TO THE FORUM:

I have a friend who is interested in joining this forum but is having trouble signing in. She has registered as a new member, received the link to click on from Rick Ross, and she clicked on it. She tried posting but it has not show up. Today she tried to log on and got a message that there was a problem with the account.

Can anyone suggest a reason for this problem or suggest a remedy?

I suggested she try one more time.

If that does not work, what can she do? Can she start over with a new Identity? I thought that was not allowed but since it seems her previous identity was not accepted for some reason, can she begin registering again with a different username?

thanks for any help you can give.

Sistersoap

To Sister:

I am trying to understand your position, but I am not going to present your case for you. Perhaps it might be helpful if you would show this forum how the KJV scholars are perfectly equal to the "Living Word" without a single error. Because? without that? the King James version scholars are just that - scholars. And as such are subject to human error and at that time were subject to the British crown.

Now if there has been a massive cover-up and sleight-of-hand on the manuscripts "conspiracy", I am all ears. I think this is entirely possible. So. Ok? Who did it? and Why? What are the details? Without pointing to seemingly endless volumes of information and links, would you answer this in your own words and show specific proof?

Sister quote: He said nothing about it not being perfect. The inferiority of the Revision was not least because of its inferior theology, favoring unbelieving fads such as evolutionism, and attacking the Deity of Christ.

Dr. Chafer does not deny the deity of Christ, Yet? You claim that Chafer has fallen for this new Revised version - "the Westcott & Hort chicanery". This is obviously not true. Nor does Chafer back evolutionism. So. How is that? How is it in revering the spirit of truth that you say Chafer has fallen for this "Westcott & Hort" chicanery? This "Bait and switch"? Yet? Chafer does not deny the deity of Christ? Nor does Chafer support evolution. Something specific is missing. So I ask you to present your case in more specific detail.

Have I not been specific? Have I asked you to read all 8 volumes of Dr. Chafers Systematic Theology? No. I did not. I have been somewhat brief and very specific. So I ask that you do the same with your case. Prove your case. I don't have to do the homework here - You make the charge, then the weight is on you to prove it in detail. (But you know I will test it). However, I am still waiting for you to prove that the KJV scholars are perfectly equal to the "Living Word", without 1 single error.

Sister quote: {{{I already covered this in some of my previous work sent to you or posted. Please read it then get back to me if your point is not addressed.}}}

I think it is time for you to be honest. Dr. Chafer did not miss the theological point. "It is a declaration that this body is not a body of glory as it yet will be"


Truthtesty

TO TESTY:


YOU SAID:
To Sister:

I am trying to understand your position, but I am not going to present your case for you.

{{{I am sorry, but what might that case be beyond what I have already said? And where do you get the idea that YOU HAVE TO MAKE A CASE FOR ME? I have simply stated my opinions as clearly as I can because to me it is relevant to Thieme, his history, his training, his beliefs, and his teachings. That necessisarily involves his views as far as I can make them out about the KJB. He never said a lot about it, and it is because in my opinion he never learned about the material I have discovered that supports the superiority NOT THE PERFECTION of the King James Bible. If you don't accept my views, Testy, that is OK with me, but you keep on and on about Chafer when I don't think it is all that relevant because he too does not mention THAT I CAN FIND for myself his views plainly stated regarding the King James Bible. I don't have time to hunt for Chafer quotes.

Another thing Testy: You insulted me quite strongly in one of your emails to me and you have never answered what I sent you after that. You keep going on about Chafer and I don't think what you say about him is the big deal you seem to think. He seems to share a lot of the typical scholarly favoritism of the modern versions while at the same time trying to maintain a decent defense of traditional Christian conservative beliefs. That is the best I can say about him, and that is about as specific as I can get right now.}}}

YOU SAID:

Perhaps it might be helpful if you would show this forum how the KJV scholars are perfectly equal to the "Living Word" without a single error.

{{{ONE MORE TIME: I NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING. This is a figment of YOUR imagination and I am not required to reply to this kind of statement. Would you please QUOTE WHERE I SAID "KJB scholars are perfectly equal to the "living word" without a single error?" Where on earth did you GET THAT PHRASE? It was not from me and I am very tired of your accusing me of saying things that I did not say and then demanding that i explain it to your satisfaction as if I did say it.

I am not going to answer that because I NEVER SAID IT. I do not believe that. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT TO YOU? You are attributing to me beliefs that I do not have and of saying things that I did not say! Why should I bother to go further until you admit this is true? Maybe some people who do believe the KJB is best believe that but I am not one of them and neither is Dr. Waite or the majority of people I know or whom I consult.

IT IS INSULTING to keep on having to tell you the same things over and over and it does not soak in, Testy. It is a big waste of time if you can't see that I DO NOT NOW NOR DID I EVER BELIEVE THAT ABOUT THE KJB.

I will not go further with you on this matter until you do, because not only have I said all this before, I have sent you and posted to you many places that explain this very issue and you REFUSE TO EVEN BEGIN TO CHECK THEM OUT. }}}

YOU SAID:

Because? without that the King James version scholars are just that - scholars. And as such are subject to human error and at that time were subject to the British crown.


[[[AGAIN I HAVE COVERED THIS IN WHAT I HAVE ALREADY WRITTEN AND SENT TO YOU. Read it and get back to me after you have done that.}}}

YOU SAID:

Now if there has been a massive cover-up and sleight-of-hand on the manuscripts "conspiracy", I am all ears. I think this is entirely possible. So. Ok? Who did it? and Why? What are the details? Without pointing to seemingly endless volumes of information and links, would you answer this in your own words and show specific proof?

{{{have sent it already.}}}

YOU SAID:

Sister quote: He said nothing about it not being perfect. The inferiority of the Revision was not least because of its inferior theology, favoring unbelieving fads such as evolutionism, and attacking the Deity of Christ.

{{{I did not say Chafer denied the deity of Christ. That is absurd! Where did you get that. I doubt that I was referring to Chafer in that portion you gave, but if I did, please quote the source and I will go back and look to see. I am not perfect Testy and I do make mistakes, HOWEVER you are full of beans if you think I am going to keep on defending thiings I don't believe and did not say. Tell me where you got the idea that I SAID "KJB scholars are perfectly equal to the "living word" without a single error?" !!! }}}

YOU SAID:

Dr. Chafer does not deny the deity of Christ, Yet? You claim that Chafer has fallen for this new Revised version - "the Westcott & Hort chicanery". This is obviously not true. Nor does Chafer back evolutionism. So. How is that? How is it in revering the spirit of truth that you say Chafer has fallen for this "Westcott & Hort" chicanery? This "Bait and switch"? Yet? Chafer does not deny the deity of Christ? Nor does Chafer support evolution. Something specific is missing. So I ask you to present your case in more specific detail.

