There will be no Rapture!!!
- Thread starter Romans1012
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
That simply doesn't work, because the 24 elders were redeemed from many tongues and nations, and so they were not Jews only, and they were not angels or any other ethereal beings. That claim of there being some sort of council, as if God needed counselors, that's yet another pagan thought process that I still am not able to validate from scripture.
MM
MM
They sang,
for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation
No mention that the 24 Elders are from every tribe, language, people, and nation anywhere.
Another version of the Bible before kjv
thou wast slain and didst redeem to God in thy blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation
No mention that the 24 Elders are from every tribe, language, people, and nation anywhere.
Only the corrupt TR versions claim as you promote.
for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation
No mention that the 24 Elders are from every tribe, language, people, and nation anywhere.
Another version of the Bible before kjv
thou wast slain and didst redeem to God in thy blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation
No mention that the 24 Elders are from every tribe, language, people, and nation anywhere.
Only the corrupt TR versions claim as you promote.
Your are right. The only counselors for God the Father are God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. You could say that within the triune Godhead there is always a council of sorts. But the Father is also "the Head of Christ", and by implication the Head of the Holy Spirit.
Do you even have a clue about the Textus Receptus? How can it have corrupt versions? It has been the basis of the New Testament for generations, and no one has ever said what you just did. So what you owe everyone who is totally satisfied with the TR is a sincere apology for making a baseless and false accusation.
Do you even have a clue about the Textus Receptus? How can it have corrupt versions? It has been the basis of the New Testament for generations, and no one has ever said what you just did. So what you owe everyone who is totally satisfied with the TR is a sincere apology for making a baseless and false accusation.
They have to believe that someone with the powers of deity snuck into all those libraries, monasteries, museums, et al, made the same alterations in all the same areas of each of the 6000+ manuscripts, and made off without anyone noticing...
I never have believed in unicorns and fairies, and don't plan to start today on the basis of a very, very small hand full of corrupted manuscripts that disagree with one another in FAR more places, and in areas of FAR greater significance, than the TR manuscripts.
Outside of that, I simply cannot get an answer that matches up with known scholarship behind the TR manuscripts. So many people are mathematically challenged these days, so I'm not surprised that more and more people will hold to what simply is impractical, irrational, and downright impossible.
MM
I never have believed in unicorns and fairies, and don't plan to start today on the basis of a very, very small hand full of corrupted manuscripts that disagree with one another in FAR more places, and in areas of FAR greater significance, than the TR manuscripts.
Outside of that, I simply cannot get an answer that matches up with known scholarship behind the TR manuscripts. So many people are mathematically challenged these days, so I'm not surprised that more and more people will hold to what simply is impractical, irrational, and downright impossible.
MM
-
1
- Show all
From the New Testament Professor, Trinitarian, Dallas Theological Seminary, Daniel Wallace.
This is the overwhelming opinion and evidence taught in the majority for why the (TR) is junk.
REMEMBER, he is a Trinitarian!!
Erasmus and the Textus Receptus
I. INTRODUCTION
A. “The single greatest monument to the English language”
B. Why such accolades?
C. Two fundamental problems with the KJV
1. Translation is dated
2. Textual basis is inferior
II. ERASMUS (1466-1536) AND THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS
A. Humanist, Catholic scholar, best Greek scholar
B. Historical background
1. Turks invaded Byzantium (1453)
2. Movable type (1454)
3. First printed NT (1516)
4. Complutensian Polyglot (1514, 1522)
C. Erasmus’s Greek New Testament
1. Five editions of the Greek NT
2. First edition: Novum Instrumentum, March 1, 1516
a) All were Greek-Latin diglots
b) Based on 7 mss, none earlier that 11th century
3. Revelation
a) Only had one Greek manuscript
b) Missing the last leaf (Revelation 22:16-21) and back-translated Latin into Greek
D. Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7b-8a)
1. Text
a) KJV. “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: And these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”
b) Modern translations: “For there are three that testify, the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are in agreement.”
