Bible Discussion: Gnostic? (two Radically Different Greek Texts

Gnostic? (two Radically Different Greek Texts
Posts: 132

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)

Yuri Kuchinsky
2004-09-15 15:29:29 EST
Geoff Hudson wrote in article:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=fba079c7.0409080150.2d20ae1a%40posting.google.com

> Again to follow on, Yuri wrote:
>
> "Dear friends,
>
> Here's something that I've found on the Net recently. While
> the main subject of the long article from which these quotes
> have been taken is somewhat different, the following basic
> summary is generally quite valid, I think."
>
> If anyone has taken the trouble to see what the "long article" was
> about, they will see that the writer is complaining about W & H's
> "spiritualism" with Kabbalistic overtones.

Yes, Hudson, it seems that Westcott & Hort were into some
weird stuff...

It's strange that so many Christian fundamentalists are
using the fruits of their labours, their 'eclectic Greek
NT', while disregarding their somewhat odd theological
inclinations.

> Here are two quotes from
> the article:
>
> "This report was written to demonstrate that the sources used by the
> Hebraic Roots Movement (Talmud, Mishnah, Midrash, Halakah and Haggada)
> evolved into and purvey the same occult teachings as the
> Kabbalah/Zohar, the preeminent compendium of Jewish mysticism. Schools
> of Kabbalah generally require a knowledge of these Rabbinic sources"
>
> "B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort were themselves practical occultists
> who determined to replace the Received Greek Text (Textus Receptus)
> with the Alexandrian family of Gnostic manuscripts, which more closely
> reflected their belief system. The well-documented facts of the occult
> associations and dishonorable intentions of these two Anglican
> scholars can be found in The Nineteenth Century Occult Revival."
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. What does the writer mean when he implies that the Alexandrian
> family of manuscripts were more "gnostic" than the TR? Does he in
> fact mean they are more Spirit based?

In general, Alexandria in ancient times was believed to have
been a hotbed of Gnosticism. There are also some pretty
gnostic-sounding passages that Westcott & Hort inserted into
their 'eclectic Greek NT'.

But you can also describe these passages as "Spirit based" I
suppose...

> 2. What does the writer mean by the "occult revival"? For example,
> does he mean Pentecostalism?

Well, I think we're talking here about something that's a
bit more serious than that. I don't think that the
Pentecostals are generally seen as a bunch of Gnostics,
somehow...

> 3. If the W & H text leans towards Spirit worship, then I might think
> that their text was more correct than those that don't.

Your opinion only.

> It is my view
> that the pre-war New Covenant In the Spirit was indeed Kabbalistic
> with its worship of the Spirit as Lord, its visions, language of
> heavenly ascents as in Revelation and as stated by "Paul" (where he
> says he was caught up to heaven while on earth), and with reference to
> the editor's "spiritual gifts" which in the original were surely gifts
> of different spirits.
>
> SO, WERE W & H MORE CORRECT AFTER ALL?

I don't think so, although the opinions may vary.

> And is the article writer's
> perjorative reference to gnosticism just one big red herring (an
> artificial excuse for rejecting the text of W $ H)?

No, I don't think it's a red herring.

> I can understand that some of the NT may have been edited later by the
> Jesus cult movement to combat gnosticism.

Or maybe to include gnosticism?

> But that does not preclude
> the existence of a pre-war Jewish (and Gentile) Kabbalistic New
> Covenant In the Spirit which is what (imo) the original NT documents
> were about.
>
> Hudson

Well, I don't want to sound dogmatic, but I don't think your
view will find much support among the mainstream Christians.
Although one never knows...

Yours,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku

The distressing realization is forced upon us that
the "progress" of the past hundred years has been
precisely in the wrong direction -- our modern versions
and critical texts are several times farther removed
from the original than are the Authorised Version
(KJV) and TR! How could such a calamity have
come upon us?! -- Wilbur Pickering


Wilfried Dornwald
2004-09-16 07:42:16 EST

"Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@trends.ca> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:41489819.7B121227@trends.ca...
> There are also some pretty
> gnostic-sounding passages that Westcott & Hort inserted into
> their 'eclectic Greek NT'.


Would you mind quoting some?



Martin Edwards
2004-09-16 13:39:43 EST
Wilfried Dornwald wrote:

> "Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@trends.ca> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:41489819.7B121227@trends.ca...
>
>>There are also some pretty
>>gnostic-sounding passages that Westcott & Hort inserted into
>>their 'eclectic Greek NT'.
>
>
>
> Would you mind quoting some?
>
>
On a slightly different but related point, where's my favourite troll?
It worries me when he's too quiet.

