Why the King James Version is Superior...

…to the American Standard Version (ASV), the New International Version (NIV), the New World Translation (NWT), RSV and many other newer versions as they are based on suspect and corrupted manuscripts. If you check them versus the King James, you will see not just a change for clarity as they claim but a complete change of meaning or outright deletion or insertion to support false doctrine.


Many Christians and others have noticed the missing verses and the changes of the text in the NIV and other newer versions...
"...During a Sunday morning service I was asked to read the verses... I did not like what I read from my NASB in 1Corinthians 11:24. It said: "This is my body, which is for you." A key word was missing, the word "broken". It should have read "This is my body, which is broken for you (KJV)." It's the most important part of the verse. It gives the application, and purpose. That put some questions in my mind and spirit concerning this translation. I have read other verses that were not perfect in the NASB, as there are in the KJV. However, this is a verse of critical importance to me. I began studying and with some research I have come up with numerous mistranslations in the NASB and NIV; all in key areas of importance. These areas have to do with the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, salvation by faith, the blood of Jesus, His second coming, and judgment of the saints. All are in areas having to do with our faith, salvation and hope..."
"...I knew something was wrong in the NASB; because key verses were either changed, or had missing words. In simple language, the NASB and most modern versions are translated from what are known as the 'minority' texts.....I also found out where these minority texts came from, and that they had been corrupted. They are held by the Catholic Church, who is and has long been behind the effort to destroy the Word of God that we have. Don't forget all the men who endangered their lives and suffered and some being martyred by the Catholic Church for trying to give the common man the Word of God in their own language, to give them worship music in their own language, and teach them that they could and should read the Bible for themselves without having a Catholic priest to interpret it for them.
These corrupted texts contain numerous other books, such as the Apocrypha, and the Gospel of Barnabas, etc. The corrupted texts came out of Alexandria, Egypt; being accomplished at the hands of Origen, who was promoted by the Catholic Church as a great early church father, but was in reality a heretic...."
The problem is that it is not a 'different translation', it basically is editing to take out many core beliefs, and whatever they disagree with or doesnt fit with their doctrine or traditions. Some have taken out whole chapters out or like the Mormons have done away and written their own... and many theologians have noticed 'You cannot prove the Trinity in the NIV...' So its not just a 'different translation'....

If you look at the following verses you see the important beliefs they destroy with these newwer versions:
1 John 5:7
Removal of the Trinity
KJV-For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:and these three are one.
NIV----For there are three that testify the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost
RSV---( missing )
Romans 1:3
Systematic removal of the divinity of Jesus Christ
KJV-Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
NIV---- concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh,
RSV---regarding his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David,
Acts 22:16
Systematic removal of the divinity of Jesus Christ
KJV-wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord
NIV----and wash away thy sins, calling on his name.
RSV---wash your sins away, calling on his name.
In the new RSV/ NIV the following is missing so its message or meaning it gave has just been wiped out:
Matt 17:21
Matt 18:11
Matt 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 9:46
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37
Acts 15:34
Acts 28:29
Romans 16:24
Also, look at Rev 1:11, which I have always memorized as: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end." That phrase is also missing from the NRSV.

The King James version is based on the Textus Receptus (the vast majority of copies from original,) and has been attacked with changes, amendments, deletions, and to diminish Gods truth but yet it still stands. I will go into who made corrupted manuscripts and then who put the changed and edited manuscripts into the modern versions we see today.

But first lets go back into history to understand how we got the King James Version (KJV) and then go into whats going on with a few of the modern translations in use today. Let us first consider certain Greek texts from which all New Testament translations are derived. Foremost amongst these is the Traditional Received Text (Textus Receptus), also called the Byzantine Text or the Majority Text because it is based on the vast majority of manuscripts still in existence. These extant manuscripts (MSS) were brought together by various editors such as Lucian (AD 250-312), Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza and the Elzevir brothers to form the text known as Textus Receptus, the name given to the Majority Text in the 17th century. The most notable editor of all was Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) one of the greatest scholars the world has ever known. When the early Protestant Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries decided to translate the scriptures directly from Greek into the languages of Europe, they selected Textus Receptus as their foundation Greek document. It is vitally important to understand why they did so.

Wilkinson writes in his book Truth Triumphant: Quote: "The Protestant denominations are built upon that manuscript of the Greek New Testament sometimes called Textus Receptus, or the Received Text. It is that Greek New Testament from which the writings of the apostles in Greek have been translated into English, German, Dutch and other languages. During the dark ages the Received Text was practically unknown outside the Greek Church. It was restored to Christendom by the labours of that great scholar Erasmus.

In his Which Bible? David Otis Fuller says this about Textus Receptus, Quote: "First of all, the Textus Receptus was the Bible of early Eastern Christianity. Later it was adopted as the official text of the Greek Catholic Church. There were local reasons which contributed to this result. But, probably, far greater reasons will be found in the fact that the Received Text had authority enough to become, either in itself or by its translation, the Bible of the great Syrian Church; of the Waldensian Church of northern Italy; of the Gallic Church in southern France; and of the Celtic Church in Scotland and Ireland; as well as the official Bible of the Greek Catholic Church.
All these churches, some earlier, some later, were in opposition to the Church of Rome and at a time when the Received Text and these Bibles of the Constantine type were rivals. They, as represented in their descendants, are rivals to this day. The Church of Rome built on the Eusebio-Origen type of Bible; these others built on the Received Text. Therefore, because they themselves believed that the Received Text was the true apostolic Bible, and further, because the Church of Rome arrogated to itself the power to choose a Bible which bore the marks of systematic depravation, we have the testimony of these five churches to the authenticity and the apostolicity of the Received Text."

Why did the early churches of the 2 nd and 3rd centuries and all the Protestant Reformers of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries choose Textus Receptus in preference to the Minority Text?

The answer is because:
· Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.
· Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text.
· Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the minority Egyptian codices favoured by the Roman Church. Remember this vital point.
· Textus Receptus agrees wih the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers.
· Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and unbelief.
· Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the Saviour's miracles, his bodily resurrection, his literal return and the cleansing power of his blood!
· Textus Receptus was - and still is - the enemy of the Roman Church

The Majority Text has been known throughout history by several names. It has been known as the Byzantine text, the Imperial Text, the Traditional Text and the Reformation Text as well as the Majority Text. This text culminates in the TEXTUS RECEPTUS or Received Text which is the basis for the King James Bible, which we know also as the Authorized Version. The Majority text, upon which the King James Version is based, has in reality the strongest claim possible to be regarded as an authentic representation of the original text.

So were did these corrupted versions come about. Well right as the Millerite movement and Adventist church was coming to be, curriously, two previously unknown or unrecognized manuscripts appeared. These were called Vaticanus & Sinaiticus since they were somehow 'found' in the Vatican Library & a monastery in the Sinai respectively. Neither was in the original Greek language, but in a Coptic translation, an early Egyptian language. Coptic placed the origin of these two texts in the region of Alexandria, Egypt the center of the gnosticism heresy. Hence they became known collectively as the Alexandrian Codices.

The Gnostic heresy was a Greek line of thought which came to be known as Gnosticism. We find it specially in the background of the Pastoral Epistles, the Letter to the Colossians and the Fourth Gospel. This Gnostic line of thought had certain characteristics which appear all through the Pastoral Epistles as the characteristics of those whose heresies were threatening the Church and the purity of the faith. It had serious moral and ethical consequences. Its basic belief was that matter was essentially evil and spirit alone was good. That issued in two opposite results.

If matter is evil, the body is evil; and the body must be despised and held down. Therefore Gnosticism could and did issue in a rigid asceticism. The Gnostic looked on creation as an evil thing, the work of an evil god; the Christian looks on creation as a noble thing, the gift of a good God. The Christian lives in a world where all things are pure; the Gnostic lived in a world where all things were defiled.(Titus 1:15)

But Gnosticism could issue in precisely the opposite ethical belief. If the body is evil, it does not matter what a man does with it. Therefore, let him sate his appetites. These things are of no importance, therefore a man can use his body in the most licentious way and it makes no difference. So the Pastorals speak of those who lead away weak women until they are laden with sin and the victims of all kinds of lusts.(2 Timothy 3:6) Such men profess to know God, but they deny him by their deeds.(Titus 1:16) They used their religious beliefs as an excuse for immorality.

Westcott & Hort undertook the translation of these Coptic copies back into their original Greek language and differences began to suddenly appear. Gone was the resurrection story in the book of Mark (the last twelve verses of the KJV). Gone was Acts 8:37 where the Ethiopian eunuch confesses Jesus as the Son of God along with many other passages. All the modern translations which were written during this time are based on the Westcott & Hort Coptic Greek text including the American Standard Version (ASV), the New International Version (NIV), the New World Translation (NWT) & even the New KJV (NKJV) But since the Alexandrian Codices were considered older than any document in the Textus Receptus, it was believed that these verses did not exist in the original manuscripts that the apostles wrote & were added by eager scribes & priests sometime between the 3rd century & the 5th. This was the prevailing theory for many years.

However, since Westcott & Hort's version, some reavealing scholarship & textual discoveries have taken place anthere now exist over 24,000 fragments & complete texts of the New Testament, many dating to even earlier than the Alexandrian Codices. There is even fragments of the Gospel of Matthew dating to AD 50 a mere twenty or so years after the crucifixion of Christ. From this assemblage of 24,000 documents, scholars have constructed what is now called The Majority Text, with each book, passage & quote rated with a percentage of how many of the 24,000 agree with each reading. By & large, with 90%+ certainty, the Textus Receptus & therefore the KJV has been vindicated as the more authoritative text.

(You can look for Acts 8:37 in most of these 'Modern' Bibles based on the Westcott & Hort Coptic Greek text & you will see that it skips directly from 8:36 to 8:38 without the proclamation of the deity of Christ by the Ethiopian.)

Gnosticism tried to blend the new religion but ultimately was against traditional Christian beliefs and attempted to combine Paganism with Christianity. Some Gnostic groups had beliefs that often contradicted the beliefs of other Gnostic groups. The one thing thay all had in common was that all of these groups departed from the orthodox Christian faith, but the Gnostic mixed their beliefs into the manuscripts they made of the scriptures, putting changes of their particular beliefs or taking out what disagreed with it.

The Alexandrian Codices that Westcott & Hort's version used, the Vaticanis & the Sinaiticus reflect this and are unique in their reading in toto. In fact many, if not all of the passages altered or missing from these codices were in fact quoted by the early church fathers as far back as the late 1st century. For instance, if one reads Irenaeus' Against Heresies 3.10.5-6, he states, "Furthermore, near the end of his Gospel, Mark says:'thus, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God.'" quoting Mark 16:19. Irenaeus wrote this in AD180, some 200 years before the Alexandrian Codices, yet he quotes word for word all the verses from the missing part of Mark which were supposedly not to have been added until the 4th or 5th centuries.

With the discovery of a Gnostic Library called the Nag Hammadi, it became clear that the sect known as the "Gnostics" did not believe in the deity of Jesus Christ. Nor did they really believe in His humanity either. They believed He was a "guiding spirit" sent to earth by the "True God" (not the YHWH of the Old Testament, incidently, whom they considered to be a blind, insane angel who created the material world against Sophia's or "Wisdom" i.e. the True God's will). Jesus' mission according to the Gnostics, was to impart special knowledge or "Gnosis" to spirits trapped in this material world seeking release. Thus, Jesus never died on the cross, was never resurrected, was not God, nor was He human. Mysteriously, but rather conveniently, all the altered or missing texts in the Alexandrian Codices always happen to involve one or a combination of these subjects.

Now, the pieces fall into place. All these "missing" verses were in the original texts written by the apostles. The older manuscripts & the many quotes from the 1st and 2nd century church fathers more than confirm that as fact. However, since these verses did not agree with the theology being taught by the Gnostics, when they made their own Coptic copies of the Greek originals, they conveniently altered or deleted them to suit their own ideas of what God should say. Westcott & Hort picked up on these corrupted Coptic texts as they were caught up in the veiws prevalant from darwinism & secular humanist questioning of the validity of orthodox Christianity, if just a few verse could be altered or brought into question, it would serve their purpose. These corrupted Coptic texts easily appealed to Westcott & Hort's own sensibilities (as testified to by their surviving correspondence with each other). They in my opinion from the letters they exchanged, knowingly made a Greek translation of what was a changed or heavily edited & thus corrupted Coptic translation of a Greek original.

So check your version and if is not the King James, look and see what you may be missing, and now you know why and how..

My favorite version of the Bible is the KJV. I believe it is the most reliable and accurate. Where it falls short, the SOP explains why and how to get around it. I'm not opposed to other translations so long as they agree with the KJV. When they dilute or contradict it, I go with the KJV.

I fully agree with the above. However, I think it is also good to know why the KJV is superior. Mrs. White talks about it herself in referring to the Waldensees having preserved a pure form of the scriptures. The RC church tampered with the sacred words--in their original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. All modern translations (every language) are using the tampered manuscripts to translate from. KJV is the only translation in English which does not utilize those minority texts. It comes from the majority text, aka Textus Receptus.

I would be delighted to see a modern translation from the TR. In the absence of such, I must stick with the KJV and shun the perversions so common in the modern translations.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Must agree. I have been told that all the new translations are from texts held by the Vatican. A good test is Matthew 5:22. In every new translation, that text condemns you without hope. Look it up.

The conversion version versus the perversion versions. Care to guess which one is which?

The NKJV is from the Textus Receptus. There's at least one other modern one, but I can't remember at this time.

I suspect, and I am looking for it, that the TR manuscripts and derived copies were the 'heretical' material that the Papacy was desperately trying to find and burn as it persecuted true believers. It then kept power over the word with its corrupted versions with the addition of the Apocrypha and even that was done in Latin during service so most common people had no knowledge of the scriptures, only what was told to them by the priest. No wonder it was the Dark Ages, only true priests such as Martin Luther could lead them out of it, as only they had access to and time, as they were not slave serfs, and read and understand the scriptures.

Use Acts 8:37 as most Bibles based on the Westcott & Hort text skips directly from 8:36 to 8:38 without the proclamation of the deity of Christ by the Ethiopian believer. Here is a quick rundown on Acts 8:37 in the versions, note some have 'Footnotes', brackets and or astorisks, putting doubt to the validity of the text:

Here is how the KJV has it- 37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

American Standard Version (ASV)-37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Darby Translation-No results found.

Common English Bible-No results found.

Contemporary English Version (CEV)-36-37As they were going along the road, they came to a place where there was some water. The official said, "Look! Here is some water. Why can't I be baptized?" [a]
Footnotes:
Acts 8:36 Why can't I be baptized: Some manuscripts add, "Philip replied, `You can, if you believe with all your heart.' The official answered, `I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.'"

English Standard Version-No results found.

English Standard Version Anglicised-No results found.

Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)-No results found.
37 [a]
Footnotes:
Acts 8:37 Some late copies of Acts add verse 37: “Philip answered, ‘If you believe with all your heart, you can.’ The official said, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’”

GODS WORD translation-No results found.

Good News-No results found.

Lexham English Bible-No results found.

New American Standard Bible (NASB)=37 [[a]And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”]
Footnotes:
Acts 8:37 Early mss do not contain this v
New Life Version (NLV)-37 (*Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” The man said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”)

New Living Translation-No results found.

NIV-No results found.

NKJV-37 Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”
And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”[a]
Footnotes:
Acts 8:37 NU-Text and M-Text omit this verse. It is found in Western texts, including the Latin tradition.

Todays New International Version-No results found.

Wycliffe Bible (WYC)-37 And Philip said, If thou believest of all thine heart, it is leaveful. And he answered, and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Young's Literal Translation (YLT)-37[And Philip said, `If thou dost believe out of all the heart, it is lawful;' and he answering said, `I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God;']

What a pleasure to see the KJV upheld and the others based on the vaticannes manuscripts questioned, when for so long those who raised questions were condemned and silenced.

Well, I was given a NIV version and used it for many years and then I was watching a video in which it said to check your Bible to see what was missing or changed and sure enough the NIV was missing it so went back to KJV. But I wanted to know why it was changed or missing so started to look and it was all out there, people just have to look.

On the other hand, the KJV includes texts that it shouldn't include, like the Comma Johanneum of 1 John 5:7.

About 100 years ago W.W. Prescott and Willie White (Ellen White's son) argued against the King James Bible being necessarly superior and Willie told about his mother's liking and useing other translations. And this was even before the rediscovery of the ancient world in the 20th century, which I believe to be a part of the Investigative Judgment.

There are 3 basic Bible catagories: Word translations (I forgot the technical term for this)which trys to translate word for word with a bit of dynamic and paraphrase to make it run smoothly, or to avoid controversy of points that we think should not be in the Bible and thus prevent people from buying it because people don't want a Bible that says those things (Nothing of major theological importance, just things like being sure that Phoebe in Romans is a deconess and not like they can translate the exact same word by a man's name as Pastor or Elder, or phrases where the words could lead to a more sexual translation that they put in softer language) Dynamic translations where they translate the ideas rather than a word for word translation. Both of these work together as a team because while you may have the words, we don't know enought about the languages and culture to tell what were common expressions and proberbs and thus they translate what the words mean. How was it understood by the original readers. The third way is Paraphrase, which is basically taking the two types of translations and putting it in other words that help people to understand. I think Graham Maxwell wrote a book "Can the Bible be trusted" I know he at least has a wonderful chapter in "Can God be Trusted" in how we can trust the Bible in which he covers these issues that you are asking about.

Now all three groups have a certan amount of word translation, dynamic translation, and paraphrase. In fact the Living Bible, a paraphrase, is (or at least in the 1980s was) the ONLY Bible to accurately translate a verse into English when Elijah is taunting the priest of Baal saying that maybe Baal is going to the bathroom. Both word translations and dynamic translations like to say that Baal was busy. Also, all Bible are victims of the translator's presuppositions: The King James Bible has prejudices and presupositons held in it's day, as well as it being a compromise Bible, as Catholics wanted to translate the Bible one way and Protestants the other way, and the KJV was a middle ground between the two (Initally making both groups unhappy and the Catholics made their Bible and the Protestants eventually came around to accepting the KJV despite it's compromises.) Finally we are always learning more about the languages: There were many words that translators did not know how to translate that they had to guess. Bibles before the 20th century had a LOT of guesswork. But with Archaeology they have found many ancient manuscripts where the same words as in the Bible are used over and over again and we start to see how these words are used, what their definations and syntexts are. (Try to translate in today's language the word "Mouse") Of course we are in a trade off of on the one hand having a better knowlege of the language, but the translators tend to be either fundamentalists or modernists and this slants their translations.

What is wise is to use different Bibles, and some for different purposes. Hiphop, cottenwood, and "God is Real Man!" for those of those backgrounds for general knowlege of the Bible. The Good News, Children's International and NIV for quick and easy reading and for some dynamics (and know their shortfalls: such as the NIV being too evangelical and fundamentalist); and Bibles like the RSV, NASB, and my favorite the Anchor Bible for more deeper study.

Now if you think this is confusing, our Old Testament today is based on one Biblical family of texts, the Messeritic text which comes from the Babylonian Family. In Jesus' day there were 3 families of texts: Babylonian, Palestanian and Egyptian families, each with their different translations and versions (which is why when we read Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, unless the translator decided to smooth it over, we find it a little different from if we were to turn back to our Old Testament and read the verse. And most of us don't realize that the Sermon on the Mt. is a quote from Isaiah, because that passage in Isaiah is quite different in the dead sea scrools, a version of the Palestinian text, than the Babylon text that the Massorites used). So we have only one family. In Jesus' and Paul's day they had even more to choose from. (Jesus appears to have had a different version or versions of the Palestinian texts as it is related to the Dead Sea Scrools but not quite. And Paul appears to have used different versions of of the Egyptian family)

The variations in translations include: different possible ways of translating the text, the condition of the text that they are being used (such as the missing verses in Mark were missing in older manuscrips, but since it was at the end it could have been dammaged) The so called "Missing verses" tend to be put in footnotes. There are reasons for the translations to translate the way they do and it would be wise to check out why they do.

I'm surprised to hear you say that, Rosangela. It reveals a shocking deviation to open-mindedness.

Yesterday I opened an e-mail and found this that a friend sent to me. It is an essay by John McCall. He is actually talking about the trinity and the second member of the Godhead, but he is using things from issues in Bible translation. I hope you find this useful.-- Kevin H

God as Power/God as Person

The term "God" refers to an Infinite Being; this Being exists outside of time and space. God -- out of love -- chose to to create self-aware beings with free choice. These created beings (all of us in the universe) exist as finite beings; all began at a particular time, and are locked within time; it is always "now" and not "then". These created beings (all of us in the universe) exist as finite beings; all of us exist at a particular limited place within space; we are always "here" and not "there".

As an Infinite Being, God is unknowable to any created being, all of us existing (by necessity) within time and space. Out of love, God determined to self-limit and come into time and space to communicate with the objects of "His" love.

Alright, that's the part about God. Let's now review what these newly-created beings, with free choice need to know:

The new creations need to know that they are utterly dependent on God for life to continue. They need to know that God as the source of all life and being is owed complete respect and obedience. They need to know God as Absolute Power, with a demonstration within time and space, where they can comprehend it. This demonstration is absolutely necessary. By itself this revelation of the Infinite God in time and space would not breed reverence and awe (biblically, proper fear). Instead, over time, it would breed a different kind of fear: terror. And the terror would cut off creatures from God.

The separation would lead to death. Which would breed terror in the survivors, leading to complete death.

What was needed was something on a personal level. How would the angels, the populations on the inhabited worlds, and eventually (last of all) the human race get to interact with God? How would they come to know what God was like as a person? What in fact IS God like as a person? Would there be any way for the Infinite One to enter time and space as a person? That is an even greater bridge in the communication gap than God as Power!

Since God created both time and space, and since God is an Infinite Being, it is perfectly possible for God to appear within time and space as a Person also. There is indeed a problem, but the problem has nothing to do with God. The problem is how the created beings will relate God as Power to God as Person and keep them together in their minds.

And remember, of course, that there is only ONE God, an Infinite Being who is coming into time and space in various ways to communicate love to them.

Does the Bible speak to the issue of God as Person? Remember, when we're talking Bible, and God's interaction with man, we're talking eons after the creation of the universe and the angelic and unfallen races. But as we said before, God is perfectly consistent in the way God is revealed to thinking creatures. What happened later with man is exactly what God did earlier with other created beings.

The place we want to begin is at the creation of mankind. As we proceed to look at creation, in Genesis 1 and 2, we're going to notice some really odd things that aren't usually noticed by the average Bible reader. But they are things that are extremely significant, and tell us crucially important things about God, and how God communicates with the beings God creates.

So we will look closely at Genesis 1 and 2 and open up the Scripture. But first, for the ignorant and unstable (Paul's very correct terminology) let's state as a rule:

ALL CANONICAL SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED BY THE SPIRIT, AND OF
COMPLETE DOCTRINAL AUTHORITY
IT FOLLOWS THAT IT DOES NOT MATTER AT ALL WHO IN PARTICULAR
WROTE THE PASSAGE
WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THAT EACH SCRIPTURAL AUTHOR
WAS GUIDED BY THE SPIRIT

That's a rule that applies to every verse of Scripture, no matter who wrote it or when. Keep that in mind, don't be alarmed, and as we point out certain things you may not have known, be assured that we will explain how they fit into God's self-revelation. It will become apparent as we move along why the rule just stated is so important. The key thing to remember is that we have a PRESUPPOSITION, something we presume to be true that will guide us as we go along. And that is a presupposition we found in Scripture: that what we find in our canon of Scripture is there by the intent of God, who inspired it all, even though different writers wrote material in different places, at different times, under different circumstances.


Oddities in the Creation Story

A long time ago Bible readers noticed some interesting and curious things about the story of creation in Genesis. For one thing, the story seems to have two beginnings. The first opener is in Genesis 1:1 (of course), but there is another recurring opener of new stories in Genesis a little further on. Words that are as familiar as openers as "Once upon a time" are found scattered all through Genesis at the beginning of new stories. The stories generally begin with a genealogy, placing the actors within a line of history, so that we can know where we are in time. The words are:

These are the generations of....

These are the generations of the heavens and the earth, when they were created. Genesis 2:4a

These is the writing of the generations of Adam [mankind] when God created man.... Genesis 5:1

These are the generations of Noah; now Noah was a righteous man and.... Genesis 6:9

These are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japhet.... Genesis 10:1

These are the generations of Shem: Shem was.... Genesis 11:10

And these are the generations of Terach: Terach was the father of.... Genesis 11:27

And these are the generations of Ishmael, Abraham's son.... Genesis 25:12

And these are the generations of Isaac, Abraham's son.... Genesis 25:19

And these are the generations of Esau, who is Edom... Genesis 36:1

And these are the generations of Esau, the father of the Edomites.... Genesis 36:9

These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph, being seventeen.... Genesis 37:2

If you look up these verses in a Bible, be sure you are using a word translation, that attempts to translate every word, not a modern sense translation, that frequently departs from the actual wording in the Hebrew original. The problem with "sense" translations is that they are frequently wrong. They only tell us what the translators thought the original meant, and often their words they use actually disguise the meaning. This is one reason we insist readers learn to do exegesis, or at least what it is, and not insist to us that they are right when they don't have a clue what the Bible actually says. This is the reason that though all the above verses are exactly the same in the original, they are translated differently from verse to verse; which means a modern reader would not be able to spot the pattern that is so significant.

Clearly, these genealogical records and the stories they introduce come from a period hundreds and hundreds of years before the time of Moses. Such records were kept when writing was in its infancy, in pictographs and in the Eastern Fertile Crescent and beyond (Iraq/Iran, where the stories are set) in cuneiform, a kind of pictures created by using wedge shapes from the ends of reeds. These shapes were pressed into small clay bricks, which then became permanent records when they were fired in a kiln.

It is interesting to note that these clay bricks generally had a running heading at the top of the tablets. And these "toledoth" or "generations" incipits (the beginning of a literary piece) in Genesis may indeed have originally been the headings or titles of ancient tablets (already ancient in the time of Moses) on which the stories were originally preserved.

Well, be that as it may, Genesis 2:4 has the first of the series, and indicates the beginning of a new series, a shift to a new document, different from what immediately precedes it. As genealogical markers, the first one in Genesis 2:4 is interesting in that there are no "generations" to record. Instead, what is recorded is the beginning of "the heavens and the earth" from the moment of man's origin. Contrary to popular misinterpretation, the phrase (found in many other places) refers to the earth plane and what can be seen from it. We'll look closely at why the ancient readers would have understood the phrase to refer to the earth plane and the sky visible above it, and not the entire universe.

The concept of "the universe" as we know it was unknown to men in the Ancient Near East, and we must always read what is written from the viewpoint of the writer and original intended readers. I have seen many useless fundamentalist interpretations, giving all kinds of information and misinformation about the planet, when the concept of "planet" was yet centuries into the future, and not found among the Semites of the East, but originated with the Greeks at a time when the Old Testament was already finished.

Now let's look at the details of the creation events as recorded between Genesis 1:1 and the "toledoth/generations" notice in Genesis 2:4 and see how they compare to the record of creation after the "toledoth" notation, to see how they compare the one to the other. What we want to know, since we have two clear beginnings (and an obvious ending in Genesis 2:3 and another clear ending in 3:24) is whether -- as this structure implies -- we actually have two distinct creation accounts. And if so, how do they compare, the one to the other? Why would there be two descriptions of the same event? If there are two, are they very very similar? Or are they so different, as liberal scholars claim, as to be in utter contradiction? Why would they be different?


Two Complementary Views of Creation

Almost everyone with any familiarity with the Bible has some general sense of the first creation description. It isn't a narrative story, but a rigidly structured prose poem set within the structure of the seven days of the first week. That the week involved was intended by the author to be a literal week of seven days is beyond any question whatever. Various attempts to square the creation sequence with evolutionary theories have resulted in trying to reinterpret the "days" as ages or eons of evolutionary development.

This is manifestly not what the author intended, and in fact is the opposite of what was intended, as we shall see. The idea has to be dismissed immediately as outlandish, contrary to the grammatical meaning clearly expressed, and also shows a complete lack of understanding of the background to the passage.

Now, we have noted that there is a second "Once upon a time" appearing at Genesis 2:4. That is, another story begins there. And that second narrative is, in some ways different. Often complementary, the two accounts give us a larger picture than either of the two phases would have given by themselves, but nevertheless they are quite different. One important factor (and the reason this is being discussed here) is that the complementary parts of the total creation narrative tell us much about how God communicates to created beings.

The mode of creation in the first sequence is that the divine Creator -- termed "Elohim" which is "gods" plural in Hebrew -- announces the plan to create mankind to the heavenly court. The Creator is an exalted ruler, the Master of the Universe, and His word has creative power. He simply commands or wills, and all the enormous complexity of the world of mankind is called into existence. In the second sequence, a true prose narrative, with nothing like the time/space structure of the first, man is "formed/fashioned" by the Creator -- now named "YHWH Elohim" (that is, Yahweh God) -- by the Creator using the fine red clay of the earth to fashion (the word describes what a fine potter does in making expensive pottery or an artisan creating a fine statue, etc.) the body of "adam" or "the human".

Here the Creator is literally down in the mud, and the first fashioning of man is not the complete story. A second later step will result in a true race of beings. Even more, however, is the surprising fact that before anything else in the world is created, mankind is made. And yet at that point mankind has no particular place within time and space to exist, until "YHWH Elohim" does some other work.

This involves us in the question of sequence. So, to be clear, let's remind ourselves of the sequence in the tight, carefully-worded first narrative. It is important to note here that the wording and terminology is very different between the two creation sequences. The first narrative is filled with technical terms, drawn from priestly literature. Terms for the building of "the heavens and the earth" are often terms from the technical aspects of building an ancient temple. And many of those terms were usually reserved for sacred literature, and not used in regular prose. Yet they appear in the first creation account.

And then these unusual terms disappear at Genesis 2:4 not to be seen again until the building of the Wilderness Sanctuary late in the Book of Exodus. But that event is far later in time. The text of the first story is stately, it is sparse, it is spare, it is cryptic, it is awe-filled. The English translation completely masks the care and mood of grandeur in the precise and poetic wording and syntax.

So here is the sequence of creation as we know it so well:

1. The future world is in darkness. It is "tohu we vohu" or "in total chaos" when Elohim (plural) begins the creation sequence.. There is no visible land, but Elohim's Spirit is blowing across the darkened primeval ocean. Elohim orders light (not the sun, moon, or stars) to enter the sphere of the future world. First Day.

2. Elohim builds a "raqia" or solid dome of atmosphere between upper and lower oceans. Spatial relationships begin. This non-water open space is called "the heavens" or more precisely, "the sky". "The heavens" misleads moderns to think of the modern concept of the universe. Second Day.

3. Elohim separates water and land, creating Earth and Sea. On the Earth vegetation, both plants and trees, are ordered to exist. Third Day.

Remember, as we proceed, that in each case the Master of the Universe, "Elohim" inspects the results with care, and pronounces each pleasing, appropriate, functional, up to Elohim's moral standard, all of which are contained in the Hebrew "tov" which is translated misleadingly "good".

4. Lights appear in the raqia, as viewed from the earth. The greater light (the author cannot use the term "sun" since its only names were names of pagan gods) marks days, the lesser light (again, not named since the name is a pagan deity) marks the night, and both mark off seasons. They are not "signs" as our Masoretic Text misreads the ancient Hebrew, the Palestinian and Egyptian text types reading the original correctly. Lest anyone get confused, the cryptic note is added that Elohim is also the creator of the stars, which were understood to be attached to the raqia, which rotated. Fourth Day.

5. Things that swarm in the seas and air are ordered to exist by Elohim. Swarms of sea creatures now inhabit the Sea, and vast flocks of birds fill the air. As always after God speaks the result is inspected and pronounced appropriate, functional, morally appropriate, and most of all, pleasing to Elohim. Fifth Day.

6. All land animals, from the creeping to the behemoths now are ordered into existence. They are runners-up to Elohim's jussive to the heavenly court, "Let us make mankind in our image." That leads to the next-to-last and nearly ultimate creation by fiat in this sequence. After the animals and everything else has been created, we see that all this was stage-setting for the final act, the ordering of mankind (adam/mankind) into existence. Here we find that "adam/mankind" is both male and female. There are then several sentences of reflection on the role of man in the new creation, as its sub-ruler.

