. Are the modernist scholars saying Paul was wrong, and these scripture passages are NOT profitable for doctrine, so that changing them to say the opposite of what they say does not affect any doctrine? How are they so utterly sure of themselves on this point that they can brush this off with a single sentence denial? The fact is that they can't. This is the main point and they want to avoid as carefully as possible to discuss it. Hence the single sentence dismissal and no further discussion as an attempt to try to minimize it and make it appear as though it were not the central point and motivating factor of this. Their interpretations are full of eisegesis and they merely posture as having understanding of the scripture - their real aim is to invalidate the witness of Scripture by falsifying it and bringing people into believing them and their manmade interpretations and writings only (which allows people to continue living in sin which is what they want). Obviously they don't need to know Scripture that well to do this, they only need to know how to copy paste a few words of Greek, how to appear educated and to talk in a passive-aggressive, condescending and subtle barbed way about those who want to believe the Bible on its word. People who just want to live in sin will eat it up without criticism. But the fact is what they are rejecting is not those people such as myself but the word of God itself. They are merely rationalizing it by coming up with zany interpretations of the clear prophecies about preservation that conveniently explains it all away (making the word of God of none effect, as the Lord said in Mark 7:13), and hiding behind relativism, which is the real bulwark of this style of worldly argumentation. They think they never have to objectively explain the exegesis of scripture, but merely obtain scholarly credentials and then act like their opinion no matter how nonsensical is on equal footing, thinking this will fly under the radar due to widespread relativist perceptions and thinking "oh well if he's a scholar that means there must be merit to it"

You cannot sweep all of this away in a single sentence of denial that the modern version changes no doctrine, and his argumentation as I have shown is full of fallacies, false equivalencies and errors. Nobody ever corrects him on any of it because of relativism.

>>849120

>Our source material for the bible is various manuscripts.

Why does a saved person believe Scripture to begin with? Does it have anything to do with God or not?

>So to distill the argument like we said before you hold the doctrine of preservation above evidence.

No. Absolutely not. The Bible IS evidence and it is the strongest evidence over and above modern relativism. It easily trounces anything else you bring out, which is why they have tried to change the rules to define it as not being evidence. Maybe if you are a non-Christian, the Bible itself is not evidence. That does not convince me because I am a Christian, and I believe God has given us his inspired word.

>>849121

The problem is your entire argument is ass-backwards.

It treats a modern germanic translation as holy because it's supposedly doctrinally orthodox, and then backtracks it's accuracy to all of it's ancestors.

It's not "it's legit because the hebrew and/or greek is accurate, as i can prove, and the translations derived from it stuck closely to it's text".

But then again, that would mean delving closely into the grammar and linguistics of 2-3 languages, and that's way less exciting and easy to thump about.

>>849126

*the greek/latin of the TR.

p.s. im not the guy you replied to

>>849126

>It's not "it's legit because the hebrew and/or greek is accurate, as i can prove"

Of course it is. Scholars generally do not base their criticisms on the translation of the KJV but rather on the original language sources as being inaccurate. This was the original critique of Westcott and Hort which they brought as the reason why their translation, the Revised Version in 1880 needed to be made to replace it. In general nobody raises serious objections (except post-hoc to justify their own switch to the critical text). Certainly no one did until the Tischendorf revelations started convincing people they could pull it off. No, the Authorized version is generally accepted as an accurate translation of the Hebrew and Greek that it represents, with post-hoc rationalizations over a century after Westcott and Hort made their original argument for the alexandrian version of the Greek New Testament excepted.

>>849127

>*the greek/latin of the TR.

Nevermind Erasmus. Stephanus corrected his TR and used only Greek manuscripts.

>>849128

And before anyone tries to correct me on this, I am aware that there are passages like Ezra 4:8 - 6:18, Ezra 7:12 - 7:26, Psalm 2:12, Proverbs 31:2, Jeremiah 10:11, Daniel 2:4b - 7:28 which use ancient Syriac-Aramaic instead of Hebrew. I just had to say in advance that before someone was sure to chime in.

