The Coming Great Apostasy

[Earburner]

Or it could be that Jesus knew Judas did not have faith in Him.

Yes, there is a difference between those who follow Jesus and those who believe in Him!

 

[CoreIssue]

This is a misleading statement by our resident *expert* on the *Catholic King James Bible*! (Erasmus is the whipping boy of all the enemies of the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible.)

So to set the record straight, and also ensure that CoreIssue stops posting UTTER NONSENSE, here are the facts.

1. Desiderius Erasmus -- for all intents and purposes -- was a Protestant at heart. Yet he remained a Catholic outwardly. As a Protestant, he lampooned the Catholic church mercilessly, as seen in The Praise of Folly. And he was a brilliant scholar whose friends were all Protestants.

2. Erasmus was the first Reformation scholar to edit and publish in 1516 the printed Greek New Testament from a small group of manuscripts (which we now know faithfully reflected the Traditional or Byzantine Greek text which is backed by THE MAJORITY of extant manuscripts). His first edition was done in haste because he was competing with the Catholic Complutensian Polyglott (1522) in order to become the first printed Greek text. Therefore it had many typographical errors (which were subsequently corrected). But Erasmus systematically improved his text through five successive editions (until 1535). Also Erasmus was introduced to the corrupt Codex Vaticanus by Sepulvida, but rejected it. However scholars in the 19th century made this ancient and corrupt manuscript their idol, and replaced the Textus Receptus (TR)with their critical texts, Westcott & Hort being the chief culprits (1881).

3. But there were other scholars who were also working on the printed Greek NT for over 100 years at which time it became the printed Textus Receptus. Therefore Erasmus is NOT credited with the Textus Receptus (Received Text) as such. His was the first in a series of editions by several others. Robert Estienne (Stephanus) worked on four editions of the TR between 1546 and 1551. His 1550 edition is generally regarded as the Textus Receptus, and forms the basis of the King James Bible New Testament. After him Theodore Beza took the text of Stephanus and worked on nine editions between 1565 and 1604. Following Beza, The Elzevir brothers printed seven editions of the Greek NT between 1624 and 1678. And it was their edition of 1633 in which the term "Textus Receptus" was found in Latin.

The TR of the King James Bible, is itself a slightly modified version of that of Stephanus (1550) as seen in Scrivener's TR (1894), which is an replica of the actual Greek Text of the KJV. The variations among all these editions of the TR are minor (less than 100).

Does the Textus Receptus faithfully represent the MAJORITY of Greek manuscripts (those which have been actually collated)? Absolutely. Dean John William Burgon, (an outstanding conservative textual scholar of the 19th century, and recognized at the time as a true conservative Christian scholar) published several books relating to this, which conclusively show that the King James Bible has the true text of the New Testament.

So forget the much older hand written manuscripts and only use printing press documents, which were more plentiful.

Forget the non Greek material.

Forget that most old and new translations largely agree wfile disagreeing with the KJV.

Forget linguists acknowledge the many KJV errors, added text, etc.

Forget the Apocrypha in the 1611 version.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

This is a misleading statement by our resident *expert* on the *Catholic King James Bible*! (Erasmus is the whipping boy of all the enemies of the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible.)

So to set the record straight, and also ensure that CoreIssue stops posting UTTER NONSENSE, here are the facts.

1. Desiderius Erasmus -- for all intents and purposes -- was a Protestant at heart. Yet he remained a Catholic outwardly. As a Protestant, he lampooned the Catholic church mercilessly, as seen in The Praise of Folly. And he was a brilliant scholar whose friends were all Protestants.

2. Erasmus was the first Reformation scholar to edit and publish in 1516 the printed Greek New Testament from a small group of manuscripts (which we now know faithfully reflected the Traditional or Byzantine Greek text which is backed by THE MAJORITY of extant manuscripts). His first edition was done in haste because he was competing with the Catholic Complutensian Polyglott (1522) in order to become the first printed Greek text. Therefore it had many typographical errors (which were subsequently corrected). But Erasmus systematically improved his text through five successive editions (until 1535). Also Erasmus was introduced to the corrupt Codex Vaticanus by Sepulvida, but rejected it. However scholars in the 19th century made this ancient and corrupt manuscript their idol, and replaced the Textus Receptus (TR)with their critical texts, Westcott & Hort being the chief culprits (1881).

