Post by bounbough on May 13, 2007 22:05:36 GMT -5
Divine inspiration must be absolute; otherwise the translators would make errors. 1 COR 1:5 “A little leaveneth the whole lump”. So God’s Word must be divinely inspired 100% and not 96.4% because of human error (oops, sorry about the human leaven). For example, when translating the word ‘chief’ from 1 Tim 1:15 from the Greek Word protos, the translator will find the word protos here:
1. that are first - Matthew 19:30
2. Former – Acts 1:1
3. First – 1 Tim 1:16
4. Chiefest – Mark 10:44
5. Best – Luke 15:22
6. Before – John 1:15
But only but divine inspiration could the translator know what word to write in context for protos. But modern Bible versions which rely on the corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts (the ‘original Greek’ as they boast) are translated by Bible scholars with letters before their name. And as we can see from the book of Acts, education doesn’t maketh the man, but by faith in God and by the power of the Holy Ghost. Coincidently, the Puritans had all three. They weren’t called ‘Puritans’ for nothing.
What about the revisions to the KJV since its inception? Are those inspired too?
The King James was revised several times prior to 1800. This was to correct typographical errors, add notes and omit the Apocrypha from between the Testaments. The puritans didn’t want the Apocrypha included in the testaments, but certain scholars (undercover Jesuit agents) were interfering.
______________________________________________________
I know that there are different historical versions floating around about the history of the Bible.
Here is what I have uncovered so far:
Modern translations stem from two Greek scholars from England called B.F.Westcott and F.J. Hort. They used the corrupt 4th century manuscripts which I mentioned earlier. The Codex Vaticanus (note the word Vatican) found in the Pope’s library in 1481 (which includes the Apocrypha) and the Sinaiticus (apparently found discarded) at St. Catherine’s monastery on Mt. Sinai). The Vaticanus omits parts of the new testament like the book of revelations and Hebrews after chapter 9:14 (“a very convenient stopping point for the ROC since God forbids their priesthood in Hebrews 10). The corruption in these manuscripts started in Alexandra Egypt with the works of Origen and Clement of Alexandria. Origen had an understudy called Eusebius who was the Bishop of Caesaria. Constantine ordered 50 copies of the Bible from Eusebius. Eusebius sent Constantine the manuscripts that Origen had been working on instead of the true word of God in the Syrian text from Antioch, Syria. So the corrupt Alexandrian text (also called the Egyptian or Hesychian type text) found its way into the Vatican manuscript (Vaticanus), then eventually into the Westcott and Hort Greek text, and finally into ‘new’ Bible versions available at your local Christian bookstore. So when one is trying to erroneously correct the Authorized King James Bible with “older” “lets see what the Greek says” manuscripts, then one is really using an old Roman Catholic Bible to overthrow the God honoured text of the Protestant Reformation and great revivals.
Furthermore, the New King James Bible ought not to be confused with the King James 1611. A man called Jerry Falwell and his team tried to correct the King James with verses out of the American Standard Versions (ASV 1901) and the Revised Standard Versions (RSV - 1951). But they made a right hash of it.
1. that are first - Matthew 19:30
2. Former – Acts 1:1
3. First – 1 Tim 1:16
4. Chiefest – Mark 10:44
5. Best – Luke 15:22
6. Before – John 1:15
But only but divine inspiration could the translator know what word to write in context for protos. But modern Bible versions which rely on the corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts (the ‘original Greek’ as they boast) are translated by Bible scholars with letters before their name. And as we can see from the book of Acts, education doesn’t maketh the man, but by faith in God and by the power of the Holy Ghost. Coincidently, the Puritans had all three. They weren’t called ‘Puritans’ for nothing.
What about the revisions to the KJV since its inception? Are those inspired too?
The King James was revised several times prior to 1800. This was to correct typographical errors, add notes and omit the Apocrypha from between the Testaments. The puritans didn’t want the Apocrypha included in the testaments, but certain scholars (undercover Jesuit agents) were interfering.
______________________________________________________
I know that there are different historical versions floating around about the history of the Bible.
Here is what I have uncovered so far:
Modern translations stem from two Greek scholars from England called B.F.Westcott and F.J. Hort. They used the corrupt 4th century manuscripts which I mentioned earlier. The Codex Vaticanus (note the word Vatican) found in the Pope’s library in 1481 (which includes the Apocrypha) and the Sinaiticus (apparently found discarded) at St. Catherine’s monastery on Mt. Sinai). The Vaticanus omits parts of the new testament like the book of revelations and Hebrews after chapter 9:14 (“a very convenient stopping point for the ROC since God forbids their priesthood in Hebrews 10). The corruption in these manuscripts started in Alexandra Egypt with the works of Origen and Clement of Alexandria. Origen had an understudy called Eusebius who was the Bishop of Caesaria. Constantine ordered 50 copies of the Bible from Eusebius. Eusebius sent Constantine the manuscripts that Origen had been working on instead of the true word of God in the Syrian text from Antioch, Syria. So the corrupt Alexandrian text (also called the Egyptian or Hesychian type text) found its way into the Vatican manuscript (Vaticanus), then eventually into the Westcott and Hort Greek text, and finally into ‘new’ Bible versions available at your local Christian bookstore. So when one is trying to erroneously correct the Authorized King James Bible with “older” “lets see what the Greek says” manuscripts, then one is really using an old Roman Catholic Bible to overthrow the God honoured text of the Protestant Reformation and great revivals.
Furthermore, the New King James Bible ought not to be confused with the King James 1611. A man called Jerry Falwell and his team tried to correct the King James with verses out of the American Standard Versions (ASV 1901) and the Revised Standard Versions (RSV - 1951). But they made a right hash of it.