Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

If you could read Hebrew and Greek


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Okay you guys have me all confused about this - which is not difficult to do these days :loco :lol:

Are the ones who are arguing about the validity of the last 6 verses of the Book of Revelation trying to discredit or explain away the scriptures that forbid the changing of any of the words of the Bible? Do you honestly mean to say that we should just rip that page out of our Bibles and throw it out? Or am I misunderstanding what you are trying to get at here and why you are so vehemently arguing about this? :puzzled:

If those last 6 verses of the Holy Bible don't mean anything, than neither does any other verses of scripture in the Bible - we might as well pitch the whole thing in the garbage can. Once we throw out that page, then someone else will come along and tell us that other pages are no good either, and expect us to rip them out of our Bibles too. Very soon we will have nothing left of the scriptures upon which our civilization has been based. What makes that any different than burning Bibles like Hitler did? You can argue about it, believe in it or not, throw in the garbage can and burn it if you have to, but God will continue in His work in spite of all the human efforts to eradicate his Holy Word. Do I have to remind anybody about the message Bro. Matt has posted on every page of Online Baptist? :wink


I think I started it by clarifying (with no other motives) that the warnings in Revelation are speaking of the "prophesies" in "this book". Kind of like how "behold I stand at the door and knock" is often used to speak of salvation, when it's really not according to the context. Pulling verses and using them out of context (even when ones motives are pure) isn't correct. Anyway- The rest of the discussion just evolved that way. Nobody here believes it's OK to add to or remove from the Bible. That would be very wrong. The only major difference (and it's really not that major since they both mean the same thing) in the KJV that uses Latin and the MVs that use Greek for the last 6 verses is the Book of Life / Tree of Life difference.

Of course, everything above I typed is a lie. The truth is, we are the Illuminati in the Alexandrian Conspiracy. We are the lying children of Satan, so in reality, we are trying to undermine the KJV reading so we can remove from God's word in our corrupt modern versions to try to destroy God's work, and to drag as many souls to hell with us before we die. But you pesky minority of true Bible believers are standing in our way and preventing Satan's work from continuing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

:haha I KNEW IT!


Of course, everything above I typed is a lie. The truth is, we are the Illuminati in the Alexandrian Conspiracy. We are the lying children of Satan, so in reality, we are trying to undermine the KJV reading so we can remove from God's word in our corrupt modern versions to try to destroy God's work, and to drag as many souls to hell with us before we die. But you pesky minority of true Bible believers are standing in our way and preventing Satan's work from continuing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Diversionary, not perversion.

As far as being a well known fact, that remains to be a matter of opinion.

According to your proofs thus far it is, John the Baptist guy on the forum says ... versus Doctor Hoskier, the pre-eminent scholar on Greek texts of the Book of Revelation says.

I'll give you one guess as to whom I'll believe.

Secondly, it is an myth exposed that Erasmus had no Greek text. The facts of history would indicate that Erasmus had ample evidences and ample first hand knowledge of the last 6 verses of Revelation from his 40 years of pursuing the information. His library alone took two young men to help him move it from place to place.

On this issue mr. baptist, your information is wanting, your loyalty to false information betrays your unwillingness to see any truth objectively.

I say again, in my years I have found the case to be this, any critic of the KJB, be he a TR man or a KJB preferred, in the end will reject historical proofs, citations, quotes from scholars for their own predetermined belief that no translation can be error free. Your doctrine of originals only is unbiblical and untenable, and worse yet, unprovable.
Sadly, not even God Himnself could change your mind. It's already made up.


What facts of history? You haven't mentioned any yet. You can believe as you wish. But I am familiar with many different scholars whom I trust. I studied under some. I don't try to attack everybody who doesn't agree with me and call them heretics or whatever. This is one of the evil things about the KJB only is they attack everybody who does not agree with them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

John the Baptist said:


What facts of history? You haven't mentioned any yet.



I say again.



I say again, in my years I have found the case to be this, any critic of the KJB, be he a TR man or a KJB preferred, in the end will reject historical proofs, citations, quotes from scholars for their own predetermined belief that no translation can be error free. Your doctrine of "originals only" is unbiblical and untenable, and worse yet, unprovable.
Sadly, not even God Himself could change your mind. It's already made up
.

Well, there you have it then don't you? It's a tough business this.

@ Kubel,

I appreciate your sense humor, at least you can maintain one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Calvary,

It wouldn't matter if we did show superiority in the original greek and hebrew copies over ANY translation, because anytime it is done you get so violently beligerent and deaf that no one can reason with your baffling ill logic.