>>849121

>No. Absolutely not. The Bible IS evidence and it is the strongest evidence over and above modern relativism. It easily trounces anything else you bring out, which is why they have tried to change the rules to define it as not being evidence

You're misunderstanding me. Let me rephrase.

I do not find the preservation of scripture argument compelling as a doctrine. Besides that issue, do you base your preference for the TR on any manuscript arguments?

As a second question, are you aware of anyone who does?

>>849133

>I do not find the preservation of scripture argument compelling as a doctrine.

19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

>Besides that issue,

What issue exactly? You mean believing the Bible is the word of God? Or do you mean some strawman that exists only in your head?

Yes I believe that the Bible is the word of God. I believe based on evidence that everything it says is true. I am a Christian. I understand that atheists and others doubt the claims of Scripture.

>do you base your preference for the TR on any manuscript arguments?

Yes of course. The manuscripts that we have always had contain the word of God. Did you even read my post, man?

>>849081

The word of God existed in fragments among the best-preserved manuscripts, some of which may have only been partial books, from which we were able to naturally derive the TR by legitimate textual criticism. Thus we have always had the correct readings in every place.

>As a second question, are you aware of anyone who does?

Yes, me.

>>849133

>>849134

I think the problem here is a lack of two-way communication. You clearly haven't been reading my posts but objecting to the first thing you think is wrong without reading on to find the justification that I included at the end.

See here is the thing. You think this all originated with the compilers of the received text. That is incorrect. They, the legitimate ones, based all of their work on manuscripts in the original languages (specifically Greek since we're talking about the New Testament) that still existed. These have a history that goes back to the beginning in the first century. You do not have every manuscript that was ever written between then and now, so you cannot say that this is not true.

As far as knowing for certain what the Scripture says in other languages, you should be aware that Christians made an accurate translation into the Latin language which is known to exist as early as 157 AD but likely much earlier. This is called the Vetus Latina, and it in its uncorrupt state matches the Greek form very well from what we can tell. There were churches that could translate the equivalent to the TR that existed back then into Latin and distribute it to the churches in that form. So the existence of this family of manuscripts shows that people were using Scripture in both the original Greek still, as well as translating it into the appropriate languages.

Later on we have firm evidence that the Greek manuscripts were consulted once again to produce a full translation of the four Gospels into Old English around 990 AD. This would be to supplement the existing Greek and whatever Latin manuscripts they would have had at that time. The 990 translation survives today and is known as the Wessex Gospels, it also has none of the corrupt variants of the modern Vulgate in it such as John 3:5 where the word "again" is added or Matthew 6:11 where the word "daily bread" is changed to "supersubstantial bread." It includes the ending of Mark 16 and the woman taken in adultery in John 8. It has everything that the TR would have. This proves that people were still capable of translating from the originals into the language of the time at least in Britain. Most likely, there is more evidence to find that this translation activity (that is, above the "TR-Latin" translations that we also know existed) goes back further than 990 but investigation into how much of the Old and New Testament may have been translated pre-1066 England and Wales is still ongoing. The important thing, during illiterate times, would have been the ability of the reader to understand the language he was reading from, which, in many cases would have been from Latin manuscripts in practice, but these were based on the Greek. On the other hand, you did have people spreading corrupt versions during those times as well, versions which later manifested into the 1590 Sixtine Vulgate. But not all of the manuscripts were corrupt. So we continue like this until the council of Toulouse 1229, when Italy and France invaded what is now the south of France and instituted a world-wide ban of Scriptures and started the inquisition. One remnant that still survived all of this are the Vaudois, who lived in the alpine regions. They still had uncorrupted manuscripts during this time which they used, and eventually brought to the Geneva academy in nearby Switzerland during the 1530s. This was around the time when the TR was being produced as a single standard copy (Stephanus and Beza made highly accurate editions based on the manuscripts evidence) due to the invention of the printing press. And that is how we got to today. So combining this with my first paragraph this shows that the TR has always existed in manuscript form, and not only that but people knew it and were referencing it to produce translations in the appropriate languages.

