All Forums | General Discussion

If Christ died on the cross for all of humanity

...

Participants:

Posts: 5358

matt4000

Veteran

Joined: Aug, 2007

Posts: 1104

Posted: Dec. 28, 2011 - 8:33 PM ET #3576

Sugarbear19,

PART 1 -(All posts taken from different web sites combined that are Accredited seminary schools and colleges that had the identical material written).

You said "a) How can you trust a single word in that book when you ACCEPT that parts of it are changed from its original state?"

I will list some historical facts about the English translations of the Bible and maybe this will help give an understanding as to why some people claim the Bible has been changed.

Prior to 1445 there was no printing press.

? It took 10 months to write one Bible.

? A 1407 English law forbade English translations.

? Then came Gutenberg, who invented the printing press.

? Imagine, there were over 5,000 New Testament handwritten manuscripts. The first translation was by Wycliff, with a secondary translation from Latin to English.

Tindale printed in 1525 illegally.

? He translated the Greek New Testament into English (Not the Old Testament).

? Tindale said, I vow to make the boy who drives the plow in England to know more of the scriptures than the Pope does.

? He smuggled Bibles into England in sacks of flour.

? God's enemy, Tunsdale, burned Bibles.

He paid a Pakistani man to buy Tindale Bibles so he could burn them. He didn't know the Pakistani was a friend of Tindale. He told Tunsdale that the price was four times the actual cost. So for every one that Tunsdale burned, Tindale produced three.

? Ten years later in 1535, Tindale was captured and burned at the stake.

? His dying words were...Lord, open the eyes of the King of England.

The Coverdale Bible was published in 1535. In 1537 came the Matthews Bible.

The Great Bible was printed in 1539.

In 1560, the Geneva Bible was published.

In 1568, the Bishop's Bible.

In 1611, the Authorized King James Version was published.

The English translations mentioned were either secondary translations, partial translations, or were translated by a handful of individuals.

In 1604, King James authorized the work to begin in translating the Word of God into English.

This became known as the Authorized King James Version. On grounds of age and scholarship, this translation has been the authority in non-Catholic congregations for 4 centuries.

The King James was translated from Hebrew and Greek and compared to the translations that preceded it.

Approximately the same time the King James Version was commissioned, the Catholic Pope directed an English translation of the Bible to be made and is known as the Douay.

This was a secondary translation.

The Douay was translated from Jerome's Latin Vulgate, which Jerome had translated from original manuscripts.

The problem you have with a secondary translation is that if the original had an error, you automatically inherited it.

The effort that King James, the head of the English-speaking world, embarked upon was colossal.

Between 50 and 60 of the English-speaking world's finest language experts were:

? Taken from three different educational centers: Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminster.

? Then divided into two groups: Greek and Hebrew.

? Further divided into three different segments, making six different committees.

? Then the Bible was divided into six different parts, including the Apocryphal books.

As a footnote, the Old Testament Apocryphal books are still found in the Catholic Douay.

The answer to why they were removed from the King James Version is rather simple.

The Old Testament was given to us by the Jewish priests and rabbis.

The Rabbinical order would not endorse the Apocryphal books as Holy Writ.

In other words, they did not endorse them as God's inerrant Word. The Puritans rejected them as well. Consequently, these non-sanctioned books have been removed.

Sugarbear19,

PART 1 -(All posts taken from different web sites combined that are Accredited seminary schools and colleges that had the identical material written).

You said "a) How can you trust a single word in that book when you ACCEPT that parts of it are changed from its original state?"

I will list some historical facts about the English translations of the Bible and maybe this will help give an understanding as to why some people claim the Bible has been changed.

Prior to 1445 there was no printing press.

? It took 10 months to write one Bible.

? A 1407 English law forbade English translations.

? Then came Gutenberg, who invented the printing press.

? Imagine, there were over 5,000 New Testament handwritten manuscripts. The first translation was by Wycliff, with a secondary translation from Latin to English.