{{{If you will read what I sent we can discuss this issue more intelligently but you seem not to want to do that but to go on about this particular thing which I HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED as clearly as I can with my limited resources and you have yet to understand what I have said SO FAR, so why should I go on until you have actually read what I sent and suggested so we can identify the basic misunderstanding involved?}}}

YOU SAID:

Have I not been specific? Have I asked you to read all 8 volumes of Dr. Chafers Systematic Theology? No. I did not.

{{{But I read all the endless quotes of Chafer which I cannot check the context and I have been VERY SPECIFIC WITH YOU TESTY and I might say WITHOUT INSULTING YOU. sO YOU go do your homework and we might be able to take this up again when you have done it.}}}

YOU SAID:

I have been somewhat brief and very specific. So I ask that you do the same with your case. Prove your case. I don't have to do the homework here - You make the charge, then the weight is on you to prove it in detail. (But you know I will test it). However, I am still waiting for you to prove that the KJV scholars are perfectly equal to the "Living Word", without 1 single error.

{{{I NEVER SAID IT. i DONT BELIEVE THAT. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL. If you can't absorb that simple thing, there is no hope of going further.}}}

YOU SAID:

Sister quote: {{{I already covered this in some of my previous work sent to you or posted. Please read it then get back to me if your point is not addressed.}}}

I think it is time for you to be honest. Dr. Chafer did not miss the theological point. "It is a declaration that this body is not a body of glory as it yet will be"

{{{If you want to talk about honesty, Testy, you tell the forum about the nasty things you insulted me with and have yet to respond to my reply to you. I have had enough of these games for now. I will talk to you after my vacation. You got time in the next two weeks to show me where I said what you claimed I said but did not. That is VERY SHORT AND SIMPLE. I want to know where you got that it was NOT FROM ME.}}}

Sistersoap



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/20/2008 03:07PM by sistersoap.

<sub>Truthtesty Perhaps it might be helpful if you would show this forum how the KJV scholars are perfectly equal to the "Living Word" without a single error.

Sister {{{ONE MORE TIME: I NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING. This is a figment of YOUR imagination and I am not required to reply to this kind of statement. Would you please QUOTE WHERE I SAID "KJB scholars are perfectly equal to the "living word" without a single error?" Where on earth did you GET THAT PHRASE? It was not from me and I am very tired of your accusing me of saying things that I did not say and then demanding that i explain it to your satisfaction as if I did say it.</sub>

Truthtesty: I NEVER SAID YOU DID. Understand this. It is not a figment of my imagination, it is your failure to see logic. BECAUSE IF YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT "the KJV scholars are perfectly equal to the "Living Word" without a single error THEN YOUR KJV SCHOLARS ARE IN THE SAME BOAT AS ANY OTHER SCHOLARS - SUBJECT TO HUMAN ERROR - HELLO?

AND THAT MEANS THAT THIER TRANSLATIONS ARE REVIEWABLE, QUESTIONABLE, AND SUBJECT TO CORRECTION. AND? IF THE KJV SCHOLARS MADE AN ERROR IN THIER "SCHOLAROLOTRY" THEN YOU NEED TO BE WILLING TO ADMIT IT.

I have told you before that if Dr. Chafer has made a mistake that I am willing to admit it, but are you willing to admit it, if the KJV Scholars made a mistake? I don't think you are. I don't think the possibility of the KJV Scholars making a mistake enters your mind, because of that big roadblock sign, flag waver, and construction project. I think you will with predjudice cart-blanche attack anyone who disagrees with ONE WORD of KJV scholars' translation, cast sound biblical research to the wind, and "throw the baby out with the bathwater."

How is this different than a thiemite getting upset when ONE WORD of Thieme's being called into question? So I ask you are you now a cult follower of the KJV scholars? Thiemites are quite susceptible to falling into other cults after being in the cult of Thieme. This is true of people in other cults too, due to the failure of realizing the cult dynamic and it's influence on thier personality.

<sub>Truthtesty: I think it is time for you to be honest. Dr. Chafer did not miss the theological point. "It is a declaration that this body is not a body of glory as it yet will be"

Sister: {{{If you want to talk about honesty, Testy, you tell the forum about the nasty things you insulted me with and have yet to respond to my reply to you. I have had enough of these games for now. I will talk to you after my vacation. You got time in the next two weeks to show me where I said what you claimed I said but did not. That is VERY SHORT AND SIMPLE. I want to know where you got that it was NOT FROM ME.}}}</sub>

Truthtesty: If you want to talk about honesty, Sister, then realize this, honesty and nasty are 2 different things. Nasty is in the eye of the beholder - the truth hurts. AND? You evade admitting that Dr. Chafer did not miss the theological point. How convenient.

You have a problem admitting to error. It is not really personal, but it does get in the way of honest research. Can you not admit that Dr. Chafer does not miss the theological point of the passages? "It is a declaration that this body is not a body of glory as it yet will be." Plain and simple.

But? becuase Dr. Chafer disagrees with the KJV Scholars on the use of one word "Vile", you attacked Dr. Chafer as if he missed the entire theological point of the entire passage. From a research standpoint that is failure, poor quality and is evidence to the erroring ways of your predjudiced view.

Let's talk about honesty and your failure to admit to error.

ON June 22, 2008 03:50AM [forum.culteducation.com]

YOU SAID: "MY COMMENT:
Have you personally reached Spiritual Maturity yet? If you have not, then you should know that YOU ARE PSYCHOTIC according to Thieme in some of his later teachings. Yes, friend, the IMMATURE BELIEVER IS PYSCHOTIC. Straight from Bob Thieme! I bet you did not know that, did you?"

On June 23, 2008 04:56AM [forum.culteducation.com]

orangeperuviscacha asked you: To: SisterSoap,

Can you remember where/when you heard the "psychotic" speech?

On June 23, 2008 05:10AM [forum.culteducation.com]

Hi Orange,
I am looking for it now. I think it was a post on this thread somewhere....

On June 23, 2008 07:05AM [forum.culteducation.com]

Hi Orange,

Did you perhaps send me the item about IMMATURE BELIEVERS BEING PSYCHOTIC?
I can't find my printed out version, I know I have it SOMEWHERE, but can't find it any time soon. Same with my records on my hard drive. It has to be there somewhere, but I am still not 100% reorganized since changing Internet Providers. I will keep looking because it is important.

