Quite right Brother Tony, and if we look to Colossians 1:14 we can see a similar occurrence of the very blood of Christ being drained from his word.

Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: (KJB)

14in whom we have redemption,[e] the forgiveness of sins. (niv)

The Lords precious blood removed and diminished to a footnote :mad:

When the idiot Gnostic scribe who jerked "blood" out of this verse did so brother, he made the reading to be that redemption and forgiveness of sins were the same thing, read the verse without the word "blood".

Grace and peace my brother

Tony

Colossians 1:14
 

Why did the "idiot Gnostic scribe" not also jerk the blood out of Ephesians 1:7?

Or is it just possible that a scribe inserted the blood in the Colossians passage because of his knowledge of the Ephesians passage?

One thing that concerns me about the "removal" arguments is that A) they invent an unporven reason for the removal, and B) they seem to have no adequate answer for the more likely insertion argument.

You are as two faced as they come, you say you "live by" the King James Bible and yet there you go again attacking it by defending modern versions that diminish, and I am not just talking about the two particular passages above, but throughout the entire Bible, verses, words, even chapters.
Can you honestly sit there and defend any modern version that does this
http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html
Or can you in your infinite wisdom explain them all away? What did the translators you are defending do with the Godhead? were did they insert that elsewhere in their version? why did they remove the name JESUS 38 times?

Matthew 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.



Ephesians 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

From my "Magic Marker Binge" http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html


"More likely," riiiiight.

Other Arguments Could Be Legitimate
 

There is nothing "two faced" about pointing out that there are other legitimate explanations for your charge of intentional tampering. In order to prove your charge of intentional tampering, you must directly connect a person, motive, and action. You cannot put these all together in the correct historical context. As far as I know, only KJOs and atheist/agnostics believe that gnostics sucessfully tampered with the New testament Textual stream.

As to removing the name of Christ, here are some word counts I did:

Christ Jesus
KJV 58
NKJV 69
NASB 87
NIV 87

Christ Jesus our Lord
KJV 5
NKJV 7
NASB 7
NIV 7

Jesus our Lord
KJV 7
NKJV 9
NASB 12
NIV 10

Jesus
KJV 942
NKJV 1040
NASB 990
NIV 1276

Christ
KJV 537
NKJV 584
NASB 528
NIV 531

Lord Jesus Christ
KJV 82
NKJV 81
NASB 62
NIV 60

It would be refreshing to see more discussions here that acknowledged the strength and vaadity of other positions instead of calling people names and calling their love of God's Word into question.

No they did not: otherwise the Word of God would have been hopelessly corrupted and lost. But God has provided a wide, general and open way of preserving and revealing His true words!

It would not. "To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear." (Isaiah 28:12).

I hardly have to do that for someone who would leap to James White's defence (Dr White is an ardent anti-King James Bible author, whose work does not provoke love but rather demotion of the KJB).

Re: " Do you have to be KJVO to be here???"
 

Aloha brother Steve,

Here we go AGAIN! "solabiblia" chooses to believe the imaginary "suppositions" of the Westcott & Hort "THEORY", RATHER than the scripturally sound reasoning of Dean John William Burgon! "solabiblia" is a WOLF in SHEEP'S CLOTHING! Burgon wrote perhaps the two best books covering this issue: "The Causes Of Textual Corruption" and "The Traditional Text".

I doubt if our "intellectual elitist" has READ them, and if he has - he has chosen to IGNORE them. This man ("solabiblia") has chosen to follow the road to apostasy - he would rather believe that a Bible believing scribe would "insert" words (ADD) into the Holy Text, than believe, the more likely scenario, that a Bible "corrector" (much like himself) would take words (SUBTRACT) out of the Holy Text, with which he didn't agree! :eek:

Think about that! WHO is more likely to CHANGE (or ADD or SUBTRACT) from the Holy words of God - People like most of us on this Forum (i.e. genuine Bible believers - WHO believe in the FINAL AUTHORITY of God's word) or people like "solabiblia" and "greektim" (Bible correctors - WHO have NO FINAL AUTHORITY other than their OWN OPINIONS)? :confused: :eek:

There is only one Scriptural way to deal with Bible correctors (and it ain't "engage" them; "coddle" them; be "nice" to them; and maybe someday they will "come around"). No the Scriptural way to deal with ALL Bible correctors (regardless of WHO they are - or how old they are) is to:

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches DECEIVE the hearts of the simple.