--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause. -Chico Marx

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955

Stone
2004-09-17 18:10:33 EST

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <41489819.7B121227@trends.ca>...
>Geoff Hudson wrote in article:
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=fba079c7.0409080150.2d20ae1a%40posting
.google.com
>
>> Again to follow on, Yuri wrote:
>>
>> "Dear friends,
>>
>> Here's something that I've found on the Net recently. While
>> the main subject of the long article from which these quotes
>> have been taken is somewhat different, the following basic
>> summary is generally quite valid, I think."
>>
>> If anyone has taken the trouble to see what the "long article" was
>> about, they will see that the writer is complaining about W & H's
>> "spiritualism" with Kabbalistic overtones.
>
>Yes, Hudson, it seems that Westcott & Hort were into some
>weird stuff...
>
>It's strange that so many Christian fundamentalists are
>using the fruits of their labours, their 'eclectic Greek
>NT', while disregarding their somewhat odd theological
>inclinations.
>
>> Here are two quotes from
>> the article:
>>
>> "This report was written to demonstrate that the sources used by the
>> Hebraic Roots Movement (Talmud, Mishnah, Midrash, Halakah and Haggada)
>> evolved into and purvey the same occult teachings as the
>> Kabbalah/Zohar, the preeminent compendium of Jewish mysticism. Schools
>> of Kabbalah generally require a knowledge of these Rabbinic sources"
>>
>> "B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort were themselves practical occultists
>> who determined to replace the Received Greek Text (Textus Receptus)
>> with the Alexandrian family of Gnostic manuscripts, which more closely
>> reflected their belief system. The well-documented facts of the occult
>> associations and dishonorable intentions of these two Anglican
>> scholars can be found in The Nineteenth Century Occult Revival."
>>
>> Questions:
>>
>> 1. What does the writer mean when he implies that the Alexandrian
>> family of manuscripts were more "gnostic" than the TR? Does he in
>> fact mean they are more Spirit based?
>
>In general, Alexandria in ancient times was believed to have
>been a hotbed of Gnosticism. There are also some pretty
>gnostic-sounding passages that Westcott & Hort inserted into
>their 'eclectic Greek NT'.
>
>But you can also describe these passages as "Spirit based" I
>suppose...
>
>> 2. What does the writer mean by the "occult revival"? For example,
>> does he mean Pentecostalism?
>
>Well, I think we're talking here about something that's a
>bit more serious than that. I don't think that the
>Pentecostals are generally seen as a bunch of Gnostics,
>somehow...
>
>> 3. If the W & H text leans towards Spirit worship, then I might think
>> that their text was more correct than those that don't.
>
>Your opinion only.
>
>> It is my view
>> that the pre-war New Covenant In the Spirit was indeed Kabbalistic
>> with its worship of the Spirit as Lord, its visions, language of
>> heavenly ascents as in Revelation and as stated by "Paul" (where he
>> says he was caught up to heaven while on earth), and with reference to
>> the editor's "spiritual gifts" which in the original were surely gifts
>> of different spirits.
>>
>> SO, WERE W & H MORE CORRECT AFTER ALL?
>
>I don't think so, although the opinions may vary.
>
>> And is the article writer's
>> perjorative reference to gnosticism just one big red herring (an
>> artificial excuse for rejecting the text of W $ H)?
>
>No, I don't think it's a red herring.
>
>> I can understand that some of the NT may have been edited later by the
>> Jesus cult movement to combat gnosticism.
>
>Or maybe to include gnosticism?
>
>> But that does not preclude
>> the existence of a pre-war Jewish (and Gentile) Kabbalistic New
>> Covenant In the Spirit which is what (imo) the original NT documents
>> were about.
>>
>> Hudson
>
>Well, I don't want to sound dogmatic, but I don't think your
>view will find much support among the mainstream Christians.
>Although one never knows...
>
>Yours,
>
>Yuri.
>
>Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
>
>The distressing realization is forced upon us that
>the "progress" of the past hundred years has been
>precisely in the wrong direction -- our modern versions
>and critical texts are several times farther removed
>from the original than are the Authorised Version
>(KJV) and TR! How could such a calamity have
>come upon us?! -- Wilbur Pickering

The original New Testament gospels and epistles were in the possession of
the Christians in the first century in Antioch. Exact copies of these were
sent out with missionaries to different cities. In Alexandria Egypt the
gnostics got a hold of them and deliberately changed 5% of the scriptures to
match their own heretical beliefs, in the 4th century. Because Alexandria
has a dry arid climate, very old manuscripts containing these corrupted
scriptures were found. 5 corrupted manuscripts come from Alexandria. They
disagree with each other in various places and they disagree with the textus
receptus in about 5% of important places. When the Roman catholic church was
being invented by the Emporer Constantine, in the 4th century, by mixing
pagan Roman religion with Christianity, he sent a man named Eusebius to get
manuscripts for the Roman catholic Bible. He had access to the Real Old and
New Testament books (the massoretic text and the textus receptus) and he had
access to the corrupted Alexandrian texts. He chose the wrong manuscripts,
the corrupted Alexandrian texts for the catholic Bible. Jerome later
translated this into the Latin Vulgate for the catholic church.
The Byzantine text or textus receptus, and the massoretic text (for the old
testament) were still the manuscripts used in the Eastern part of the Roman
empire by the Greek speaking peoples. These are the real original unaltered
texts.
During the reformation the protestants adopted the real unaltered texts as
their Bible, the massoretic text (old testament) and the textus receptus
(new testament) which was translated into the protestant King James Bible,
the Tyndale Bible, and Luther's German Bible. The catholic church is behind
the introduction of the modern versions containing the Alexandrian Hort and
Wescott text. The Catholic church is trying to pull down the protestant KJV
Bible and replace it with the corrupted Alexandrian text that they adopted.
That is the reason for the market being flooded with corrupted Alexandrian
text Bibles. It is this ongoing war between catholicism and protestantism
that is causing the problem.