It is so frustrating when I can't lay my hands on something I know is around here somewhere!

On June 23, 2008 07:23AM [forum.culteducation.com]

TO THE FORUM, especially TESTY and ORANGE re IMMATURE BELIEVERS BEING PSYCHOTIC

I am having such a hard time running this down. I wonder if it would be easier if I wrote or called BERACHAH for their help?

Surely they would remember something like this.

Meanwhile, in looking over some things, Orange, you sent me several documents about ARROGANCE and I recall that in those there were some statements bordering upon what I was talking about.

Some of the topics were:
PSYCHOPATHIC ARROGANCE, AUTHORITY ARROGANCE, ARROGANCE OF UNHAPPINESS AND PREOCCUPATION WITH SELF, all having to do with various GATES...

Truthtesty: Then after never finding proof in reference about your statement Yes, friend, the IMMATURE BELIEVER IS PYSCHOTIC. Straight from Bob Thieme! I bet you did not know that, did you?"

What did you do? You rambled on endlessly torturing this forum for 4 or 5 pages (137-141) in YOU SERIES - GATE 9: PSYCYHOPATHIC ARROGANCE. But? You never found the quote "IMMATURE BELIEVER IS PYSCHOTIC" nor did you prove it was "Straight from Bob Thieme!" AND? You never admitted that you made a mistake. That is a credibility issue that you have.

But? You thought it was on this thread, but it wasn't. Then you became frustrated and then you knew it was "around here somewhere", but it wasn't. It wasn't was it? It was actually a figment of your imagination.

The truth is non-negotiable.


Truthtesty



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/20/2008 09:17PM by Truthtesty.

Testy,
I am sorry but I can't see the light coloered print.

See you in about two weeks when you have read and responded to what I have alredy sent you.

Sistersoap

To Sister:

I have already replied the way I have replied. And? I think you know full well how to select, copy, and paste the information from this page into a Word document and then select the information again once in the Word document and change the font and size color, so you can read it.

Take as much time as you want.

I may be going on vacation myself, pretty soon.

To the Forum:

It's worth noting here that there is a major unresolvable controversy (both pro and con) over which manuscript(s) are the most accurate, and which texts which theologian referenced. It should be researched for truth. But? Why bring this to a cult forum? How does the different manuscripts relate to the "creation of a cult"? What specifically causes the cult to be created? Would one suggestion be "Textual Criticism". If so? I have to say that is ridiculous, if that is what someone assumes. "Textual Criticism" is merely a study of information of the Bible. It's how men use information falsely (deception, false methods, false rules etc..) and employ group dynamics through information and around information, that makes a cult.

It is apparent that no text of men equals perfectly the "Living Word". Up until this time, this is apparently as it was meant to be. Some people have a hard time admitting to that fact that they don't know everything, and relying on faith in the "Living Word". Some people are too scared to take responsibility for thier own God-given brain and think for themselves. Some people only know how to be told what to believe, but being told what to believe is not faith in God.


Truthtesty

To the Forum:


As I said this subject should be researched for truth and ultimately it may be impossible to determine which manuscript is the "true" manuscipt(s), as these events occurred so long ago. However, this is a noteworthy subject and in the spirit truthful research I present the following:

It appears Dr. Chafer followed Dr. Scofield quite closely and here is an specific example:

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol. 7, Page 110: 5. Day of Christ. By this term—so far as it relates to the earth—reference is made to a distinctive moment of time in which the dead in Christ will be raised and living saints will be translated, which moment is rightly extended into other scenes where vast changes are to be wrought that are the portion of the saints in glory. The Apostle John as seer or forerunner traces these glories for the Church in heaven and as well the agonies on the earth which belong to the tribulation and occur at the same time. The Day of Christ is the termination of the Church’s pilgrim journey on the earth (cf. 1 Cor. 1:8; 5:5; 2 Cor. 1:14; 5:10; Phil. 1:6, 10; 2:16), and includes the event when saints are judged before the judgment seat of Christ (2 Cor. 5:10) and the marriage of the Lamb (Rev. 19:7–8). A notable correction in the Authorized Version is called for in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 where the term Day of Christ occurs, for the Day of the Lord is referred to in the original Greek according to textual criticism (see R.V.). Nothing is predicted as having to take place before the Day of Christ, but, as in the 2 Thessalonians context, there are stupendous events which must precede the Day of the Lord.

(Other pages in which Chafer critiques "Day of the Lord" and "Day of Christ": Vol. 4, Page 33, Vol. 6, Page 86, Vol. 2, Page 70, Vol. 1, Page xvii, Vol. 4, Page 350.)


I offer the following contrasting view in the spirit of truth with no predjudice, it shows along with mentioned above that Dr. Chafer is very close to Dr. Scofield AND specifically ties into the A.V./R.V. controversy over manuscripts.:

Trinitarian Bible Society: ....The second observation may explain the reason why a man like Dr. Scofield would prefer to use the Westcott-Hort text. The text of 2 Thessalonians 2.2 reads, ‘That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand’. The phrase ‘the day of Christ’ is unacceptable to the dispensational understanding of prophecy. Instead, it would need to read ‘the day of the Lord’, as the Critical Text has. This is so crucial that Scofield not only has a marginal note, but also includes it in the introduction to the book and in a note at 1 Corinthians 1.8, as mentioned above. People who hold this view would go on to say that the ‘day of the Lord’ refers not to the pre-tribulation rapture of the church, but the time of judgment preceeding and including the glorious appearing of Christ (the Second Coming of Christ). For 2 Thessalonians 2.2 to read the ‘day of Christ’ contradicts the dispensational system of theology. Therefore, he says the AV ‘incorrectly’ reads ‘day of Christ’, that it is a ‘mistranslation’ in the AV. It needs to be noted that the AV does not have a ‘mistranslation’; it follows a different Greek text and thus has a different reading....

[www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org]

Dr. Chafer does mention "best MSS", this appears to be from Dr. Scofield's footnotes. See current article [www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org]

....The following is a partial list of textual footnotes
from the 1917 SRB which follow the
Critical Text against the Textus Receptus.
(The AV reading is added in some instances
for clarity.) .... Page 1031, Matthew 23.14, reference ‘s’
The best MSS. omit v. 14.....

(SRB- Scofield Reference Bible)

Dr. Chafer uses the specific term "best MSS" only 1 time in all 8 volumes. ("as in all the best MSS" on Vol. 2, Page 194) However, there 108 occurrences in 60 articles where Dr. Chafer specifically mentions "Scofield".