3. But there were other scholars who were also working on the printed Greek NT for over 100 years at which time it became the printed Textus Receptus. Therefore Erasmus is NOT credited with the Textus Receptus (Received Text) as such. His was the first in a series of editions by several others. Robert Estienne (Stephanus) worked on four editions of the TR between 1546 and 1551. His 1550 edition is generally regarded as the Textus Receptus, and forms the basis of the King James Bible New Testament. After him Theodore Beza took the text of Stephanus and worked on nine editions between 1565 and 1604. Following Beza, The Elzevir brothers printed seven editions of the Greek NT between 1624 and 1678. And it was their edition of 1633 in which the term "Textus Receptus" was found in Latin.

The TR of the King James Bible is itself a slightly modified version of that of Stephanus (1550) as seen in Scrivener's TR (1894), which is a replica of the actual Greek Text of the KJV. The variations among all these editions of the TR are minor (less than 100).

Does the Textus Receptus faithfully represent the MAJORITY of Greek manuscripts (those which have been actually collated)? Absolutely. Dean John William Burgon, (an outstanding conservative textual scholar of the 19th century, and recognized at the time as a true conservative Christian scholar) published several books relating to this, which conclusively show that the King James Bible has the true text of the New Testament.

I like the KJV and find it the easiest to memorize (probably because of the antiquated language, in addition to having been written in verse form). But, I would never try to use it for studying the dense theological writings of the epistles--particularly the Paulian epistles. I wish someone would do a modern English version of the KJV. I use at least four different translations when I study a passage.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Yes, there is a difference between those who follow Jesus and those who believe in Him!

I once had a conversation with a man who called himself a "Christian atheist". He said he liked Jesus' teachings and thought they were important to a well-ordered society. But, when I asked, "Does that mean that you don't believe in Jesus but you like Him?" He paused for a moment and said, "I have not been given the gift of faith but I think he was a brilliant and good man--probably the best man ever." I found the man's responses incredibly sad.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Yes, there is a difference between those who follow Jesus and those who believe in Him!

And you have not arrived at a mature faith unless you love Him. The thing that is so marvelous about Our Lord is that even little children can have mature faith in Him.

1 John 4:20 is a test of that concept---->"If someone says, 'I love God' but hates a Christian brother or sister, that person is a liar..."

 

[Enoch111]

So forget the much older hand written manuscripts and only use printing press documents, which were more plentiful.

That is certainly NOT what I said or implied. When I said *MAJORITY* of manuscripts, this is what I was referring to. There are over 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament, which include the various parts of the NT, the ancient versions (translations), as well as the Lectionaries (Lesson Books of the Greek Orthodox Church). They are all faithfully represented in the KJV (although many have not been collated).

Forget the non Greek material.

I did not say that. There are versions in Syriac, Old Latin, Latin, Slavonic, Coptic, Arabic, etc. which are all included above.

Forget that most old and new translations largely agree while disagreeing with the KJV.

Old translations largely AGREE with the KJV. It is only modern translations since 1881 that disagree.

Forget linguists acknowledge the many KJV errors, added text, etc.

THESE ARE ALL BOGUS ALLEGATIONS AND NOT WORTHY OF ANY RESPONSE. If indeed the KJV had many errors, it could not have withstood the test of time, and become the sole English Bible for over 300 years, while forming the basis of all conservative commentaries, concordances, lexicons etc. Go to Bible Hub and examine all the commentaries shown. They all are based on the KJV (with just a very few exceptions).

Forget the Apocrypha in the 1611 version.

This is what is called a straw man. The Apocrypha was removed from the KJV in 1885. Prior to that it was in a SEPARATE section between the OT and the NT (unlike Catholic bibles which have mixed into the OT). At the same time the translators of the KJV made it clear that it was NOT Scripture. However, because it has been within bibles for a long time, they left it there for anyone to read as UNINSPIRED WRITINGS.

On the other hand, modern Bible versions (particularly the NIV) have actually used the corruptions of the Bible to modify the Bible. That includes the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the heretical modifications of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotian, plus the handful of very corrupt Greek manuscripts known as the Minority Text, and led by Aleph, A, B, C, and D (Aleph = Sinaiticus, A = Alexandrinus, B= Vaticanus, C = Ephraemi Rescriptus, and D = Bezae).

So when you promote the New International Version you are promoting the preferences of heretics! Now ain't that just dandy.

 

[farouk]

And you have not arrived at a mature faith unless you love Him. The thing that is so marvelous about Our Lord is that even little children can have mature faith in Him.

It's a wonder, but true!

 

[Enoch111]

I wish someone would do a modern English version of the KJV.

Try the KJV 2000.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Try the KJV 2000.

Thanks. I didn't know one existed--it has been a while since I perused the Bible aisle at my local Christian bookstore.

 

[farouk]

Thanks. I didn't know one existed--it has been a while since I perused the Bible aisle at my local Christian bookstore.

The KJ21 is issued...by the KJ21 Publishers, or 21st Century King James Publishers out of Gary, South Dakota.

 

[CoreIssue]

That is certainly NOT what I said or implied. When I said *MAJORITY* of manuscripts, this is what I was referring to. There are over 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament, which include the various parts of the NT, the ancient versions (translations), as well as the Lectionaries (Lesson Books of the Greek Orthodox Church). They are all faithfully represented in the KJV (although many have not been collated).

I did not say that. There are versions in Syriac, Old Latin, Latin, Slavonic, Coptic, Arabic, etc. which are all included above.

Old translations largely AGREE with the KJV. It is only modern translations since 1881 that disagree.

THESE ARE ALL BOGUS ALLEGATIONS AND NOT WORTHY OF ANY RESPONSE. If indeed the KJV had many errors, it could not have withstood the test of time, and become the sole English Bible for over 300 years, while forming the basis of all conservative commentaries, concordances, lexicons etc. Go to Bible Hub and examine all the commentaries shown. They all are based on the KJV (with just a very few exceptions).

This is what is called a straw man. The Apocrypha was removed from the KJV in 1885. Prior to that it was in a SEPARATE section between the OT and the NT unlike Catholic bibles which have mixed into the OT). At the same time the translators of the KJV made it clear that it was NOT Scripture. However, because it has been within bibles for a long time, they left it there for anyone to read as UNINSPIRED WRITINGS.

On the other hand, modern Bible versions (particularly the NIV) have actually used the corruptions of the Bible to modify the Bible. That includes the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the heretical modifications of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotian, plus the handful of very corrupt Greek manuscripts known as the Minority Text, and led by Aleph, A, B, C, and D (Aleph = Sinaiticus, A = Alexandrinus, B= Vaticanus, C = Ephraemi Rescriptus, and D = Bezae).

So when you promote the New International Versions you are promoting the preferences of heretics! Now ain't that just dandy.

You offer orthodox material as proof for the King James version? Really?

Must look at some verses and see how they agree.

Acts 12:4 - Only the KJV says Easter.
Acts 12:4 He arrested him and put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring him out to the people after the Passover.

Ghost is not bublical. Only 4 vesrion usei. 2 being KJV
Matthew 27:50 When Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, He yielded up His spirit.
Pllus a ton more.

Luke 2:14
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. Wrong
Luke 2:14 "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom His favor rests!"

“JUPITER” & “MERCURIUS” IN PLACE OF “ZEUS” AND “HERMES”
Acts 14:12 Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes, because he was the chief speaker.

You cannot offer any proof the KJV is the inspired true bible of God.

It is one thing to say it is your preferred bible but very much different to say it is the inspired by God bible we all should use.

I see you still avoid the issues will be apocrypha and explaining Easter. Why? Because you cannot.

 

[mjrhealth]

You offer orthodox material as proof for the King James version? Really?

Must look at some verses and see how they agree.

Acts 12:4 - Only the KJV says Easter.
Acts 12:4 He arrested him and put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring him out to the people after the Passover.

Ghost is not bublical. Only 4 vesrion usei. 2 being KJV
Matthew 27:50 When Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, He yielded up His spirit.
Pllus a ton more.

Luke 2:14
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. Wrong
Luke 2:14 "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom His favor rests!"

“JUPITER” & “MERCURIUS” IN PLACE OF “ZEUS” AND “HERMES”
Acts 14:12 Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes, because he was the chief speaker.

You cannot offer any proof the KJV is the inspired true bible of God.

It is one thing to say it is your preferred bible but very much different to say it is the inspired by God bible we all should use.

I see you still avoid the issues will be apocrypha and explaining Easter. Why? Because you cannot.

N one can offer any proof that any of the bibles where, they are all different is God divided by His word, such ignorance

 

[CoreIssue]

Thanks. I didn't know one existed--it has been a while since I perused the Bible aisle at my local Christian bookstore.

I hope you note the KJV obsession.