_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>


Jim Sheffield
2004-09-18 14:49:31 EST
Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca> wrote in message news:<41489819.7B121227@trends.ca>...
> Geoff Hudson wrote in article:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=fba079c7.0409080150.2d20ae1a%40posting.google.com
>
> > Again to follow on, Yuri wrote:
> >
> > "Dear friends,
> >
> > Here's something that I've found on the Net recently. While
> > the main subject of the long article from which these quotes
> > have been taken is somewhat different, the following basic
> > summary is generally quite valid, I think."
> >
> > If anyone has taken the trouble to see what the "long article" was
> > about, they will see that the writer is complaining about W & H's
> > "spiritualism" with Kabbalistic overtones.
>
> Yes, Hudson, it seems that Westcott & Hort were into some
> weird stuff...
>
> It's strange that so many Christian fundamentalists are
> using the fruits of their labours, their 'eclectic Greek
> NT', while disregarding their somewhat odd theological
> inclinations.
>
> > Here are two quotes from
> > the article:
> >
> > "This report was written to demonstrate that the sources used by the
> > Hebraic Roots Movement (Talmud, Mishnah, Midrash, Halakah and Haggada)
> > evolved into and purvey the same occult teachings as the
> > Kabbalah/Zohar, the preeminent compendium of Jewish mysticism. Schools
> > of Kabbalah generally require a knowledge of these Rabbinic sources"
> >
> > "B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort were themselves practical occultists
> > who determined to replace the Received Greek Text (Textus Receptus)
> > with the Alexandrian family of Gnostic manuscripts, which more closely
> > reflected their belief system. The well-documented facts of the occult
> > associations and dishonorable intentions of these two Anglican
> > scholars can be found in The Nineteenth Century Occult Revival."
> >
> > Questions:
> >
> > 1. What does the writer mean when he implies that the Alexandrian
> > family of manuscripts were more "gnostic" than the TR? Does he in
> > fact mean they are more Spirit based?
>
> In general, Alexandria in ancient times was believed to have
> been a hotbed of Gnosticism. There are also some pretty
> gnostic-sounding passages that Westcott & Hort inserted into
> their 'eclectic Greek NT'.
>

FYI - I Emailed the Greek See of Alexandria and asked them
if their texts were different than other Greek Churches?
They Emailed me back saying, "they are completly the
same".

Regards,

Jim

> The distressing realization is forced upon us that
> the "progress" of the past hundred years has been
> precisely in the wrong direction -- our modern versions
> and critical texts are several times farther removed
> from the original than are the Authorised Version
> (KJV) and TR! How could such a calamity have
> come upon us?! -- Wilbur Pickering

Stone
2004-09-18 22:47:20 EST

Jim Sheffield wrote in message
<*a@posting.google.com>...
>Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca> wrote in message
news:<41489819.7B121227@trends.ca>...
>> Geoff Hudson wrote in article:
>>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=fba079c7.0409080150.2d20ae1a%40posting.
google.com
>>
>> > Again to follow on, Yuri wrote:
>> >
>> > "Dear friends,
>> >
>> > Here's something that I've found on the Net recently. While
>> > the main subject of the long article from which these quotes
>> > have been taken is somewhat different, the following basic
>> > summary is generally quite valid, I think."
>> >
>> > If anyone has taken the trouble to see what the "long article" was
>> > about, they will see that the writer is complaining about W & H's
>> > "spiritualism" with Kabbalistic overtones.
>>
>> Yes, Hudson, it seems that Westcott & Hort were into some
>> weird stuff...
>>
>> It's strange that so many Christian fundamentalists are
>> using the fruits of their labours, their 'eclectic Greek
>> NT', while disregarding their somewhat odd theological
>> inclinations.
>>
>> > Here are two quotes from
>> > the article:
>> >
>> > "This report was written to demonstrate that the sources used by the
>> > Hebraic Roots Movement (Talmud, Mishnah, Midrash, Halakah and Haggada)
>> > evolved into and purvey the same occult teachings as the
>> > Kabbalah/Zohar, the preeminent compendium of Jewish mysticism. Schools
>> > of Kabbalah generally require a knowledge of these Rabbinic sources"
>> >
>> > "B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort were themselves practical occultists
>> > who determined to replace the Received Greek Text (Textus Receptus)
>> > with the Alexandrian family of Gnostic manuscripts, which more closely
>> > reflected their belief system. The well-documented facts of the occult
>> > associations and dishonorable intentions of these two Anglican
>> > scholars can be found in The Nineteenth Century Occult Revival."
>> >
>> > Questions:
>> >
>> > 1. What does the writer mean when he implies that the Alexandrian
>> > family of manuscripts were more "gnostic" than the TR? Does he in
>> > fact mean they are more Spirit based?
>>
>> In general, Alexandria in ancient times was believed to have
>> been a hotbed of Gnosticism. There are also some pretty
>> gnostic-sounding passages that Westcott & Hort inserted into
>> their 'eclectic Greek NT'.
>>
>
> FYI - I Emailed the Greek See of Alexandria and asked them
> if their texts were different than other Greek Churches?
> They Emailed me back saying, "they are completly the
> same".
>
> Regards,
>
> Jim

You are incorrect. The Greek vulgate or the textus receptus differs from the
Alexandrian text like as what follows:
1Jonh 5:7 is pulled out of the modern alexandrian text versions by someone
in Alexandria that did not believe in the trinity. 1John 5:8 is in its
place.
IJohn 5:7 (King James version) For there are three that bear record in
heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are
one.
1 John 5:7 is by far not the only reason. Changes that were made to the
scriptures in Alexandria, Egypt, by unbelieving philosophers, in the
Alexandrian text, attack other important doctrines of the Christian faith.
You can go to this website and see for yourself how the changes that were
made to the Alexandrian text, affect important doctrines of the Christian
faith; the unsaved philosophers that made these changes were not real
Christians.
http://watch.pair.com/scriptures.html
Examples: The modern Alexandrian texts attack these doctrines:
The deity of Christ: 1 Timothy 3:16 " God was manifest in the flesh" - KJV
1 Tim. 3:16 " He who was revealed in the flesh - NAS