2. History
a) First edition (1516): Trinitarian formula was not in the Erasmus’s text since he could find no Greek text with the formula
b) Second edition (1519) was the basis of Luther’s translation
c) Scribe working at Oxford seems to have “made to order” a complete NT manuscript including the Comma Johanneum
d) Third edition (1522): Erasmus included the Trinitarian formula under protest (corrected) because of ecclesiastical pressure and used by KJ translators
3. Trinitarian formula in other manuscripts
a) 9 late Greek manuscripts (4 in the text; 5 in the margins)
b) Oldest Greek ms with the Trinitarian formula is 10th century (in a later marginal note)
c) Oldest Greek ms with Trinitarian formula in the text is 14th century
4. Summary
a) Not found in any ancient versions except the Latin
b) Not mentioned in the early church councils that affirmed the Trinity
c) Early councils affirmed Trinity without 1 John 5:7
d) Earliest certain evidence: Late 4th century, in the writings of “Priscillian, the heretic”
e) Ehrman uses this passage to argue orthodox scribes changed the text and invented the Trinity
5. How did it get into the Latin Bible
a) Allegorical interpretation
b) Marginal reading in a Latin document, which ultimately made its way into Greek manuscripts
III. CONCLUSION
A. Editions
1. Erasmus (5 editions)
2. Stephanus (4 editions)
a) 1550 edition was the first to include textual variants
b) 1551 edition introduced verse references
3. Beza (11 editions); 1589 edition stood behind the KJV
B. Critique
1. Inferior textual basis
2. Essential doctrinal issues are not impacted
3. KJV added to the Word of God
This is the overwhelming opinion and evidence taught in the majority for why the (TR) is junk.
REMEMBER, he is a Trinitarian!!
Erasmus and the Textus Receptus
I. INTRODUCTION
A. “The single greatest monument to the English language”
B. Why such accolades?
C. Two fundamental problems with the KJV
1. Translation is dated
2. Textual basis is inferior
II. ERASMUS (1466-1536) AND THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS
A. Humanist, Catholic scholar, best Greek scholar
B. Historical background
1. Turks invaded Byzantium (1453)
2. Movable type (1454)
3. First printed NT (1516)
4. Complutensian Polyglot (1514, 1522)
C. Erasmus’s Greek New Testament
1. Five editions of the Greek NT
2. First edition: Novum Instrumentum, March 1, 1516
a) All were Greek-Latin diglots
b) Based on 7 mss, none earlier that 11th century
3. Revelation
a) Only had one Greek manuscript
b) Missing the last leaf (Revelation 22:16-21) and back-translated Latin into Greek
D. Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7b-8a)
1. Text
a) KJV. “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: And these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”
b) Modern translations: “For there are three that testify, the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are in agreement.”
2. History
a) First edition (1516): Trinitarian formula was not in the Erasmus’s text since he could find no Greek text with the formula
b) Second edition (1519) was the basis of Luther’s translation
c) Scribe working at Oxford seems to have “made to order” a complete NT manuscript including the Comma Johanneum
d) Third edition (1522): Erasmus included the Trinitarian formula under protest (corrected) because of ecclesiastical pressure and used by KJ translators
3. Trinitarian formula in other manuscripts
a) 9 late Greek manuscripts (4 in the text; 5 in the margins)
b) Oldest Greek ms with the Trinitarian formula is 10th century (in a later marginal note)
c) Oldest Greek ms with Trinitarian formula in the text is 14th century
4. Summary
a) Not found in any ancient versions except the Latin
b) Not mentioned in the early church councils that affirmed the Trinity
c) Early councils affirmed Trinity without 1 John 5:7
d) Earliest certain evidence: Late 4th century, in the writings of “Priscillian, the heretic”
e) Ehrman uses this passage to argue orthodox scribes changed the text and invented the Trinity
5. How did it get into the Latin Bible
a) Allegorical interpretation
b) Marginal reading in a Latin document, which ultimately made its way into Greek manuscripts
III. CONCLUSION
A. Editions
1. Erasmus (5 editions)
2. Stephanus (4 editions)
a) 1550 edition was the first to include textual variants
b) 1551 edition introduced verse references
3. Beza (11 editions); 1589 edition stood behind the KJV
B. Critique
1. Inferior textual basis
2. Essential doctrinal issues are not impacted
3. KJV added to the Word of God
So they lost their donkey's so two go looking for them and man they go everywhere and then say.. we best be getting home or pa is going to worry about us. The friend says.. were close to this preacher he might be able to help. So they go ask about this preacher they said oh hes up on the hill. So they go and meet him but a day before this God told that preacher I am sending someone to you".
