Book Review: This is Research?
April 16th, 2008 at 12:43pm Albert McIlhenny
|
New Age Bible Versions: An Exhaustive Documentation of the Message, Men & Manuscripts Moving Mankind to the Antichrist’s One World Religion – G. A. Riplinger A V Publications (June 1993) Topic: Bibliology, Hermeneutics, & Exegesis; Protestantism Summary: Attempt upon the reliability of newer Bible translations Rating: 
|
When reading Gail Riplinger’s New Age Bible Versions, the question that one must continually ask oneself is this: How did someone read this manuscript and agree to publish it? When originally released, it did create quite the ruckus in Evangelical Protestant circles with many readers becoming convinced that only the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible was the true Word of God. However, once examined by more level heads in the Evangelical community, the controversy generated by the book largely evaporated due to quite straightforward critiques of the quality of Riplinger’s research and methodology. Although the book still resonates with some, its appeals is primarily restricted to KJV-Only movement whose beliefs seem to reside near the border between fundamentalism and conspiracy theory.
I should point out that as a traditional Anglican I hold the KJV in very high esteem. It is an excellent Bible that has served the Church well for centuries. It stands not only as a reliable text of Holy Scripture but also as one of the greatest literary achievements of the English language. One of the most disturbing aspects of the whole KJV-Only movement is its associating the work of those who used their scholarly abilities to advance the Kingdom with the most anti-intellectual elements of the Church.
Riplinger’s questionable thesis revolves around the accusation that all available versions of the Bible except the KJV are corrupted and in essence satanic attempts at removing the Christian’s main weapon – the Word of God – in the battle against demonic forces. In her attempts to convince the reader, she offers textual comparisons, historic data, biographical information on the translators, voluminous citations and footnotes, and a few techniques unique to her own methods. For those with less than a critical eye and predisposed to see all the problems of the world as arranged by conspirators (as opposed to being a direct result of man’s sinful nature), it can be quite convincing.
The problem with Riplinger’s analysis is that she – like most conspiracy theorists – simply cannot see outside the box she has created for herself. In her attempts to explan the omissions of certain passages in more recent translations of the Holy Scriptures that appeared in the King James Version, she assumes some nefarious plot behind each variation and never bothers to investigate the reasons for the differences. Much of her argument is predicated upon the alleged superiority of the Textus Receptus or received text that was used as the basis for the KJV. However, she has neither the background in Greek or Hebrew nor an understanding of Church history that would allow her to actually contribute anything constructive to the discussion of the manuscript evidence. In place of reason, she simply assumes evil intent on all parties associated with any newer translation and commits wholesale character assassinations against respected Christian scholars. Whatever may be missing from their Bibles, one can only guess that the commandment against bearing false witness must not make an appearance in hers.
Reasons for the differences are quite straightfoward. There are obvious similarities between the texts of the synoptics and with additional information in some variants of the same event. A scribe copying something from Mark (whose descriptions of events were often simpler) may be familiar with the same event in Matthew or Luke and add what he mistakenly thought had been omitted. Many of the so-called “omissions” are of this sort. The text still does appear in a different Gospel but just not in a place where it did not appear originally.
The Textus Receptus was based upon the later Byzantine family of texts that is primarily medieval in origin. Other textual families (such as the Alexandrian) are much earlier and their more primitive state is verified by much less polished text. Thus Riplinger’s argument that the Byzantine family represented the vast majority of texts is shown to be fallacious. Yes, it is the majority but they are all later texts that do not represent the most primitive form of the texts. The Alexandrian family is earlier and simply a more reliable basis for a translation. The reason for the use of the Byzantine texts was that they were the texts available in the West at the time. The West had until the time of the Reformation had been mainly using the Latin translation by St. Jerome known as the Vulgate. A new translation of the Greek texts into Latin by Erasmus (using a limited number of Byzantine texts) provided the basis for the translation of the KJV. It is ironic that KJV-only adocates use arugments against newer translations similar to arguments opposing Erasmus’ work because it contradicted parts of the accepted Vulgate translation.
