Greek Tim in your opinion what study Bible would be the best?

Congadulations Greek Tim to you and your wife on your home.God is good to even those that dont 100% believe in His preserved Book.KJB

Just curious about which study Bible you would buy if you were going to buy one.

In Christ.

Brother Miller.

Not to be argumentative, but what makes you think it is alright for you to write off my questions then ask me some more? Every time I have answered you (assuming I knew you wanted an answer) and will continue to do so because that is the courtious thing to do.

NO, I am NOT an ecumenist! Are you a Gnostic? I would probably separate over some doctrinal issues that you have never given a seconds thought about. What even sparks such a question?

I have stated in other posts in other threads in the past that I primarily use the UBS4r for my GNT & the Biblical Hebraica for my HOT (which is Massoretic). THe translations I preach from are the NKJV, NASB, & my own if I feel it is more accurate or clearer. But I am only answering this question because this is the first time your phrased your question well - which do I trust? So there you have it. The question dodger answering you. Now let's see if that courtesy is extended back my way.

This post was last modified: Wed Jun 04, 2008 04:47 PM by Greektim.

Funny, another question...

The only study Bible I recommend is a Ryrie NASB.

I'll bet you were hoping for something like the life application study Bible in the NLT weren't you? Not from me!

This post was last modified: Wed Jun 04, 2008 04:52 PM by Greektim.

Now were getting somewhere.

You preach from the NKJV/NASB well according to them you are not saved but being saved.{1st Cor 1:18}Why would you use a Bible that tells you you are not saved GT?

I quit a Church for hiring a hireling for preaching from a NKJV.

You know GT John Hagee use to be a sound doctrinal preacher and he only uses the NKJV,now he says Jesus did not claim to be the Messiah and Jews can be saved without being saved by Jesus.The heretical word of faith cults mainly use the NASB/NKJV.Dont get upset about the evidence against the NKJV there is a conspiracy behind it and it is unGodliness.

Satans paws allover the NKJV:

http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html


The NASB could it be perverted to?

http://www.dccsa.com/greatjoy/versions.htm


Yes the KJV rules supreme.

The study Bible I use most is the on line Blue Letter Bible.

Its KJV based and gives access to Hebrew & Greek through Strong's numbering. Alternative translations are available, & the most useful of these is Young's Literal Translation, which gives a translation without interpretative bias. Commenaries are linked on line, as well as hymns related to Scripture verses.

When I started Bible study, I found the cross references invaluable in the AV I was brought up with. The one I like in book form is the *** "Thematic Study Bible" which is basically a comprehensive cross reference system to ideas, doctrines & themes.

At least your brought the issue of 1 Cor. 1:18 to the area of translations and didn't mention the TR. Like I said earlier, the TR, UBS, W-H, Reader's GNT, & N-A all agree on this passage of Scripture. They all have the same thing. There is no variant.

If we want to discuss this text from a theological perspective, then we can, but I feel it would be better in a new thread.

Textually, you are not going to like my answer to the issue, but the NKJV, NASB, ESV, & ASV are more of a literal translation than the KJ in this place. Here is a case where the thought was communicated rather than the actual grammar or "word for word" of the passage in the KJ. THe question then is, were the KJ translators right in doing so or did they change Paul's emphasis? I have begun studying the issue a little and it seems that the KJ translators were consistent in their translation of this Greek phrase. That tells me that this was not an accident but deliberate. I am going to check out later if they did it w/ other words as well besides the word for "saved." That will tell me a little more about how they understood the grammar rule used in the passage. It is a tricky one (a substantival present passive participle). This should make an interesting study.

New thought:
So, are you still going to ignore my questions and ask some more?

[GT]Says:Quote


At least your brought the issue of 1 Cor. 1:18 to the area of translations and didn't mention the TR. Like I said earlier, the TR, UBS, W-H, Reader's GNT, & N-A all agree on this passage of Scripture. They all have the same thing. There is no variant.

{Unquote}

Brother Miller comments:

GT the KJ Bible does not agree with any modern per-version in {1st Cor 1:18}Now all of your modern day Bibles do agree because they all say your being saved.Satans paws on the NKJV can`t make you investagate then your mind is a closed book.



