Former pentecostal

[presidente]

knowing it was translated from Latin to Greek to English completely ignoring the original Greek, it is not word for word like the 4th century Greek.

You are really coming off as looking like you have no clue what you are talking about here. You should at least skim around the article you yourself linked to as supposed support for what you are saying. It listed specific verses that Erasmus translated from Latin into Greek where he didn't have a Greek manuscript for the verses. That is not the same as totally ignoring the original Greek. For centuries in the west, their idea of the Bible was this book in Latin. After the Muslims took over Constantinople, Greek manuscripts started showing up in the west. Erasmus was influential in people actually learning Greek. Translating from Latin to fill in some missing verses might not have felt like the big sacrilege to him that it does to many of us. There is also the 'academic integrity' issue. At least he admitted it, apparently. For me personally, I wouldn't want to take any liberties like that, especially with the book of Revelation.

By the way, you can look for yourself that the verses you were concerned about were word for word the same with a Byzantine manuscript. What is your basis for saying that the KJV translators complete ignored the original Greek?

I think KJV-onlyism is a rather ignorant doctrine, but you are really overstating your case to the point of saying falsehoods in this thread.

when compared to the 4th century Greek, the more authentic version, the TR is not the Same and should not be called the completed Word of god!

My guess is the two manuscripts are identical, and someone translated the 4th century manuscript one way and the TR the same way... from the exact same words in Greek... and you are getting bent out of shape over it. Feel free to prove me wrong, but that is my guess at what is going on here.

Who is calling the TR the 'completed Word of God'. I must have missed that. Which 4th century Greek manuscripts are you referring to? Can you show me specific differences between whatever 4th century manuscript you have in mind and how it differs from the Textus Receptus?

 

[presidente]

i think the first set of Verses listed clearly speaks about Jesus and now we see Him as an Enigma but that will change when we see him "face to face."

the second set of Verses are phrased in a way by using the word "that" before which is perfect to come allows variance and this is where the difference many cessationist use for their emphasis on debating the perfect to come is the finishing of the Bible.

ultimately, the first set of Verses are much clearer. so when the TR Version hit the market, the debate over Gifts Ceasing and Continuing had merit. but if we just stuck to the Original Verses, we would most likely confirm what the Church Fathers claimed the Perfect to Come is when we see God face to face.

Your post really makes so little sense it is hard to follow your line of reasoning. I think you have your facts wrong. If you think that 'Textus Receptus' means the same thing as 'King James Bible'.... maybe your posts sort of make more sense. It does not. Erasmus edited various Greek texts to come up with a Greek Text 'the Textus Receptus.' I haven't heard that the verses in question had a lot of textual variants, but I am not an expdert on these things.

The Textus Receptus does NOT have 'that which is perfect' in I Corinthians 13 10. What it says it 'τὸ τέλειον' which literally translates as 'the perfect.' Greek uses definite articles all over the place, also. Understanding the KJV's use of the word 'that' to mean 'some physical object that is perfect' is to ignorantly read an idea into a word in translation that was not intended.

But it doesn't really have much to do with Erasmus or the Textus Receptus. That is a Greek document. It is not the King James translation. Erasmus did not translate the King James Bible. He passed away decades before King James even became king of Scotland at the age of one.

 

[MISSION-IMPOSSIBLE]

Tongues (languages spoken supernaturally) would have ceased when the Bible was completed, so by the end of the first century. Why would they return when the reason for this gift was in the past? Modern tongues (glossolalia) are not biblical tongues (glossais).

Tongues never ceased therefore they didn't have "to return". The Lord is the same yesterday, today, and forever" (Heb. 13:8). I have been using the gift of tongues since 1984. I have used it in many ways besides praying when I didn't know how to pray, I prayed in tongues while worshipping the Lord when contention was in the air, silently praying in tongues removed the spiritual instigators, I have prayed in tongues before preaching, and in the past, I, myself gave messages in tongues, and interpreted. Demons are terrified of tongues...

The problem here is your UNBELIEF, not the gifts of the Spirit. By the way, who made you an expert in tongues when you don't use the gift?

 

[MISSION-IMPOSSIBLE]

It's pretty funny when a person states tongues are no more but then proceeds to state they had a conversation with God.

Seriously?

God didn't tell you anything. You were listening to the deceiving spirits. You have no discernment.

 

[presidente]

God didn't tell you anything. You were listening to the deceiving spirits. You have no discernment.

Can you show me chapter and verse where it says God did not tell this person anything? Do you think God does not speak at all, even through scripture?

It is immensely foolish to make such statements based on one's own understanding. What if the person did hear God speak, but you called God a deceiving spirit? Have you ever read why Jesus warned His opponents of the unpardonable sin in Matthew 12?

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

I have a question for you. If Hebrew cannot be translated fully into Greek or Greek fully translated into Latin, how can all three be 100% translated into English? When the English language is even know the real word as an example: for At-one-ment?