If Riplinger had stuck to arguments on textual families to build a case for the KJV, one could write it off as a well-meaning person in far over her head, but this is simply not the case. She not only questions the use of other texts but also the intentions and even the eternal state of those involved in the newer translations. The most egregious example of this is the treatment of Anglican scholar and bishop B. F. Westcott who with fellow Anglican cleric F. J. A. Hortt compiled a standard critical version of the New Testament. The author accuses them of being both deniers of Christ’s divinity and closet occultists. The former she asserts by selectively taking quotes from Dr. Westcott and twisting them to mean the exact opposite of their original intent. Her claim of some occultic connection is repeated througout the book with no supporting evidence. She does mention in a footnote that a Dr. Westcott was associated with Theosophy founder Madame Blavatsky and hypthesizes it was him but that Dr. Westcott was a coroner and known occultist Dr. Williiam Wynn Westcott. Hence, her entire attack is based upon out of context quotes and misidentifications. This is research?
Much of this stuff is common fair on the extreme ends of the fundamentalist landscape but Riplinger does add a few of her own unique contributitions. As she explained the “acrostic algebra” that “proves” the satanic origin of newer translations and her strange fascination with the letter “s”, I began to realize that not only is there a fine line between genius and insanity but between stupidity and insanity as well.
I see no problem with someone using the KJV. It is a beautifully written and generally reliable reading of the Bible (as are the other scholarly translations) but has some limitations: archaic words, development in the meaning of words, and the use of later Greek texts. None of these nullify its power as the KJV has been the Bible for millions of Christians through the centuries, but neither does its long history deem it irreplacable any more than the Vulgate centuries before.
As for New Age Bible Versions, it is not only grossly inaccurate but makes completely unfounded attacks against a number of Christian scholars. Even if one gives Riplinger the benefit of the doubt and assumes both that her misidentification of Dr. Wescott and her misuse of his quotes were appropriated from other secondary sources (this form of unverified “citation borrowing” is rampant among fundamentalist authors), this only indicts her further as one who was willing to use unverified sources to attack a fellow Christian. Even worse, she has made the KJV – once a uniting force among English speaking Protestants – a source of division. This is a truly onerous book that should have been left unpublished.
Entry Filed under: Bibliology, Hermeneutics, & Exegesis, Protestantism
21 Comments Add your own
1. Tim | April 17th, 2008 at 12:20 am
Well written post on an author known for going “overboard.” Sometimes I think that the extremists do more harm than good to the argument for the use of the KJV. I have strong beliefs about the debate and am beginning a series on it on my sight: http://timmyjohnboy.com/?cat=11 “Biblical Studies”
Just thought you may be interested!
2. Tom Johnson | April 18th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Gail Riplinger book ‘New Age Bible Versions’ contains multiple errors, lies, the majority of which are the gross misquoting of other people. In particular, a large portion of the misquoting is of the Bible, B.F. Wescott and F.J.A. Hort. See her divorces and marriages info.
The New Bible Translations are more correct than the old ones and just about everything Gail Riplinger says in her book is a Lie. Please Don’t be deceived by Gail Riplinger. Gail is slamming God’s Holy Word in the new translations. For further info on Gail Riplinger please see:
http://www.avpublications.org
3. J. Smith | April 18th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Riplinger exposed the types and patterns of corruptions in the Alexandrian texts and the modern versions based on them. The reaction she received is the reaction every Christian gets who presents the truth boldly in the face of the world and the devil. Don’t make your authority scholars. Make your authority the received traditional text Word of God. Fear and revere God only and not man.
4. CH | April 19th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
There is always a marketplace of idiots willing to buy books written by idiots.
That is unfortunately one of the flaws of capitalism and free speech – we must suffer the speech of fools, though we don’t have to do so gladly.
Riplinger is a fraud or deluded or bipolar or nuts, or all four.
5. Albert McIlhenny | April 20th, 2008 at 7:34 am
J. Smith,
The Alexandrian texts are far ealier than anything used in the collation of the KJV. All the earlier texts show basically the same variations as the Alexandrian family. It is rather absurd to claim a group of texts from the medieval period are more accurate when all the earlier texts demonstrate differently. The Byzantine texts show a certain amount of polishing that no early texts demonstrate and were obviously editings of the originals.