Look at how your NASB attacks the deity of God and the Lord Jesus Christ.It is a crying shame that people can read and memorize this mess.



A characteristic of the new Bible versions is found in the way that virtually very one of them alters Scriptures which plainly teach the Deity of our Lord Jesus. In some cases the teaching is watered down, and in others it is eliminated by altering the punctuation or by deceitful scholarship. There follows a partial list of those found in the New American Standard Version.

K.J.V. John 1:18 - "The only begotten Son, ... He hath declared Him."

N.A.S.V John 1:18 - "The only begotten God, ... He has explained Him."

N.W.T. (Jehovah Witness) - "The only begotten God...is the one that has explained Him."

The Amplified Bible - "The only unique Son, (f) the only begotten God,...hath made Him known." (f) Footnote. "Supported by a great mass of ancient evidence (Vincent)."

By substituting "God" for "Son" the latter three of the above four translations change the glorious truth of God into a lie.

If Christ is really a "begotten God," then the great truth regarding His Deity is invalidated. This rendering delights the heart of the "Unitarian" and the "Jehovah Witness", neither of which believe in the Deity of our Lord Jesus.

The New American Standard Version shares the dubious distinction of standing shoulder to shoulder with the Jehovah Witness' Bible at this and many, many other points of alteration.

Concerning the reading of the Amplified, it is of interest to note, that it also originates with the Lockman Foundation, as does the New American Standard Version.

Does some one feel that this is not evidence of "intent" on the part of translators of N.A.S.V. and The Amplified Bible?

Let us not be in a hurry to reject the evidence.

In the "Foreword" of the New American Standard Version, we read "This translation follows the principles used in the American Standard Version of 1901, KNOWN AS THE ROCK OF BIBLICAL HONESTY."

"The Rock Of Biblical Honesty." Example of that Honesty?

A.S.V. 1901. John 9:38 - "And he said, Lord I believe and he worshipped him." That is he worshipped Jesus who had given him who was born blind, his sight.

A disgraceful footnote reads: (re. the word worshipped) "The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature (as here) or the Creator."

This is a plain statement to the effect that the translators as a board have approved a blasphemous doctrine which seeks to make the Eternal One, a created being.

The Change in the N.A.S.V. in John 1:18 is a slightly more subtle insinuation, but none the less repulsive.

Re. the scholarly(?) footnote in the Lockman production, The Amplified Bible. The claim is made that their great substitution in John 1:18 is supported by "a great mass of ancient evidence".

Will some one now please stand up and tell us why this great mass (or mess) of ancient evidence is rejected by the scholars who, while producing exceedingly faulty versions, still did not go so far in following their blind guides (the oldest and best manuscripts) as to fall in to this ditch together with the others; namely Lockman's N.A.S.V., Lockman's Amplified, and Jehovah Witness, New World Translation.

The reading "begotten God" instead of "Son" is rejected by the translators of Douay-Rheims, Knox, R.V. 1881,A.S.V. 1901; (but it does have a corrupt footnote here), R.S.V.; Williams, Moffat, Goodspeed, Twentieth Century, The New Berkeley Version, New English Bible, New International Version, Good News for Modern Man, and The Living Bible. Supremely it is rejected by the unexcelled scholarship of the world's finest and most accurate English translation, THE KING JAMES VERSION.

So much for the "GREAT MASS OF ANCIENT EVIDENCE". Where is it, and why do so very many scholars reject it all at this point?

Kenneth Wuest includes the corrupt reading in his expanded translation of the Gospels. There may be others who do, but out of those so far examined the writer has found only the above four who include this travesty on the person of the Son of God.



John 1:30 K.J.V. - "After me cometh a man which is preferred before me; for He was before me."

John 1:30 N.A.S.V. - "After me cometh a man who has a higher rank than I, for he existed before me." A footnote reads, "lit. has become before me."

Here is an intimation that there was a time when the Lord Jesus came into existence. Keep in mind that vile footnote of John (9:3 in the Rock of Biblical Honesty.

Even the Rutherford version (New World Translation) which openly denies the Deity of our Lord Jesus, did not dare to insert such a footnote.