Did you notice how the Holy Bible spells out HOW these people will operate? "GOOD WORDS & FAIR SPEECHES"! You don't have to be on Guard against a "mean" old curmudgeon (like myself). You always know where I'm coming from. You have to beware of the "sweet talking" people who through "good words and fair speeches" seek to undermine the faith of believers!

You and I can never change these people's hearts. They have chosen their course, and unless Almighty God intervenes in their life in some way, they will not change! :frusty:

So, do we obey what God COMMANDS us to do in Romans 16:17-18, or do we follow our own "instincts" and IGNORE what God has said? That is the question that all genuine Bible believers have to ask themselves.

Matthew 4:4 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.

Bravo Bro George!

I agree with you, you are never going to get anywhere with these folks. And the Bible tells what their problem is:

For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly

These folks are nothing but snobbish pseudo scholars. Their motive is to impress people with their scholarship and intelligence, or sell corruptions for gain, not serve Christ. They think it sport to come to a forum like this with real Bible believers to cause (very unsuccessfully) doubt.

Pro 10:23 It is as sport to a fool to do mischief: but a man of understanding hath wisdom.

:amen: Brother George and I agree, I shall have nothing more to do with this man, his motives or his methods.

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches DECEIVE the hearts of the simple.

I really am a simple man, I have no vast vocabulary or knowledge, nor have a memory that serves me to memorize 50 chapters of scripture, but what I do know for certain is that the Lord has blessed me with "discernment" and I am certain no discussion with this man will lead to edification nor will it bear fruit.
No not on this forum.

PS. Brother George you are no curmudgeon, I have told you many times you remind me so much of my Grandfather, he takes no prisoners, tells it like it is, preaches the Gospel in a way even the simplest of hearts and minds can fathom, and is no respector of persons and knows he holds all of Gods words, in the one place in the one book, the King James Bible.
God Bless you, I have learned so much from you during my time on this forum.

Hey Greektim, I don't think you ever answered my question back in post no. 36; I put it in bold above in case you missed it.
As I understand it, you are suggesting that in order to for a man to have the complete Word of God he would need enough money to purchase a COLLECTION of what you consider to be reliable translations, is that what you are saying...

Textual Tenacity Is A Better Explanation
 

Why is a theory based on deletion any more valid than a theory based on insertion through textual tenacity?

We all agree that the witness of the Biblical texts shows remarkable tenacity. If you were to approach the subject without presuppositions, would you not conclude that the copyists would be more likely to expand the text than to delete passages?

What if you were not a KJO? Would you still be able to assert that no insertions took place, only deletions? How would you defend such a position?

Why don't you do the same?? Why don't you believe for one second that the God who created the heavens and the earth could also preserve the Word of God as he promised in many scriptures?

What kind of God do you believe in anyway? Do you believe that a loving God would tell us to seek him and not give us a way to find him? Do you believe a loving God would hide his Word, and then punish a person for eternity if a person failed to find his Word?

You have all your books, you understand Greek and Hebrew, but you do not have faith.

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

The Bible says without faith it is impossible to please God. It also says you must believe that he rewards those who diligently seek him.

Matt 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: 8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

You don't believe this. You Bible doubters don't have a clue where the Word of God is, and spend all your time trying to convince others that they cannot find it either.

Then you come to this forum where true believers who do have faith in God's promises and can testify that we have indeed found God through his Holy Word, and try to spread your unbelief and doubt.

You are wasting your time. It is too late. We have already believed and are saved. We already know where God's Word is. We have faith.

John 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. 26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

John 10:4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.

You just don't get it do you? We know God, and He knows us.

But you Bible doubters by your own words admit you do not know God's Word.

WHY? WHY? WHY?....
"Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." - 2 Tim 3:7

No. We would jump right over that "cow patty" and conclude that your posts are STILL doing nothing on this forum other than casting doubt on God's Bible. :rolleyes:

WHAT IF? WHAT IF? What if you actually had a FINAL AUTHORITY like we do, one that you could hold in your hand and honor, and DEFEND THAT POSITION?

Ahhh, Solabiblia...
I had hoped over that last few weeks that your posts would improve here, but as everyone can see below you have not changed from your original reply to Biblestudent, and I take it you still think we are conducting in MINDLESS DRIVEL, so what difference does it make? Please, gather up your tenacity, deletions, presuppositions and theories and head back to your snake oil wagon, it's still parked where you left it and nobody is buying what you are "producing." :cool:

Still no answers. Are these questions so dangerous or frightening that you have to run from them?