Gail Riplinger is unable to demonstrate anything since she does not read Greek (the language of the New Testament is Koine Greek, not Elizabethen English) and has no knowledge of the textual history of the New Testament. She merely assumes the superiority of the KJV and uses it to demonstrate the corruption of other texts – a hopelessly circular argument.
How is the KJV the “receieved traditional version”? It has been in existence for less than 400 years while the Church has existed for over 2000 years! And who gave the Church of England the authority to speak for the Church in terms of receiving anything? In the Western Church, the traditional text is the Latin Vulgate translation by St. Jerome which held sway from the fifth century A.D. until the time of the Reformation.
6. J. Smith | June 22nd, 2008 at 8:47 am
>the language of the New Testament is Koine Greek, not Elizabethen English
Ahh. Thank you, for that. That clears it up.
7. J. Smith | June 22nd, 2008 at 9:14 am
OK…
>How is the KJV the “receieved traditional version”?
The underlying manuscripts are the traditional, received text. The AV1611 is a *translation.* You know, it’s the translation all your favorite modern versions based on the Alexandrian manuscripts use as their foundation (and who could blame you for doing that?).
>In the Western Church, the traditional text is the Latin Vulgate translation by St. Jerome which held sway from the fifth century A.D. until the time of the Reformation.
Here’s how you know what the God-preserved text was: it was the one in the possession of the people the church of St. Jerome (that would be the Roman Catholic ‘church’) was torturing, burning, massacring, etc. The text that the devil didn’t want God’s own to have, but God always has His remnant, and His remnant shepherd and protect and defend His Word.
>The Alexandrian texts are far ealier than anything used in the collation of the KJV. All the earlier texts show basically the same variations as the Alexandrian family.
And corruption of the Word of God began before the death of the apostles. And the two primary Alexandrian manuscripts used by the modern versions differ from each other more than Moby Dick and the Magic Mountain differ from each other.
>Gail Riplinger is unable to demonstrate anything since she … has no knowledge of the textual history of the New Testament.
This is a bit specious considering she has demonstrated a knowledge of the textual history of the New Testament in her books (certainly in In Awe of thy Word) and considering one doesn’t need a degree or doctorate to know abomination when you see it. You just need the Spirit.
8. Albert McIlhenny | June 23rd, 2008 at 6:12 pm
>>How is the KJV the “receieved traditional version”?
>The underlying manuscripts are the traditional, received text. The AV1611 is a *translation.* You know, it’s the translation all your favorite modern versions based on the Alexandrian manuscripts use as their foundation (and who could blame you for doing that?).
The question is not whether it was received but received when and by whom. The text that the KJV conforms to is not the majority text of the Byzantine tradition but a collation of a limited number of Byzantine texts available to the Western Church at the time of the Reformation. The translators of the KJV relied heavily on the work of Erasmus combined with earlier vernacular translations. If the KJV were truly representative of the Byzantine tradition, we could argue about the lineage of that manuscript tradition. However, it is mainly representative of a subset of the Byzantine tradition – particularly those collated by Erasmus – and not the tradition as a whole. This is not meant as a slight against those who compiled the KJV. You work with what stands as the best you have and their translation is certainly accurate of the texts they had and remains the most majestic of any English translation. But to state this text was preserved from a text received ealier than the Reformation period is just inaccurate.
>>In the Western Church, the traditional text is the Latin Vulgate translation by St. Jerome which held sway from the fifth century A.D. until the time of the Reformation.
>Here’s how you know what the God-preserved text was: it was the one in the possession of the people the church of St. Jerome (that would be the Roman Catholic ‘church’) was torturing, burning, massacring, etc. The text that the devil didn’t want God’s own to have, but God always has His remnant, and His remnant shepherd and protect and defend His Word.