Truthtesty



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/2008 05:19AM by Truthtesty.

To the Forum:


It appears Dr. Chafer gives equal weight to all manuscripts (including the Textus Receptus - KJV/Sacred Text/Authorized Version), depending on which makes sense in translation in context with other scriptures. This is quickly apparent in the title of Dr. Scofield's reference Bible:

The Scofield reference Bible The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments. Authorized version, with a new system of connected topical references to all the greater themes of Scripture, with annotations, revised marginal renderings, summaries, definitions, chronology, and index; to which are added helps at hard places, explanations of seeming discrepancies, and a new system of paragraphs,
by C I Scofield; ; et al
[www.worldcat.org]

It appears Dr. Chafer follows Dr. Scofield quite closely. I haven't had time to note differences between Dr. Scofield and Dr. Chafer.

As shown above and below in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 , Dr. Chafer does not hold to the text of the Authorized version in the case of the "Day of Christ" vs "the Day of the Lord". Instead it appears Dr. Chafer appears to choose "the day of the Lord" over the "Day of Christ", due to the other contextual usages of "the Day of the Lord" and the "Day of Christ" - not favoring one text over the other.

Vol. 4, Page 350 (2 Thessalonians 2:4–10) This especially revealing passage is written by the Apostle Paul and in it most important disclosures are made. (1) The Day of the Lord (not “the Day of Christ,” as erroneously found in the A.V. of vs. 2; see R.V.) cannot come before the man of sin is revealed (vs. 3). Reference to the Day of the Lord, it will be remembered, is to that extended period of a thousand years long predicted. (2) The man of sin declares himself to be God. (3) He sits in the temple (vs. 4)—evidently a restored Jewish temple. (4) He can be revealed only in God’s appointed time (vs. 6). (5) He is destroyed by Christ at His glorious appearing. (6) He exercises Satan’s power (vs. 9). (7) He deceives all who “receive not the love of the truth.”...

Vol. 1, Page xvii (4) The great events predicted for the close of the present age include the Day of Christ when the Church will be taken to be forever with the Lord—some by resurrection and some by translation (1 Cor. 15:35–53; 1 Thess. 4:13–17)—, and the Day of the Lord when Israel will be regathered, judged, and privileged to experience the fulfillment of all her earthly covenants in the land which has been given to her by the oath of Jehovah, which oath cannot be broken (Deut. 30:3–5; 2 Sam. 7:16; Ps. 89:34–37; Jer. 23:5, 6; 31:35–37; 33:25, 26)...

Vol. 2, Page 70 (1) The Force of the Man of Sin. With unequivocal language the Apostle predicts that before the Day of the Lord (not the “Day of Christ,” as in the A.V.) can come the man of sin must appear. The title is specific and no warrant exists for confusing it with the more general name of Antichrist...

Vol. 6, Page 85 ...And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved” (2 Thess. 2:3–10). Few passages present more vital truth concerning the future than this. After having declared the fact that the Day of the Lord (R.V.)—the thousand-year kingdom with all its introductory judgments (not, the Day of Christ, as in the A.V.)—cannot come until the final apostasy has been experienced and the man of sin has appeared, that man of sin is identified, here as elsewhere, by his wicked assumption of the prerogatives of Deity (cf. Ezek. 28:1–10)...

Vol. 4, Page 33 4. Events Predicted for the Close of the Present Age. The great events predicted for the close of the present age include the Day of Christ, when the Church will be taken to be forever with the Lord—some by resurrection and some by translation (1 Cor. 15:35–53; 1 Thess. 4:13–17)—and the Day of the Lord, when Israel will be regathered, judged, and privileged to experience the fulfillment of all her earthly covenants in the land which has been given to her by the oath of Jehovah, which oath cannot be broken (Deut. 30:3–5; 2 Sam. 7:16; Ps. 89:34–37; Jer. 23:5–6; 31:35–37; 33:25–26)...

Now does this mean that Dr. Chafer is flawless? No. But if someone wishes to contest the usage of the "Day of Christ" vs "the Day of the Lord" in 2 Thessalonians 2:2, then let's see the proof and the reasoning of the different contextual usages of the Day of Christ/the Day of the Lord. But, to simply predjudicially say "it's the wrong text", when one has no "smoking gun" proof one way or another which is the "right" text, simply doesn't cut mustard.

Quote from above: For 2 Thessalonians 2.2 to read the ‘day of Christ’ contradicts the dispensational system of theology. Therefore, he says the AV ‘incorrectly’ reads ‘day of Christ’, that it is a ‘mistranslation’ in the AV. It needs to be noted that the AV does not have a ‘mistranslation’; it follows a different Greek text and thus has a different reading.... [www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org]

While it is true that "it follows a different Greek text and thus has a different reading....", it is logically questionable whether it is a mistranslation or not. I'd like to see the other contextual case (if there is one) for using "Day of Christ" in 2 Thessalonians 2:2, instead of "Day of the Lord".



Truthtesty



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2008 10:16AM by Truthtesty.

TO TESTY AND THE FORUM WHILE I AM STILL ON VACATION:

July 20, 2008 06:13AM



TESTY SAID:
Truthtesty Perhaps it might be helpful if you would show this forum how the KJV scholars are perfectly equal to the "Living Word" without a single error.

Sister {{{ONE MORE TIME: I NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING. This is a figment of YOUR imagination and I am not required to reply to this kind of statement. Would you please QUOTE WHERE I SAID "KJB scholars are perfectly equal to the "living word" without a single error?" Where on earth did you GET THAT PHRASE? It was not from me and I am very tired of your accusing me of saying things that I did not say and then demanding that i explain it to your satisfaction as if I did say it.

Truthtesty: I NEVER SAID YOU DID. Understand this. It is not a figment of my imagination, it is your failure to see logic. BECAUSE IF YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT "the KJV scholars are perfectly equal to the "Living Word" without a single error THEN YOUR KJV SCHOLARS ARE IN THE SAME BOAT AS ANY OTHER SCHOLARS - SUBJECT TO HUMAN ERROR - HELLO?


[[[Hi Testy, I am not sure how well this will work out using a different computer and keyboard and mouse and all at my friend's house, but I will try briefly to deal with some of what you have said here in a rational way. I do want to be fair but I have become so exasperated with you that at times I perhaps have not expressed myself as clearly as I I otherwise might have done.