Also, the word Love in the Hebrew and Greek are different. The truth is that the English language cannot fully provide 100% translation we do have more than enough for Salvation, righteous living, and worship of God.

Also, if the Textus receptus is errored of only 1cor 13:8-10, why are they correct for the three unit chapters starting at chapters 12 through 14? And what are you not taking issue with chapters and verses which were not in Hebrew or Greek but added much later that every version or translation you accept uses in addition to the KJV?

Thank you

Modern Jews have revived the ancient Hebrew and have translated that into English for us. We are blessed to have this at our access.

The TR has many issues like the 2 Scholars and New Testament Theologians have provided. It's not just 1st Corinthians.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

There is nothing about 'to 'my favor'' here. I do not hold to a doctrine that the Textus Receptus or HV are flawless. You expressed your distrust of two verses in the Textus Receptus for which I showed a word for word exact version from a cite with a Byzantine text.

The article you posted gave a laundry list of specific issues with the Textus Receptus. I did not see those two verses in the list.

I'm on my mobile atm, but there's a complete list I just am not able to copy/paste it with this device.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

You are really coming off as looking like you have no clue what you are talking about here. You should at least skim around the article you yourself linked to as supposed support for what you are saying. It listed specific verses that Erasmus translated from Latin into Greek where he didn't have a Greek manuscript for the verses. That is not the same as totally ignoring the original Greek. For centuries in the west, their idea of the Bible was this book in Latin. After the Muslims took over Constantinople, Greek manuscripts started showing up in the west. Erasmus was influential in people actually learning Greek. Translating from Latin to fill in some missing verses might not have felt like the big sacrilege to him that it does to many of us. There is also the 'academic integrity' issue. At least he admitted it, apparently. For me personally, I wouldn't want to take any liberties like that, especially with the book of Revelation.

By the way, you can look for yourself that the verses you were concerned about were word for word the same with a Byzantine manuscript. What is your basis for saying that the KJV translators complete ignored the original Greek?

I think KJV-onlyism is a rather ignorant doctrine, but you are really overstating your case to the point of saying falsehoods in this thread.



My guess is the two manuscripts are identical, and someone translated the 4th century manuscript one way and the TR the same way... from the exact same words in Greek... and you are getting bent out of shape over it. Feel free to prove me wrong, but that is my guess at what is going on here.

Who is calling the TR the 'completed Word of God'. I must have missed that. Which 4th century Greek manuscripts are you referring to? Can you show me specific differences between whatever 4th century manuscript you have in mind and how it differs from the Textus Receptus?

You obviously ignored the post where the 2 Scholars pointed out Erasmus only went back to the 10th Century and what he was unable to translate he took the Latin Vulgate and used that claiming it was Greek.

I don't blame you for ignoring that post because it really is damaging towards the TR and KJV.

 

[Runningman]

God didn't tell you anything. You were listening to the deceiving spirits. You have no discernment.

Unless God still does talk to people. If God does, which I do believe He does, then you may have just called God a deceiving spirit. I think it’s better to take a more cautious approach when it comes to the spirit realm if you aren’t really sure who or what you’re talking about. There are good reasons to not use slander against spirits, the devil, or anyone.

Let’s look to the rarely quoted wisdom of Jude:

Jude 1:8-10
8In the very same way, on the strength of their dreams these ungodly people pollute their own bodies, reject authority and heap abuse on celestial beings. 9But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” 10Yet these people slander whatever they do not understand, and the very things they do understand by instinct—as irrational animals do—will destroy them.

 

[presidente]

Modern Jews have revived the ancient Hebrew and have translated that into English for us. We are blessed to have this at our access.

Ancient Hebrew was a religious/scholarly language for centuries before the revival/development of Modern Hebrew. It still is. Modern Hebrew is quite different, and not exactly the same thing. But it was a revival of the spoken language, and Modern Hebrew speaking students in an Israeli school may learn Biblical Hebrew as a part of their studies.

The TR has many issues like the 2 Scholars and New Testament Theologians have provided. It's not just 1st Corinthians.

Where are any problems they have pointed out in I Corinthians, especially in the verses in question? Why was I able to link a non TR text that was word for word the same?

 

[presidente]

You obviously ignored the post where the 2 Scholars pointed out Erasmus only went back to the 10th Century and what he was unable to translate he took the Latin Vulgate and used that claiming it was Greek.

I think you have a reading comprehension issue. I looked up a quote about that, and they were referring specifically to some missing verses in the book of Revelation... for of them as I recall. They also pointed out other similar errors. Did you actually read the paragraph you got this idea from?

They pointed out where they thought Erasmus did a bad job ___in places___. Erasmus did textual criticism and compiled a Greek text. They took issue with his filling in Greek verses translated from Latin where he had no Greek manuscript to match his Latin translation. But those are places. In other places, there was a Greek text. What reason is there to think those who verses in I Corinthians are at issue. I gave you a link to a Byzantine manuscript for those verses, and you do not have to worry about Erasmus doing anything to that, right?