Ah, the “trail of blood” idea that was invented by separatist Baptists in the 19th century and has absolutely no historical evidence behind it. Besides that, claiming this text was from some church being persecuted is totally ridiculous. The KJV is derived from a subset of texts of the Byzantine family of manuscripts. Now why exactly would it be called “Byzantine”? Because it was from the manuscript tradition that evolved in the city of Byzantium – also known as the “New Rome” – also known as Constantinople. It was the manuscript tradition of the Imperial Roman Church (which was Greek speaking) centered in the Empire’s new capital city. Rather than being “persecuted” by the Church of St. Jerome, it was merely the same Church but in the Eastern half of the Empire. It is the same Church that gave us the Seven Ecumenical Councils. The Western half of the Empire (comprising of Western Europe and North Africa west of Egypt) spoke Latin and the Eastern half spoke Greek. There was no mythical underground church although some have tried to construct one out of various heretical and schismatic movements that have no connection whatsoever to modern Protestantism or to each other. There were three major Churches in existence – the Roman that spoke Latin and used the Vulgate, the Byzantine that spoke Greek, and the Church of the East (outside the Empire) that spoke Aramaic and used the Peshitta. Appealing to Byzantine manuscripts eminating from Constantinople as demonstrative of some underground church is pure fantasy.
>>The Alexandrian texts are far ealier than anything used in the collation of the KJV. All the earlier texts show basically the same variations as the Alexandrian family.
>And corruption of the Word of God began before the death of the apostles. And the two primary Alexandrian manuscripts used by the modern versions differ from each other more than Moby Dick and the Magic Mountain differ from each other
Oh, I get it. If it doesn’t agree with your pet theory, it must be a corruption. Here’s something to think about though. Why is there not one single example of a text that conforms to the Byzantine tradition prior to centuries later? Furthermore, if this is all a matter of some evil pseudo-church destroying the Word of God, why is the Byzantine manuscript tradition you cherish so much the one used by the post-Constantinian church you condemn?
>>Gail Riplinger is unable to demonstrate anything since she … has no knowledge of the textual history of the New Testament.
>This is a bit specious considering she has demonstrated a knowledge of the textual history of the New Testament in her books (certainly in In Awe of thy Word) and considering one doesn’t need a degree or doctorate to know abomination when you see it. You just need the Spirit.
Gail Riplinger cannot read either Greek or Hebrew and so cannot possibly make any judgment of the accuracy of any translation. She does not have any understanding of Church history as any cursory reading of her book can attest. She has made accusations against fellow Christians based upon misinformation and half-truths. Would the Spirit lead one to bear false witness? As much as she claims to defend the Word of God, she also claims private revelations that border on the absurd. Would the Spirit lead one to come up with nonsense like “acrostic algebra” and the other silliness in that book?
I happen to love the KJV. I admire those who did the translation and the reasons they cited for doing it. It is a wonderful translation given the state of manscript evidence at the time and still a reasonably accurate one today. It’s use of the English language is unmatched by any other translation. The tragedy about Riplinger and the nonsense surrounding her is that it has associated one of the great jewels of English speaking Christendom with such quackery as given in her book.
9. J. Smith | June 23rd, 2008 at 11:50 pm
>I happen to love the KJV. I admire those who did the translation and the reasons they cited for doing it.
And demons recognize Jesus as God. (Even while they remove ‘God’ from 1 Tim. 3:16.)
As for trail of blood, notice you have to invoke Baptists to dodge that reality. This is because the trail of blood of martyrs is real, whoever appropriates whatever group in history notwithstanding. The Roman Beast church murdered 50 million Bible-believing Christians. And ‘trail of blood’ very well describes those acts. Those that the Beast murdered are the very elect who will judge the followers of the Beast. God brings their destruction in their very act of killing God’s own. And the Bible the Beast was desperate to stamp out is the very Bible atheist higher critics and their followers have been waging war on ever since you sense the time was ripe for letting your devil flag fly high in the public sphere.
You know what manuscript is the the God-preserved Word of God. You know the sophistry you employ to dissuade innocents and those ignorant of the subject away from that truth. Your conscience convicts you.
10. Albert McIlhenny | June 24th, 2008 at 12:18 am
J. Smith,
I noticed you failed to address any of the points raised with any evidence other than restating and needed to resort ot ad hominem argumentation. The “trail of blood” is fiction – pure and simple. The “churches” often cited are a mixed bag of gnostics, dualists, and schismatic groups such as the Donatists who actually agreed with the established church on almost all doctrinal points but disagreed on the qualifications of ministry. If they existed, why not just give us some examples of who they were and what they believed with supporting evidence.