In conclusion then, the corrupted Vulgate, and the somewhat similar "Alexandrian version" (they both corrupt Matthew 5:22 for instance) that appeared after the Tischendorf revelation, have still failed to completely displace the received New Testament even today, despite many efforts to do so, including the latest iteration under Westcott and Hort and via modernist relativism modes of thought that tells you that as long as you roughly know what something say, it doesn't matter if someone is allowed to change the words on every page (a standard that is so ridiculous it would never be applied to any other thing). This line of thinking is of course ridiculous and absurd if you have actually read what Scripture says and know the level of accuracy that ought to be required and expected.

"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

"Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

>>849133

>manuscript arguments?

Having said everything above, I think you are missing something important in this place when you ask for this. The reason why the saved believer of any age believes Scripture is not supposed to hinge on pseudoscience or long, drawn-out probabilistic reasoning. This makes no sense, it is nothing but a fraud that tries to pass itself off as true Christianity; It is a group of people who want to seem scholarly, and promote themselves, yet do not believe even the most basic things about Scripture that every believer, meanwhile, does.

It is supposed to be based on convictions that the God gave us his inspired word. If you think God was unable to inspire His word then that signals much bigger issues. It's the same exact problem with "higher criticism." I would never base my belief on later revelations, beyond what Scripture already teaches. That's just not what I would base my faith upon. Even if some guy seemed really convincing, which the people you have cited so far are not, it would not affect what I know is true from the doctrine of Christ. That's not what would hinge my whole belief system on. But that is apparently what you are doing. Making an article of the faith outside of what is contained in God's word. But why should anyone else follow your reasoning? You cannot cite scripture for it. All you have are things that are made to appear scholarly to try to convince people you are smart and know manuscripts, that's it.

And the things you have brought up aren't even that good, compared to the resources I have provided here which prove them to be objectively false and incompetently written. Notice: you still haven't dealt with any of the counterpoints I made because it seems you realize the validity of the argument against Wallace.

In addition to all of this, the only way someone would be able to prove that my position is incorrect would be to have in their possession every single manuscript that was ever written, including ones that have been destroyed or rendered unreadable today. They would need to possess every manuscript written in the first 10 centuries AD in order to be able to prove conclusively that none of them contained the uncorrupted New Testament. If they do not have that, then they cannot actually disprove conclusively the fact which I have absolute certainty is true. All you have are probabilities and limited conclusions. All you have is limited certainty that you might be right. It's a faith based on things outside of God's word.

Thanks anyway

>>849142

Sure thing, glad I could be of help.

I would also recommend to everyone reading here they should check out this documentary. It's been good to be given the opportunity to hopefully express some truth here today, my friends.

>>849150

A good documentary. The inability of some to critically think when their fee-fees are hurt is astounding.

Shem's death date being wrong in the KJV blows KJV onlyists out of the water for all eternity.

>>849175

Why is it wrong?

>>849184

Is there a place where it says Shem is Melchizedek? Also what is the significance of this particular difference exactly?

>so that they could claim he was Melchizedek who met Abraham in order to disprove the book of Hebrews

How does something in the Masoretic text disprove the book of Hebrews exactly?

>>849187

Because Paul in Hebrews argues that Jesus Christ is high priest in the order of Melchizedek. David in the Messianic Psalm 110 prophesied this:

>“You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.”

All that's known about Melchizedek is that he was a king and priest of Salem (which would later become Jerusalem), he worshipped God, and Abraham tithed to him and was presented with wine and bread (a preconfiguration of the Eucharist.) He has no genealogy listed in the Bible, but he was a priest despite not being a Levite. Paul in Hebrews argues that he was greater than the Levitical priesthood because Abraham tithed to him, and the Levites came from Abraham. Shem, forefather of Abraham, being Melchizedek would put him in the same line as the Levites and BTFO Paul's arguments. That's why the jews edited their own holy texts so that Shem lived at the same time as Abraham and they could claim he was Melchizedek. The dead sea scrolls confirm the Septuagint is the correct translation and the Masoretic is false.