Heb. 2:11 " he that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of
one" - KJV
Heb. 2:11 "he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one
origin" - Revised Version
Christ did not have an origin: Jesus said before Abraham was I am,
John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before
Abraham was, I am.
Psalms 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst
formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou
art God.
Micah 5:2 kjv whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting
Micah 5:2 Revised standard whose origin is from of old, from ancient days

Verse attacking the doctrine of salvation by faith:
1 Peter 2:2 kjv "desire the sincere milk of the word that ye may grow
thereby."
1 Peter 2:2 revised version "long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it
you may grow up to salvation"
Salvation is obtained through faith in Jesus and repentance, you do not grow
up to it by doing works:
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of
yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Verse attacking ressurection of Christ:
Luke 24:6 KJV He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you
when he was yet in Galilee,
Luke 24:6 " Remember how he told you while he was still in Gallilee -
revised standard
It left out, he is not here, but is risen

Verse attacking word of God:
Luke 4:4 KJV And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall
not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
Luke 4:4 " And Jesus answered him, It is written man shall not live on bread
alone" NAS
Leaves out " but by every word of God"

Verses attacking the virgin birth:
Isaiah 7:14 KJV Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a
virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Isaiah 7:14 "behold a young woman shall conceive and bear a son" - Revised
Standard version
Is. 7:14 Good News Bible, "a young woman who is pregnant will have a son"

Luke 1:34 kjv
Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know
not a man?
Luke 1:34 Revised standard "how shall this be since I have no husband"
The KJV plainly shows Mary to be a virgin: The revised standard opens up the
possibility that she conceived a child by another man that was not Joseph.

Excerpts from
Lets Weigh the Evidence: Which Bible is the Real Word of God? By Barry
Burton. Find it here:
http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0184.asp


There are other examples of how the corrupted Alexandrian text modern Bible
versions have changed the words aroung to attack important doctrines of the
Christian faith.

Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a
furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psalms 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from
this generation for ever.

The King James Version is God's true word in English. The modern versions
come from a corrupted Alexandrian text that had the words changed in
important places.

The New King James Bible (NKJV), has proven to be a hoax, and is not a true
translation of the Textus Receptus. Some of the words were deliberately
changed for reasons other than translation.
http://www.llano.net/baptist/isnkjbwordofgod.htm

1 John 5:7 is in the textus receptus which was found in its original Greek
form long before the fourteenth century. Research textus receptus on the
internet. The textus receptus is the greek text of the New Testament that
came from Antioch in Syria. This is the real original unaltered text. 1 John
5:7 was written by the apostle John and it is in the Syriatic Greek text.
Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it
came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church,
and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in
Antioch.
The Syriatic Greek text, the textus receptus was carried by Christian
missionaries into Alexandria in Egypt where unbelieving philosophers changed
the words around, creating the corrupted Alexandrian Greek text.
The Roman emporer Constantine, in the 4th century ordered a man named
Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea, to make him 50 Bibles for the newly formed
roman catholic church, which is a mixture of pagan roman religion mixed with
Christianity; in short, Rome hijacked Christianity and created a perverted
form of Christianity which is not really Christian. Eusebius had a choice to
make up the 50 bibles, for the roman catholic church, either using the Greek
manuscripts from Alexandria, or the Greek manuscripts from Antioch.
[Eusebius was not a real Christian. He did not believe that Jesus was God
almighty. He falsely believed like Jehovah witnesses do today, that Jesus
was a lesser God.]
1 John 5:7 was in the manuscripts from Antioch, and there was no way that
Eusebius was going to use those manuscripts, because they disagreed with his
personal false belief. So Eusebius chose the corrupted manuscripts from
Alexandria Egypt, to make up the 50 greek bibles for the Roman catholic
church. Egyptian philosophers, that believed like Eusebius did, had already
removed 1 John 5:7 from the corrupted Alexandrian greek manuscripts. Jerome
later translated this corrupted Greek text into the Latin Vulgate.
So you see that John the apostle wrote 1 John 5:7, and it was in the
original Syriatic Greek text from Antioch, and it was around before the 4th
century.
References:
CONSTANTINE, published by Ramsay Mc mullen page 112
Sabotage, magazine by Jack Chick
For an in depth study of what was done to the manuscripts in Alexandria read
these books:
WHICH BIBLE by David Otis Fuller, Institure for biblical textual studies,
2233 Michigan st. NE Grand Rapids, MI 49503
GOD ONLY WROTE ONE BIBLE, by J. J. Ray, the eye opener publishers, P. O.
Box, 7944 Eugene, OR 97401
MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE, by P. S. Ruckman, Bible baptist bookstore, P. O. Box
7135 Pensacola Fl. 32534
THE KING JAMES VERSION DEFENDED, by Edward F. Hills, THD. order from the eye
opener publishers, P. O. box 7944 Eugene OR 97401

Website about corrupt manuscripts and corrupt Bible versions:
http://www.avpublications.com/

1.) The publisher of obscene material, Rupert Murdoch, controls the printing
of the NIV.
2.) NIV stylist, Virginia Mollencott, is a lesbian, who promotes witch
covens.
3.) The NIV usually matches the changes and omissions in the Jehovah Witness
Bible.
4.) The word 'Lucifier', in Hebrew, cannot be translated 'morning star'.