God DID Preserve His Word
 

[QUOTE=Winman;19471]Why don't you do the same?? Why don't you believe for one second that the God who created the heavens and the earth could also preserve the Word of God as he promised in many scriptures?

What kind of God do you believe in anyway? Do you believe that a loving God would tell us to seek him and not give us a way to find him? Do you believe a loving God would hide his Word, and then punish a person for eternity if a person failed to find his Word?[QUOTE]

I do believe that God preserved His Word. I just don't happen to believe that God lost control of His Word and then revealed it again through the efforts of a Catholic priest and a group of seventeenth century baby baptizers. :D

There is a vast difference between believing that the Word of God has been generally preserved in a vast number of copies (and translations), all of which differ slightly one to another, as opposed to those who believe that while God has been able to keep His Word, He has also been able to providentially manifest it exactly correct in one particular version. Therefore, we all do not agree upon "all".

All objective data is interpreted. We always approach the subject with presuppositions, but if our starting point is belief in the Scripture itself, and we then apply Scripturally-consistent scientific and natural methods to interpret how the Scripture has come to us, we are going to get to correct conclusions, as opposed to a view which does not start with Scripture being in one's hand, but relagates truth to some ancient age when it was first inspired (therefore deemphasising the truth of what is in our hand).

The problem is more primary. If you are not KJBO, you do not have any Scripture in your hand which you can rely upon to begin with. Once you start from Receiving God's Providentially Appointed Word, you then believe what the Scripture says about itself. You then understand about the originals, about copies and about history in line with that. Finally, you then examine whether or not deletions or additions have taken place in various texts, and you judge so, not only on the basis of scientific hypotheses (e.g. dittography, aural conditioning, etc.) but also on the firm foundation that you actually have the Word of God which claims to be the Word indeed, and incorrupt. In this self-authenticating reasoning, you will find that the King James Bible always matches up exactly, and that there are no unresolvable problems.

If you start with natural reasoning only, and start from a modern version in your hand (which was made by natural-only reasoning), your whole inquiry will collapse and fail, and you will come to the unbelieving conclusion that the King James Bible suffers from deletions and additions.

Of course, the KJBO view is smeared as "circular reasoning" (rather than as a self-evident truth), but the modern view is just as "circular", viz., 1. error exists, and all things are subject to error. 2. this is a Bible which exists, and error is exhibited in the past in copies, and we observe errors being made in the present. 3. therefore all Bibles are to some degree erroneous.

You can start with a KJB in your hand and yet have the modernist naturalistic thinking, and come to the wrong conclusions. Unless you view that God is able to work despite error, and is able to THWART error in history, you will always come to the wrong conclusions in this matter.

The Puritan view is that God is able to work against error in history, and would do so by manifesting truth. The King James Bible, that Bible which was made the official Puritan Bible in the 1650s, is true: "But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end." (Daniel 7:26).

God preserved His Word throughout all ages, it is evident. But God never lost control of it, though it were scattered. The person who rejects the King James Bible as true, pure and perfect is actually believing or implying that God has lost control over His Word. This is easy to show: They cannot supply a true copy which matches exactly what was inspired.

To imply that God somehow re-"revealed" His Word in 1611 is to ascribe false beliefs to King James Bible believers. To call old Anglicans antagonistic names is not befitting, and the lie about the Catholic priest is just crude and venomous.

Solabiblia

Why do you care that we believe the KJV to be the infallible Word of God? How does that hurt you? I am probably a little older than you and I have learned that it is a waste of time and weariness to debate any subject with those who do not agree with you.

Prov 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

Does that bother you that I imply you are a fool? Well, we are believers of principal, and that is what we believe. Do you not also think we are fools?

1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

So, I am sure you believe us to be fools. I can honestly say that that does not bother me in the least. I do not need your approval.

And 1 Cor 2:14 shows the difference between us. We believe the Bible is "spiritually discerned", you believe the Bible is discerned through scholarship.

The understanding of the scriptures does not come through scholarship, it is revealed to us by the Holy Spirit.