Try going here and exploring. Then look up reviews on accuracy,

Read & Study The Bible - Daily Verse, Scripture by Topic, Stories
Interlinear Bible - Greek and Hebrew with Concordance

 

[Earburner]

I like the KJV and find it the easiest to memorize (probably because of the antiquated language, in addition to having been written in verse form). But, I would never try to use it for studying the dense theological writings of the epistles--particularly the Paulian epistles. I wish someone would do a modern English version of the KJV. I use at least four different translations when I study a passage.

Years ago I had an 8 translation NT bible. I literally ripped it up and threw it in the trash, so that no one else would go through the confusion it brought to me. I went back to the KJV 35 years ago, and read nothing else, except the Strong's C. (KJV). I often refuse to hear anyone's interpretation, if it's not based on the KJV. Sorry, but that 8 Trans. NT did me that bad!!

 

[Phoneman777]

Or it could be that Jesus knew Judas did not have faith in Him.

Not sure how someone who doesn't have faith could work miracles of faith.

Also, the idea of "betrayal" by definition incorporates the idea of "turning against".

With us, it's possible for one who is an enemy from the start to "betray" another by pretended friendship, but with Jesus Who knew the hearts of men, the only way Judas' actions could ever be characterized as "betrayal" is if Judas was at one time His genuine friend.

 

[Phoneman777]

The problem here is the word "waxed" is in the past tense, and "exceeding" is in the present tense.
He desired to go beyond being great.

There's no problem, for "grew" is also in the past tense, and if someone told you that tree "grew" (past tense) 10 feet, you immediately know that a full 10 feet of growth had been achieved, just like the text says the Horn "waxed" (grew) exceeding great, which in the same way means the Horn achieved greatness which exceeded that of "very great" and "great".

Not aspiration - achievement. Antiochus did not achieve a degree of greatness that exceeded the others, therefore he cannot be the Little Horn.

 

[bbyrd009]

I like the KJV and find it the easiest to memorize (probably because of the antiquated language, in addition to having been written in verse form). But, I would never try to use it for studying the dense theological writings of the epistles--particularly the Paulian epistles. I wish someone would do a modern English version of the KJV. I use at least four different translations when I study a passage.

NKJV?

 

[bbyrd009]

Not sure how someone who doesn't have faith could work miracles of faith.

Also, the idea of "betrayal" by definition incorporates the idea of "turning against".

With us, it's possible for one who is an enemy from the start to "betray" another by pretended friendship, but with Jesus Who knew the hearts of men, the only way Judas' actions could ever be characterized as "betrayal" is if Judas was at one time His genuine friend.

You gotta imo contemplate that Judas likely loved Jesus, and is portrayed as condemned for his actions? His confession is recorded after all? Might be beneficial to consider that Judas was maybe trying to put Jesus in a position in order to in his mind force Him to accept the crown imo, which had already been attempted?

 

[Earburner]

Not sure how someone who doesn't have faith could work miracles of faith.

Also, the idea of "betrayal" by definition incorporates the idea of "turning against".

With us, it's possible for one who is an enemy from the start to "betray" another by pretended friendship, but with Jesus Who knew the hearts of men, the only way Judas' actions could ever be characterized as "betrayal" is if Judas was at one time His genuine friend.

There's no problem, for "grew" is also in the past tense, and if someone told you that tree "grew" (past tense) 10 feet, you immediately know that a full 10 feet of growth had been achieved, just like the text says the Horn "waxed" (grew) exceeding great, which in the same way means the Horn achieved greatness which exceeded that of "very great" and "great".

Not aspiration - achievement. Antiochus did not achieve a degree of greatness that exceeded the others, therefore he cannot be the Little Horn.

I hear your point, and it sounds solid, but I am having an issue with the word "waxed".
Some how, I don't think we are interpreting it correctly within the context.
The Strong's #1980 interprets that word in Dan. 8:9 in numerous ways, so it lends itself to other verses for that understanding, and also the English definition.
From what I perceive, the word "waxed" is descriptive of how AE "behaved/walked" in his own self/mind, as to how he wished to be seen/known of in the world, aka having a grandiose personality.
Though his vision of himself was to exceed [go beyond being] great, history proves that he was infamous for his atrocities, of which brings no honor or fame to his desired end.
In fact, in 1 Maccabees, AE on his death loathed himself for all that he had done.

 

[Earburner]

Correction: 1Mac. 6:8-16