>>849190

>Shem, forefather of Abraham, being Melchizedek would put him in the same line as the Levites and BTFO Paul's arguments.

I don't get it. It seems like really contorted logic because you just want to say all scripture has errors in it so you don't have to follow it.

>>849190

Okay I think I understand what you are saying, but is there a place where it says that Shem is Melchizedek? You didn't actually answer the question you were asked. In fact you didn't answer any of the questions. What part of the text disproves Hebrews? Where does the text say what you are claiming? I don't see the contradiction if the two men are indeed different people according to scripture.

Where exactly is the contradiction in the Masoretic to the book of Hebrews? What verse contradicts Hebrews?

>>849199

>you just want to say all scripture has errors in it so you don't have to follow it.

Extremely ironic coming from someone that hasn't even read scripture since I'm having to tell you everything Genesis and Hebrews says about what you're trying to argue about.

>>849205

>I'm having to tell you everything Genesis and Hebrews says

You have not quoted a single verse from either, because the contradicting verses do not exist.

If you say something is in the Bible, and it is not, and then people don't understand what in the world you are talking about the fault is yours. There is no verse in Genesis or Hebrews that contradicts, otherwise you would be able to point to it and easily show us.

>>849184

>There is no existing perfect English translation of the Bible. They all have varying degrees of problems,

This is your original thesis. You clearly just want to say everything has errors in it because it gives you the freedom to choose whatever you want as the truth. This is what the above posts were arguing above. People want multiple modern version to choose from so that they can worm their way out of the parts of Scripture they do not like.

>>849213

I'm telling you that in the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls Shem died at age 435. This makes it impossible for him to have met Abraham and impossible to have been Melchizedek. The jews changed this age to 600 in the Masoretic so they could claim Shem is Melchizedek and that's exactly what they do. That is the jewish belief now of who Melchizedek is, and why Jesus Christ doesn't fit the prophecies. If you want to BTFO a jew on this point you have to turn to where the age is correct and that isn't in the KJV.

>>849214

Tell us what verse contradicts Hebrews. Tell us what verse says that Shem is Melchizedek. Unless you can do that, there is no contradiction. The Jews can make up whatever false theories they want.

Your original thesis right here >>849184 is that all versions have errors in them. This is motivated because that way like everyone that rejects the Bible, but wants to keep the "good parts," they can just say the unfavorable parts must be errors. This is, as has been discussed, relativist.

>>849214

Also, I'm sure you could "BTFO" someone by using something quoted from the Qu'ran, that still doesn't make it accurate.

I never said there was a contradiction I said it's a verifiable fact that Shem's death age is wrong in the KJV and I went to great lengths to explain to you why it's important.

>>849222

You wrote this:

>Jews when making the Masoretic texts that the KJV is translated from added 165 years to his life so that they could claim he was Melchizedek who met Abraham in order to disprove the book of Hebrews and Jesus Christ's fulfilment of prophecy.

You said "disprove the book of Hebrews." So show us what part of Genesis or anywhere in the OT actually disproves the book of Hebrews.

>>849184

>There is no existing perfect English translation of the Bible. They all have varying degrees of problems, but you can get God's message through most of them.

See here's the problem with this. You can't just say "oh this part is an error" because you do not like some prophecy in the Bible. What you should do is study more carefully to see how it all works together rather than trying to say everything you do not like is an error. Pretty soon from this you end up in cultural and moral decline, after consigning the Bible into the trash with all other books that have errors. Saying "they all have errors" is not going to be valid. That basically just means you think God was not able to keep his word from being changed so that nobody has it anymore. It implies the belief in a limited or weak god.

If you just want to use the qu'ran or some other book to try to make shallow arguments all day then you are able to do so. I do not see the need to dissuade people from believing there is an original without errors if that is truly the case. It only makes sense that there is an original and people don't want to believe it so they have to come and argue against it. They have to argue in order to justify their apostasy.