Tindale printed in 1525 illegally.

? He translated the Greek New Testament into English (Not the Old Testament).

? Tindale said, I vow to make the boy who drives the plow in England to know more of the scriptures than the Pope does.

? He smuggled Bibles into England in sacks of flour.

? God's enemy, Tunsdale, burned Bibles.

? Ten years later in 1535, Tindale was captured and burned at the stake.

? His dying words were...Lord, open the eyes of the King of England.

The Coverdale Bible was published in 1535. In 1537 came the Matthews Bible.

The Great Bible was printed in 1539.

In 1560, the Geneva Bible was published.

In 1568, the Bishop's Bible.

In 1611, the Authorized King James Version was published.

The English translations mentioned were either secondary translations, partial translations, or were translated by a handful of individuals.

In 1604, King James authorized the work to begin in translating the Word of God into English.

This became known as the Authorized King James Version. On grounds of age and scholarship, this translation has been the authority in non-Catholic congregations for 4 centuries.

The King James was translated from Hebrew and Greek and compared to the translations that preceded it.

Approximately the same time the King James Version was commissioned, the Catholic Pope directed an English translation of the Bible to be made and is known as the Douay.

This was a secondary translation.

The Douay was translated from Jerome's Latin Vulgate, which Jerome had translated from original manuscripts.

The problem you have with a secondary translation is that if the original had an error, you automatically inherited it.

The effort that King James, the head of the English-speaking world, embarked upon was colossal.

Between 50 and 60 of the English-speaking world's finest language experts were:

? Taken from three different educational centers: Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminster.

? Then divided into two groups: Greek and Hebrew.

? Further divided into three different segments, making six different committees.

? Then the Bible was divided into six different parts, including the Apocryphal books.

As a footnote, the Old Testament Apocryphal books are still found in the Catholic Douay.

The answer to why they were removed from the King James Version is rather simple.

The Old Testament was given to us by the Jewish priests and rabbis.

The Rabbinical order would not endorse the Apocryphal books as Holy Writ.

In other words, they did not endorse them as God's inerrant Word. The Puritans rejected them as well. Consequently, these non-sanctioned books have been removed.

KittyKatz286

Veteran

Joined: Feb, 2009

Posts: 1988

Posted: Dec. 28, 2011 - 8:44 PM ET #3577

Quote Originally Posted by SirJohnDrake:

The trinity makes one Godhead...you get it, it's one Godhead.

What the hell is a "godhead"

SirJohnDrake

All-Star

Joined: Jan, 2006

Posts: 14765

Posted: Dec. 28, 2011 - 8:45 PM ET #3578

Quote Originally Posted by Mikniks:

Basically what you're saying is that god only hated people during the time of Moses... Okay...

Basicly you are wrong. See how people misinterpret? You're a prime example of this.

First of all God loves everyone. He hates no one. There were punishments for disobedience during the time of Moses.

Remember now, the wages of sin is death. There were other sinful acts besides homosexuality that were severely punished during the time of Moses. God gave Moses the command and authority to carry out these punishments for the sins the people were committing. He spoke directly to Moses so Moses obeyed God and carried out these punishments for disobedience.

matt4000

Veteran

Joined: Aug, 2007

Posts: 1104

Posted: Dec. 28, 2011 - 8:46 PM ET #3579

Sugarbear19,

PART 2 -(All posts taken from different web sites combined that are Accredited seminary schools and colleges that had the identical material written).

You said "a) How can you trust a single word in that book when you ACCEPT that parts of it are changed from its original state?"

I will list some historical facts about the English translations of the Bible and maybe this will help give an understanding as to why some people claim the Bible has been changed.

CONTINUED...

After the work of translating was divided up, it was:

? Then distributed equally between Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminster.

? Each man translated his section and read it before the entire committee.

? Then the committee would pass the final work to two men who did final editing.

? Finally, it was reviewed by Bancroft, the Archbishop of Canterbury.

? It took over six years (1604-1611).

? There was very little difference from Tindale's translation.