Saul and Samuel .. but think about it the donkeys gone somewhere and you go looking for them.. you did no GOD told you to go here or there but you made every choice yet GOD who can not lie said "About this time tomorrow I will send you a man from the land of Benjamin".
I don't know if anyone will understand what I was getting at. Growing up what I would hear is some liked the KJV because it was closer to the original text. Were talking 50+ years ago. I don't know of one translation that is spotless so this talk is silly to me. I read a verse I then go see how it was originally translated. Now one would think its that easy yet oddly that alone can be a road that is so bumpy. Yeah how odd even those do not all agree
oops.
What ever God has done in my life He will do for all same with any one else. I've had times where He gave me a verse meaning He says something like..well in pub listening to Christian band the word crossed my mind "Behold I stand at the door and knock" I thought oh I wonder where that's written? "Rev 3:20". See I had never read REV and then going to table to table telling everyone what just happen.. how i never read Rev..oh they were not happy like I was haha. All the other times.. when He said where to look I only had the KJV. I have many now.. I just always look up how it was written. Then how others translated that verse originally.
So if you don't like some version don't read it.. relax. Were not talking about that 2nd bible the Mormons wrote
Saul and Samuel .. but think about it the donkeys gone somewhere and you go looking for them.. you did no GOD told you to go here or there but you made every choice yet GOD who can not lie said "About this time tomorrow I will send you a man from the land of Benjamin".
I don't know if anyone will understand what I was getting at. Growing up what I would hear is some liked the KJV because it was closer to the original text. Were talking 50+ years ago. I don't know of one translation that is spotless so this talk is silly to me. I read a verse I then go see how it was originally translated. Now one would think its that easy yet oddly that alone can be a road that is so bumpy. Yeah how odd even those do not all agree
oops. What ever God has done in my life He will do for all same with any one else. I've had times where He gave me a verse meaning He says something like..well in pub listening to Christian band the word crossed my mind "Behold I stand at the door and knock" I thought oh I wonder where that's written? "Rev 3:20". See I had never read REV and then going to table to table telling everyone what just happen.. how i never read Rev..oh they were not happy like I was haha. All the other times.. when He said where to look I only had the KJV. I have many now.. I just always look up how it was written. Then how others translated that verse originally.
So if you don't like some version don't read it.. relax. Were not talking about that 2nd bible the Mormons wrote
I'll just keep my text the regular size and black color, if you don't mind, so as to not give the impression that I'm trying to be impressive and loud...
Ok, so given all of that, you're still going to stick to just ONE of the Alexandrian manuscripts...just ONE, that had the 24 elders speaking in the second person? None of the other 15 Alexandrian manuscripts that had that section in them had the elders speaking second person, but just one, and they chose to go with that ONE manuscript over all the thousands of others?
I'm not at all surprised that the cloud of Gnostics are sticking together, vomiting all manner of impressive sounding criticisms against the TR. On the other side of the isle are the KJV-Only scholars who also have lists and lists of impressive sounding critiques against the Alexandrian manuscripts, which is why this debate is never resolved to the satisfaction of all, and therefore consensus, which still doesn't exist and never will among the unspiritual.
Influences of liberalism in modern universities has me wearing my critical thinking cap more tightly and more hours of the day given that their textual criticisms can be, and are, slanted because of influences that should never be an issue to the point of common practice. Both sides of this have scholars at whom each side can point, just like the debate over the Exodus account of Israel from Egypt. Egyptologists demand one date, and more recent findings shift that date about 200 years in another direction, which has both camps lobbing cow dung over onto each other as their respective band wagons happen to pass close enough.
