Calvinism vs. Arminianism?
- Thread starter mcubed
- 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.
Masoretic text used by the KJV was never used in church. For 1,500 years the West used the Vulgate and the East used the Septuagint.
The Erasmus text was a new thing, a compilation made by Erasmus, also never used in church. Latin was used in the West and the Byzantine text in the East.
So the KJV was not traditional at all.
Your own argument attacks your.
Was the reason it changed due to the error in the NIV or previous translations? Are you an expert on Hebrew, Aramaic, and and koine Judeo Greek languages? If so then you can say which is wrong.
We have thousands of ancient manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts. With all of them it can be seen when an error was introduced. The errors have always been without changing the meaning of the text. Usually a spelling error. The copied errors allow tracking which document was copied from which document. Plugging them into a computer these days will generate a correct error free text. There is a complete New Testament dated to 400 that came out of Babylon.
So you are basing your belief is it 100% corrupt based on John William Burgon, my friend? You do know Erasmus wanted to use the Codex Vaticanus but was unable to, correct?
The Codex Vaticnaus is dated back to the 4th century, ca. 300-325 AD. They compared it with other known writings of the 4th century AD and found it be written around 325-350 AD, around the time Vaticanus was written.
The newest manuscripts the translators had when they did their great work was from around 1000-1200 AD. They had the five editions compiled by Erasmus, Beza's and Stephanus' 1550. Erasmus had to use a commentary to find the last verses of Revelation, too. Then the king James Bible translators used a Latin word Lucifer as well. The King James Bible is a great work by many great men of God, but it is not above reproach as our friends who hold to King James Bible only state it is.
This is not true, "monogenes theos" vs "monogenes hyos" can come to mind. There are many occurances where the meaning of the text is significantly changed.
But never, any basic Christian teaching is changed. I.E. things in apostolic and nicene creeds are OK no matter what Bible we use. And this is what we should put our faith into. Not into some specific theology, some specific translation. But into God, Christ and basic Christian creeds.
He has hidden the mysteries of the scriptures from the wise and prudent and revealed them unto babes.
I have heard from Dr. James White Erasmus wanted to use the CV but could not. I have read he also rejected it. Do you think he wanted to use it or did he reject it?
Erasmus was encouraged to use the Codex Vaticanus by another Catholic scholar (I forget his name), but after due consideration, he rejected it.
If you want to know about the character of this manuscript (and Codex Sinaiticus along with others in this group) read and study the works of Burgon and Scrivener, both being the leading textual scholars of the 19th century.
Reprints of their works are available at The Bible for Today (http://biblefortoday.org), which initiated the Dean Burgon Society primarily to acquaint Christians with the outstanding scholarship of Dean Burgon (who devoted his life to the study and collation of manuscripts).
Thank you ever so much for that link, my friend. Now, do you have an unbiased one to offer? I'd give as much credence to that site as I would Sam Gipp and/or Gail Riplinger.
I see our friend John146 liked that post of yours. I wonder why that is?
Here maybe a simple help link:
http://csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA_03
To quote:
Classification:
Majuscule
Date:
4th Century
Location:
Vatican Library
Shelf Number:
Vat. gr. 1209, p. 1235-1518 (p. 1519-1536: 1957)
Content:
Gospels; Pauline; Acts and Catholic Epistles (Apostolos)
Language:
Greek
Image Type:
Digital Facsimile
Ink:
Black; Red
Material:
Parchment
Description:
Codex Vaticanus is an important fourth century majuscule manuscript. It contains Matthew–2 Thessalonians, Hebrews 1.1–9.13, James–Jude. It lacks the Pastorals, Philemon, and Revelation. After Hebrews 9.13, the document is written in much later minuscule hand. 142 leaves on parchment, three columns, with 42 lines per column. The images are from the 1868 (pseudo-) facsimile. For more recent images visit the Vatican's website.
So as indicated in a few descriptions of the MSS in that, it lacks Pastoral Epistles especially the Book of Ephesians and Hebrews 1.1-9.13, etc. But why? Is this not a matter of corruption?
Thank you my friend for this. However, I do not see this as a matter of corruption, but some books got lost somehow.
‘Masoretic Text’ from the word ‘masora” meaning tradition. This tradition being orally done and written so that from generations to generations the oralces (O.T.) would be preserved as the Jews were committed unto them. Romans 3:2.
why lost, if it is intact at the Vatican library as compared to Sinaticus being collected on a wastebaskets.
What the word "masoretic" means is not relevant.
What is important and what I claimed in my post is the fact that the church never used the masoretic text. Its a text selected or even edited by Jews after Jesus Christ.
The apostles, Jesus and all church writings till the 16th century use other texts of the Old Testament.
If you want to believe that the "true" text and the "true" OT canon was given to Church in the 15th/16th century, believe it. But its a strange belief and quite selfish. Not to mention that you have many contadictions in your Bible when you look up NT quotations in the OT and see that they are different.
To those who oppose calvinism i would like to ask: WHAT evidence would have to be presented to you, for you to change your mind?
For me it would be verses that mention some poeple that Jesus didnt die for, or verses that say all things including SIN is predestinated.
For me it would be verses that mention some poeple that Jesus didnt die for, or verses that say all things including SIN is predestinated.
A good explanation why it is love and justice to put somebody to eternal hell just because of Adam´s sin.