[PaulB]

i) Validity

As far as I am concerned it all boils down to a recognition of validity and authority. When these new versions do the 1following (1many ancient witnesses do not contain the word “following”) how is it that they automatically conclude that:

1) Vaticanus & Synaticus are to be treated as the closest possible representation of those “originals” (i.e. the valid sources of authority) when by their own reasoning no one can determine what the originals ever said even with these trusted sources and ancient witnesses?

It seems that when any word is to be tested for its authenticity that these two spurious sources are now to be treated as the final authority on the matter. Who suddenly decided that these manuscripts were to become the ultimate standard of all Christian truth? (Because when this is viewed through the eye glass of history, it is pretty obvious that a determined decision was deliberately made that went contrary to what had always been understood as the final source of authority).

Now, I know that Westcott & Hort were the engineers behind the “hallowing” of these vile manuscripts, but I believe that this was the deliberate decision of the people who appointed them – they were only the stooges of a larger agenda!

Someone at some point in time must have come to the conclusion that the source of “authority” is the issue that needs to be both questioned and changed (I see this as the work of the Jesuits). For a new text to suddenly appear “out of oblivion” and become the unquestionable standard behind (not only every version of the Bible to follow) but to even govern the methods of translating in any language, seems very odd to say the least.

I am sure that this was no “shock discovery” neither could Rome have been “unaware” of their presence during the reformation years. Because as I see it; they would have been absolutely desperate to find anything source of “authority/ancient manuscript” that could have quelled that untimely upsurge. I believe that they eventually did and that is what we are truly fighting against today on this forum!

When you think about a globally controlling power that was not only losing its hold over the common folk but the nobles, kings and princess (whose financial contributions were going to be heavily missed). I just can’t buy the thought that the Vaticanus or the Synaticus were unknown to either the chiefs of Rome or those (such as Luther and Tyndale, etc) who fled from its tyranny during those years.

I can buy the fact that the traditional text was fully known throughout the dark ages, to both parties involved (i.e. the believing element of the reformation and their bitter opponents). Because history itself bears witness that it was through the light of the received text that Rome received its fatal blow and so many multitudes of souls were born into the kingdom of God.

Yet now it is commonly accepted (without question) that the time tested traditional text of Scripture that has so successfully fended off every form of opposition throughout its history is now corrupt, untrustworthy and to be rejected as erroneous. Whilst the weeds that spring from its counterpart such as the NIV, NASB, Message etc, are to accepted (without question) as the most faithful and most accurate representations of what the church has been kept in ignorance from since the fourth century!

ii) Authority

What about these so called ancient witnesses?

2) Why is it that these experts never seem to do the following (“many ancient witnesses contain 1 Jn.5:7 as a valid Scripture reference).

I have noticed how these so called experts dismiss the validity of the closing passages of Mk.16 but my question has always been this; well if that is the case then no modern version has the right to even consider including it, yet they do, and if they do it with that verse, then why do they not apply the same approach to 1 Jn.5:7?
When they speak about “ancient witnesses” I don’t believe that they are being honest, because when the evidence is laid before the neutral it becomes very clear that they mean chosen witnesses, or preferred witnesses. Because if it were truly about ancient witnesses then, like Will Kinney often tells us, that there are scores of them throughout a vast period of history (and not just from the reformation) that agree with that which we find preserved today in our KJB.

The more I look at this the clearer it gets, it is like the other lies that so many so called believers have bought (i.e. the lies of evolution, feminism, Mormonism, Jw’s and the many other perverse theories that took off during the 1800’s). Now I don’t claim that so called believers have bought the latter two movements as Christian beliefs, but it does seem to be a mighty coincidence that all of these doctrines came out during a particular period in history to either counteract or infiltrate the protestant world!

I know of a people within the church today who either believe that God used evolution to create all things and I know of others who teach evolution as part of their job, whilst privately believing creation and don’t find a problem with it!

The only thing that seem to be ridiculous in our day (even within Christendom) is to hold to the belief that God has preserved His word and that we still have that in our KJB. Authority is everything to the one that believes, but in our “lone ranger” western mentality authority is there to be challenged rather than accepted.

This is how their theory is self-defeating: It was only the other week that I disagreed with something that was taught from the pulpit of our church. Yes, you guessed it – he decided to correct the “blind ignorance” of the translators of the Authorised Version by the “correct rendering” that was obviously in his NIV. Now I know that he was wrong, but what gets me is by their own admission the NIV is not a literal word for word translation but a thought for thought translation.

For one, why use a paraphrase to teach from in the first place as if one is quoting Scripture, and secondly doesn’t that in itself remove the foundation from which a person can challenge that which should be in the text?

That’s using the none existence of one thing to disprove the existence of the other!
Yet if the reverse is applied (i.e. “the NIV, NASB etc, has got it wrong here because the KJB says…) they get all upset and single you out as a trouble maker!

This is to is a bias and a prejudice and not a recognition of “ancient witnesses” or historical reality but a battle against authority (i.e. that which has been accepted as the fundamental basis of the true Church throughout the lifetimes of these “ancient witnesses). So when they appeal to these authorities, in my book they are blindly accepting the creeds of their gurus and becoming experts in things that they know nothing about.

God bless you all

PaulB

[PaulB]

The bottom paragraph should begin with "This to me is a bias..."
(Faulty Keyboard - sorry!)

PB

Originally Posted by PaulB

It was only the other week that I disagreed with something that was taught from the pulpit of our church. Yes, you guessed it – he decided to correct the “blind ignorance” of the translators of the Authorised Version by the “correct rendering” that was obviously in his NIV....
PaulB

I could never stay in a church like that brother, that would drive me up the wall. Why would a Christian leader admire an NIV bible that removes the word "begotten" from John 3:16, says that Jesus couldn't grasp equality with God in Philippians 2:6, removes the name "Jesus" in 38 places, completely removes the word "Godhead" from the Bible, completely removes the word "sodomite" from the Bible, removes the word "hell" 40 times, and changes every mention of people "worshipping" Jesus to a mere "knelt"?

I think I already mentioned to you that shortly after I was saved I used to carry something called THE LIVING BIBLE. (my brethren here will get a chuckle out of this, but it's true). Eventually I prayed and asked God to lead me to a good Church and within a few weeks a young man knocked on my front door from an Independent Baptist Church.

I carried that paraphrased monstrosity to church for several months, and I will tell you that aside from a few mild comments, no one was ever rude to me personally about it, even though the pastor only used the KJV and mentioned several times from the pulpit why. Eventually a man by the name of Peter Ruckman came to our church, and my Living Bible was soon shifted to "shelf duty," where it remains to this day.

Ruckman challenged his audience to examine what they believed about God's Word. He offered no apology for his views and no quarter for any scholar. As I investigated his claims, I was SHOCKED about the corruption in modern versions! Maybe this was my pastor's way of exposing me to the truth without offending me personally, and we are all friends to this day. So let me challenge you today to pray about that church and if God leads you, GO FIND ANOTHER ONE without hesitation. I hope God will give you the courage to hit this front on---with an open mind my friend, and do keep up the study you are doing.

Originally Posted by PaulB

Yet if the reverse is applied (i.e. “the NIV, NASB etc, has got it wrong here because the KJB says…) they get all upset and single you out as a trouble maker!

Amen! I have found myself there many times.

[PaulB]

Thanks BroParrish - All I can say is that I am in the North west of the UK (Trying to find a KJB church is like trying to find fundamental gospel preaching in an Iranian mosque!). Don't worry, it is sharpening my sword and I am working on them.
God bless

PaulB