5.) The NIV changes basic Bible doctrines.
6.) There are differences between NIV printings.
NIV Documentation $5.95
(Xerox copies)

How often have you heard a Bible teacher say, "The word here actually
means," only to have him unknowingly parrot new version readings \ufffd all
because he is unfamiliar with the corruption which has affected his Greek
and Hebrew reference books (Strongs, Vines, Thayer, Gesenius, Brown, Driver,
Briggs, Liddell and Scott, etc.)?

Partial List of Corrupt New Versions
AMP Amplified Version ASV American Standard Version CEV Contemporary English
Version KJ21 21st Century King James Version NAB New American Bible (RC)
NASB New American Standard Bible NCV New Century Version NIV New
International Version NIVI New International Version Inclusive NKJV New King
James Version NLT New Living Translation (The Book) NRSV New Revised
Standard Version RSV Revised Standard Version RV Revised Version TEV Today's
English Version (Good News For Modern Man)

The manuscripts from which the textus receptus was taken are the majority of
the Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by
Bible believing Christians down through the centuries. The King James was
translated from these manuscripts. There are 5,309 surviving Greek
manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts
agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% accounts for the differences
between the King James and the modern versions. The textus receptus, King
James, does not include the vaticanus and sinaiticus manuscripts from
Alexandrian Egypt; these are the corrupted manuscripts in question.
Manuscripts from which the modern versions are translated includes the
textus receptus plus the vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts. The modern
versions had to use the textus receptus since it contains the majority of
the surviving Greek manuscripts. The problem is that when the textus
receptus disagreed with the vaticanus or sainaiticus, they preferred these
corrupted manuscripts over the textus receptus. That accounts for the 5%
corruption in the modern versions. Where the textus receptus and the
vaticanus and sinaiticus do not agree, it is because Marcion, 120 - 160 AD
or Origin 184 - 254 AD [or whoever] corrupted those two manuscripts. (The
vaticanus and sinaiticus disagree with each other over 3000 times in the
gospels alone.)
The vast majority of the Greek manuscripts agree together. They have been
passed down through the centuries by true Bible believing Christians. In
1516 Erasmus compiled and printed the Greek (textus receptus) the received
text, from these manuscripts. This is the text that the protestants of the
reformation knew to be the Word of God, from which the King James Bible was
translated.

John Burgon, who spent years studying the texts wrote:
Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable. On many occasions, 10, 20, 30, 40, words
are dropped through very carelessness. Letters, words or whole sentences are
frequently written twice over or begun and immediately cancelled. A whole
clause omitted, because it happens to end in the words of the clause
preceeding happens 115 times in the New Testament.
The above is excerpts from the book:
Lets Weigh the Evidence: Which Bible is the Real Word of God? By Barry
Burton. Find it here:
http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0184.asp












>
>> The distressing realization is forced upon us that
>> the "progress" of the past hundred years has been
>> precisely in the wrong direction -- our modern versions
>> and critical texts are several times farther removed
>> from the original than are the Authorised Version
>> (KJV) and TR! How could such a calamity have
>> come upon us?! -- Wilbur Pickering



_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>


Paul R. Finch
2004-09-19 07:53:51 EST

"stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com> wrote in message
news:414b60d9_3@news1.uncensored-news.com...
>
> The original New Testament gospels and epistles were in the possession of
> the Christians in the first century in Antioch. Exact copies of these were
> sent out with missionaries to different cities. In Alexandria Egypt the
> gnostics got a hold of them and deliberately changed 5% of the scriptures
to
> match their own heretical beliefs, in the 4th century.

The so-called Alexandrian text type is a total myth and has been debunked by
Theodore Skeat.
The origin of the Vaticanus text type is Caesarea in the first century, not
Alexandria in the fourth.
The Apostles John and his elders completed the canon and safe guarded its
provenance by placing
a complete codex in the libraries of Jerusalem and Caesarea in Palestine.
The Byzantine text type is a later church edition and is a flagrant
corruption of the true "Caesarean" text.
For the whole story, see my 450 page book on the subject: "Beyond Acts ---
New Perspectives in New Testament History."