Finally, though the Masoretic Text contains an error, the structure says that God ceased his works on the sixth day. That leads to what scholars call "The Creation Sabbath," the hidden mystery revealed only much much later when Israel was created. On the seventh day God "ceased" from his creative works, putting an unexplained blessing into the seventh day. (What the blessing was will only be discussed in Exodus; we never hear of the sabbath or any hint of sabbath-keeping again in Genesis, or in Exodus either, until the actual creation of Israel, a creation that finalizes the creation being described here.) Sixth day.

Don't confuse the later concepts of "rest" with the verb "sabbath" here. The Hebrew verb means, simply, "to cease/desist" and that is how it must be rendered. For, of course, God hasn't actually "worked" at all in this view of creation. Rather, the Majesty seated in the heavenly court has simply ordered things into existence, and then ceased from doing so. The idea of the Master of the Universe calling life into existence by fiat needing "rest" is ludicrous.

Alright, so in summary, we have here a very awesome view of the distant and exalted Elohim. The picture involves the whole of the earth and the structures around it. The narrative is filled with highly technical terms used for the building of temples, terms that reappear only in the building of the Wilderness Sanctuary. This story is definitely what we would call an "overview" picture, not localized in any sense. And Elohim, who is the Mover in all this, is entirely consistent with the exalted, distant, awesomely powerful and deeply mysterious picture of God we saw in the first study.

In addition, the narrative is tightly structured around two features: the sequence of events, involving the timing of events, especially the sequence of days. Consistent with ancient numerology, the sixth day suggests something forebodingly evil, though the concept of evil or the fall of man is never, even briefly, discussed. That is the day that man and his associated animals were created. By contrast, the seventh day suggests the completion and perfection of the original creation, the implication of all that "seven" meant in ancient numerology.

The other aspect of the tight structure is space itself. Everything begins with the earth "tohu we vohu" or "utter chaos" and as the creation proceeds, order comes out of chaos; the land has a place; the sea has a place; the sky has a place; the sun and moon know where to shine; the sea creatures and land animals and birds know where their place is. Finally, man comes into existence and is given lordship over it all.

Then, too, the poetic and highly structured and lordly language give the whole picture a compelling sense of drama and awe, so different from what we are going to encounter next in the narrative.

And finally, the complex "broken chiasm" structure is apparent here. Rather than go into details covered in the exegetical studies, we will simply point out here the general structure:

Day 1: Elohim separates light from darkness

Day 2: Elohim separates water from sky (the dome of "the heavens")

Day 3: Elohim separates out dry land; vegetation appears

Day 4: Elohim fills in the light with the sun, and the darkness with the moon, stars also give light

Day 5: Elohim fills the water with fish and the sky with birds ("the heavens" being the sky over the ground)

Day 6: Elohim puts animals and man on the dry land; vegetation given as their food

Day 7: Elohim desists from doing further creative works; blesses the seventh day (no command to keep
yet); pronounces everything perfect

We have emphasized also not what is said but what is left unsaid. Apart from the distant imperial view of God and the highly structured account of creation, the story is wildly incomplete. In fact, as it stands, it is so incomplete as to be incomprehensible. What Elohim wrought was a perfect world, with conditions utterly unlike anything the ancient readers would have recognized. If this was all there was about to know creation, we'd be wondering why it was ever written; we would be left with more questions than answers. Not a hint of how the perfect world alleged here became the world in which we live! And no hint of how "Elohim" views the world today, so different from the one it is here alleged He actually created!

Which leaves the obvious question, Why is this story, so structured and so absolute, also so unfinished? What is there about the use of this same structure in regard to the Wilderness Sanctuary and the Temple on Zion that is being said? And is there any chance of actually communicating with the Majestic God described in this account?

This is a story for another day. Right now we have to move quickly to the other side of the second "once upon a time" and do some comparisons.


Two Names, Two Views of God

The opening prose narrative of the second creation story is almost disconcerting, after what we have just read, even looking at it so briefly and in so little depth. The story is different in many ways. For one thing it no longer is interested in the world as a whole. And it clearly is not interested in the time-structure and spatial-structure of the first creation account. Here is how it reads, and compared to the prior story, this is quite breezy, if also surprisingly complex:

In the day that the LORD God [YHWH Elohim, Yahweh God] made the earth and
the heavens [reverse of the First Creation Story] when no plant of the field was yet in
the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up -- for the LORD God [Yahweh
God] had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground,
but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground -- then
Yahweh God formed/fashioned man from the red clay of the ground, and breathed/blew
into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being. Genesis 2:4b-7

One thing that stands out rather dramatically is that the picture of God is different on one side than on the other!

Another thing is that the order of events is completely reversed in this prose account.

Further, there is little interest (as we discover as we read on) in the entire earth, for the narrative soon centers on a sacred grove, a grove belonging to Yahweh Himself, where He places mankind as His gardeners.

Interest in this sacred grove is so great that details about how the earth was DIFFERENT at that time (especially as regards dealing with growing things) comes up immediately. In the prior story we heard nothing of this difference between the perfect world of creation and the current messy world, and in fact, nothing of any difference at all, or how the current world came to evolve from the prior perfect world. We noted that on that all-important fact the previous story left us hanging.

That distinction between the two stories all by itself should suggest that the person or persons who put these accounts together knew exactly what he was doing and why. Which is to say, the liberal argument that the two creation accounts are so different that they are in hopeless conflict, mutually exclusive, and cannot be historical accounts founders upon the very content of the accounts.

While Yahweh, this Person, is still "Elohim" or Absolute Deity, in some way, He is also very much an interactive Person. These two pictures of God almost imply multiple gods, but the central confession of Israel constantly denied this:

Hear O Israel! The LORD our God is one LORD! or

Hear O Israel! The LORD our God, the LORD is One! or

Hear O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone! Deuteronomy 6:4

And so we must deal with the major anomaly in the two literary pieces about the creation. Just as ELOHIM is used as the only name for God in 1:1 to 2:4, after that the Divine Being is called only YAHWEH ELOHIM, Yahweh-God. Now, names were very important in the ancient world, because they defined the nature of the thing being named.

A shift from a descriptive word ("Elohim/Ultimate Deity") to a personal name ("He causes everything to exist") is not merely a literary shift, but a shift in the view of how the Divine Being is seen. We saw the imperial majesty of the distant Overlord of the Universe in the first account. Now we have something different: now we have God, still, but God encompassed in a PERSON, fashioning red clay/mud (down in the mud!), walking on earth in His sacred precincts, talking face to face with His new creatures, searching for them (supposedly) and doling out judgment on disobedience.

The continuation of the narrative moves us even further away from the prior story and into the detail, the emphases, which this story is interested in and will expand:

The whole concept of the method of creation is different. Gone is the setting in the heavenly court, the divine "jussive" and command that instantly creates. While the verb "created" ("bara") is still present, the actual work is real work this time The kind of physical work that makes humans sweat. (And though it is real work, we will not hear one word about "cessation" or anything like a "sabbath"!)

Down in the red ochre (Hebrew "adamah") Yahweh "fashions" using "yatsar," a verb which describes an expert potter fashioning fine pottery, or a sculptor working on a statue, or an artisan fashioning any other work of art. From the "adamah" He brings forth "Adam" (not now "human being" but an individual with a name reflecting his earth-nature. The verb therefore also has in it the concept of forming an idea, a plan, and carrying it out. We even see Yahweh thinking as He proceeds. This anomalous shift will continue and deepen throughout Genesis.

Somewhat more troubling to the fundamentalist viewpoint is that both stories make an explicit issue of the order of events. And yet they emphasize different things in describing their differing order. It is tru that the order of events does not agree. At all. Of course, this anomaly arises precisely because the story is not at all interested in how Elohim created the entire earth and its related structures in the cosmos; this story is interested in how Yahweh proceeded in creating the sacred grove, and what was involved in placing it in the eastward of "the eden." And placing man (who has been in narrative-suspended animation so far) there. Now, this "eden" was an ancient word (Sumerian, in fact) for the upland tableland in the mountains of the "Armenian Knot," the place where several mountain ranges originate and fan out in different directions. More on this below.

And Yahweh-God planted [really, He "planted" just as you and I would]
a garden/sacred grove in Eden, eastward, and there he placed the man whom
he had formed/fashioned. Genesis 2:8

Contrast this fashioning of mankind first in the order of events, with the first account, where mankind is the last and crowning act of creation events before Elohim desists. The text is very explicit about this. Further, the concept of "adam" has changed. It meant "mankind" in the first creation story, and included male and female immediately and automatically. Here, however, the same word meand "the man" as an individual. And it means "the man" as distinct from "the woman" who is going to share the story. This is one of several shifts in the meaning of terms between the two accounts.

Before we read the next verse, you need to know that liberal scholarship has argued for the last two centuries that Genesis 3, the story of the Fall of Man, is not a part of this second narrative. That claim is made to safeguard the liberal view that Genesis contains two complete and mutually-exclusive creation stories. The liberal commentator wants to capitalize on the differences to conclude that the two stories are so incompatible that they cannot be seen as complementary, but rather in hopeless contradiction. (Fundamentalists are even worse, denying there are two different creation accounts, which does not actually provide an answer to the liberal argument.)

If, however, the Fall of Man is part of this second story, we have instead this:

THE STORY IS ABOUT: THE CREATOR IS: THE METHOD IS: THE LOCALE IS:

Genesis 1:1-2:3 THE HEAVENS ELOHIM FIAT/COMMAND HEAVENLY COURT
AND EARTH, THE COSMOS

Genesis 2:4-3:24 ADAM YAHWEH PERSONAL WORK EARTH PLANE
AND EVE AND THEIR FALL ELOHIM

Modern studies show that this section (Genesis 2:4 to 3:24), which may appear simple, is in fact a series of chiasms within chiasms, and highly complex. The language is such that it is beyond argument that from the outset, the author is intent on explaining the fall of man and the entrance of sin. He immediately adds to his description of the sacred grove/garden the ominous presence of a tree that contains knowledge (experience, there being no "knowledge" in the abstract in Hebrew thought) about good and evil! And places near it another tree that is equally dangerous: the tree of life that transmits eternal life. The possible combustion here could result in an immortal sinner!

Again, contra Fundamentalism, and what most of you have been taught, Genesis knows NOTHING about a planet, or a universal flood on such a planet. The earth is exactly as pictured everywhere in Scripture, and to that end we once again include a picture of the earth sitting on the primeval waters, as in the second commandment and Psalm 24 (and everywhere else in the Ancient Near East, for that matter):

The heavenly Cosmic Mountain was behind the North Star, the star around which the solid dome, or raqia, rotated. The stars were attached. The earth floated on the primeval ocean, which was freshwater (of course) not salt.

You shall not make any graven for yourelf a grave image or any likeness of
anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that
is in the waters under the earth.... Exodus 20:4

The earth is Yahweh's and the fulness thereof,
The world, and those who dwell therein.
For he has founded it upon the seas
And established it upon the rivers. Psalm 24:1

The 7-headed dragon, Leviathan, lurked in the dark underworld, waiting to rise up and control the earth.

...Yahweh with his hard and great and stron sword will punish Leviathan the
fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will slay the dragon
that is in the sea. Isaiah 27:1

Once again we interrupt ourselves to remind people that the Fundamentalist view of inerrancy was born before modern exegesis was possible. The bogus idea that anything inspired by a perfect God would be perfect in science, for instance, is exactly what this series is about. Like Christ Himself, the Bible is a perfect mingling of the divine and human.

In speaking to the people of the Ancient East, if God had introduced useless and extraneous information, such as the earth being a planet suspended on nothing, the resulting hullaballoo would have entirely obscured the message of salvation. The message would have been rejected before it was heard. The idea that God would have screwed up communication with His ancient people by discussing a "planet" and other incomprehensible ideas undermines the whole purpose of the Bible.



THE BIBLE IS ABOUT EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN GOD AND MAN.

AND, AS WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED, THAT CONSISTENTLY MEANS THAT GOD COMES DOWN TO MAN'S LEVEL, AS HE DID WITH ALL HIS CREATURES IN THE UNIVERSE. IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT GOD BRINGS HIS CREATURES UP TO HIS LEVEL, BECAUSE THAT IS SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE. CREATURES, AS CREATED BEINGS, MUST GROW OVER TIME, THEIR EXPERIENCE TEACHING THEM MORE AND MORE ABOUT GOD. THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO AVOID FORCING THE WILL.

Despite the Fundy misinterpretation, the inspired author knows nothing about a flood so severe it changed the face of the PLANET earth. He knows just where the sacred garden/grove was located, and tells his readers. because he expects them to be able to understand what he is saying. Of course, he would be scratching his head if you asked him about a "planet" and a flood that changed the surface of that planet. He fully expects that his readers, too, will know exactly where he is talking about. And his description is so clear that we can also know the locale. He even mentions the fine gold of Havilah as a leftover of the special blessings that part of the earth once received by being right where the waters that fed the earth emanated from the Garden in Eden.
.
Read verses 10 to 14 of Genesis 2. It gives an entirely different picture of the nature of the flood than modern Fundies -- with no exegetical background -- portray. The same inspired writers who preserved the flood narratives for us preserved the creation narratives, and knew there was no conflict. Only when modern misconceptions are introduced does trouble begin!

If you want to read a brief but fascinating account of how a modern Egyptologist found and traveled in Eden, and came to the Mountain of God (the original Cosmic Mountain) you can read about it on the link given below. The four rivers of Eden are still there, still flowing. The Land of Nod still lies to the east of Eden and still carries its original name to this late day. Gold is still found in the Land of Havilah. The "gan" or walled garden enclosing a sacred grove is matched by the topography. And the Mountain of God is still bathed in the red ochre that gave Adam his name. Ignore his occasional liberal bias; he is far better than most liberal scholars:

http://www.sightedmoon.com/?page_id=26

If all the rivers of Eden are still flowing, if one of them still "winds around" (the meaning of its name) the canyons of the mountains it traverses, if the topography of the Eden is still the same, if both Eden and Nod are right where they used to be, then the family of Noah recognized the post-flood earth that had been cleansed of sin as the one they had known before the rains came. The the idea of a "planetary flood" (which the Bible neither describes nor contemplates in the story of Noah) is bogus. As is so much of the evolution-versus-special-creation argument.

The Bible teaches the absolute authority of the Creator who accomplished the literal creation of the Race of Adam, and the creation narratives (both of them) -- and references to them scattered throughout Scripture -- never lessen the basic and fundamental nature of that truth. (Regardless of how confused those who call themselves "fundamentalist" today may be.)

We have noted some of the differences between the first and second stories. Both touch on creation, but on different aspects, and the major difference is that a different concept of God -- signaled by a different name -- is presented. In 2:16 we are told that Yahweh Elohim

... commanded the man, saying 'You may freely eat of every tree of the garden,
but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day
that you eat of it, you shall die.' Genesis 2:16

Note that this is before the woman is created. She has not received the command directly, but by being half of the man. But this warning ties the creation part of the narrative to the temptation and fall part of the narrative. They are not separate works. We also note that the warning given here was not carried out; the new humans did not die the at the very time of their disobedience. Some sort of basic explanation will later be called for to explain this additional anomaly.

We have already noted that "commanded" does not necessarily mean a conversation, and it definitely did not mean that in the first creation story. But here, once again, the meaning has shifted. We discover further into the story that Yahweh Elohim appears regularly within the Garden (talk about being limited in time and space!) and walks around in the cool part of the day! And that part of His purpose in doing so is to hold discussions with His new creatures.

Next, as part of this new and different view of God, we hear (as we will so very often) Yahweh explaining His thinking to His subjects. Clearly, man is something of a learning experience for other beings. And the new man must also learn. Lacking any experience, he is given opportunity to view and name the new creatures that will be part of his life. In Hebrew thought, recall, the name of a thing described its essential nature. So this was a learning experience, a chance to observe the animals and their natures and find language (the learning of language being part of the maturation process) to fit those natures. And the man is to observe that the animals come in pairs and he is without a corresponding half.

Yahweh has already explained His thinking to His audience (in this case, both the readers, and, we are expected to know, the assistants and associates, members of the "heavenly" court, here traveling with Yahweh to earth, who are ever and always at hand wherever God is.

Then Yahweh God said, 'It is not good that the an should be alone. I will make
him a fit [appropriate] helper for him.' Genesis 2:18

After their disobedience, the new pair hide themselves, giving us a clear picture that they conceive of God as finite in nature. (Seeing God as a FINITE Being was key to the whole rebellion of Lucifer; who could think they could overcome God if they understood His Infinite Deity?) Yahweh is walking in the garden in the cool of the day. Despite his nature as Elohim, Infinite and Majestic God, He is also Yahweh, God in Person. He condescends to the level of inexperienced couple, even asking "Where are you?" as if He does not know.

(Every adult who has ever played "hide and seek" with a toddler has done exactly the same thing.)

And they [the man and woman, no longer just "mankind" as in the first story]
heard the sound of Yahweh God walking in the garden in the cool of the day,
and the man and his wife hid themselvesfrom the presence of Yahweh God among
the trees of the garden.

But Yahweh God called to the man, and said to him, 'Where are you?'
Genesis 2:8,9

There then follows a judgment scene in which it becomes immediately clear (in case we had forgotten) that Yahweh, though encompassed in personal form, is the absolute Master of all that is. He quickly reorders the very nature of human life and several levels of reality in the recent creation; changes are ordered to fit the new situation. And (ironically) we are given to understand that those changes were instantaneous and accomplished by fiat; Yahweh can be both personal and absolute at the same time.

Immediately after this first judgment scene in Scripture, Yahweh further comments on His next course of action. By now we see what will soon become a standard pattern: Yahweh does not remain in solemn splendor in a remote heavenly court, much less in light unapproachable, but frequently visits the earth in person; but like Elohim, He is constantly attended by servants, members of His court, and He constantly gives them verbal explanations of what He is thinking or why He is taking a certain course of action.

Then Yahweh God said, 'Behold! The man has become like one of us, knowing
good and evil! So now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life,
and eat, and live forever....' [The sentence is grammatically unfinished; they are
to draw their own obvious conclusions. So Yahweh God sent him forth from the
garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man,
and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a flaming sword
which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life. Genesis 3:22-24

There is an enormous amount of Scriptural material to be covered regarding this second revelation of the Infinite God. And we need to look at it in some detail, to get down the patterns, the purposes, the ways, in which God as Person was revealed, first to the beings of the universe and finally to mankind. In first study we noted that the Infinite God appeared in time and space FIRST in a way that showed GOD AS POWER.

ARE THESE TWO DIFFERENT PERSONS, OR JUST ONE PERSON CHANGING SHAPE AND MODE OF REVELATION? WE WILL ANSWER THIS QUESTION THAT SO VEXED THE EARLY CHURCH IN DETAIL IN A LATER STUDY. FOR NOW WE ARE SIMPLY GOING TO NOTE THE QUESTION, AND GIVE A PRELIMINARY ANSWER, WITH THE BIBLICAL PROOF TO FOLLOW: THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT PERSONS AND MODES OF REVELATION, NOT A SINGLE REVELATION CHANGING MODES. WE CALL THEM "GOD, THE FATHER" AND "GOD, THE SON" AND WILL, SHORTLY, EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN AND IMPLICATION OF THESE TITLES.

WE NOTED, AS TO THE WORK OF "GOD, THE FATHER" THAT A REVELATION OF THE INFINITE GOD WITHIN TIME AND SPACE SHOWING GOD AS POWER, MAJESTY, AWE, AND JUSTICE WAS NECESSARY. BUT WE ALSO NOTED THAT THIS REVELATION ALONE WOULD NOT HAVE BRED LOVE, BUT ONLY FEAR. AND WE NOTED THAT THE GREAT LACK AT THAT POINT WAS ANY WAY TO KNOW GOD AS A PERSON, TO INTERACT WITH GOD AS A PERSON, TO WATCH, TO TALK, TO LISTEN, TO BE TAUGHT, TO SEE GOD'S THINKING MADE AUDIBLE BY A PERSON.

WE HAVE ALREADY SAID, THEREFORE, THAT THIS SECOND REVELATION OF THE INFINITE GOD, GOD AS A PERSON, WAS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.

BUT NOW LET US REVERSE THE QUESTION, AND ASK, WHAT IF THE INFINITE GOD HAD CHOSEN NEVER TO APPEAR AS AN AWESOME BEING DWELLING FOREVER IN LIGHT UNAPPROACHABLE? WHAT IF GOD HAD APPEARED ONLY IN TIME AND SPACE AS A PERSON? WOULD THAT REVELATION HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT?

Think it through. If it had been sufficient by itself, there would not have been two such different revelations and appearances of the Infinite within time and space. If created beings had been exposed only to a person, appearing in a form such as themselves, this might, by itself, have bred affection, at least initially. But over time, creatures would have begun to wonder why this person continued to exercise absolute control over them. And they would have chafed under that control, wondering if it was necessary or even good for them. Given enough time, a difference of opinion between someone and God as a Person would most certainly arise. (Free choice being really free meant that sooner or later someone would begin to make the wrong choices!)

They might have said, "Well, we love you of course, and appreciate all you have done and tried to do, but now we need to do it on our own. Your thinking is not always our thinking, and besides, we cannot be absolutely sure that you are the Source of life. Yes, you create, but perhaps that is an ability we will all have if we evolve upward. How do we know you in fact are not a person of like nature with us, only further evolved? At that point disrespect, and even contempt, would have developed, for there would be nothing in the universe constantly reminding created beings that God is always awesome and needs to be feared, which is to say, respected in the ultimate sense.

SO WE COME TO THE ANSWER OF WHETHER THE WORK OF THE SECOND PERSON OF THE GODHEAD, THIS SECOND REVELATION OF GOD, THIS TIME AS A PERSON, WOULD HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT BY ITSELF. THE ANSWER IS A RESOUNDING NO! THE SECOND REVELATION, WHAT WE CALL "GOD, THE SON" (WE WILL EXPLAIN THESE TERMS LATER) IS NECESSARY BUT NOT SUFFICIENT.

WHEN WE HAVE COMPLETED FURTHER STUDY ON THIS SECOND REVELATION, WE WILL CONSIDER THE QUESTION: IS THE WORK OF "GOD, THE FATHER" AND "GOD, THE SON" SUFFICIENT WHEN TAKEN TOGETHER? OBVIOUSLY, THE VERY REVELATION OF GOD IN MAJESTY AND LIGHT UNAPPROACHABLE AND GOD AS A PERSON CREATES SUCH DISSONANCE THAT CONFUSION COULD ARISE UNLESS GREAT CARE WERE EXERCISED TO EXPLAIN TO CREATURES THAT BOTH WERE INFINITE GOD REVEALED IN TIME AND SPACE.

But next, let's go deeper into Scripture and find out much more than you ever imagined was there about this second revelation of the Infinite One, God as Person, within time and space.

Next: Yahweh, the Walking Talking God, or Revelation Deepens

-- John MacCall
c. Melek Enterprises 1998-2011

I've never considered myself close-minded, Jack. My mind is always open to truth.
All Bible translations contribute to the comprehension of Scripture.

Kevin, are you certain you posted this in the correct thread? If so, please highlight the points germane to the discussion, (for those of us who cannot connect the dots, or don't have the time to read the entire epistle.)

Your opinion of yourself and the experience of others in interacting with you may not coincide.



That's JAK, not Jack, and is neither my name nor my initials, but rather an acrynom for...never mind. I trust you understand the dangers of using one's actual identity on-line. (Especially on an SDA forum.)



"What is truth?"

This is true, but I'm always open to being shown where I'm wrong. I have asked you to give examples of what you affirm about me, but as of yet you have provided none.
Having said that, all of us have different opinions about what we discuss, and while you may consider some as close-minded, others may have the same opinion about you. However, we are here to exchange ideas, not to judge one another.


Sorry, it was a slip of the mind.


God's Word, in its entirety (as opposed to pick and choose verses) is the truth .

I also watched a video saying why the KJV was best. I was hoping to be informed by it. I sat through the whole thing, the ridicules and everything, and as near as I could understand, he was saying the KJV was better because it had more.

I'm not sure "more" is better. If it had more errors, that wouldn't mean it was better. I just don't think concluding something is better because it has more is correct. I've heard others say it is better because it has less errors. Just being less wrong doesn't make something more right to me. Wrong is still wrong. The SDA commentary has numerous instances after numerous instances where it says things such as, "better translated is ....".

Something I've heard, but don't know if it was correct, is that the Catholic church preserved the Bible, and the KJV came from it. I also understand some of the modern versions are translated by comparing many of the dead sea scrolls, scrolls which did not exist before 1798. How does that fit in?

If a verse was added, and it is later found out to be added and in error, how can we say the KJV better because it has "missing" verses? How do we determine whether KJV should or should not have those verses, how do we know the textus receptus is correct?

Now, I don't understand everything you said as it was rather lengthy, but could you pick an example of a verse we could discuss? Also, how should we determine the correct translation of that verse?

Yes, thank you for pointing that out.

The so-called "Comma" is unproven one way or the other, but the evidence does seem to lean more against it. As it cannot be fully proven, I have chosen to stay out of the controversy on it. Mrs. White never quoted it in her writings, and I guess perhaps we don't need it. But it doesn't contradict any of the rest of Scripture either, nor does it give us any new doctrine which is not supported elsewhere.

That said, it is true that there are errors in every version of the Bible, including the King James Version. However, I feel confident I could point out 10 errors in the NIV for every error pointed out from the KJV, and the NIV errors are more egregious.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The fact is that the Comma does not appear until the third edition of Erasmus' New Testament, published in 1522, but, although he included it, he remained convinced that it did not belong to the original text of l John. This Erasmus change (probably to avoid any suspicion of personal unorthodoxy) was accepted into the Received Text editions, the chief source for the King James Version. As you said, EGW never quoted it, and if it was indeed genuine there would be no controversy about the Trinity.

As to the subject of the Textus Receptus x the Nestle-Aland text, there is a good analysis here.

Amazing Discoveries has two good DVDs on the Bible. One is 'Changing the Word' and the other is "The Battle of the Bibles". Both are good watching. Take notes.
Ever wonder why there are so many new translations? Maybe you should note that most of them do away with most SDA doctrines.

I would like to see evidence of this.

Do your own research and you will see evidence of this, though I'm not sure I would go so far as to say "most SDA doctrines." I'm not sure we have an accurate count of our doctrines, first of all, and secondly, it is not the number of doctrines affected which is so important as their relevance to our salvation.

The newer perversions change the Plan of Redemption into another gospel--a false one. That is sobering.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC,

There is no KJV here in Brazil, our main version is not based on the Textus Receptus, we are using it in the translation of the SDABC, and I see no evidence that any of our doctrines was perverted by it. We have no doctrines based on isolate words or passages.

Ok, I copied the section looking at the text and questions translators have to face. My purpose is to let you know that all Bibles have issues, different ways the words can be translated, what to do with what appers to be scribal notes that get into the later copies of the texts and parts that wear away from earlier copies of the texts. Cultural and historical situations, litarary and poetic structures and what they mean for understanding the text etc. that one translation alone is not able to capture. The enclosed is looking at controversy over understanding and translating the creation story, although the entire article is fasinating (and would be worth including in the discussions on the trinity, which is where I almost put this just seemed to go with the flow of discussion on translation issues:

So we will look closely at Genesis 1 and 2 and open up the Scripture. But first, for the ignorant and unstable (Paul's very correct terminology) let's state as a rule:

ALL CANONICAL SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED BY THE SPIRIT, AND OF
COMPLETE DOCTRINAL AUTHORITY
IT FOLLOWS THAT IT DOES NOT MATTER AT ALL WHO IN PARTICULAR
WROTE THE PASSAGE
WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THAT EACH SCRIPTURAL AUTHOR
WAS GUIDED BY THE SPIRIT

That's a rule that applies to every verse of Scripture, no matter who wrote it or when. Keep that in mind, don't be alarmed, and as we point out certain things you may not have known, be assured that we will explain how they fit into God's self-revelation. It will become apparent as we move along why the rule just stated is so important. The key thing to remember is that we have a PRESUPPOSITION, something we presume to be true that will guide us as we go along. And that is a presupposition we found in Scripture: that what we find in our canon of Scripture is there by the intent of God, who inspired it all, even though different writers wrote material in different places, at different times, under different circumstances.


Oddities in the Creation Story

A long time ago Bible readers noticed some interesting and curious things about the story of creation in Genesis. For one thing, the story seems to have two beginnings. The first opener is in Genesis 1:1 (of course), but there is another recurring opener of new stories in Genesis a little further on. Words that are as familiar as openers as "Once upon a time" are found scattered all through Genesis at the beginning of new stories. The stories generally begin with a genealogy, placing the actors within a line of history, so that we can know where we are in time. The words are:

These are the generations of....

These are the generations of the heavens and the earth, when they were created. Genesis 2:4a

These is the writing of the generations of Adam [mankind] when God created man.... Genesis 5:1

These are the generations of Noah; now Noah was a righteous man and.... Genesis 6:9

These are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japhet.... Genesis 10:1

These are the generations of Shem: Shem was.... Genesis 11:10

And these are the generations of Terach: Terach was the father of.... Genesis 11:27

And these are the generations of Ishmael, Abraham's son.... Genesis 25:12

And these are the generations of Isaac, Abraham's son.... Genesis 25:19

And these are the generations of Esau, who is Edom... Genesis 36:1

And these are the generations of Esau, the father of the Edomites.... Genesis 36:9

These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph, being seventeen.... Genesis 37:2

If you look up these verses in a Bible, be sure you are using a word translation, that attempts to translate every word, not a modern sense translation, that frequently departs from the actual wording in the Hebrew original. The problem with "sense" translations is that they are frequently wrong. They only tell us what the translators thought the original meant, and often their words they use actually disguise the meaning. This is one reason we insist readers learn to do exegesis, or at least what it is, and not insist to us that they are right when they don't have a clue what the Bible actually says. This is the reason that though all the above verses are exactly the same in the original, they are translated differently from verse to verse; which means a modern reader would not be able to spot the pattern that is so significant.

Clearly, these genealogical records and the stories they introduce come from a period hundreds and hundreds of years before the time of Moses. Such records were kept when writing was in its infancy, in pictographs and in the Eastern Fertile Crescent and beyond (Iraq/Iran, where the stories are set) in cuneiform, a kind of pictures created by using wedge shapes from the ends of reeds. These shapes were pressed into small clay bricks, which then became permanent records when they were fired in a kiln.

It is interesting to note that these clay bricks generally had a running heading at the top of the tablets. And these "toledoth" or "generations" incipits (the beginning of a literary piece) in Genesis may indeed have originally been the headings or titles of ancient tablets (already ancient in the time of Moses) on which the stories were originally preserved.

Well, be that as it may, Genesis 2:4 has the first of the series, and indicates the beginning of a new series, a shift to a new document, different from what immediately precedes it. As genealogical markers, the first one in Genesis 2:4 is interesting in that there are no "generations" to record. Instead, what is recorded is the beginning of "the heavens and the earth" from the moment of man's origin. Contrary to popular misinterpretation, the phrase (found in many other places) refers to the earth plane and what can be seen from it. We'll look closely at why the ancient readers would have understood the phrase to refer to the earth plane and the sky visible above it, and not the entire universe.

The concept of "the universe" as we know it was unknown to men in the Ancient Near East, and we must always read what is written from the viewpoint of the writer and original intended readers. I have seen many useless fundamentalist interpretations, giving all kinds of information and misinformation about the planet, when the concept of "planet" was yet centuries into the future, and not found among the Semites of the East, but originated with the Greeks at a time when the Old Testament was already finished.

Now let's look at the details of the creation events as recorded between Genesis 1:1 and the "toledoth/generations" notice in Genesis 2:4 and see how they compare to the record of creation after the "toledoth" notation, to see how they compare the one to the other. What we want to know, since we have two clear beginnings (and an obvious ending in Genesis 2:3 and another clear ending in 3:24) is whether -- as this structure implies -- we actually have two distinct creation accounts. And if so, how do they compare, the one to the other? Why would there be two descriptions of the same event? If there are two, are they very very similar? Or are they so different, as liberal scholars claim, as to be in utter contradiction? Why would they be different?