The word is preserved in the Septuagint, and the Dead Sea Scrolls that verify the Septuagint. These would be the basis of an ideal English translation of the Bible. Sorry I pointed out a mistake in your idol, the KJV.

>>849227

See here's the problem with this line of thinking. Someone could claim, The New World Translation or the Book of Mormon claims that all white people are the true descendants of Abraham, thus BTFO'ing modern Jews and proving that they corrupted the Old Testament. Any version that does not say this must therefore have been corrupted by Jews. Hence, you get 10,000 cults all with their own version that supposedly clears up those ambiguities once and for all.

Yet all along, the original version of the Old Testament doesn't even agree with them, they just rely on misinterpreting some things in it and creating contradictions on their own, rather than them being there in the text.

>>849227

>the Dead Sea Scrolls

So the Dead Sea Scrolls are supposed to be what everyone hinges their faith on. Before the Dead Sea Scrolls, there was no way to know what was true. But now that we have the Scrolls, finally there is evidence for the Bible. Right. That is a completely unstable and untrustworthy world view.

>The word is preserved in the Septuagint

You mean the version of Origen written in the mid-3rd century AD. The old version was lost a long time ago, and it likely only comprised of the five books of Moses. So where was the rest of the Old Testament?

>These would be the basis of an ideal English translation of the Bible.

You yourself admitted there were errors in it. Now you suddenly change your tune.

I suppose we are all expected to think that God allowed the original version of it to be corrupted for some reason. The question is why did God only allow a version edited by Origen with clear New Testament influences in it to be the only surviving version, and why is anyone going to be expected to believe that except they already have a bias against the original?

>>849246

>Which is it though. If you say it is the Dead Sea Scrolls, then what was everyone supposed to believe before their discovery in 1947.

Nobody says that. What we are saying is that the Dead Sea Scrools prove that the Septuagint is more reliable than any Hebrew Text

>You are implying in this statement that no one in the entire world knew the true Bible until that year, despite the composition of the Old Testament being hundreds of years before Christ.

Of course they did. In the form of the Septuagint and the Vulgate. This changed in some countries during the deformation, when the Christian Bible was replaced by Jewish editions

I can't tell if this guy is jewish or an uber KJV fanatic who must defend the Masoretic at all costs because the KJV is based on it. You know the KJV translators used the Septuagint for many Messianic verses the jews changed in their Masoretic because the KJV translators realized they were BS right? Like Psalm 22:16. It's the same in the DSS, the Septuagint, and the KJV and different in the Masoretic. Unfortunately the KJV translators didn't catch everything but blatant things like this they did.

Accusing the Septuagint of having "New Testament influence" seems a step too far for the average KJV idolator. I'm sensing a strong semitic influence on these posts.

>>849263

>the Dead Sea Scrools prove that the Septuagint is more reliable than any Hebrew Text

Who argues this?

>>849263

>Nobody says that. What we are saying is that the Dead Sea Scrools prove that the Septuagint is more reliable than any Hebrew Text

So before that year 1947 nobody could know for sure, according to you. Why does the year 1947 and some texts revealed to the world in a cave in Israel around that time become the decisive evidence you cite?

Is it because you're Jewish?

>Of course they did.

Well apparently you didn't know until 1947 because that is the evidence you cite. Not only that, but now you come here trying to say the received text from the original languages is incorrect and want to convince others by reference to something discovered in a cave in Israel in 1947 to change all of our Bibles from what they have always been.

>This changed in some countries during the deformation, when the Christian Bible was replaced by Jewish editions

Inaccurate, See >>849136 (You)

The Vetus Latina was translated on or before 157 AD. It matches the Textus Receptus. The Wessex Gospels were translated in 990 AD and it matches the Textus Receptus in the Gospels. Not to mention the received Greek manuscripts, none of which match the Vulgate version of John 3:5 and Matthew 6:11. I discussed this in that post as well. But, I am sure if you would have listened to the above post, this would not have been necessary to repeat here. I am repeating these facts again for the sake of other readers.