Paul R. Finch

http://www.bookmasters.com/marktplc/01189.htm



Jim Sheffield
2004-09-19 14:55:56 EST

"stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com> wrote in message
news:414cf338_4@news1.uncensored-news.com...
>
> Jim Sheffield wrote in message
> <94210c86.0409181049.31dc251a@posting.google.com>...
> >Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca> wrote in message
> news:<41489819.7B121227@trends.ca>...
> >> Geoff Hudson wrote in article:
> >>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=fba079c7.0409080150.2d20ae1a%40posting.
> google.com
> >>
> >> > Again to follow on, Yuri wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "Dear friends,
> >> >
> >> > Here's something that I've found on the Net recently. While
> >> > the main subject of the long article from which these quotes
> >> > have been taken is somewhat different, the following basic
> >> > summary is generally quite valid, I think."
> >> >
> >> > If anyone has taken the trouble to see what the "long article" was
> >> > about, they will see that the writer is complaining about W & H's
> >> > "spiritualism" with Kabbalistic overtones.
> >>
> >> Yes, Hudson, it seems that Westcott & Hort were into some
> >> weird stuff...
> >>
> >> It's strange that so many Christian fundamentalists are
> >> using the fruits of their labours, their 'eclectic Greek
> >> NT', while disregarding their somewhat odd theological
> >> inclinations.
> >>
> >> > Here are two quotes from
> >> > the article:
> >> >
> >> > "This report was written to demonstrate that the sources used by the
> >> > Hebraic Roots Movement (Talmud, Mishnah, Midrash, Halakah and
Haggada)
> >> > evolved into and purvey the same occult teachings as the
> >> > Kabbalah/Zohar, the preeminent compendium of Jewish mysticism.
Schools
> >> > of Kabbalah generally require a knowledge of these Rabbinic sources"
> >> >
> >> > "B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort were themselves practical occultists
> >> > who determined to replace the Received Greek Text (Textus Receptus)
> >> > with the Alexandrian family of Gnostic manuscripts, which more
closely
> >> > reflected their belief system. The well-documented facts of the
occult
> >> > associations and dishonorable intentions of these two Anglican
> >> > scholars can be found in The Nineteenth Century Occult Revival."
> >> >
> >> > Questions:
> >> >
> >> > 1. What does the writer mean when he implies that the Alexandrian
> >> > family of manuscripts were more "gnostic" than the TR? Does he in
> >> > fact mean they are more Spirit based?
> >>
> >> In general, Alexandria in ancient times was believed to have
> >> been a hotbed of Gnosticism. There are also some pretty
> >> gnostic-sounding passages that Westcott & Hort inserted into
> >> their 'eclectic Greek NT'.
> >>
> >
> > FYI - I Emailed the Greek See of Alexandria and asked them
> > if their texts were different than other Greek Churches?
> > They Emailed me back saying, "they are completly the
> > same".
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jim
>
> You are incorrect. The Greek vulgate or the textus receptus differs from
the
> Alexandrian text like as what follows:


You don't understand. The Greek See of Alexandria are saying their text is
the
Greek Vulgate. The so-called Alexandrian text is unknown to the Greek See
of
Alexandria and was probably produced by gnostics, not the Greek Church of
Alexandria which survived the Arabs and Turks, and God willing will survive
the "German Scholarship". Pray for them, the just lost their Patriarch in a
plane crash.