Two Complementary Views of Creation

Almost everyone with any familiarity with the Bible has some general sense of the first creation description. It isn't a narrative story, but a rigidly structured prose poem set within the structure of the seven days of the first week. That the week involved was intended by the author to be a literal week of seven days is beyond any question whatever. Various attempts to square the creation sequence with evolutionary theories have resulted in trying to reinterpret the "days" as ages or eons of evolutionary development.

This is manifestly not what the author intended, and in fact is the opposite of what was intended, as we shall see. The idea has to be dismissed immediately as outlandish, contrary to the grammatical meaning clearly expressed, and also shows a complete lack of understanding of the background to the passage.

Now, we have noted that there is a second "Once upon a time" appearing at Genesis 2:4. That is, another story begins there. And that second narrative is, in some ways different. Often complementary, the two accounts give us a larger picture than either of the two phases would have given by themselves, but nevertheless they are quite different. One important factor (and the reason this is being discussed here) is that the complementary parts of the total creation narrative tell us much about how God communicates to created beings.

The mode of creation in the first sequence is that the divine Creator -- termed "Elohim" which is "gods" plural in Hebrew -- announces the plan to create mankind to the heavenly court. The Creator is an exalted ruler, the Master of the Universe, and His word has creative power. He simply commands or wills, and all the enormous complexity of the world of mankind is called into existence. In the second sequence, a true prose narrative, with nothing like the time/space structure of the first, man is "formed/fashioned" by the Creator -- now named "YHWH Elohim" (that is, Yahweh God) -- by the Creator using the fine red clay of the earth to fashion (the word describes what a fine potter does in making expensive pottery or an artisan creating a fine statue, etc.) the body of "adam" or "the human".

Here the Creator is literally down in the mud, and the first fashioning of man is not the complete story. A second later step will result in a true race of beings. Even more, however, is the surprising fact that before anything else in the world is created, mankind is made. And yet at that point mankind has no particular place within time and space to exist, until "YHWH Elohim" does some other work.

This involves us in the question of sequence. So, to be clear, let's remind ourselves of the sequence in the tight, carefully-worded first narrative. It is important to note here that the wording and terminology is very different between the two creation sequences. The first narrative is filled with technical terms, drawn from priestly literature. Terms for the building of "the heavens and the earth" are often terms from the technical aspects of building an ancient temple. And many of those terms were usually reserved for sacred literature, and not used in regular prose. Yet they appear in the first creation account.

And then these unusual terms disappear at Genesis 2:4 not to be seen again until the building of the Wilderness Sanctuary late in the Book of Exodus. But that event is far later in time. The text of the first story is stately, it is sparse, it is spare, it is cryptic, it is awe-filled. The English translation completely masks the care and mood of grandeur in the precise and poetic wording and syntax.

So here is the sequence of creation as we know it so well:

1. The future world is in darkness. It is "tohu we vohu" or "in total chaos" when Elohim (plural) begins the creation sequence.. There is no visible land, but Elohim's Spirit is blowing across the darkened primeval ocean. Elohim orders light (not the sun, moon, or stars) to enter the sphere of the future world. First Day.

2. Elohim builds a "raqia" or solid dome of atmosphere between upper and lower oceans. Spatial relationships begin. This non-water open space is called "the heavens" or more precisely, "the sky". "The heavens" misleads moderns to think of the modern concept of the universe. Second Day.

3. Elohim separates water and land, creating Earth and Sea. On the Earth vegetation, both plants and trees, are ordered to exist. Third Day.

Remember, as we proceed, that in each case the Master of the Universe, "Elohim" inspects the results with care, and pronounces each pleasing, appropriate, functional, up to Elohim's moral standard, all of which are contained in the Hebrew "tov" which is translated misleadingly "good".

4. Lights appear in the raqia, as viewed from the earth. The greater light (the author cannot use the term "sun" since its only names were names of pagan gods) marks days, the lesser light (again, not named since the name is a pagan deity) marks the night, and both mark off seasons. They are not "signs" as our Masoretic Text misreads the ancient Hebrew, the Palestinian and Egyptian text types reading the original correctly. Lest anyone get confused, the cryptic note is added that Elohim is also the creator of the stars, which were understood to be attached to the raqia, which rotated. Fourth Day.

5. Things that swarm in the seas and air are ordered to exist by Elohim. Swarms of sea creatures now inhabit the Sea, and vast flocks of birds fill the air. As always after God speaks the result is inspected and pronounced appropriate, functional, morally appropriate, and most of all, pleasing to Elohim. Fifth Day.

6. All land animals, from the creeping to the behemoths now are ordered into existence. They are runners-up to Elohim's jussive to the heavenly court, "Let us make mankind in our image." That leads to the next-to-last and nearly ultimate creation by fiat in this sequence. After the animals and everything else has been created, we see that all this was stage-setting for the final act, the ordering of mankind (adam/mankind) into existence. Here we find that "adam/mankind" is both male and female. There are then several sentences of reflection on the role of man in the new creation, as its sub-ruler.

Finally, though the Masoretic Text contains an error, the structure says that God ceased his works on the sixth day. That leads to what scholars call "The Creation Sabbath," the hidden mystery revealed only much much later when Israel was created. On the seventh day God "ceased" from his creative works, putting an unexplained blessing into the seventh day. (What the blessing was will only be discussed in Exodus; we never hear of the sabbath or any hint of sabbath-keeping again in Genesis, or in Exodus either, until the actual creation of Israel, a creation that finalizes the creation being described here.) Sixth day.

Don't confuse the later concepts of "rest" with the verb "sabbath" here. The Hebrew verb means, simply, "to cease/desist" and that is how it must be rendered. For, of course, God hasn't actually "worked" at all in this view of creation. Rather, the Majesty seated in the heavenly court has simply ordered things into existence, and then ceased from doing so. The idea of the Master of the Universe calling life into existence by fiat needing "rest" is ludicrous.

Alright, so in summary, we have here a very awesome view of the distant and exalted Elohim. The picture involves the whole of the earth and the structures around it. The narrative is filled with highly technical terms used for the building of temples, terms that reappear only in the building of the Wilderness Sanctuary. This story is definitely what we would call an "overview" picture, not localized in any sense. And Elohim, who is the Mover in all this, is entirely consistent with the exalted, distant, awesomely powerful and deeply mysterious picture of God we saw in the first study.

In addition, the narrative is tightly structured around two features: the sequence of events, involving the timing of events, especially the sequence of days. Consistent with ancient numerology, the sixth day suggests something forebodingly evil, though the concept of evil or the fall of man is never, even briefly, discussed. That is the day that man and his associated animals were created. By contrast, the seventh day suggests the completion and perfection of the original creation, the implication of all that "seven" meant in ancient numerology.

The other aspect of the tight structure is space itself. Everything begins with the earth "tohu we vohu" or "utter chaos" and as the creation proceeds, order comes out of chaos; the land has a place; the sea has a place; the sky has a place; the sun and moon know where to shine; the sea creatures and land animals and birds know where their place is. Finally, man comes into existence and is given lordship over it all.

Then, too, the poetic and highly structured and lordly language give the whole picture a compelling sense of drama and awe, so different from what we are going to encounter next in the narrative.

And finally, the complex "broken chiasm" structure is apparent here. Rather than go into details covered in the exegetical studies, we will simply point out here the general structure:

Day 1: Elohim separates light from darkness

Day 2: Elohim separates water from sky (the dome of "the heavens")

Day 3: Elohim separates out dry land; vegetation appears

Day 4: Elohim fills in the light with the sun, and the darkness with the moon, stars also give light

Day 5: Elohim fills the water with fish and the sky with birds ("the heavens" being the sky over the ground)

Day 6: Elohim puts animals and man on the dry land; vegetation given as their food

Day 7: Elohim desists from doing further creative works; blesses the seventh day (no command to keep
yet); pronounces everything perfect

We have emphasized also not what is said but what is left unsaid. Apart from the distant imperial view of God and the highly structured account of creation, the story is wildly incomplete. In fact, as it stands, it is so incomplete as to be incomprehensible. What Elohim wrought was a perfect world, with conditions utterly unlike anything the ancient readers would have recognized. If this was all there was about to know creation, we'd be wondering why it was ever written; we would be left with more questions than answers. Not a hint of how the perfect world alleged here became the world in which we live! And no hint of how "Elohim" views the world today, so different from the one it is here alleged He actually created!

Which leaves the obvious question, Why is this story, so structured and so absolute, also so unfinished? What is there about the use of this same structure in regard to the Wilderness Sanctuary and the Temple on Zion that is being said? And is there any chance of actually communicating with the Majestic God described in this account?

This is a story for another day. Right now we have to move quickly to the other side of the second "once upon a time" and do some comparisons.


Two Names, Two Views of God

The opening prose narrative of the second creation story is almost disconcerting, after what we have just read, even looking at it so briefly and in so little depth. The story is different in many ways. For one thing it no longer is interested in the world as a whole. And it clearly is not interested in the time-structure and spatial-structure of the first creation account. Here is how it reads, and compared to the prior story, this is quite breezy, if also surprisingly complex:

In the day that the LORD God [YHWH Elohim, Yahweh God] made the earth and
the heavens [reverse of the First Creation Story] when no plant of the field was yet in
the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up -- for the LORD God [Yahweh
God] had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground,
but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground -- then
Yahweh God formed/fashioned man from the red clay of the ground, and breathed/blew
into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being. Genesis 2:4b-7

One thing that stands out rather dramatically is that the picture of God is different on one side than on the other!

Another thing is that the order of events is completely reversed in this prose account.

Further, there is little interest (as we discover as we read on) in the entire earth, for the narrative soon centers on a sacred grove, a grove belonging to Yahweh Himself, where He places mankind as His gardeners.

Interest in this sacred grove is so great that details about how the earth was DIFFERENT at that time (especially as regards dealing with growing things) comes up immediately. In the prior story we heard nothing of this difference between the perfect world of creation and the current messy world, and in fact, nothing of any difference at all, or how the current world came to evolve from the prior perfect world. We noted that on that all-important fact the previous story left us hanging.

That distinction between the two stories all by itself should suggest that the person or persons who put these accounts together knew exactly what he was doing and why. Which is to say, the liberal argument that the two creation accounts are so different that they are in hopeless conflict, mutually exclusive, and cannot be historical accounts founders upon the very content of the accounts.

While Yahweh, this Person, is still "Elohim" or Absolute Deity, in some way, He is also very much an interactive Person. These two pictures of God almost imply multiple gods, but the central confession of Israel constantly denied this:

Hear O Israel! The LORD our God is one LORD! or

Hear O Israel! The LORD our God, the LORD is One! or

Hear O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone! Deuteronomy 6:4

And so we must deal with the major anomaly in the two literary pieces about the creation. Just as ELOHIM is used as the only name for God in 1:1 to 2:4, after that the Divine Being is called only YAHWEH ELOHIM, Yahweh-God. Now, names were very important in the ancient world, because they defined the nature of the thing being named.

A shift from a descriptive word ("Elohim/Ultimate Deity") to a personal name ("He causes everything to exist") is not merely a literary shift, but a shift in the view of how the Divine Being is seen. We saw the imperial majesty of the distant Overlord of the Universe in the first account. Now we have something different: now we have God, still, but God encompassed in a PERSON, fashioning red clay/mud (down in the mud!), walking on earth in His sacred precincts, talking face to face with His new creatures, searching for them (supposedly) and doling out judgment on disobedience.

The continuation of the narrative moves us even further away from the prior story and into the detail, the emphases, which this story is interested in and will expand:

The whole concept of the method of creation is different. Gone is the setting in the heavenly court, the divine "jussive" and command that instantly creates. While the verb "created" ("bara") is still present, the actual work is real work this time The kind of physical work that makes humans sweat. (And though it is real work, we will not hear one word about "cessation" or anything like a "sabbath"!)

Down in the red ochre (Hebrew "adamah") Yahweh "fashions" using "yatsar," a verb which describes an expert potter fashioning fine pottery, or a sculptor working on a statue, or an artisan fashioning any other work of art. From the "adamah" He brings forth "Adam" (not now "human being" but an individual with a name reflecting his earth-nature. The verb therefore also has in it the concept of forming an idea, a plan, and carrying it out. We even see Yahweh thinking as He proceeds. This anomalous shift will continue and deepen throughout Genesis.

Somewhat more troubling to the fundamentalist viewpoint is that both stories make an explicit issue of the order of events. And yet they emphasize different things in describing their differing order. It is tru that the order of events does not agree. At all. Of course, this anomaly arises precisely because the story is not at all interested in how Elohim created the entire earth and its related structures in the cosmos; this story is interested in how Yahweh proceeded in creating the sacred grove, and what was involved in placing it in the eastward of "the eden." And placing man (who has been in narrative-suspended animation so far) there. Now, this "eden" was an ancient word (Sumerian, in fact) for the upland tableland in the mountains of the "Armenian Knot," the place where several mountain ranges originate and fan out in different directions. More on this below.

And Yahweh-God planted [really, He "planted" just as you and I would]
a garden/sacred grove in Eden, eastward, and there he placed the man whom
he had formed/fashioned. Genesis 2:8

Contrast this fashioning of mankind first in the order of events, with the first account, where mankind is the last and crowning act of creation events before Elohim desists. The text is very explicit about this. Further, the concept of "adam" has changed. It meant "mankind" in the first creation story, and included male and female immediately and automatically. Here, however, the same word meand "the man" as an individual. And it means "the man" as distinct from "the woman" who is going to share the story. This is one of several shifts in the meaning of terms between the two accounts.

Before we read the next verse, you need to know that liberal scholarship has argued for the last two centuries that Genesis 3, the story of the Fall of Man, is not a part of this second narrative. That claim is made to safeguard the liberal view that Genesis contains two complete and mutually-exclusive creation stories. The liberal commentator wants to capitalize on the differences to conclude that the two stories are so incompatible that they cannot be seen as complementary, but rather in hopeless contradiction. (Fundamentalists are even worse, denying there are two different creation accounts, which does not actually provide an answer to the liberal argument.)

If, however, the Fall of Man is part of this second story, we have instead this:

THE STORY IS ABOUT: THE CREATOR IS: THE METHOD IS: THE LOCALE IS:

Genesis 1:1-2:3 THE HEAVENS ELOHIM FIAT/COMMAND HEAVENLY COURT
AND EARTH, THE COSMOS

Genesis 2:4-3:24 ADAM YAHWEH PERSONAL WORK EARTH PLANE
AND EVE AND THEIR FALL ELOHIM

Modern studies show that this section (Genesis 2:4 to 3:24), which may appear simple, is in fact a series of chiasms within chiasms, and highly complex. The language is such that it is beyond argument that from the outset, the author is intent on explaining the fall of man and the entrance of sin. He immediately adds to his description of the sacred grove/garden the ominous presence of a tree that contains knowledge (experience, there being no "knowledge" in the abstract in Hebrew thought) about good and evil! And places near it another tree that is equally dangerous: the tree of life that transmits eternal life. The possible combustion here could result in an immortal sinner!

Again, contra Fundamentalism, and what most of you have been taught, Genesis knows NOTHING about a planet, or a universal flood on such a planet. The earth is exactly as pictured everywhere in Scripture, and to that end we once again include a picture of the earth sitting on the primeval waters, as in the second commandment and Psalm 24 (and everywhere else in the Ancient Near East, for that matter):

The heavenly Cosmic Mountain was behind the North Star, the star around which the solid dome, or raqia, rotated. The stars were attached. The earth floated on the primeval ocean, which was freshwater (of course) not salt.

You shall not make any graven for yourelf a grave image or any likeness of
anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that
is in the waters under the earth.... Exodus 20:4

The earth is Yahweh's and the fulness thereof,
The world, and those who dwell therein.
For he has founded it upon the seas
And established it upon the rivers. Psalm 24:1

The 7-headed dragon, Leviathan, lurked in the dark underworld, waiting to rise up and control the earth.

...Yahweh with his hard and great and stron sword will punish Leviathan the
fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will slay the dragon
that is in the sea. Isaiah 27:1

Once again we interrupt ourselves to remind people that the Fundamentalist view of inerrancy was born before modern exegesis was possible. The bogus idea that anything inspired by a perfect God would be perfect in science, for instance, is exactly what this series is about. Like Christ Himself, the Bible is a perfect mingling of the divine and human.

In speaking to the people of the Ancient East, if God had introduced useless and extraneous information, such as the earth being a planet suspended on nothing, the resulting hullaballoo would have entirely obscured the message of salvation. The message would have been rejected before it was heard. The idea that God would have screwed up communication with His ancient people by discussing a "planet" and other incomprehensible ideas undermines the whole purpose of the Bible.



THE BIBLE IS ABOUT EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN GOD AND MAN.

AND, AS WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED, THAT CONSISTENTLY MEANS THAT GOD COMES DOWN TO MAN'S LEVEL, AS HE DID WITH ALL HIS CREATURES IN THE UNIVERSE. IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT GOD BRINGS HIS CREATURES UP TO HIS LEVEL, BECAUSE THAT IS SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE. CREATURES, AS CREATED BEINGS, MUST GROW OVER TIME, THEIR EXPERIENCE TEACHING THEM MORE AND MORE ABOUT GOD. THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO AVOID FORCING THE WILL.

Despite the Fundy misinterpretation, the inspired author knows nothing about a flood so severe it changed the face of the PLANET earth. He knows just where the sacred garden/grove was located, and tells his readers. because he expects them to be able to understand what he is saying. Of course, he would be scratching his head if you asked him about a "planet" and a flood that changed the surface of that planet. He fully expects that his readers, too, will know exactly where he is talking about. And his description is so clear that we can also know the locale. He even mentions the fine gold of Havilah as a leftover of the special blessings that part of the earth once received by being right where the waters that fed the earth emanated from the Garden in Eden.
.
Read verses 10 to 14 of Genesis 2. It gives an entirely different picture of the nature of the flood than modern Fundies -- with no exegetical background -- portray. The same inspired writers who preserved the flood narratives for us preserved the creation narratives, and knew there was no conflict. Only when modern misconceptions are introduced does trouble begin!

If you want to read a brief but fascinating account of how a modern Egyptologist found and traveled in Eden, and came to the Mountain of God (the original Cosmic Mountain) you can read about it on the link given below. The four rivers of Eden are still there, still flowing. The Land of Nod still lies to the east of Eden and still carries its original name to this late day. Gold is still found in the Land of Havilah. The "gan" or walled garden enclosing a sacred grove is matched by the topography. And the Mountain of God is still bathed in the red ochre that gave Adam his name. Ignore his occasional liberal bias; he is far better than most liberal scholars:

http://www.sightedmoon.com/?page_id=26

If all the rivers of Eden are still flowing, if one of them still "winds around" (the meaning of its name) the canyons of the mountains it traverses, if the topography of the Eden is still the same, if both Eden and Nod are right where they used to be, then the family of Noah recognized the post-flood earth that had been cleansed of sin as the one they had known before the rains came. The the idea of a "planetary flood" (which the Bible neither describes nor contemplates in the story of Noah) is bogus. As is so much of the evolution-versus-special-creation argument.

The Bible teaches the absolute authority of the Creator who accomplished the literal creation of the Race of Adam, and the creation narratives (both of them) -- and references to them scattered throughout Scripture -- never lessen the basic and fundamental nature of that truth. (Regardless of how confused those who call themselves "fundamentalist" today may be.)

We have noted some of the differences between the first and second stories. Both touch on creation, but on different aspects, and the major difference is that a different concept of God -- signaled by a different name -- is presented. In 2:16 we are told that Yahweh Elohim

... commanded the man, saying 'You may freely eat of every tree of the garden,
but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day
that you eat of it, you shall die.' Genesis 2:16

Note that this is before the woman is created. She has not received the command directly, but by being half of the man. But this warning ties the creation part of the narrative to the temptation and fall part of the narrative. They are not separate works. We also note that the warning given here was not carried out; the new humans did not die the at the very time of their disobedience. Some sort of basic explanation will later be called for to explain this additional anomaly.

We have already noted that "commanded" does not necessarily mean a conversation, and it definitely did not mean that in the first creation story. But here, once again, the meaning has shifted. We discover further into the story that Yahweh Elohim appears regularly within the Garden (talk about being limited in time and space!) and walks around in the cool part of the day! And that part of His purpose in doing so is to hold discussions with His new creatures.

Next, as part of this new and different view of God, we hear (as we will so very often) Yahweh explaining His thinking to His subjects. Clearly, man is something of a learning experience for other beings. And the new man must also learn. Lacking any experience, he is given opportunity to view and name the new creatures that will be part of his life. In Hebrew thought, recall, the name of a thing described its essential nature. So this was a learning experience, a chance to observe the animals and their natures and find language (the learning of language being part of the maturation process) to fit those natures. And the man is to observe that the animals come in pairs and he is without a corresponding half.

Yahweh has already explained His thinking to His audience (in this case, both the readers, and, we are expected to know, the assistants and associates, members of the "heavenly" court, here traveling with Yahweh to earth, who are ever and always at hand wherever God is.

Then Yahweh God said, 'It is not good that the an should be alone. I will make
him a fit [appropriate] helper for him.' Genesis 2:18

After their disobedience, the new pair hide themselves, giving us a clear picture that they conceive of God as finite in nature. (Seeing God as a FINITE Being was key to the whole rebellion of Lucifer; who could think they could overcome God if they understood His Infinite Deity?) Yahweh is walking in the garden in the cool of the day. Despite his nature as Elohim, Infinite and Majestic God, He is also Yahweh, God in Person. He condescends to the level of inexperienced couple, even asking "Where are you?" as if He does not know.

(Every adult who has ever played "hide and seek" with a toddler has done exactly the same thing.)

And they [the man and woman, no longer just "mankind" as in the first story]
heard the sound of Yahweh God walking in the garden in the cool of the day,
and the man and his wife hid themselvesfrom the presence of Yahweh God among
the trees of the garden.

But Yahweh God called to the man, and said to him, 'Where are you?'
Genesis 2:8,9

There then follows a judgment scene in which it becomes immediately clear (in case we had forgotten) that Yahweh, though encompassed in personal form, is the absolute Master of all that is. He quickly reorders the very nature of human life and several levels of reality in the recent creation; changes are ordered to fit the new situation. And (ironically) we are given to understand that those changes were instantaneous and accomplished by fiat; Yahweh can be both personal and absolute at the same time.

Immediately after this first judgment scene in Scripture, Yahweh further comments on His next course of action. By now we see what will soon become a standard pattern: Yahweh does not remain in solemn splendor in a remote heavenly court, much less in light unapproachable, but frequently visits the earth in person; but like Elohim, He is constantly attended by servants, members of His court, and He constantly gives them verbal explanations of what He is thinking or why He is taking a certain course of action.

Then Yahweh God said, 'Behold! The man has become like one of us, knowing
good and evil! So now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life,
and eat, and live forever....' [The sentence is grammatically unfinished; they are
to draw their own obvious conclusions. So Yahweh God sent him forth from the
garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man,
and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a flaming sword
which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life. Genesis 3:22-24

There is an enormous amount of Scriptural material to be covered regarding this second revelation of the Infinite God. And we need to look at it in some detail, to get down the patterns, the purposes, the ways, in which God as Person was revealed, first to the beings of the universe and finally to mankind. In first study we noted that the Infinite God appeared in time and space FIRST in a way that showed GOD AS POWER.

ARE THESE TWO DIFFERENT PERSONS, OR JUST ONE PERSON CHANGING SHAPE AND MODE OF REVELATION? WE WILL ANSWER THIS QUESTION THAT SO VEXED THE EARLY CHURCH IN DETAIL IN A LATER STUDY. FOR NOW WE ARE SIMPLY GOING TO NOTE THE QUESTION, AND GIVE A PRELIMINARY ANSWER, WITH THE BIBLICAL PROOF TO FOLLOW: THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT PERSONS AND MODES OF REVELATION, NOT A SINGLE REVELATION CHANGING MODES. WE CALL THEM "GOD, THE FATHER" AND "GOD, THE SON" AND WILL, SHORTLY, EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN AND IMPLICATION OF THESE TITLES.

WE NOTED, AS TO THE WORK OF "GOD, THE FATHER" THAT A REVELATION OF THE INFINITE GOD WITHIN TIME AND SPACE SHOWING GOD AS POWER, MAJESTY, AWE, AND JUSTICE WAS NECESSARY. BUT WE ALSO NOTED THAT THIS REVELATION ALONE WOULD NOT HAVE BRED LOVE, BUT ONLY FEAR. AND WE NOTED THAT THE GREAT LACK AT THAT POINT WAS ANY WAY TO KNOW GOD AS A PERSON, TO INTERACT WITH GOD AS A PERSON, TO WATCH, TO TALK, TO LISTEN, TO BE TAUGHT, TO SEE GOD'S THINKING MADE AUDIBLE BY A PERSON.

WE HAVE ALREADY SAID, THEREFORE, THAT THIS SECOND REVELATION OF THE INFINITE GOD, GOD AS A PERSON, WAS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.

BUT NOW LET US REVERSE THE QUESTION, AND ASK, WHAT IF THE INFINITE GOD HAD CHOSEN NEVER TO APPEAR AS AN AWESOME BEING DWELLING FOREVER IN LIGHT UNAPPROACHABLE? WHAT IF GOD HAD APPEARED ONLY IN TIME AND SPACE AS A PERSON? WOULD THAT REVELATION HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT?

Think it through. If it had been sufficient by itself, there would not have been two such different revelations and appearances of the Infinite within time and space. If created beings had been exposed only to a person, appearing in a form such as themselves, this might, by itself, have bred affection, at least initially. But over time, creatures would have begun to wonder why this person continued to exercise absolute control over them. And they would have chafed under that control, wondering if it was necessary or even good for them. Given enough time, a difference of opinion between someone and God as a Person would most certainly arise. (Free choice being really free meant that sooner or later someone would begin to make the wrong choices!)

They might have said, "Well, we love you of course, and appreciate all you have done and tried to do, but now we need to do it on our own. Your thinking is not always our thinking, and besides, we cannot be absolutely sure that you are the Source of life. Yes, you create, but perhaps that is an ability we will all have if we evolve upward. How do we know you in fact are not a person of like nature with us, only further evolved? At that point disrespect, and even contempt, would have developed, for there would be nothing in the universe constantly reminding created beings that God is always awesome and needs to be feared, which is to say, respected in the ultimate sense.

SO WE COME TO THE ANSWER OF WHETHER THE WORK OF THE SECOND PERSON OF THE GODHEAD, THIS SECOND REVELATION OF GOD, THIS TIME AS A PERSON, WOULD HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT BY ITSELF. THE ANSWER IS A RESOUNDING NO! THE SECOND REVELATION, WHAT WE CALL "GOD, THE SON" (WE WILL EXPLAIN THESE TERMS LATER) IS NECESSARY BUT NOT SUFFICIENT.

WHEN WE HAVE COMPLETED FURTHER STUDY ON THIS SECOND REVELATION, WE WILL CONSIDER THE QUESTION: IS THE WORK OF "GOD, THE FATHER" AND "GOD, THE SON" SUFFICIENT WHEN TAKEN TOGETHER? OBVIOUSLY, THE VERY REVELATION OF GOD IN MAJESTY AND LIGHT UNAPPROACHABLE AND GOD AS A PERSON CREATES SUCH DISSONANCE THAT CONFUSION COULD ARISE UNLESS GREAT CARE WERE EXERCISED TO EXPLAIN TO CREATURES THAT BOTH WERE INFINITE GOD REVEALED IN TIME AND SPACE.

But next, let's go deeper into Scripture and find out much more than you ever imagined was there about this second revelation of the Infinite One, God as Person, within time and space.

Kevin, you just re-posted the whole thing. How does that help? I read it closer this time, thinking I missed something the first time, and this long and rambling cut and paste has nothing at all to do with the discussion. (Insert "rolling eyeballs" smilie here)

Very good link, Um...thanks for posting it.

A little research on "King James Onlyism" reveals the distressing fact that a Seventh-day Adventist, Benjamin G. Wilkinson, is credited with starting this whole fallacious heresy!!!

IS THIS TRUE?? HAVE WE DONE THIS!?

I CAN'T BELIEVE IT. TELL ME IT AINT SO! (Insert CRYING smilie here. )

Just so we're clear, my own doctrine is based on the Bible, not the 27/28 FB. Ellen White never would have approved of the FB book, as she herself stated clearly that our church was to have no creed but the Bible.

Why do I start with that preface? because one of the most easily-recognized changes in doctrine has taken place with the doctrine of fasting, which is not counted among our 28 FB. The newer versions go so far as to remove entire verses or portions of verses just to make Christ and the Bible give a different message than that of fasting.

Try proving the need to fast from an NIV New Testament (or any non-textus-receptus translation). You will find the references to historical events, such as Jesus' fast in the wilderness, but not His explicit statement that "this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting," which tells us we must fast in order to accomplish certain things.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Before judging the man, I would invite you to read his books. Here's a little intro to them:

The first book was "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated," by Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Ph.D., Dean of Theology at Washington Missionary College (now Columbia Union College).

The second book was written, but not published at that time, in response to a "scholarly review" that was published by some of his colleagues against the first book. On the back of the book, the following is printed:



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I don't know if he started it but he made it popular. Graham Maxwell pointed out that Wilkinson had his doctorate, not in Biblical studies or ancient languages or other related fields, but in modern languages (maybe even just modern French if I recall correctly) but set himself up as an expert in theology, and he was dean of the theology department at Washington Missionary College and President of Washington Missionary College and other church administrative positions.

People like W. W. Prescott and Willie White (and I don't remember for sure but maybe even Mrs. White) were critical of his work (she was at least critical of some people's ideas that he latched on to and began preaching, they excused her messages to them as her getting messages from Willie instead of the Lord). Wilkinson used texts in the Bible against Samuel's sons as the same thing happening with Willie White.

Then when he was an administrator of one of our colleges he apperently did find a letter from the vatican to one of the religion professors with instructions on what to teach to attack our church, and because of this he felt that the whole church was filled with Catholic spys and would not take redirection from people like White, Prescott and other church leaders. His ideas are still very influentual among us today.

According to Graham Maxwell, Wilkinson's strictness ended up that non of his children wanted anything to do with God as they grew up, and this caused the elderly Wilkerson to re-evaluate his life and feel he was wrong and repented of his views. However his followers continue to support those views.

Now I wouldnt be so quick on that, as we dont have the original manuscripts which I think did have them but the later ones from the Gnosticism codices altered, I am researching that.

I would be careful with anything W.W. Prescott, I have a whole study which I will look for and post later.

I would disagree, some contribute to confusion and distortion as witness to the issues in understanding the GodHead.

Its not so much that it is the 'best; but the fact it is based on 7000 manuscripts not 2 Alexandrian "Gnostic Gospels" / manuscripts once thought to have been entirely destroyed during the early Christian struggle to guard "orthodoxy"and suddenly one pops up in 1844 right as the truth is being unveiled to Adventism, you think that is coincidence?

So I have one question for you GC, does it agree with the rest of scripture or disagree?

Not 'most' but does have a affect, I will look for my study on it..

True and more

Yes, I dont get it either..

Here is from Wikipedia, which I tried to clean up and correct:
Wilkinson is an obscure figure today, and is remembered mainly for a book he wrote in 1930 entitled Our Authorized Bible Vindicated. Some years later Independent Baptist preacher David Otis Fuller also wrote a book concerning the Textual debate entitled, Which Bible?,[2] which helped to popularize King James Only beliefs because he excluded Wilkinson's Adventist beliefs from his book.

