CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
According to the Bible (Old and New Testament) Jesus is God.
Aside from various texts pointing to Jesus being God; consider the following:
1) The New Testament claims Jesus saved a people out of the land of Egypt. “Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterwards destroyed those who did not believe” (Jude 1:5, ESV).
(2) The reference to rescuing Israel from Egypt is one found throughout all of the Bible beginning with the event itself known at the Exodus. This narrative is nearly common knowledge among atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Jews and Christians alike as we know well the story of the parting sea as Israel escaped Egypt.
(3) God, the LORD, is the one who brought the people out of Egypt. It is repeated that God brought the people out of Egypt lest the people forget and abandon their covenant with God. There are roughly 95 verses in the Bible signifying that the “LORD” brought people out of Egypt.
(4) Therefore Jesus is God. (a) We are told that Jesus is the one who brought the people out of Egypt. (b) God is the one who brought the people out of Egypt. (c) Therefore, Jesus is God. Additionally: The readers of Jude would have understood this to be the case given that they were primarily Jews and knew well the story of the Exodus and celebrated it every year.
The rendering of this verse in the ESV: manuscript evidence: Nestle and Aland in their Greek Text, Novum Testament Graece (27, 28 editions) agree as we can see in their rendering of verse 5 in Jude,
What manuscripts contain the rendering "Jesus"? Well, most of the early witnesses including; A, B, 33, 81, 1241, 1739, 1881, 2344, pc, vg, co, Or1739mg, 88, 322, 323, 424c, 665, 915, 2298, eth, Cyr, Hier, Bede (all can be examined here: http://www.csntm.org...) Also; P72, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus, the Bohairc Copic, and the Latin Vulgate all have a rendering indicating "Jesus" (while P72 says God Christ).
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (ISAIAH 9:6)
What he will be called comes from the Latin Vulgate, which was to Roman interpretation of "Pele-joez-el-gibbor-abi-ad-sar-shalom". Which in Hebrew translates to "Messenger of Great Counsel"
"For a child is born unto us, A son is given unto us; And the government is upon his shoulder; And his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom"
It is interesting that you use the Latin Vulgate to justify this argument, but in your other argument you claim "Jesus" replaced the "The Lord", however, in the Latin Vulgate, "Jesus" was used in Jude 1:5, "commonere autem vos volo scientes semel omnia quoniam Iesus (Jesus) populum de terra Aegypti salvans secundo eos qui non crediderunt perdidit"
The literal english of this is; "I will therefore admonish you, though ye once knew all things, that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, did afterwards destroy them that believed not."
The Latin Vulgate is corrupt, it is not the word of God.....it is in the line of corrupt manuscripts..
There are a few places in which the Textus Receptus differs from the Traditional text found in the majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts. The most important of these differences are due to the fact that Erasmus, influenced by the usage of the Latin-speaking Church in which he was reared, sometimes followed the Latin Vulgate rather than the Traditional Greek text.
Are the readings which Erasmus thus introduced into the Textus Receptus necessarily erroneous'? By no means ought we to infer this. For it is inconceivable that the divine providence which had preserved the New Testament text during the long ages of the manuscript period should blunder when at last this text was committed to the printing press. According to the analogy of faith, then, we conclude that the Textus Receptus was a further step in God's providential preservation of the New Testament text and that these few Latin Vulgate readings which were incorporated into the Textus Receptus were genuine readings which had been preserved in the usage of the Latin-speaking Church. Erasmus, we may well believe, was guided providentially by the common faith to include these readings in his printed Greek New Testament text. In the Textus Receptus God corrected the few mistakes of any consequence which yet remained in the Traditional New Testament text of the majority of the Greek manuscripts.
Erasmus used the Vulgate for the Textus Receptus in Revelation. Your KJV STILL uses that translation. Therefore your KJV is in "the line of corrupt manuscripts." You cannot win your position regardless of HOW you try to slice it. It is either a corrupt or not. "these few Latin Vulgate readings which were incorporated into the Textus Receptus were genuine readings which had been preserved in the usage of the Latin-speaking Church. Erasmus" Wrong. You cannot have a manuscript in "a line of corrupt manuscripts" used in your KJV and claim that your KJV hasn't been corrupted. You literally have nothing to stand on for you position. Take this debate elsewhere. Last warning.