Regards,

Jim

> 1Jonh 5:7 is pulled out of the modern alexandrian text versions by someone
> in Alexandria that did not believe in the trinity. 1John 5:8 is in its
> place.
> IJohn 5:7 (King James version) For there are three that bear record in
> heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are
> one.
> 1 John 5:7 is by far not the only reason. Changes that were made to the
> scriptures in Alexandria, Egypt, by unbelieving philosophers, in the
> Alexandrian text, attack other important doctrines of the Christian faith.
> You can go to this website and see for yourself how the changes that were
> made to the Alexandrian text, affect important doctrines of the Christian
> faith; the unsaved philosophers that made these changes were not real
> Christians.
> http://watch.pair.com/scriptures.html
> Examples: The modern Alexandrian texts attack these doctrines:
> The deity of Christ: 1 Timothy 3:16 " God was manifest in the flesh" -
KJV
> 1 Tim. 3:16 " He who was revealed in the flesh - NAS
>
> Heb. 2:11 " he that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of
> one" - KJV
> Heb. 2:11 "he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one
> origin" - Revised Version
> Christ did not have an origin: Jesus said before Abraham was I am,
> John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before
> Abraham was, I am.
> Psalms 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst
> formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou
> art God.
> Micah 5:2 kjv whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting
> Micah 5:2 Revised standard whose origin is from of old, from ancient days
>
> Verse attacking the doctrine of salvation by faith:
> 1 Peter 2:2 kjv "desire the sincere milk of the word that ye may grow
> thereby."
> 1 Peter 2:2 revised version "long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it
> you may grow up to salvation"
> Salvation is obtained through faith in Jesus and repentance, you do not
grow
> up to it by doing works:
> Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of
> yourselves: it is the gift of God:
> Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
>
> Verse attacking ressurection of Christ:
> Luke 24:6 KJV He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto
you
> when he was yet in Galilee,
> Luke 24:6 " Remember how he told you while he was still in Gallilee -
> revised standard
> It left out, he is not here, but is risen
>
> Verse attacking word of God:
> Luke 4:4 KJV And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man
shall
> not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
> Luke 4:4 " And Jesus answered him, It is written man shall not live on
bread
> alone" NAS
> Leaves out " but by every word of God"
>
> Verses attacking the virgin birth:
> Isaiah 7:14 KJV Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold,
a
> virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
> Isaiah 7:14 "behold a young woman shall conceive and bear a son" - Revised
> Standard version
> Is. 7:14 Good News Bible, "a young woman who is pregnant will have a son"
>
> Luke 1:34 kjv
> Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I
know
> not a man?
> Luke 1:34 Revised standard "how shall this be since I have no husband"
> The KJV plainly shows Mary to be a virgin: The revised standard opens up
the
> possibility that she conceived a child by another man that was not
Joseph.
>
> Excerpts from
> Lets Weigh the Evidence: Which Bible is the Real Word of God? By Barry
> Burton. Find it here:
> http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0184.asp
>
>
> There are other examples of how the corrupted Alexandrian text modern
Bible
> versions have changed the words aroung to attack important doctrines of
the
> Christian faith.
>
> Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a
> furnace of earth, purified seven times.
> Psalms 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from
> this generation for ever.
>
> The King James Version is God's true word in English. The modern versions
> come from a corrupted Alexandrian text that had the words changed in
> important places.
>
> The New King James Bible (NKJV), has proven to be a hoax, and is not a
true
> translation of the Textus Receptus. Some of the words were deliberately
> changed for reasons other than translation.
> http://www.llano.net/baptist/isnkjbwordofgod.htm
>
> 1 John 5:7 is in the textus receptus which was found in its original Greek
> form long before the fourteenth century. Research textus receptus on the
> internet. The textus receptus is the greek text of the New Testament that
> came from Antioch in Syria. This is the real original unaltered text. 1
John
> 5:7 was written by the apostle John and it is in the Syriatic Greek text.
> Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And
it
> came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church,
> and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in
> Antioch.
> The Syriatic Greek text, the textus receptus was carried by Christian
> missionaries into Alexandria in Egypt where unbelieving philosophers
changed
> the words around, creating the corrupted Alexandrian Greek text.
> The Roman emporer Constantine, in the 4th century ordered a man named
> Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea, to make him 50 Bibles for the newly
formed
> roman catholic church, which is a mixture of pagan roman religion mixed
with
> Christianity; in short, Rome hijacked Christianity and created a perverted
> form of Christianity which is not really Christian. Eusebius had a choice
to
> make up the 50 bibles, for the roman catholic church, either using the
Greek
> manuscripts from Alexandria, or the Greek manuscripts from Antioch.
> [Eusebius was not a real Christian. He did not believe that Jesus was God
> almighty. He falsely believed like Jehovah witnesses do today, that Jesus
> was a lesser God.]
> 1 John 5:7 was in the manuscripts from Antioch, and there was no way that
> Eusebius was going to use those manuscripts, because they disagreed with
his
> personal false belief. So Eusebius chose the corrupted manuscripts from
> Alexandria Egypt, to make up the 50 greek bibles for the Roman catholic
> church. Egyptian philosophers, that believed like Eusebius did, had
already
> removed 1 John 5:7 from the corrupted Alexandrian greek manuscripts.
Jerome
> later translated this corrupted Greek text into the Latin Vulgate.
> So you see that John the apostle wrote 1 John 5:7, and it was in the
> original Syriatic Greek text from Antioch, and it was around before the
4th
> century.
> References:
> CONSTANTINE, published by Ramsay Mc mullen page 112
> Sabotage, magazine by Jack Chick
> For an in depth study of what was done to the manuscripts in Alexandria
read
> these books:
> WHICH BIBLE by David Otis Fuller, Institure for biblical textual studies,
> 2233 Michigan st. NE Grand Rapids, MI 49503
> GOD ONLY WROTE ONE BIBLE, by J. J. Ray, the eye opener publishers, P. O.
> Box, 7944 Eugene, OR 97401
> MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE, by P. S. Ruckman, Bible baptist bookstore, P. O. Box
> 7135 Pensacola Fl. 32534
> THE KING JAMES VERSION DEFENDED, by Edward F. Hills, THD. order from the
eye
> opener publishers, P. O. box 7944 Eugene OR 97401
>
> Website about corrupt manuscripts and corrupt Bible versions:
> http://www.avpublications.com/
>
> 1.) The publisher of obscene material, Rupert Murdoch, controls the
printing
> of the NIV.
> 2.) NIV stylist, Virginia Mollencott, is a lesbian, who promotes witch
> covens.
> 3.) The NIV usually matches the changes and omissions in the Jehovah
Witness
> Bible.
> 4.) The word 'Lucifier', in Hebrew, cannot be translated 'morning star'.
>
> 5.) The NIV changes basic Bible doctrines.
> 6.) There are differences between NIV printings.
> NIV Documentation $5.95
> (Xerox copies)
>
> How often have you heard a Bible teacher say, "The word here actually
> means," only to have him unknowingly parrot new version readings - all
> because he is unfamiliar with the corruption which has affected his Greek
> and Hebrew reference books (Strongs, Vines, Thayer, Gesenius, Brown,
Driver,
> Briggs, Liddell and Scott, etc.)?
>
> Partial List of Corrupt New Versions
> AMP Amplified Version ASV American Standard Version CEV Contemporary
English
> Version KJ21 21st Century King James Version NAB New American Bible (RC)
> NASB New American Standard Bible NCV New Century Version NIV New
> International Version NIVI New International Version Inclusive NKJV New
King
> James Version NLT New Living Translation (The Book) NRSV New Revised
> Standard Version RSV Revised Standard Version RV Revised Version TEV
Today's
> English Version (Good News For Modern Man)
>
> The manuscripts from which the textus receptus was taken are the majority
of
> the Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted
by
> Bible believing Christians down through the centuries. The King James was
> translated from these manuscripts. There are 5,309 surviving Greek
> manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These
manuscripts
> agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% accounts for the differences
> between the King James and the modern versions. The textus receptus, King
> James, does not include the vaticanus and sinaiticus manuscripts from
> Alexandrian Egypt; these are the corrupted manuscripts in question.
> Manuscripts from which the modern versions are translated includes the
> textus receptus plus the vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts. The modern
> versions had to use the textus receptus since it contains the majority of
> the surviving Greek manuscripts. The problem is that when the textus
> receptus disagreed with the vaticanus or sainaiticus, they preferred these
> corrupted manuscripts over the textus receptus. That accounts for the 5%
> corruption in the modern versions. Where the textus receptus and the
> vaticanus and sinaiticus do not agree, it is because Marcion, 120 - 160 AD
> or Origin 184 - 254 AD [or whoever] corrupted those two manuscripts. (The
> vaticanus and sinaiticus disagree with each other over 3000 times in the
> gospels alone.)
> The vast majority of the Greek manuscripts agree together. They have been
> passed down through the centuries by true Bible believing Christians. In
> 1516 Erasmus compiled and printed the Greek (textus receptus) the received
> text, from these manuscripts. This is the text that the protestants of the
> reformation knew to be the Word of God, from which the King James Bible
was
> translated.
>
> John Burgon, who spent years studying the texts wrote:
> Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable. On many occasions, 10, 20, 30, 40,
words
> are dropped through very carelessness. Letters, words or whole sentences
are
> frequently written twice over or begun and immediately cancelled. A whole
> clause omitted, because it happens to end in the words of the clause
> preceeding happens 115 times in the New Testament.
> The above is excerpts from the book:
> Lets Weigh the Evidence: Which Bible is the Real Word of God? By Barry
> Burton. Find it here:
> http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0184.asp
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >> The distressing realization is forced upon us that
> >> the "progress" of the past hundred years has been
> >> precisely in the wrong direction -- our modern versions
> >> and critical texts are several times farther removed
> >> from the original than are the Authorised Version
> >> (KJV) and TR! How could such a calamity have
> >> come upon us?! -- Wilbur Pickering
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
___
> Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
http://www.uncensored-news.com
> <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source
<><><><><><><><>
>