Wilkinson criticized the English Revised Version, which was completed in 1885, because he claimed it was translated from inaccurate Greek texts. For example, in Acts 13:42 a change in the Greek text removed the word Gentiles in a text that says they observed the Sabbath, which ultimately changed the Adventist belief in Sabbath keeping. In Hebrews 9:27 a translation more literal than the King James Version (KJV) altered a proof text for the Adventist belief in 'soul sleep.'[1]

Wilkinson was the first known person to criticize Westcott and Hort,[1] believing they made changes to the text in translation, due to the fact that they rejected the use of the Textus Receptus and instead, used text based mainly on the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.[3] Those who preferred not to use the Textus Receptus, such as Westcott and Hort, used what Wilkinson claimed were corrupted manuscripts and which other authorities on the textual issue such as John Burgon, who called it a "fabricated text", and "among the most corrupt documents extant"[4] and likened the manuscripts used as to the "two false witnesses" of Matthew 26:60.[5] [6] the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. The Codex Vaticanus that has come down to us had portions which have been collated and changed or edited by several scribes over the centuries, with many exclusions [7][8] [9] and errors that were intended to be corrections made in the process, [10] [11] while the Codex Sinaiticus has known textual variants in its text and exclusions. [12] [13][14]

Wilkinson was also the first person to associate Psalm 12:6-7 claiming, that this verse was God's promise to preserve the KJV[1] The majority of Christians, however, do not believe in this particular interpretation of biblical scripture.

In his book Truth Triumphant, Wilkinson painted a true church after Jesus' ascension in the face of apostasy and persecution, fled into the wilderness, preserved the Word of God and teaching of Jesus. The true church manifested during the Reformation, bringing in long lost teachings of the bible that was forbidden during the Dark Ages, and that she will triumph over the beast and its image in the last days.

Benjamin was also a participant in the Seventh-day Adventist 1919 Bible Conference which was a highly significant event within the Adventist Church. Like other conferences at the time amongst fundamentalists it discussed the nature of inspiration, both of the Bible and Seventh-day Adventist prophetess Ellen G. White. Wilkinson was a representative of the conservative faction at the conference, arguing that White's writings were inerrant. However, other leaders such as A. G. Daniells argued that White's writings were not inerrant, but still supported biblical inerrancy. Mainstream Adventists today use the King James Version, but they do not necessarily support the King-James-Only movement.

Now David Otis Fuller was the one who really took Wilkinsons study and brought it to the limelight.Fuller dedicated much of his life to the defense of the Byzantine text-type as embodied in the Textus Receptus and, largely, the King James Version.
Fuller’s three volumes on the subject of texts and versions contain the full or summarized works of many older authorities on the textual issue. The most notable influence being Benjamin G. Wilkinson. Others include John Burgon, Herman C. Hoskier, Philip Mauro, Joseph Philpot, Samuel Zwemer, and George Sayles Bishop, as well as the works of a number of contemporary writers, including Edward Hills, Terence Brown, and Wilbur Pickering.

Everyone must look up John Burgon and read his history and understand what he stood for and fought against, and he understood the danger in those 2 Alexandrian Codices.I will post more later but got to be off to work...

OK, we would still have the record of Jesus' fast in the wilderness and all the passages of the OT. This doesn't do away with the fast at all. Again, we are speaking of the omission of a few words, and our beliefs are not based on a few words.

Maybe a few passages are translated incorrectly. But isn't this true of the KJV also? There is no perfect version. It is much easier, for instance, to present the SDA view of the sanctuary in Hebrews using the NEB or the Jerusalem Bible than the KJV. And no version translates Luke 23:43 correctly except the JW's translations (NWT and Emphatic Diaglott). That's why we need the several versions and all of them contribute to a better understanding of the Bible.

This is where you must differntiate between the false logic which evil uses and Gods truth. You may find days, numbers, ages, totals, places, etc incorrect or inflated or mistranslated in the KJV, but the doctrines and theology is not. Its solid and unchangeable, but in the versions from the Alexandrian codices, the doctrines and theology has already been altered or changed so it is not reliable. You already having a correct understanding of the cdoctrines and theology may not be affected by the versions as a new Christian or a weak and susceptible one, who will pick up the corruptions and proclaim them 'truth'. Quidado mi nina...

You are welcome. I think the article contains a balanced analysis.
The author says, "There are no textual differences that could be used as a real argument in favor of a changed theology. Always when the scientific text is a little shorter than the Textus Receptus, the omitted phrases can be found relatively easily in other biblical passages. Example: Colossians 1:14, 'In whom we have redemption through his blood' (KJV). In modern Bibles the phrase 'through his blood' is absent, but is found elsewhere, e.g., in Ephesians 1:7."

But Rick, the KJV also contains doctrinal/theological mistakes, as I mentioned in the case of Luke 23:43 and the translation of ta hagia in Hebrews.

So more is better? I understand what you're saying, but how do we know the Textus Receptus translates a specific verse correctly?

What about the dead sea scrolls? How do they enter in?

And another question, what is Strong's based on? How do we determine which is correct?

The point being that "the world" views this as another SDA aberration.

No, I shortened it removing about 1/3 and focusing on the parts that are looking at the text and the issues of translating the text to help show what translators are dealing with.

So, Kevin, here's how it works. Present a thesis, or make a comment, or tell us what you think about something (related to the thread), and post "cut and pastes" to support your argument or viewpoint. Don't just C&P and expect us to know what to gain from the post, especially when the post is 10,000 words long.

The concepts of the above post I must reject in their entirety until proven otherwise. First of all, some of it is simply incorrect. Most of it is conjecture or hearsay, which is tantamount to gossip. None of it is supported with textual evidence. Where did you find these concepts, Kevin?

Here's some textual evidence that contradicts the idea inserted above that Mrs. White would have opposed Wilkinson. The following statements are the full sum of records returned from the Ellen White CD on all of her writings including the word "Wilkinson." There are just four records.



Not one of them is anything but warm, positive, and friendly toward the Wilkinsons.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Here's the verse itself:


If you look at the first chapter of John, it is clear that the Word is equal to God. The Father is God, of course, too. So there is no problem with them being one. In fact, the only question with this verse might be whether or not the Holy Ghost is equal to God. But that is clear from other scriptures as well, including Genesis chapter 1 and many other places. In fact, "Holy Ghost," "Holy Spirit," and "Spirit of God" are all synonyms. Jesus said, furthermore, that God is a spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.

I therefore find the text in perfect harmony to both the other writings of John and to those of the entire Bible.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Not one of them is anything but warm, positive, and friendly toward the Wilkinsons.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
[/quote]

Green Cochoa: I think it is probably a different Wilkinson in your posts because Mrs. White says that they entertained her 30 years prior in the early days of her work, and this particular Wilkinson was born in the 1870s and lived until 1968. It's amazing that she was entertained thirty years prior by someone who was only a baby the year she wrote the letter you quoted. And since she writes about brother and sister Wilkinson, it would be amazing for this baby to be married. So I think you found letters about a different Wilkinson.

I mentioned the points that Dr. Graham Maxwell told about Dr. Wilkinson, that Dr Maxwell said that Dr. Wilkinson did not have a background in Biblical languages etc. but modern (I think he said French, at least modern languages) and that Dr. Maxwell said that Dr. Wilkinson repented of his views as an old man. Dr. Maxwell was quite a careful man with his facts and probably was aquainted with Dr. Wilkinson, but certanly had common friends.

As for the correspondence, it is NOT hearsay, it's the White's wrote and I read. I have a masters in Religion with a major in the historical context of the Bible, and a minor in the writings and thoughts of Ellen G. White. I have spent several hours in the White estate vault and I read much of the correspondence between the Whites and Dr. Wilkinson (and others who held similar views to his, such as Elder Washburn and if I recall an Elder Watson, the two or 3 men's letters seemed almost identical and Ellen and Willie had similar criticisms of these men). I have held the originals, carbon copies that were in the typewriter when the original was being typed and signed by Mrs. White and Willie, and at the least photo copies of the originals of the corrispondence between these parties. These are my sources.

Also, Mrs. White did have some good friendships, yet shared with them her concerns in letters of Testimony.

Ahh , a Sola Scriptura brother, solid. Not even the Reformers stuck to it as they should have or the Sabbath would not have been the problem it is to them today.

I cant find your post, maybe you mentioned in another thread?

If you had 7000 copies of Abraham Lincoln Gettysburg speach written at the time in the newspapers and 2 copies which differed written in newspapers owned by slave owners, which one would you trust to be more true? This is basically the issue at hand.

You are spot on....

[
Here's the verse itself:


This must be clear to a believer in order to gain a true understanding of Christs character..as you see the confusion that ensues otherwise.

Here is a excellent explanation of what Westcott & Hort picked up...

"When the KJV translators set to their work, they gathered all the original Hebrew, Greek & Latin sources that they could draw upon, the previously mentioned collection of 5000 documents dating from the 5th century AD to the 12th. Most of these texts were harmonious but some differed on personal pronouns, proper names, etc. From these they attempted to write a reconciled version that was later to become known as the Textus Receptus or "Received Texts."

Then, in the 1800's, two previously unknown or unrecognized texts of the New Testament appeared. These were called Vaticanus & Sinaiticus since they were found in the Vatican Library & a monastery in the Sinai respectively. These texts were dated to the late 3rd-early 4th century (i.e. before any official canonization) & were in excellent condition. However, neither was in the original Greek language, but in a Coptic translation, an early Egyptian language. Coptic placed the origin of these two texts in the region of Alexandria, Egypt. Hence they became known collectively as the Alexandrian Codices. Two British scholars of Greek named Westcott & Hort undertook the translation of these Coptic copies back into their original Greek language. It was theorized that since these two texts were older than any of the 5000 that had been used by the 1611 King James committee, they might reveal a more authoritative text, being closer in time to the events described in the New Testament.

Indeed, startling & shocking differences did seem to suddenly appear. Gone was the resurrection story in the book of Mark (the last twelve verses of the KJV). Gone was Acts 8:37 where the Ethiopian eunuch confesses Jesus as the Son of God along with many other passages. Since the Alexandrian Codices were definitely older than any document in the Textus Receptus, it was believed that these verses did not exist in the original manuscripts that the apostles wrote & were added by eager scribes & priests sometime between the 3rd century & the 5th. This was the prevailing theory up until the 1960's. All the modern translations which were written during this time are based on the Westcott & Hort Greek text including the American Standard Version (ASV), the New International Version (NIV), the New World Translation (NWT) & even the New KJV (NKJV)1, because the codices were considered more accurate. Even today, look for Acts 8:37 in most of these Bibles & you will see that it skips directly from 8:36 to 8:38 without the proclamation of the deity of Christ by the Ethiopian...

However, since Westcott & Hort's time, some 150 years of scholarship & textual discoveries have taken place. Currently there now exist over 24,000 fragments & complete texts of the New Testament, many dating to even earlier than the Alexandrian Codices. There is even a tiny fragment of the Gospel of Matthew dating to cAD 50 (see photo), a mere twenty or so years after the crucifixion of Christ. From this assemblage of 24,000 documents, scholars have constructed what is now called The Majority Text, with each book, passage & quote rated with a percentage of how many of the 24,000 agree with each reading. By & large, with 90%+ certainty, the Textus Receptus & therefore the KJV has been vindicated as the more authoritative text. To date, the Vaticanis & the Sinaiticus are unique in their reading in toto. In fact, it has been discovered that many, if not all of the passages altered or missing from these codices were in fact quoted by the early church fathers as far back as the late 1st century. For instance, if one reads Irenaeus' Against Heresies 3.10.5-6, he states, "Furthermore, near the end of his Gospel, Mark says: 'thus, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God.'" quoting Mark 16:19. Irenaeus wrote this in AD180, some 200 years before the Alexandrian Codices, yet he quotes word for word all the verses from the missing part of Mark which were supposedly not to have been added until the 4th or 5th centuries.....

With the discovery of the Nag Hammadi Gnostic Library in the 1940's, it became clear that the early unorthodox sect known as the "Gnostics" did not believe in the deity of Jesus Christ....

They believed He was a "guiding spirit" sent to earth by the "True God" (not the YHWH of the Old Testament, incidently, whom they considered to be a blind, insane angel who created the material world against Sophia's or "Wisdom" i.e. the True God's will). Jesus' mission according to the Gnostics, was to impart special knowledge or "Gnosis" to spirits trapped in this material world seeking release. Thus, Jesus never died on the cross, was never resurrected, was not God, nor was He human. Mysteriously, but rather conveniently, all the altered or missing texts in the Alexandrian Codices always happen to involve one or a combination of these subjects.


Now, the pieces fall into place. All these "missing" verses were in the original texts written by the apostles. The older manuscripts & the many quotes from the 1st and 2nd century church fathers more than confirm that as fact. However, since these verses did not agree with the theology being taught by the Gnostics, when they made their own Coptic copies of the Greek originals, they conveniently altered or deleted them to suit their own ideas of what God should say."
http://eternalanswersministry.blogspot.com/2009/06/textus-receptus-vs-alexandrian-codices.html

Now the KJV is not perfect but......

"The King James Translation is not without its flaws & shortcomings, not the least of which is its translation of the language used of future technologies into what is now archaic 1611 terminology. Ezekiel 39:3 is an excellant example of this. The passage, especially when cross-referenced with Jeremiah 50:9, clearly indicates a technology similar to today's "smart" missles. However, the KJV translators rendered a Hebrew word for "missle" as "arrow" since an arrow was pretty much the most advanced missle of the time. Similarly, the Hebrew word for a "launcher" is rendered as "bow" since that was the launching device for an arrow. The whole picture in Hebrew is of a projectile shot from a launching device. The Hebrew is not as specific as "arrow" or "bow." Thus, today, this text mightly justifiably be rendered as: "And I will smite thy launcher out of thy left hand, and will cause thine missles to fall out of thy right hand." Importantly, however, these flaws & shortcomings, having been studied for almost 400 years, are well known, documented & amazingly few & far between, numbering perhaps ten with only one potentially impacting doctrine.

All in all, the work of the Authorized Version is considered to be the highest achievement in the English language & has held its own for these 400 years."

Some textual comparisons focusing on Gnostic influences on the Alexandrian Texts....

"Matthew 8:29

Textus Receptus - kai idou, ekraxan legonteV, Ti hmin kai soi, Ihsou, uie tou Qeou; hlqeV wde pro kairou basanisai hmaV.

(And behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time? - KJV)

NA 21 - kai idou ekraxan legonteV, ti hmin kai soi, uie tou Qeou, hlqeV wde pro kairou basanisai hmaV.

("What do you want with us, Son of God?" they shouted. "Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?" - NIV)

The support for the CT reading here is from Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and Ephraemi Rescriptus. The TR reading is supported by the vast majority of Byzantine mss. and the rest of the textual sets.

In the Alexandrian reading at this point, it should be noted that the demons being cast out of the swine by Jesus Christ are not denying that their exorciser is the "Son of God," only that He is JESUS the Son of God. This alternate reading seems to promote the sort of Gnosticism which is exemplified in The Gospel of Peter. This vein of Gnosticism believed that Jesus Christ was a dualistic being, having an earthly nature (Jesus) and a heavenly nature (Christ). The heavenly Christ descended into the material world from the spiritual realm of the Everlasting, and became temporarily united with the earthly Jesus, a creature of the material world of creation. This fits the general Gnostic teaching of the "alien man" sent from above to call the lost portions of the Light back out of the material realm into unity with the Everlasting in the realm of Light.33 In The Gospel of Peter, the separation of the heavenly Christ from the earthly Jesus is depicted in that work's account of the crucifixion,


"Many went around with lamps; they thought it was night. They fell. And the Lord cried out, "My power, my power, you have left me." He said this and was taken up. That same hour the veil of the Jerusalem Temple was split in two."34
Here is depicted Christ being taken up, while Jesus is later shown to be placed in the tomb.

The Alexandrian change at this point seems to reflect the attempt by Gnostics in the Roman world to draw a distinction between the earthly Jesus and the heavenly Christ, which would include the understanding that the "Son of God," being from the realm of Light above, would not be addressed using the name "Jesus," which represented the earthly, material (and therefore intranscendant, corrupt, and imprisoning) body.



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

Matthew 19:17

Textus Receptus - o de eipen autw, Ti me legeiV agaqon; oudeiV agaqoV, ei mh eiV, o QeoV. ei de qeleiV [eiselqein eiV thn zwhn]1, thrhson taV entolaV.

(And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. - KJV)

NA 21 - (o de eipen autw)2. ti me erwtaV peri tou agaqou; eiV estin o agaqoV. ei de qeleiV eiV thn zwhn eiselqein threi taV entolaV.

("Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments." - NIV)

1 - Rearranged in NA21 as [2-3-4-1]
2 - Appears as part of verse 16 in the NA21.


Support for TR reading

Ephraemi Rescriptus (5th c. uncial, Alex.)

K (9th c.)

W. (5th c., Byz. in Matthew)

Delta (9th c., Alex.)

f13 (11th-13th c. family of mss., Caes.)

28 (11th c. miniscule, Caes.)

33 (9th c. miniscule, Alex.)

565 (9th c. miniscule, Caes.)

1010 (12th c. miniscule)

The large majority of Byzantine texts

The large majority of Greek lectionaries

Two Old Latin mss.

The Peshitta Syriac mss. set (5th c.)

The Harclean Syriac mss. set (7th c.)

The Southern Coptic mss. set (3rd c.)

Some Northern Coptic mss. (4th c.)

Support for the Critical Text Reading

Codex Sinaiticus (4th c. uncial)

Codex Vaticanus (4th c. uncial)

Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis [D] (5th-6th c. uncial, West.)

L (8th c. uncial, Alex.)

Theta (9th c. uncial, Caes.)

f1 (12th-14th c. family of mss., Caes.)

700 (11th c. miniscule, Caes.)

892 (9th c. miniscule, Alex.)

Two Old Latin mss.

The Sinaitic Syriac mss. set (4th c.)

Some Palestinian Syriac mss. (5th c.)
Additionally, there exists an apparently conflated reading which seems to combine the two readings under discussion to say "Why do you ask me about what [is] good? There is [only] One who is good, [that is], God." thus retaining most of the character of the Alexandrian reading, but yet including the explicit statement about God being the one who is good which is enunciated in the Byzantine reading. This reading is supported by:


The majority of the Old Latin mss. set

The Latin Vulgate mss. set

The Curetonian Syriac mss. set (4th c.)

Some of the Palestinian Syriac mss. (5th c.)

Most of the Northern Coptic mss. (4th c.)
In this passage, usually pointed to as a proof text for the deity of Christ, we see that the wording is changed to subvert the implicit testimony of Christ to Himself as being good, and hence, God. It should be noted first, of course, that "God" is removed from being "good," which is in line with the interpretation often held by Gnostics that the name "God" was to be equated with the Old Testament God (distinct from the New Testament Father), and hence, the Demiurge, whom the Gnostics certainly did not view to be "good."

Further, we note that this passage also would lend support to the often-held Gnostic notion of the "saved Savior." In many speculative systems, the alien Savior who enters the material realm in his quest to bring gnosis to the lost pneumatic spirits of men and aid them to escape the material cosmos often becomes "poisoned" or "entrapped" by the material world itself, and himself becomes lost. Thus, the Savior himself becomes impure, lost, asleep, and intoxicated, and in need of rescuing from the evil of the material realm.35 Jesus' separation of Himself from the "One who is good" could be taken as a testimony to His own need to be restored from the evil material world.



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

Mark 1:1

Textus Receptus - Arch tou euaggeliou Ihsou Cristou, uiou tou Qeou.

(The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. - KJV)

NA 21 - Arch tou euaggeliou Ihsou Cristou.

(The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God. - NIV, with note reading "Some manuscripts do not have the Son of God")


Support for the TR Reading:

A 4th century corrector of Codex Sinaiticus

Codex Alexandrinus (5th c. uncial)

Codex Vaticanus (4th c. uncial)

Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (5th-6th c. uncial)

K (9th c. uncial)

L (8th c. uncial, Alex.)

W (5th c. uncial, West. in Mark 1:1-5:30)

Delta (9th c. uncial, Alex.)

Pi (9th c. uncial)

f1 (12th-14th c. family of mss., Caes.)

f13 (11th-13th c. family of mss., Caes.)

33 (9th c. miniscule, Alex.)

565 (9th c. miniscule, Caes.)

700 (11th c. miniscule, Caes.)

892 (9th c. miniscule, Alex.)

1010 (12th c. miniscule)

The large majority of the Byzantine mss. set

The large majority of the Greek lectionaries

The Old Latin mss. set

The Latin Vulgate mss. set

The Peshitta Syriac mss. set (5th c.)

The Harclean Syriac mss. set (7th c.)

The Coptic mss sets (3rd-5th c.)

Support for the CT reading:

Codex Sinaiticus (4th c. uncial)

Theta (9th c. uncial, Caes.)

28 (11th c. miniscule, Caes.)

The Palestinian Syriac mss. set (5th c.)
This omission is not reflected in the actual text of the NIV and other modern English versions, though it IS omitted from the various Greek editions underlying these translations. Modern versions usually include a comment in the notes to the effect that "some early mss. omit Son of God."

The alternative Alexandrian reading here (not supported, as is seen, by the full set) seems to reflect a later corruption of the reading, dating from the 4th century. It appears in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus, but this is antedated by the appearance of the Byzantine reading in the Old Latin tradition (translated around the middle of the 2nd century) and in the Sahidic Coptic manuscript set (3rd century). The Bohairic manuscript set agrees with the Byzantine reading, and dates from the 4th century. A scribal correction to Sinaiticus, also said to date to the 4th century, seems to suggest that a scribe from that time was aware that the original Sinaiticus reading was in error, and attempted an appropriate change.

The deletion of "the Son of God" would be acceptable to many Gnostic groups as it would remove a reference to the docetic "Jesus Christ" combination being "the Son of God," which (in the cases of some speculative systems where "God" was not referring to the Demiurge) was reserved for the heavenly and spiritual alien Savior, Christ, alone. Concurrently, it would still allow them to persist in speculations about the duality of an earthly Jesus and heavenly Christ in the alien Savior.



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

Luke 4:4

Textus Receptus - Kai apekriqh [IhsouV proV auton]1, legwn, Gegraptai oti Ouk ep artw monw zhsetai o anqrwpoV, all epi panti rhmati Qeou.

(And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. - KJV)

NA 21- kai apekriqh proV auton o IhsouV, gegraptai oti ouk ep artw monw zhsetai o anqrwpoV.

(Jesus answered, "It is written: Man does not live on bread alone." - NIV)

1- Rearranged in NA 21 as [2-3-o-1].

Support for the omission made in the Critical Text is found on in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. The inclusion found in the TR is present in the vast majority of the rest of the Greek mss., including Codex Alexandrinus.

This alteration removes Luke's record that Christ referred to and relied upon the Old Testament scriptures as "the Word of God." In this passage, Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 8:3 as being authoritative scripture from God, and in turn certifies this body of scripture as being "the Word of God." The alteration weakens this clear statement, and points to the influence of a semi-Gnostic sect which was started by Marcion in Rome around 144 AD, but which continued in the East for several centuries afterward. Beginning with Cerdo, said by Irenaeus to have come to Rome during the episcopate of Hyginus (138-142 AD)36, the teaching was propagated that the God of the Old Testament was a known God of unmerciful justice, while the Father of Jesus Christ was an unknown God of mercy and benevolence. Marcion took this interpretation a step further and taught that the God of the Old Testament was inferior to the Father of Jesus Christ, and was in fact the author of evil, the Cosmocrator, the Lord of the cosmos comprising the inferior created world. Irenaeus remarks about the followers of Marcion,


"Marcion of Pontus succeeded him, and developed his doctrine. In so doing, he advanced the most daring blasphemy against Him who is proclaimed as God by the law and the prophets, declaring Him to be the author of evils, to take delight in war, to be infirm of purpose, and even to be contrary to Himself. But Jesus being derived from that father who is above the God that made the world, and coming into Judaea in the times of Pontius Pilate the governor, who was the procurator of Tiberius Caesar, was manifested in the form of a man to those who were in Judaea, abolishing the prophets and the law, and all the works of that God who made the world, whom also he calls Cosmocrator. Besides this, he mutilates the Gospel which is according to Luke, removing all that is written respecting the generation of the Lord, and setting aside a great deal of the teaching of the Lord, in which the Lord is recorded as most dearly confessing that the Maker of this universe is His Father. He likewise persuaded his disciples that he himself was more worthy of credit than are those apostles who have handed down the Gospel to us, furnishing them not with the Gospel, but merely a fragment of it. In like manner, too, he dismembered the Epistles of Paul, removing all that is said by the apostle respecting that God who made the world, to the effect that He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and also those passages from the prophetical writings which the apostle quotes, in order to teach us that they announced beforehand the coming of the Lord."37
That the Alexandrian alteration effectively negates Christ's reliance upon the word of the Old Testament which God gave through Moses seems reflective of anti-Semitic Marcionite tendencies, which were characterized by a strong disdain for the Hebrew scriptures and the denial that God in the Old Testament is the same as the Father of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. From the standpoint of Marcion and his followers, Jesus would not have quoted from Hebrew scriptures handed down by the inferior Jewish god of evil, nor specifically called them "the Word of God."



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

Luke 22:43-44

Textus Receptus - wfqh de autw aggeloV ap ouranou eniscuwn auton. kai genomenoV en agwnia, ektenesteron proshuceto, egeneto de o idrwV autou wsei qromboi aimatos katabainonteV epi thn ghn.

(And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed the more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. - KJV)

NA 21 - [wfqh de autw aggeloV ap ouranou eniscuwn auton. kai genomenoV en agwnia, ektenesteron proshuceto, kai egeneto o idrwV autou wsei qromboi aimatoV katabainonteV epi thn ghn.]

(An angel from heaven appeared and strengthened him. And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground. - NIV, with note reading "Some early manuscripts do not have verses 43 and 44")

The verses are bracketed in the NIV, and are excluded from many later Critical Text editions.


Support for the inclusion of these verses, as found in the TR:

Codex Sinaiticus (4th c. uncial)

Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (5th-6th c. uncial, West.)

K (9th c. uncial)

L (8th c. uncial, Alex.)

X (10th c. uncial, Alex.)

Delta (9th c. uncial, Alex.)

Theta (9th c. uncial, Caes.)

Pi (9th c. uncial)

Psi (8th-9th c. uncial, Alex.)

0171 (4th c. uncial, West.)

f1 (12th-14th c. mss. family set, Caes.)

565 (9th c. miniscule, Caes.)

700 (11th c. miniscule, Caes.)

892 (9th c. miniscule, Alex.)

1010 (12th c. miniscule)

1241 (12th c. miniscule, Alex.)

The large majority of the Byzantine mss. set

Most of the Old Latin mss.

The large majority of Latin Vulgate mss.

The Curetonian Syriac mss. set (4th c.)

The Peshitta Syriac mss. set (5th c.)

The Harclean Syriac mss. set (7th c.)

The Palestinian Syriac mss. set (5th c.)

Some Northern Coptic mss. (4th c.)

Support for the omission of these verses:

p69vid (3rd c.) - apparent, ms. difficult to ascertain at this point

p75 (3rd c.)

4th century correction to Codex Sinaiticus

Codex Alexandrinus (5th c. uncial)

Codex Vaticanus (4th c. uncial)

T (5th c. uncial, Alex.)

W (5th c. uncial, Byz. in Luke 8:13-24:53)

Some of the Greek lectionaries

One Old Latin ms.

The Sinaitic Syriac mss. set (4th c.)

Most of the Coptic mss. (3rd-5th c.)
Further, some of the Greek lectionaries, as well as f13 (11th-13th c. family of Caesarean mss.), insert these two verses after Matthew 26:39, rather than in Luke's Gospel.

The omission of these verses is suggestive of the strain of Gnosticism heavily influenced by docetism which taught that Christ did not have a physical body, but spiritual only. Certain Gnostics even taught that Christ left no footprints when He walked, as indicative of His spiritual nature and complete separation from the physical, material realm.38 Given the context of this passage, that the Savior had just before addressed His prayer to the Father (v. 42), from a Gnostic viewpoint, this passage would have to be dealing with the prayer of the purely spiritual, pneumatic Christ. Sweating great drops falling to the ground, as well as enduring human frailty such that He needed the strengthening of angels, thus demonstrating humanity and physical existence, would be incompatible with the Gnostic view of the pneumatic, heavenly Savior separated from material creation. Likewise, the interaction of Christ with the material world, demonstrated in the falling of these drops of bloody sweat to the ground, would have been unacceptable to many Gnostic speculative systems.



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

John 1:18

Textus Receptus - Qeon oudeiV ewrake pwpote. o monogenhV uioV, o wn eiV ton kolpon tou patroV, ekeinoV exhghsato.

(No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. - KJV)

NA 21 - Qeon oudeiV ewraken pwpote. monogenhV qeoV o wn eiV ton kolpon tou patroV, ekeinoV exhghsato.

(No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. - NIV)


Support for TR reading

Codex Alexandrinus (5th c. uncial, Byz. in Gospels)

9th c. correction to Ephraemi Rescriptus (Codex C)

Codex K (9th c. uncial)

Codex X (10th c. uncial, Alex. in Gospels)

Codex W (5th c. uncial, Alex. in John)

Delta (9th c. uncial, Alex.)

Theta (9th c. uncial, Caes.)

Pi (9th c. uncial)

Psi (8th/9th c. uncial)

f1 (12-14th c. group of mss., Caes.)

f13 (11th-13th c. group of mss., Caes.)

28 (11th c. miniscule, Caes.)

565 (9th c. miniscule, Caes.)

700 (11th. c. miniscule, Caes.)

892 (9th c. miniscule, Alex.)

1010 (12th c. miniscule)

1241 (12th c. miniscule, Alex.)

The vast majority of the Byzantine text body

The majority of Greek lectionaries

Most of the Old Latin mss. body

Most of the Latin Vulgate mss. body

The Curetonian Syriac mss. set (4th c.)

The Harclean Syriac mss. set (7th c.)

The Palestinian Syriac mss. set (5th c.)

Support for the Critical Text reading

p66 (c. 200 AD)

p75 (3rd c.)

Codex Sinaiticus (4th c. uncial)

Codex Vaticanus (4th c. uncial)

Ephraemi Rescriptus (5th c. uncial)

Codex L (8th c. uncial, Alex.)

33 (9th c. miniscule, Alex.)

Peshitta Syriac mss. set (5th c.)

Northern Coptic mss. set (4th c.)
Additional readings of importance: The Southern Coptic mss. (3rd c.) set testifies to the reading "...the only unique Son, God, who is in the bosom..."

The change in red above involves the alteration of the word uioV ("Son") to qeoV ("God"). The reading of "Son" is supported by the body of the Majority Text set and Codex Alexandrinus, while the minority reading "God" is supported by the Critical Text set (Aleph, Vaticanus, E. Rescriptus, p66, and p75). Despite the somewhat confused rendering in the NIV, the change really amounts to altering "only begotten Son" to "only begotten God." This alteration supports the Gnostic theological view in that it removes from the text the Sonship and pre-existence of the Lord Jesus Christ, hallmarks of Christian theology. Many Gnostic groups taught that Jesus Christ was a created being, called an Aeon, who emanated from the original and unknowable Father, thus he was not a pre-existent being (or, as the Valentinian and other systems taught, that Jesus and Christ were two separate of such!). In the Gnostic speculative systems, the aeons were viewed as subordinate gods. The changing of "Son" to "God" reflects this as it does not necessarily indicate an attempt to strengthen the doctrine of the deity of Christ, but rather an alteration of His eternal Sonship (as taught in the Scriptures) to that of an emanated and created subordinate god, originating from the Everlasting Father.

Holland points out39 that in the writings of many "Christian" Gnostics, as well as other heretics (such as Tatian, Arius, and the Valentinians), this textual variant appeared. Likewise, in the writings of orthodox heresiologists, the traditional Byzantine reading of monogenes huios is cited (Irenaeus, Gregory of Nyssa, Tertullian, John Chrysostom). While on the face of it, the simple change from "Son" to "God" would not seem to be especially indicative of Gnosticism, the sharp contrast between heresiarch and heresiologist on this passage demonstrates that the "only begotten God" reading was a trademark of Gnostic speculations as far as their view of Jesus Christ is concerned, and that it was understood to be so by the early churches. The appearance of this alteration in a small body of texts originating from the veritable capital of Gnosticism, Alexandria, would suggest that the Gnostics made their mark in these texts and at this verse.