>>849265

>I can't tell if this guy is jewish or an uber KJV fanatic who must defend the Masoretic at all costs because the KJV is based on it.

I just believe God did not corrupt his own word. Meanwhile, we are dealing with people in this thread who think God is limited and unable to preserve his word. A weak god, in other words.

>You know the KJV translators used the Septuagint for many Messianic verses the jews changed in their Masoretic because the KJV translators realized they were BS right?

No examples of this, but by all means try to find one.

>Like Psalm 22:16.

The correct translation of the word in Hebrew is pierced. The form of it in the KJV is translated from the original language as it is in every single place. There is no counterexample without going to either absurd modern redefinitions of words, or inaccurately inferring that the translators of that version used the Erasmus edition of the TR (such as what James White does) and not the more accurate ones by Stephanus and Beza which were much more carefully and accurately compiled. In the case of Psalm 22:16 (and Isaiah 7:14 by the way, trying to change the word for "virgin" to "young woman"), modernists have tried to change the definition of the word, that's all. You apparently believe them. Maybe you also think the Hebrew form of Isaiah 7:14 does not say "virgin" either?

>Unfortunately the KJV translators didn't catch everything

Like what? I could point to the removal of the prophecy about the Son of God in Psalm 2:12 as an example of destroying messianic prophecies in the LXX. Unlike any of the examples you cite, this (Psalm 2:12) is a legitimate removal of a reference to the Son of God.

>Accusing the Septuagint of having "New Testament influence" seems a step too far for the average KJV idolator.

Yes meaning Origen took text straight from the Greek of the New Testament and placed it in their Greek Old Testament. The version we have today is edited by him, it has various corruptions in it simply due to the inaccuracies of the translator, not because the New Testament authors quoted from it.

>>849303

>meaning Origen took text straight from the Greek of the New Testament and placed it in their Greek Old Testament.

By the way I should also add, I still think the Greek from the New Testament that was transplanted into this version of the Old Testament is inspired. The only problem with it is that makes it a less accurate translation of the Old Testament. I would rather have more accuracy.

By the way, with regard to spreading corruption, see the headline back in August 20, 1987:

Pope Praises Jews as ‘Our Elder Brothers in the Faith’

What about the translations they made of the kabbalistic and talmudic texts in during the renaissance in Italy, during the same time as Bibles were banned and even owning one meant Christians would be burnt at the stake, an agonizing execution method. But apparently kabbalistic texts and talmuds were ok according to the authorities of catholicism back then. Open your eyes man, the two are corrupt peas in a pod, they agree on almost everything against Scripture, the Holy Bible. It is highly ironic and intellectually dishonest to pretend you and them are different and promote their inauthentic translations of authentic ancient languages.

Avoid the modern translations, the Greek text used in the modern bibles was written by unironic and unashamed occultists/new age spiritualists (whose names are Westcott and Hort). They were not Christians and denied the blood atonement of Jesus' death, burial and resurrection for mankind, and they also are keen on demoting Jesus Christ's deity as much as possible (they don't think he is the prophesied Messiah or God/Yahweh). Roman Catholic doctrine is enforced also where it wasn't originally in the text. Furthermore, the manuscripts they use are from Alexandria, where the same occult heresies were extremely popular, located in Egypt where also the Bible calls that land the House of Bondage, and God tells Israel to come out of it (Exodus 13:3 KJV). These people are Freemasons/Jesuits and they hate Jesus Christ as God over all. You wouldn't expect Satan to sit around doing nothing and not make counterfeit Bibles. If you believe that God does exist and does preserve his Word, then the whole argument of "oldest and best manuscripts" goes out the window, since God doesn't need to rely on manuscripts found in a rubbish heap in the 1800s or one buried and rejected in the Vatican library (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus respectively). Man's pride and wisdom says "oldest and best", not God's wisdom (1 Corinthians 3:18 KJV). The Jesuit and cardinal Carlo Maria Martini had great influence over the Novum Testamentum Graece that modern versions use. If you do not trust the Jesuits, then there is no reason to use modern versions.