FIRST: I believe you did accuse me of believing that the KJB SCHOLARS ARE EQUAL TO THE LIVING WORD. I will try to locate the passage later. I printed them out before leaving home so I could study them in greater detail and think more clearly about what was said.

SECOND: To make things perfectly clear on that matter, I do not believe THE kJB SCHOLARS are EQUAL to the "living word." you have not said what you mean by "LIVING WORD." Whatever you mean by this you evidently attribute deity to it.

I attribute high scholarship which has been une qualled since their time to the scholars of the translation committees who translated the King James Bible. I don't attribute deity to them or to their work. SOME who defend the kjb as best in English DO attibute INSPIRATION to the TRANSLATION of the KING JAMES BIBLE, which is not TRUE, AND I DON'T SUBSCRIBE TO THAT assertion and neither does Dr.Waite or Dr.Williams or any of the other sources I recommend except where specifically noted. If someone finds a source that I have used or recommended on the subject to have that false belief that the ENGLISH of the King James Bible is INSPIRED AND EQUAL TO OR BETTER THAN THE PRESERVED, PRECISE Words of God in Hebrew, and also finds that I have not warned of this false belief, I consider it a kindness if they would inform me of that fact with specific quotes to confirm. I am always willing to change my mind if convinced by facts and reason and Scripture.


REQUEST: Would you kindly define for me and the forum what YOU MEAN BY "THE LIVING WORD?"

TESTY SAID:
it is your failure to see logic. BECAUSE IF YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT "the KJV scholars are perfectly equal to the "Living Word" without a single error THEN YOUR KJV SCHOLARS ARE IN THE SAME BOAT AS ANY OTHER SCHOLARS - SUBJECT TO HUMAN ERROR - HELLO?

[[[RESPONSE:

FIRST: Testy If YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT CHAFER AND YOUR AUTHORITIES UPON WHICH YOU RELY are without error and are equal to the "living word" whatever that means to you, then why are you arguing with me about my imperfect sources? YOU HAVE NOT EVEN DEFINED "LIVING WORD." Who or what is this living word you keep referring to and what is your reason for giving it such deification?

SECOND: I never attributed divine perfection to any of my sources. I simply asked and expected that they be treated with the SAME RESPECT AND ATTENTION AS you are giving to your favorite sources, which apparently are the same sources that reject the excellence of the KJB out of hand without a hearing of the evidence that calls into serious question the popular conclusions regarding the King James Bible its history and its scholars including the scholars who have found it to be the best translation in English down to this very day. That is not an unreasonable request and it is one you have not given any evidence of fulfilling.

REQUEST: PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY you have not read the sources ANY OF THEM that I have sent or posted OR AT LEAST declare you have no intention of doing so so I won't waste my time on it any more with you. I am treating your posts with respect by replying to them with specific attention to the best of my ability point by point. The Peterson series is very user friendly and helpful and easy to read. It is evident to me that you rely upon Chafer to an extraordinary extent and have not consulted any defenders of the King James Bible. This is not a balanced way to defend your position. Nor is it an effective way to attack mine, for you don't even attempt to disprove any facts I have given or any rational defense of your position, as far as I can make it out.]]]


TESTY SAID:
AND THAT MEANS THAT THIER TRANSLATIONS ARE REVIEWABLE, QUESTIONABLE, AND SUBJECT TO CORRECTION.


REPLY:
[[[When did I or any of my sources say this was not so? ALL TRANSLATIONS should be judged by THE SAME STANDARDS!

ONE BIG CAUTION SHOULD BE OBSERVED IN THIS MATTER:
You cannot compare apples and oranges by the same standards! And in the case of translations, one must START WITH THE SAME EXACT TEXT as a base to arrive at a fair comparision of one translation with a different translation.

REQUEST:
Do you agree with this caution Testy? Why or why not?


TESTY SAID:
AND? IF THE KJV SCHOLARS MADE AN ERROR IN THIER "SCHOLAROLOTRY"

[[[REPLY: Say testy, what specific errors are concerning you in the KJB scholars' work? How did you arrive at the conclusion that these are in fact errors? If you had this as a legitimate concern you would have already read the extensive Q AND A link I previously gave you to read and see if your questions had been covered on so called errors in the Kjb. But you seem not to be interested in reading this material and it GIVES THE LIE TO YOUR SINCERITY about being so concerned with possible errors in the KJB! You won't read what I sent or posted links to so how is it you expect me to give more stuff for you to ignore?]]]

TESTY SAID:

YOU NEED TO BE WILLING TO ADMIT IT.

[[[REPLY: testy YOU ALSO NEED TO BE WILLING TO ADMIT YOUR ERRORS and not least to apologize for the insulting message you sent me then apologize for ignoring my response. REMEMBER I have not been home and have not read any email for almost two weeks, so if you have sent something on this subject email, then I have not seen it. My to your insult was was reasonable and calm compared to what you said to me and about me. I still await your response on that one. Till the cows come home apparently.

You show me an error I MADE and PROVE IT AS AN ERROR then I will upon being convinced of the error will promptly apologize. Your simply denying something I said is not proof. Assuming I am wrong is not proof. Asserting that Chafer said something different is not proof. It is a disagreement, not a proof. Simply stating your disagreement is not proof. Saying "all scholars agree" is not proof, for they do not all agree.

TESTY SAID:
I have told you before that if Dr. Chafer has made a mistake that I am willing to admit it, but are you willing to admit it, if the KJV Scholars made a mistake? I don't think you are.

[[[REPLY:

FIRST,
YOU SHOW ME ONE AND PROVE IT IS A MISTAKE AND I WILL ADMIT IT TESTY. You can make all the general indignant claims you want but until you get SPECIFIC this is a tempest in a tea pot. I am not an expert but I can read and write and I can try to find an answer for any "mistake" you think you can come up with from your apparent research on whatever sources you have. When you do come up with a "mistake" in the KJB, would you please CITE YOUR SOURCE so I can go check it too? Remember I don't have access to Chafer's Systematic Theology as you apparently do. Surely there are sources online which we can both look at to support your claims and opinions?