Amarel is some kind of Americanized Hindu...he won't admit it. Any time he uses any reference to the word of God, it is an attempt to deny God's right to rule over him.
You can't win arguing varying translations, especially when you are arguing with a guy who believes he does not need to be saved from his sins, saved from dying, saved from eternal condemnation in the fire of Hell where unrepentant sinners fry forever like eternal screaming sausages.
I disputed your claim of KJV onlyism. That was my point. I didn't argue translations, but rather, what the earliest manuscripts themselves say. Those aren't translations. I know how to present the gospel.
Latin Vulgate is not the Bible, it's a Catholic corruption of the Bible..........
Hebrew does not transliterate into English...and the Latin Vulgate is corrupt anyways....and you have chopped the passage in half.....
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
If Hebrew does not transliterate into English, then how can you say that "Pele-joez-el-gibbor-abi-ad-sar-shalom" means "Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."?
And why should I trust yours or anyone's interpretation of Hebrew over the Jewish interpretation of Hebrew?
Let me put it this way: I'm going to reword your statement:
You are saying that the accurate translation of Hebrew into English shows Jesus is God. You are also saying you trust your own translation and you are sure the Hebrew shows Jesus is God.
That is my translation of the meaning of your words. It is what you said, correct?
If you do not believe God's word, you have to reject His word and no matter who translates, you have to say it is wrong.
There is no "Jewish interpretation of Hebrew". Hebrew is Jewish. Hebrew does not translate into English word for word, you have to know both languages and you have to know God in order to understand the translation of His word into English. There are a lot of people who do not believe the Bible yet they have made English translations and call them the Bible....they are not the Bible, they are fraudulent compositions of men who do not believe the Bible.
The Bible proves itself......it is eyewitness historical accounts and prophecy......and poetry of men and women who served God and in their poetry they prophesied and spoke God's word. The Bible also explains itself in doctrine and meaning. God's word cannot change. If you translate God's word in a way that denies it is God's word, you are wrong, you are inventing a fraudulent version of God's word the same as I invented a fraudulent version of your word.
I do not need to speak or read Hebrew to know what God's word is in English. I have God's word in English, and it is not from Catholic manuscripts which were twisted to fit Catholic dogma.
The Latin Vulgate isn't nearly as accurate as the texts we have today, however, the Vulgate was popularized prior to Pope Gregorie's many corruptions to Constantine's establishment of the political institution of the Catholic Church. The Vulgate is still considered when translating difficult passages in terms of the eclectic text and the received text also has renderings (namely from Revelation) from the Vulgate. To say the vulgate is corrupted implies that the Received text translations are corrupted as well as translations based on the critical text where they may consider the Vulgate's rendering. However, to accept the historical formation of the Vulgate does not lead one to this conclusion. Latin was just the primary language at the time of its formation, and was used by the Catholic church despite the language dying out. The translation isn't corrupt, but rather the Church that used it.
We have the Bible in English, it is the King James Bible, it is the only English translation which adheres to the Textus Receptus, there is only one line of manuscripts which was not corrupted and modern versions like your ESV and NASV and all 200 plus others are terribly corrupt with thousands of changes and deletions. Amarel is right to say you have nothing reliable to go on because you say it yourself, while at the same time you claim to have authority to know God's word.
Right...When Erasmus formed his greek text, what the Textus Receptus (received text) is based on, he didn't have all of Revelation and had to use the Latin Vulgate. He translated the Greek from the Latin for parts of Revelation... " the story of Erasmus’ retranslation of the final verses of Revelation from the Vulgate into Greek is well-known and discussed in every textbook on New Testament textual criticism. e basic elements or facts are the following. the first edition of the New Testament with a Greek text was prepared by Erasmus and published in 1516. For Revelation, he based his Greek text on a single manuscript, minuscule 1r (now numbered 2814 according to the new Gregory-Aland number).2 this manuscript, however, lacks the final verses of the book, and in order to have a complete text, Erasmus retranslated these verses into Greek from the Latin. Elements of his retranslation survive in every edition of the so-called Textus Receptus, the standard text of the printed Greek New Testament until the nineteenth century.3" http://www.reltech.org/TC/v16/Krans2011.pdf
There isn't a single scholar of textual criticism who holds to KJV onlyism. Some are Majority Text "Only", As I stated in the OP MOST manuscripts contain the rendering "Jesus" including the second century P72 (Christ God).