John 8:58 K.J.V. - "Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was I AM". Our Lord here claims the great title of Deity. (Exodus 3:14)

N.A.S.V. renders it properly "I AM", but in another of those famous marginal notes recommended so highly by Theodore Epp, and others, we read, "or, I have been". So this helpful marginal note manages to indicate the possibility of a reading which eliminates His great claim to Deity.

Some one says, "it is only in the margin". yes so far it is, but in these new versions, the marginal notes have strange ways of finding their way into the text in later editions.

A good example of this not so subtle intrusion into and change in the text if found in T.E.V. first edition includes the word "Virgin" in the text approx. fourteen times; a slightly later edition, without a word of warning eliminates the great majority of the "virgins".

John 8:58 At this point the Jehovah Witness version is slightly less subtle than the N.A.S.V., for it inserts the reading, "I have been" into the text, while the N.A.S.V.,with its little halo shining, just has it in the margin. In the former the Lord's title "I AM" is rejected out of hand, in the latter it is insinuated that it might not be so.

In so doing the scholars have introduced a Greek tense instead of the Present Active Indicative, first Person Singular, which tends to eliminate the doctrine of our Lord's eternal existence.

It is not hard to understand why this "I have been" should be found in the text of New World Translation; but who among the translators of the N.A.S.V. would give any credence to such a corruption, even in the margin of their work.

It also helps us to understand why Lockman Foundation refuses to divulge the names of the translators of the N.A.S.V. until at least 17 years after the publication of the N.A.S.V. New Testament in 1960.



Rom 14:10 - 12 K.J.V - "For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ...so then every one of us shall give account of himself to God".

Here is another very plain statement of the Deity of our Lord Jesus. We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ...to give account of ourselves to GOD. The teaching is obvious.

The N.A.S.V. once again joins with its cousin, the New World Translation of the Jehovah Witnesses, and others to eliminate this plain statement of our Lord's Deity.

The process employed is very simple. The judgment seat of CHRIST, is altered to read "The judgment seat of GOD". Now their version no longer clearly teaches His Deity at this point.

Away back in history when the original mutilators of the Scripture produced the ancestor of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, the criminal slipped up and left evidence of their crime. They forgot to mutilate 2Corinthians 5:10 which reads in the "oldest and best" (?) manuscripts, "the judgment seat of CHRIST" at this point.

Our modern scholars, blindly following their corrupt texts, follow them into the mutilation of Romans 14:10-12; perhaps not realizing that in so doing they create a clear contradiction in their new versions. N.A.S.V., New World Translation, and many others bow obediently, to the dictates of dead rationalistic theologians.

N.A.S.V., New World, and most of the others leave 2Corinthians 5:10 to read "The judgment seat of Christ".

Matt 19:16-17 - "Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God".

Here the Lord invites his inquirer to consider why he should address Him as "good" stating that only "God" is "good". It is a plain invitation for the man to recognize Christ, as "God manifest in the flesh".

The N.A.S.V. and New World Translation, again conspire in error to remove this glorious truth. In each case the "good" is removed from the text, to make the reading simply, "Teacher". Then instead of "Why do you call me good?", the new reading is "Why are you asking me about what is good?" New World is very similar.

Interestingly in Luke 18:17 - 19 where this same incident is recorded the text is left untouched in both of these versions, one might say in virtually every version which follows Westcott and Hort, or Nestles Greek texts. Once again this creates a built in contradiction in the various versions.



GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH
1Tim. 3:16 K.J.V. - "And without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh."

For hundreds of years, millions of Christians have read these glorious words, and have known most certainly in thier hearts that the One Who came from the glory of Heaven to die on the cross of Calvary for our sins, was truly "God, manifest in the flesh."

Before the Devil can have a world church, or a world Bible, this tremendous witness to the Deity of our Lord must be removed.

In no other way could the conflicting religious views of the world's may religions be reconciled, except by the elimination of all Scriptures that teach the Deity of Christ.

We are not therefore surprised to find the New American Standard Version and that of the Jehovah Witnesses, uniting in the rejection of this great Scripture, or rather in the alteration of it so that the Deity of Christ is no longer clearly stated.

