Ccm Being Used By Temple Baptist Church Powell, Tn (Pastor Clarence Sexton)

[Ukulelemike]

I have come to understand that what makes a text currupt would be spelling errors, translation errors and so forth, so since all translation had some mistakes to it, the all had some corrupt issues of some sort

Negative. Corruption comes from false doctrines and changing/adding to/taking from the word of God.

 

Westcott and Hort specifically chose the two primary manuscripts to use for their revised Greek text, (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), along with a handful more because they admitted to wanting to produce something never before seen in Heaven or Earth. They deisred something specifically different than what the churches had used since the first century. They were spiritists, and held to many Catholic doctrines, such as Mariolatry, and held small regard for the purity of God's word. They approached it as something they could change and manipulate at their whims. Some quotes:

 

"I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).

"Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise." (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. vii).

 

"He (Jesus) never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him." (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297).

"(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ." (Westcott, Ibid., p. 16).

"(Rev. 3:15) might no doubt bear the Arian meaning, the first thing created." (Hort, Revelation, p.36).

 

"I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan. I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the doctrine of a ransom to the father." (Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter 1:1-2:17, p. 77).

 

"(Hell is) not the place of punishment of the guilty, (it is) the common abode of departed spirits." (Westcott, Historic Faith, pp.77-78).

 

"We have no sure knowledge of future punishment, and the word eternal has a far higher meaning." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p.149).

 

"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did." (Westcott, cited from Which Bible?, p. 191).

 

"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with..... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." (Hort, cited from Which Bible?, p. 189)

 

How can we hold to texts that are translated from the Greek written by men with such obvious biases against biblical Christianity?

[candlelight]

There are only two "Christian" stations on the radio in my area.  The CCM station makes me cringe.  The CCM, on that station, is more like rock music.  It is very worldly.  The other station is a talk radio station with occasional "Christian" music.  Charismatics have taken over that radio station, as well.  Although, I still listen to "Focus on the Family."  Thankfully, I have been collecting gospel music from missionaries that come to my church.  The pianist in my church also writes beautiful gospel music, and he sings old hymns of the faith, too.  I am also in the process of downloading gospel music on my IPhone.  A friend told me of some good gospel music to download.  She and her husband are church planters in the USA, Scotland and Europe and have been exposed to some awesome gospel music for years.  Also, she was raised by an IFB missionary, and has a number of gospel music hymns that she has heard throughout the world.  I used to listen to The Getty's but was convicted of listening to their music awhile ago.  I also love the old hymns I sing at church.

[Jeffrey]

Negative. Corruption comes from false doctrines and changing/adding to/taking from the word of God.

 

Westcott and Hort specifically chose the two primary manuscripts to use for their revised Greek text, (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), along with a handful more because they admitted to wanting to produce something never before seen in Heaven or Earth. They deisred something specifically different than what the churches had used since the first century. They were spiritists, and held to many Catholic doctrines, such as Mariolatry, and held small regard for the purity of God's word. They approached it as something they could change and manipulate at their whims. Some quotes:

 

"I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).

"Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise." (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. vii).

 

"He (Jesus) never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him." (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297).

"(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ." (Westcott, Ibid., p. 16).

"(Rev. 3:15) might no doubt bear the Arian meaning, the first thing created." (Hort, Revelation, p.36).

 

"I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan. I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the doctrine of a ransom to the father." (Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter 1:1-2:17, p. 77).

 

"(Hell is) not the place of punishment of the guilty, (it is) the common abode of departed spirits." (Westcott, Historic Faith, pp.77-78).

 

"We have no sure knowledge of future punishment, and the word eternal has a far higher meaning." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p.149).

 

"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did." (Westcott, cited from Which Bible?, p. 191).

 

"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with..... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." (Hort, cited from Which Bible?, p. 189)

 

How can we hold to texts that are translated from the Greek written by men with such obvious biases against biblical Christianity?

im talking about the word corrupt is a technical word used by the translaters when doing the work of translation from on text to another. its not alking about or implying that the Bible is corrupt. Just that the KJ bible had revisions.  Do you hold an original 1611, or do you read one of the revisions?

[Ukulelemike]

im talking about the word corrupt is a technical word used by the translaters when doing the work of translation from on text to another. its not alking about or implying that the Bible is corrupt. Just that the KJ bible had revisions.  Do you hold an original 1611, or do you read one of the revisions?