This isn't a KJV only debate, but, aside from the Vulgate, and your ignoring of history, lets consider the KJV only movement. The greek text that the KJV is based on has 1800 variants from the source material (the byzantine tradition). Variants happen. The Textus Receptus has 1800 variants from the material it is based on. When considering the KJV, which edition?
Now here is where the discussion gets interesting. Your appeal against the Vulgate is that it is a Roman Catholic Version, which has been corrupted. Answer me this; when was the Roman Catholic Church most corrupt before the Reformation? You would answer, if you know history, sometime in between 700 C.E. or 1500 C.E. (the reformation being 1517). If that is when the church was most corrupt as a political institution, and the manuscripts your text is based on comes from between 1000 C.E. and 1500 C.E. (right before the reformation), how do you reckon those manuscripts not corrupted? They were produced under the Roman Catholic Church. Not only this, but consider that Erasmus, the source of your greek text, the received text, was a humanist Roman Catholic. You have a Catholic, creating a greek text that is based off of manuscripts formed within the time frame of a corrupted Roman Catholic Church, which were used for your King James Version. How would it be that those manuscripts be more "preserved" than the manuscripts of the critical text that date as early as 200 C.E.? Two hundred years from Christ himself vs a thousand. If ANY manuscripts were corrupted (which I don't believe any have been, which is the benefit of having variants), it would have been the manuscripts of the KJV given the dating of the manuscripts.
Lets talk more about the "changes". Your manuscripts are later, and it logically follows that If I wrote you a note and it was copied a thousand times, the first copy would be closer to the autograph. Furthermore, if there were changes from that first copy, the 1000 copy would have made additions. Consider John 5:4, This passage is not only omitted by P66, P75, a, B and others, but even in the manuscripts where it does appear, there are a number of variants within the text, and some even mark the passage with asterisks or obeli. Most likely this was a marginal note, an explanation, written in an early manuscript and accidentally inserted into a later copy by a copyist who thought it was a part of the original text.
The cool thing about being one who studied textual criticism, and believes God preserved his word, is that I can look at all manuscripts to have something closer to the autographs. While you're in a tradition written during the corruption of the catholic church. The critical text confirms that God's word was preserved, you cannot make that claim, but rather sit on blind faith and an idol of an English translation. I believe in inerrancy of the autographs, which means that I want to know what the autographs said, not just the byzantine tradition formed in 1000 C.E.
If you want to make this a debate, do so. I'll gladly enter there. My point was that Amarel made a claim about the vulgate, and I said if you use the vulgate than the vulgate witnesses to Jude 1:5. Do I hold to the vulgate? No, because I'm interested in the autographs, which is why I don't hold to the Byzantine tradition only.
You equate the ESV and other books with the word of God. They are not the word of God.
Saying there are no scholors of textual criticism that hold to the King James Bible being the word of God in English is like saying their are no scientists who believe the Earth and the Universe are approximately 6000 years old.
The Latin Vulgate is not the standard for translation of the King James Bible.
You have fallen into this phony pretense of your intellect being superior to God's power to give us His word in English.
How can you have two books that disagree with each other yet both claim to be the word of God? They are both lying and neither is the word of God or one is the word of God and the other is lying.
All of your "textual criticism" is nothing but a way to make you feel superior, it is how your teachers put themselves on pedestals pretending to be superior to you and others, then you try to be like them instead of trying to be like Jesus.
AGAIN, it is a FACT that the KJV used the Latin Vulgate for parts of revelation. Deny the FACTS as you want. They don't disagree fundamentally, you're drawing straws. It is your lack of understanding in textual criticism that allows you to hold a false understanding of how the critical text works. They do not disagree in the manner you believe them to. The evidence that the KJV variants are ADDITIONS is unparalleled. The Alexandrian tradition is FAR more accurate regarding the epistles than the KJV. AMAZING, that you don't address any of the facts I presented. Why are there 1800 variants between the textus receptus and it's source material? What about the formation of that tradition? Again, there is NO one who understands how it works who holds your view. Your view basically says that God couldn't preserve his word until 1000 C.E. Again, take this debate elsewhere, especially if you are not going to address the FACTS.