I especially noticed that you managed to avoid the unpleasant fact that the KJV is from the family of manuscripts that were part of the established church and thus rendering your entire “underground church” pointless. Even if such a thing existed, the KJV is not based on their New Testament but on the established Church. The manuscripts were those created in Constantinople by the church of the Eastern part of the Roman Empire that would later evolve into what we now know as Eastern Orthodoxy.
11. J. Smith | June 24th, 2008 at 12:27 am
Albert, you’re too ignorant of the Work of the Spirit in the history of God’s people and His Word to argue any fine points with. The received text (Traditional Text) didn’t appear out of nowhere at the time of the Reformation. The battle at that time between the reformers and Rome on variants and corrupt manuscripts (a battle the reformers won) was the same battle Rome fought with God’s remnant throughout the history of redemption up to that point. You call those Bible-believers by the names the Beast church labeled them with, after committing genocide against them. Again, you are on the side of the devil, and apparently enthusiastically so.
12. Albert McIlhenny | June 24th, 2008 at 1:07 am
J. Smith,
Again…the Textus Receptus is based upon a collation of manuscripts of the Byzantine tradition available in the Western Church around the time of the Reformation by the Catholic monk Erasmus. There was no such thing before then. Erasmus had about a half-dozen texts available to him. The translators of the KJV supplemented this with other English and Latin translations.
You keep bringing up some alleged “remnant” church but so far have failed to supply one smidgen of evidence of them. Even the most ardent backers of the KJV agree the manuscripts used are from the Byzantine family. That means it was produced by the church at Constantinople – the imperial capital. More importantly, the particular manucripts used were largely those of the Byzantine family that had been preserved in Western Europe by the Roman Church.
Again I ask you what is your evidence? People who back this bizzare conspiracy theory usually quote each other’s secondary sources but never a primary source – mainly because there are none. Produce the evidence so we all can see. rather than rattling off insults that only prove your position is without any foundation.
How can the KJV be from some undergound church when the manuscripts are Byzantine? What groups constitued this underground church and why have we no evidence of them? Why can you not produce some of their writings so we can judge for ourselves? How can a collation of Byzantine manuscripts in Western Europe by a Catholic monk be considered evidence of some underground church? If you want to use the KJV, by all means do so. If you want to make a reasoned argument for the primacy of the Byzantine family, by all means do so. But this “remnant church” idea is just a fabrication and to try to use it as the origin of manuscripts produced by the church at Constantinople merely takes it from ignorance to absurdity.
13. J. Smith | June 24th, 2008 at 2:48 am
God preserves his church. That God always has a remnant that don’t bow their knee to Baal is biblical teaching from God Himself. It seems like a good liberal theologian you consider the Roman Beast church to have been that remnant. To have to tell you you are wrong again gets into the necessity of having the Spirit to see and understand these things.
>What groups constitued this underground church and why have we no evidence of them?
Again, what groups did the Roman Beast massacre? You don’t consider them to be real apparently. The Vaudois would be a good place for you to start.
14. Albert McIlhenny | June 24th, 2008 at 3:32 am
The Vaudois (or Waldensians) were a medieval dissenting movement founded by Peter Waldo who was motivated by the example of St. Alexius and angered by the wealth of the Roman Church. In doctrine, they were basically identical to medieval Roman belief as their own writings attest. The dispute was not over doctrine but wealth. After being condemend as schismatics and later as heretics, some factions reconciled with Rome while others became more radical and eventually joined churches of the Reformation.
But the group is of medieval origin and its early tenets were basically identical with Rome. For example, an early confession of the group was as follows:
“”In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and of the Blessed and Ever-Virgin Mary. Be it noted by all the faithful that I, Valdesius, and all my brethren, standing before the Holy Gospels, do declare that we believe with all our hearts, having been grasped by faith, that we profess openly that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three Persons, one God….