The best New Testament manuscripts which make up the massive amount of Majority Text manuscripts came from Antioch, where the disciples were first called Christians (Acts 11:25-26 KJV). Only classic Bibles like the KJV use these manuscripts. Erasmus had rejected Codex Vaticanus as highly corrupted and of no use when he read it, but all modern Bibles use it (https://confessionalbibliology.com/2016/05/16/erasmian-myths-codex-vaticanus/). They also make new Bibles for money and can only secure a copyright if they can change enough words from the KJV and other translations, leading to unnecessary changes to the detriment of the reader and the overcomplicating of words by increasing syllable count. They are not just 'updating the old English', although they would love for you to think that. The translation teams of modern Bibles generally do not believe in the Bible fully (2 Timothy 3:1-9,13 KJV) or are highly liberal and support ecumenicalism (one-world religion like in Genesis 11 and Revelation, Satan's chief goal), and the politics of today's society (LGBT rights, feminism, political correctness) impact their translation decisions in order to sell more copies by being more inclusive. There will usually be non-Christians on the committees who help translate. If you are making the truth of the Bible conform to the world (which Satan owns) and submitting to it, then you are not standing for God's Word and you value this sinful world more than God. God's Word is eternal, while this world is not (Matthew 24:35 KJV), and the opinions of its people are temporal and constantly changing. "For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth." (2 Corinthians 13:8 KJV).

Verse examples here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqBEuxGY7DI

Some of Westcott's and Hort's statements which reflect their own changes to the modern Bible text:

>"I agree with them in condemning many leading specific doctrines of popular theology […] especially the authority of the Bible."

>"The fact is, I do not see how God's justice can be satisfied without every man's suffering in his own person the full penalty for his sins."

>"I never read an account of a miracle, but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability…"

>"Mary-Worship and Jesus-Worship have very much in common"

>"Baptism assures us that we are children of God"

>"I am not able to go so far as you in asserting the absolute infallibility the canonical writing"

>"I reject the word Infallibility […] of Holy Scripture overwhelmingly"

>"I […] cannot say that I see much as yet to soften my deep hatred of democracy in all its forms"

>"I suppose I am a Communist by nature"

(Source: https://www.billkochman.com/Articles-Non-BBB/textused.html)

>>853708

According to Paul, deceivers were already corrupting the word of God and forging false epistles that appeared to be God's Word at first glance. Genesis 3, John 12:3 and 2 Corinthians 4:4 KJV show that Satan is the god of this world and that the whole world has fallen under sin. Matthew 4:8-10 and Luke 4:5-8 KJV show that Satan owns all of the kingdoms of the world and he can give them to whoever worships him. Paul says that the mystery of iniquity (which is called mystery Babylon in Revelation 17:4-6 KJV) is already at work deceiving the world right now, but it is hard for non-spiritual people to see and discern it operating today (2 Thessalonians 2:6-7 KJV). There is therefore no reason to think that counterfeit Bibles are not being made today:

2 Corinthians 2:17 KJV

>For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

2 Thessalonians 2:2 KJV

>that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

The following verses show a fundamental corruption in the modern version's Greek text:

Mark 7:19 KJV

>because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

Mark 7:19 NRSV

>since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

What Jesus is saying is vitally important to understand because all translations, except the King James Version, state in 7:19 that Jesus had declared all foods clean (The New King James Version says this in a footnote, not in the text.) Jesus said in Matthew 5:19 that anyone teaching contrary to God's law will be least in God's kingdom. If Jesus did this, as all modern translations claim He did in Mark 7:19, Jesus is not God, which means He could not save us from our sins, our faith is in vain, and all mankind will end up in the lake of fire. Therefore, on the basis of this point alone, all modern translations should be rejected. Jesus' disciples did not understand the parable. It had to be explained to them. All modern translators also do not understand the parable, even with the explanation being in the text in 7:18-23!