It's not a means to feel superior. Its a means to save people from your idolatrous movement. The KJV isn't even a translation, it is a revision of the Bishops bible, and pulled most of its material from the Bishops bible and Geneva Bible. Most of the pilgrims, and church refused to use the KJV for years, and instead used the Geneva Bible, which was the motivation for King James to make his translation.
Right, and being like Jesus is saying that a translation he didn't have is the only one that is faithful. Do you know why the quotations of the Old Testament don't match up with the texts in your Old Testament? Because your Old Testament is translated from the Hebrew and the New Testament authors used the Septuagint. Jesus was well aware of both the Hebrew and Greek Old Testament and most likely used both, however, you don't see him making the claims you do.
Seriously, stop thinking there is some conspiracy and conduct the research. The King James is a great revision, however, we have more accurate greek texts, much like the ESV where it translates Jude 1:5 according to the earliest manuscripts. I don't have a "need" to feel superior, we are called to preach and teach truth. Textual Criticism is the reason you still HAVE a King James Version as the committee who revised the Bishops bible surly used textual Criticism to determine the text of the KJV. As well as those who put out the new editions of the KJV. As well as the oxford edition, and the Cambridge edition.
I don't have to operate on your blind faith to know that God preserved his word. I have evidence. Your only appeal has been to your lack of understanding and emotionalism, which is a simple ignoring of the facts to hold your view. Like I said, the Byzantine only view makes MORE sense than the KJV view as there are, again, 1800 VARIANTS from the KJV and the Byzantine Tradition, and the KJV used the Vulgate for the translation in Revelation. Those are the facts. Period.
In looking at Jesus’s self-consciousness, it should be noted that Jesus did not make an explicitly and overt claim to deity, saying in so many words, “I am God.” However, we do find claims that are inappropriate if made by someone who is less than God. For example Jesus said that he would send “his angels” (Matthew 13:41), but elsewhere they are spoken of as “the angels of God” (Luke 12:8-9; 15:10). This reference is significant as Christ also calls the kingdom of God “his kingdom.”
There are more examples such as Jesus claim to forgive sin, which, rightly so, results in a charge of blasphemy. “Any when Jesus say their faith, he said to the paralytic, ‘Son, your sins are forgiven.’ Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, ‘why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?’” (Mark 2:5-7) Notice what God says to Israel, “I, I am he who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins” (Isaiah 43:25). It is important to understand that the scribes were trained in the law, and understood that God is the lawgiver, and the judge, and thus the only one with authority to forgive sins.
The authority, which Jesus claimed and exercised, is seen in regards to the Sabbath as well. The Sabbath was established as sacred by God (Exodus 20:8-11) and only God could abrogate or modify this regulation, which we see Jesus doing exactly that in Mark 2:23-28, and states in verse 27-28, “And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”’ The Greek here for “lord” is kurios which simply means, supreme in authority, that is, (as noun) controller; God, Lord, master, Sir. How is it that Jesus makes the claim that he is the “lord” (kurios) of the Sabbath, when God is the establisher of the Sabbath, in the mosaic covenant no less? It is worth noting that he changed the status of the Sabbath as well “made for man, not man for the Sabbath”, a right which belongs only to someone virtually equal to God.
Jesus also claims to be one with the Father (John 10:30), and that to see and know him is to see and know the Father (John 14:7-9)/ There is also a claim to preexistence in his statement in John 8:58, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” Note that rather than saying, “I was”, he says, “I am.” Jesus also alludes to the “I Am” formula by which God identified himself in Exodus 3:14-15. For in this case, as in Exodus, the “I am” is a formula denoting existence. After this statement the immediate reaction of the Jews was to take up stones to throw at him, “So they picked up stones to throw at him” (John 8:59). There is no doubt that they knew the implications thus resulting in stoning according to the law which warrants stoning for blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16). If they had attempted to stone him out of anger, however, they would be guilty of attempted murder.
