“And the earth was without form, and void”

[CoreIssue]

Well, thanks for referencing the link. I'm a creationist, however, so I've never really felt the need to break up the Genesis account into different ages or time periods. That's why I was asking if you were a Christian evolutionist.

I don't really feel the leading to dig into the question right now, but maybe we can pick it up another time.

Thanks again for the post.

I am old earth creation. You are young earth creation.

Then study the subject more and join me.

Understand, that this is the sanctification issue, not a salvation issue.

That is like those that say if you don't share their rapture view, you cannot be saved. Post tribulationist are well known for that.

Evolution is from Satan in my book.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I am old earth creation. You are young earth creation.

Evolution is from Satan in my book.

Glad to hear it (even if some on this forum are not). Btw, I'm very firmly Post-Trib/Pre-Wrath, but I'm not one of those that thinks it's some sort of salvation issue.

Well, gotta go. Gotta get my "Pre-Thanksgiving" work done, LoL.

 

[CoreIssue]

Glad to hear it (even if some on this forum are not). Btw, I'm very firmly Post-Trib/Pre-Wrath, but I'm not one of those that thinks it's some sort of salvation issue.

Well, gotta go. Gotta get my "Pre-Thanksgiving" work done, LoL.

Then there is the Post Thanksgiving diet.

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

I think that Gen 1:2 and the Spirit of God moved upon the waters, is the major point.
Not to mention that Jesus did just that.

And Gen 2: 8
And Gen 3:1 now the serpent was more stubtil than any beast of the field ?

 

[ScottA]

I am old earth creation. You are young earth creation.

Then study the subject more and join me.

Understand, that this is the sanctification issue, not a salvation issue.

That is like those that say if you don't share their rapture view, you cannot be saved. Post tribulationist are well known for that.

Evolution is from Satan in my book.

This is the result of the illusion of time.

The world is made manifest...in other words, it is what is manifest from on high: If young earth, then young. If old earth, then old. If 6000 years, then 6000 years. If billions of years, then billions.

The only thing that is right, is that which is according to God, whom is not of the created (manifest) universe. In the end no other position is valid. That is why "with God a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years a day", and why the "year of the Lord" is reduced to His "time", His "moment", to be completely without time, as "I am." It is also why the scriptures clarify the truth of a matter in past tense, and as "before the foundation of the world."

It is eternity that is true.

Romans 3:4
"Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar."

 

[CoreIssue]

From that the destruction between verses one and two that there was no dry land oceans. Basically an all encompassing bank of heavy fog.

God did not create the earth in that condition in verse one.

Isaiah 45:18 New International Version (NIV)
18 For this is what the Lord says—
he who created the heavens,
he is God;
he who fashioned and made the earth,
he founded it;
he did not create it to be empty,
but formed it to be inhabited—
he says:
“I am the Lord,
and there is no other.

The King James version is wrong. It became, not was formless of void.

Genesis 1:6-9 New International Version (NIV)
6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.

 

[CoreIssue]

This is the result of the illusion of time.

The world is made manifest...in other words, it is what is manifest from on high: If young earth, then young. If old earth, then old. If 6000 years, then 6000 years. If billions of years, then billions.

The only thing that is right, is that which is according to God, whom is not of the created (manifest) universe. In the end no other position is valid. That is why "with God a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years a day", and why the "year of the Lord" is reduced to His "time", His "moment", to be completely without time, as "I am." It is also why the scriptures clarify the truth of a matter in past tense, and as "before the foundation of the world."

It is eternity that is true.

Romans 3:4
"Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar."

It is a theological term.

The rest of what you said has nothing to do with the points discussed.

 

[ScottA]

It is a theological term.

The rest of what you said has nothing to do with the points discussed.

You were disagreeing with a brother/sister. I told you why there is no there there. Theological indeed.

As you will.

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

From that the destruction between verses one and two that there was no dry land oceans. Basically an all encompassing bank of heavy fog.

God did not create the earth in that condition in verse one.

Isaiah 45:18 New International Version (NIV)
18 For this is what the Lord says—
he who created the heavens,
he is God;
he who fashioned and made the earth,
he founded it;
he did not create it to be empty,
but formed it to be inhabited—
he says:
“I am the Lord,
and there is no other.

The King James version is wrong. It became, not was formless of void.

Genesis 1:6-9 New International Version (NIV)
6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.