Updating spelling and correcting translator errors that have nothing to do with doctrine is not an issue-intentional changing is.

 

I do, by the way, have a reproduction of the 1611 and the doctrines are the same. And the Apocrypha of course I don't believe.

 

See this is why I don't hold to the Ruckman position-he says the actual 1611 is the perfect word and I don't think he even uses it.

[Jeffrey]

Updating spelling and correcting translator errors that have nothing to do with doctrine is not an issue-intentional changing is.
 
I do, by the way, have a reproduction of the 1611 and the doctrines are the same. And the Apocrypha of course I don't believe.
 
See this is why I don't hold to the Ruckman position-he says the actual 1611 is the perfect word and I don't think he even uses it.

I can appreciate that! I know people get upset when I say that translations are corrupt, I have to explain it that I mean it in the technical sense, not attacking doctrine

[prophet1]

Updating spelling and correcting translator errors that have nothing to do with doctrine is not an issue-intentional changing is.

I do, by the way, have a reproduction of the 1611 and the doctrines are the same. And the Apocrypha of course I don't believe.

See this is why I don't hold to the Ruckman position-he says the actual 1611 is the perfect word and I don't think he even uses it.

He has done his best to make sure that people reject the AV, solely on his attitude, actions, and made up "doctrines".
Sad, because he did alot of homework that we've all been blessed by.

Anishinaabe

[swathdiver]

Just that the KJ bible had revisions.  Do you hold an original 1611, or do you read one of the revisions?

 

This is incorrect.  There is only one King James Bible and it has had no revisions.  However, there have been several editions.

[John81]

If I understand him correctly, by "revisions" he's referring to the correction of spelling and other typographical errors; not actual revision of the text.

 

Revision is the wrong term to use with regards to correcting typos and such.

[Jeffrey]

This is incorrect.  There is only one King James Bible and it has had no revisions.  However, there have been several editions.

 

If I understand him correctly, by "revisions" he's referring to the correction of spelling and other typographical errors; not actual revision of the text.

 

Revision is the wrong term to use with regards to correcting typos and such.

thats right John, 

[swathdiver]

thats right John, 

 

So Jeffrey, which is the Word of God?  The NIV, NKJV, RSV, KJV or?

[Jeffrey]

So Jeffrey, which is the Word of God?  The NIV, NKJV, RSV, KJV or?

yes

[Ukulelemike]

yes

Things that are different aren't the same.

 

See, each of the new versions has a text that is copyrighted; the only way they could all be copyrighted, is if they were sybstantially different enough to be considered different books, because its against the law for two different people to copyright the same thing, while still in copyright, much less, like, 300. So they cannot all be the same.  Now, the text of the KJV is public domain, but the texts of the others are not. Why? $$$$-otherwise why would there be a need for so many updated versions? Why not one "good" one, and call it a day?

[swathdiver]

yes

 

Jeffrey, none of these agree with each other.  Does God contradict himself and is he the author of confusion?

[swathdiver]

Things that are different aren't the same.

 

See, each of the new versions has a text that is copyrighted; the only way they could all be copyrighted, is if they were sybstantially different enough to be considered different books, because its against the law for two different people to copyright the same thing, while still in copyright, much less, like, 300. So they cannot all be the same.  Now, the text of the KJV is public domain, but the texts of the others are not. Why? $$$$-otherwise why would there be a need for so many updated versions? Why not one "good" one, and call it a day?

 

 

Right Mike!  I'd like to add that for a book to different and have its own copyright, if memory serves, it has to be at least 10% different from another.  The Egyptian NIV dropped over 60,000 words compared with the King James which has about 800,000 words.  So for these Egyptian bible writers to get a lock on their translation, they have to change about 80,000 words to get a copywrite, or in NIVs case, they also deleted some 60,000 too!

[Jeffrey]

Things that are different aren't the same.

 

See, each of the new versions has a text that is copyrighted; the only way they could all be copyrighted, is if they were sybstantially different enough to be considered different books, because its against the law for two different people to copyright the same thing, while still in copyright, much less, like, 300. So they cannot all be the same.  Now, the text of the KJV is public domain, but the texts of the others are not. Why? $$$$-otherwise why would there be a need for so many updated versions? Why not one "good" one, and call it a day?

The KJV is copyrighted in England.