Jesus also accepted the attribution of deity from his disciples, the clearest cases being from Thomas who says, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28) Jesus could have easily corrected the misconception if it was one, but Jesus did not do so. Jesus also juxtaposes his words with those of the Old Testament. Time and again he says, “you have heard that it was said…but I say to you” (for example see: Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28). Jesus places his word as the same level as the Old Testament, which was considered the ultimate authority to the Jewish people as the Word of God.
Jesus also indicates that he has power over life and death. In John 5:21 he says, “For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.” Furthermore, when speaking to Martha he says, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live” (John 11:25).
The title “Son of God” is capable of various meanings, but Jesus clearly used it in a manner differently than before. This is seen in John 5:2-18 when the Jews reacted with extreme hostility when, in defense of having heaved on the Sabbath, Jesus linked his worked with that of that Father. John explains in verse 18, “This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.”
Throughout Jesus’ life, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that Jesus understood himself as equal with the Father, and as possessing the right to do things only God has the right to do, and can do.
Paul:
Paul frequently witnesses to a belief in the deity of Jesus. In Colossians 1:15-20 Paul writes that the Son is the image of the invisible God (v. 15); he is the one in whom and through whom and for whom all things hold together (v. 17). In verse 19 Paul brings the argument to a conclusion: “For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell.” In Colossians 2:9 he states a very similar idea: “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.”
Philippians 2:5-11 is a clear assertion of the deity of Jesus. It speaks of him as being or existing in the “form” (morphe) of God (v.6). In biblical and classical Greek this term refers to the set of characteristics, which constitutes a thing what it is. The passage presents Jesus, being God, emptied himself, became human, and then was again exalter to the status of deity or equality with the Father.
Noteworthy pieces:
In Hebrews 1:8 the writer states the superiority of Christ to angels and ascribes Psalm 45:6-7 to Christ. The superscription to the quotation from Psalm 45:6-7 is, “But of the Son He says”; then He quotes the psalm, saying, “Thy throne, O God, is forever” and “therefore God”. Both designations “God” have reference to the Son. Hebrews 1:8 below (my emphasis added):
“But of the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
Titus 2:13 refers to Jesus as “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” The Granville Sharpe rule of Greek grammar states that when two nouns are joined by kai (and) and the first noun has the article and the second does not, then the two nouns refer to the same thing. Thus, both great God and savior are referring to Jesus.
Thats right! Some suggest that Thomas actually cursed when he said, "My God." Not only is this absurd because of the context, but surly Jesus would have corrected such a heinous violation of the third commandment.
The way people today say "Oh my God" is taking the Lord's name in vain. The phrase is a prayer, and usually when you hear people say it they are being profane and not praying.
(a)Eternal. John 1:1, shared in my first argument suggest that Christ is eternal as we are told that he existed in the beginning, the world was created through him, and of course it says that the “word” (Jesus) is God.
(b)Omnipresent. In Matthew 28:20 Christ promised the disciples, “I am with you always.” Christ’s indwelling in believers also demands that he is omnipresent (John 14:23; Eph. 3:17; Col. 1:27; Rev. 3:20).
(c)Omnipotent. Jesus has all authority of heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18). He had the power to forgive sins – something only God can do (Mark 2:5, 7, 10; Isaiah 43:25; 55:7).
(d)Immutable. Christ does not change (Hebrews 13:8) which is an attribute of deity (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17).
(e)Life. Jesus IS life (John 1:4; 14:6; Psalm 36:9; Jeremiah 2:13).
Jesus’ Works of God
Here are some works that are specifically attributed to God, but in the New Testament we see Jesus perform these works as well:
(a)Jesus stills the storm (Matthew 8:23-27), which is a Work of God (Psalm 107:29)
(b)Healing the Blind (John 9:1-7), which is also a work of God (Psalm 146:8)
(c)Forgiving sin (as mentioned above, Matthew 9:2) – Work of God (Isaiah 43:25; 44:22)
(d)Jesus raised the dead (Matthew 9:25), which again is a word of God (Psalm 49:15)
(e)And feeding the 5,000 (Matthew 14:15-21) and God’s work (Joel 2:22-24).