Now if you showed that same fervor to the person who is spoken of in the book as you do to the english translation, that would certainly be a good thing! :lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I wouldn't take it personally. Onlyism is a position of faith. If you think about it, if someone gave you evidence that was in the slightest way against something you believed in with faith (such as the virgin birth, the resurrection, etc..), you would reject it too and probably consider them liars and workers of Satan- you might even go public with it and give them an attitude, and possibly let some hate slip. The only difference between onlyism and other things of faith (such as the virgin birth, the resurrection of our Savior, etc...) is that these other things of faith have scriptural support, whereas onlyism has none.

That's why for most believers, the facts are considered and onlyism is rejected- Because it's not part of their faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



What facts of history? You haven't mentioned any yet. You can believe as you wish. But I am familiar with many different scholars whom I trust. I studied under some. I don't try to attack everybody who doesn't agree with me and call them heretics or whatever. This is one of the evil things about the KJB only is they attack everybody who does not agree with them.


There is proof that the originals were inerrant, but you cannot accept the proof.

If you had no originals then you have no Bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

The only difference between onlyism and other things of faith (such as the virgin birth, the resurrection of our Savior, etc...) is that these other things of faith have scriptural support, whereas onlyism has none.


And pray tell, where do you get this "scriptural support" from? Is the AV 1611 scripture? You say that "the other things of faith" have scriptural support then you appeal to a Bible that you claim is not the scripture (by the definition in II Tim. 3:15,16) and has errors in it to prove this. Does your Bible have errors in it? I'm talking about the one you hold in your hand and read everyday not some manuscript(s) that you've read about in some guy's book. If it does then you don't have the holy scriptures and therefore have no SURE scriptural proof for the "other things."

The difference is that we believe in the "other things of faith" because we can read about them in our beloved AV 1611, the preserved word of God without error and you folks believe what some guy has written in a book about some pile of manuscripts that vanished a long time ago.

Wil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

And only the originals are inspired? Where is your scriptural proof for that? :loco

No translation can be inspired? Chapter and verse? :puzzled: :puzzled:

I recall kevinmiller in a post the other day saying to Kathy, no one will believe her just because her pastor said so and so and even less so since we've never even met him or don't know him... I thought to myself, my soul, can you hear yourself? Yet all day long men hold to unscriptural findings like "only the originals are inpsired", or "no transaltion can be inspired", because they read it in a book. The real problem is, you didn't read it in the book.

It's so ironic, "onlyism" is scorned yet you hold to an "onlyism" position that has not one Biblical verses to back it up. The word scripture in the Bible not once, not ever, refers to any original.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

And only the originals are inspired? Where is your scriptural proof for that? :loco

No translation can be inspired? Chapter and verse? :puzzled: :puzzled:

I recall kevinmiller in a post the other day saying to Kathy, no one will believe her just because her pastor said so and so and even less so since we've never even met him or don't know him... I thought to myself, my soul, can you hear yourself? Yet all day long men hold to unscriptural findings like "only the originals are inpsired", or "no transaltion can be inspired", because they read it in a book. The real problem is, you didn't read it in the book.

It's so ironic, "onlyism" is scorned yet you hold to an "onlyism" position that has not one Biblical verses to back it up. The word scripture in the Bible not once, not ever, refers to any original.


No translation is inspired. Only preserved.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Someone had told me that the KJV is based on newer manuscripts, and the older manuscripts disagree with it. That is, the KJV manuscripts were used extensively and got worn out and did not survive. Hence the KJV manuscripts are not as old as the other ones - is this true?

Love,
Madeline

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

No translation is inspired. Only preserved.


2 Timothy 3:15-17 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

What did Timothy have? Surely not the originals - he had copies. The apostle Paul said what he had was inspired by God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I agree - it is God's living Word, therefore as much inspired today as when it was given. Not newly inspired, but still inspired. The inspiration wasn't lost when it was copied or translated. It is still God-breathed, still quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword - and we can still trust it today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Someone had told me that the KJV is based on newer manuscripts, and the older manuscripts disagree with it. That is, the KJV manuscripts were used extensively and got worn out and did not survive. Hence the KJV manuscripts are not as old as the other ones - is this true?

Love,
Madeline


Well...yes...kinda. The absolute oldest manuscripts have variations that are different from those in the Byzantine Text Family. The texts used to create the TR were fairly new copies of much older manuscripts. Merely because the copies used to compile the TR are newer, that doesn't make them less authoritative.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...