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

John 3:13

Textus Receptus - kai oudeiV anabebhken eiV ton ouranon, ei mh o ek tou ouranou katabaV, o uioV tou anqrwpou o wn en tw ouranw.

(And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. - KJV)

NA 21 - kai oudeiV anabebhken eiV ton ouranon ei mh o ek tou ouranou katabaV, o uioV tou anqrwpou.

("No one has ever gone into heaven, except the one who came from heaven - the Son of Man." - NIV)


Support for the Textus Receptus reading

Codex Alexandrinus (5th c. uncial)

K (9th c. uncial)

Delta (9th c. uncial, Alex.)

Theta (9th c. uncial, Caes.)

Pi (9th c. uncial)

Psi (8th-9th c. uncial, Byz. in John)

f1 (12th-14th c. family of mss.)

f13 (11th-13th c. family of mss.)

28 (11th c. miniscule, Caes.)

565 (9th c. miniscule, Caes.)

700 (11th c. miniscule, Caes.)

892 (9th c. miniscule, Alex.)

The large majority of the Byzantine textual set

The large majority of the Greek lectionaries

Most of the Old Latin mss.

The Latin Vulgate mss. set

The Peshitta Syriac mss. set (5th c.)

The Harclean Syriac mss. set (7th c.)

Possibly in the Palestinian Syriac mss. set (5th c.) - unconfirmed

Some Northern Coptic mss. (4th c.)

Support for the Critical Text reading

p66 (c. 200 AD)

p75 (3rd c.)

Codex Sinaiticus (4th c. uncial)

Codex Vaticanus (4th c. uncial)

L (8th c. uncial, Alex. in Gospels)

W (5th c. uncial, Alex. in John)

083 (6th-7th c. uncial)

086 (6th c. uncial)

0113 (5th c. uncial)

33 (9th c. miniscule, Alex.)

1010 (12th c. miniscule)

1241 (12th c. miniscule, Alex.)

Most of the Coptic mss. sets (3rd-5th c.)
This alteration involves the removal of a statement of omnipresence concerning the Lord Jesus Christ while He was on the earth. While both affirm that Christ came down from heaven, the Alexandrian reading removes the statement about the Son being concurrently IN heaven. This reflects the general Gnostic view that while the Savior "alien god" was in the material world, he was completely separated from the Unknown Everlasting in the realm of Light, just as were the lost bits of Light within each man and woman whom the alien Savior came to restore to the realm of Light.40 In Gnostic theorization, the Savior had to be separated completely from the Everlasting Father to be able to enter into the realm of the material world, and the Byzantine reading of this verse would suggest just the opposite, that the Savior was both on earth in His physical body, yet also contemporaneously in heaven.



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

John 9:35

Textus Receptus - Hkousen o IhsouV oti exebalon auton exw. kai eurwn auton, eipen autw, Su pisteueiV eiV ton uion tou Qeou.

(Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? - KJV)

NA 21 - Hkousen IhsouV oti exebalon auton exw, kai eurwn auton eipen, su pisteueiV eiV ton uion tou anqrwpou.

(Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?" - NIV)


Support for the TR reading:

Codex Alexandrinus (5th c. uncial)

K (9th c. uncial)

L (8th c. uncial, Alex.)

X (10th c. uncial, Alex.)

Delta (9th c. uncial, Alex.)

Theta (9th c. uncial, Caes.)

Psi (8th-9th c. uncial, Alex.)

0124 (6th c. uncial)

f1 (12th-14th c. family of mss.)

f13 (11th-13th c. family of mss.)

28 (11th c. miniscule, Caes.)

33 (9th c. miniscule, Alex.)

565 (9th c. miniscule, Caes.)

700 (11th c. miniscule, Caes.)

892 (9th c. miniscule, Alex.)

1010 (12th c. miniscule)

1241 (12th c. miniscule, Alex.)

The large majority of Byzantine mss.

The large majority of the Greek lectionaries

Most of the Old Latin mss.

The Latin Vulgate mss. body

The Peshitta Syriac mss. set (5th c.)

The Harclean Syriac mss. set (7th c.)

The Palestinian Syriac mss. set (5th c.)

Most of the Northern Coptic mss. set (4th c.)

Support for the CT reading:

p66 (200 AD)

p75 (3rd c.)

Codex Sinaiticus (4th c. uncial)

Codex Vaticanus (4th c. uncial)

Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (5th-6th c. uncial)

W (5th c. uncial, Alex. in John)

The Sinaitic Syriac mss. set (4th c.)

One Northern Coptic ms. (4th c.)

The Southern Coptic mss. set (3rd c.)
The difference in these readings seems suggestive of a clarification on the part of the Gnostics. Though "God" and "Man" in most speculative systems could be understood as referring to the Father of all, often the preferred term was "Man," as the Eternal was often represented as being a "Primal Man" or "First Man." The term "God" was often, though certainly not always, reserved for Gnostic treatment of the Demiurge, who was often depicted as the God of the Old Testament, "ignorantly" believing Himself to be the highest power in existence. While this change in reading appears more or less innocent to us, to a reader in the early church familiar with Gnostic systems, the particular choice to change "God" to "Man" would bespeak a definite attempt at making the verse more acceptable to Gnosticism.



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

John 10:14-15

Textus Receptus - egw eimi o poimhn o kaloV, kai ginwskw ta ema, kai ginwskomai upo twn emwn. kaqwV ginwskei me o pathr, kagw ginwskw ton patera. kai thn yuchn mou tiqhmi uper twn probatwn.

(I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father, and I lay down my life for the sheep. - KJV)

NA 21 - egw eimi o poimhn o kaloV, kai ginwskw ta ema, kai ginwskousi me ta ema, kaqwV ginwskei me o pathr, kagw ginwskw ton patera, kai thn yuchn mou tiqhmi uper twn probatwn.

("I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me - Just as the Father knows me and I know the Father - and I lay down my life for the sheep." - NIV)

The support for the alteration is from p45, p66, p75vid, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Vaticanus. In favor of the TR reading is Codex Alexandrinus and the Byzantine majority text set.

The change in this passage centers about the alteration of ginwskomai upo twn emwn to ginwskousi me ta ema. This involves changing the declension of the verb ginwskw from a 1st person singular middle/passive indicative construction to a 3rd person plural active indicative construction. What this essentially means is that the shift in emphasis on the knowledge of Christ is changed from being passively had "through" Christ (denoting the agency of Christ acting through the sheep because of their testimony for Him) to being actively obtained by the sheep themselves. This would seem to conflict with other Scripture such as John 6:44, John 6:65, Romans 3:11, etc. where it is taught that the knowledge of God cannot and would not be obtained by man without the aid and providence of God.

This then appears to be a Gnostic alteration to the text because the whole object of Gnosticism was for man to learn, understand, and then seek out the knowledge of the Eternal through his own efforts and desire to obtain gnosis. The alien Savior came into the material world to give the call to mankind to gnosis. However, the responsibility and power to obtain this heavenly knowledge lay with man himself, who was said to have an inner spark of the divine nature himself, and thus could actively awake himself from his slumber and seek out and respond to the Eternal's call. This was largely the reason why the in many Gnostic speculative systems, it was not only acceptable, but actually encouraged, for individual teachers to produce their own variable speculations, each more involved and intricate than the one before.41



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

Acts 2:30

Textus Receptus - profhthV oun uparcwn, kai eidwV oti orkw wmosen autw o QeoV, ek karpou thV osfuoV autou to kata sarka anasthsein ton Criston, kaqisai epi tou qronou autou,

(Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne. - KJV)

NA 21 - profhthV oun uparcwn kai eidwV oti orkw wmosen autw o qeoV ek karpou thV osfuoV autou kaqisai epi ton qronon autou

(But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. - NIV)

The only opposition which the reading found in the Textus Receptus has is from Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus, and Ephraemi Rescriptus. Otherwise, the TR reading is supported by the majority Byzantine text set, as well as other versions.

This is a clear-cut example of the removal of a biblical statement concerning the literal incarnation and physical descent of Jesus Christ from David. This is in line with many Gnostic systems which viewed Christ as a purely spiritual being, an aeon emanated from the Everlasting. The reading presented in the traditional text, where Christ in the flesh is said to be in physical descend from David, would be antithetical to these speculative systems.



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

I Corinthians 15:47

Textus Receptus - o prwtoV anqrwpoV ek ghV, coikoV. o deuteroV anqrwpoV, o KurioV ex ouranou.

(The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. - KJV)

NA 21 - o prwtoV anqrwpoV ek ghV coikoV, o deuteroV anqrwpoV ex ouranou.

(The first man was from the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. - NIV)

The only support for the omission of "the Lord" is from Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and Ephraemi Rescriptus. The vast majority of remaining Greek mss., including Codex Alexandrinus, contain this phrase. Interestingly, p46 replaces "the Lord" with "the spiritual" (pneumatikoV).

The deletion of "the Lord" from this verse subverts the Christian doctrine of Christ coming in the likeness of sinful humanity to serve as the Savior for the creature made in God's image (see Romans 8:3, Philippians 2:7, Hebrews 2:14). The emended reading, in conjunction with the statement of I Corinthians 15:45, then becomes a passage which would very strongly support the Gnostic teaching about the creation of man which is found in The Apocryphon of John, said by many scholars to be the locus classicus of the Christian Gnostic mythological systems.

As the traditional reading goes, this passage in I Corinthians 15 speaks of the incarnation of Christ in the likeness of sinful man, and points to the truth that a man who is saved will one day bear the heavenly image of Christ after his full redemption and glorification (from v. 49). From v. 45 comes the teaching that Christ is the Second Adam, the incarnation of God Himself from heaven in the form of sinful man who has the power to reverse the power of sin and death over the life of the one who believes on Him (see also Romans 5:12-21).

By removing the reference to the Lord, this passage becomes uncannily similar to the sort of anthropology taught by The Apocryphon of John. That document records that the Demiurge, Ialdabaoth, endeavored to replicate the image of "the First Man," the "perfect Father," by creating a psychical replicant (Adam), which was unable to move until Ialdabaoth was tricked into introducing a pneumatic element into his creation by Christos, disguised as an archon of Light, thus enabling Adam to move and be a fully completed creature. This also enabled Adam to be "saved," that is, to have the pneumatic element in him restored to the Father through gnosis.42 Rudolph explains this chain of events in greater detail,


"First of all we have the 'psychic Adam', whom the demiurge Jaldabaoth with his 'seven emissaries' (Genesis 1.26 is drawn upon here also) creates after the image, reflected in the water of chaos, of the 'holy perfect Father, the first man in the form of a man'. Thus the device of imitation is again made to serve the powers of darkness, but of necessity it must be imperfect and finally needs the help of the powers of light, who thereby are able to ensure the fulfilment of the secret purpose of the plan of salvation. Our text is a particularly impressive example of the opposition of the two basic powers, since every move on the one side is matched by a countermove on the other, until in the course of the development a certain pendulum effect is established. Corresponding to the ancient idea of the part played by the planets in the formation of the psychic body of man, the seven powers contribute from their own elements the following 'souls' for Adam: the 'bone-soul', the 'sinew-soul', the 'flesh-soul', the 'marrow-soul', the 'blood-soul', the 'skin-soul', and the 'hair-soul'. These 'souls of the body' correspond, as is frequently the case in gnostic thought, to macrocosmic powers (providence, divinity, lordship, fire, kingdom, insight, wisdom). Behind this evidently lies the idea of the psychic capacities of man, belonging to the earthly intellectual (immaterial) sphere, in contrast to the supramundane intellectual element which is a gracious gift from the world above. In spite of the skill devoted to the formation of this psychic body it remains immobile and it is not possible to make him stand upright. This gives 'Wisdom' (sophia) opportunity to intervene in order to win back the power which through her error she had lost to her son the Demiurge. She prays 'the Father of the all' for help; he has recourse to deception (this is evidently quite permissible in dealing with the evil powers): 'By a holy decree he sent the 'self-originate' (autogenes) and the four lights in the form of the angels of the first archon. They gave him advice, that they might bring out from him the power of the mother. They said to him: 'Breathe into his face (something) of the spirit (pneuma) which is in you, and the thing will raise itself up'. 'And (so) he breathed into him of his spirit—it is the power from the mother—into the body, and it moved at once...' In this way the pneumatic seed finds its way into the psychic Adam, and is thus no longer subject exclusively to the control of the powers of darkness."43
In much of Gnostic speculation, there seems to be some confounding of the purely physical and the "psychical" parts of man, which refer to the animation of his being through his appetites and desires. Both of these parts of man's makeup are the result of the corrupted and dark material world in which he was created, and serve to envelope and intoxicate the "pneumatic," the spiritual, part of man which must be liberated by gnosis and restored to the Father above. The Apocryphon seems to treat the physical and psychical parts of man interdependently in this case.

As such, by removing the reference to the Lord, and making the resultant revision of this verse read simply as a second man being from heaven (without the Christian specification), it would quite easily make v. 45...


"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit."
...read as if it were speaking of the Gnostic teaching found in the Apocryphon, namely, that the first Adam was created with soul (psyche), and the last was created with spirit (pneumatos). Concurrently then, v. 47 would support the notion that the first man, the psychical, was an earthy and earthly creation of the Demiurge, but that the second man, formed from the injection of pneuma, was from heaven, since in the Gnostic speculation, all pneuma originated from the Father above and was of heavenly origin. The evidence from the reading of "the spiritual" in p46 in place of "the Lord" would seem to lend additional credence to this supposition, and further alter this passage from a Christian Christological to a Gnostic anthropological perspective.



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

II Corinthians 4:6

Textus Receptus - oti o QeoV o eipwn ek skotouV fwV lamyai, oV elamyen en taiV kardiaiV hmwn, proV fwtismon thV gnwsewV thV doxhV tou Qeou en proswpw Ihsou Cristou.

(For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. - KJV)

NA 21 - oti o qeoV o eipwn ek skotouV fwV lamyei, oV elamyen en taiV kardiaiV hmwn, proV fwtismon thV gnwsewV thV doxhV tou qeou en proswpw Cristou.

(For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. - NIV)


Support for the TR reading:

p46 (200 AD)

Codex Sinaiticus (4th c. uncial)

Ephraemi Rescriptus (5th c. uncial)

H (9th c. uncial)

K (9th c. uncial)

L (8th c. uncial, Alex.)

P (6th c. uncial)

Psi (8th-9th c. uncial, Alex.)

The majority of Byzantine mss. (Maj)

One Old Latin ms.

Some Latin Vulgate mss.

The Peshitta Syriac mss. set (5th c.)

The Harclean Syriac mss. set (7th c.)

The Northern Coptic mss. set (4th c.)

Support for the CT reading:

Codex Alexandrinus (5th c. uncial)

Codex Vaticanus (4th c. uncial)

33 (9th c. miniscule, Alex.)

1739 (10th c. miniscule, Alex. in Pauline epistles) - unconfirmed

The Southern Coptic mss. set (3rd c.)
Additionally, a TR-supportive reading which merely reverses the final phrase to say "Christ Jesus" is found in:


Codex Claromontanus (6th c. uncial, West.)

F (9th c. uncial, West.)

G (Codex Boernerianus, 9th c. uncial, West.)

630 (14th c. miniscule)

A copy of 1739 (a 10th c. miniscule, Alex.) - unconfirmed

1881 (14th c. miniscule)

Two Old Latin mss.

Most of the Latin vulgate mss.
This omission would tend again to separate the earthly "Jesus" from the heavenly "Christ," another example of the docetic and Gnostic tendency. According to many Gnostic speculations, Christ, but not Jesus, came to bring illumination to mankind who is separated from the Everlasting Father of Light.



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

Galatians 6:17

Textus Receptus - Tou loipou, kopouV moi mhdeiV parecetw. egw gar ta stigmata tou Kuriou Ihsou en tw swmati mou bastazw.

(From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus. - KJV)

NA 21 - Tou loipou kopouV moi mhdeiV parecetw. egw gar ta stigmata tou Ihsou en tw swmati mou bastazw.

(Finally, let no one cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus. - NIV)

The support for the CT reading is found in Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, and p46. The entire Byzantine mss. body contains the TR reading. Further, Sinaiticus contains the reading "The Lord Jesus Christ" (Kuriou Ihsou Cristou), which may be supportive of the notion that "Christ" was added in an attempt to clarify the Gnostic view that the earthly Jesus could not be "the Lord," but that the heavenly, spiritual "Christ" was, serving to justify the appearance of the term "Lord."

This seems a clear example of docetism on the part of the Alexandrian texts, since we see an apparent attempt to divorce the term of deity "Lord" from the "earthly Jesus." In this sort of speculative system, "Lord," denoting the alien Savior from the Realm of Light, would not rightly be applied to the earthly Jesus. Further, the "Lord," viewed as a purely spiritual creature, would not have any marks in his body for Paul to bear in similitude.



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

Ephesians 3:9

Textus Receptus - kai fwtisai pantaV tiV h koinwnia tou musthriou tou apokekrummenou apo twn aiwnwn en tw Qew tw ta panta ktisanti dia Ihsou Cristou,

(And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ. - KJV)

NA 21 - kai fwtisai tiV h oikonomia tou musthriou tou apokekrummenou apo twn aiwnwn en tw qew tw ta panta ktisanti,

(..and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. - NIV)

The only opposition to the TR reading here is from p46, Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and Ephraemi Rescriptus.

The pertinent alteration in this case involves the removal of dia Ihsou Cristou (by [or through] Jesus Christ). This change essentially removes from this passage the affirmation that Jesus Christ was the agent by which Creation was brought into existence. This fits into Gnostic cosmogony quite well. Christ, as an emanation of the eternal Father, was therefore completely outside of the material cosmos, only entering it as a representative of the "alien god" who sought to bring out the souls of men (also parts of the eternal Father, and thus alien to the cosmos) away from the material world. As such, Christ would not have been involved in the creation of the material world, which was viewed as the work of the evil Demiurge (Ialdabaoth, etc.) who was opposed to the eternal Father and his efforts to restore the lost light to himself. The removal of "by Jesus Christ" from Ephesians 3:9 supports this cosmogony as it removes Christ (and by implication the Father) from the the role of Creator, and more easily makes the passage to be understood as referring to the Demiurge as God in creation. In many Gnostic systems, it was taught that the Demiurge was the "World-Artificer," the one who fashioned the existing material world. The Demiurge often is depicted as ignorant of the existence of powers higher than himself, and falls into conceit about his supremacy. For example, Hippolytus cites the belief system of the heresiarch Basilides,


"For there ruled the great Archon, whose dominion extends to the firmament, who believes that he is the only God and that there is none above him."44
Further, Irenaeus relates another permutation of this theme found among the Gnostics,


"He boasted of what was taking place at his feet and said, 'I am Father and God, and there is none above me....Do not lie, Ialdabaoth: there is above thee the Father of all, the First Man, and Man the Son of Man."45
The Gnostics would rely upon Old Testament statements of God's supremacy, such as Isaiah 45:5, to present their claims that the God of the Old Testament was the Demiurge who makes these sorts of boastful claims, and that the Father of Christ in the New Testament is the Father over all. Hence, to remove reference to Christ as the agent of creation in such a blatant manner would point to the overlaying of Gnostic cosmogony onto this verse.



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

I Timothy 3:16

Textus Receptus - kai omologoumenwV mega esti to thV eusebeiaV musthrion. QeoV efanerwqh en sarki, edikaiwqh en pneumati, wfqh aggeloiV, ekhrucqh en eqnesin, episteuqh en kosmw, anelhfqh en doxh.

(And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. - KJV)

NA 21 - kai omologoumenwV mega estin to thV eusebeiaV musthrion. oV efanerwqh en sarki, edikaiwqh en pneumati, wfqh aggeloiV, ekhrucqh en eqnesin, episteuqh en kosmw, anelhmfqh en doxh.

(Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory. - NIV)


Support for the Textus Receptus Reading

4th c. (poss. 7th c.) corrector of Codex Sinaiticus

5th c. corrector of Codex Alexandrinus

6th c. corrector of Ephraemi Rescriptus

9th c. copy of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis [D]

K (9th c. uncial)

L (9th c. uncial, Byz.)

P (9th c. uncial, Alex.)

Psi (8th-9th c. uncial, Alex.)

81 (9th c. miniscule, Alex.)

104 (11th c. miniscule, Alex.)

614 (13th c. miniscule, West.)

630 (14th c. miniscule)

1241 (12th c. miniscule, Alex.)

1739 (10th c. miniscule, Alex.)

1881 (14th c. miniscule)

2495 (14th-15th c. miniscule)

The large majority of the Byzantine text set

The large majority of the Greek lectionaries

Support for the Critical Text Reading

Codex Sinaiticus (4th c. uncial)

Codex Alexandrinus (5th c. uncial)

Ephraemi Rescriptus (5th c. uncial)

G (9th c. uncial, West.)

33 (9th c. miniscule, Alex.)

The Palestinian Syriac mss. set (5th c.)

Possibly the Peshitta Syriac mss. set (5th c.) - unconfirmed

Possibly the Harclean Syriac mss. set (7th c.) - unconfirmed

Possibly in the Coptic textual sets (3rd-5th c.) - unconfirmed
This alteration seems pretty straightforward. By changing "God" to the more general "he," the potentially offensive (to Gnostics) idea that the Demiurge would be incarnated into the world and "justified in the Spirit," "received up into glory," etc. is diverted. Thus, the alteration avoids casting the Demiurge into the role which should be fulfilled by the heavenly alien Savior. On the other hand, if one wishes to consider "God" in this passage (from a minority Gnostic point of view) as referring to the Eternal Father, then this change is equally supportive of Gnostic theology. The truth of the voluntary incarnation of the eternal God into His own creation is weakened, and replaced with language which could still support the entry of Jesus Christ, as a created aeon, into the material world.



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

I John 4:3

Textus Receptus - kai pan pneuma o mh omologei ton Ihsoun Criston en sarki elhluqota, ek tou Qeou ouk esti. kai touto esti to tou anticristou, o akhkoate oti ercetai, kai nun en tw kosmw estin hdh.

(And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is in the world. - KJV)

NA 21 - kai pan pneuma o mh omologei ton Ihsoun ek tou qeou ouk estin. kai touto estin to tou anticristou, o akhkoate oti ercetai kai nun en tw kosmw estin hdh.

(..but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world. - NIV)

The only support for the omission of this clause comes from Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus. This clause is contained in Codex Sinaiticus, except that the phrase "Jesus Christ" Ihsoun Criston is changed to "Jesus Lord" Ihsoun Kurion.

This is a straightforward example of a change made to support the docetic aspect of certain Gnostic beliefs. The traditional reading says that if a person refuses to believe that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, they are of the spirit of antichrist. This reading is changed in the Alexandrian texts in two ways which both reflect Gnostic tampering. In Alexandrinus and Vaticanus, the clause is simply deleted. They now say that if one "denies Jesus" (without the stipulation of acknowledging His literal incarnation), they are not of God, which is something that both Gnostic and Christian would agree upon in a general sense, though the Gnostic can still freely reject the fleshly incarnation of the spiritual, heavenly Christ. Essentially the same sort of change is made in Sinaiticus, which retains the clause, but replaces "Christ" with "Lord," making this passage a Gnostically more acceptable statement concerning the coming of the earthly Jesus in the flesh. This proceeds then without casting the heavenly, spiritual Christ into that material role, which would be unacceptable to many of the speculative systems of the Gnostics."


http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/gnostic.html

Maybe you'll flush out the answer later?

Lengthy posts and not adequately answering people's questions.... you're gonna lose me...

Maybe you'll flush out the answer later?

Lengthy posts and not adequately answering people's questions.... you're gonna lose me...
[/quote]Sorry, I was running to work and hit post and didnt see how long it was.....

Well from memory I think the dead sea scrolls agree with the Textus Receptus as the vast majority of the Dead Sea Scrolls were simply copies of books of the Old Testament from 250-150 B.C. A copy or portion of nearly every Old Testament book was found in Qumran. There were extra-biblical and apocryphal books found as well, but again, the vast majority of the scrolls were copies of the Hebrew Old Testament.

Can we please keep our posts to a REASONABLE length? Riduculously long posts serve no purpose in moving the discussion forward.

What point is a long post trying to support or make?

Who has the time to read such long posts?

By the time one wades through the post they have lost track of the thrust of the thread, since most of it does not apply to the argument at hand anyway.

Have a little respect for those of us who have day jobs and families that also take our time. This is a DISCUSSION BOARD, not a LECTURE HALL.

JAK, these long posts are sort of like the book of Chronicals. There are people who find that it just bogs them down, yet there are some fantastic studies from people who are able to take the time to study them. Skip over the long texts if they don't help you, and for those who want to study the detail allow them to look at the evidence. That is what I do.

Green Cochoa: I see that there have been a number of posts since I posted my sources last night. I just want to know if you saw that post and it made it easier to understand where I'm coming from.

Basically, while I have also read information on Dr. Wilkinson on line and in articles in journals, and even was aquainted with a family where the mother had been his secretary and they were huge fans of his, however, what I said in my post came from what Graham Maxwell told a group, and what I read in the actual letters between the Whites and Dr. Wilkinson and others in his school of though in the White estate vault. And that the Brother and Sister Wilkinson of the letters you quoted was a different Wilkinson since Dr. Wilkinson would have been a baby at the time the letters you quoted from were written.

Sorry, Kevin. This is a DISCUSSION board, where people DISCUSS. If I want "fantastic studies" I can read a book. But I see that this concept, like most, eludes you.

Actually JAK you do have a point as there are longer posts here where I am not following which side of the argument the poster is trying to support, so point taken. I was just impressed with the e-mail that a friend had just sent me and thought that people would find it useful here and thought that it could generate discussion, I'm sorry that it did not work. I hope that you can find the time to take a look at it but if not I'll try to be more careful in the future.

Why did they remove “Jesus” in Matthew but left it in Mark and Luke?


Why did they change it in Matthew but left it unchanged in Mark?


Why are these words included in the supposedly “gnostic” codices Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus and Vaticanus?


Why did they remove it from Luke’s record, but left it in Matthew’s record?


Why are they included in the “gnostic” codices Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus and Vaticanus?


Why so many other texts which affirm these weren’t “altered”?


How can the title “Son of Man” be more acceptable to gnosticism???


Then why weren’t John 6:44, John 6:65 and Romans 3:11 also altered?


Then why weren’t passages like 2 Tim 2:8 and Rom 1:3 also altered?


Then why weren’t passages like John 8:12 and John 12:35, 36 also altered?


Then why weren’t texts like Mark 16:19, Acts 1:21, Acts 4:33, 1 Cor 11:23, 2 Cor 4:14, 1 Thess 2:15, in which the earthly Jesus is called “Lord,” not altered, too?


Then why wasn’t this piece of information also removed from John 1:3, Heb 1:2, Col. 1:15, 16?


If this is true, why didn’t they also change John 1:14?

If there really had been gnostic influences, it would make no sense at all to modify just some texts and leave many other similar ones without being altered.

I have one answer, which may shed light on it. The Sinaiticus was written by three different scribes and was corrected later by several others. Tischendorf counted 14,800 corrections in this manuscript and there was great amount of carelessness exhibited in the copying and correction. The same with the Codex Vaticanus. It was corrected by revisers in the 8th, 10th, and 15th centuries, the entire manuscript was gone over. So it seems some altered it and others may have tried to put it back or fix but its hard to be sure, all we know is many hands worked on it and for some purpose.

First of all, the statements that I quoted from Mrs. White were not proving anything so much as disproving something. The fact is, Mrs. White never, in published writings at least, spoke critically of Benjamin Wilkinson, his works, or his ideas. She is silent on the matter. As for your statements of having seen some actual letters, that is all fine and good, but I have not seen you say what the letters said. Nor have I had the privilege of reading them for myself.

Let's get one thing absolutely clear here: Ellen White could not possibly have addressed B. G. Wilkinson's book "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated." How do I know? The book was published 15 years after Mrs. White passed away. I know that Mrs. White wrote some letters about future events, but I have not heard of any that were received over a decade beyond her death.

In that amount of time, many people find their ideas have evolved, matured, broadened, or balanced out. Even if Dr. Wilkinson had been criticized earlier, this would prove nothing in regard to his later views. In fact, it might serve to show that God deemed him teachable enough to send him such messages of correction.

Regarding being a scholar of Biblical languages--I don't see how this has much bearing upon the topic. Dr. Wilkinson need not know anything about how the text was translated in order to understand the character of such men as Westcott and Hort who were behind the manuscript revisions.

You see, the real problem of the Bible versions is not their translations. It is the revisions which took place in their "original" manuscripts prior to the translation.

Anyone who studies sufficiently into the matter is qualified to report on it. To my understanding, in light of Ezekiel 3 & 33, Dr. Wilkinson may have been morally obligated to sound the alarm once he had himself seen the danger of the specious versions.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Rosangela,

Regarding the gnostic influences, I see where you are coming from. But consider this: if the changes were all made at once to the text, people would have the more clearly seen their agenda. Leaving some of it the same helps the whole to gain better acceptance, and the changes made still have an effect of undermining the truth.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I did not say that Mrs. White criticized his book. I said that W.W. Prescott and WILIE White critized his book based on what his mom taught him about the newer versions. I ponted out that there were a group of people, one was Elder Washburn, I believe there was a Elder Watson, and there was Dr. Wilkinson, the members of this group had letters that sound very similar to each other where their beliefs were very similar to each other. Mrs. White wrote letters of counsel and criticizism to Elder Washburn and I seem to remember an Elder Watson too, and Willie wrote very similar letters with similar criticisms for similar views to Dr. Wilkinson. I said that I don't remember if Mrs. White wrote to him specifically, but that the corrispondence with Willie are incredibily similar to the writings between Mrs. White and Elder Washburn (and Watson) with Willie trying to pass on some of the same information to Wilkinson that Mrs. White tried to pass on to these other gentlemen. And also despite their dissagreements, the White's still respected these men for the work they have done for the church.

There are volumes of Mrs. White's writings that are not published. Also, even as close friends, Mrs. White and some of the others could have some very intense discussions. Mrs. White was a very close friend of Stephen Haskell, however they had very different views of how inspiration worked and they both tried very hard to convince the other to accept their view and neither succeeded. So even though she was close to people did not mean that they did not receive some strong letters from her.

Should I or anyone else be trying to figure out why
K (9th c.)
(and a bunch of other letters and numbers set apart by themselves)
should be useful, studied, or otherwise spent time on?

Let's see an example. One example. And not a lengthy one.
Or pick one verse and others can look at it.

So to your understanding, newer is better, right?

Why don't we set about to make a new one every year?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This is also the same tatic Wescott and Hort used bringing in the text from the Alexandrian codices with the revison commitee, just a small change asked for, one word here one word there, a ommission or a different one inserted. But fearing a backlash they dared not come out openly with their changes. So it was death by a thousand small cuts and alterations....

Now I brought this study here so that each one of us could see and understand the difference between the Textus Receptus line verses the two Alexandrian Codices. I ask you to carefully read your Bibles and then ask yourself, do the changes make any difference, can I accept the alterations understanding the purpose behind them, can I rely even with the differnces on the version I have.

Whether you say yes or no, I have done what I feel is my Christian duty, in letting my brothers and sisters know. You now have the resposibility to prayerfully decide how to use the information for yourself for your own spiritual welfare. I just follow what I feel in my heart I must do, in this case present the facts and let God send His Holy Spirit to guide each and everyone who reads the history of Gods word that we have here.

God Bless and Happy Sabbath everyone..

It depends on the quality. What discoveries have been made to imporve our knowlege and understanding of the textswhat have we learned about the ideas that the words in the Bible bring up to those who heard them back then and how can we bring about the same ideas to modern readers. Newer is better if it gets us better in touch with the older, a better picture of what the Bible means.

Earlier, Rosangela was referencing the LXX, or Septuagint, in order to support some of her points. I've been looking recently at how the LXX came about, and have run across some things which call it into question.

Here is a quote regarding its origin that I found online, just to introduce the issue.



Now, a few comments pertaining to the above.

1) Which is it, anyway? The LXX? or the LXXII? There is an obvious discrepancy of numbers here.
2) It is clear that the significance of translating the entire Old Testament in 72 days by 72 scholars is somewhat symbolic to the thinking of those involved--but was this planned for symbolic effect?
3) The passage indicates that scholars are at odds over the time periods of the actual translation.