Actually how is this a debate? The holy book for Christianity says Jesus is god. Yes it does. All religions have holy books which make the claims on which they are based.
It's a debate because the holy book of Judaism, upon which the holy book of Christianity is based, does not say that Jesus is God according to Jews. But it does according to Christians.
Actually, there are evidences of the trinity in the Old Testament as well. Theologically, the New Testament is special revelation, there are things the Messiah was called to do that only God himself could do.
The Jews are wrong on that point, the Old Testament prophecies of Christ the Messiah who first came to suffer for the sins of man is clear throughout the Old Testament. The Jewish religious leaders refused to acknowledge Christ as God because He threatened their authority and income. The Jewish citizenry who would not believe Jesus is God made that decision because they wanted the Messiah promised as the King of all Kings, they wanted Israel to be freed from Roman rule and established as the capital of the world under their Messiah. That Kingdom is coming soon, and when it does all of the Jews alive will know Jesus is their Messiah.
Do you think you are the only person who knows any truth, and do you think that the only truth you know is that nothing is true?
Nowasaint is exactly right. The Jews had a tendency of observing their tradition over scripture, just as they do today through the Talmud. There are many instances of this tradition changing in accordance with their desired beliefs. For example, Isaiah 53 always referred to the messiah according to the Talmud, however, after the second century, the Talmud said that Isaiah 53 referred to the nation of Israel. They changed their interpretation for the sake of maintaining that Jesus Christ wasn't the messiah. Jesus himself made this point to the jews several times over including in Mark 7:8 regarding worship, "You have disregarded the commandment of God to keep the tradition of men.”
Over the past few decades, new Bible translations have been popping up like popcorn. Many strong Christians have stood their ground and continued to believe, read, and study only the Authorized King James Bible. Many others, however, have forsaken the Book that God has used for centuries. Such people have fallen for smooth advertising schemes and have actually started believing that the modern versions are superior to the King James Bible. It's very sad that most Christians today have not taken time to study the subject thoroughly enough to see what is really happening.
FABLE: The modern translations are more accurate because they have been translated from older and better manuscripts.
FACT: It is truly amazing how so many Christians have bought into this lie without ever checking to see WHAT these manuscripts are, WHERE they came from, and WHO wrote them. Its also strange that no one seems to be asking the question, "Has God honored these 'older' and 'better' manuscripts throughout Church History?"
The modem translations are based on the work of two nineteenth century Greek scholars from England—B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort. Westcott and Hort, who were deeply involved in the occult, hated the Textus Receptus Greek text from which the King James Bible was translated, so they conjured up THEIR OWN Greek text. This Westcott and Hort Greek text was based primarily on two very corrupt fourth century ROMAN CATHOLIC manuscripts: Codex Vaticanus (discovered in the Pope's library in 1481) and Sinaiticus (discovered in 1859 in a trash can at St. Catherine's monastery on Mt. Sinai). These are usually the "older" and "better" manuscripts that we keep hearing so much about. These manuscripts support most of the attacks in the new versions.
The King James Only movement will not be tolerated in this discussion. This discussion presupposes the facts of textual criticism that counter the King James Onlyists emotionalist appeals of faith.
Just as the King James Bible has a rich lineage of uncorrupted transmission through the ages, the modern versions also have a lineage. Their lineage is one of corruption, deletion, omission, addition, rejection and confusion. Modern versions are the fruit of arrogant scholarship which includes homosexuals who worked on the NIV. God never calls unbelievers to preach and neither would He call a sodomite to translate His Word.
If your pastor rejects the pure lineage of the King James Bible and accepts the corrupt translations, then he is a proponent of modern scholarship which exalts the god of education above the God of the Bible. They are seriously deceived and are a danger to spiritual growth.
The modem translations are based on the work of two nineteenth century Greek scholars from England—B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort. Westcott and Hort, who were deeply involved in the occult, hated the Textus Receptus Greek text from which the King James Bible was translated, so they conjured up THEIR OWN Greek text. This Westcott and Hort Greek text was based primarily on two very corrupt fourth century ROMAN CATHOLIC manuscripts: Codex Vaticanus (discovered in the Pope's library in 1481) and Sinaiticus (discovered in 1859 in a trash can at St. Catherine's monastery on Mt. Sinai).
