Papyri Evidence of Early Byzantine Greek Text Verse Word

farout · Mar 14, 2013

lawrenceb said:
I will take each of your comments, Chad, and reply. We must remain aware of a tactic of the enemy, and that is, Satan would like to keep us off-guard by constantly changing the focus of the discussion. Thus, if we succumb to that tactic, we are never able to come to a conclusion, never able to flesh out the truth of a matter before the focus shifts yet again. Let’s not go there. God’s kingdom is a kingdom of order; let everything be done in order, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little.



There can be only one truth. God’s word is the truth; by definition, then, all others which, for example, present any opposition to that truth, are counterfeits. The issue is: which one is God’s word? The reality becomes vivid when we see opposing meanings in the two bibles (i.e. in God’s Bible versus one or more of the modern versions).

The Holy Ghost witnesses within our spirit as to which Bible is the “holy scriptures.” Jesus said, “...the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers...My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me” (John 10-:4, 5). Our faith that God has given us his words is evidenced by:

1. The Message:

- The KJV most fully presents the central doctrines of our Christian faith, such as the deity of Christ, the Trinity, salvation by faith; new versions often omit these and other central doctrines.

- The KJV’s “separate from sinners” English vocabulary does not permit literal interpretations. For example, the KJV has ‘hell,’ instead of hades, ‘fornication,’ instead of ‘immorality,’ and ‘him,’ instead of the gender neutral ‘one.’

2. The Manuscripts: The readings of the KJV have been those of the church at large perennially, as evidenced by:

- Antiquity (before A.D. 450): Only the KJV matches Greek papyri, uncials, church ‘fathers’ and versions, such as the Latin and the Gothic. It also matches the oldest Hebrew Bibles.

- Continuity: Only the KJV matches the four aforementioned witnesses, plus the Greek minuscules of the Middle Ages and all of the pure vernacular versions throughout history.

- Variety: Only the KJV matches all types of witnesses, such as manuscripts, versions, and lectionaries from a wide variety of geographic locations.

- Number: Only the KJV matches the overwhelming majority of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and vernacular translations.

3. Method: Only the KJV is a contextually and linguistically precise, word-for-word translation of the pure text. New versions can use paraphrase and transliteration, while following corrupt Greek and/or Hebrew texts or vernacular editions.

4. Memorization: The Psalmist proclaimed that he had hid God’s word in his heart that he might not sin against God (Ps. 119:11). The KJV is unparalleled for scripture memorization. Memorization is enhanced by the KJV’s alliteration, rhyme, rhythm and fewer syllables. Use of the KJV allows intergenerational teaching (Deut. 6:7; 2 Tim. 1:5; 3:15).

5. Minutiae: Because of the immense weight of the aforementioned 4 items and God’s promises in Psalm 12:6, & and Proverbs 30:5 to “preserve” a “pure” word “forever,” we must conclude that any minute questions regarding the KJV’s renderings must be attributed to the “dark glass” through which we see a holy and powerful God.



I haven’t because I wasn’t asked to, until now. The NIV and most new versions omit Matt 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 24:7; 28:29; and Romans 16:24, just like the Jehovah Witness New World Translation and the Catholic bible. In addition to these omissions, the NIV omits 64,000 vital words. All current English versions are corrupt except the King James Bible. There was only one ark, one tabernacle, and one altar; there is now one faith, one Lord, and one Bible for English readers, the KJV.



If they are reading something other than the KJV, then they are not getting the complete words of God.



This is irrelevant. There are many born again believers who read modern versions. There are many heathens who read the KJV.



I have made no assumptions; don’t trust me. Rather, compare your NIV with your KJV. I’m not the one responsible for omitting those 17 verses and 64,000 words.



No one has “belittled” anything. The facts are the facts, regardless of how one perceives the info. The enemy would love to divert us into the flesh over it and shift the focus away from the real issues.



Up until now, you haven’t asked for proof of anything. Now I’ve provided that item.



Of course! If I am mucked up, I WANT TO KNOW ABOUT IT. I want to be admonished, reproved, and corrected in truth, because that is how wisdom is obtained. I was no different than the majority when the Lord put this bible version issue in my lap.

Indeed.

It would be nice. However, the majority is so ill-informed and conditioned on the issue that I often feel like I'm dialoguing with myself!

"Contempt"? That is an ad hominem attack, i.e. an attack on an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

No offence intended, but we don't select a "bible" based on our feelings. We select a bible based on God's truth.

You obviously believe all that you posted here are good things. I do not. We could pick out any one item and chat it up, such as the issue of the dead sea scrolls.

"devout adherence" and "abominable"? As I posted before, once you become aware of the facts of the matter, there is no other choice BUT the KJV. But this, of course, chaffs many people's hide.

I am not one such.

Sadly, the more normal scenario would have multitudes of provocateurs posting all sorts of falsehoods, with the others following them blindly. Very few are willing to take the heat that comes with a stand for the truth -- feelings be damned.

Again, do not judge me by those who have gone before me. If you have an issue you'd like to chat up, then by all means, present it here. We will not leave that issue until both "sides" are satisfied that the topic has been given full coverage. I have primary source documentation for any and all assertions.

Then please show me!

You and I can have a differing rendition of the facts (you see something from one side of the street, me from the other), but the truth is immutable.

What would that be?

Amen, brother.

Lawrenceb: Your extraordinary loyalty to the KING JAMES BIBLE is remarkable. In today's world loyalty is difficult to find, even loyalty in families is exceptional. Being so discriminating as to state a paticular translation is exclusively God's WORD, in written English, is a corruption of the TRUTH.

However, If someone was as much of a maverick for Jesus Christ, as you are for the KJV Bible, people would be surrendering to Jesus as Savior in exceptional numbers. To be so narrowminded about the KJV Bible is a corruption of the truth. Even if you genuinely believe what you say with all your heart, you are genuinely wrong. Your exceptional radical statement of the verses you say are missing, there is a definite explanation. In the oldest manuscrips the missing verses are not in them. The justification to keep those verses in the new translations would a corruption of the truth. However if there were some manuscripts that had a verse and some that did not have the verse, the verse would be put in but with [....] at the begning and end. Sometimes if it was a word that could have two meanings it was noted and a number connected to the side reference. To say there are missing verses or words is inaccurate, and twists the facts.