From my own experience, I would have to say that the translation of the entire Old Testament in 72 days by 72 scholars is near impossible. It didn't happen. For this to have really happened, I think angels would have been doing the translating while their human servants did the transcribing.

The KJV translation supposedly had 70 scholars involved (there were a minimum of 47 who participated, with King James having appointed 54 men himself), and yet it took them at least seven years.

More on this later, and on how it ties in with the issue of the modern translations versus the KJV & Textus Receptus....

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, it gets worse.....

"The Letter of Aristeas
The whole argument that the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek before the time of Christ rests upon a single document. All other historical evidence supporting the argument either quotes or references this single letter.

In this so-called Letter of Aristeas, the writer presents himself as a close confidant of king Philadelphus. He claims that he persuaded Eleazar, the high priest, to send with him 72 scholars from Jerusalem to Alexandria, Egypt. There they would translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, forming what we now call the Septuagint.

Jewish historian Josephus, Jewish mystic Philo (both first century AD) and others add to the story. Some say the 72 were shut in separate cells and "miraculously" wrote each of their versions word-for-word the same. They say that this proves "divine inspiration" of the entire Septuagint.

Thus, the Septuagint is claimed to exist at the time of Jesus and the apostles, and that they quoted from it instead of the preserved Hebrew text. This story has been passed around for centuries. But is it the truth? Was this Septuagint really written before the earthly ministry of the Lord Jesus and His apostles? Did they quote it? Was it really inspired by God? And if the story is a fake, why make up the story? Is there another reason to get people to use (or believe in) the Septuagint?



The verifiable facts:

The writer of this letter, Aristeas, claims to have been a Greek court official during the time of Philadelphus' reign. He claims to have been sent by Demetrius to request the best scholars of Israel to bring a copy of the Hebrew scriptures to Alexandria to start the Septuagint translation project. He even goes so far as to give names of Septuagint scholars, yet many of the names he gives are from the Maccabean era, some 75 years too late. Many of them are Greek names, definitely not the names of Hebrew scholars. There are many other evidences that this letter is from a different time period, and is thus a fake. The writer is lying about his identity.

The supposed "librarian," Demetrius of Phalerum (ca. 345-283) served in the court of Ptolemy Soter. Demetrius was never the librarian under Philadelphus.

The letter quotes the king telling Demetrius and the translators, when they arrived, how wonderful it was that they came on the anniversary of his "naval victory over Antigonus" (Aristeas 7:14). But the only such recorded Egyptian naval victory occurred many years after Demetrius death, so the letter is a fraud!

The Letter of Aristeas is a hoax that doesn't even fit the time period in which it claims to have been written. And since the other ancient writers merely add to this story, it is clear that the story itself of a pre-Christian Septuagint is a fraud. Even critical textual scholars admit that the letter is a hoax. Yet they persist in quoting the Letter of Aristeas as proof of the existence of the Septuagint before Christ.



New Testament Evidence
Many scholars claim that Christ and his apostles used the Septuagint, preferring it above the preserved Hebrew text found in the temple and synagogues. But if the Greek Septuagint was the Bible Jesus used, he would not have said,

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)

Why would Jesus not have said this? Because the jot is a Hebrew letter, and the tittle is a small mark to distinguish between Hebrew letters. If Jesus used the Greek Septuagint, His scriptures would not have contained the jot and tittle. He obviously used the Hebrew scriptures!

In addition, Jesus only mentioned the scripture text in two ways, (1) "The Law and the Prophets" and (2) "The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms":

"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." Luke 24:44

The Hebrews divide their Bible into three parts: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. Jesus clearly referred to this. The Septuagint had no such division. In fact, it contains Apocryphal books interspersed throughout the Old Testament..."

It seems just more Alexandrian text, but with a story to try to give authenticity.....

Now look at the following:
According to the Roman Catholic Douay Bible:

"…the Septuagint, the Greek translation from the original Hebrew, and which contained all the writings now found in the Douay version, as it is called, was the version used by the Saviour and his Apostles and by the Church from her infancy, and translated into Latin, known under the title of Latin Vulgate, and ever recognized as the true version of the written word of God" —Preface,1914 edition.

Now you have to remember the Septuagint is where they got the Apocrypha (books that are not inspired and have no place in our Bibles).

The supposed text of the Septuagint is found today only in certain manuscripts. The main ones are: Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph); Codex Vaticanus (B); and Codex Alexandrinus (A). The Alexandrian manuscripts are the very texts found in the Septuagint, makes one think there was a organized effort to spread these corrupt text, I wonder.......

So we have textual critics who believe desperately in the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts (against more than 5,000 copies favoring the Textus Receptus). They use these to translate these new revisions of modern versions. But these Alexandrian manuscripts not only put int the Greek line of thought which came to be known as Gnosticism, but also include the Septuagint Old Testament (with the Apocrypha). They have fallen for a well laid trap, picking up Gnosticism phoilisophies and changes and alterations and in addition pagan mysteries and beliefs of the Apocrypha.

Catholics now argue the following: If you accept the Alexandrian text (which modern scholars use as the basis for all new translations) for your New Testament, then you also have to accept the rest of the Alexandrian text (Septuagint), which includes the Apocrypha. But do we need any of the corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts? That is the question......

Indeed. Thank you Rick. Now, here is the rest of the story...from the Bible.

God saw this coming. And God prophesied against it! There is a prophecy in the Bible which should give us ample warning against the use of any "scriptures" that might come from Egypt.

First of all, let us clarify again that these so-called codices have all passed through Egypt. The Septuagint is supposedly made in Egypt. The Codex Alexandrinus is. Alexandria was an important Egyptian city. The entire "Egyptian Text" which is used in the making of all of our modern versions comes from Egypt.

But God warned the Jews, and by extension has warned us, against any scripture that should arise from Egypt. Look at the following prophecies.



What did the people have to fear of Pharaoh in Ezekiel's day? And what does the "sword" represent in the Bible? (See Hebrews 4:12.) God is saying that He would cause the Scriptures to fall out of Pharaoh's hand. But it gets even stronger in Jeremiah's writing.



The Jews were expressly commanded to stay out of Egypt! Should they go there, they would become an "execration" and a "reproach." They would become a "curse." All this, and more, has happened.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Now as to the I John 5:7-8, commonly referred to as the Johannine Comma, here is a good overview:

"..The epistle of I John was probably written late in the first century (ca. 90) from Ephesus by none other than the Apostle John. The intended audience is not exactly clear; however, the lack of personal references suggests that it was written to Christians all across Asia Minor. The same can be said for John's Gospel which was also written from Ephesus in the same general time period (ca. 85-90).It is interesting to note the literary coherence that exists between these two separate New Testament writings. The well-known Greek scholar, A.T. Robertson, once wrote, "in the whole of the First Epistle [I John] there is hardly a single thought that is not found in the Gospel [John]."[2]This coherence has been considered even more evident than that which exists between Luke and Acts. Such a fact has led some to believe that I John served as preface or dedicatory epistle to the Gospel of John, for both Books are characterized by repetition, contrast, parallelism, personal elements, profound spirituality, and doctrine.[3]Historically speaking, it is very possible that the Gospel of John was attached to the epistle as it was sent out to the addressees. I John was to be read as an introduction or commentary on the teachings of the Gospel. John Ebrard writes:
It [I John] bears the stamp of a preface or dedicatory epistle. The Apostle addresses himself to specific readers, and holds communion, person to person, with them, in that we mark the essence of the epistle; but he does this on occasion of another communication, to which this is attached, and to which it refers; and therefore, in its form, it is no epistle, no simple and direct substitute of oral speech, but an address uttered on occasion of the reading of another and different communication.[4]
The exhortations contained in I John were uttered by the Apostle on occasion of the contents contained in the Gospel. Having understood the principles of Christians fellowship promulgated in the Epistle, the reader could proceed to understand the entire basis of his fellowship, the life and work of Jesus Christ as promulgated in the Gospel.

Regarding the issue at hand, such a distinct literary/historical coherence fully supports the inclusion of the Johannine Comma. The resounding theme of the Gospel of John is the divinity of Jesus Christ. Such is summed up in John 10:30, when Jesus says, "I and my Father are one." This same theme is prevalent in the Epistle, being concisely and clearly stated in 5:7-8.The Comma truly bears coherence with the message of John's Gospel in this sense. It serves as an occasion to introduce the doctrine of the Trinity as the original readers prepared to study the attached Gospel. Although Christ's divinity is inferred throughout the epistle, one is not confronted with such succinct declaration as is conveyed in the Comma.If this passage is omitted, it seems that the theme of John's Gospel would lack a proper introduction.

It is interesting to note that one of the earliest allusions to the Johannine Comma in church history is promulgated in connection to the thematic statement made by the Lord in John 10:30.[5]Cyprian writes around A.D. 250, "The Lord says 'I and the Father are one' and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'"[6]The theological teaching of the Comma most definitely bears coherence with the overriding theme of John's Gospel. There is no reason to believe that the verse is not genuine in this sense, for it serves as a proper prelude to the theme of the Gospel which, historically speaking, most likely accompanied the Epistle as it was sent out to its original audience.

The heresy of Gnosticism is also of notable importance with regard to the historical context surrounding the Johannine Comma. This "unethical intellectualism" had begun to make inroads among churches in John's day; its influence would continue to grow up until the second century when it gave pure Christianity a giant struggle.[7]Generally speaking, Gnosticism can be described as a variety of syncretic religious movements in the early period of church history that sought to answer the question, "What must I do to be saved?" The Gnostic answer was that a person must possess a secret knowledge.[8]One of the major tenets of Gnosticism was the essential evil of matter; the physical body, in other words, was viewed as evil. According to this line of thought, Jesus Christ could not have been fully God and fully man, for this would have required him to posses an evil physical body.

The seeds of the Gnostic heresy seem to be before John's mind in his first epistle; nine times he gives tests for knowing truth in conjunction with the verb ginwskw (to know).[9]This being said, the Johannine Comma would have constituted an integral component of the case the Apostle made against the false teachings of the Gnostics, especially with regard to the nature of Christ. Robertson notes that John's Gospel was written to prove the deity of Christ, assuming his humanity, while I John was written to prove the humanity of Christ, assuming his deity.[10]He goes on to say, "Certainly both ideas appear in both books."[11]If these notions are true, then the Comma is important to John's polemic. Jesus Christ, the human Son of God, is the eternal, living Word (cf. John 1:1).The Word, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, bears witness to "he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ" (I John 5:6).This assertion would have flown right into the face of Gnosticism...."

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/1john57-exegesis.htm

But I'm not sure that is a proper question. Just because it is different doesn't mean it's wrong or right. Just because our favorite verses may not really exist, doesn't mean leaving them out is wrong. What matters is whether it is correct, not whether it supports our belief system or not.

I have missed most of this discussion due to time constraints, but I heartily agree with this sentiment. Different does not necessarily mean wrong, as many KJV-only folks believe. And new does not necessarily mean better, as many pro-modern-translation folks believe. And older does not necessarily mean more accurate, as many pro-Westcott-Hort folks believe.

Correct is better.

Going back to what I was saying earlier about fasting, as an example of some of the differences, take a look at the following table.

King James' Version	New International Version
Then Jesus called his disciples unto him, and said, I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days, and have nothing to eat: and I will not send them away fasting, lest they faint in the way. (Matthew 15:32, KJV)	Jesus called his disciples to him and said, “I have compassion for these people; they have already been with me three days and have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, or they may collapse on the way.” (Matthew 15:32, NIV)
The message is a little different in these two texts, though the difference is subtle. In the KJV rendition, it is implied that the people have been fasting already, and thus may "faint in the way." The NIV avoids the term "fasting" altogether and seems to speak as though the people had just run out of food yet have a bit of a journey ahead for which they have no stores. Ultimately, notice the aversion to the use of the word "fasting" in the NIV.
Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. (Matthew 17:21, KJV)	ENTIRE VERSE OMITTED IN NIV
It's pretty clear what the NIV did here, isn't it? Basically, the translators faced a dilemma. If they ommitted only the word "fasting," as they have done in some other places, it renders the translation almost ridiculous. After all, what is the difference between invoking Jesus' namewhen casting out demons and prayer? Anytime we call upon Jesus can be called prayer. So if it were to say "only by prayer," then the discipleswould have had a case with Jesus, for had they not called on Him? "Now in the name of Christ they commanded the torturing spirit to leave his victim; but the demon only mocked them by a fresh display of his power." (EGW)
And if I send them away fasting to their own houses, they will faint by the way: for divers of them came from far. (Mark 8:3, KJV)	If I send them home hungry, they will collapse on the way, because some of them have come a long distance.” (Mark 8:3, NIV)
Again the NIV avoids the use of the word "fasting." Consider that "fasting" implies a voluntary action, whereas "hungry" is involuntary.
And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting. (Mark 9:29, KJV)	He replied, “This kind can come out only by prayer.”(Mark 9:29, NIV)
The NIV translators went ahead and changed Christ's words here, probably so as not to draw undue attention to the fact that for Matthew 17:21they had omitted the entire verse. At least this time the leave half the message intact, however questionable it might seem.
And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. (Luke 2:37, KJV)	and then was a widow until she was eighty-four. She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying. (Luke 2:37, NIV)
The NIV turns the meaning of this verse into pure ridiculousness! The translators seem so worked up about eliminating all doctrine of "fasting" that they have overlooked the meaning they have now imposed upon the text! (They allow historical accounts of fasting, just not commandsor examples to fast.) How can a woman be a widow all her life until the age of 84?This one is hilarious! The KJV is clear that fasting is a part of worship. The NIV might also imply this, but seems to account for it by thefact that the woman never even left the temple, as if it were one long, continuous fast! (I have yet to meet anyone who can fast for that long--84 years--and then find a husband in that condition!) Or are they trying to say that her fast is of a different sort?
And Cornelius said, Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and, behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing, (Acts 10:30, KJV)	Cornelius answered: “Four days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon. Suddenly a man in shining clothes stood before me (Acts 10:30, NIV)
This is a fairly important passage with respect to clean and unclean definitions. Many people understand it to speak of foods. The reference to fasting, only in the KJV, shows the humility of Cornelius and helps the reader to understand the true meaning of the passage.
And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed. (Acts 14:23, KJV)	Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust. (Acts 14:23, NIV)
Since I've been quoting every single NT verse which uses the word "fasting" in the KJV, I went ahead and included this one. Both versions here record that they prayed and fasted. But this is not in command form, nor does it appear to necessarily recommend the custom. So the NIV translatorsleft it alone this time. The more interesting change in this verse is that related to the concept of "ordained." NIV avoided that term here.
And while the day was coming on, Paul besought them all to take meat, saying, This day is the fourteenth day that ye have tarried and continued fasting, having taken nothing. (Acts 27:33, KJV)	Just before dawn Paul urged them all to eat. “For the last fourteen days,” he said, “you have been in constant suspense and have gone without food–you haven't eaten anything. (Acts 27:33, NIV)
Again, the NIV omits the word "fasting." In this particular case, it is unclear if the fast were on account of having no other option, or if it were voluntarily practiced. In either case, the NIV wastes no opportunity to shift to a different word.
Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. (1 Corinthians 7:5, KJV)	Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. (1 Corinthians 7:5, NIV)
Here again, in their haste to eliminate the doctrine of fasting, the NIV translators have turned this verse into a ridiculous one.First of all, does one need to abstain from marital relations in order to pray? How much sense would that make? Secondly, when fasting asa part of one's worship to God, an individual will be keeping their thoughts pure and have a greater measure of self-control (theoretically).It would seem, then, inadvisable to cease relations unless devoting oneself more completely to God in this manner, lest he or she betempted as the text says. Now, notice what the NIV does with the meaning? This one gets reversed! Is it a "lack of self-control" to beable to refrain from marital relations while devoting time to God? The KJV, on the other hand, correctly speaks of the temptation which wouldresult from a lack of continuance in the marital relation. Whether or not one deems himself to have self-control, this text, in the KJV, servesto warn him against prolonging such a fast.
In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; (2 Corinthians 6:5, KJV)	in beatings, imprisonments and riots; in hard work, sleepless nights and hunger; (2 Corinthians 6:5, NIV)
Again, no mention of fasting in the NIV--only the involuntary counterpart.
In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. (2 Corinthians 11:27, KJV)	I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. (2 Corinthians 11:27, NIV)
Here, the KJV lists both the voluntary "fastings" and the involuntary "hunger and thirst." The NIV erases the voluntary form.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

No comment on the doctrinal issue for now, but I must say that I like the table format very much.

Thank you. It takes a bit of time to put it together, but I think it helps make the comparison clear. I'm interested in your comments on the doctrine aspect.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Now lets make it clear, I am not a KJV-Only person at all, so we can get that out of the way. I like the NIV but after looking at the sources and background I will go to the text of those version from the Majority Text of which the King James Version is one, when it comes to doctrinal or theological points. If I knew Greek/Hebrew I would go to the originals but I havent learned those yet. As to just being different words or better modern translation, I have no problem with. But if it is changes with a purpose then a red flag goes up and we need to be alert to why it was done, and these Alexandrian Codices are a full fledge red flag hurricane warning to any Christian and they need to carefully look to see what has been altered, deleted or changed and understand the purpose behind it...

If there are changes to the Bible a Christian must ask themselves that question, or we end up as other adventist believers did, the Jehovah Witnesses, lost in a Westcott & Hort confusion as that is the source they used then deleted and changed even more.


As to the Septuagint....here is more: The "Septuagint" papyri (we have listed all 23 of them with all that they contain and the dates they were written in The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence pp.48-51, published in 1970) were all written within 60 to 500 years after John finished writing the Book of Revelation."

4 Greek manuscripts from which the Septaugint came include:

A- "Alexandrinus:" written more than 300 years after the completion of the New Testament. It omits Genesis 14:14-17; 15:1-6, 16-19, 16:6-10, Leviticus 6:19-23, 1 Samuel 12:17-14:9, 1 Kings 3-6 and Psalms 69:19-79:10.
Aleph-"Sinaiticus:" written more than 200 years after the completion of the New Testament. It omits Genesis 23:19-24:46, Numbers 5:27-7:20, 1 Chronicles 9:27-19:17, all of Exodus, Joshua, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Ezekiel, Daniel and Judges. It contains New Testament Apocrypha.
C- "Codes Ephraemi:" written more than 300 years after the completion of the New Testament. It omits Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings and all of the major and minor prophets!
B -"Vaticanus:" It omits all off Genesis 1:1 - 46:28, all of Psalms 105:26-137:6, and parts of 1 Samuel, I Kings and Nehemiah. It contains the Apocrpha books of the Old Testament.

http://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/sept.html

The oldest manuscripts of the LXX include 2nd century BCE fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957), and 1st century BCE fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Minor Prophets (Alfred Rahlfs nos. 802, 803, 805, 848, 942, and 943). Relatively complete manuscripts of the LXX postdate the Hexaplar rescension and include the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus of the 4th century and the Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century.

Not in this discussion, of course. In this discussion I have been focusing on the Textus Receptus, which has to do with the Greek New Testament.
As to the LXX, I think all should be aware that Paul quoted largely from it.

Yes, nice table format, but it was a total waste. You did exactly what I was arguing against. All you did was show it was different, but nothing about whether it was correct or not.

Where is your proof of that? What is to say he wasn't quoting from other scriptures?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

It may have been a waste in your case, then. But seeing the nature of the differences is somewhat self-explanatory as to which is more correct. However, it may be more obvious in another example, which I don't have time for just now. More later.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I am not quiet sure what your trying to say, if as the facts show, the Alexandrian Codices are corruption we have the sure word in the Majority Text so there is no issue if you stay with that........

As I said, I am not a KJV Only advocate, but from the facts we need to be aware and act accordingly... and the facts of the Textus Receptus speak for themselves, we have the Word of God safe in its text.........

Yes, it does make the comparison clearer. Thanks.

I have been a fan of fasting for many years. I believe that it is very useful, even necessary in some cases. However, my belief regarding fasting is not a valid factor to use in determining whether or not the NIV is trustworthy. Furthermore, my belief that the KJV is better than the NIV is not a valid factor in determining whether or not the NIV is trustworthy. In the end, my adherence to any particular belief is irrelevant to the discussion.

What matters is this: Does a particular translation give me the correct understanding of what God was/is trying to communicate to me?

The follow-up is this: How do I determine whether or not a particular translation does that?

I have a feeling that this will eventually end up in epistemology.

I don't know anything about any purposeful and malicious modifications in the manuscripts. I have read a very little about Westcott and Hort being "off the strait and narrow," but I don't think they changed the manuscripts.

In any case, I prefer the Majority Text, which is very, very close to the Textus Receptus. And that's because I don't trust Vaticanus. For me, it's a manuscript issue as opposed to a translation issue.

They couldnt just change it as the outcry would have been tremendous, but exerted enought influence on the committee to get the changes from the Alexandrian codices to be included and all the new versions picked it up. As long as you are aware and understand the changes, then you can make a choice, but more Christians have no idea....

Here is another article on the subject, with some good areas I didnt address..

http://www.thebibleistheotherside.org/currentarticlep31p7.htm

And that's another example of what I'm speaking against. One should not believe truth just because it fits with their belief system (or their favorite verses).

Asygo addressed this well:

If we want to go straight to the epistemology, fine: as part of my epistemology, I hold the following to be true:

1) The Bible represents God's message to us as recorded in human language;
2) The various authors of the Bible were all inspired by the same Spirit;
3) "If they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them;"
4) Not one jot or one tittle is to pass from God's law, nor should any word be added to or subtracted therefrom.

I find the modern versions to be based upon EDITIONS of the manuscripts in which various persons have altered the text of the original, thinking to better it (and make it more favorable toward their doctrines). Such editions can no longer rightfully represent the Word of God. Those who use them may not recognize their danger, but the message has changed.

Is different worse? Certainly. If it "speaks not according to THIS Word it is because there is no light" in it.

So my faith is built upon the Bible. The Bible tells me how the Bible itself should be treated--that every word of God is important, and that no words should be inserted or removed from it. Based on that, I find the modern translations from Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Sinaiticus to be "guilty as charged."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I hold the same to be true, with some major caveats:

1. The Bible does not cover every aspect of existence. There are truths upon which the Bible is silent, such as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which can be discovered independent of divine revelation. Of course, none of these extra-biblical truths should contradict the Bible.

2. What is the "Bible" that we accept? Are we talking about specific English translations? Are we talking about the various manuscripts? Or are we talking about the autographs - the documents that the Bible writers physically wrote.

3. Did the Holy Spirit dictate the words to be written? Or did He give men the ideas and allowed the men to compose their own words? How can we be sure that the transmission of divine information into human documents was 100% accurate?

It was the intention of my #1 to cover question such as your #3 presents. No, I do not believe the words were dictated, but that the thoughts were inspired and the Bible writers then chose their own words with which to express those thoughts.

The "Bible" that I would accept includes all of the 66 books we presently find in most any Bible today, and is best represented by the "Majority Text" or "Textus Receptus." Translations which follow this preserved line of manuscript as word-for-word accurately as possible should be acceptable in any language.

As for the autographs, we all know that they do not exist anymore. If one were only to accept such, he has no Bible, for it is extinct.

I see by your #1 that I should have clarified a little to include that any God-inspired writings should not be added to nor subtracted from--but this does not preclude additional inspired writ. Mrs. White's writings, for example, follow in the scriptural tradition as set forth in the Bible itself, and they do give us additional truths.

Regarding your last sentence, I do not espouse the view that the conversion from divine thought to human words was always 100% accurate, but that any errors which occurred are on a par with "typos" that do not affect the overall message, nor should they hinder our understanding of salvation.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Agreed, and if the reader is not aware it can affect his beliefs..

And so if we find that the KJV has any text altered by persons thinking it better or being helpful, we can also conclude that the KJV is not the "Word of God".

My faith is built upon the Bible, too. But which one should we use is the question. The KJV is different and does not speak "according THIS Word" so therefore it is "worse". The (insert other version) tells me how the Bible itself should be treated and no words should be inserted or removed. Since the KJV does have words inserted and removed, I know it is not the correct version.

I am not sure what your point is as that has not happened, but if they were to make a thousand changes and alterations to the KJV with a purpose to change it to different gospel that is known to be heresy from a sect with 2 to 3 manuscripts then we could say it is corrupt, but as the thousands of manuscripts bear witness, the King James has stayed true with relatively few and/or minor changes...

That's not what I said. If the "law" is altered, then it's no longer God's law might be closer. But even then, it would be more accurate to phrase the altered or "doctored" versions as "marred" and "non-representative" of the True.

Here is where the "other" versions fail, however. They do not respect "every word of God." Here's another table to illustrate:

King James Version	Other Versions
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. (Luke 4:4, KJV) (Verse quoted by Jesus) And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live. (Deuteronomy 8:3)	Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone.’ ” (NIV)
	And Jesus answered unto him, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone. (ASV)
	And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE.’” (NASB)
	And Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone.'" (ESV)
	But Jesus told him, “No! The Scriptures say, ‘People do not live by bread alone.’” (NLT)
	Jesus answered by quoting Deuteronomy: "It takes more than bread to really live." (MSG)
Some versions are more flippant in their handling of the Word of God than others, but all of those shown on the right have omitted the “punchline” of the verse. They've left out the principal meaning. Sure, we're not to live by bread alone...upon what then? They leave the reader hanging, without the benefit of Christ's full message. They accept just a truncated version of His words, as if the rest of it weren't important anyway. The trouble is, the rest of it was the chiefest part! If they have no respect for “every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God,” how should we expect them not to have innumerable other alterations?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green, the only way your tables make any sense is if you have the a priori premise that the KJV is "the Word of God", which is what is under discussion. I could take any other version and compare it the KJV showing how the KJV does not respect the word of God by straying from it.

I guess I'm one wanting facts, not someone's opinion, nor how their favorite verses (or beliefs!) would be harmed if their favorite version isn't considered "better". You have offered no facts to support the KJV being better. But I do give you credit for offering opinions and thoughts. Very enthusiastic and dedicated to it! That's more than can be said about me. I am not dedicated to nor support any version as being better.

Impressive! Nicely done, kland.

Actually, that table can be used, and it will be just as valid, to show that the KJV does not respect God's word because it adds to it.

What is your reference point, which DEFINES what is or is not God's word? Is it the autographs or certain manuscripts or the KJV? If it's the autographs, then none of us can be too dogmatic, since they don't exist. If it's the KJV, then it's circular reasoning to use the KJV to prove the KJV. If it's a question of manuscripts, which I believe it is, then the practice of comparing English versions with each other proves nothing.

I think the only way to really settle it is to figure out which manuscripts are most trustworthy. Then, we translate it in a way that preserves the thought the original writers were trying to convey.

My basic premise is, that the Alexandrian Codices are nothing but a attempt to diminish the diety of Christ and bring in a gnostic viewpoint into play. When you consider the source and look at the evidence, then you must decide if the changes are significant enough to be theologically corrupt, or just a attempt at a better translation that failed, at least in transfering the meaning which was intended by the original authors.

Yes, Arnold, the root issue is one of manuscripts. I have brought that up several times, I believe.

All modern English versions are translated from the same source. It is not the source used for the KJV translation. The KJV translation came from the Textus Receptus--essentially the same as the Majority Text.

The Waldensees had Bibles which came from the Majority Text line of manuscripts. Mrs. White says their Bibles were of the pure form.


Consider the following as well...

So, Bibles which have been influenced by the above-mentioned entities should be struck from our list as unreliable and unsafe. Conversely, the Bible of the Waldensians is commended by Mrs. White. Their Bible was of the Majority Text. So is the King James Version.

The NIV, NASB, NLT, ESV, RV, NRSV, etc. were translated, not from the Majority Text, but from the Alexandrian Text, i.e. Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. These names should speak for themselves.

Folks, these things are facts.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Assuming we accept EGW's statement, which is a pretty safe assumption around here, what proof do you have for the statement below?

And I'd have question as to exactly what her statement is, because I don't see it as Green is concluding....

This would be the statement:

So, if the Waldenses had the truth unadulterated, the context would seem to point to their Bible as the source of this truth.

But since it was the Bible in their language, we would have to find out what Hebrew/Greek manuscripts they used for their translation. Since this was hundreds of years before the Reformation, the manuscripts could not have been the Textus Receptus, since Erasmus did not publish his Greek New Testament until the 1500's.

kland,

I'll answer your question first, as I think I see where you may be coming from. It is true that the EGW statement I quoted regarding the Waldensians may be a matter of interpretation. I feel some of the following statements may help us in that process as we understand better where Mrs. White was coming from in addressing the various lines of the scriptures.


And regarding some of the alterations, she writes:



So Mrs. White clearly saw that the RC church had altered God's Word. She refers to such an altered Bible as "adulterated." For the Waldensians to have a Bible which was "unadulterated" meant for them to have one without the RC edits. She draws attention to this fact in saying of the Waldensians:


The church of Rome had corrupted the Bible, and they wanted everyone to have only their version of it. When the Waldenses were the last holdout with the unaltered Bible, Rome was especially moved against them.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I have a lot of proof, but much comes in chunks and pieces, not in nice "one-liner" packages which are easy to post. It requires a study of the history and lineages of the manuscripts themselves. For example, to say the manuscripts which Calvin used came from the Waldenses may prove nothing. One still is back to where did the Waldenses get it. I think Mrs. White helps to answer this herself. Reading the entire chapter "The Waldenses" from The Great Controversy would be a good start. Here are a few notable quotes from that chapter. (Starting again at the earlier one for context.)



And from a couple chapters later we read:


So the Bible at the heart of the reformation seems to date back to that which the Waldenses and the Bohemians had centuries before.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Here are a few things I came across on the Waldensians....

John Wesley has this to say about the Vaudois or Waldenses: "It is a vulgar mistake, that the Waldenses were so called from Peter Waldo of Lyons. They were much more ancient than him; and their true name was Vallenses or Vaudois from their inhabiting the valleys of Lucerne and Agrogne. This name, Vallenses, after Waldo appeared about the year 1160, was changed by the Papists into Waldenses, on purpose to represent them as of modern original." (Notes on the Revelation of John, Revelation, Chapter 13, Verse 6, p. 936.)

Here is an important fact cited by Jonathan Edwards: "Some of the popish writers themselves own, that this people never submitted to the church of Rome. One of the popish writers, speaking of the Waldenses, says, The heresy of the Waldenses is the oldest heresy in the world. It is supposed that they first betook themselves to this place among the mountains, to hide themselves from the severity of the heathen persecutions which existed before Constantine the Great [272-337 AD]. And thus the woman fled into the wilderness from the face of the serpent" (The Works of Jonathan Edwards Vol. 4, Work of Redemption., Period 3 - From Christ's Resurrection to the End Of the World, Part 4, p. 229.)

Here is some history..."There is abundant evidence that the history of the Waldenses dates back to the time of the apostles. It is their claim that their religion passed to them from the apostles and in fact even the writings of their enemies give credence to this. (Note that the Waldenses were called by several different names: Leonists, Vallenses, Valsenses, Vaudois and others.)

Reinerius Sasso was a well informed Inquisitor of the thirteenth century. He had once been a pastor among the Waldenses but had apostatized and become their persecutor. The book The History of the Ancient Vallenses and Albigenses by George Faber gives a translation of this testimony on page 272. His testimony described the Leonists (Waldenses) as being the most ‘pernicious’ of the sects of heretics for three reasons. The first reason was because of their longer continuance, for they had lasted from the time of Pope Sylvester or even from the Apostles. Secondly, because there was scarcely a land where they did not exist. And the third reason being because they lived justly before all men and blasphemed only against the Roman church and clergy while maintaining every point concerning the Deity and the articles of faith which made their doctrine appeal to the populous. He also writes that they were simple, modest people who instructed their children first in the Decalogue of the law, the Ten Commandments. (See Truth Triumphant, 254.)

Faber also shares the testimony of Pilichdorf, also of the thirteenth century, who writes that the Valdenses claimed to have existed from the time of Pope Sylvester. Claude Scyssel, the Archbishop of Turin, who lived in the neighborhood of the Waldenses in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries tells us that the Valdenses of Piedmont were followers of a person named Leo. In the time of Emperor Constantine, Leo, on account of the avarice of Pope Sylvester and the excesses of the Roman Church, seceded from that communion, and drew after him all those who entertained right sentiments concerning the Christian Religion. (See The History of the Ancient Vallenses and Albigenses, 276.).."