? There are over 5,000 handwritten manuscripts of the New Testament alone, which contain all or part of the New Testament. If the majority of manuscripts said a particular verse was there, then it was written in the majority-text....

? Majority-text is also known as the Traditional Text, Syrian Text, Byzantine Text, Kappa, or common text.

? Harvard scholar, Hill, states that during the Byzantine Period, which spanned 312 AD to 1453 AD, and for nearly three centuries of the Protestant Church, the majority-text was the authority.

? Hodge, Professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis at Dallas Theological Seminary and co-editor of a Greek New Testament book, writes, Thus 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...based on its dominance in the transmissional history of the New Testament text.

? Again Hodge writes, Modern criticism repeatedly and systematically rejects majority readings on a large scale...This is monstrously unscientific...The Textus Receptus was too hastily abandoned. (The majority-text was gleaned from over 5,000 handwritten manuscripts.)

William Pickering, author of "Identity of the New Testament Text," recipient of a Th.M. in Greek Exegesis from Dallas Theological Seminary, and an M.A. and Ph.D. in Linguistics from the University of Toronto, wrote:

? The new versions ignore the over 5,000 Greek manuscripts now extant. (Extant simply means now existing.)

? The majority-text comes from manuscripts from Greece, Constantinople, Asia Minor, Syria, Alexandria, Africa, Gaul, Southern Italy, Sicily, England, and Ireland.

? Pickering notes: A reading found in only one limited area cannot be original. If a reading died out in the fourth century, we have the verdict of history against it.

? The King James Version has the majority-text and geography.

Kenyon's 1937 textbook supports Westcott and Hort.

It reads, The relatively late date...must now be taken as established. The majority-text may be dismissed from further consideration.

However, he added, If it can be shown that the readings which Hort called Syrian existed before the fourth century, the keystone would be knocked out of the fabric of his theory.

Researcher G.A. Riplinger weighs in with the following:

Out it comes! Harvard scholar, Hill writes, This...theory has been abandoned by most present-day scholars. The ninety-six papyri (ancient writing materials) (with the exception of P3, 4, 7, and 14) were all discovered after 1890, after Westcott and Hort's 1881 new Greek text. Pickering observes:

In Hort's day...the early papyri were not extant (existing) had they been, the W-H theory could scarcely have appeared...

Each of the early papyri (AD 300 or earlier) vindicates some Byzantine [KJV] reading...Bodmer II shows some Syrian readings to be anterior (preceding in time; prior) to corresponding readings...The early papyri vindicate Byzantine readings in 660 places where there is a significant variation.

The Byzantine text is what you have in the King James Bible.

Sugarbear19,

PART 2 -(All posts taken from different web sites combined that are Accredited seminary schools and colleges that had the identical material written).

You said "a) How can you trust a single word in that book when you ACCEPT that parts of it are changed from its original state?"

I will list some historical facts about the English translations of the Bible and maybe this will help give an understanding as to why some people claim the Bible has been changed.

CONTINUED...

After the work of translating was divided up, it was:

? Then distributed equally between Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminster.

? Each man translated his section and read it before the entire committee.

? Then the committee would pass the final work to two men who did final editing.

? Finally, it was reviewed by Bancroft, the Archbishop of Canterbury.

? It took over six years (1604-1611).

? There was very little difference from Tindale's translation.

? Majority-text is also known as the Traditional Text, Syrian Text, Byzantine Text, Kappa, or common text.

? Harvard scholar, Hill, states that during the Byzantine Period, which spanned 312 AD to 1453 AD, and for nearly three centuries of the Protestant Church, the majority-text was the authority.

? The new versions ignore the over 5,000 Greek manuscripts now extant. (Extant simply means now existing.)

? The majority-text comes from manuscripts from Greece, Constantinople, Asia Minor, Syria, Alexandria, Africa, Gaul, Southern Italy, Sicily, England, and Ireland.