I don't understand your argument. In what "cases" and what "ghost author". If you're talking about the writing of the bible, the debate is not on the authority of the bible, but whether or not the bible claims Jesus to be God.
"Sometimes a variant Hebrew reading in the margin of the Masoretic Text was followed instead of the text itself."
"The translators also consulted the more important early versions-the Septuagint; Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion; the Vulgate; The Syriac Peshitta; the Targums; and for the Psalms the Juxta Hebraica of Jerome. Readings from these versions were occasionally followed where the Masoretic Text seemed doubtful and where accepted principles of textual criticism showed that one or more of these textual witnesses appeared to provide the correct reading."
This is known as "eclectic" scholarship. In other words, if I don't like what I read in the manuscripts, there is always another writing by an unbelieving, perverted scholar who will tell me what I want to hear.
Between 1933 and 1944 Rudolph Kittel had a leadership role in the "Forschungsabteilung Judenfrage" which was a Nazi organization and publication. What a heritage the NIV has, homosexuals and Nazis! Do you still think your NIV is ordained of God? If you do, then you are just plain stupid!
"whether or not the Bible claims Jesus to be God." knowing that the Bible was written by The Emperor Constantine and his scribes (who had better express his thoughts on the Bible ... or else), is why I can not believe in this Bible, or in "God". The Bible can claim whatever it wants (or whatever Constantine wanted)! If this "God" would finally, after centuries, show up and claim that the Bible is actually "his word", I would have to believe. That doesn't mean I'd be happy with HIS way of doing things, but I would have to believe HE existed. But, alas, HE is a "ghost writer", never showed up for a book signing ... or anything else! I'd love to be able to say I was wrong in this matter, but I can't.
If you are saying that I should believe whatever is written in this book, by an unknown author, dream on. I believe what has reasonable and evidence that is pretty much undeniable, NOT what I'm told I MUST believe .... because Constantine says so!
Excuse me where is your intelligence? Did constantine write the traditions of the jews for them? And their history? Prophecies and beliefs? .......old testament(jewish)
Was constantine a follower of christ when he was alive? What books were being used before constantine?
long before Constantine, 21 books were acknowledged by all Christians (the 4 Gospels, Acts, 13 Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelation). Some were later recognised.
If constantine altered some of what books(already written) was to be included or not, not everyone was a roman worshipper and was compelled by his wishes.
He wrote nothing. People keep finding old scrolls even in these days.
How could he have written the bible.
I think what you need is for God to show up and tell you he doesn't exist.
I'm sorry, that is a postmodern myth that has been propagated by fictional works similar to the Da Vinci Code. In the original post, I mention early manuscripts for the citation of Jude 1:5 dating 300 years prior to Constantine. P72 itself dates from the second century. Next you'll say that the Council of Nicaea was about the bible, canonization, forming of Christian doctrine, blah, blah, blah, but the dispute was whether or not Jesus was a created being because Arius made a claim contrary to YEARS of teaching. It is simple historical fact that counters your myth.
You must first make the case that Jesus is THE Lord (not a lord), before your position can reasonably presume that Jesus is God. You have misquoted Jude 1:5 putting "Jesus" where it originally just said "the Lord"
I heard that changing the word of God to in order to create false idols is blasphemous. Just sayin.
As I stated, most early manuscripts contain "Jesus" It is not a misplacement. Quote from the OP, "What manuscripts contain the rendering "Jesus"? Well, most of the early witnesses including; A, B, 33, 81, 1241, 1739, 1881, 2344, pc, vg, co, Or1739mg, 88, 322, 323, 424c, 665, 915, 2298, eth, Cyr, Hier, Bede (all can be examined here: http://www.csntm.org...)) Also; P72, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus, the Bohairc Copic, and the Latin Vulgate all have a rendering indicating "Jesus" (while P72 says God Christ)."
The earliest witness of Jude, P72, says "God Christ" not "The Lord", which is contrary to your position. Kyrios (The Lord) was a variant appearing in later manuscripts.