James A. Wylie (1808-1890) describes the "apostolicity of the Churches of the Waldensian valleys" with the observation that "Rome manifestly was the schismatic," while the Vaudois or Waldenses deserved the "valid title of the True Church," and even the Waldenses' "greatest enemies, Claude Seyssel of Turin (1517), and Reynerius the Inquisitor (1250), have admitted their antiquity, and stigmatized them as 'the most dangerous of all heretics, because the most ancient'" (excerpted from "The History of Protestantism" Volume 1, Book 1, Chapter 6 "The Waldenses - Their Valleys" ---New Window [1878] by James A. Wylie). Since the Byzantine Manuscripts commonly accessible to Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) were used in his production of the Greek New Testament, which formed the Textus Receptus (1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, 1535), their use demonstrated a continuity with the Vaudois. The Vaudois Christians had likewise used and preserved the ancient Byzantine manuscripts of Antioch in the form of Latin Scripture; and, their survival.. from the time of the Early Church until the sola scriptura ("Scripture alone") of the Protestant Reformation (1521) is testament that the True Church and the True Word of God did continuously testify against the False Church and False Scriptures of the Whore of Rome-- and triumphed! "For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our Faith" (1John 5:4). The Vaudois rendezvous with the Protestant Reformation represents a Divine Approval of the Reformation, in that the Ancient Christian Church of the Vaudois attested to the Truth of the Reformers, and specifically to the validity of the Scriptures of the Reformers, which were used to translate the Textus Receptus Bibles of the Reformation, i.e., the Spanish Reina-Valera (1569), the Italian Diodati (1603), the Coverdale Bible (1535), the Tyndale New Testament (1536), the Great Bible (1539), the Bishops Bible (1568), the Geneva Bible (1560-1599), and, of course, the King James Bible (1611). "For by wise counsel thou shalt make thy war: and in multitude of counsellors there is safety" (Proverbs 24:6). Significantly, men of God, such as John Wesley (1703-1791) and Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), have attested to the accuracy of understanding that the Vaudois Christians were not merely a more recent vintage of Protestant reaction to the Church of Rome, coming upon the scene through Peter Waldo in twelfth century France (1171 AD), but that the Vaudois were ancient Christians, who preserved their Christianity along with the Scriptures-- separate from the Church of Rome-- as far back as the early second century AD.


Here is something you all may want to go over....

http://www.whiteestate.org/books/agp/AGPc19.html

Here is the line of the various versions which followed the reading of the Textus Receptus.

These versions include: The Peshitta Version (AD 150), The Italic Bible (AD 157), The Waldensian (AD 120 & onwards), The Gallic Bible (Southern France) (AD177), The Gothic Bible (AD 330-350), The Old Syriac Bible (AD 400), The Armenian Bible (AD 400 There are 1244 copies of this version still in existence.), The Palestinian Syriac (AD 450), The French Bible of Oliveton (AD 1535), The Czech Bible (AD 1602), The Italian Bible of Diodati (AD 1606), The Greek Orthodox Bible (Used from Apostolic times to the present day by the Greek Orthodox Church). [Bible Versions, D.B. Loughran]
http://home.sprynet.com/~eagreen/kjv-3.htm

THE OLD TESTAMENT

The Masoretic Text

1524-25 Bomberg Edition of the Masoretic Text also known as the Ben Chayyim Text

THE NEW TESTAMENT

All dates are Anno Domini (A.D.)

30-95------------Original Autographs
95-150----------Greek Vulgate (Copy of Originals)
120---------------The Waldensian Bible
150---------------The Peshitta (Syrian Copy)
150-400--------Papyrus Readings of the Receptus
157--------------The Italic Bible - From the Old Latin Vulgate used in Northern Italy
157--------------The Old Latin Vulgate
177--------------The Gallic Bible
310--------------The Gothic Version of Ulfilas
350-400-------The Textus Receptus is Dominant Text
400--------------Augustine favors Textus Receptus
400--------------The Armenian Bible (Translated by Mesrob)
400--------------The Old Syriac
450--------------The Palestinian Syriac Version
450-1450------Byzantine Text Dominant (Textus Receptus)
508--------------Philoxenian - by Chorepiscopos Polycarp, who commissioned by Philoxenos of Mabbug
500-1500------Uncial Readings of Receptus (Codices)
616--------------Harclean Syriac (Translated by Thomas of Harqel - Revision of 508 Philoxenian)
864--------------Slavonic
1100-1300----The Latin Bible of the Waldensians (History goes back as far as the 2nd century as people of the Vaudoix Valley)
1160------------The Romaunt Version (Waldensian)
1300-1500----The Latin Bible of the Albigenses
1382-1550----The Latin Bible of the Lollards
1384------------The Wycliffe Bible
1516------------Erasmus's First Edition Greek New Testament
1522------------Erasmus's Third Edition Published
1522-1534----Martin Luther's German Bible (1)
1525------------Tyndale Version
1534------------Tyndale's Amended Version
1534------------Colinaeus' Receptus
1535------------Coverdale Version
1535------------Lefevre's French Bible
1537------------Olivetan's French Bible
1537------------Matthew's Bible (John Rogers Printer)
1539------------The Great Bible
1541------------Swedish Upsala Bible by Laurentius
1550------------Stephanus Receptus (St. Stephen's Text)
1550------------Danish Christian III Bible
1558------------Biestken's Dutch Work
1560------------The Geneva Bible
1565------------Theodore Beza's Receptus
1568------------The Bishop's Bible
1569------------Spanish Translation by Cassiodoro de Reyna
1598------------Theodore Beza's Text
1602------------Czech Version
1607------------Diodati Italian Version
1611------------The King James Bible with Apocrypha between Old and New Testament
1613------------The King James Bible (Apocrypha Removed) (2)

There was a school in Antioch of Syria in very early Christian times that had the ancient manunscripts pf the Scriptures. Preachers like Chrysostom held to the Syrian Text that agrees with our KJV.

This Received Text was soon translated into old Latin before Jerome’s Latin Vulgate) and was called the Italic Bible. The Vaudois (later called Waldensians) of northern Italy used the Italic Bible.

The Vaudois (Waldenses) the Albigenses, the Reformers (Luther, Calvin and Knox) all held to the Received Text.



Now from "OUR AUTHORIZED BIBLE VINDICATED" by
Benjamin Wilkinson, PhD. which has the following which I am checking...

"FOUR Bibles produced under Waldensian INFLUENCE touched the
history of CALVIN: namely, a GREEK, a WALDENSIAN vernacular, a
FRENCH, and an ITALIAN. Calvin himself was led to his great work by OLIVETAN, a Waldensian. Thus was the Reformation brought to Calvin.......FAREL, also a Waldensian, besought him to come to Geneva and open up a work there. Calvin felt that he should labor in Paris.

According to LEGER, Calvin recognized a relationship to the
Calvins of the valley of St. Martin, one of the Waldensian Valley(Allix, Churches of Piedmont, pp. 288, 11).

Finally, PERSECUTION in Paris and the solicitation of Farel
caused Calvin to settle at GENEVA, where, with, BEZA, he brought out an edition of the Textus Receptus......

Of BEZA, Dr. EDGAR says that he "astonished and confounded
the world" with the Greek MSS he unearthed. This later edition of the Received Text is in REALITY a Greek NT brought OUT UNDER
Waldensian INFLUENCE. UNQUESTIONABLY, the LEADERS of the Reformation, GERMAN,FRENCH, and ENGLISH, were CONVINCED that the Received Text was the GENUINE NT, not ONLY by its OWN irresistible history and INTERNAL evidence, but ALSO because it MATCHED with the Received text which the Waldensian form came down from in the days of the apostles."


This one connects the Waldensian bibles with another Reformer, Martin Luther....

The Waldensian Church. It is not certain how far back this church can be dated, but they were using a Bible that corresponds to the Traditional Text long before the Reformation. They lived in the valleys of Northern Italy and Southern France, in the regions of Turin, Milan and Lyons. There is a popular belief that the Waldensians were founded by Peter Waldo in 1174. However, they are mentioned by name in a document called the Noble Lesson, written about 1100, so Peter Waldo could only have consolidated and strengthened a movement that already existed. There are reasons to believe that the Waldensians have a very early history which has become obscured because many documents were destroyed during persecutions by the Roman Catholic Church. The Waldensians have beliefs and practices that are similar to the Protestant Churches of today, and can be regarded as the predecessors of the Protestant Reformation. The Waldensian Bible is believed to be the source text for the German Tepl Bible, which was in turn used by Martin Luther when he produced his own Lutheran New Testament.

and here is some more background....

"The precise origin of the mediaeval German Bible is still unknown. Dr. Ludwig Keller of Münster first suggested in his Die Reformation und die älteren Reformparteien, Leipzig, 1885, pp. 257-260, the hypothesis that it was made by Waldenses (who had also a Romanic version); and he tried to prove it in his Die Waldenser und die deutschen Bibelübersetzungen, Leipzig, 1886 (189 pages). Dr. Hermann Haupt, of Würzburg, took the same ground in his Die deutsche Bibelübersetzung der mittelalterlichen Waldenser in dem Codex Teplensis und der ersten gedruckten Bibel nachgewiesen, Würzburg, 1885 (64 pages); and again, in self-defense against Jostes, in Der waldensische Ursprung des Codex Teplensis und der vor-lutherischen deutschen Bibeldrucke, Würzburg, 1886."

http://www.bible-researcher.com/luther02.html

That's what I was afraid he was concluding.

I can read and believe one version and have the truth unadulterated, and you can read and believe another version and yet still have the truth unadulterated with customs and traditions of the world. Different versions is not required to be the subject.

As asked in the other thread, it seems the papacy is accused of changing the Bible versions, but using the KJV as their own, which really seems odd. So, saying they changed the 2nd commandment in their Bible or any other is incorrect. But that's not saying the popes have not tampered with the commandments and given books of devotion to the people where the 2nd commandment is omitted. This is not saying they have not altered God's commandments to harmonize with their practices and added and taken away from God's word.

You just have to be careful with conclusions which sound good, but are based upon what is not said.

As I posted in the other thread...Catholic theologians and the overwhelming majority of the members do not use the KJV, especially for doctrinal issues.

I must agree that the "proof" for the Waldensian Bible as the lone source of unadulterated truth is not as airtight as deductive logic requires. However, since the Bible is our source of truth, other than special revelation, their unadulterated truth must have come from their Bibles. Since it would be quite difficult to derive unadulterated truth from a corrupt Bible, I think it is safe to say that their Bible was not corrupt.

However, that does not warrant the conclusion that every other Bible is corrupt. It is possible to make changes in a translation without introducing corruption, and maybe even improving the product.

But changes in the manuscript are harder to accept. Therefore, I would like to find out more about the manuscripts they used.

And their unadulterated truth could have come from a different version, too, if they used it. Like you say, it doesn't require other versions to be corrupt.



I'd like to hear what "M-text" and "NU-text" refers to and it's history.

Whether the KJV is superior or not, we shouldn't base our doctrinal beliefs on simply one translation.

Are you saying you want to base your doctrinal beliefs on some inferior translations, or at least in part on something inferior?



Remember, the devil's purposes are served to mix just a little error with the truth.


Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Do you want to base your beliefs only on something with a different set of errors?

Green, your quote had no relevance to the topic of this thread.

If the root of the issue is one of manuscripts, it must be demonstrated that one family of manuscripts is inferior to another, based on some criteria. This has not been done.

What is the evidence that the Alexandrian family is corrupt and Byzantine family trustworthy? By what standard are you measuring each group? By comparing to each other? By comparing to an outside standard?

If comparing to each other, the families are just different, not "good" or "bad".

If comparing to an outside authority, what is that authority? That "authority" then becomes the "Official Word of God". Whatever it is cannot be the KJV, because the KJV was produced from one of the families, and that becomes circular reasoning.

I just remembered this from the KJV.


It adds "hath he quickened," which is not in the manuscripts.

Does that count as adding to God's word?

I don't think there is a special need to compare one line of manuscripts against another to know which of them is superior. However, I think that a simple comparison of them does indeed lead us to a knowledge of the truth on the matter. For those who wish to think it would be circular logic to do so, let me present the option via an allegory.

A man by the name of Benjamin Wolff goes seeking for the most authentic clock, trying to find the most original measure of time. He has heard rumors of time having changed over the years, and wishes to lay such theories to rest. Knowing that many good and famous clocks were made in Switzerland, he travels to Switzerland and visits numerous clock shops.

Some naysayers have touted claims that time has been changed, and that the modern minute is no longer equal to the minute used in times past. To settle the matter, Benjamin assays to compare several thousand of the world's finest antiques, and he checks their measurement of time against a finely-calibrated modern atomic clock. Imagine his surprise to find that there was some truth in the naysayers' arguments! In fact, as he studies, he finds one particular small line of clocks whose minutes deviated from the modern measure so that they were more than a second longer than 60 seconds!

All other clocks in Switzerland, France, and Europe which Benjamin timed were within a tenth of a second of the standard time--with the vast majority of those deviating less than two-hundredths of a second per minute.

To solve the conundrum, Benjamin has just a few facts to go on, for the clocks, along with the shops from which they came, date back beyond any living memory or record. Here are the facts:

1) The clocks which are all timed within a couple hundredths of a second of the modern minute are in the majority. In fact, over 95% of all clocks are of this line.
2) The line of clocks with the longer minute, apart from being fewer in number, are also less widespread in origin, and seem to originate from one of about three major places, all of which may have been associated at an earlier point in time.
3) The standard-minute clocks have been considered the standard by many people in all walks of life for centuries, and are frequently referenced in government documents, private letters, and other ancient records--all of which agree with the modern time.

Who has the "original" time?

If Benjamin had but two watches on his wrist, both of which differed from the other, would he have any way of knowing which of the two were more accurate? Of course not. But suppose Benjamin had three watches on his person, two of which agreed while the third differed...which time would he trust? Would he not trust the two which showed the same time?

Now, in the case that there are 20 clocks, and only one is different while 19 all show the identical same time--which time would a wise person trust?

That is exactly the situation with the Bible manuscripts. The "Majority Text" is a subset of all known copies of the Bible manuscripts comprising about 95% of them. Only 1 in 20 manuscripts differs, and is part of the Alexandrian text, or "Neutral Text" as it was christened by Westcott and Hort--after they had edited and revised the original copies.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Arnold,

In this particular case, it may be that some of the original manuscript was beyond legibility and the translators added the words in order to harmonize with the rest of scripture. There are a few other places where the KJV translators have done this.

Here is the text which they likely used to fill in the blanks:



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Rosangela, I asked my wife and she said the Bible version in most Spanish countries is the 'Reina Valera', which is the KJV for all intents and purposes. Is that also the case in your churches?

Here is a good study I came across on this issue....

http://themoorings.org/doctrine/issues/versions/CT.html


I also came across a list of some the versions that published using the Alexandrian Codices or the Hort-Westcott - Critical Text:
Greisbach, Johann - 1805
Lachmann, Karl - 1842
Tischendorf, Constantine - 1869
Tregelles, Samuel - 1857
Alford, Henry - 1849 revised in 1871
Westcott and Hort - 1881
Weiss, Bernhard - 1894
Nestle - 1927 as revised in seventeenth edition in 1941
Nestle-Aland - 1979 - Twenty Sixth Edition
Nestle-Aland - 1993 - Twenty Seventh Edition
United Bible Societies - 1983 - Fourth Edition
Von Soden, Freiherr - 1902

Here is a good site which shows the versions...
http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/CriticalEds.html

How do we know the modern atomic clock is correct? Where does it get it's basis? Isn't it from an arbitrary time? (Preciseness doesn't mean correct)

Except in your case, you have circularly picked a clock you like, found some in the past which agree with you, and therefore conclude it is "correct". Perhaps this is another case where one of your analogies has broken down again.

In my example, it doesn't matter whether or not the atomic clock is correct. What matters is that it can be a consistent measure of time used to compare the other clocks. In my example, the other clocks would be considered the source of the "correct" time--only, which ones? The atomic clock would accurately compare the differences, don't you think?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

"In my example, it doesn't matter whether or not the atomic clock is correct."

I'd agree with that statement based upon how it relates (or doesn't) to the Bible versions.

No matter how many different words you use, you are still saying, more is better.

Perhaps you haven't understood the argument.

Perhaps you are one who would prefer to believe the time on the one clock that was different, and ignore the 19 clocks which all read the same.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

In the clock analogy, it is valid to use the atomic clock as a reference point due to its precision. By comparing the other clocks to it, we can come to a solid conclusion regarding which clocks are common.

However, there is insufficient data to conclude which clocks are correct. To paraphrase a previous comment, precision != accuracy.

Certainly it is possible to argue that the common ones are more likely to be correct. In fact, one such an argument has led me to trust the MT more than the NU. But this argument, which is essentially based on consensus, is not definitive.

Consider the case for the Sabbath today. If we were to go by the same argument, we would keep Sunday. If we went back 400 years, we would keep Sunday. But we do not go by consensus. We go all the way back to the source to find the truth. The farther we go back, and the closer to the origin, we find that Sunday is a relatively new standard. Hence, we keep Saturday.

This is the argument in favor of the NU manuscripts. Supporters argue that these manuscripts are older, and therefore closer to the originals. That is the fundamental pillar on which supporters stand. To reject these, a reason must be given to doubt their credibility.

Perhaps we are looking at this from different angles. From my angle, I would disagree with this part. The majority of calendars all say Sunday is the first day and Saturday is the seventh. The minority of calendars say Sunday is the seventh. True, the majority observe Sunday, but from what authority? Not from the "majority calendar." Should we accept the "minority calendar" because the majority of people follow it?

It is exactly the same with the Bible manuscripts. The "majority text" has the minority following today. The majority of people follow the minority text--and they try to say it is because it is older. I disagree with their assessment, however.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

If the governments of the various nations got together and decided to standardize the calendar, with Sunday as the seventh day, would that make Sunday the correct Sabbath because all calendars say so?

The point is that the majority can be changed. Truth is always the same, but the minority can become the majority by a host of methods. It is not safe to trust something simply because it is in the majority.

Can the majority change history? Even if they could, it wouldn't make it right. That is certainly what they are trying to do. The majority today are seeking out the minority texts, and choosing them to be their new standard--claiming that they are the more ancient manuscripts. Their claim is flawed, of course, but it is never easy to prove one way or another, and they know that.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Here's the crux: If the majority is in agreement, does history matter?

Green,

What asygo said,
what asygo said,
and what asygo said.

Yes, what was that, according to you?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

He said it better than I could. Read what he said. Especially what I was trying to say:
precision != accuracy

I guess I never said those two were equal.

Let's hope you never have to figure out the difference between two measuring systems, say "metric" vs "standard." You would not be able to find an "accurate" measure, I'm afraid, to compare them by.

As Arnold said (and he was agreeing with my usage in the analogy): "In the clock analogy, it is valid to use the atomic clock as a reference point due to its precision. By comparing the other clocks to it, we can come to a solid conclusion regarding which clocks are common."

I would go so far as to say the atomic clock does more than establish commonality. It would also establish "relationship." If the times are unequal, by what percentage do they differ? The atomic clock could accurately give us this data.

I never once said in my analogy that the atomic clock was the standard of time. I think you may have mistaken what the atomic clock represented. It simply represented a tool by which to compare other clocks.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

As our pastor has been doing a series on Bible manuscripts and is doing one on the history of English Bible versions prior and up to the KJV, I guess I need to read through this thread in preparation to his presentation on the KJV and after.

My clock analogy seems to have been an epic fail. I should have posted only this portion, as it suffices (I think) to summarize what I was trying to say.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I will this topic as it relates to some others currently under discussion.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I would be more general and say I know of none of your analogies which are not epic failures.

You're still insisting more is better. The majority of North Americans are obese. Does that mean obesity is the correct weight?

precision != accuracy

I notice you said that the text was 'edited and revised'. Why?
To make it more 'neutral'? Or more to their liking?

That is a very important fact.

However, if we are talking about clocks or wallpaper, I would put greater weight on the "majority vote." But in matters of theology, the majority has no vote; only God's vote counts. Our job is to find out what that is, and it is often found in the minority opinion.

Are we calling scriptures or their manuscripts "opinion?"

I agree in terms of human interpretations that the majority is usually wrong. However, we are not talking here about interpretations. We are talking about manuscripts.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

So why don't we go with the correct interpretation rather than with the majority vote then?

Isn't one of the main arguments the idea that Westcott and Hort inserted their own opinions in their manuscripts? The crux of the disagreement is that one man's manuscript is another man's opinion. How do you determine which is which? It cannot simply be by majority vote.

The Vaudois didn't have Westcott and Hort. They didn't have the Douay-Rheims. They had the "uncorrupted" truth. Their Bible was of the same lineage as the manuscripts of the Majority Text.

Mrs. White affirmed the lineage of the Waldensian Bible. We have inspiration to go on, not mere opinion or majority vote.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

And another one.


Is the "uncorrupted" truth referring to a specific Bible version or is it referring to uncorrupted truth? How many versions did they have at that time?

You waffle with "same lineage". If "uncorrupted" means a specific Bible they are using, you should only use it as they used it and not have any of the "corrupted" English words in it.

kland,

They had Bibles that came from uncorrupted manuscripts. The Bible you might prefer comes from corrupted manuscripts. This is not an English issue. It's a Hebrew/Greek issue, mostly Greek. You know this, I think.

Honestly, it doesn't matter to me whether the Vaudois had their Bibles in German, Bohemian, French or Latin--we are told they held uncorrupted truth. I believe it, do you? The King James Version comes from the same manuscripts as did their Bibles, and it was translated in opposition to the Catholic church--i.e. the Catholics had no power to influence it. The Catholic wish was to prevent the translation of the King James' Version entirely. They had tried to conquer England and restore Catholic rule there, but God had overruled.

The same purity of translation environment cannot be claimed for any of the modern Bibles. For example, the Thailand Bible Society boasts a 90% Catholic board membership. Would you like to know how many Catholics are on the American Bible Society or other Bible Societies around the world? Perhaps you could research it and find out for us. How many Catholics were involved in translating the NIV, the NASB, or the RV?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

IT DOESN'T MATTER

"It's not important," I hear them say,
If the Bible reads another way,
"It's not important," they like to think,
If the Word is pure, or has some stink,
"It's not important," some folk declare,
If some of the Bible's words aren't there,
"It's not important," they even claim,
If words get added in Jesus' name!
"It doesn't matter," they might protest,
"No translation could be all the best.
"It doesn't matter, whether God's law,
"Is changed a bit, or held in such awe--
"It's not important!"

"It's not important," they say anew,
When the modern Bibles line every pew,
"It doesn't matter," their message goes,
"If God's law's abolished by our foes."
They do not see how "small things" matter,
Not discerning how such can shatter
The grandest truths of Sacred Scripture--
It only takes a little mixture.
Satan loves to blend in his errors
With noble truths to hide their terrors.
Yet many people, unprotestant,
Repeat again "it's not important--
"IT DOESN'T MATTER."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Often a corrupted mind needs to find corruption elsewhere to divert the attention in a different direction.

While you are at it, try also to find out how many Seventh-day Adventist have had some influence on Bible translations.

What kind of sophistication does it take to distinguish between the disapproval of Ellen G White of Westcott and Hort through the Waldensian and the use of Ellen G White of a Bible where Westcott and Hort were prominent members of the editorial committee?

I don't have any problem with who translated the new Bibles. I only ask what have they translated them from?

I do. But you speak about the English words, often.

I do. But you seem to mean it to be something totally different than what Ellen White said.

Did the Catholics have those manuscripts?

What some people forget is that the translators of the KJB were under the order of the young king James to make sure their new translation would not be in opposition the the teachings of the Church of England, which was then still rather Catholic.

Does that ensure that the KJV is superior to anything else?

Yes, it was the best Bible available at that time, and it has bee used as a great instrument for the advancement of the kingdom for centuries. But in other parts of the world with different languages, different translation have been used for the same purpose.

Harold, the "Received Text" was the work of the Catholic Church. Does that guarantee it is "superior"?

Judge for yourself.

But what part of the "Catholic church" and what era?

The Christian church began as one unit, headquartered in Jerusalem. We just studied in our Sabbath School lesson today, that first "General Conference" of Acts 15 was held in Jerusalem.

Paul wrote: "For you brethren, become followers of the churches of God which in Judea are in Christ Jesus: for you also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews." 1 Thess. 2:14

Churches sprung up in Syria, and Asia Minor as well as Rome. Each had their "bishop". The Roman bishop was no greater than any other bishop.

It is the Jews that preserved the Old Testament, while the eastern churches carefully guarded and hand copied the letters of Paul and the gospels. These were very precious to them.

Gnosticism was a real problem for the church, corrupted manuscripts and pseudo letters and gospels become quite prevalent.

By the time Constantine became Emperor there were already three main versions!

1. There were the manuscripts carefully guarded by the eastern churches who earnestly sought to follow the apostolic faith.

2. There were the Gnostic altered manuscripts intermingling God's truth with Greek philosophy. Masterminded by Origen and edited by Eusebius.

3. There were Egyptian altered manuscripts.

Constantine wanted a "standard" bible. He preferred the edited version (#2 above). Constantine ordered fifty Greek Bibles from Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea.

The now popular Sinaitic MS was most likely one of these "corrected" manuscripts, as there is a note at the end of Ezra stating: "This Codex was compared with a very ancient exemplar which had been corrected by the hand of the holy martyr Pamphilus which exemplar contained at the end, the subscription in his own hand: 'Taken and corrected according to the Hexapla of Origen."
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol, IV, p. 86)

The Vaticanus and Sinaticus Manuscripts are remarkably similar. Both seem to come from Constantine's fifty.

So Constantine gave the Papacy the indorsed Eusebius-Origan Bible. The Roman Catholic Church translated it into Latin (Vulgate) which became the official "KEPT" bible of the Roman Catholic Church.

This Bible was different from the received text.
The received text contain more than 99% of all Greek MSS and 100% of the Hebrew manuscripts.

The Textus Receptus was the Bible of the early eastern churches -- the Syrian churches -- Later it was adopted as the official text of the Greek Catholic Church. It was the bible of the Waldensians. (It was NOT the work of the Roman Catholic Church)

Lies repeated by scholars are nonethemore true. There are many fallacies out there to catch us. Study the chapter in Great Controversy on the Waldenses/Vaudois, and the source of their truth and convictions.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Why don't you do that yourself? Who has made a statement that is contrary to what it says about the Waldenses in the Great Controversy?

As far as I recall you see already in the second century strong indications the bishop of Rome thought of himself as superior. Have you read 1 Clement and commentaries on that letter?

How did the meaning of the title "bishop" develop from the time of the apostles through the second and third centuries?

The author of the Textus Receptus was the Dutch Catholic scholar and humanist Desiderius Erasmus. He remained a Roman Catholic and refused to follow the reformers. Not all of his Textus Receptus is based on Greek manuscripts, but were his own translations of the Latin Bible into Greek.

It may be your idea that these translations were superior to any other Greek manuscripts, but that does not change the basic question that the Textus Receptus is the product of a Roman Catholic scholar who refused to follow the reformers fully by distancing himself from his Roman Catholic tradition.

Even then the great question is how certain sections of the King James Version were translated to conform with the set doctrines of the Anglo-Catholic Church of England, even breaking the original rules of translation.

Finally, why did Ellen White permit herself to quote from a Bible where Westcott and Hort were among the most prominent editors? No warnings given.

We have heard quite a bit on this forum of the important work on Bible manuscripts done by the Roman Catholic saint and Church Doctor number 2 Jerome already in the 4th and 5th century. (We are not speaking of the Jerome who was a friend of Martin Luther who lived a thousand years later.)

1. Erasmus may have used some of the manuscripts prepared by St. Jerome, but did he follow him fully? It has been discovered that he did not.

2. How can you prove the superiority of a final text because part of it is based on what you consider the most uncorrupted text, when even that has been changed in the final edition?

This is true, Pastor Johann.


From Wiki:

You have referred to the Great Controversy, Green. Yes, Ellen White was glad that Erasmus had produced a Greek manuscript of the New Testament, but how does she describe the person who produced it?





Did she ever say his Greek manuscript, the Textus Receptus, was superior to any other?

Thank you for your comment, Rosangela.

The question isn't "should we ONLY use the King James Bible"?
Rather the question for me, is which Bible is the most likely to be accurate.

When it comes to deeper Bible Study I definitely prefer the King James Version. Other versions often add clarity and I have quite an assortment of different versions, yet often they also "water down" some truths, so my basic Bible is the King James Version.


For Ellen White, the King James Bible was also her basic Bible. Even after the new versions came out, she continued to use the KJV for most of her references. Yes, occasionally she would use a more modern version that added clarity to the thought, but they were NEVER her basic reference Bible.

You have.

I will answer your questions regarding Erasmus in the next post, where I will show your idea of him to be invalid. Furthermore, it will show that your ideas for "his" translation are invalid. Relative, however, to your final question, let me offer the following.

Mrs. White quoted from a great many men and women past and present to her time. Among them are D'Aubigne, the primary source for much of the book Great Controversy. He was an historian, not an Adventist. Did she ever offer a warning against reading D'Aubigne? Contrariwise, does she declare his writings to be inspired?

The absence of such comments from her pen do not mean that whatever she did not write must certainly be true or false. It simply means she offered no counsel on that point. Just because Mrs. White did not offer warnings against every error that may exist does not mean that other errors against which she did not warn do not exist. Anyone with a reasonable mind would recognize this.

The fact that even after the new Bible versions had begun to emerge during her time and yet she did not switch wholeheartedly to their usage speaks volumes. She certainly could have. She could have used the new versions for 99% of her textual references instead of the other way around. Why did she still rely on the King James so heavily, as Dedication has aptly pointed out?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This post of yours shows how you have cherry-picked details that appear to support your side, when in reality, your position is wholly unsupported, as other passages bring out. You have, I believe, willfully misrepresented the situation. You, above all others here, having been a pastor of many years and having had much opportunity to study into these matters, are accountable to God for the manner in which you present the truth. If you intentionally mislead others, God will take this into account. If this has not been your intention, you are still accountable for that which you should have known. And you should have known what I will share here. There are only ten (10) statements on the EGW CD-ROM from Mrs. White's writings that speak of Erasmus. You picked out the only two that are "borderline" negative toward him. Even they are not clear enough to support your position well. Yet you ignored the majority of her statements which are written far more favorably toward Erasmus AND his collection of the scriptures.

Your willful ignorance of Mrs. White's true stance relative to Erasmus and your portrayal of it is dishonest to yourself and to God's prophet.

You asked this: "how does she describe the person who produced it?" You then proceeded to give us cherry-picked statements that put him in a less favorable light than how Mrs. White truly answers this question herself. In this, you have erred. This careless regard for the Spirit of Prophecy has been customary with you, and it has compromised your entire view on this subject, not to mention other theologies as well. I urge you to be honest with yourself and with others, knowing that we shall all stand at the bar of God to face judgment one day soon, and every idle word will be brought to account before Him.

Now, for the fuller view of Erasmus given us by Mrs. White:



Those statements, taken together, provide us with the following endorsements of Erasmus by Mrs. White:

1) He presented the Word of God in its original tongue.
2) He had corrected errors of former versions in it.
3) The sense (meaning) was more clearly rendered in it.
4) "It led many among the educated classes to a better knowledge of the truth."
5) It "gave a new impetus to the work of reform."
6) Erasmus was on the side of the reformers.

These points you misrepresented to us. You have claimed this work was done by "the Catholic Church." It was not. It was done by a Catholic individual who, like Luther, sympathized with those who opposed its teachings and traditions. These scriptures were not handled by official Catholic channels, committees, or edicts. This was NOT a work of "the Catholic church."

To further highlight the fact that Erasmus was at heart among the reformers, I will quote a snippet to be found online which notes that while Erasmus and Luther did not agree in every particular, they were largely in agreement.



