Effective evangelists?

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I can see psychological projection mingled with a cognitive dissonance maybe one of Sean's strongest traits?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta View Post
Translations like the NASB, NIV and the NKJV are based on Greek manuscripts. Not all translations are translated from the same group of Greek manuscripts.

The NIV is translated from different manuscripts the KJV is translated from.

No one is removing or adding material. They are translating from different manuscripts.



Thanks for bringing that up Scott...Gail Riplingers' Video here is showing us these comparisons clearly.

Did you watch how the "Son of the morning"(Lucifer) of the KJV, becomes the morning star in the NIV(Jesus)?


(1) Just about everybody knows the word "Lucifer" as another name for Satan. The word "Lucifer" is found one time in the King James Bible.

Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

(2) But what about the NIV? The word "Lucifer" is clean, bald-headed gone and now this creature is identified as the "morning star". Lucifer is the "morning star" in the NIV.

How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

(3) So we know that in the NIV the "morning star" is a negative, evil figure. Right? He was fallen from heaven. He was cast down to the earth. Can we find the "morning star" anywhere else in the NIV? Yes! The following passages in the NIV show the "morning star" as Jesus Christ! But the NIV just called the fallen creature of Isaiah 14:12 "morning star". Lucifer AND Jesus are ONE in the NIV! Lord have mercy, Jesus! Help me, Lord.

NIV: Revelation 22:16,
"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you [1] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

NIV: 2 Peter 1:19,
And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

NIV: Revelation 2:28--
I will also give him the morning star.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...gK_jJkX8c6vpxQ





Is that okay Scott?

That is the very manuscript that these foreign Bibles use.(non Received text)







How naive can a preterist be, using and advocating a Bible and it's text that refers to Satan as Jesus....LOL

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Sean

How naive can a preterist be, using and advocating a Bible and it's text that refers to Satan as Jesus....LOL

Seriously? Is that the best argument you can present for your position?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Seriously? Is that the best argument you can present for your position?

But that is the best he can do. Now I really have to feel bad for those who are trapped by him in his so called Bible studies. Innocent individuals who make the mistake of challenging Sean, and being face to face with this man while he melts down in front of them. Really sad.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

But that is the best he can do. Now I really have to feel bad for those who are trapped by him in his so called Bible studies. Innocent individuals who make the mistake of challenging Sean, and being face to face with this man while he melts down in front of them. Really sad.

Ain't that the truth.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Do you understand how they translate?

*No, he does not. Some of the silliest assertions I have ever read (& that's saying something).

*Worse, the KJV was *NOT* translated from the Textus Receptus. It was translated from the 5 MSS of Erasmus, 1 of Stephanus & 1 of Beza, who made a *MAJOR* translation error in Revelation 16.5 (he made a conjectural emendation that no one had ever seen prior to his interpolation).

*The Elzevir brothers (dutch publishing family) than began marketing their translations as the Textus Receptus in 1633...22 years after the KJV (http://www.theopedia.com/Textus_Receptus).

*In 1894 a scholar names Scrivner took the translation choices of the KJV & compiled a monad reading of the Textus Receptus contra the eclectic readings that existed prior (https://www.logos.com/product/1801/s...extus-receptus).

*There you have the finalized Textus Receptus. It's really not hard to learn about textual-criticism (I wrote this up primarily from memory). Ironically,the Textus Receptus came from the KJV - not vice-versa. Simply put, someone doesn't know what on earth they're talking about regarding the Textus Receptus being the supposed "text the KJV translators used."

*Won't even get into the back-translation of Erasmus in the last portion of Revelation - in which he created 17 textual-variants unseen before his translation from Latin into Greek (the last leaves of the Greek codex he was translating from had fallen off) .

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by rdp

*No, he does not. Some of the silliest assertions I have ever read (& that's saying something).

*Worse, the KJV was *NOT* translated from the Textus Receptus. It was translated from the 5 MSS of Erasmus, 1 of Stephanus & 1 of Beza, who made a *MAJOR* translation error in Revelation 16.5 (he made a conjectural emendation that no one had ever seen prior to his interpolation).

*The Elzevir brothers (dutch publishing family) than began marketing their translations as the Textus Receptus in 1633...22 years after the KJV (http://www.theopedia.com/Textus_Receptus).

*In 1894 a scholar names Scrivner took the translation choices of the KJV & compiled a monad reading of the Textus Receptus contra the eclectic readings that existed prior (https://www.logos.com/product/1801/s...extus-receptus).

*There you have the finalized Textus Receptus. It's really not hard to learn about textual-criticism (I wrote this up primarily from memory). Ironically,the Textus Receptus came from the KJV - not vice-versa. Simply put, someone doesn't know what on earth they're talking about regarding the Textus Receptus being the supposed "text the KJV translators used."

*Won't even get into the back-translation of Erasmus in the last portion of Revelation - in which he created 17 textual-variants unseen before his translation from Latin into Greek (the last leaves of the Greek codex he was translating from had fallen off) .

Great post, but rdp please expound on the back-translation of Erasmus. I understand that he wrote down the book of Revelation pretty much from memory? He used a commentary which he found on the book of Revelation, but the commentary was missing the final pages so therefore Erasmus winged it? Could you show that information please? If you have any detailed research on this I would love to read it. Also thank you for the above post.

[Esaias]

Yes, RDP, I too would like to see more info on this.

[Sean]

I think it is time for folks to understand where/how we got our Bibles here....

This is a great video, which clearly shows us the 3 groups from which all Bibles were developed....




https://youtu.be/tNv-zzpIwBs?t=458

[Esaias]

Sean, nobody on this thread lacks understanding of the textual history of the English Bible. Well...