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

If you want to know why we believe the KJV to be the infallible Word of God, there is a good article here.

http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/moor...servation.html

All I can give you is my personal testimony. I got saved as a young boy about 11 years old in a Baptist Church in Panama City, Florida. We used only the KJV and that was all I knew. Back then it was what almost everybody knew to be the Word of God (1965).

My family moved away after that. I did not really come from a religious family. We did not attend church very often. But I had an Aunt who sent me a RSV. I used to read it for hours, but it caused me much confusion. I saw all the footnotes that said things like "better manuscripts omit this verse" and the like.

Well, that bothered me, and bothered me a lot. I wanted to know God's true Word. I prayed about it all the time and asked God to show me the truth. I had a little pocket KJV version New Testament, and to me this was the Word of God, I cannot really explain to you how I knew that, but I did. I did some study and read some books, but I was still tossed around by all the different and conflicting opinions.

Then one day I was reading and read a verse I had read many times before.

Matt 4:4 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.

Now, I had read this verse many times, but this time the phrase "every word' really jumped out at me. I thought very hard on this. And it occured to me that if God is truly a loving God, and if he expects us to live by every word, then it would only be right and fair that he provide "every word".

That probably means little to you, but that cleared up all the confusion for me. I knew that God's complete and pure and infallible Word was in the world. And I was also convinced that the KJV was that Word.

I don't expect this to make sense to you, I expect this to be pure foolishness to you. That is what the Bible says I should expect.

And yes, I do not mind one bit throwing doubt on your salvation. I think you should be very afraid. I personally have a hard time believeing that people who constantly cast doubt on God's Word can truly be saved.

I am not saying you are not a true believer and not saved, I sincerely hope you are. I simply have trouble believeing that anyone who so doubt's God's Word and promises can be saved.

I quit running a long time ago.
You however still need to take your journey from confusion...

:RunToKJB:

Say What?
 

Erasmus was not a Catholic priest?! Anglicans were not Paedobaptists?! I think I've fallen down the rabbit hole.

A Courteous Answer
 

Thank you for the courteous answer, bibleprotector, and thanks especially for not calling me names.

What one particular version was God's perfect and preserved Word in 1311 AD? Who had it, and who did not have it?

Starting from the original texts, can you follow the transmission of the perfectly preserved Word all the way to 1611, or are there gaps?

Honestly, I don't start from any version, since versions are 1) late to the party, and 2) the work of man.

The syllogism you give here is not circular, it is linear (all things have error, the Bible is a thing, therefore the Bible has error). I agree it has fallacy in it, but then, it is not my argument.

The reason the KJO argument is circular is that it starts with the KJV and then argues back to the KJV. You did this in the paragraph that starts with "The problem is more primary. . ." The circular reasoning charge is a valid one.

I agree that God DID thwart error in history. The proof is the fact that New Testament Christianity is still found in the world. The doctrine of the remnant is holding fast. I believe there will be people who love God's Word all the way to the end of the world.

The Puritan view is more like "God works through error" than "God works against error", but your point is well taken.

Thanks again for the courteous discussion.

Erasmus renounced his priesthood and monasticism.

God was preserving His Word in many scattered copies at the time. The refining to one perfection version took place later. In the mean time, there was ongoing preservation. People in 1311 had sufficient access to God's Word.

In reverse, we look at what is today, and look backward. This is what anyone has to do when they receive the Gospel. The Gospel is not "The truth was long ago, a message I cannot tell you, because it is far away in the past." No, the Scripture must be known NOW first.

I don't mean to accuse you unnecessarily here, but you are actually arguing that people become Christians by having NO Scripture. If you do not start from a present version (e.g. an English translation), you are not starting from anything. You need an extant form of Scripture as a starting point.

Versions existed all the way back in the earliest centuries, as in Latin, Syriac, etc. To claim all such work is merely "human" is to undermine anything of the Church, doctrine, Confession etc., because all such things are human. Calvin was human. The Apostle Paul was human.

Notice that the same argument applies when proving why God is God.

Also, any argument which has the assumption that "error is", whether it is implied or stated, is going to fail. Such as, "there is no perfect version because error is present", or "we cannot know which Bible is perfect because error is present", or, "many Bibles are close because none can be perfect, and none can be perfect because error is present in the world." etc. etc.

So, where is the Bible freed from error, or, when shall it come to pass in history?

I got one for you Barry: What is a Gnostic?

Grace and peace

Tony

Re: "Do you have to be KJVO to be here???"
 