You did know all of this, right? Why, then, have you rendered an inaccurate representation of these things?

May God open the eyes of each reader here to discern between truth and falsehood, and between light and darkness.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green, throughout these discussions you have been presenting a very extreme view of the King James Version as if that is the only Bible that contains the truth, and that all modern versions are a false presentation of the Bible.

In an attempt to get you to see it from a more balanced perspective, like I believe your will find in the writings of Ellen White, I have collected some examples to show that your extreme view is not the only true picture of reality.

Yes, the work of Erasmus was important and useful, but I still believe that the Lord does not want us to understand the work he did, nor the work of the translators if the KJV - are the only people that have ever done a useful work on behalf the Bible, nor that their work is perfect.

In this area I have presented an accurate representation of these things - as a counterattack to your unbalanced presentation.

Although English is quite common in many countries in Europe, people do not understand the KJV English, and they need the Bible in their own language, neither Latin nor English. They need to be touched by the Holy Spirit in their own language.

The way you present these thing is like an attack on the Bible itself.

Your extremism is a cruelty to those people and not at all in the Spirit of the work of Ellen G White.

In this area you are totally blind to truth and falsehood, and you need to be endowed with a heavenly vision.

So I urge you to repent before it is too late, before the Holy Spirit is withdrawn from this earth. Let your heart and mind be subdued by the Love of Jesus Christ and His Word.

Our national Bible Society presented some of the above information about the KJV to its members in connection with the 400th anniversary of the KJV, so this is general knowledge.

Do you support the ordination of women?

...
..

Johann,

I'm not a KJVO (King James Version Only) individual. Far from it. I have enjoyed reading the Bible in multiple other languages, for I am linguistically capable of doing such. However, only the Spanish translations, of those other languages, may have come from the Majority Text. I am not against modern translations. I am against the use of the following corrupt codices in the translation process: codex alexandrinus, codex vaticanus, codex sinaiticus, and their derivatives. I also oppose the Septuagint as having been a poor-quality, error-filled translation.

I am well aware that some of the errors have crept into even the KJV translation. But, as you should be aware, far more of them have entered the modern translations which have selected these corrupted codices as their primary source.

What you say about me being an extremist is not true. I have learned the truth, and the truth is liberating and moderating. However, moderation does not mean I must go out and smoke a little, drink a little, party a little, in order to be more like society and have my message accepted by them. It is not being an extremist to avoid these evils. Nor is it being an extremist to shun the errors of the modern Bibles which have elevated the corrupted manuscripts to a level of divine authority.

I firmly believe that if Mrs. White were alive today, she would have some answers for us on this topic. I also firmly believe that God has not given us the answers through such plain prophetic utterance because God expects us to use our God-given intellect to study and to learn these truths for ourselves.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Hm - are you saying Johann does not have a reasonable mind? I think so! I don't suppose you'd like to moderate yourself now, would you?

Why did She rely on the KJV? She grew up with the KJV. Probably memorized large portions. The speak volumes to the fact that that is the version she knew best.

Borderline??? Really?

My main study Bible is the KJV. But I have many other translations that I use, often refering to them to try to understand what is really being said. Yes, EGW used the KJV, She even pointed out errors in the KJV. She also used other versions, and never gave a warning about them. Today, in the Adventist world, the most outspoken evangelist I know that is rabidly pro-KJV, is Walter Veith. But Walter will tell you that his conversion out of Catholicism was by reading the NIV. And the Bible he preaches out of is the NKJV. That speaks volume.

Green, you have used an interesting term, "cherry picking quotations". In these discussions you have made a reference to a publication which presents the same kind of extreme views as you have on the KJV.

Although written by a former SDA Bible teacher our own publishing houses refused to publish his views, as far as I could determine. They were published by a non-SDA under a different identity, and by an independent branch of SDA. It so happens that while serving in the ministry of the SDA church we received a number of warnings against that particular branch or independent ministry, both verbally and in writing. We received samples of their falsehood and deceit, and to use your expression, their cherry picking way of quoting the writings of Ellen G White.

I could not help being reminded of this when you were quoting from that book, and then now when you used this expression. It was the father of the present president of the General Conference who served at that time.

I give reasons for why the KJV is superior and I hear ad hominem remarks in return. To me, this indicates the level of interest in facts and accuracy that tends to become the norm with those who have accepted inaccurate Bible versions.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

You have already presented most of your arguments over at ClubAdventist where someone has refuted them. Just go over there and read for yourself.mI have not seen you presenting any more valid ones here.

Matthew 5:22 should be a reason to stick to the KJV. Read it, then read a "new" translation. See who is saved and who is lost.

Personal opinion does not mean facts.

Green, you've never addressed why "truth" as Ellen White uses it in relation to the Waldenses means "the KJV".


In speaking of the "United Brethren" who were the remainders to the truth from the Bohemian Hussites who did not compromise with Rome, she says:
Do you intend this to mean that the Bohemians had the KJV and were glad to find others, including the Waldenses, who also had the KJV?

So you didn't read it in more translations. that isn't my problem. All I can say is 'Thank God" for the KJV. Otherwise, NO one would make it to Heaven.

Matthew 5:22

(ABP) But I say to you, that all provoking to anger his brother, in vain, shall be liable to the judgment. And who ever should say to his brother, Worthless! shall be liable to the sanhedrin. And who ever should say O moron! shall be liable for the Gehenna of fire.

(ABP+) But IG1473 G1161 sayG3004 to you,G1473 thatG3754 allG3956 G3588 provoking to angerG3710 G3588 his brother,G80 G1473 in vain,G1500 shall be liableG1777 G1510.8.3 to theG3588 judgment.G2920 And whoG3739 G1161 everG302 should sayG2036 to G3588 his brother,G80 G1473 Worthless!G4469 shall be liableG1777 G1510.8.3 to theG3588 sanhedrin.G4892 And whoG3739 G1161 everG302 should sayG2036 O moron!G3474 shall be liableG1777 G1510.8.3 forG1519 theG3588 GehennaG1067 G3588 of fire.G4442

(ACV) But I say to you, that every man who is angry at his brother without cause will be liable to the judgment, and whoever speaks an insult to his brother will be liable to the council, and whoever says, Foolish man, will be liable to

(AKJV) But I say to you, That whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whoever shall say, You fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

(AKJV+) ButG1161 IG1473 sayG3004 to you,G5213 ThatG3754 whoeverG3956 is angryG3710 with hisG848 brotherG80 without a causeG1500 shall beG2071 in dangerG1777 of theG3588 judgment:G2920 andG1161 whoeverG3739 G302 shall sayG2036 to hisG848 brother,G80 Raca,G4469 shall beG2071 in dangerG1777 of theG3588 council:G4892 butG1161 whoeverG3739 G302 shall say,G2036 You fool,G3474 shall beG2071 in dangerG1777 ofG1519 hellG1067 fire.G4442

(ANT) I but say [to] you* for Every The [Man] Being Enraged [with] the brother [of] him Obligated will be [to] the judgment Who but ever may say [to] the brother [of] him raka Obligated will be [to] the council Who but ever may say [Man] Foolish Obligated will be to the hell [of] the fire

(ANT+) IG1473 butG1161 sayG3004 [to] you*G5213 forG3754 EveryG3956 TheG3588 [Man] Being EnragedG3710 [with] theG3588 brotherG80 [of] himG846 ObligatedG1777 will beG2071 [to] theG3588 judgmentG2920 WhoG3739 butG1161 everG302 may sayG2036 [to] theG3588 brotherG80 [of] himG846 rakaG4469 ObligatedG1777 will beG2071 [to] theG3588 councilG4892 WhoG3739 butG1161 everG302 may sayG2036 [Man] FoolishG3474 ObligatedG1777 will beG2071 toG1519 theG3588 hellG1067 [of] theG3588 fireG4442

(ASV) but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire.

(BBE) But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be in danger of being judged; and he who says to his brother, Raca, will be in danger from the Sanhedrin; and whoever says, You foolish one, will be in danger of the hell of fire.

(CEV) But I promise you that if you are angry with someone, you will have to stand trial. If you call someone a fool, you will be taken to court. And if you say that someone is worthless, you will be in danger of the fires of hell.

(CJB) But I tell you that anyone who nurses anger against his brother will be subject to judgment; that whoever calls his brother, 'You good-for-nothing!' will be brought before the Sanhedrin; that whoever says, 'Fool!' incurs the penalty of burning in the fire of Gei-Hinnom!

(CNT) But I myself-am-saying to-YOU, that every (one), the (one) being-wroth with his brother at-random, will-be liable in-the judgement: but whosoever might-say to his brother, Numbskull, he-will-be liable to-the council: but whosoever might-say, Stupid, he-will-be liable with-reference-to the Gehenna of-the fire.

(Darby) But *I* say unto you, that every one that is lightly angry with his brother shall be subject to the judgment; but whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be subject to be called before the sanhedrim; but whosoever shall say, Fool, shall be subject to the penalty of the hell of fire.

(DRB) But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

(EMTV) But I say to you that whoever gets angry with his brother without cause will be liable to the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, 'Empty-head!' will be liable to the council. But whoever says, ' fool!' will be liable to the fiery hell.

(ESV) But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire.

(FBV) But I tell you, anyone who is angry with his brother will be condemned as guilty. Whoever calls his brother an idiot has to answer to the council*, and whoever insults people is liable to the fire of judgment*.”


(Fenton) But I tell you, that every man quarrelling with his brother will be liable to punishment; and if he should call his brother 'Scoundrel,' he will be liable to the High Court of Justice ; and whoever shall call his brother ' Rebel,' will be liable to the branding by fire.

(GNB) But now I tell you: if you are angry with your brother you will be brought to trial, if you call your brother 'You good-for-nothing!' you will be brought before the Council, and if you call your brother a worthless fool you will be in danger of going to the fire of hell.

(GSNT) But I tell you that anyone who gets angry with his brother will have to answer to the court, and anyone who speaks contemptuously to his brother will have to answer to the great council, and anyone who says to his brother 'You cursed fool!' will have to answer for it in the fiery pit!

(GW) But I can guarantee that whoever is angry with another believer will answer for it in court. Whoever calls another believer an insulting name will answer for it in the highest court. Whoever calls another believer a fool will answer for it in hellfire.

(HRB) But I say to you that anyone who provokes to anger his brother without cause, is condemned to judgment and anyone who should say to his brother, I spit on you is condemned to the assembly, and anyone who should say, you are a coward, is condemned to the Gehenna of fire.

(ISV) But I say to you, anyone who is angry with his brother without a cause will be subject to punishment. And whoever says to his brother 'Raka!' will be subject to the Council. And whoever says 'You fool!' will be subject to hell fire.

(JBP+4P) But I say to you that anyone who is angry with his brother must stand his trial; anyone who contemptuously calls his brother a fool must face the supreme court; and anyone who looks on his brother as a lost soul is himself heading straight for the fire of destruction.

(JBP-NT) But I say to you that anyone who is angry with his brother must stand his trial; anyone who contemptuously calls his brother a fool must face the supreme court; and anyone who looks on his brother as a lost soul is himself heading straight for the fire of destruction.

(KJ3) But I say to you, Everyone who is angry with his brother without cause shall be liable to the Judgment. And whoever says to his brother, Raca, shall be liable to the sanhedrin; but whoever says, Fool! shall be liable to be thrown into the fire of Hell.

(KJV) But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

(KJV+TVM) ButG1161 IG1473 sayG3004 [G5719] unto youG5213, ThatG3754 whosoeverG3956 is angryG3710 [G5746] with hisG846 brotherG80 without a causeG1500 shall beG2071 [G5704] in dangerG1777 of the judgmentG2920: andG1161 whosoeverG3739 G302 shall sayG2036 [G5632] to hisG846 brotherG80, RacaG4469, shall beG2071 [G5704] in dangerG1777 of the councilG4892: butG1161 whosoeverG3739 G302 shall sayG2036 [G5632], Thou foolG3474, shall beG2071 [G5704] in dangerG1777 ofG1519 hellG1067 fireG4442.

(KJV+) ButG1161 IG1473 sayG3004 unto you,G5213 ThatG3754 whosoeverG3956 is angryG3710 with hisG848 brotherG80 without a causeG1500 shall beG2071 in dangerG1777 of theG3588 judgment:G2920 andG1161 whosoeverG3739 G302 shall sayG2036 to hisG848 brother,G80 Raca,G4469 shall beG2071 in dangerG1777 of theG3588 council:G4892 butG1161 whosoeverG3739 G302 shall say,G2036 Thou fool,G3474 shall beG2071 in dangerG1777 ofG1519 hellG1067 fire.G4442

(KJV*) But I sayG3004 unto you, That whosoever-G3956G3588 is angryG3710 with his brotherG80 withoutG1500 a causeG1500 shall be in dangerG1777 of the judgment:G2920 and whosoever-G3739G302 shall sayG2036 to his brother,G80 Raca,G4469 shall be in dangerG1777 of the council:G4892 but whosoever-G3739G302 shall say,G2036 Thou fool,G3474 shall be in dangerG1777 of hellG1067 fire.G4442

(Lamsa) But I say to you, that whoever becomes angry with his brother for no reason, is guilty before the court: and whoever should say to his brother, Raca (which means, I spit on you) is guilty before the congregation; and whoever says to his brother, you are a nurse maid, is condemned to hell fire.

(LBLA) Pero yo os digo que todo aquel que esté enojado con su hermano será culpable ante la corte; y cualquiera que diga: "Raca" a su hermano, será culpable delante de la corte suprema; y cualquiera que diga: "Idiota", será reo del infierno de fuego.

(LEB.) But I say to you that everyone who is angry at his brother will be subject to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Stupid fool!’ will be subject to the council, and whoever says, ‘Obstinate fool!’ will be subject to fiery hell.

(LEB (+)) But I say to you that everyone who is angry at his brother will be subject to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Stupid fool!’ [Greek “Raca,” a term of verbal abuse involving lack of intelligence] will be subject to the council, and whoever says, ‘Obstinate fool!’ [Perhaps with the idea of obstinate, godless foolishness; some take the word to be a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew word for “rebel” ( Deut 21:18, 20)] will be subject to fiery hell.

(LITV) But I say to you, Everyone who is angry with his brother without cause shall be liable to the Judgment. And whoever says to his brother, Raca, shall be liable to the sanhedrin; but whoever says, Fool! shall be liable to be thrown into the fire of Hell.

(LXX-BYZ) egoG1473 P-1NS deG1161 CONJ legoG3004 V-PAI-1S uminG4771 P-2DP otiG3754 CONJ pasG3956 A-NSM oG3588 T-NSM orgizomenosG3710 V-PPP-NSM toG3588 T-DSM adelphoG80 N-DSM autouG846 P-GSM eikeG1500 ADV enochosG1777 A-NSM estaiG1510 V-FDI-3S teG3588 T-DSF kriseiG2920 N-DSF osG3739 R-NSM dG1161 CONJ anG302 PRT eipeG3004 V-2AAS-3S toG3588 T-DSM adelphoG80 N-DSM autouG846 P-GSM rakaG4469 ARAM enochosG1777 A-NSM estaiG1510 V-FDI-3S toG3588 T-DSN sunedrioG4892 N-DSN osG3739 R-NSM dG1161 CONJ anG302 PRT eipeG3004 V-2AAS-3S moreG3474 A-VSM enochosG1777 A-NSM estaiG1510 V-FDI-3S eisG1519 PREP tenG3588 T-ASF geennanG1067 N-ASF touG3588 T-GSN purosG4442 N-GSN

(MKJV) But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be liable to the judgment. And whoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be liable to the sanhedrin; but whoever shall say, Fool! shall be liable to be thrown into the fire of hell.

(MLV) But I say to you* that everyone who is angry with his brother without just cause will be liable to the judgment, and whoever says to his brother, <F>You, empty-head, will be liable to the council, and whoever says, <F>You fool, will be liable to the hell of fire.

(MSG) I'm telling you that anyone who is so much as angry with a brother or sister is guilty of murder. Carelessly call a brother 'idiot!' and you just might find yourself hauled into court. Thoughtlessly yell 'stupid!' at a sister and you are on the brink of hellfire. The simple moral fact is that words kill.

(NAS77) "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.

(NASB) "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.

(NASB+) "But I sayG3004 to you that everyoneG3956 who is angryG3710 with his brotherG80 shall be N1guiltyG1777 before R1the courtG2920; and whoeverG3739 G302 saysG3004 to his brotherG80, 'N2You good-for-nothingG4469,' shall be N1guiltyG1777 before N3 R2the supremeG4892 courtG4892; and whoeverG3739 G302 saysG3004, 'You foolG3474,' shall be N1guiltyG1777 enough to go into the N4 R3fieryG4442 hellG1067.

(NET.) But I say to you that anyone who is angry with a brother will be subjected to judgment. And whoever insults a brother will be brought before the council, and whoever says 'Fool' will be sent to fiery hell.

(NET) But I say to you that anyone who is angry with a brother26 will be subjected to judgment. And whoever insults27 a brother will be brought before28 the council,29 and whoever says 'Fool'30 will be sent31 to fiery hell.32

(NCV) But I tell you, if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be judged. If you say bad things to a brother or sister, you will be judged by the council. And if you call someone a fool, you will be in danger of the fire of hell.

(NIrV) But here is what I tell you. Do not be angry with your brother. Anyone who is angry with his brother will be judged. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' must stand trial in the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire in hell.

(NIV) But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

(NIV84) But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

(NKJV) But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, 'Raca!' shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire.

(NLT) But I say, if you are even angry with someone [without cause], you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot, you are in danger of being brought before the court. And if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell.

(NRSV) But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, 'You fool,' you will be liable to the hell of fire.

(NWT) However, I say to YOU that everyone who continues wrathful with his brother will be accountable to the court of justice; but whoever addresses his brother with an unspeakable word of contempt will be accountable to the Supreme Court; whereas whoever says, 'You despicable fool!' will be liable to the fiery Ge·hen'na.

(RSV) But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire.

(RSVA) But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire.

(RV) but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire.

(RV1960) Pero yo os digo que cualquiera que se enoje contra su hermano, será culpable de juicio; y cualquiera que diga: Necio, a su hermano, será culpable ante el concilio; y cualquiera que le diga: Fatuo, quedará expuesto al infierno de fuego.

(SENT) But I say to you that anyone who’s furious at a fellow human being will face judgment. Also, anyone that says “Fool!” will face the High Court.s And anyone who says, “Stupid!” will face the fire of Gehenna.t

(SRV) Mas yo os digo, que cualquiera que se enojare locamente con su hermano, será culpado del juicio; y cualquiera que dijere á su hermano, Raca, será culpado del concejo; y cualquiera que dijere, Fatuo, será culpado del infierno del fuego.

(TCW) But I’m telling you that even if you don’t kill, but you hate someone so much that if you had the opportunity you would kill him, you’ll be held responsible by the heavenly court the same as if you had committed murder. To go a step further, if you treat someone with contempt because you think you’re better than he is, you’re in danger of losing eternal life.

(LEB) But I say to you that everyone who is angry at his brother will be subject to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Stupid fool!’ [Greek “Raca,” a term of verbal abuse involving lack of intelligence] will be subject to the council, and whoever says, ‘Obstinate fool!’ [Perhaps with the idea of obstinate, godless foolishness; some take the word to be a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew word for “rebel” (Deut 21:18, 20)] will be subject to fiery hell.

(TNIV) But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

(The Scriptures 1998+) “But I say to you that whoever is wroth with his brother without a cause shall be liable to judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raka!’ shall be liable to the Sanhedrin. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to fire of Gehenna.

(WEBBE.) But I tell you, that everyone who is angry with his brother without a cause will be in danger of the judgement; and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ will be in danger of the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of Gehenna.

(WEBBE) But I tell you, that everyone who is angry with his brother without a cause will be in danger of the judgement; and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ will be in danger of the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of Gehenna.

(YLT) but I--I say to you, that every one who is angry at his brother without cause, shall be in danger of the judgment, and whoever may say to his brother, Empty fellow! shall be in danger of the sanhedrim, and whoever may say, Rebel! shall be in danger of the gehenna of the fire.

Note - of the references above, 2 are by Adventists. One is a translation, the other a paraphrase, the FBV and TCW.

You couold have just agreed

That, as opposed to opinion, carries weight. However, I find the arguments of Dean Burgon for the Textus Receptus to be somewhat compelling.

The Waldensian Bible was translated into many different languages, not only the King James Version in English.

If Ellen White stated that they only used the Textus Receptus, then I missed it. Where was that?

Just because you haven't accepted or understood my position hardly means I have not expressed it. I most certainly have expressed this here. Again, my position is simply this: The Waldensian Bible came from the Majority Text. So did the KJV. No, the Waldensians did not read from the KJV. But the truth which they had was the uncorrupted truth--their Bibles were of the line of manuscripts that had not been altered by the Catholic scribes and/or others.



I take issue with your constant misrepresentation of my position. No, they did NOT have the KJV!!!! They had the Majority-Text-based Bible.

For your information, the KJV is also a Majority-Text-based Bible. And, for your additional information, the modern Bibles are NOT--but are based on a few outlying manuscripts that have been "corrupted." Even the Catholics themselves will tell you those manuscripts were "corrupted." Don't believe me? Research their documentation for yourself. (I have already posted it more than once here, but you seem to never notice such things.)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Johann,

The "Textus Receptus" is a subset of manuscripts belonging to the Majority Text. The Waldensians very probably did not have the "Textus Receptus." Their Bibles come from the Majority Text, however, which is of the same lineage. The term "Textus Receptus" did not evolve until decades after the KJV was published. It essentially is used to speak of the texts used in translation of the KJV. However, the KJV translators did not have ALL of the Majority Text manuscripts at their disposal. They used what they had.

However, the modern translations eschew those manuscripts entirely, preferring a minority of outlying manuscripts that were corrupted, altered, edited, and finally compiled by the likes of Westcott and Hort who glorified them as being "more ancient" and therefore "more original." In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. In order to get scholars to agree, however, I believe that they made some concessions, and that in some places their text has seen updates from some of the true manuscripts that the KJV translators did not have. This lends credence and "scholarship" to Westcott and Hort and/or the Nestle/Aland compilations.

One needs only to look at the degradations of the truth brought in by these modern translations to see where this line of manuscripts takes us, however.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Based on?

Actually I did, hence my comment. They all said the same. And then APL listed many. All the same. Only it's your opinion they say differently.

Green, you've never addressed why "truth" as Ellen White uses it in relation to the Waldenses means "the KJV" "the Majority Text".

I believe that's another one.

Might want to check that on him.
...

All one needs to do is find just one modern translation which doesn't entirely "eschew" those manuscripts.

Looking carefully at the above one gets a broader picture on the MSS used to translate the Bible than has been represented by some.

The above cited book is a 308 page book that contains articles by a number of people such as F. F. Bruce, Carl F. H. Henry and other well-known conservative theologians. I recommend it.

All you need to do, kland, is understand the true meaning of "eschew." It is "to deliberately avoid using." This does not mean they manage to avoid using those manuscripts in every case, especially where their manuscripts may not have a text that they choose to include. But they avoid the Majority Text wherever possible. That is the essence of "eschew."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Oh wow, wow, wow.

So we have: Eschew means to deliberately avoid using except when they use them.

No wonder we also get things such as: God is not a destroyer because He is a destroyer.

wow.

Thanks for the compliment. In England it is an honor being appointed as Reader ad hominem! by a university.

Come on, the many manuscripts attest to the accuracy of the Majority Text/Textus Receptus you know that is what Ellen White was referring to, as I have already shown the connection to the Waldensian Bible. Dont let yourself fall into cognitive dissonance as you know that the new corrupted versions of the Bible did not come out till late 1800s and the earliest witnesses can be shown were not the Alexandrian codices, or the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus these versions are based on.

You completely ignore the final results in you eagerness to protect the integrity of the Greek text:

I am not claiming any Bible is perfect, but at least the ones of the Majority Text were done with careful and good intent with great integrity for a holy work, which cannot be said for those of the Minority Text at any level.

The headline here refers to the end results where you only pick samples that support you views while you ignore what was presented here. Is that being fair in your evaluation?

Johann,

Your citation makes no mention of what "fourteen changes" were made. You have only added questions to the mix here, not answers. As one who works with other translators, I can attest to the fact that every translator tends to view his or her own work as superior to that of other translators. It's just part of the nature of the work.

I have two dear friends, for example, who are involved with translating the writings of Mrs. White. Both are longtime Adventists, and both are good translators who have dedicated themselves to the work. Some years back, they each sent a copy of some of their translations to the other for editing/final check. Instead of validating each other, however, they each ended up nearly completely retranslating the other's work--putting red ink almost everywhere on it! It may easily be said that translators have as many ways of translating as there are personalities--we each have our own way of saying things.

I think it quite possible that those "fourteen changes" were of a similar nature. Even if they were something more unfaithful to the text, they could never match the errors of the modern versions which have come in from corrupted manuscripts.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

If you had taken time to read the whole text you would have known exactly what was referred to. Your story of your friends hardly applies here.

Johann,

I've read your posts. I don't see anywhere in them that identifies the changes. Only a categorical "topic" for them seems to be supplied. Help me here...am I missing something?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Yes, definitely. Why should this topic be so blurred to you?

That's another blurry sort of response, I suppose. Please let us all know what the fourteen changes were so that we can evaluate them.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

What capacity do you have to evaluate them when you have seen nothing yet?

Writing in Signs of the Times, June 24, 1889, Ellen White shared an intimate moment from her early years:



Ellen’s brother was not the last to object to her preaching. After speaking in a tiny Northern California town in 1880, she shared in a letter to her husband, James, some backstage information:



"Elder Haskell made it all plain before the people." What did he make plain before the people? Ellen White does not give the details, but she expects normal people to deduct that from the story itself. Is that not plain?

We are not dealing with a mental game for fun where only magic words from a non cherry picking quote of yours count and give you the needed points to win the game.

What does this say about how Ellen dealt with those who were using the words of the KJV against her? The same words that so many are still using. . .

Do you see no similarity to what the Puritans (Waldenses) and Baptist had to say about certain wording in the King James Version? How many magic words does it take?

And yet the Reformation came about as the Reformers came into contact with text from the Waldenses Bibles, why couldnt they see it in the Catholic versions.......????

Why do you ask this question here? Are we not dealing with the "superior" KJV?

It so happens that Martin Luther saw the light as he discovered an old Roman Catholic Bible in the attic of his Augustinian monastery. Here is what one auther saya about it:



Later Luther translated the Bible into German which was published in 1534, 76 years before the KJV

According to the above, Johann, Erasmus' text had come out a year before Luther nailed his theses to the door. Your quote of an uninspired source is bested by this inspired one. Not only had the text already come out, but she says many of the educated class, which would have included the scholarly Luther, were enlightened by it.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green: Your citation "GC88 245.1" leads me to think that you are citing the 1888 edition of The Great Controversy. I wonder why, if I am correct, you are not citing a more recent version which is what most people have. Most do not have a copy of the 1888 edition.

Just as I was going to answer this our president called and asked me - on a short notice - to have both a general lesson study - on revival - and a sermon tomorrow. . . Just a few hours to prepare.

Green, perhaps you'd in the meantime skip the external and deal with the real issue,

Johann,

The real issue is addressed in that Ellen White quote. The material that later went into the KJV was that which Erasmus compiled. Ellen White speaks well of it.

Gregory,

I was simply lazy to click through all the quotes for the regular GC (1911) edition. Almost always, the paragraphs will be identical anyhow, save for pagination.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

In this case they are identical.

Green: Right or wrong, people sometines question your useage of quoted material. When a current edition is available that people can check, it is much easier for one to check it out. When an edition is cited that is generally not available to most people it becomes hard for them to check it out.

In the event that there are changes, which is sometimes true, those changes can, in my opinon, be of great interest/value.

Gregory, and anyone else here on this forum: the latest and most up-to-date version of the Ellen White CD, containing all of her published materials, biographical materials, words of the pioneers, the King James Version Bible, Webster's 1828 Dictionary, and more is available at your local Adventist Book Center (ABC) for twenty dollars in both Mac and Windows formats.

It is truly a blessing to have these materials at hand, and to be able to easily find familiar statements in them via the search function.

I do often click past the compilation materials until I find the statement in an original work. But the GC 1888 is an original, and it is nearly the same as the GC 1911 edition in most cases.

God bless,

Green Cochoa.

And anyone who can access this site can also access the EGW writings online.

Yes, I have the CD And I also access on-line.

When I want to dig deep and check out the Hebrew and Greek, I like www.blueletterbible.org.

It is good that everyone here has easy access to the Bible and SOP. Now we don't have to rely on GC or anyone else to verify himself. We can all search the scriptures and SOP for ourselves to see if these things are so.

As we say in the Islands, 'same dog, puppy',...

Added that one to my favorites..

For that to be true, one would need to show that Catholic versions were available and contributed nothing to the reformation. Can you?

Is it because Reformers and the public came into contact with a specific version of the Bible or is it because they came in contact with the Bible?

Martin Luther, where did he get it? Was it from the Waldenses Bible? Or was it from a Roman Catholic version?

Here is what EGW says on this issue:
I apologize for the fact that I do not have access to the current version of the GC. My citation came from the online EGW writings.

NOTE: A Latin Bible is not that of the Waldenses. Rather, it is a Roman Catholic Bible.

Note what EGW said about the Latin Bible when Luther read it:



She called its pages sacred. She presents it as containing the "words of life."

If she said this about what was actually a Roman Catholic Bible, I beleive that she would have soundly taken to task some of those who have posted about modern versions. If she had told us that the Latin Bible contained sacred pages I suggest that would have said the same about modern versions.

Folks, I will say agin, some of the posts made against the modern versions, in my opinion, are those that might be said by the Father of Lies, although I do not challenge the sencierty of those who said them.

When Jerome did the Vulgate he based it on the true text as he knew the corruptions that were out there, so there was some Catholic Bible versions that were good but the majority came from the Alexandrian codices and its variants, so I have to clarify that. But then the leaders at Rome forced the Apocrypha on him and that led to much confusion, so it had the true text but non Canon mixed in which the Reformers finally recognized for what it was and took out. So you have to understand the history of the Bible and go through it and you see how God kept His word protected as it was constantly being attacked with corrupted versions and manuscripts which had to be weeded out, just like we should be doing today.

Rick, is anyone here talking about and advocating the Apocrypha?

I'm not sure that would come across as a valid argument here. Although it has not actually been stated as such, but it has been hinted at by some that the Catholic Bible is true, but the Catholics have contaminated other Bibles but left their own alone. Therefore the Catholic Bible is true, but not others.


I had read your passage recently and was questioning if some thought Luther had finally came across the KJV!

O.K. let is look for a brief bit at the entry of the Apocrypha into some versions of the Bible.

The beginning of the entry of the Apocrypha into Bibles can be traced at least back to the time of Ptolemy II (285-246 B.C,), when the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek. The LXX is a primary example of the Apocrypha becomming a part of the Greek Scriptures. You will note that this occured many years before the origon of the Roman Catholic Church.

Jerome has been mentioned as a Roman Catholic source for the Apocrypha entering the Bible. It should be noted that writing in the 5th cent A.D. Jerome specificly stated that the Apocryphical books found in the LXX should not be considered as a doctrinal source. Yes, he did give some historical value to them, which is true for some of the Apocryphica. But, he was clear that they were not to be used for doctrine.

I am aware that later versions of Jerome did include the Apocryphica. But, remember that he did not consider it to be a proper doctrinal source.

The so-called Council of Jamnia, about 100 A.D. is sometimes given as a reference for determining the cannon of Scripture. Those who give this source are off-course as this alleged Council lacks historicity.

When Augustine came around, he began to promote the Apocryphica as being a doctrinal source. The Council of Trent (1546) held to that position.

What can we make of all of this? Yes, the Roman Catholic Church played a role in the acceptance of the Apocryphica. But, do not give it more of a role that it is due. The Apocryphica pre-dated the RC Church. The Apocryphica was well established as part of the cannon of Scripture, in some parts of the world, before the RC Church had anything to say about it.

Are you saying the Apocrypha was Canon or divinely inspired, as even Jerome recognized it was not, can you clarify your thoughts on it.