At least my authority is a final authority which does not change with the winds of popularity and fashion, whereas I would venture to say that most authorities involved in producing the modern versions and translations HAVE NO FINAL AUTHORITY TO APPEAL TO. They deny such exists. Perhaps you agree. Perhaps you don't agree. I can only guess in the absence of any clear declaration of your own. Most defenders of the modern versions seem to me to avoid FINAL AUTHORITY of any kind, placing extraordinary confidence in their own worshipful scholars such as Westcott, Hort, Nestle, Aland, Kittel {about whom you have had something to say yourself, Testy}. The missing piece in all this discussion is the fact that the modern versions all come from a couple of very depraved and corrupted manuscripts, Sinaiaticus and Vaticanus and the KJB uses ONLY the purest and the MAJORITY OF MSS handed down among the believing churches. This is the PRIMARY AND MOST SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE KJB AND ALL THE MODERN VERSIONS. it is a difference which you have yet to acknowledge. They are not the same text in significant places! It matters greatly which TEXT your translation comes from. the KJB TRANSLATORS KNEW ABOUT AND REJECTED THE TWO PRIMARY SOURCES OF THE MODERN VERSIONS!! Dean John William Burgon personally examined these two MSS and explained why he described them as depraved in character and corrupted. You can consult his description if you like. I believe I included it in what I already sent you, WHICH YOU HAVE PROBABLY HAD TIME TO CONSULT IF NOT READ BY NOW.

REQUEST: Testy, do you understand that the TEXTS both Hebrew and Greek, but especially the Greek, behind the KJB and the Modern Versions are NOT THE SAME and therefore the results CANNOT BE EQUATED? ]]]

TESTY you seem to have adopted a skeptical mindset against ANYTHING IN DEFENSE OF THE KJB and a corresponding mindset in favor of all other translations, which is typical of a modernist type skepticism. Chafer was not a modernist as far as I can see and he did try to defend traditional theology. But in my opinion he did not see that his stand on Bible versions was inconsistent with that aim, and that is sadly not uncommon even now with conservative Bible believing Christians. It does not invalidate all his work. I never said it did. I simply observed the apparent inconsistency.

TESTY YOU SAID:

I don't think the possibility of the KJV Scholars making a mistake enters your mind, because of that big roadblock sign, flag waver, and construction project.



[[[REPLY:
It is true that I have been forthright in my CONFIDENCE in the EXCELLENCE of the work of the King James Bible and its tranlators, their high qualifications which surpasses the qualifications of anyone living today, and in the excellence of the THEOLOGY THEY UPHELD, the MANUSCRIPTS THEY USED, and the METHODS USED which very adequately guarded against individual prejudices and personal beliefs at odds with tradional biblical Christian belief. They were men of their times and Anglicans, but they GREATLY RESPECTED THE DIVINITY OF THE WORDS OF GOD at their disposal and they treated it as they found it from their sources. Again, they knew about and rejected with good cause the very manuscripts at the heart of the modern versions, Sinaiaticus and Vaticanus not least because they uphold heretical theology and show corruption and errors by the thousands! This is not a good basis for any Bible translation, and only someone who is ignoring the evidence will ignore the corruptions in these two manuscripts. These two MSS and the few others that agree with them in some degree form only ABOUT FIVE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE THAT EXISTS, even up to modern times, so why use this as a basis for a major revision?

As I said before, you prove to me that the KJB scholars made an error and give your source so I can check it myself, and upon agreeing with you about that specific error I will gladly and cheerfully admit it. YOu have not done so up to now, {given a specific error} and one would think that such passion as yours would immediately present me with specific errors to deal with along with the accusation, but you have not done so.

THE WHOLE POINT in my support for the King James Bible is to explain HOW I CAME TO REJECT THIEME'S ERRORS AND ESPECIALLY HIS OMISSIONS in his account of how we got our English Bible and the effect this omission of his had on my acceptance of his peculiar doctrines and his habit of "correcting" the translation, WHICH TRANSLATION, AND WHICH TEXT HE NEVER CLARIFIED. It is an issue that is dear to my heart because learning the missing truths cut Thieme's inappropriate authority over me completely. Otherwise I would not go into such detail on it here. I have seen nothing about the KjB here or elsewhere to make me change my mind in this basic assertion: learning how we got ALL OUR ENGLISH BIBLES and learning the relative merits of the MSS they are based upon FREED ME FROM THIEME. FINALLY AND FOREVER. Nothing you have said will move me off that point. I can't imagine anything you ever could say would change my mind on it either. That is a far cry from what you accuse me of.

You seem to think my mind is closed and no facts can interfere with that. JUST WHOSE MIND IS CLOSED, TESTY? YOu have not presented any facts that prove my opinions wrong or that show my facts and evidence or my references wrong. You have simply denied them to be true, often without any specific reference to any error. You have simply ASSUMED your opinion is a fact and your Chafer quotes settle all matters once and for all. Who is showing scholarolatry now, Testy, you or me? At least I have cited numerous sources WHICH YOU WON'T READ, so who is DISPLAYING PREJUDICE? YOu are prejudging me by the apparent beliefs of others you have heard of who support and defend the King James Bible without being able to prove I share those opinions! When I deny such beliefs, then you come back and deny you ever said I shared them. Nobody can succeed in a fair discussion under those conditions. ]]]

YOU SAID:
I think you will with predjudice cart-blanche attack anyone who disagrees with ONE WORD of KJV scholars' translation, cast sound biblical research to the wind, and "throw the baby out with the bathwater."

[[[LET'S EXAMINE WHAT YOU HAVE SAID HERE:
you will with predjudice cart-blanche attack anyone who disagrees with ONE WORD of KJV scholars' translation,

MY ANSWER: Show me a specific error and your source for naming it an error and I will examine it and your source, and answer why I agree or disagree. That is fair. BUT YOU DON'T READ WHAT I REPLY OR SEND YOU SO WHY SHOULD I BOTHER?

QUESTION TO YOU TESTY: WILL YOU READ WHAT I SEND OR POST? ]]]


YOU SAID:
How is this different than a thiemite getting upset when ONE WORD of Thieme's being called into question?

[[[MY ANSWER:
Your description of my belief is in error therefore it does not accurately predict my attitude about the King James Bible. Generalizations are not useful Testy and you ought to know it. I think you are simply offended because I won't give in to your general objection to my rejection of modern versions without understanding the reasons I reject them. You show no evidence of understanding what I have said, and you refuse to read or consult the supporting sources I give, you just disagree and assume that constitutes proof of your point. You think that quoting Chafer ends all discussion and it does not.

YOU SPECIFICALLY ASKED ME HOW THIS COMPARES TO A THIEMEITE OBJECTING WHEN ONE WORD OF HIS IS CHALLENGED? It does not compare because you have not NAMED ONE WORD YOU CAN SAY FOR A FACT IS AN ERROR IN THE KJB OR IN THE TRANSLATORS' WORK! As you well know, Thiemeites object to ANY CHALLENGE WHATSOEVER to their hero's work whether it is in the Bible or not. I am challenging you to give me something specific rather than your GENERAL OBJECTION TO MY ENTHUSIASM FOR THE KJB.