You failed the "spirit" test I apply to lots of people in discussion, which, in itself, is very telling. All your arguments are a-typical of the mental and secular, and never touching upon the spiritual in relation to this topic or any other. This is why we have no common ground whatsoever.
Freely you may continue in your brainiacal pursuits for truth, but as for me, I go to the Source of ALL Truth; given that Truth is a Person, not a collection of seemingly right and proper doctrines and facts. You dabble in the inferior, I seek out after the One who has ALL the answers. He alone is my guide. Yah promised to never leave His people to flounder about in a dark world filled with all manner of confusing "facts."
So, You all have the freedom to play in the filthy, scholastic sand box of humanism's bent upon what can be seen by the eye and conjured up within a bias-driven mindset, but all we accomplish is getting all their humanistic filth upon ourselves when we play in their sand boxes. I choose otherwise, because the Spirit of the Lord never leads astray those who seek Him for guidance, Truth, His Thoughts, His Ways, because nowhere did the Yah ever say that we dare not ask for His Thoughts and His Ways, even though they are above ours as the heavens are above the earth. I still ask, and Yah always responds in the ways that only Yah does.
So, please, continue using the enlarged, colorful lettering for emphasis and perhaps you will convince onto your side the feeble-minded and unspiritual masses out there who allow themselves to so easily be swayed. Were that not the case, we wouldn't see the level of woke insanity in the world, such as those claiming that men who feel that they are women can actually menstruate...and have babies...just like Swarzenegger in that wonky Hollywood movie, with him allegedly having a baby.
Enjoy their sandbox.
MM
Ok, so given all of that, you're still going to stick to just ONE of the Alexandrian manuscripts...just ONE, that had the 24 elders speaking in the second person? None of the other 15 Alexandrian manuscripts that had that section in them had the elders speaking second person, but just one, and they chose to go with that ONE manuscript over all the thousands of others?
I'm not at all surprised that the cloud of Gnostics are sticking together, vomiting all manner of impressive sounding criticisms against the TR. On the other side of the isle are the KJV-Only scholars who also have lists and lists of impressive sounding critiques against the Alexandrian manuscripts, which is why this debate is never resolved to the satisfaction of all, and therefore consensus, which still doesn't exist and never will among the unspiritual.
Influences of liberalism in modern universities has me wearing my critical thinking cap more tightly and more hours of the day given that their textual criticisms can be, and are, slanted because of influences that should never be an issue to the point of common practice. Both sides of this have scholars at whom each side can point, just like the debate over the Exodus account of Israel from Egypt. Egyptologists demand one date, and more recent findings shift that date about 200 years in another direction, which has both camps lobbing cow dung over onto each other as their respective band wagons happen to pass close enough.
You failed the "spirit" test I apply to lots of people in discussion, which, in itself, is very telling. All your arguments are a-typical of the mental and secular, and never touching upon the spiritual in relation to this topic or any other. This is why we have no common ground whatsoever.
Freely you may continue in your brainiacal pursuits for truth, but as for me, I go to the Source of ALL Truth; given that Truth is a Person, not a collection of seemingly right and proper doctrines and facts. You dabble in the inferior, I seek out after the One who has ALL the answers. He alone is my guide. Yah promised to never leave His people to flounder about in a dark world filled with all manner of confusing "facts."
So, You all have the freedom to play in the filthy, scholastic sand box of humanism's bent upon what can be seen by the eye and conjured up within a bias-driven mindset, but all we accomplish is getting all their humanistic filth upon ourselves when we play in their sand boxes. I choose otherwise, because the Spirit of the Lord never leads astray those who seek Him for guidance, Truth, His Thoughts, His Ways, because nowhere did the Yah ever say that we dare not ask for His Thoughts and His Ways, even though they are above ours as the heavens are above the earth. I still ask, and Yah always responds in the ways that only Yah does.