Wilfried Dornwald
2004-09-20 03:59:14 EST

"stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:414b60d9_3@news1.uncensored-news.com...
> The Byzantine text or textus receptus, and the massoretic text (for the
> old
> testament) were still the manuscripts used in the Eastern part of the
> Roman
> empire by the Greek speaking peoples. These are the real original
> unaltered
> texts.


Alexandria was part of the Byzantine empire and the people were also Greek
speaking. There is no difference. It was all the same. Gnostics were
everywhere.






Geoff Hudson
2004-09-20 05:41:01 EST
"stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com> wrote in message news:<414cf338_4@news1.uncensored-news.com>...
> Jim Sheffield wrote in message
> <94210c86.0409181049.31dc251a@posting.google.com>...
> >Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca> wrote in message
> news:<41489819.7B121227@trends.ca>...
> >> Geoff Hudson wrote in article:
> >>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=fba079c7.0409080150.2d20ae1a%40posting.
> google.com
> >>
> >> > Again to follow on, Yuri wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "Dear friends,
> >> >
> >> > Here's something that I've found on the Net recently. While
> >> > the main subject of the long article from which these quotes
> >> > have been taken is somewhat different, the following basic
> >> > summary is generally quite valid, I think."
> >> >
> >> > If anyone has taken the trouble to see what the "long article" was
> >> > about, they will see that the writer is complaining about W & H's
> >> > "spiritualism" with Kabbalistic overtones.
> >>
> >> Yes, Hudson, it seems that Westcott & Hort were into some
> >> weird stuff...
> >>
> >> It's strange that so many Christian fundamentalists are
> >> using the fruits of their labours, their 'eclectic Greek
> >> NT', while disregarding their somewhat odd theological
> >> inclinations.
> >>
> >> > Here are two quotes from
> >> > the article:
> >> >
> >> > "This report was written to demonstrate that the sources used by the
> >> > Hebraic Roots Movement (Talmud, Mishnah, Midrash, Halakah and Haggada)
> >> > evolved into and purvey the same occult teachings as the
> >> > Kabbalah/Zohar, the preeminent compendium of Jewish mysticism. Schools
> >> > of Kabbalah generally require a knowledge of these Rabbinic sources"
> >> >
> >> > "B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort were themselves practical occultists
> >> > who determined to replace the Received Greek Text (Textus Receptus)
> >> > with the Alexandrian family of Gnostic manuscripts, which more closely
> >> > reflected their belief system. The well-documented facts of the occult
> >> > associations and dishonorable intentions of these two Anglican
> >> > scholars can be found in The Nineteenth Century Occult Revival."
> >> >
> >> > Questions:
> >> >
> >> > 1. What does the writer mean when he implies that the Alexandrian
> >> > family of manuscripts were more "gnostic" than the TR? Does he in
> >> > fact mean they are more Spirit based?
> >>
> >> In general, Alexandria in ancient times was believed to have
> >> been a hotbed of Gnosticism. There are also some pretty
> >> gnostic-sounding passages that Westcott & Hort inserted into
> >> their 'eclectic Greek NT'.

They are more gnostic sounding because they are nearer to the original
documents which were about the appearing of the Spirit of God on the
earth.


> > FYI - I Emailed the Greek See of Alexandria and asked them
> > if their texts were different than other Greek Churches?
> > They Emailed me back saying, "they are completly the
> > same".
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jim


> You are incorrect. The Greek vulgate or the textus receptus differs from the
> Alexandrian text like as what follows:
> 1Jonh 5:7 is pulled out of the modern alexandrian text versions by someone
> in Alexandria that did not believe in the trinity. 1John 5:8 is in its
> place.
> IJohn 5:7 (King James version) For there are three that bear record in
> heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are
> one.
> 1 John 5:7 is by far not the only reason. Changes that were made to the
> scriptures in Alexandria, Egypt, by unbelieving philosophers, in the
> Alexandrian text, attack other important doctrines of the Christian faith.
> You can go to this website and see for yourself how the changes that were
> made to the Alexandrian text, affect important doctrines of the Christian
> faith; the unsaved philosophers that made these changes were not real
> Christians.

> http://watch.pair.com/scriptures.html

Thankyou Stone for this reference.

Why didn't you provide such a list Yuri, or do you have a better list?

I can take these examples one by one.

Geoff
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron