RLT63
Well-Known Member
Is Jehovah the true name of God? | GotQuestions.org
Is Jehovah / Jehova the true name of God? How did using Jehovah as the name of God originate?
www.gotquestions.org
Oldest and Best, Really??
- Thread starter Davy
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
RLT63
Well-Known Member
Their purposed deception goes a whole lot deeper than what most realize based on their letters to each other. The devil is definitely involved. Hort used to attend a false church where many of the chairs or pews were reserved because they believed that the spirits of dead saints were present there in those pews with them during church service. That is a version of the practice called Spiritism, and it is of the Occult.
The 'Ghostly Guild' they were associated with in their Cambridge days later became the Society For Psychical Research, which is still active today. Historical Occult mystics, like Helena Blavatsky who founded the Theosophical Society in their era were part of the channeling movement of Spiritism.
What this means, on a Biblical level, is about the occult operations of the 'children of darkness', the "tares" which Jesus pointed out that creep in and hide among the good wheat. Our Heavenly Father allows this working to see who we will listen to. He began that testing upon Israel way back in Old Testament times because they disobeyed Him (see Judges 2 & 3). So He said He would not drive them out anymore, but let them dwell among His people to see if Israel would follow Him, or not.
So what I'm simply trying to do is to 'warn' our brethren in Christ Jesus against these later corrupt Bible versions based on the work of Wescott and Hort's new Greek text they submitted for revising The New Testament in 1880. Their Greek translation omits about 2900 words that are in the Traditional Greek text for The New Testament. And in many cases, their version removes Scripture clauses that point to the Divinity of Christ Jesus, even removing the word 'Christ' in places. Most are not going to take the time to compare with the Traditional text those kind of omissions in modern NT versions using Wescott and Hort's Greek text.
The modern corrupt NT versions may even be responsible for new believers not understanding that Jesus Christ is God having come in the flesh, just because of those ommissions in the modern translations based on Wescott and Hort's text (from the two Codexes). That idea that Jesus of Nazareth is not The Christ, that The Christ is like a Spirit that Lord Jesus only attuned to, wrongly suggests that Jesus was not God come in the flesh. It suggests that Lord Jesus was just a man like us, and not Immanuel at all according to the Scripture, which means "God with us" (Matthew 1:23, KJV). That idea is actually an old 1st-2nd century pagan Gnostic idea.
The 2nd century Gnostics tried to join Christian doctrine with their pagan Greek doctrines. They didn't believe Lord Jesus really died on the cross, but was taken down by His disciples before He died (a belief by the vain Pharisees also). The Gnostics also believed Jesus had children. So really, their whole plan is about DENYING the Divinity of Jesus Christ as God The Son, part of the Godhead of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.
This is why in those modern New Testament versions, if they include verses pointing to the Three Persons in The Godhead, they put a footnote at the bottom trying to say that idea is not in the 'best and oldest' manuscripts, deceiving the majority who buy those junk New Testament versions.
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
I disagree with Dr. Gene Kim on his understanding on this. Mr. Kim erroneously thinks it is referring to a pagan holiday.
I would recommend checking out the 3 dollar book called, Don’t Passover Easter at Amazon’s Kindle Store.
Really worthwhile read. He goes into how William Tyndale invented the word “Passover” and he looks at the Old Textus Receptus bibles, and dictionaries, ECT. In other words, Easter was the word used for Jewish Passover before William Tyndale come up with the word Passover in English.
It is a really super fast read.
Here it is at the Kindle Store:
Amazon.com
www.amazon.com
Last edited:
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
A Brief Look at
the KJV vs the Modern Translations
in American History:
the KJV vs the Modern Translations
in American History:
Abraham Lincoln had used and quoted from a King James Bible.
Old school literary authors quoted from the King James Bible.
It's influence here in America can never be forgotten.
Riots broke out here in America over their desire of having the Catholic version of the Bible in public schools. One took place in 1844 in Philadelphia. Others took place at a later date in Cincinnati, Ohio.
What Bible were Catholics up against being used in school?
The King James Bible.
In 1852, the King James Bible was ruled in court fit for use in public schools since it was common to all Christians.
It wasn't until 1872 that the state of Ohio banned mandatory Bible reading in public schools. However, the United States Supreme Court did not ban the practice of reading the bible in public schools on a national level until 1962.
While these riots were one reason that resulted in the ultimate banning of Bible reading in public schools, another reason was the declining favor for the King James Bible over the slight rising increase of interest in Modern Translations.
In New England: The first major departure from the King James Bible (Textus Receptus) took place in 1881 with Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament based on two Catholic manuscripts (The Codex Sinaiticus, and the Codex Vaticanus).
This English Revised Translation of the Old Testament done in 1885 (ERV) (Also known as the Revised Version - RV). The ERV or RV (Revised Version) was copyrighted in the United States in 1885 for publication here in America.
Note: No Modern Translation existed here in America before 1885.
The ERV was based on supposedly more advanced scholarship, but it sold poorly here in the United States.
So an effort was created to bring in the American Standard Version (ASV). It was launched in 1901. This version also was faced with a lack of success.
Then the Revised Standard Version (RSV) came out in 1947, and then the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) followed in 1971.
However, the perception of the “New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)” at this time was that it leaned more towards liberalism and ecumenism.
The last in line of these Modern Translations (mentioned here) was an implicit eucumenical translation that was intended to look good to Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians equally.
It was the NIV.
The NIV (The New International Version) released in 1973 was designed supposedly to return to the Protestant distinctiveness of the King James (Which was not true). The NIV was also designed with advances in supposedly trusted Biblical scholarship.
The NIV became the most popular Bibles ever with the American public, whereas all other versions up to this point attempted word for word translation, the NIV relied less on former translations that would be easier to understand for the average reader.
This is why the boom of Modern Bible movement went mainstream in the 1970's. It was because of the NIV. Then all the other popular candy coated Bible versions followed.
Last edited:
Re: <the "Erasmus' text'" was actually from the Majority texts>
Erasmus had 4 - just four manuscripts at his disposal from certain universities. One other manuscript existed at the time but Erasmus for some reason declined to incorporate it into his selection of 'texts' or 'manuscripts'. Erasmus' 'collection' never was or became what years later another man's collection of manuscripts for translation became to be known as - the 'Majority Text'. No such thing as a 'majority text' really could have existed before the present time that thousands of 'texts' have been discovered which as yet have had made almost no difference to the virtual status of the KJV AND NEVER WILL, BECAUSE OF THE OVERALL ACCURACY PRESERVED BY THE PROVIDENCES OF THE ALMIGHTY GOD IN ALL OF THEM, AND A FEW INAUTHENTIC 'texts' CONSEQUENTLY became SELF-identified by their INACURACIES again identifiable by intrinsic literal and historical DISAGREEMENT WITH THE MAJORITY OF MANUSCRIPTS.
It is not the Commandment of God but BLASPHEMOUS IDOLATRY that <1> i.e., <one> shall be the god of any! NO! Since when must the wise be the fools of the fools and the fools their instructors!
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Here is a list of confessions of faith by different churches over the years involving the King James Bible:
The General Baptists of England published the "Orthodox Creed" In 1678. It says, "And by the holy Scriptures we understand the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, AS THEY ARE NOW TRANSLATED INTO OUR ENGLISH MOTHER TONGUE, of which there hath NEVER been any doubt of their verity, and authority, in the protestant churches of Christ to this day." They then list the books of the Old and New Testament and then say, "All which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the Rule of faith and life." What Bible do you suppose these people were using in 1678? It was English and there can be little doubt that what they are talking about the Authorized Version of 1611.
Excerpts from the Presbyterian Encyclopaedia - 1884 - under the section of English Bible - W. Adams D.D.
"Nothing which diligence, circumspection, scholarship, love of truth, and prayer, could avail was wanting to perfect this version of the Word of God. It is what it professes to be, a translation not a paraphrase; each word and expression corresponding to the original. What has, by some, been deemed a defect, is in fact a great excellence in our translation; it preserves, as far as possible, the very idiom of the original, the peculiarities of Oriental diction; thus proving that the men who made it understood what was the best style of translation - that which a transparent glass is not seen itself but shows every thing which is beyond it."
"But so it happened, in the kind providence of God, that the received version was made just in that auspicious moment of peace mind and union among Protestants, which has secured its adoption by all as the common standard. None have charged it with partiality, as favoring this or that sect, for the good reason that these sects and partialities did not then exist."
Taken from the Association of Baptists 25th meeting 1830
We the church of Jesus Christ being regularly baptised upon the profession of our faith in Christ are convinced the concessive of associate churches. WE BELIEVE THAT THE SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD AND THE NEW TESTAMENTS AS TRANSLATED BY THE AUTHORITY OF KING JAMES TO BE THE WORDS OF GOD AND IS THE ONLY TRUE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE.
The general excellence of the English Version being admitted, ITS PERFECTION ASSUMED, AND THEREFORE ALL PRECEDING AND SUBSEQUENT VERSIONS MUST BE UNWORTHY OF NOTICE; nay, even the original text need not be consulted... (Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, The English Bible, and Our Duty with Regard to It, 1857; 1871).
Barren River Association of Baptists, in their Articles of Faith adopted in 1830, considered the Old and New Testaments, as translated by the authority of King James, to be the words of God.
Bethlehem Anti-Mission Baptist Association in their Abstract of Principles in 1838 declared the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as translated by King James, to be the Word of God.
In 1868 the General Conference of Freewill Baptists stated, we hold the sacred Scriptures in veneration, as set forth in King James’s version.
In 1896 the Washington District Regular Primitive Baptist Association changed their Abstract of Principles to say We believe that the King James Translation (out of the original tongues) is the Scripture of truth and the only rule of faith and practice.
Mates Creek District Association of Old Regular Baptists by 1905, and perhaps earlier, had an Abstract of Principles that claimed that the Scriptures of the Old Testament and New Testament, as translated under the reign of King James, are a revelation from God, inspired by the Holy Ghost.
1881: The New York Times printed the sermon of Dewit Talmage who said, Let not the hands of worldly criticism, pedantry, or useless disturbance touch that ark! Remember the fate of Uzzah! We are in the midst of an agitation caused by the revision of the New Testament. We had a translation 270 years old...satisfactory to all Christendom except a few doctors of Divinity... (Applause)...put it upon my study table, into my family room, or into my pulpit, as a substitute for the King James translation, I never will. (Great applause.) I put my hand upon the old book and take an oath of allegiance to it, so help me God!...Religion has not so much to fear from infidels as from mistaken friends of the Bible...I have some practical advice for private Christians. Hold on to your Bible… The old Bible is for me; it is good enough for you...The Bible in your houses is the Bible that will be quoted for all time to come ( June 6, 1881).
1882: I unhesitatingly say, that the same Holy Ghost who gave inspiration to the Apostles to write out the New Testament, presided over and inspired those men in the translation and bringing out of the entire Bible in the English language. And I also say, that no version since, brought out in the English language, has the Divine sanction...Now, why would God cause at this age and in these trying times, versions in the same language to be brought out, to conflict... ...He would not...I FURTHERMORE SAY, THAT THE KING JAMES' TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY DIVINELY INSPIRED... (William Washington Simkins, The English Version of the New Testament, Compared with King James' Translation, 1882).
1890: The Supreme Court said, the practice of reading THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE, COMMONLY AND ONLY RECEIVED AS INSPIRED AND TRUE by the Protestant religious sects (Decision of the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin Relating to the Reading of the Bible in Public Schools, 1890).
In 1882 author William W. Simkins wrote, I unhesitatingly say, that the same Holy Ghost who gave inspiration to the Apostles to write out the New Testament, presided over and inspired those men in the translation and bringing out of the entire [KJV] Bible in the English language. And I also say, that NO VERSION SINCE, BROUGHT OUT IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, HAS THE DIVINE...Now, why would God cause at this age and in these trying times, versions in the same language to be brought out, to conflict... ...He would not....I FURTHERMORE SAY, THAT THE KING JAMES TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY DIVINELY INSPIRED TRANSLATION" (The English Version of the New Testament, Compared with King James' Translation, W.W. Simkins, pp. 41,42).
So see a more complete list, check out this article here by Will Kinney.
The General Baptists of England published the "Orthodox Creed" In 1678. It says, "And by the holy Scriptures we understand the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, AS THEY ARE NOW TRANSLATED INTO OUR ENGLISH MOTHER TONGUE, of which there hath NEVER been any doubt of their verity, and authority, in the protestant churches of Christ to this day." They then list the books of the Old and New Testament and then say, "All which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the Rule of faith and life." What Bible do you suppose these people were using in 1678? It was English and there can be little doubt that what they are talking about the Authorized Version of 1611.
Excerpts from the Presbyterian Encyclopaedia - 1884 - under the section of English Bible - W. Adams D.D.
"Nothing which diligence, circumspection, scholarship, love of truth, and prayer, could avail was wanting to perfect this version of the Word of God. It is what it professes to be, a translation not a paraphrase; each word and expression corresponding to the original. What has, by some, been deemed a defect, is in fact a great excellence in our translation; it preserves, as far as possible, the very idiom of the original, the peculiarities of Oriental diction; thus proving that the men who made it understood what was the best style of translation - that which a transparent glass is not seen itself but shows every thing which is beyond it."
"But so it happened, in the kind providence of God, that the received version was made just in that auspicious moment of peace mind and union among Protestants, which has secured its adoption by all as the common standard. None have charged it with partiality, as favoring this or that sect, for the good reason that these sects and partialities did not then exist."
Taken from the Association of Baptists 25th meeting 1830
We the church of Jesus Christ being regularly baptised upon the profession of our faith in Christ are convinced the concessive of associate churches. WE BELIEVE THAT THE SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD AND THE NEW TESTAMENTS AS TRANSLATED BY THE AUTHORITY OF KING JAMES TO BE THE WORDS OF GOD AND IS THE ONLY TRUE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE.
The general excellence of the English Version being admitted, ITS PERFECTION ASSUMED, AND THEREFORE ALL PRECEDING AND SUBSEQUENT VERSIONS MUST BE UNWORTHY OF NOTICE; nay, even the original text need not be consulted... (Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, The English Bible, and Our Duty with Regard to It, 1857; 1871).
Barren River Association of Baptists, in their Articles of Faith adopted in 1830, considered the Old and New Testaments, as translated by the authority of King James, to be the words of God.
Bethlehem Anti-Mission Baptist Association in their Abstract of Principles in 1838 declared the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as translated by King James, to be the Word of God.
In 1868 the General Conference of Freewill Baptists stated, we hold the sacred Scriptures in veneration, as set forth in King James’s version.
In 1896 the Washington District Regular Primitive Baptist Association changed their Abstract of Principles to say We believe that the King James Translation (out of the original tongues) is the Scripture of truth and the only rule of faith and practice.
Mates Creek District Association of Old Regular Baptists by 1905, and perhaps earlier, had an Abstract of Principles that claimed that the Scriptures of the Old Testament and New Testament, as translated under the reign of King James, are a revelation from God, inspired by the Holy Ghost.
1881: The New York Times printed the sermon of Dewit Talmage who said, Let not the hands of worldly criticism, pedantry, or useless disturbance touch that ark! Remember the fate of Uzzah! We are in the midst of an agitation caused by the revision of the New Testament. We had a translation 270 years old...satisfactory to all Christendom except a few doctors of Divinity... (Applause)...put it upon my study table, into my family room, or into my pulpit, as a substitute for the King James translation, I never will. (Great applause.) I put my hand upon the old book and take an oath of allegiance to it, so help me God!...Religion has not so much to fear from infidels as from mistaken friends of the Bible...I have some practical advice for private Christians. Hold on to your Bible… The old Bible is for me; it is good enough for you...The Bible in your houses is the Bible that will be quoted for all time to come ( June 6, 1881).
1882: I unhesitatingly say, that the same Holy Ghost who gave inspiration to the Apostles to write out the New Testament, presided over and inspired those men in the translation and bringing out of the entire Bible in the English language. And I also say, that no version since, brought out in the English language, has the Divine sanction...Now, why would God cause at this age and in these trying times, versions in the same language to be brought out, to conflict... ...He would not...I FURTHERMORE SAY, THAT THE KING JAMES' TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY DIVINELY INSPIRED... (William Washington Simkins, The English Version of the New Testament, Compared with King James' Translation, 1882).
1890: The Supreme Court said, the practice of reading THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE, COMMONLY AND ONLY RECEIVED AS INSPIRED AND TRUE by the Protestant religious sects (Decision of the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin Relating to the Reading of the Bible in Public Schools, 1890).
In 1882 author William W. Simkins wrote, I unhesitatingly say, that the same Holy Ghost who gave inspiration to the Apostles to write out the New Testament, presided over and inspired those men in the translation and bringing out of the entire [KJV] Bible in the English language. And I also say, that NO VERSION SINCE, BROUGHT OUT IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, HAS THE DIVINE...Now, why would God cause at this age and in these trying times, versions in the same language to be brought out, to conflict... ...He would not....I FURTHERMORE SAY, THAT THE KING JAMES TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY DIVINELY INSPIRED TRANSLATION" (The English Version of the New Testament, Compared with King James' Translation, W.W. Simkins, pp. 41,42).
So see a more complete list, check out this article here by Will Kinney.
Last edited:
<a few years ago> like 70, 50 years ago?
WHERE did you find this DISINFORMATION 'information'? Man, make my day and tell me, please?
<What Name is that>?! "Our FATHER which art in heaven, hallowed be THY NAME: FATHER -- OUR FATHER". "Our" Father -- Father of US: of THE SON and sons and daughters children by faith in the FATHER AND THE SON their God. "AND HIS - THE SON GIVEN US - NAME : SHALL BE : FATHER".
The Name of our God - of the Christian's God is "GOD IS : HIS NAME : FATHER AND SON" only believed, confessed, trusted, worshipped BY "GOD IS ; SPIRIT" -- our GOD : GOD : FATHER AND THE SON AND THE SPIRIT. Not <one> among many, but "ONE" the ONLY FATHER SON AND HOLY SPIRIT -- THE ONE WHO the one is not without the other GOD!
RLT63
Well-Known Member
Re: <The problem is that not all Alexandrian manuscripts say the same thing.> Nonsensical problem!
Re: <So he had to pick and choose which ones he preferred.> Who is <he> who <had to pick and choose>? Another nonsensical problem!
Re: <not possible to merge the TR and the Alexandrian texts together seeing they contradict each other in many places> Which are <the TR>, and which are <the Alexandrian texts>, and in what or in what places or manner do they <contradict> and in whose opinion do they allegedly <contradict>? A third nonsensical problem!
Last edited:
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
You do like to get lost in the weeds, in search of a cogent argument, changing the subject time and again. This thread is not about my preferences for the name of Jesus’ God.
Last edited:
Looking at this again...
The manuscript Erasmus refused was in regard to the Alexandrian manuscripts. He rejected it.
That idea is erroneous, because the term 'Majority text' refers to the majority of existing Greek manuscripts going back to the Byzantine tradition. That means long before Erasmus did his Textus Receptus translation. Erasmus also used the ancient Vulgate manuscript texts.
Other than Vulgate Latin texts, Erasmus specifically used these Greek texts...
Codex Basilensis A. N. IV. 2 Minuscule 1 (12th century A.D.)
Minuscule 2814, AV28 (Minuscule 1rK) (12th century A.D.)
Codex Basilensis Minuscule 2e (12th century)
Minuscule 2815 2ap (12th century)
Minuscule 2816 4ap (15th century A.D.)
Minuscule 7 (12th century)
Minuscule 817 (15th century)
That is a misleading statement, because the Majority text, (which is linked to the Byzantine tradition) DID exist prior to the days of Erasmus. And the Majority text agree closely with each other. They comprise a majority... of existing ancient Greek manuscripts, which is why they are called the "Majority text".
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Another copy and paste! You must do this hoping I make your point for you. LOL.Jesus (name) - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
It’s funny because I think the same way about you.
Remember, If I say something that could be taken 2 ways, and one way is wrong, I meant the other way.
RLT63
Well-Known Member
RLT63
Well-Known Member
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Well, deflecting from your hijacking attempt and back to the OP, whose thesis is the original manuscripts of KJV is not worse than older manuscripts of modern translations. To support this, the OP relies on opinion and personal attack of Wescott and Hort.
Bad conversation. I can just imagine you hosting a dinner party. Hey everyone. I left reading material over there by the coffee table. Good material. What? Huh?
Similar threads