? Pickering notes: A reading found in only one limited area cannot be original. If a reading died out in the fourth century, we have the verdict of history against it.

? The King James Version has the majority-text and geography.

Kenyon's 1937 textbook supports Westcott and Hort.

It reads, The relatively late date...must now be taken as established. The majority-text may be dismissed from further consideration.

However, he added, If it can be shown that the readings which Hort called Syrian existed before the fourth century, the keystone would be knocked out of the fabric of his theory.

Researcher G.A. Riplinger weighs in with the following:

In Hort's day...the early papyri were not extant (existing) had they been, the W-H theory could scarcely have appeared...

The Byzantine text is what you have in the King James Bible.

KittyKatz286

Veteran

Joined: Feb, 2009

Posts: 1988

Posted: Dec. 28, 2011 - 8:49 PM ET #3580

Quote Originally Posted by SirJohnDrake:

Basicly you are wrong. See how people misinterpret? You're a prime example of this.

First of all God loves everyone. He hates no one. There were punishments for disobedience during the time of Moses.

But you're saying that homosexual acts are considered "sins." Surely this cannot be true, can it?

matt4000

Veteran

Joined: Aug, 2007

Posts: 1104

Posted: Dec. 28, 2011 - 8:50 PM ET #3581

Sugarbear19,

PART 3 -(All posts taken from different web sites combined that are Accredited seminary schools and colleges that had the identical material written).

You said "a) How can you trust a single word in that book when you ACCEPT that parts of it are changed from its original state?"

I will list some historical facts about the English translations of the Bible and maybe this will help give an understanding as to why some people claim the Bible has been changed.

CONTINUED...

Dr. Henry Morris, founder of the world renowned Institute for Creation Research, writes:

Even many King James Bibles have footnotes referring to what are said to be better manuscripts which indicate that certain changes should be made in the King James text,

But what are these manuscripts, and are they really better?

It is significant that almost all of the new versions of the New Testament are based on what is known as the Westcott-Hort Greek text, whereas the King James is based largely on what is known as the Textus Receptus.

As far as the Hebrew text is concerned, the King James is based on the Masoretic (meaning, handed down) text, while the modern versions rely heavily on Kittel's revised Masoretic text.

The Masoretic text was compiled from the ancient manuscripts of the Old Testament by the Hebrew scholars dedicated to guarding and standardizing the traditional Hebrew text handed down from the earlier Hebrew scribes, who had in turn meticulously copied the ancient Hebrew manuscripts, scrupulously guarding against error.

As far as the Hebrew text developed by Rudolf Kittel is concerned, it is worth noting that Kittel was a German rationalistic higher critic, rejecting Biblical inerrancy and firmly devoted to evolutionism.

The men most responsible for alterations in the New Testament text were B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, whose Greek New Testament was largely updated by Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland.

All of these men were evolutionists.

Furthermore, Westcott and Hort both denied Biblical inerrancy and promoted spiritism and racism. Nestle and Aland, like Kittel, were German theological skeptics.

Westcott and Hort were also the most influential members of the English revision committee which produced the English Revised Version of the Bible.

The corresponding American revision committee which developed the American Standard Version of 1901 was headed by another liberal evolutionist, Philip Schaff. Most new versions since that time have adopted the same presuppositions as those of the 19th century revisers.

Furthermore, the Westcott-Hort text was mainly based on two early Greek manuscripts, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts, which were rediscovered and rescued from long (and well-deserved) obscurity in the 19th century.

Dr. Morris concluded with this thought:

So one of the serious problems with most modern English translations is that they rely heavily on Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Bible developed by liberals, rationalists, and evolutionists, none of whom believed in the verbal inspiration of the Bible.

Is this how God would preserve His Word? Would He not more likely have used devout scholars who believed in the absolute inerrancy and authority of the Bible?

Sugarbear19,

PART 3 -(All posts taken from different web sites combined that are Accredited seminary schools and colleges that had the identical material written).

You said "a) How can you trust a single word in that book when you ACCEPT that parts of it are changed from its original state?"

I will list some historical facts about the English translations of the Bible and maybe this will help give an understanding as to why some people claim the Bible has been changed.

CONTINUED...

Dr. Henry Morris, founder of the world renowned Institute for Creation Research, writes:

Even many King James Bibles have footnotes referring to what are said to be better manuscripts which indicate that certain changes should be made in the King James text,

But what are these manuscripts, and are they really better?

As far as the Hebrew text is concerned, the King James is based on the Masoretic (meaning, handed down) text, while the modern versions rely heavily on Kittel's revised Masoretic text.

The men most responsible for alterations in the New Testament text were B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, whose Greek New Testament was largely updated by Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland.

All of these men were evolutionists.

Furthermore, Westcott and Hort both denied Biblical inerrancy and promoted spiritism and racism. Nestle and Aland, like Kittel, were German theological skeptics.

Westcott and Hort were also the most influential members of the English revision committee which produced the English Revised Version of the Bible.

Dr. Morris concluded with this thought:

Is this how God would preserve His Word? Would He not more likely have used devout scholars who believed in the absolute inerrancy and authority of the Bible?

matt4000

Veteran

Joined: Aug, 2007

Posts: 1104

Posted: Dec. 28, 2011 - 8:54 PM ET #3582

Sugarbear19,

PART 4 -(All posts taken from different web sites combined that are Accredited seminary schools and colleges that had the identical material written).

You said "a) How can you trust a single word in that book when you ACCEPT that parts of it are changed from its original state?"

I will list some historical facts about the English translations of the Bible and maybe this will help give an understanding as to why some people claim the Bible has been changed.

CONTINUED...

To summarize the first 3 parts.

The Authorized King James Version of the Bible was and is:

? Translated by the world's greatest scholars.

? Supported by the vast, vast majority of the original-Greek, handwritten-manuscripts, thus the term, majority-text.

? Supported by the oldest manuscripts.

? Supported by manuscripts discovered in Greece, Constantinople, Asia Minor, Syria, Alexandria, Africa, Gaul, Southern Italy, Sicily, England, and Ireland, versus the new translations which are derived from a reading found in only one limited area.

? The King James Version is translated from the Textus Receptus, which means received text. It has been the authority among Christians for over 2,000 years!

Mikniks

Veteran

Joined: Nov, 2010

Posts: 1384

Posted: Dec. 28, 2011 - 9:04 PM ET #3583

Quote Originally Posted by SirJohnDrake:

The trinity makes one Godhead...you get it, it's one Godhead.

So I could have 100 gods but if I say they all count as 1 then I'm not a pagan lol ok...

Let's not even bother with the holy spirit. There's god the father and jesus who is also a god. That is two. Two is greater than one. You are pagan. Simple math really...

matt4000

Veteran

Joined: Aug, 2007

Posts: 1104

Posted: Dec. 28, 2011 - 9:06 PM ET #3584

Quote Originally Posted by KittyKatz286:

But you're saying that homosexual acts are considered "sins." Surely this cannot be true, can it?

The Bible is still very clear about the cause, the punishment (Yes, it says punishment.),and the solution for homosexuality.

God said homosexuality is an abomination (His word for it).

I'll show you verses in the Bible where God says this. It also says God's punishment for the act is death.

There is also a sure way of escape. The hand of God's love, Jesus Christ, is extended to all who will forsake sin (God's word for it.) and grasp the right hand of fellowship.

GOD SAID, Leviticus 20:13:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Also read Leviticus 18:22 and Deuteronomy 23:17-18.

In the New Testament God declares that those who cling to homosexual behavior will be judged and cast into hell.

Read the following excerpts from the Word of God.

GOD SAID, Romans 1:21-32:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

GOD SAID, I Corinthians 6:9-10:

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

GOD SAID, Jude 1:7:

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

As terrible as God says this sin is, God has made a way of escape for those who are bound therein. The way of escape is forgiveness, deliverance, and salvation through the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ!!!