We also see Peter reluctant and refusing to eat unclean meat in Acts 10 KJV, showing that the dietary laws were still very much in effect up until this point in Acts for Peter. The fact that Paul and Cephas later argued about it (Galatians 2:11-16 KJV) is clear evidence that he could not have declared all foods clean.

>>853708

>Erasmus had rejected Codex Vaticanus as highly corrupted and of no use when he read it,

Not only him but Stephanus and Beza, Elzevir and the KJV translators as well. They all knew it and yet did not use it.

>Verse examples here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqBEuxGY7DI

Isn't this that SDA program?

>(Source: https://www.billkochman.com/Articles-Non-BBB/textused.html)

This second website has a page that refutes the SDA, titled "Jesus is our Sabbath." Worth checking out as well.

>There is therefore no reason to think that counterfeit Bibles are not being made today:

True. It makes sense that satan would be trying to get people to read a false version like the modern versions, to get them off from reading the inspired word, which he is unable to destroy as it is protected by God. Unfortunately most people go along with it willingly because the various modern/catholic/sectarian versions pander to their lusts.

>Mark 7:19 KJV

Yeah, that's an interesting change.

>>853712

>Isn't this that SDA program?

It is, but Walter Veith knows a great deal about the occult, so he shows many corrupt modern changes that almost everyone else would miss. There's also no SDA doctrine in the video I believe. I don't subscribe to his denominational views, and only view his occult and NWO videos that are not based on Bible doctrine, that expose various spiritual principalities and powers.

>>853716

And I also wouldn't want to forget what Paul the apostle told the church in Colossians 2:

>Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

>>853716

>>853717

I'm aware, but it pays to 'know your enemy'.

Modern versions assault on Christ's divinity:

1. John 1:3; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 3:9; Colossians 1:16-17; Hebrews 1:2 - "Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things" (KJV) changed to "Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things" (NKJV etc.)

2. 2 Corinthians 5:19 - "God was in Christ" (KJV) changed to "in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself" (NRSV etc.)

3. 1 Corinthians 15:4; 2 Corinthians 5:15 - "he rose again" (KJV) changed to "he was raised" (NIV etc.)

There are many more of course; this was just the tip of the iceberg. All modern versions are gnostic Bibles, and all modern versions are Catholic Bibles.

Why does it matter? Your fake churches are just going to interpret scripture to mean whatever is hip and cool with the young people anyways.

On the topic of KJV bibles I'm looking for one that is single column, has headings, and is broken up into paragrphs instead of verse by verse. I also like when the Psalms are broken into stanzas.

Does anyone have one like this? I'm seeing a lot of journaling and study bibles but I just footnotes at most

>>854065

update if anyone is also shopping

The Cambridge Clarion Reference Bible does this, but it's very pricey.

The Cambridge New Paragraph Bible is formatted the same, and can be found cheaper in hardback. You can get this with apocrypha or without.

Thomas Nelson printed a thinline single column about ten years ago which can be found used.

Nelson also has a new print called the "sovereign collection" which is really attractive and does single column for the psalms and proverbs, but not the rest. It does have section headings.

>>854077

the paragraph bible does not have cross references

>>853805

>All modern versions are gnostic Bibles

Unfortunately this is becoming more true by the day anon.

The ESV and NET contain the following corruption.

At John 1:18 instead of:

>No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. John 1:18 (KJV)

They have

>No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.

This has long, long been known to be a corruption by gnostics in John 1. So far only some modern versions have included it but the popular ESV has it. Also the NET, one of the few more recent translations which changes the word "virgin" to "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14 has this change in John chapter 1 as well. See Isaiah 7:14 below and tell me why you think this prophecy is important:

>Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14 (KJV)

Why would the NET change the word from virgin there to "young woman"? Obviously it's a motivated change just like all the others. Same with ESV and the other modern versions by extension.