I INVITE YOU TO PRESENT A SPECIFIC ERROR IN THE KJB, and no Thiemeite does that. They are always saying IN GENERAL THAT THE COLONEL DOES MAKE ERRORS, but they CANNOT EVER NAME ANY SPECIFIC ONES. At the risk of enraging you by even asking this question, isn't that what you are doing to me? You tell me what I must believe and how I feel and how you expect me to respond, and I don't dance to that tune. You say there must be errors in the King James Bible but don't present any or give any sources that I can examine and therefore your objections are nearly worthless because they are not specific! Thiemeites run and hide when we ask them to give specific errors their hero has made. When firmly challenged with specific evidence they also disappear to do their "research" and never come back. I would never accuse you of disappearing, Testy.

IFYOU WANT A SPECIFIC ANSWER YOU HAVE TO ASK A SPECIFIC QUESTION! and support your charges with sources I can check. Please.

And if you want to be taken seriously and respectfully you have to give respect in return. I expect you to answer my requests Testy. I will be waiting to see if you give in return the respect you demand for yourself.]]]


YOU SAID:
So I ask you are you now a cult follower of the KJV scholars?


[[[REPLY: No and an article I referenced thoroughly explained this matter in detail. But you did not read that. You apparently are allergic to reading what challenges your beliefs in this matter. I don't ask you to change your mind about anything, Testy, but when you object to something I have said or YOU THINK I SAID OR BELIEVE, and I have given information responding to that, YOU DON'T READ IT OR RESPOND TO IT. SO WHY DO I KEEP ON?]]]

TESTY SAID:
Thiemites are quite susceptible to falling into other cults after being in the cult of Thieme. This is true of people in other cults too, due to the failure of realizing the cult dynamic and it's influence on thier personality

[[[REPLY: This is true! And I won't deny that I have to guard against this, but what about yourself, Testy? What are YOU into that you have not been forthright about on this forum that might be seen as just another leader or opinion that is not biblical but that you have received as your own? If it is true about me to have to be careful, and it is, are you not subject to the same cautions and temptations? As it is, my enthusiasm for the King James Bible seems unusual to you perhaps because you have never investigated TO THIS VERY DAY the rational and reasonable reasons that support it's many virtues. This is not the attitude of a cultist! A cultist as we know accepts the opinion of one leader mainly and his little isolated group as an authority. I invite specific challenges and declare before all that I will investigate them as I am able and will change my mind publicly if I find the evidence and the reason adequate. I SEE WHERE YOU ACCEPT "ALL SCHOLARS AGREE" or reptuable scholars whom you don't specify beyond Chafer, when in fact all scholars DO NOT AGREE, and yet you refuse to read those who disagree with you. I have already been down the road you affirm of the modern versions, and I too was once prejudiced against the King James Bible without evidence. You are at that point. I don't see you examining any of my evidences or sources or discussing them point by point, and I don't think you ever will. I would love for you to prove me wrong on that one, Testy. Why not try?]]]

TESTY SAID:
Truthtesty: I think it is time for you to be honest. Dr. Chafer did not miss the theological point. "It is a declaration that this body is not a body of glory as it yet will be"


REPLY:
[[[You have simply stated your opinion about this as a fact and you have not given any proof or evidence. I don't have access to Chafer's documents and you do, and I am not about to get into a "shouting match" with you about something he said when you control the source. I said why I thought what I did about this, and if you disagree, you should be honest enough to just say that. Don't present your opinion as a fact that all scholars agree on because ALL DO NOT AGREE.]]]

Sister: {{{If you want to talk about honesty, Testy, you tell the forum about the nasty things you insulted me with and have yet to respond to my reply to you. I have had enough of these games for now. I will talk to you after my vacation. You got time in the next two weeks to show me where I said what you claimed I said but did not. That is VERY SHORT AND SIMPLE. I want to know where you got that it was NOT FROM ME.}}}

Truthtesty: If you want to talk about honesty, Sister, then realize this, honesty and nasty are 2 different things. Nasty is in the eye of the beholder - the truth hurts. AND? You evade admitting that Dr. Chafer did not miss the theological point. How convenient.

[[[REPLY:
What truth? You say Chafer did not miss the point. You missed my point and just because you can quote what you find in an index and I can't does not mean you are right. You are the one who thinks Chafer can do or say no wrong. In this case, I believe he has missed the point in calling the body of fallen human beings not subject to sin or contamination by sin, for they do not pass into heaven unchanaged!!!

QUESTION: if the human body of fallen human beings cannot INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD, why not? The KJB translators chose VILE for a reason, and knowing their caution and probity and their extreme reverence for the Words of God, I will choose to believe their choice was good until proven otherwise. I don't see that Chafer explains his view about VILE BODIES except to disagree with it. He says NOTHING GOD MADE IS EVIL. What about SATAN AND THE FALLEN ANGELS? God made them. they are certainly not going to heaven, They are corrupted. Man's body was ORIGINALLY MADE PURE but has been affected by the FALL. That is the MAIN POINT. Even the earth and animals and eventually the entire universe will be REMADE IN WHICH WILL DWELL ONLY RIGHTEOUSNESS.

QUESTION: If RIGHTEOUSNESS WILL DWELL EVENTUALLY in all God has made in the past in a NEWLY REMADE UNIVERSE and all it contains, HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO CLAIM THAT THE PRESENT UNIVERSE IS PURE AND UNTOUCHED WITH SIN AND CORRUPTION, even when God says His spirit indwells us at present?

The reason the Spirit can indwell believers bodies' now is that the sacrifice of Christ for our sins has been PERFECTLY MADE AND ACCEPTED, but the creation will not have the benefit of being remade RIGHTEOUSLY AND WITHIN WHICH ONLY RIGHTEOUSNESS WILL DWELL FOREVER and this includes our present imperfect physical bodies. I don't see where Chafer has seen that. I disagree with him on this point. ]]]


You have a problem admitting to error. It is not really personal, but it does get in the way of honest research. Can you not admit that Dr. Chafer does not miss the theological point of the passages? "It is a declaration that this body is not a body of glory as it yet will be." Plain and simple.