Also, where do you get that Erasmus version had anything to do with cessationism? Those Greek texts were sitting around for centuries, over 1600 years before someone came up with their cessationist theory that we hear today.

I don't blame you for ignoring that post because it really is damaging towards the TR and KJV.

I don't care. I don't have a dog in the fight of KJV-onlyism or the TR being inspired. Point all the errors out in both. That's fine with me. I just don't like to see ignorant false arguments spread as fact. I don't think you read the article or that you understood it if you did.

 

[Bob-Carabbio]

have you read through this thread or not?
that is the debate all by using the fact the TR places the word "that" before the perfect to come.

Yup, several times. so NOTHING OF SIGNIFICANCE AT ALL, just like I said.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

Yup, several times. so NOTHING OF SIGNIFICANCE AT ALL, just like I said.

You see continuation so agreed it's not a big deal.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

I think you have a reading comprehension issue. I looked up a quote about that, and they were referring specifically to some missing verses in the book of Revelation... for of them as I recall. They also pointed out other similar errors. Did you actually read the paragraph you got this idea from?

They pointed out where they thought Erasmus did a bad job ___in places___. Erasmus did textual criticism and compiled a Greek text. They took issue with his filling in Greek verses translated from Latin where he had no Greek manuscript to match his Latin translation. But those are places. In other places, there was a Greek text. What reason is there to think those who verses in I Corinthians are at issue. I gave you a link to a Byzantine manuscript for those verses, and you do not have to worry about Erasmus doing anything to that, right?

Also, where do you get that Erasmus version had anything to do with cessationism? Those Greek texts were sitting around for centuries, over 1600 years before someone came up with their cessationist theory that we hear today.


I don't care. I don't have a dog in the fight of KJV-onlyism or the TR being inspired. Point all the errors out in both. That's fine with me. I just don't like to see ignorant false arguments spread as fact. I don't think you read the article or that you understood it if you did.

You already believe in Continuation so wording is not a big deal for you.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

Ancient Hebrew was a religious/scholarly language for centuries before the revival/development of Modern Hebrew. It still is. Modern Hebrew is quite different, and not exactly the same thing. But it was a revival of the spoken language, and Modern Hebrew speaking students in an Israeli school may learn Biblical Hebrew as a part of their studies.


Where are any problems they have pointed out in I Corinthians, especially in the verses in question? Why was I able to link a non TR text that was word for word the same?

I was speaking TR in general. I only presented the differences because they read differently for some. Continuist it won't matter.

 

[presidente]

have you read through this thread or not?
that is the debate all by using the fact the TR places the word "that" before the perfect to come.

Can you back up your assertion that the TR has 'that' in I Corinthians or anywhere at all.

'That' is an English word. Erasmus was a Dutch scholar, compiling an edited compilation of the Greek New Testament during a time when Latin was the language of scholarship. Even if we are talking about some kind of note that isn't supposed to be an actual part of the manuscript he was compiling, why would you think he would put a single English word in the whole document? It doesn't make sense.

Could you link to some site showing evidence that 'that' shows up in the Textus Receptus. I already linked to the Textus Receptus for I Corinthians 13. Did you see the word 'that' in the text there?

And is there any single manuscript of any manuscript lineage that doesn't have 'to teleion' (in Greek of course) in that passage in I Corinthians. The KJV translated it 'that which is perfect.' Some people ignorantly think of 'that' as some kind of physical object. I don't even know if that is a feasible way of interpreting the Greek phrase there. I suspect the KJV translators did not believe that or translate it that way.

But why would you try to lay some sort of blame for this on the Textus Receptus if it is in Greek?

You just aren't making any sense on this topic.

 

[Bob-Carabbio]

You see continuation so agreed it's not a big deal.

Yup - Cessationists always have this problem with their "Favorite Verse". Gotta find SOME way to make it say what it doesn't really say.

 

[Polar]

God didn't tell you anything. You were listening to the deceiving spirits. You have no discernment.

You need to read slower

I'm not the one who said 'God told me something' . Who are you listening to?


Did you fail grade 3 reading? Chill out. smh

 

[Polar]

Unless God still does talk to people. If God does, which I do believe He does, then you may have just called God a deceiving spirit. I think it’s better to take a more cautious approach when it comes to the spirit realm if you aren’t really sure who or what you’re talking about. There are good reasons to not use slander against spirits, the devil, or anyone.

Let’s look to the rarely quoted wisdom of Jude:

Jude 1:8-10
8In the very same way, on the strength of their dreams these ungodly people pollute their own bodies, reject authority and heap abuse on celestial beings. 9But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” 10Yet these people slander whatever they do not understand, and the very things they do understand by instinct—as irrational animals do—will destroy them.

Don't get too involved. the dude misquoted and attribute something to me that someone else said.

He seems pretty trigger happy and angry.

 

[presidente]

Don't get too involved. the dude misquoted and attribute something to me that someone else said.

He seems pretty trigger happy and angry.

We don't want him to go around blaspheming, even if he got his quotes mixed up.