In translation any work of writtings, you want to have the oldest copy. As copyies keep being copied by hand many times, errors do happen. So it was with the Bible, mistakes that made little or no difference in the meaning were made. One example is Mark 16:9-20 these verses are not in the most reliable manuscripts. Most newre translations have the verses but they are noted as such. There are good reasons to doubt Divine authorship. Snake handling for instance has kikked a good number of those who took these verses literally.

You may have heard all I have said many times before, but I wanted to at least have a small say. There are explanations for all the things you have broght up. I honestly am really worn out with this thread as there is a undertoe of snarkiness, that sometimes I respond back with uglyness and Chad has encouraged me to do posts in a different way when I feel that coming on. So Lawrenceb I need to back off. Blessings.

tulsa 2011 · Mar 14, 2013

"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers," Romans 1: 28-29

Debate is Strong's number 2054, eris, a quarrel.i.e, by implication, wrangling, contention, debate...."

The first definition of eris is a quarrel.

The Online Free Dictionary defines debate as ""Middle English debaten, from Old French debatre : de-, de- + battre, to beat; see batter."

Preach and teach, but avoid quarrels that go on and on, because Paul lists this is a trait of the reprobate mind. And getting into quarrels can lure you into the dialectic, so you begin to become processed by it. The dialectic is a quarrel against that which is fixed, or absolute as is the word of God. The dialectic involves a quarrel in a dialogue. Read the parts of the New Testament where Jesus talks to the Pharisees. He preaches and teaches and they come back with dialectic quarrels, such as is found in the interaction in John 8: 32-43.

Brad Huber · Mar 14, 2013

Strypes said:
The KJV does not include the Apocrypha. My GNV (Good News Version) does. There is a lot of Jewish History missing in the KJV like the history of the Maccabees and the origin of the Festival of Lights/Feast of Dedication aka Chanukah. So to belittle other translations would be a wee bit hypocritical being that the KJV is missing entire books.

Actually, the KJV "did" include the apocrypha originally when it was translated. It was later on that someone, or group of someones decided it shouldnt be included. I have a copy of the KJV "with" the apocrypha here at home, its great.

lawrenceb · Mar 14, 2013

So Scofield used the King James Version - but he inserted notes right
on the pages of the Bible indicating his (Scofield's) preference for
the verse wordings of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.


This is not a slide into liberalism as much as it is a departure from the love of the truth. It may more accurately be described as a process where "the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in" (Mark 4:19) have choked our spiritual effectiveness. At the same time, the periodic conservative backlash to various liberal incursions tends to mask the overall departure from the truth.

For example, Oxford University Press is about to release a new annotated study Bible that is colloquially known as the Homosexual Bible. Most Christians are appalled at this, but the resulting backlash actually helps to perpetuate the illusion that mainstream Christianity is still vitally interested in preserving the historic Gospel. The truth is, amid the outrage at Oxford for the audacity to commercially cater to a group that practices such obviously unscriptural behavior, very few people recognize the fact that it was Oxford that originally brought out the Rapture Cult oriented Scofield Reference Bible - one of the most radical departures from the *historic* Gospel in the history of Christianity.

However, because we are now over 150 years into that particular apostasy which was largely accomplished through the *media* of a Bible that was positively overflowing with false doctrine in the form of margin notes espousing the counterfeit theology of dispensationalism, few would even begin to suspect the prophesied great "falling away" (II Thesselonians 2) goes that far back.

The issue of the Westcott-Hort versus the Textus Receptus remains a
matter of opinion unless people are willing to read and understand
posts longer than a few sentences.


Indeed. The god of this world reigns in the arena of “opinion.”

Being so discriminating...is a corruption of the TRUTH
a maverick
being so narrowminded...is a corruption of the truth
you are genuinely wrong
Your exceptional radical statement
inaccurate, and twists the facts
In translation [sic] any work of writtings
There are good reasons to doubt Divine authorship

Through rhetoric and fierce invectives, he has constructed his strawman and then dragged it to his bonfire. Does that sound like a truth lover, a born again follower of Jesus Christ?

Once an absolute standard has been abandoned, there is no logic for determining right from wrong other than human logic. Whenever one abandons the absolute standard of Scripture, the outcome of all religious and moral decisions is left in the hands of men. And whether these decisions are rendered by clergy, scholars, theologians, courts, synods, membership votes, or forum posters, if the decisions do not come from Scripture, then they must come from people of society, and sooner or later those decisions will inevitably be influenced by society.

The dialectic is a quarrel against that which is fixed, or absolute as is the word of God. The dialectic involves a quarrel in a dialogue.

Indeed. And they do it because fear is their master; they are afraid:

If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation... Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death. (John 11:48, 53)

The linguistic system is used to dialogue a synthesis from two opposite polarities. The system is frequently reduced to the formula specified as thesis versus antithesis equals synthesis. Also known as the Hegelian Dialectic (after German philosopher Georg Hegel), this form of intellectual witchcraft has now penetrated all walks of modern life - including religious doctrine. In the spiritual arena, it's crucial to see the process never really stops, but continues to dialogue away the absolute truth for the sake of continuing the discussion.

For example, in its most fundamental form, the Rapture Cult was a giant step in the ongoing efforts to merge Christianity and Judaism, with Judaeo-Christianity the synthesis of the two. As anyone versed in the process of the Dialectic will tell you, it really doesn't matter how far you veer from your position of absolute truth, for if you give even an inch of ground towards the synthetic center, you've already lost the game. This is because the process will be constantly repeated, eroding your absolute position, until you have "dialogued" your way to disaster with the evil that is already upon us.

The diabolical system of the Dialectic, in which the Devil sets up two opposing perspectives, is being applied to Christianity and religion, just as it is in every other conceivable construct. Without belabouring the issue of the broader subject of the Dialectic, thinking people everywhere have begun to recognize the tactic has been used for ages in multiple arenas. Its most obvious application is the present American political quagmire wherein the Democrats war with the Republicans every 4 years, in a contrived shell game in which both factions are actually united with an unseen agenda.

Actually, the KJV "did" include the apocrypha originally when it was translated.

The King James translators never considered the Apocrypha the word of God. As books of some historical value (e.g., details of the Maccabean revolt), the Apocrypha was sandwiched between the Old and New Testaments as an appendix of reference material. This followed the format that Luther had used. Luther prefaced the Apocrypha with a statement:

"Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriputres, and yet are profitable and good to read." (King James Version Defended page 98.)
In 1599, TWELVE YEARS BEFORE the King James Bible was published, King James said this about the Apocrypha: "As to the Apocriphe bookes, I OMIT THEM because I am no Papist (as I said before)..." (King James Charles Stewart, Basilicon Doron, page 13.)

tulsa 2011 · Mar 15, 2013

Westcott and Hort claimed that the Greek Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts on
Vellum (dried skins of sheep or other animals)are superior to the Byzantine Greek manuscripts because Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are older than the examples of the Byzantine type text available in the 19th century. This claim of superiority of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, said to be from the 4th century, is based on an assumption rather than scholarship. Real scholarship is found in the knowledge of experts who know the style of writing Greek letters from each period of history so well that they can tell from a manuscript approximately its date of creation.

The assumption of Westcott and Hort was that the more recent Byzantine Greek texts were inferior to the older Sinaiticus and Vaticanus because scribes in copying manuscripts were likely to make errors and that the younger the Greek text the fewer errors were made in copying it down through time. Since the Byzantine Greek texts were copied more, they were therefore more likely to have changes in the verse wordings.

However, another assumption is just as likely or more likely to be true. This is that the early Christians, before the third or fourth century, made more use of Greek texts they believed to be authentic and used those they thought were flawed much less. Therefore, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as more expensive Vellum manuscripts survived because they were not used very much.

What is certain is that Bible texts were more likely to have survived in the dry climate of Egypt than in the more humid climate of Syria, what is now Turkey and Southern Europe.

Here are some quotes from a site:

"...many patristic writers, some centuries before Chrysostom, also demonstrate a marked preference for the Byzantine readings, even if not always as purely as he. Pickering, citing the studies in patristic quotation carried out by Dean Burgon and Edward Miller, demonstrates that a number of patristic writers, some of them dating back to the 1st century, displayed not only a knowledge but also a preference for Byzantine readings16. Strouse likewise catalogues a number of specific examples of signal Byzantine readings which appear in pre-Chrysostom patristics as far back as Ignatius. (c. 35-115 AD)17 Dean Burgon, the original compiler of the patristic study, which was posthumously edited and prepared by Miller, determined that from the citations of pre-Chrysostom patristics, the ratio of Byzantine citations versus all others was 3:2. "

"Likewise, Byzantine readings can be found at many points in even the earliest papyri which are usually considered and catalogued as "Alexandrian." Regarding the papyri, Zuntz states,

"To sum up, a number of Byzantine readings, most of them genuine, which previously were discarded as 'late', are anticipated by P46....How then - so one is tempted to go on asking - where no Chester Beatty papyrus happens to vouch for the early existence of a Byzantine reading? Are all Byzantine readings ancient? In the cognate case of the Homeric tradition G. Pasquali answers the same question in the affirmative."

Colwell likewise concurs with Zuntz, stating that most of the readings of the Byzantine text "existed in the second century," according to his reckoning.21 Several of the other ancient papyri likewise demonstrate Byzantine readings."

"We "do not" have enough manuscript evidence available to rule out the existence and preponderance of the Byzantine text type from around the time when the oldest Alexandrian exemplars were produced. Given the patristic evidence and the readings found in the papyri, the opposing suggestion that Byzantine texts were present in good numbers can be quite reasonably advanced."

My comment; The fact that the numerous Byzantine Greek texts in existence tend to agree to a great extent on verse wordings is an indication that the Byzantine scribes who copied these texts over the centuries were faithful in reproducing them and did not change verse wordings or take away or add to the texts in any significant amount, as is warned against in Revelation 22: 18-19. In fact, those who a claim the recent English translations are superior to the King James, Geneva and Tyndale Bibles run into Revelation 22: 18-19 - because these recent translations contain a great deal of differences in verse wordings. Who added to the word of God and who took away from it? Was it not the recent translations?

"When the textual critic looks more closely at his oldest manuscript material, the paucity of his resources is more fully realized. All the earlier witnesses, papyrus or parchment, come from Egypt alone. Manuscripts produced in Egypt, ranging between the third and fifth centuries, provide only a half-dozen extensive witnesses (the Beatty Papyri, and the well-known uncials, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraem Syrus, and Freer Washington)."

The Alexandrian textual set, and thus the Critical Text editions, were used pretty much in Egypt only (with some spillover into Palestine and North Africa). They enjoy only a very small number of texts in their support, and even these texts are disparate in their consistency with each other. Further, their location, coupled with the apparent disdain which early Christians held them in, opens up the possibility of influence upon these texts from the various heresies which so permeated Egypt for the first four centuries of Christianity, which may have been recognized by early orthodox Christians.

Gnostic Influences on the Alexandrian Texts?

One of the charges often made against the Critical Text set and its representatives, is that these manuscripts show evidence of corruption at the hands of Gnostics. This charge is not made without reason. Gnosticism is a term which encompasses a large and varied group of speculative belief systems that existed in the first four-five centuries of the Christian era in the Roman Empire (and also in the Persian/Parthian Empires, but much less important to our discussion here). While varied, these groups yet held tenets in common. It is not the purpose of this monograph to delve the nature of the Gnostic speculations in depth, preferring to instead discuss individual tenets as they arise in the discussion below. The reader wishing to learn more along this line is invited to read The Gnostic Religion, by Dr. Hans Jonas, as well as other recent works on this subject."

will · Mar 15, 2013

tulsa and lawrenceb,

Do you believe in the supernatural enlightenment that the Holy Spirit is able and willing to do to our mind?
If you answer "No" then none of the things I write after this would matter to you.

Isn't that what the Lord promised us who chose him over ourselves?
That He will indwell in us, guiding and teaching and comforting us.

If God the Holy Spirit is unable to use *any* transalations of the Scripture to educate us, what other hope is left for us to understand the Word of God?

The matter of discerning false teachings and false translation does not depend one iota on our intelligence and our human wisdom. It is so grossly mistaken if we think that we can somehow learn the true meaning without the help from the Holy Spirit. We are supposed to grow, by consuming the Scriptures, any translations, any era, any version, any time.

Then who does the growing? God does. Not us. Whose fruit are we supposed to exhibit? The Holy Spirit's. Not ours.
Please don't be distracted by these quarrels among men, instead, wait on the Lord Himself to teach us.

lawrenceb · Mar 15, 2013

We are supposed to grow, by consuming the Scriptures, any translations, any era, any version, any time.

You've comingled two separate entities: 1) "the Scriptures," i.e. the word of God, The Holy Bible; and 2) all other contenders i.e. "any translations..any version..."

God tells us he has left us his "pure" and "preserved" word (Psalm 12:6, 7) The question is, WHICH ONE IS HIS WORD? Is what you presently have in your hands The Holy Scriptures?

Yes, God meets people where they're at. If people are sincerely seeking him, he can speak through "other [corrupt] translations," as he even used an *** (similar to a donkey) to speak to Balaam. But note, he only used the *** (donkey) when Balaam had refused to listen to him the first time. But, you've been presented with considerable information here, and it is now up to you to study the matter out and discern what the truth is, being ready to put aside preconceived ideas and conditioning. After reading these posts, you are at a new level of accountability before God.

Please don't be distracted by these quarrels among men, instead, wait on the Lord Himself to teach us.

Who's "quarreling"? He has taught us on this issue, even as we make that information available to others. In post #42, tulsa 2011 already exposed the "quarrel" aspect of those of a "reprobate mind" (Romans 1:28-29), as he and I continue to share information. Come join us if you wish.

farout · Mar 15, 2013

lawrenceb said:
[/B]
This is not a slide into liberalism as much as it is a departure from the love of the truth. It may more accurately be described as a process where "the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in" (Mark 4:19) have choked our spiritual effectiveness. At the same time, the periodic conservative backlash to various liberal incursions tends to mask the overall departure from the truth.

For example, Oxford University Press is about to release a new annotated study Bible that is colloquially known as the Homosexual Bible. Most Christians are appalled at this, but the resulting backlash actually helps to perpetuate the illusion that mainstream Christianity is still vitally interested in preserving the historic Gospel. The truth is, amid the outrage at Oxford for the audacity to commercially cater to a group that practices such obviously unscriptural behavior, very few people recognize the fact that it was Oxford that originally brought out the Rapture Cult oriented Scofield Reference Bible - one of the most radical departures from the *historic* Gospel in the history of Christianity.

However, because we are now over 150 years into that particular apostasy which was largely accomplished through the *media* of a Bible that was positively overflowing with false doctrine in the form of margin notes espousing the counterfeit theology of dispensationalism, few would even begin to suspect the prophesied great "falling away" (II Thesselonians 2) goes that far back.

[/B]
Indeed. The god of this world reigns in the arena of “opinion.”


Through rhetoric and fierce invectives, he has constructed his strawman and then dragged it to his bonfire. Does that sound like a truth lover, a born again follower of Jesus Christ?

Once an absolute standard has been abandoned, there is no logic for determining right from wrong other than human logic. Whenever one abandons the absolute standard of Scripture, the outcome of all religious and moral decisions is left in the hands of men. And whether these decisions are rendered by clergy, scholars, theologians, courts, synods, membership votes, or forum posters, if the decisions do not come from Scripture, then they must come from people of society, and sooner or later those decisions will inevitably be influenced by society.


Indeed. And they do it because fear is their master; they are afraid:

If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation... Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death. (John 11:48, 53)

The linguistic system is used to dialogue a synthesis from two opposite polarities. The system is frequently reduced to the formula specified as thesis versus antithesis equals synthesis. Also known as the Hegelian Dialectic (after German philosopher Georg Hegel), this form of intellectual witchcraft has now penetrated all walks of modern life - including religious doctrine. In the spiritual arena, it's crucial to see the process never really stops, but continues to dialogue away the absolute truth for the sake of continuing the discussion.

For example, in its most fundamental form, the Rapture Cult was a giant step in the ongoing efforts to merge Christianity and Judaism, with Judaeo-Christianity the synthesis of the two. As anyone versed in the process of the Dialectic will tell you, it really doesn't matter how far you veer from your position of absolute truth, for if you give even an inch of ground towards the synthetic center, you've already lost the game. This is because the process will be constantly repeated, eroding your absolute position, until you have "dialogued" your way to disaster with the evil that is already upon us.

The diabolical system of the Dialectic, in which the Devil sets up two opposing perspectives, is being applied to Christianity and religion, just as it is in every other conceivable construct. Without belabouring the issue of the broader subject of the Dialectic, thinking people everywhere have begun to recognize the tactic has been used for ages in multiple arenas. Its most obvious application is the present American political quagmire wherein the Democrats war with the Republicans every 4 years, in a contrived shell game in which both factions are actually united with an unseen agenda.

The King James translators never considered the Apocrypha the word of God. As books of some historical value (e.g., details of the Maccabean revolt), the Apocrypha was sandwiched between the Old and New Testaments as an appendix of reference material. This followed the format that Luther had used. Luther prefaced the Apocrypha with a statement:

"Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriputres, and yet are profitable and good to read." (King James Version Defended page 98.)
In 1599, TWELVE YEARS BEFORE the King James Bible was published, King James said this about the Apocrypha: "As to the Apocriphe bookes, I OMIT THEM because I am no Papist (as I said before)..." (King James Charles Stewart, Basilicon Doron, page 13.)

Lawrenceb: You know better than to take small snippets of things I have said and make a sentance out of it. Here is an example of me doing the same. " "Aporypha......thst is,....regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures,". Yes I twisted some words to get it to say something you never said! That is what you have dome to my post several times. To make people believe something that has been altered to twist a statement is unethical. If you use my statements keep it in context, please. Blessings.

lawrenceb · Mar 15, 2013

You know better than to take small snippets of things I have said and make a sentance out of it.

...That is what you have dome to my post several times.

I see nothing in your re-posting of my quote above which is “unethical.”

Exactly where and how do you believe that your words "have been altered to twist a statement"?

tulsa 2011 · Mar 15, 2013

When "it is written" is the absolute authority for a Christian, he becomes more interested in and concerned about which Greek text and which translation is the word of God
preserved as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

"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." Psalm 12: 6-7

"For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Psalm 119: 89

"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Mathew 4: 4

"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." II Peter 1: 21

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. II Timothy 3: 16

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Revelation 22: 18-19

Scripture is given by inspiration from God, by men moved by the Holy Spirit to write down and preserve what they are directed by the Spirit to write. The word of God, which means the words given by God, are settled and fixed and are preserved by God. Often one particular word in Hebrew or Greek determines the exact meaning given by God. This means that the translator must find a word in English that fits the meaning in that context given by the Hebrew or Greek word God ordered. To do this not only requires knowing Greek or Hebrew very well and also knowing English quite well. And it means the translator must understand the entire sentence and the whole thought of the teaching well enough to find that English word which fits the Greek or Hebrew. He needs the Holy Spirit to do this.

A good example is the Greek word ekklesia, which Strongs's says means "a calling out, i.e., a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation, Jewish synagogue or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both, assembly, church."

In Revelation 1: 11 the Textus Receptus says "λεγουσης εγω ειμι το α και το ω ο πρωτος και ο εσχατος και ο βλεπεις γραψον εις βιβλιον και πεμψον ταις εκκλησιαις ταις εν ασια εις εφεσον και εις σμυρναν και εις περγαμον και εις θυατειρα και εις σαρδεις και εις φιλαδελφειαν και εις λαοδικειαν."

For Revelation 1: 11 the Westcott-Hort says "λεγουσης ο βλεπεις γραψον εις βιβλιον και πεμψον ταις επτα εκκλησιαις εις εφεσον και εις σμυρναν και εις περγαμον και εις θυατειρα και εις σαρδεις και εις φιλαδελφειαν και εις λαοδικειαν."

Often when the Westcott-Hort wording differs from the Textus Receptus, the Westcott-Hort is shorter because the Sinaiticus and/or Vaticanus has a shorter wording than the Textus Receptus.

In the Westcott-Hort what is left out translates as "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last:" The word I am interested in, ekklesia, is in both Greek texts, "επτα εκκλησιαις" or seven ekklesias (churches). The King James says "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea."

Now, look at the Tyndale Bible for Revelation 1: 11: " sayinge: I am Alpha and Omega the fyrst and the laste. That thou seist write in a boke and sende it vnto the congregacions which are in Asia vnto Ephesus and vnto Smyrna and vnto Pargamos and vnto Thiatira and vnto Sardis and vnto Philadelphia and vnto Laodicia."

Tyndale is consistent in translating ekklesia as congregation, not as church. Congregation is an English word that is closer in meaning to ekklesia than is church, used in the King James and Geneva Bible.

The Geneva Bible for Revelation 1: 11 says " Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, that first and that last: and that which thou seest write in a book, and send it unto the seven Churches which are in Asia, unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea." This is almost identical to the King James, which is often the case.

The meaning for the English word church is found in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible which states that “church” comes from a word meaning “circle,” which is akin to our word “circus.” Professor Lipsius (German theologian during the Reformation) also shows that “church” came from “circle.” Professor A. F. Fausett of Home Bible Study Dictionary” agrees with Professor Lipsius. The exhaustive ten volume Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature under the word “church” states that:

“It was probably connected with the Latin circus, circulus, and with the Greek kuklos."

In Scotland it is called “Kirk” and in Germany it is “Kirche,” in England it is the word “Circe” (the “c” having a “k” sound).

But according to Brown’s book, “Kirke/Circe” was also the name of a Goddess.
Kirke or Circe was the daughter of the Sun god..."

"In classical Greek the word "ekklesia" meant "an assembly of citizens summoned by the crier, the legislative assembly."

The point is that the translators must match an English word to a Greek or Hebrew word as closely as possible. Tyndale did a better job with congregation than the King James Committe did with church. Yet, most of the English words of the King James match those of the Textus Receptus better than this one example.

Westcott and Hort (1881) wrote that the Bible is to be considered as an ancient manuscript, no better and no worse than other ancient manuscripts. This starting point denies that the Bible is inspired by God.

The reference (1881) above is: B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1881, and Introduction and Appendix, authored by Hort, appeared in 1882 (revised edition by F. C. Burkitt in 1892).

Westcott and Hort here admit the humanism which was their starting place in creating a new Greek text.

John Burgon, Dean of Chichester in England during the late 19th century said the following about the inclusion of a Unitarian on the 1881 Revision Committee led by Westcott & Hort that: "But even if the Unitarian [Vance Smith] had been an eminent Scholar, my objection would remain in full force; for I hold (and surely so do you!), that the right Interpretation of God's Word may not be attained without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whose aid must first be invoked by faithful prayer."

Westcott and Hort showed they did not have the Holy Spirit, not only in their assumption that they should deal with the Bible as with any other ancient manuscript, but also in their study of the occult, something scripture teaches us not to do.

farout · Mar 15, 2013

tulsa 2011 said:
When "it is written" is the absolute authority for a Christian, he becomes more interested in and concerned about which Greek text and which translation is the word of God
preserved as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

"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." Psalm 12: 6-7

"For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Psalm 119: 89

"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Mathew 4: 4

"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." II Peter 1: 21

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. II Timothy 3: 16

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Revelation 22: 18-19

Scripture is given by inspiration from God, by men moved by the Holy Spirit to write down and preserve what they are directed by the Spirit to write. The word of God, which means the words given by God, are settled and fixed and are preserved by God. Often one particular word in Hebrew or Greek determines the exact meaning given by God. This means that the translator must find a word in English that fits the meaning in that context given by the Hebrew or Greek word God ordered. To do this not only requires knowing Greek or Hebrew very well and also knowing English quite well. And it means the translator must understand the entire sentence and the whole thought of the teaching well enough to find that English word which fits the Greek or Hebrew. He needs the Holy Spirit to do this.

A good example is the Greek word ekklesia, which Strongs's says means "a calling out, i.e., a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation, Jewish synagogue or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both, assembly, church."

In Revelation 1: 11 the Textus Receptus says "λεγουσης εγω ειμι το α και το ω ο πρωτος και ο εσχατος και ο βλεπεις γραψον εις βιβλιον και πεμψον ταις εκκλησιαις ταις εν ασια εις εφεσον και εις σμυρναν και εις περγαμον και εις θυατειρα και εις σαρδεις και εις φιλαδελφειαν και εις λαοδικειαν."

For Revelation 1: 11 the Westcott-Hort says "λεγουσης ο βλεπεις γραψον εις βιβλιον και πεμψον ταις επτα εκκλησιαις εις εφεσον και εις σμυρναν και εις περγαμον και εις θυατειρα και εις σαρδεις και εις φιλαδελφειαν και εις λαοδικειαν."

Often when the Westcott-Hort wording differs from the Textus Receptus, the Westcott-Hort is shorter because the Sinaiticus and/or Vaticanus has a shorter wording than the Textus Receptus.

In the Westcott-Hort what is left out translates as "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last:" The word I am interested in, ekklesia, is in both Greek texts, "επτα εκκλησιαις" or seven ekklesias (churches). The King James says "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea."

Now, look at the Tyndale Bible for Revelation 1: 11: " sayinge: I am Alpha and Omega the fyrst and the laste. That thou seist write in a boke and sende it vnto the congregacions which are in Asia vnto Ephesus and vnto Smyrna and vnto Pargamos and vnto Thiatira and vnto Sardis and vnto Philadelphia and vnto Laodicia."

Tyndale is consistent in translating ekklesia as congregation, not as church. Congregation is an English word that is closer in meaning to ekklesia than is church, used in the King James and Geneva Bible.

The Geneva Bible for Revelation 1: 11 says " Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, that first and that last: and that which thou seest write in a book, and send it unto the seven Churches which are in Asia, unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea." This is almost identical to the King James, which is often the case.

The meaning for the English word church is found in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible which states that “church” comes from a word meaning “circle,” which is akin to our word “circus.” Professor Lipsius (German theologian during the Reformation) also shows that “church” came from “circle.” Professor A. F. Fausett of Home Bible Study Dictionary” agrees with Professor Lipsius. The exhaustive ten volume Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature under the word “church” states that:

“It was probably connected with the Latin circus, circulus, and with the Greek kuklos."

In Scotland it is called “Kirk” and in Germany it is “Kirche,” in England it is the word “Circe” (the “c” having a “k” sound).

But according to Brown’s book, “Kirke/Circe” was also the name of a Goddess.
Kirke or Circe was the daughter of the Sun god..."

"In classical Greek the word "ekklesia" meant "an assembly of citizens summoned by the crier, the legislative assembly."

The point is that the translators must match an English word to a Greek or Hebrew word as closely as possible. Tyndale did a better job with congregation than the King James Committe did with church. Yet, most of the English words of the King James match those of the Textus Receptus better than this one example.

Westcott and Hort (1881) wrote that the Bible is to be considered as an ancient manuscript, no better and no worse than other ancient manuscripts. This starting point denies that the Bible is inspired by God.

The reference (1881) above is: B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1881, and Introduction and Appendix, authored by Hort, appeared in 1882 (revised edition by F. C. Burkitt in 1892).

Westcott and Hort here admit the humanism which was their starting place in creating a new Greek text.

John Burgon, Dean of Chichester in England during the late 19th century said the following about the inclusion of a Unitarian on the 1881 Revision Committee led by Westcott & Hort that: "But even if the Unitarian [Vance Smith] had been an eminent Scholar, my objection would remain in full force; for I hold (and surely so do you!), that the right Interpretation of God's Word may not be attained without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whose aid must first be invoked by faithful prayer."

Westcott and Hort showed they did not have the Holy Spirit, not only in their assumption that they should deal with the Bible as with any other ancient manuscript, but also in their study of the occult, something scripture teaches us not to do.

Tulsa. Ok so what do you think we should do? Burn all the Bibles we have except the KJV? At this point, what's the point? There are christians of both sides of the debate who are far more knowledgeable then either of us. We are stalemated. You clearly believe the only Bible that is Holy Spirit inspired is the KJV. There is as I see it almost a worship of the KJV. There is no point to re-hash this over again. You are very inteligent and you expresss your facts very well. With all that's been said I do not know much about you, or your experience with Christ. There are so many more productive things to say and respond. When a thread starts to get a little snarky, thats a good time to take a brake or just take some time away from it. Blessings Tulsa.

lawrenceb · Mar 15, 2013

Westcott and Hort here admit the humanism which was their starting place in creating a new Greek text.

and

Westcott and Hort showed they did not have the Holy Spirit, not only in their assumption that they should deal with the Bible as with any other ancient manuscript, but also in their study of the occult, something scripture teaches us not to do.

Thanks for that confirmation!

lawrenceb · Mar 15, 2013

so what do you think we should do? Burn all the Bibles we have except the KJV? At this point, what's the point?

A born again believer can never be found to be sustaining a lie. And it’s never too late to do the right thing.

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9 KJB).

Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. (James 4:17 KJB).

Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. (Romans 14:22-23 KJB).

There are christians of both sides of the debate who are far more knowledgeable then either of us.

“knowledgeable” as determined by whom? The comment is irrelevant to the topic. Being “knowledgeable” is not the requirement; discernment as given by God’s Holy Spirit is.

We are stalemated. You clearly believe the only Bible that is Holy Spirit inspired is the KJV.

“We” are not stalemated. Either the Holy Spirit guides you into all truth, as the Lord intended, or someone else does...

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth (John 16:13 KJB).

There is as I see it almost a worship of the KJV.

How does God view his word? I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. (Psalm 138:2 KJB).

There is no point to re-hash this over again. You are very inteligent and you expresss your facts very well. 
With all that's been said I do not know much about you, or your experience with Christ.

If you’re concerned about people’s “experience with Christ,” why are you reading “translations” that were crafted by people admittedly involved with the occult? The facts speak for themselves; due diligence is incumbent on all of us.

Ultimately, it’s not about one’s “experience with Christ;” it’s about one’s standing within (...or without) the King of kings.

There are so many more productive things to say and respond.

...such as?

tulsa 2011 · Mar 15, 2013

If you go to Google and type in "Papyri Evidence of Early Byzantine Greek Text Verse Word (or wordings)" this thread will come up as a link. Most likely people who are not members of Talk Jesus but go to Google in search of this topic can read the thread. With this in mind, its not a good idea to get into word fights on the topic, but rather to cite scholarship and scripture relevant to the topic.
[h=1][/h]

lawrenceb · Mar 15, 2013

Thanks, tulsa 2011, I'm on my way to check that now.

...cite scholarship and scripture relevant to the topic.

Yep, yep.

tulsa 2011 · Mar 16, 2013

Here is another scripture on the word of God, this time by Paul: ""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." II Corinthians 2: 17

Corrupting the word of God can mean making false interpretations of a text which is not considered to be corrupted, that is, interpretations that clearly do not line up with other related scripture, but agree with some man made theology. Or, corrupting the word of God can mean creating corrupt versions of the Word, and/or of honoring corrupt versions above non-corrupt versions. For the dialectic mind, there is no absolute truth and no criteria for knowing what versions of the Word are corrupt and what version is not corrupt.

ASSUMPTIONS OF WESTCORT AND HORT: From: Eldon Jay Epp and Gordon D. Fee, Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

1. Earlier Greek manuscripts are closer to the original writings of the Apostles
2. A scribe usually went about blending the texts available to him trying to make improvements to the text; This is what they call conflation.
3. Older manuscripts have fewer corruptions.
4. Shorter readings are preferred.
5. More awkward sentence grammar is preferred.

Westcott and. Hort claimed that a shorter reading of a New Testament verse is closer to the original autograph and should be used in translation. But what they did, in effect, was set up their critical rules to reject many longer verse readings in the Textus Receptus and accept the shorter readings of the Alexandrian Greek texts, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

The main assumption of Hort in his Introduction and Appendix (1882) to the Westcott-Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881) was that the Textus Receptus was a late Greek text and therefore not as close to the original writings of the apostles as the fourth century Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. A key part of Hort's theory was his argument on the lateness of the Byzantine text which was used to create the Textus Receptus.

On an Internet site called The Majority Text vs. The Critical Text: Part One they say " Kurt Aland considers Greek manuscripts which are "purely or predominately Byzantine" to be "IRRELEVANT for textual criticism." Followers of Westcott and Hort call their 1881 Greek text based upon the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus the "Critical Text." In the world of textual criticism, the Byzantine Greek text is called the Majority Text.

In that world of textual criticism there is a lot of bias and opinion, shown by the statement that Greek manuscripts that are predominately Byzantine are irrelevant for textual criticism. But there is some honest scholarship by some on the subject of the Majority Text (Byzaantine) versus the Citicial Text (the 1881 Westcott-Hort text, based on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus).

"Hodges and Farstad write in the Introduction to their Greek text in reference to the two above mentioned published CTs: Although eclectic, both rely heavily on a relatively small number of ancient manuscripts that derive mainly from Egypt…. The text which results from dependence on such manuscripts as these may fairly be described as Egyptian. Its existence in early times outside of Egypt is unproven….

On the other hand, the witnesses to the Majority Text come from all over the ancient world. Their very number suggests that they represent a long and widespread chain of manuscript tradition (p.ix)."

Remember that the CT or Critical Text is the Westcott-Hort from the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

"Robinson and Pierpont write similarly, "The 'Byzantine' Textform (otherwise called the ‘Majority' or 'Traditional Text') predominated throughout the greatest period of manual copying of the Greek New Testament manuscripts - a span of over 1000 years (ca. AD 350 to AD 1516). It was without question the dominate text used both liturgically and popularly by the Greek-speaking Christian community" (p.xviii).

"But, "The Textual Criticism of Westcott and Hort, and their cohorts, cannot be defended from the Bible." Moreover, "It does not matter to them whether the Bible's testimony to itself is denied..." (Green, Unholy, Vol.I, p.11).

And what is "the Bible's testimony to itself" in this regard?

Psalm 12:6,7 declares:
THE WORDS OF THE LORD ARE PURE WORDS: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, THOU SHALT PRESERVE THEM from this generation for ever" (KJV; see also Matt 5:18; 24:35; Luke 16:17)."

Again, the absolute truth or facts of scripture are not the authority for the dialectic mind, which is the mind of Westcott and Hort.

"Harry Sturz discusses these "distinctively Byzantine" readings in his book, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism. First, he writes, "Although the reasoning of Westcott and Hort seemed sound at the time they wrote, discoveries since then have undermined the confident appraisal that characteristically Syrian [Byzantine] readings are necessarily late" (p.55).

The most important of these discoveries was several Egyptian papyri. Sturz lists "150 distinctively Byzantine readings" found in these papyri. Included in his list are papyri numbers 13, 45, 46, 47, 49, 59, 66, 72, 74, and 75 (pp.61, 145-159).

Green states the importance of these discoveries, "For example, the Chester Beatty Papyri [P45,46,47] contained sixty-five readings which had been ejected from the Bible by the critics. And Papyrus Bodmer II [P66], of the second century, actually was found to contain thirteen percent of all the so called late readings of the critic despised Majority Text" (Interlinear, p.xi).

Sturz brings up another very important point about these papyri, "They attest the early existence of readings in the Eastern part of the Roman empire in which the Byzantine and the properly (i.e. geographically) Western witnesses agree and at the same time are opposed by the Alexandrian" (p.70).

In other words, some early "Western" texts agree with the Byzantine tradition where it differs from the Alexandrian. Sturz lists 170 of these types of readings (pp.160-174). "

Green above is Jay P. Green, Sr, who did an English translation from the Textus Receptus and produced a Greek-English Interlinear.

"Sturz concludes, "In view of the above, it is concluded that the papyri supply valid evidence that distinctively Byzantine readings were not created in the fourth century but were already in existence before the end of the second century and that, because of this, Byzantine readings merit serious consideration" (p.69)."

There is another source of evidence for the early existence of the Byzantine text type, which is its use by several of the early Church Fathers. Even wikipedia, on the topic of the Byzantine text type, admits that "The earliest Church Father to witness to a Byzantine text-type in substantial New Testament quotations is John Chrysostom (c. 349 — 407);" But John Chrysostom was not the only early Church Father to use the Byzantine type Greek text.

On an Internet site, Forever Settled: A Survey of the Documents and History of the Bible
Part Three : The Witness of Early Church Fathers to the Received Text they say "Irenaeus (130-200)...He accused heretics of corrupting the Scriptures. His major work "Against Heretics" (c l85) are about equal in volume to those of all his preceding Fathers put together. He quotes the last twelve verses of Mark. He quotes from every N.T. book except Philemon and III John. Thus the dimensions of the Now Testament canon recognized by Irenaeus are very close to what we hold today.

Irenaeus said "The doctrines of the apostles had been handed down by the succession of bishops being guarded and preserved, without any forging of the Scriptures, allowing neither additions nor curtailment.''

This site says "Justin Martyr (100-165)...Miller says, "the texts of Hippolytus, Methodius, Irenaeus, and even of Justin, are not of that exclusively western character which Hort ascribes to them. TR readings occur almost equally with others in Justin works and predominate in the other three." TR is Textus Receptus, derived from the Byzantine text type.

Again the site above says "Dionysius (died 176) Bishop of Corinth. He complained that his own letters had been tampered with, and worse yet, the Holy Scriptures also.

Notice how all this contradicts Hort's statement "there are no signs of deliberate falsification of the text for dogmatic purposes." During the 2nd century, the battle raged between God and Satan over the preservation of the Written Word....Gaius An Orthodox Father who wrote between AD 175 and 200, he names Asclepiades, Theodotus, Hermophilus and Apolomides as heretics who prepared corrupted copies of the Scriptures and had disciples that multiplied these."

"Clement of Alexandria (l55-220) A leader in the famous Catechetical School. Speaks of his teacher Pantaenus with the greatest praise, "the deepest Gnostic." 'Though a forerunner of Origen and prime developer of the corrupt religious system of the era, yet Millers research shows he quoted more frequently from the TR than the WH, (82 to 72)." TR is Textus Receptus and WH is Westcott-Hort.

"Tertullian (160 - 221) Of Carthage in North Africa. He accused heretics of corrupting the Scriptures in order to gain support for their special views. Distinctive TR quotations can be found in his writings."

"Origen (185-254)...Origen was born in Alexandria, Egypt, the cradle of Gnosticism. He and Clement before him were renowned teachers in Alexandria's famous Catechetical School."

Reumann in "The Romance of Bible Scripts and Scholars" says that Origen had a team of scribes whose purpose it was to "correct" the manuscripts (pp S0-56). Westcott refers to his alteration of Mark 6:3. Hills states that he altered Matthew 19:17-21 and Burgon that he altered Luke 2:14. Kilpatrick says, "The creation of new variants ceased about 200 AD because it became impossible to sell them. From the 3rd century onward, even Origen could not effectively alter the text."

Origen himself, referred to the tampering of manuscripts in his day. "Nowadays, as is evident, there is a great diversity between the various manuscripts, either through the negligence of certain copyists, or the perverse audacity shown by some in correcting the text, or through the fault of those, who, playing the part of correctors, lengthen or shorten it as they please."

Here the site listed above says: "Apart from searching through the writings of the Church Fathers individually, a primary source for information his been the massive compilation of John Burgon. He gathered 86,489 patristic Scripture quotations. These are bound in 16 volumes and located at the British Museum. After his death, Edward Miller gathered and edited much of Dr. Burgon's material. He prepared a book entitled. "The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels" (1896). In this work, he undertakes the mammoth task of categorizing the patristic quotations according to its textual type. Oil pp. 99-101 is a table of 76 Church Fathers who died before 400 AD The number of titles each refers to the TR or WH kind of text is tabulated. The overall ratio was three to two in favor of the TR.

Kenyon says the following about Miller's research - "The results of his examination are stated by him is are found to support the TR in 2,630 instances (that is the distinctive TR readings), the WH text in 1753. Nor is this majority due solely to the writers who belong to the end of this period. On the contrary, only the earliest writers be taken, from Clement of Rome to Irenaeus and Hippolytus (AD 97 - 236), the majority in favor of the TR is proportionately even greater, 151 to 84. Only in the Western and Alexandrian writers do we find approximate equality of votes on either side. Further, if a select list of- thirty important passages be taken for detailed examination, the preponderance of early preponderance evidence in favor of the TR is seen to be no less than 530 to 170, a quite overwhelming majority."

Irenaeus in "Against Heretics" quotes a lot of the New Testament in which the wordings agree with the Textus Receptus.

Welcome!

Papyri Evidence of Early Byzantine Greek Text Verse Word

farout

Member

tulsa 2011

Member

Brad Huber

Loyal

lawrenceb

Member

tulsa 2011

Member

will

Member

lawrenceb

Member

farout

Member

lawrenceb

Member

tulsa 2011

Member

farout

Member

lawrenceb

Member

lawrenceb

Member

tulsa 2011

Member

lawrenceb

Member

tulsa 2011

Member

Members Online

Trending content

Newest members

Community Stats