You want to read all of 45 bro to understand what is being truly said in context.
NIV is bastardised crap.

 

[CoreIssue]

You want to read all of 45 bro to understand what is being truly said in context.
NIV is bastardised crap.

I know what's being said.

If you don't know what the problems with KJV eight you haven't studied.

 

[Enoch111]

If you don't know what the problems with KJV eight you haven't studied.

Actually those who have studied and researched the matter fully understand that THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH THE KJV.

However there are huge problems with all modern bible versions from 1881 onwards.

 

[CoreIssue]

Actually those who have studied and researched the matter fully understand that THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH THE KJV.

However there are huge problems with all modern bible versions from 1881 onwards.

Only if you read pro KJV sites. Tell me how manuscripts that did not exist until the 1500s AD can be superior to those dating back to BC times and first century AD?

As well the King James Version you use this vastly different from the 1611 version. Many of the changes came from using the same sources close so called corrupt new translations use.

Here's the bible you are praising.

King James Bible

It is been revised how many times?

KJVOnliest dismiss age and say they have more manuscripts. Of course they do when a lot of the older ones didn't survive and the Catholics produced the abundance of manuscripts they say are more reliable. But they do not answer the age issue.

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

Only if you read pro KJV sites. Tell me how manuscripts that did not exist until the 1500s AD can be superior to those dating back to BC times and first century AD?

As well the King James Version you use this vastly different from the 1611 version. Many of the changes came from using the same sources close so called corrupt new translations use.

Here's the bible you are praising.

King James Bible

It is been revised how many times?

KJVOnliest dismiss age and say they have more manuscripts. Of course they do when a lot of the older ones didn't survive and the Catholics produced the abundance of manuscripts they say are more reliable. But they do not answer the age issue.

Bibles from around the 1980's and on are the worst bastardised by far that I have seen they clearly loose the plot being very worldly translations and the Holy Spirit in the message is missing.

Sure the Authorized KJV is one of the best but can be somewhat hard for younger people to read and sure it has been tampered with by Satanist in some regard but nothing like the new rubbish that's out nowadays.

One problem is that English changes as the years go by, so it has to be revised, just listen to the rubbish that young people say nowadays and it's only going to get much worse, you will not be able to say mum or dad or boy or girl for fear of persecution soon, because that's claimed to be the evils of discrimination in this new age world, but discriminating is all about the art of intelligence in my day but in the new PC Socialist age you are not aloud to think for yourself, as that will be done for you, as your views don't count for anything, so we may of won the war but the Nazis and Communist have won the battle. so after 1945 the rot has set in slowly in everything Bibles included have been tampered with, all the Churches that have been bastardised totally with so much satanic rubbish that Jesus Christ does not fit in to there new world agenda.

So the future is that what people will call each other is madness like what's up dog (dowg) and hoe and all that pathetic stupid type of crap like that, the Political Correct (Political thought police) have no problems with that rubbish now do they. no because the Political Social constructionist Satanist are pushing this gibberish filth, they have been at it for years, it's the same with the new Bibles they don't convey the Holy Spirit and people will can not pick up on the reality of the message because worldliness has tampered with the new Bible translation.

I have picked up the new Bibles and read them to only toss them away, I went to get a new top shelf RC Bible and I was totally shocked at how dumb down it was, it was bastardised. so I had to go find an old one.

 

[Enoch111]

Bibles from around the 1980's and on are the worst bastardised by far

You could go all the way back to 1881. Every modern version since then is a corrupted Bible.

 

[Enoch111]

Tell me how manuscripts that did not exist until the 1500s AD can be superior to those dating back to BC times and first century AD?

In response to your question, here is the answer:

PART I
Modern naturalistic textual critics and scholars since the 18th century have been promoting the myth that the oldest Bible manuscripts are the best, presumably because they are the closest to the original autographs. Nestle, Nestle-Aland, the United Bible Societies, Bruce Metzger, etc. are all committed to this fallacy.

But this fallacy also produced a deliberate deception – a hoax – which asserted (without a scintilla of proof) that it was the Byzantine Text which was corrupt, and the corrupt text which was pure! This was the primary contribution of Westcott & Hort, and today almost the entire Christian world believes this lie. And we know who is the Father of Lies.

Under normal circumstances it would be reasonable to conclude that the oldest manuscripts were the best, but the Bible has always been under attack, so in the case of the Bible, the opposite is true. The Word of God was being corrupted even while the apostle Paul was alive: 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. (2 Cor 2:17). While the Greek word καπηλεύοντες (kapeleuontes) literally means “peddle” (and the modern versions have resorted to this meaning), it has a deeper meaning, which is to corrupt or adulterate.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 2585: καπηλεύω ... καπηλεύειν τί was also used as synonymous with to corrupt, to adulterate (Themistius, or. 21, p. 247, Hard. edition says that the false philosophers τόθειοτατον τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἀγαθῶν κιβδηλεύειντέ καί αἰσχύνειν καί καπηλεύειν); and most interpreters rightly decide in favor of this meaning (on account of the context) in 2 Corinthians 2:17, cf. δολουντόν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, 2 Corinthians 4:2. (Cf. Trench, § lxii.)

Dean John W. Burgon was one of the few leading conservative textual scholars of the 19th century, who actually examined the Greek manuscripts personally, collated them, and wrote extensively about the corruption of the Greek text by Westcott & Hort, and their naturalistic predecessors (Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmanm, Tishendorf, Tregelles, etc., primarily German scholars influenced by Higher Criticism). He thoroughly reviewed the corruption of manuscripts at a very early date, and F.H. A. Scrivener, the primary 19th century textual scholar who also wrote extensively on this subject (and indeed produced the first textbook of textual criticism – A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament ) agreed with him totally. Burgon summed up the corruption of the New Testament in his book -- The Revision Revised -- as follows:

‘We know that Origen in Palestine, Lucian at Antioch, Hesychius in Egypt, “revised” the text of the N. T. Unfortunately, they did their work in an age when such fatal misapprehension prevailed on the subject, that each in turn will have inevitably imported a fresh assortment of monstra into the sacred writings.

Add, the baneful influence of such spirits as Theophilus (sixth Bishop of Antioch, A.D. 168), Tatian, Ammonius, &c., of whom we know there were very many in the primitive age,—some of whose productions, we further know, were freely multiplied in every quarter of ancient Christendom:—add, the fabricated Gospels which anciently abounded; notably the Gospel of the Hebrews, about which Jerome is so communicative, and which (he says) he had translated into Greek and Latin:—lastly, freely grant that here and there, with well-meant assiduity, the orthodox themselves may have sought to prop up truths which the early heretics (Basilides, A.D. 134, Valentinus, A.D. 140, with his disciple Heracleon, Marcion, A.D. 150, and the rest,) most perseveringly assailed;—and we have sufficiently explained how it comes to pass that not a few of the codices of primitive Christendom must have exhibited Texts which were even scandalously corrupt.

“It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound,” writes the most learned of the Revisionist body, [Scrivener] “that the worst corruptions, to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed: that Irenæus [A.D. 150] and the African Fathers, and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus Receptus.” And what else are codices Aleph B C D but specimens—in vastly different degrees—of the class thus characterized by Prebendary Scrivener? Nay, who will venture to deny that those codices are indebted for their preservation solely to the circumstance, that they were long since recognized as the depositories of Readings which rendered them utterly untrustworthy?’ (Revision Revised ,pp 55,56).

[Please note: Aleph is Codex Sinaiticus, B is Codex Vaticanus, both of which are related to each other. Then we have A (Codex Alexandrinus), C (Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus), and D (Codex Bezae). This group of manuscripts (along with a few others) is called the Alexandrian text-type or the Minority Text vs the Received Text (Textus Receptus), which is also called the Byzantine text-type, and found in the MAJORITY of manuscripts. The so-called Majority Text edited recently is not a true Majority Text, since the vast number of manuscripts (including Lectionaries), have not even been touched].

 

[Enoch111]

PART II
What was the nature of this corruption? It consisted of omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications. Burgon detailed these corruptions in The Revision Revised, as well as several other books (all of which are now available as reprints):

‘It matters nothing that all four [Aleph B C D] are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant MSS. besides, but even from one another. This last circumstance, obviously fatal to their corporate pretensions, is unaccountably overlooked. And yet it admits of only one satisfactory explanation: viz. that in different degrees they all five exhibit a fabricated text.

Between the first two (B and Aleph) there subsists an amount of sinister resemblance, which proves that they must have been derived at no very remote period from the same corrupt original. Tischendorf insists that they were partly written by the same scribe. Yet do they stand asunder in every page; as well as differ widely from the commonly received Text, with which they have been carefully collated.

On being referred to this standard, in the Gospels alone, B is found to omit at least 2877 words: to add, 536: to substitute, 935: to transpose, 2098: to modify, 1132 (in all 7578):—the corresponding figures for Aleph being severally 3455, 839, 1114, 2299, 1265 (in all 8972). And be it remembered that the omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, are by no means the same in both. It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two MSS. differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree...

[Note: This only in the Gospels. The same applies to the rest of the New Testament, which has an estimated total of over 13,000 corruptions, as compared to the Received Text.]

...But by far the most depraved text is that exhibited by codex D. “No known manuscript contains so many bold and extensive interpolations. Its variations from the sacred Text are beyond all other example.” This, however, is not the result of its being the most recent of the five, but (singular to relate) is due to quite an opposite cause. It is thought (not without reason) to exhibit a IInd-century text...

What we are just now insisting upon is only the depraved text of codices Aleph A B C D,— especially of Aleph B D. And because this is a matter which lies at the root of the whole controversy, and because we cannot afford that there shall exist in our reader's mind the slightest doubt on this part of the subject, we shall be constrained once and again to trouble him with detailed specimens of the contents of Aleph B, &c., in proof of the justice of what we have been alleging. We venture to assure him, without a particle of hesitation, that Aleph B D are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant:—exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with:—have become, by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of Truth,—which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of GOD...

We shall perhaps be told that, scandalously corrupt as the text of Aleph B C D hereabouts may be, no reason has been shown as yet for suspecting that heretical depravation ever had anything to do with such phenomena. That (we answer) is only because the writings of the early depravers and fabricators of Gospels have universally perished... An instructive specimen of depravation follows, which can be traced to Marcion's mutilated recension of S. Luke's Gospel. We venture to entreat the favour of the reader's sustained attention to the license with which the LORD'S Prayer as given in S. Luke's Gospel (xi. 2-4), is exhibited by codices Aleph A B C D... (Revision Revised, pp. 37,28,41,58,59)

Those supporting the critical texts and modern versions have claimed that the changes in these newer versions have no impact on doctrine. That again is a lie. Anyone who takes the time to carefully examine how the doctrines of Christ and the triune Godhead have been attacked will see that the Gnostic heretics who tampered with the New Testament were attempting to change Bible truth and promote their heresies.

 

[brakelite]

This is an invaluable read.

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

You could go all the way back to 1881. Every modern version since then is a corrupted Bible.

One could call every English translation corrupt, because it does not do a great job because some of the translation just misses the mark.

But what I am one about is the great bastardisation of bibles now that are just shocking rubbish. because people who read it will not truly get the message and this has all been done by the workings of Satan that's at play.

 

[CoreIssue]

This is not an answer. I ask you how manuscripts from the 1500s are superior to those from BC and early AD times.

You turned it into an attack on more modern translations.

You changed the baseline to the King James version and based on your arguments and it.

And of course manuscripts written by Catholics under Catholics in the 1500's are going to be consistent.

But with that said even in the minor deviations in old manuscripts, they all support the King James version has added words and text none of the early manuscripts contained.

So you can claim superiority all you want, but all you have done is attack others. You have not proven King James accuracy.

As simple fact the 1611 King James version contained the apocryphal testifies against it. The King James Version of the Bible has had four major revisions since 1611. These revisions took place in 1629, 1637, 1762, and 1769. Plus minor ones. And the new King James version.

You cannot escape the blatant truth that Easter did not exist during the time of the apostles. But the worship of Ishtar did and Easter is the catholic adoption under the name Easter. And genesis says the earth became, not God created it shapeless and void.

Your methodology of criticism is invalid.

The King James Version of the Bible has had four major revisions since 1611. These revisions took place in 1629, 1637, 1762, and 1769. Plus minor ones. And the new King James version.

My problem with the King James version are the errors introduced by Catholicism. And the influence of Catholicism on.

The inclusion of the apocrypha and such as Easter are issues you can not deny.

Plus a simple reality we do not speak archaic English.

As a side note, your criticisms have been around for decades. Nothing new nor will they go way, either for or against.

After all, there are still people defending the book of Mormon and koran, in example.

 

[CoreIssue]

One more note, calling other versions bastardisation shows some have elevated the King James version into something even the authors never claimed to be, the one and only true bible.