We firmly believe and explicitly declare that the incarnation of the Divinity did not take place in the Father and the Holy Spirit, but solely in the Son, so that he who was the divine Son of God the Father was also true man from his Mother.
We believe one Church, Catholic, Holy, Apostolic and Immaculate, apart from which no one can be saved, and in the sacraments therein administered through the invisible and incomprehensible power of the Holy Spirit, sacraments which may be rightly administered by a sinful priest….
We firmly believe in the judgment to come and in the fact that each man will receive reward or punishment according to what he has done in this flesh. We do not doubt the fact that alms, sacrifice, and other charitable acts are able to be of assistance to those who die.
And since, according to the Apostle James, faith without works is dead, we have renounced this world and have distributed to the poor all that we possess, according to the will of God, and we have decided that we ourselves should be poor in such a way as not to be careful for the morrow, and to accept from no one gold, silver, or anything else, with the exception of raiment and daily food. We have set before ourselves the objective of fulfilling the Gospel counsels as precepts.
We believe that anyone in this age who keeps to a proper life, giving alms and doing other good works from his own possessions and observing the precepts from the Lord, can be saved.
We make this declaration in order that if anyone should come to you affirming that he is one of us, you may know for certain that he is not one of us if he does not profess this same faith.”
In an extant letter between factions of the group, they write:
“To the question they [the Poor of Lyons] raised concerning baptism, we replied as follows : We affirm that no one can be saved who refuses the material water of baptism and that unbaptized infants are not saved. This we called on them to believe and profess….
One point of difference between us and the companions of Valdes…concerned the breaking or sacrifice of the bread. As we have verified, their judgment differs from ours…
In the first place, some of the companions of Valdes maintain that the substance of the bread and wine is transformed into the body and blood of Christ by the Word of God, adding that the power comes not from men but from God.
To this we objected, saying that, if the bread and wine are transubstantiated…by the mere mention of the Word of God, it follows that any person, Jew or pagan, could pronounce the Word of God on the bread and wine, and, according to this opinion, it would be transformed into the body and blood of Christ.
This is absolutely impious and cannot be sustained by any valid authority and is unreasonable….They have acknowledged that the sacrament cannot be performed by women or laymen, but only by the priest. They also said that no one, good or bad, but only He who is God and man, that is, Christ, can transubstantiate the bread and wine into the body and blood.”
Does this sound like your remnant church? I didn’t think so. But still, what has any of this to do with the KJV? The Waldensians used vernacular translations by Catholic priests of the Latin Vulgate. They had nothing to do with Byzantine manuscripts in Greek and nothing to do with the TR.
You seem to want to cling to this “remnant church” idea but still cannot answer why you are then using the New Testament not of an underground remnant but of the Eastern Roman Empire at Constantinople. What has the Byzantine manuscripts to do with some underground church when in fact this family of manuscripts was very much above ground. If anything, you should be arguing for the Alexandrian family since they are the ones that was phased out by the imperial church. Your position is riddled with endless contradictions.
15. J. Smith | June 24th, 2008 at 4:05 am
And thus you expose the extreme, astonishing ignorance of the Critical Text scholars and their followers. Really, Albert, get thee a library card. There is more to learning than clicking that James White blog bookmark every day…
Not to mention desperately googling Vaudois and eating Roman Catholic reference works (my goodness, what a scholar this CT boy is)…
By the way, don’t call yourself a Christian until you can discern the Beast from Bible-believers. The blood of Christian martyrs is not a small thing to the King of those martyrs.
16. Albert McIlhenny | June 24th, 2008 at 10:02 am
J Smith,
I see you still have no further evidence. You do realize ad hominem argumentation is the sure sign of someone without a leg to stand upon. The funny one is that I am accused of being both a James White devotee (I am not and have criticized him as much as I have praised him) and also Catholic (also not true) – an odd combo considering White is a critic of Catholicism. Then again, self-consistency seems not to be a major concern of yours.