"THE ROCK OF BIBLICAL HONESTY". American Standard Version of 1901, declares in a footnote: "The word of God, in place of He Who rests on no sufficient ancient evidence, some ancient authorities read which". Now that would look nice wouldn't it? "The mystery of godliness, which was manifest in the flesh"

N.A.S.V. is slightly more kind, its marginal note, which is truly a masterpiece of understatement of the case, says; "some later manuscripts read God."

THE FACTS OF THE CASE
DEAN BURGON - A truly great scholar who personally researched many of the ancient manuscripts. "The reading adopted by the revisors, is not found in more than two copies, is not supported by a single version, and is not clearly advocated by a single Father."

PROF. CHARLES HODGE - Re. "God" in 1Tim 3:16: "For God, we find the great body of the cursive manuscripts, and almost all of the Greek fathers, and the internal evidence is decidedly in favour of the common text."

TRINITARIAN BIBLE SOCIETY. Re 1 Timothy 3:16: "At the time of the revision (1881) nearly three hundred Greek copies were known to give indisputable support to the Received Text (God was manifest in the flesh) while not more than a handful of Greek copies could be quoted in favour of "who" or "which". i.e. "Which was manifest in the flesh"

CODEX SINAITICUS. The only manuscript of great antiquity that can be cited in favour of the new reading, "Who was manifest in the flesh", is the Codex Sinaiticus. For notes on the thoroughly unreliable nature of this text see page 6 of this brochure.

CODEX VATICANUS AND SINAITICUS. These two ancient manuscripts share the awesome responsibility for omitting the last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark. Vaticanus leaves a blank space or rather column after Mark 16:8, indicating that the scribe knew he was omitting the verses.

Sinaiticus bears unmistakable evidence of serious tampering with the text at this point, and is therefore an unreliable witness.

Back to 1Tim 3:15 (God was manifest in the flesh.)
In the second century approximately 200 years before the offending Sinaiticus was in existence, the writings of Hippolytus, Barnabus, and Ignatious evidence the fact that second century Christians read "God was manifest in the flesh" in their Bibles.

Dionysius of Alexandria, writing approximately A.D. 264, quotes "God was manifest in the flesh", at least 100 years before either of the "oldest and best manuscripts" were written.

The New American Standard Version makes much of ancient witnesses. Simple integrity demands that the translators should acknowledge that these writings prove that the authors found "God was manifest in the flesh", in Bibles much more ancient in their witness, than those they are using to correct the Authorized Version.

Further, let them now confess that the Authorized, King James Version at this point and on many other occasions transmits to us a text which was in common use, long before the manuscripts used to "revise" the K.J.V. were in existence.

THAT GLORIOUS NAME JEHOVAH
Repeatedly in the New Testament we find clear indications that this glorious Name of our God is the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. That blessed Name is filled with revelations of the character of our God. The souls of God's people have been thrilled through the passing centuries with, Jehovah Nissi, Jehovah Shalom, Jehovah Tsidkenu etc.

The preface to the New American Standard Version of 1963 states, regarding that Name: "It is felt by many who are in touch with the laity of our churches that this name conveys no religious or spiritual overtones. It is strange, uncommon, and without sufficient religious and devotional background. No amount of scholarly debate can overcome this deficiency. Hence, it was decided to avoid the use of this name in the translation proper." Editorial Board, Lockman Foundation.

The Argument "NOT FOUND IN VATICANUS", Is Not Valid.
Vaticanus claimed by many to be the oldest and best Greek manuscript. VATICANUS OMITS:

All of first Timothy

All of second Timothy

All of Titus

Nearly all of Genesis (Gen 1 to 46:29)

The last twelve verses of Mark's Gospel. (Mark 16:9-20)

Our Lord's prayer on the cross. "Father forgive them..." (Luke 23:34)

Our Lord's agony and bloodlike sweat in the Garden of Gethsemane. (Luke 22:44)

The last four and a half chapters of Hebrews (Hebrews 9:14 to 13:25)

Thirty three of the Psalms (Psalms 106 - 13

Plus many other omissions

SINAITICUS, second of the "oldest and best" manuscripts, has a history.
Scholars discern the hand of ten different scribes, making many, many alterations over a period of several hundred years. Tischendorf the discovered of Sinaiticus noted 12,000 alterations in the text.

IT THEREFORE FOLLOWS:

1. If Sinaiticus was an accurate copy of the Word of God at the beginning of its history, it is absolutely impossible that it is now, after ten specialists have made so many alterations in the text.

2. If Siniaticus was not an accurate copy of the Word of God at the start, then it is absolutely inconceivable that ten different textual chiropractors labouring over a period of a few hundred years, have succeeded in making what must have been a hopelessly corrupt copy into one of the "oldest and best" of manuscripts.

The marginal notes of the New American Standard Version, which constantly quote "the oldest" or "late mss. add" etc. serve to obscure the truth of God's Word, rather than to enlighten it.

In the light of the above it is evident that the statement "not found in the earliest manuscripts" is at its best misleading, and at its worst either intentionally or unintentionally, a withholding of the actual facts.

EVERY BIBLE STUDENT:

Should beware of accepting any change from the King James Version at any time, but especially when the change is accompanied by the explanation, "not found in the oldest and best manuscripts", regardless of which version they may be examining.

Dallas Theological Seminary, Moody Bible Institure, Prairie Bible Institute, have all properly rejected the Revised Standard Version. In each case exception is taken to the fact that this version fails to exhibit the full Deity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Your post is sooooooo long. A full response to everything will have to wait for now. The RED WINGS are playing!

But honestly, do you really expect me to continue to reply to you if you ignore what I say? If you were ever going to convince me you are right and my view is wrong, you have to answer my questions. Yet you continue to ignore them and in essence me. This is not the thread to prove the KJ is the perfect Word of God. I don't want to get into it much more anyways b/c the mods & admins have asked to stop it in the past. Not as though it matters. Anything I say, you will avoid as you have been doing.

You refered to me as a closed book yet I am the one responding to you, and you are the one ignoring me. Of course, the non-KJ person is close minded b/c he disagrees. But how much more close minded are you showing yourself to be by not allowing any discussion to take place by not acknowledging the questions, statements, and disagreements? I am not even sure why I am still writing b/c it is even doubtful that you will read this. So I'll stop ...for now...

Ebenezer,
Better go back and do some more research on the paedobaptist argument regarding the KJ translators - the Anglican church immersed up until the late 17th century!

The King James Bible - the one God uses & Satan hates!

Hebrews uses the same word in ch 6:

Hbr 6:1 ¶ Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
3 And this will we do, if God permit.

This is the New Covenant doctrine of Christian baptism, NOT washing. In Heb. 9 he keeps his promise, contrasting the typical OC baptisms with the effective blood of Christ.

The same word is also used for the Pharisaic baptisms of utensils.

You say, "While the grammar allows, context requires." That makes it an interpretation, rather than a literal translation.

Good Morning from Louisiana Greek Tim.

Wanted to give you something to consider today.

Since you are a young student of being textual critic you should know what text`s the early Church Fathers quoted.Also your NT text`s belong back in the garbage can in the monastary at Sinai.

Also my Bible KJ tells me I am still saved {1st Cor 1:18}and the NKJV/NASB still says you are being saved.

Also someone has said why is so many professing Christians seem to have corrupted minds?

This question deserves a good answer.If the Text`s behind the modern day versions are corrupted which evidence shows, then a man or woman that memorizes them in their mind`s are indeed corrupting their minds with corrupted manuscript`s,this is plain and simple logic.

In Christ.

Brother Miller.


However you must also consider that the Byzantine text is more attested to in the Church Fathers {a group of people up to approx 4th cent} It is said that the Church Fathers in their writings included practically all the New Testament minus a handful of verses.


If we lost all Greek manuscripts of the NT we could in all probability build it up from the Church Fathers. Their writings overwhelmingly favour the Byzantine readings.



Let us consider Mark 16:9-20.

John Burgon, the Anglican Dean of Chicester, wrote most convincingly that these verses are part of Scripture and we acknowledge the debt owed by all of us to him for this.


If the Ancient writers used these verses then we would have to admit that there is a high possibility that they are part of the Bible. If they were also used in ancient translations then we would have to agree that the likelihood of them being in the Bible is very high indeed.