So, please, continue using the enlarged, colorful lettering for emphasis and perhaps you will convince onto your side the feeble-minded and unspiritual masses out there who allow themselves to so easily be swayed. Were that not the case, we wouldn't see the level of woke insanity in the world, such as those claiming that men who feel that they are women can actually menstruate...and have babies...just like Swarzenegger in that wonky Hollywood movie, with him allegedly having a baby.
Enjoy their sandbox.
MM
So they lost their donkey's so two go looking for them and man they go everywhere and then say.. we best be getting home or pa is going to worry about us. The friend says.. were close to this preacher he might be able to help. So they go ask about this preacher they said oh hes up on the hill. So they go and meet him but a day before this God told that preacher I am sending someone to you".
Saul and Samuel .. but think about it the donkeys gone somewhere and you go looking for them.. you did no GOD told you to go here or there but you made every choice yet GOD who can not lie said "About this time tomorrow I will send you a man from the land of Benjamin".
I don't know if anyone will understand what I was getting at. Growing up what I would hear is some liked the KJV because it was closer to the original text. Were talking 50+ years ago. I don't know of one translation that is spotless so this talk is silly to me. I read a verse I then go see how it was originally translated. Now one would think its that easy yet oddly that alone can be a road that is so bumpy. Yeah how odd even those do not all agree oops.
What ever God has done in my life He will do for all same with any one else. I've had times where He gave me a verse meaning He says something like..well in pub listening to Christian band the word crossed my mind "Behold I stand at the door and knock" I thought oh I wonder where that's written? "Rev 3:20". See I had never read REV and then going to table to table telling everyone what just happen.. how i never read Rev..oh they were not happy like I was haha. All the other times.. when He said where to look I only had the KJV. I have many now.. I just always look up how it was written. Then how others translated that verse originally.
So if you don't like some version don't read it.. relax. Were not talking about that 2nd bible the Mormons wrote
Saul and Samuel .. but think about it the donkeys gone somewhere and you go looking for them.. you did no GOD told you to go here or there but you made every choice yet GOD who can not lie said "About this time tomorrow I will send you a man from the land of Benjamin".
I don't know if anyone will understand what I was getting at. Growing up what I would hear is some liked the KJV because it was closer to the original text. Were talking 50+ years ago. I don't know of one translation that is spotless so this talk is silly to me. I read a verse I then go see how it was originally translated. Now one would think its that easy yet oddly that alone can be a road that is so bumpy. Yeah how odd even those do not all agree
oops.What ever God has done in my life He will do for all same with any one else. I've had times where He gave me a verse meaning He says something like..well in pub listening to Christian band the word crossed my mind "Behold I stand at the door and knock" I thought oh I wonder where that's written? "Rev 3:20". See I had never read REV and then going to table to table telling everyone what just happen.. how i never read Rev..oh they were not happy like I was haha. All the other times.. when He said where to look I only had the KJV. I have many now.. I just always look up how it was written. Then how others translated that verse originally.
So if you don't like some version don't read it.. relax. Were not talking about that 2nd bible the Mormons wrote
Thank you.
MM
So they lost their donkey's so two go looking for them and man they go everywhere and then say.. we best be getting home or pa is going to worry about us. The friend says.. were close to this preacher he might be able to help. So they go ask about this preacher they said oh hes up on the hill. So they go and meet him but a day before this God told that preacher I am sending someone to you".
Saul and Samuel .. but think about it the donkeys gone somewhere and you go looking for them.. you did no GOD told you to go here or there but you made every choice yet GOD who can not lie said "About this time tomorrow I will send you a man from the land of Benjamin".
I don't know if anyone will understand what I was getting at. Growing up what I would hear is some liked the KJV because it was closer to the original text. Were talking 50+ years ago. I don't know of one translation that is spotless so this talk is silly to me. I read a verse I then go see how it was originally translated. Now one would think its that easy yet oddly that alone can be a road that is so bumpy. Yeah how odd even those do not all agree oops.
What ever God has done in my life He will do for all same with any one else. I've had times where He gave me a verse meaning He says something like..well in pub listening to Christian band the word crossed my mind "Behold I stand at the door and knock" I thought oh I wonder where that's written? "Rev 3:20". See I had never read REV and then going to table to table telling everyone what just happen.. how i never read Rev..oh they were not happy like I was haha. All the other times.. when He said where to look I only had the KJV. I have many now.. I just always look up how it was written. Then how others translated that verse originally.
So if you don't like some version don't read it.. relax. Were not talking about that 2nd bible the Mormons wrote
Saul and Samuel .. but think about it the donkeys gone somewhere and you go looking for them.. you did no GOD told you to go here or there but you made every choice yet GOD who can not lie said "About this time tomorrow I will send you a man from the land of Benjamin".
I don't know if anyone will understand what I was getting at. Growing up what I would hear is some liked the KJV because it was closer to the original text. Were talking 50+ years ago. I don't know of one translation that is spotless so this talk is silly to me. I read a verse I then go see how it was originally translated. Now one would think its that easy yet oddly that alone can be a road that is so bumpy. Yeah how odd even those do not all agree
oops.What ever God has done in my life He will do for all same with any one else. I've had times where He gave me a verse meaning He says something like..well in pub listening to Christian band the word crossed my mind "Behold I stand at the door and knock" I thought oh I wonder where that's written? "Rev 3:20". See I had never read REV and then going to table to table telling everyone what just happen.. how i never read Rev..oh they were not happy like I was haha. All the other times.. when He said where to look I only had the KJV. I have many now.. I just always look up how it was written. Then how others translated that verse originally.
So if you don't like some version don't read it.. relax. Were not talking about that 2nd bible the Mormons wrote
I think Dr Andy Woods makes a good point about this... the EVEN *IF* the text in v.9 were to say "[purchased] them / men" (instead of "us"), it is not without biblical precedence to see saints speaking OF THEMSELVES in the third person...
CONSIDER:
[quoting Dr Andy Woods]
"...it is completely possible in the Bible to speak of yourself in the third person. Do we have any examples of that? Yes we do; we have the nation of Israel who passed through the Red Sea, Exodus 14; they got to the other side of the Red Sea, Exodus 15, God had closed the Red Sea upon the pursuing Egyptians, Exodus 14, and in Exodus 15 the nation of Israel starts to praise God for their own redemption, their own safe passage through the Red Sea and the destruction of their enemies as God closed the Red Sea upon the pursuing Egyptians. And the whole worship song is recorded in Exodus 15, verse 13 and verse 17. And notice what it says: [13] “In Your lovingkindness” these are the worshippers, “ You have led” notice what it says, not “us” or “we, “the people whom You have redeemed; in Your strength, You have guided them to Your holy habitation.” [17] “You will bring them and plant them in the mountain of Your inheritance, the place, O LORD, which You have made for Your dwelling, The sanctuary, O Lord, which Your hands have established.” You have precedence for people praising God about their own redemption in the third person."
-- Dr Andy Woods
[end quoting; bold and underline mine]
Excellent point, as I see it... and from an entirely apropos OT passage, too. = )
CONSIDER:
[quoting Dr Andy Woods]
"...it is completely possible in the Bible to speak of yourself in the third person. Do we have any examples of that? Yes we do; we have the nation of Israel who passed through the Red Sea, Exodus 14; they got to the other side of the Red Sea, Exodus 15, God had closed the Red Sea upon the pursuing Egyptians, Exodus 14, and in Exodus 15 the nation of Israel starts to praise God for their own redemption, their own safe passage through the Red Sea and the destruction of their enemies as God closed the Red Sea upon the pursuing Egyptians. And the whole worship song is recorded in Exodus 15, verse 13 and verse 17. And notice what it says: [13] “In Your lovingkindness” these are the worshippers, “ You have led” notice what it says, not “us” or “we, “the people whom You have redeemed; in Your strength, You have guided them to Your holy habitation.” [17] “You will bring them and plant them in the mountain of Your inheritance, the place, O LORD, which You have made for Your dwelling, The sanctuary, O Lord, which Your hands have established.” You have precedence for people praising God about their own redemption in the third person."