[[[REPLY: No I don't. You have a problem accepting that your statement of your opinion is not a fact and is not proof of what you claim. You have not shown an error in what I said yet, same as with the King James Bible and the translators of it. I have said I will admit an error if it proven to my satisfaction and you have not done that yet. Yet you continue to avoid reading my sources which disagree with your beliefs, and you call me prejudiced and dishonest? I still think Chafer missed the point I saw, and so you disagree with that still? So what? We disagree! Amazing. You just won't admit that because i DON'T ACCEPT YOUR OPINIONS AS FACTS that this makes you mad. You have made a career of opposing Thieme and don't like it when someone opposes you who also opposes Thieme. Give it your BEST shot, Testy. Don't send me a nasty email and an insulting one or I will post it and show the world what you have said. Post it here. In front of everyone. Since you don't even read what I send I am writing this more for other readers' benefit than for yours. I don't expect a respectful factual response from you Testy. I expect more quotes from Chafer and personal opinions and assertions being expected to be accepted as proof when they are not. THE ISSUE TO ME IS THAT THE KING JAMES BIBLE IS BEST, NOT DIVINE. LEARNING FACTS AND EVIDENCE I HAD MISSED FREED ME FROM THIEME.

Now what facts and evidence that you had missed freed you?]]]

SISTERSOAP

[[[I HOPE to finish replying to this particular post of Testy's later. Got to go now. It really hurts my hand to use someone else's equipment.]]]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/02/2008 08:52AM by sistersoap.

To the Forum:


Burgon quote: "Let no one at all events obscure the one question at issue, by asking, — 'whether we consider the Textus Receptus infallible?' The merit or demerit of the Received Text has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the question. We care nothing about it. Any Text would equally suit our present purpose. Any Text would show the 'old uncials' perpetually at discord among themselves. To raise an irrelevant discussion, at the outset, concerning the Textus Receptus:- to describe the haste with which Erasmus produced the first published edition of the N. T.:... The Revision Revised pg. 17

[books.google.com]

Burgon acknowledged the English Revised Version of 1881 as helpful in clarifying difficult passages:

Burgon quote: "It is often urged on behalf of the Revisionists that over not a few dark places of S. Paul's Epistles their labours have thrown important light. Let it not be supposed that we deny this. Many a scriptural difficulty vanishes the instant a place is accurately translated: a greater number when the reading is idiomatic." The Revision Revised pgs. 216-217

[books.google.com]

Burgon clearly believed there were mistakes of translation in the KJV. He wrote that the words, "into thy kingdom," should be "in thy kingdom" at Luke 23:42, saying the KJV rendering "is nothing worse than a palpable mistranslation" The Revision Revised pg. 72

[books.google.com]

Burgon quote: The best supported Reading, in other words, must always be held to be the true reading: and nothing may be rejected from the comoonly received Text, except on evidence which shall clearly outweigh the evidence for retaining it. We are glad to know that, so far at least, we once had Bp. Elliot with us. He announced in (1870) that the best way of proceeding with the work of Revision is, "to make the Textus Receptus the standard, departing from it only when critical or grammatical considerations show that it is clearly necessary."1 We ourselves mean no more. Whenever the evidence is about evenly balanced, few it is hoped will deny that the Text which has been "in possession" for three centuries and a half, and which rests on infinitely better manuscript evidence than that of any ancient work which can be named, -should, for every reason, be let alone.2

(Subscript 2)
Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, by any means, claim perfection for the Received Text. We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we shall have occasion to point out (eg. at pg. 107) that the Textus Receptus needs correction" We do but insist, (1) That it is an incomparably better text than that which either Lachmann, or Tischendorf, or Tregelles has produced: infinitely preferrable to the 'New greek text' od the Revisionists. And, (2) That to be improved, the Textus Receptus willl have to be revised on entirely different 'principles' from those which are just now in fashion. Men must begin by unlearning the German predjudices of the last fifty years; and address themselves, instead, to the stern logic of facts.
[books.google.com]

Continuing Burgon quote (pg 107 referenced from pg. 21): 'Very nearly — not quite:' for, in not a few particulars, the 'Textus Receptus' does call for Revision, certainly; although Revision on entirely different principles from those which are found to have prevailed in the Jerusalem Chamber. To mention a single instance: — When our Lord first sent forth his Twelve Apostles, it was certainly no part of his ministerial commission to them to 'raise the dead' (nekrous egeirete, S. Matthew 10:8). This is easily demonstrable. Yet is the spurious clause retained by our Revisionists; because it is found in those corrupt witnesses Aleph B C D, and the Latin copies" The Revision Revised pgs. 107-108[/color]

On pg. 107 (mentioned above), Westcott and Hort agree with the Textus Receptus and Burgon says they are both in error.

Burgon quote: "But pray, who in his senses, — what sane man in Great Britain, — ever dreamed of regarding the 'Received,' — aye, or any other known 'Text,' — as 'a standard from which there shall be no appeal'? Have I ever done so? Have I ever implied as much? If I have, show me where... I mistake the Received Text, (you imply,) for the Divine Original, the Sacred Autographs, — and erect it into 'a standard from which there shall be no appeal,' — 'a tradition which it is little else but sacrilege to impugn.' That is how you state my case and condition: hopelessly confusing the standard of Comparison with the standard of Excellence." The Revision Revised pgs. 385, 387

[books.google.com]

Burgon quote: "I am not defending the 'Textus Receptus'; I am simply stating the fact of its existence. That it is without authority to bind, nay that it calls for skillful revision in every part, is freely admitted." The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels pg. 15

[books.google.com]

Edward Miller quote: "The leaders in the advocacy of this system have been Dr. Scrivener in a modified degree, and especially Dean Burgon. First, be it understood, that we do not advocate perfection in the Textus Receptus. We allow here and there it requires revision. In the text left behind by Dean Burgon, about 150 corrections have been suggested by him in St. Matthew's Gospel alone. What we maintain is the TRADITIONAL TEXT. And we trace it back to the earliest ages of which there is any record." Edward Miller, Introduction, The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels by Dean Burgon, ibid., pg. 5

[books.google.com]

Unlearning German prejudices certainly does catch my attention. Thieme does reference German translations. Dr. Chafer does not appear to and I have found no evidence so far as Dr. Chafer using anything other than Dr. Scofield.

Dr. Scofield in the title of his book favors the Authorized version (notice it does not say "Revised Version":
The Scofield reference Bible The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments. Authorized version, with a new system of connected topical references to all the greater themes of Scripture, with annotations, revised marginal renderings, summaries, definitions, chronology, and index; to which are added helps at hard places, explanations of seeming discrepancies, and a new system of paragraphs,
by C I Scofield; ; et al
[www.worldcat.org]


Truthtesty