As they were not in Vaticanus or Sinaiticus modern scholar-ship denies their inspiration and if you look in your English Bible, you will see a note saying so in more polite language (usually "the oldest and best manuscripts do not contain these verses").
So is there any ancient evidence for this passage?


First: the versions translated into any other languages
The NT was translated into many different versions and tongues very early on, in fact well before Sinai-ticus or Vaticanus. Thus we can glimpse what the NT in Greek would have been like. IN ALL THESE TRANSLATIONS (Peshitta 2nd cent., Curetonian 3rd cent., Philoxenian 5th cent—all Syriac, Old 2nd cent, Jerome 4th cent-Latin, Gothic 4th cent, Egyptian 4/5th cent, Thebaic 3rd cent) Mark 16:9-20 is present.

Second: {the ancient writings}

If the Christians included these verses then we must wonder as to the accuracy of the Critical readings. Let me just detail some of the writings that include parts of the disputed section.

Justin Martyr 151 AD quotes the last verse; Irenaeus quotes and comments on v19, 180 AD; Hippolytus quotes verses 17-18 AD190-227; Vincentius also 17-18 AD256; Eusebius AD325; Ambrose of Milan AD374-97quotes verse 15; (AD dates mean date of writing).

It appears likely that the Greek New Testament of the first few centuries did contain these verses.This casts doubt on the accuracy of the Critical text.

The Second passage is 1 John 5:7-8. These verses are probably the best and most explicit Trinitarian statement in scripture. Modern day "Evangelical" Christian Scholars such as John RW Stott, Rector Emeritus of All Souls Lang-ham Place, deny the place in scripture of this passage.
Again we have evidence for its inclusion. It is quoted by two Spanish bishops in the 4th century as scripture. It is quoted in Latin by Cyprian 250AD and Cassiodorus 480-570 AD.
These and other mentions tend to confirm the TR postion and give support to it as the most probable reading.

The Critical Text omits or alters many verses of which these are just a few:

Luke 2:33 changes "And Joseph and his (Jesus) mother" to "and his father and mother"

Rom 14:10 changes "Christ" to "God"

1 Tim 3:16 changes "God" to "He"

All of these verses seem to go with the general aim of the alterations.
To deny the deity of Christ!

If we were to read a history of the church from a Catholic point of view we would see Luther not painted as a hero but as a lazy faithless monk.
We would pick up on the point of view very quickly as Calvin, John Knox and Henry VIII are all castigated.
We would be more suspicious as we note the adoration of Mary and the saints.
As we see the paeans of praise to John Henry Newman and Ronald Knox we would definitely start to wonder as to the truth of the docu-ment! We would pick up on its bias and ignore it.
The Critical text and others like it are all part of the Alexandrian family which tend towards a unitarian (non-trinitarian) slant.
Alexandria in Egypt was the home of many heretics as well as many gnostic movements.
Thus we would do well to be wary of these texts.

The Critical texts are also in sharp divergence not only with the TR but also with each other.
Some salient facts include: Sinaiticus and Vaticanus disagree with each other approximately 3000 times in the Gospels alone!

The Critical text lists in Mark 1:2 Isaiah as the author of the book of Malachi.(written in 1999)
Further study (2004) shows that this more correct:
The Critical text states in Mark 1:2 "it is written in Isaiah the prophet" Malachi is given as an additional reference in the Notes. Read the background study HERE...


"Jesus" is omitted 70 times in the Critical Text. "Christ" is omitted 29 times.

Also we do not know how many copies the two MSS are away from the autographs. I borrow from GW Anderson this idea:

Imagine it is 3000AD. A team of Bible experts locate an English Bible dating from the 1970's. It becomes the oldest Bible around by far.
The critics use it to translate into the new languages (say Eurogerman) all the evidence points to the fact we must accept this as the most accurate until we find it is the New World translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Consider then the fact that it is possible that the two MSS, despite being the oldest, were merely biased and inaccurate mutilations of the true text.
The situation is the same as above. It is possible.

We must also consider the idea of preservation of the text by God Himself.

God Preserves his Word

The Christian has to ask fundamentally, How can we be sure? Is it possible that the scholars are right?

The problem is that, although the evidence does lead to the conclusion that the TR is the best and most accurate translation, it cannot be proven by textual basis alone.
The textual critics are wrong in their assumptions.
The Bible is a supernatural book, a book of a super-natural God.
He says in His Word "the scripture cannot be broken" John 10:35 but most strongly in 1 Peter 1:23-25.

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the WORD OF GOD, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth and the flower therof falleth away, But the Word of the Lord endureth for ever..." (capitals added -Ed)

We can only be sure in God and His Word. He says (not me) it is incorruptible, it lives and abides for ever. The Church must then accept that we have His Word and always have had it. Since the first word of Genesis to the last day.
If we accept the Critical Text then we accept that the Church did not have the true Bible until the 19th century and men of God such as Polycarp, Calvin, Simons, even the Puritans such as Baxter and his ilk, were not only deceived in that respect but also in the whole truth because if God did not preserve His Word then He is a liar and the faith of Christianity is a total sham and waste of our time.
Are we seriously going to entertain that prospect?
Has the church been deceived by an evil and dishonest God? The Bible says not one jot or tittle shall be destroyed until ALL be fulfilled.
Critical Theory says the Bible has lost and gained bits all throughout the first few centuries.
The Bible says it is the word of God. Critical Theory says it is a human book like any other, uninspired but perhaps inspiring at best.

To Summarise
The TR is backed up by the evidence of history, versions, ancient writers as well as by internal consistency. It agrees well with each variant of the text. Most of the Greek manuscripts are of that type. The earliest translations seem to use the TR—not the Critical Text. Most early church writers seem to quote from a Textus Receptus New Testament. The LORD has seen fit to give the Textus Receptus from nigh on the start. It is not polluted by unbelieving scholars or theories.
It is truly the Text God has preserved all through the ages, as He said He would, for His church. It is the only text to be preserved (by God) and used by the church all through the ages.
Therefore I commend it to you my brethren and suggest that we are not being unnecessarily divisive in saying the Textus Receptus is the Text we believe in to the exclusion of the Greek Critical Text.
Finally I must acknowledge my debt to the writings of GW and DE Anderson of The Trintarian Bible Society who helpfully provided much of the material used here.
I recommend writing to the TBS for their brochures and letters on these topics.

God Bless—Dept. Ed



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sources: TBS "The Greek New Testament", "Textual Key to the New Testament", "God was Manifest in the Flesh" (1 Tim 3:16), "Why 1 John 5:7-8 is in the Bible", "The Authenticity of the last Twelve verses of the Gospel According to Mark"

We all know that Psalm 12: 6-7 says that God will preseve his word, but what does this mean in the NASB?

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words; As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times.
Psa 12:7 You, O LORD, will keep them; You will preserve him from this generation forever.

or NIV?

Psa 12:6 And the words of the Lord are flawless,like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times
Psa 12:7 O Lord, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever.

ESV?

Psa 12:6 The words of the Lord are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 You, O Lord, will keep them; you will guard us[fn2] from this generation forever.

....

Sorry duplicated

This post was last modified: Thu Jun 05, 2008 08:01 PM by Davo.

James, if you are not going to respond to my questions or statements, then why should I continue this conversation with you? Like I said, if you are going to win me over, you are going to have to interface between the two of us. If you keep writing all this stuff and ignoring me, do you really expect me to listen to what you have to say?

{GT Wrote:Quote}

James, if you are not going to respond to my questions or statements, then why should I continue this conversation with you? Like I said, if you are going to win me over, you are going to have to interface between the two of us. If you keep writing all this stuff and ignoring me, do you really expect me to listen to what you have to say?

{Unquote}

{BM Comments}

I don`t see,Greek Tim,you accepting God`s Word,in the KJ Bible.Your education would be a lost cause,if you changed your mind now.Your done,so I will need a fork.{Chuckle}

The article, above shows who the very early Church Fathers, as far back as the middle of the 1st century quoted ,the TR/RT.


The TR is backed up by the evidence of history, versions, ancient writers as well as by internal consistency.Refer to post #71.

GT, all I have to say is being saved, and are saved is not the same meaning`s as you think.{1st Cor 1:18}

God bless you GT.

In Christ.

Brother Steven Miller.