Aloha to all genuine Bible believers on the AV1611 Forum,

By now it must be obvious to all - that it is a "fruitless" endeavor trying to deal with "solabiblia". The following is just a tiny example of the worthless "CIRCULAR REASONING" that "solabiblia" employs in trying to undermine the faith of genuine Bible believers:

05/08/09- “solabiblia’s” 16th. Post {Thread >Bible Versions > Sam Gipp’s degree > Post #60}
solabiblia’s “response” ???
Did you get that? “BOTH ACTUALLY”! :( Talk about “CIRCULAR REASONING”! :confused: Do you see WHY, once I discover someone is a SOPHIST, I cease dealing with them? You cannot reason with a Sophist. I reprove them or rebuke them, and then I move on. I refuse to continue trying to “reach” them – they are unreachable (un-teachable), since they already KNOW EVERYTHING there is to know!

“BOTH ACTUALLY”!!! :tsk: These people (solabiblia, greektim, and the Bible correctors that came here before them) want to have it BOTH WAYS! :mad: I quote solabiblia: “I probably would think long and hard before attending a church that did not use the KJV. I love it, cherish it, quote it, and live by it” – BUT on the other hand, IF he can find a reason to ADD to it; or SUBTRACT from it; or CHANGE it; he WILL! {Oh well - so much for “love” & “cherish” IT! :rolleyes:} And if there is a chance - if he THINKS “long” and “hard” about it, he “probably” could even go to a church that didn’t USE it!. Talk about “CIRCULAR REASONING” – how much more “CIRCULAR” can you get? :confused: They can “get away with it” - for NOW, but rest assured they will answer to God for their DUPLICITY:

1 Corinthians 15:33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.

Galatians 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

I won’t document the next nine (9) Posts that solabiblia has made (in the last 2 days), except to say that they are just MORE OF THE SAME: the same old “QUESTIONS” (Sophist); the same old “DOUBTS” (Sophist); the same old “CRITICISMS” {Pharisee}; and he even has added “TAUNTING” (Childish) to his list of “OFFENSES”. Isn’t it obvious, by now, (solabiblia had 15 Posts in 4 months and he is up to 9 Posts in the last two days) that solabiblia is “enjoying” being the center of attention? (He is in his “element”, i.e. DEBATE!) WHY bother with this man? If we all IGNORE him he will find some other place to spread his poisonous LEAVEN, and we might actually have some “peace” {that is - until the next Bible denying “Critic” shows up!} :eek:

You have no idea...

solabiblia; do you believe there is one BOOK ON THIS EARTH TODAY THAT IS THE FINAL AND ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY on what is right and what is wrong...?

Bro George posted

2 Timothy 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Yep, Bro George, you are correct. These folks come here for one reason only, to try to spread doubt and confusion. And you are correct about wanting to have it both ways. They claim they believe in a God who can preserve his word, and then out of the other side of their mouth say he didn't.

James 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

These Bible doubters do not even know what they believe themselves, yet criticize those who have faith in God. And you are also correct that these folks simply enjoy causing mischief.

Prov 10:23 It is as sport to a fool to do mischief: but a man of understanding hath wisdom.

Bro. George, you're right. It is a useless and fruitless things to answer him considering a know it all man but cannot even quote any single verse of the bible to prove. Well we all have answered him already and I think that is enough. He's nothing but a bible deniers.

Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l2...ng_cricket.gif

The "insertion argument" is untenable, as it creates an impossible doctrinal deviation and interpolation cannot be proven. Redemption is not forgiveness of sins. One that an unlearned idiot would make, as I describe Origen above. You're following the bankrupt "conflation" theory Of Westcott-Hort on this verse along with the "oldest is best" falsehood. You have an unsolvable paradox with the W-H theory of manuscript "age": If the Alexandrian family of manuscripts is the correct one, then it should be represented by at least as many or not more "late" copies of itself as the "Majority Text". Where are the missing 15,000 copies of the "late" Alexandrian text? I suppose the Waldensians burned them? Who has burned Bibles for 1700 years?

Internal evidence alone impeaches the "interpolation" argument and offers the irrefutable evidence of reduction of the verse.

Ro 4:7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

We have forgiveness of sins now.

Ro 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Through his blood we have redemption, but it is yet a future event.

Gnosticism is "unproven"? I think you need to study your history and basic theology. I think it's possible you never heard of Mary Baker Eddy and the Christian Scientists, Islam, and the Jehovah's Witnesses. Islam is no less a Gnostic heresy as those mentioned above, or Marcion and Sabellius(Did Jesus pray to Himself in John 17?). I think you need to read up on a pack of self-righteous theological idiots who have told God He is too blessed and good and holy that He can't appear in a human body with blood.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

If you are upset by the Jesuit argument that Col. 1:14 is an "interpolation" from Ephesians 1:7 rather than a reduction, if you find "conflation" to be a problem keeps you awake at night ie; the repeating of a precept, your noodle should really be cooked by these verses:

Pr 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
Pr 16:25 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Mt 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Mr 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
Lu 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Let's examine Roman Catholic duplicity with regards this verse:

Jerome's Vulgate
Eph. 1:7 in quo habemus redemptionem per sanguinem eius remissionem peccatorum secundum divitias gratiae eius
Col. 1:14 in quo habemus redemptionem remissionem peccatorum

We jump ahead over a thousand years to the Clementine Vulgate of 1592, which was the official Latin "bible" of our Mary-worshiping friends until 1979, tacked together because of the rise of Tyndale, Coverdale, the Bishops, Great Bible and Geneva, all who have the doctrinally correct reading in Col. 1:14 and we do want to present ourselves in our Inquisitional fury as the instrument of preservation of the Scriptures

Clementine Vulgate
Eph 1:7 In quo habemus redemptionem per sanguinem ejus, remissionem peccatorum secundum divitias gratiæ ejus,:
Col. 1:14 in quo habemus redemptionem per sanguinem ejus, remissionem peccatorum:

Concurrent to this is the first official "bible" in English from Rome, the Douay-Rhiemes of 1599. Note the comma between "his" and "grace" in Eph. 1:7, robbing us of God's redemption, His sacrifice on Calvary's cross, and also forgiveness of sins through His grace:

Eph. 1:7 In whom wee haue redemption through his blood, the forgiuenesse of sinnes, according to the riches of his, grace,
Col 1:14 In whom we haue redemption through his blood, euen the forgiuenesse of sinnes:

Along comes Westcott-Hort, two Jesuit plants if there ever were two, and they restore the corrupted doctrinal error of Jerome, along with their American partners in crime. Their excuse is "interpolation" and "conflation" of Eph. 1:7 over to Col. 1:14:

ERV
Eph 1:7 in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,
Col. 1:14 in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins:

ASV
Eph 1:7 in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,
Col. 1:14 in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins:

Wanting to be the hero, the Douay-Rheims of 1899 jumps in as the doctrinal saviour; note the comma in Eph. 1:7:

Eph. 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the remission of sins, according to the riches of his, grace,
Col. 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the remission of sins:

After successfully penetrating the National Council Of Churches and their production of the RSV in the mid 20th century, the 1960s and 70s start a flood of "versions" that continues to this day, and Rome decides it's time to bare its claws and go back to Jerome:

(New American Bible)
Eph 1:7 In him we have redemption by his blood, the forgiveness of transgressions, in accord with the riches of his grace
Col. 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

(New Jerusalem Bible)
Eph 1:7 in whom, through his blood, we gain our freedom, the forgiveness of our sins. Such is the richness of the grace
Col. 1:14 and in him we enjoy our freedom, the forgiveness of sin.

New Latin Vulgate 1979
Eph 1:7 in quo habemus redemptionem per sanguinem eius,remissionem peccatorum,secundum divitias gratiae eius,
Col 1:14 in quo habemus redemptionem,remissionem peccatorum;

Let's talk possibilities: It's possible Rosie O'Donnell is really Paris Hilton. It's possible Jackie Kennedy put a handgun under JFK's chin and blew half his head off. It's as possible as LH Oswald doing it alone, from behind, with a defective rifle scope at 254 feet. It's possible I read celebrity's and politician's writings and was able to identify the author of intercepted uncoded messages to the Soviet military intelligence agency, the GRU, all for DIA(I could tell you some things about the 60s and 70s would frost a July morning). It's possible your spelling, grammar, and thought syntax matches Barry in FFF with a better than 98 percent probability.

Whoever you are, I would suggest you get into your Bible and learn doctrine so that you will be able to identify corruptions of the Scriptures more easily rather than corrupting it yourself.

Grace and peace to you.

Tony

The Lord in His mercy reveals in the Proverbs here that there is no "winning" with a fool. It doesn't have to be this way. They're more than welcome to keep their contentious spirit on the FFF. Personally, I'm new to dealing with them and I'm tired of it already. It's so fruitless.

I gave up on FFF shortly after posting a first welcome message. They jumped on my KJV belief like a dog with a rag. They really made me feel welcome...NOT.

Barry has probably given up on me, I got lots of time to catch up with my old Original Manuscript Fraud buddy roby. It don't bother me in the least taking the whole pack of them on, I just been pressed for time here. I spend two hours with mangled fingers putting the Jesuit fairytale on Colossians 1:14 to bed leaves little time for them.

I did get a friendship request, and I guess that's some progress. I don;t write for the Frauds, but for the casual readers, because answering them from Scripture is the decent and orderly way to do, and His words will not return unto him void.

Grace and peace Paul

Tony

The One Book
 

Yes. It's called the Bible.

Geo-Political Realities
 

[QUOTE=tonybones2112;19545]The "insertion argument" is untenable, as it creates an impossible doctrinal deviation and interpolation cannot be proven. Redemption is not forgiveness of sins. One that an unlearned idiot would make, as I describe Origen above. You're following the bankrupt "conflation" theory Of Westcott-Hort on this verse along with the "oldest is best" falsehood. You have an unsolvable paradox with the W-H theory of manuscript "age": If the Alexandrian family of manuscripts is the correct one, then it should be represented by at least as many or not more "late" copies of itself as the "Majority Text". Where are the missing 15,000 copies of the "late" Alexandrian text? I suppose the Waldensians burned them? Who has burned Bibles for 1700 years?/QUOTE]

It's called the Muslim Invasion. You may have heard of it.

Erasmus Died a Priest
 

Really? Where is this documented? I would like to know, because it directly contradicts the following:

Erasmus never broke his vows as a priest and died under orders.
W. E. Campbell, Erasmus, Tyndale and More. (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1949), p. 272.

“He tried to remain in the fold of the old [Roman] Church, after having damaged it seriously, and renounced the [Protestant] Reformation, and to a certain extent even Humanism, after having furthered both with all his strength.” Johan Huizinga, Erasmus and the Age of Reformation (Tr. F. Hopman and Barbara Flower; New York: Harper and Row, 1924), 190.

On May 31, 1535, one year before Erasmus' death, Pope Paul III wrote Erasmus a letter thanking him for his offer of help in reforming the Catholic Church and promising Erasmus that he would be remembered with gratefulness.
Robert Blackley Drummond, Erasmus, his life and character as shown in his correspondence and works (Smith, Elder & Co., 1873), 334

Less than a year from his death. . . "It appears from the statement of Beatus, that the provostship of Deventer, a tolerably lucrative office, was pressed upon him, but declined, Erasmus thinking that he had enough to carry him to the grave."
Robert Blackley Drummond, Erasmus, his life and character as shown in his correspondence and works (Smith, Elder & Co., 1873), 334

I can find no documentation saying Erasmus renounced his office or left the Catholic church at any time. On the contrary, he was commended by the Pope near the end of his life, and was buried with honors in a Catholic cathedral.

The destruction of vast numbers of manuscripts in the area of Antioch during the reign of Diocletian is well-documented. Once the persecution subsided, the copies began to multiply again. That is why there of few surviving Antiochian manuscripts prior to that time period, and an explosion afterward.

I have not found such information about the destruction of Alexandrian manuscripts. If this did indeed happen, one would assume that the scholars of the day would have set about to replace them using the surviving manuscripts, rather than abandoning those survivors to the dusty shelves of the Vatican (Vaticanus) or condemning them to the waste basket (Siniaticus).

The believing church maintained the flow and regeneration of the valid manuscripts and ignored the flawed and tampered ones. THAT, dear sir, is the reason for the vast difference in the numbers of extant copies of the NT.

Re: "Do you have to be KJVO to be here???"
 

Aloha brother,

I've been "dealing" with "them" for over 40 years! :frusty: Think how "TIRED" I am of it all! :(

And you're absolutely "right" - "It's so fruitless". If, after trying to "reason" with "them", I see no edification, no fruit, and no profit, I "disengage" and AVOID "them" - like the "plague"! :eek:

Proverbs 26:12 Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.

Which Bible?

where can I get a copy?