-- Dr Andy Woods
[end quoting; bold and underline mine]
Excellent point, as I see it... and from an entirely apropos OT passage, too. = )
I think just about everyone of us from Church Fathers, Theologians, Scholars, to Us participating in this discussion can ALL make good points of this. However, I believe those who were taught directly by John, THE ONE who wrote these words in Revelation, probably have the best insight and understanding of what's literally being said here.
The only reason to tear them down is to uplift a doctrine less than 200 years old to which NO Church Father, NO Reformer, NO ONE for 1800 years from the Ascension of Jesus Christ believed nor did JESUS Himself teach ((WHO is GOD)).
The only reason to tear them down is to uplift a doctrine less than 200 years old to which NO Church Father, NO Reformer, NO ONE for 1800 years from the Ascension of Jesus Christ believed nor did JESUS Himself teach ((WHO is GOD)).
-
1
- Show all
Appeal to authority doesn't change the fact that it's only that ONE manuscript from Alexandria that had the elders speaking in second person, meaning, in the minds of those who accept that one manuscript against thousands of others, the elders, therefore, were not a part of the company of those who were redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb, from all nations, tongues, etc.
There are many with all kinds of letters attached to their names who have written numerous articles to back just about every positional stance imaginable. The debate, therefore is never-ending.
For those who want to believe in a god who needed a group of councilors, with council flowing inward toward Himself, they have the freedom to believe in such a god, because the God of the Bible does not need a divine council to give Him ideas or to approve His decisions. He is the omniscient, Sovereign God Almighty.
In His wisdom and His allowance, God did create a council to stand in His presence and graciously allows them to participate in various judgments and decrees that are all one way, going OUTWARD from the Lord, not inward. Never before is that council of angelic beings numbered nor called the "24 elders," and never is that council described as having thrones, wearing crowns, or any other descriptors we see in Revelation, so the dubious practice of drawing subjective parallels to the 24 elders in Revelation is yet another strike against the subjectivity that some apply to scripture in order to try and wrest the scriptures into conformity with preconceived dogmas rather than to highlight the glaring differences.
Revelation doesn't at all portray those 24 elders as being councilors unto to, nor from the Lord. They do not participate in the workings of the Lord as we see in the council in Psalm 82, 89, Nehemia 9, Isaiah 44, or even Job 1 and other places throughout. The wishful thinking that's applied in order to discredit what the VAST majority of manuscripts say, no. The Gnostics out there are not going to win this one!
MM
There are many with all kinds of letters attached to their names who have written numerous articles to back just about every positional stance imaginable. The debate, therefore is never-ending.
For those who want to believe in a god who needed a group of councilors, with council flowing inward toward Himself, they have the freedom to believe in such a god, because the God of the Bible does not need a divine council to give Him ideas or to approve His decisions. He is the omniscient, Sovereign God Almighty.
In His wisdom and His allowance, God did create a council to stand in His presence and graciously allows them to participate in various judgments and decrees that are all one way, going OUTWARD from the Lord, not inward. Never before is that council of angelic beings numbered nor called the "24 elders," and never is that council described as having thrones, wearing crowns, or any other descriptors we see in Revelation, so the dubious practice of drawing subjective parallels to the 24 elders in Revelation is yet another strike against the subjectivity that some apply to scripture in order to try and wrest the scriptures into conformity with preconceived dogmas rather than to highlight the glaring differences.
Revelation doesn't at all portray those 24 elders as being councilors unto to, nor from the Lord. They do not participate in the workings of the Lord as we see in the council in Psalm 82, 89, Nehemia 9, Isaiah 44, or even Job 1 and other places throughout. The wishful thinking that's applied in order to discredit what the VAST majority of manuscripts say, no. The Gnostics out there are not going to win this one!
MM
Repetition of this nonsense doesn't make this falsehood any more true than repetition of any and all other falsehoods. That may work in the minds of the mindless masses out there who are a products of mass media, but not any card carrying skeptic who questions all things as we are instructed to do within scripture. Those who embrace falsehoods will always see good in their falsehoods, and praise the falsehoods, but, again, that doesn't make the falsehoods true.
MM
MM