It is rather typical how you can simply dismiss anything written by any opponent of yours (whether Protestant or Catholic) by a mere insult. Is the source Catholic? Obviously a ruse of the Beast. Is the source Protestant? Must be some “higher critic” who undermines the Word of God. Yet you cannot refute anything offered. Every scholarly work on the subject comes to the same conclusion. The only ones who disagree are a small cadre of people clinging to dog-eared copies of Hislop and Carroll that have no supporting evidence.
You claim your evidence is the Holy Spirit. Yet the Holy Spirit does not call one to bear false witness. You merely cite it to use as a club because you have set yourself up as your own standard. Nice work if you can get it.
Furthermore, you still have avoided the question of how you can possibly consider the textual tradition of the imperial church at Constantinople to be that of some underground remnant. Why not take the library card you allegedly possess and work on resolving that for awhile.
Just check any library at a local universtiy for some source material on the Waldensians and you will find what I have above. You might also check the book “Baptist Successionism” by James McGoldrick reviewed at this site. Next time try real evidence rather than mere name calling.
17. J. Smith | June 24th, 2008 at 10:46 am
>the textual tradition of the imperial church at Constantinople
The text of the apostles. Interesting that you can’t see this. To you God’s Word is what it is based on the authority of man, preserved in ‘text traditions’ of man.
As for remnant, the context is the tyranny the Beast of Rome was imposing on ‘Christendom’. And, again: 50 million Bible-believers martyred by the filthy satanic Beast church of Rome. To know God’s preserved Word look to the Bible those Martyred were holding, and defending, and dying for.
May you one day find the Holy Spirit residing in your heart. If that happens: defend God’s Word. The devil is very active and never-tiring in attacking it. But God has the victory. Don’t get stuck on the wrong side forever, pilgrim.
18. Albert McIlhenny | June 24th, 2008 at 11:36 am
>The text of the apostles
That is the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. You have just assumed your conclusion – not provided evidence. While pointing out your fallacies can be sporting for a time, it does grow old. Again, the KJV is based upon manuscripts of the Byzantine tradtion produced by the imperial church at Constantinople. That’s why it’s called Byzantine. You cannot have it both ways. As I said many comments ago, I will listen to any defense of that manuscript tradition but the fact is that the manuscripts are post-Constantinian and produced by the imperial church. If you have some startling evidence of their earlier existence, I am sure there are papyrologists somewhere willing to take a look at your find. But let’s not claim its origin as something it is not.
If you were claiming that the manuscripts used in the KJV were based upon manuscripts that were pushed aside while different ones were substituted, then you might have a case for priority. But just the opposite is the case. The Byzantine tradition evolved in the context of the imperial church at Constantinople as the Bible was copied by both hired scribes and then monks. The variations contained are usually are largely the harmonization of parallel accounts in the synoptics. There are no doctrines derviable from one tradition and not the other. Thus, there really is no major doctrinal concern. The only reason for newer translations is to have a text that conforms closest to the originals and the earliest texts are from other manuscript traditions. The Byzantine represent a far more polished form that is the product of centuries of development.
Oh yes, the 50 million figure. Interesting considering how loosely it is cited without any supporting evidence. It began to be thrown about in the post-Reformation period without any evidence of any sort (of course, Catholic sources had their own equally virulent and unsupported claims going the other direction). If you check around, you will find that neo-pagans also claim the Catholic Church killed 50 million witches. Given the population of Europe in the medieval period, the high natural mortality rates, and the scourge of the Black Death, all this kiling must have eliminated the population….oh, but it didn’t. Reality dioesn’t quite match the myth.
19. J. Smith | June 24th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
I love it when CTers claim circular reasoning regarding faith in the Word of God meaning and being what it says it means and is. Scratch a CTer and you find an atheist with a self-awareness level of minus zero.
20. Albert McIlhenny | June 24th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Ah, no evidence and more name calling. Yawn.
21. Ken | June 29th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Hi,
I to have found Gail Riplinger to be a Fraud.
I compared some of what she had to share with the new Bible translations and I found may lies.
Also, in comparing the new translations to the Greek the newer Bibles are more correct.
I think the NKJV, NASB, NIV and some others are excellent. There are some that are only
a paraphrase and that is what they are like the NLT. There are some that are not Bible’s like the
Morman’s, JW’s and other cults.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed