Topic: Non-Catholic

[dpogs]

Ahhh akala ko kasi tagalog lang gamit nila.

[pTrader]

All original manuscripts have disappeared. 
 
There are many "ancient manuscripts" that are available today.  However, the surviving manuscripts are all copies, not "original manuscripts" or "autographs." 
 
Yes, ALL of them --- from the Old Testament to the New Tetament.  They are all copies, not originals.

Original or copied, it is the translation version that differs..

[pTrader]

No modern translation is based on the "original manuscripts" or autographs.

The King James Bible (1611), one of the oldest English versions, was based on the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are ancient manuscripts, but they are not autographs (originals).

The INC is not confined to the use of a single bible version. They use the KJV, ESV, The Message, English Translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lamsa, etc.

They use various versions, depending on which one is they think is the most accurate for a particular verse.

For example, they use the Lamsa version for Acts 20:28.

The KJV uses Textus Receptus

[pTrader]

No modern translation is based on the "original manuscripts" or autographs.

The King James Bible (1611), one of the oldest English versions, was based on the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are ancient manuscripts, but they are not autographs (originals).

The INC is not confined to the use of a single bible version. They use the KJV, ESV, The Message, English Translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lamsa, etc.

They use various versions, depending on which one is they think is the most accurate for a particular verse.

For example, they use the Lamsa version for Acts 20:28.

Yup, they will use Lamsa Acts 20:28 but will not use the Lamsa Romans 9:5..

[barrister]

The KJV uses Textus Receptus

That's right.
 
But I was talking about manuscripts most closely connected to KJV as source.  Textus Receptus is a printed version, not a manuscript.
 
Manuscripts closest to the KJV as sources, I said Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, but it looks like I was still wrong there.     I don't know what they're called.  But they were definitely not "original manuscripts," just manuscript copies.

[barrister]

Yup, they will use Lamsa Acts 20:28 but will not use the Lamsa Romans 9:5..

Yan din ang alam ko.
 
Ang alam ko, ang Lamsa ay ginagamit nila sa isang sitas lang (Acts 20:28) at wala nang iba.

[pTrader]

That's right.
 
But I was talking about manuscripts most closely connected to KJV as source.  Textus Receptus is a printed version, not a manuscript.
 
Manuscripts closest to the KJV as sources, I said Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, but it looks like I was still wrong there.     I don't know what they're called.  But they were definitely not "original manuscripts," just manuscript copies.

yeah, the original was copied then propagated..

[barrister]

So the usual question is, if none of the originals survived, and all manuscripts are copies, how do we know that the copies are accurate?
 
The newer ones have inaccuracies, but the older ones are extremely accurate.  So, if we're looking for accurate manuscripts, the older the better.
 
Why? Because the older ones were copied meticulously, not just word-for-word, they even counted the number of letters used in the source and compared them with the copy, to make sure no mistakes were committed in copying. 
 
The newer ones sometimes had inaccuracies, where the scribe attempted to insert his own beliefs into the text.
 
When they found the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1940s, they confirmed that the text we rely upon is indeed accurate. 
 
The Dead Sea Scrolls were older than the oldest manuscripts existing at the time by about 1,000 years.  Yet they were almost exactly the same as the other extant manuscripts, with variations consisting only of obvious slips of the pen and spelling variations. 

[pTrader]

So the usual question is, if none of the originals survived, and all manuscripts are copies, how do we know that the copies are accurate?
 
The newer ones have inaccuracies, but the older ones are extremely accurate.  So, if we're looking for accurate manuscripts, the older the better.
 
Why? Because the older ones were copied meticulously, not just word-for-word, they even counted the number of letters used in the source and compared them with the copy, to make sure no mistakes were committed in copying. 
 
The newer ones sometimes had inaccuracies, where the scribe attempted to insert his own beliefs into the text.
 
When they found the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1940s, they confirmed that the text we rely upon is indeed accurate. 
 
The Dead Sea Scrolls were older than the oldest manuscripts existing at the time by about 1,000 years.  Yet they were almost exactly the same as the other extant manuscripts, with variations consisting only of obvious slips of the pen and spelling variations.

It is by then the work of the Holy Spirit working on a genuine Christian for validatiion.

Follow-up question sino ba talaga ngayon yung genuine, sa daming nagsulmaganda ang relihiyon at sekta?

[barrister]

It is by then the work of the Holy Spirit working on a genuine Christian for validatiion.

Tama. 

Makikita mo naman na may basis para sabihin na accurate ang alam natin na "original text," kahit hindi "original manuscript" yon.

Siyempre, hindi mo pa rin masasabi with absolute certainty na 100% accurate.  Doon na naman papasok ang faith.

Kung naniniwala ka na salita ng Diyos yon, dapat maniwala ka rin na makikita mo ang accurate version kung hahanapin mo.  Pero kung sa tingin natin pinabayaan ng Diyos na corrupted lahat ang versions ng salita na Siya mismo ang nagpasulat, wag na rin tayong maniwala sa Diyos para wala na tayong problema.

Follow-up question sino ba talaga ngayon yung genuine, sa daming nagsulmaganda ang relihiyon at sekta?

Kanya-kanyang sagot yan.  Kahit ano ang isagot, laging may bias, kaya ikaw na mismo dapat ang bahala, base sa konsiyensiya mo at sa tulong ng Espirito.

Kung ako ang tatanungin mo, wala pa akong nakikitang totoong samahan, kaya sa bibliya na lang ako.

[Nelson de Leon]

Ang alam ko, maski wala na yun mga original manuscripts, they gathered all the so called "copies" that were circulating and meticulously compared them individually.

[pTrader]

Ang alam ko, maski wala na yun mga original manuscripts, they gathered all the so called "copies" that were circulating and meticulously compared them individually.

just like what the KJV translator did.

[dpogs]

I believe KJV is the perfect translation of God's Word in English language.

[pTrader]

I believe KJV is the perfect translation of God's Word in English language.

inde ka naman KJV Only?

[dpogs]

inde ka naman KJV Only?

I think I am. I use other version for comparison only.

[barrister]

I believe KJV is the perfect translation of God's Word in English language.

No perfect translation exists. 
 
The KJV is one of the best translations in the English language, no question about that.  But all versions have errors, KJV included.
 
 
==================================

Examples of major errors in the KJV:
 
 
1. The Pericope Adulterae

John 7:53 to 8:11 is the story of the adulterous woman, called the "Pericope Adulterae."
 
Among bible scholars, the consesus is that the Pericope Adulterae is a fake addition, called an "interpolation."   
 
In the KJV, it is written in full, without explanation.
 
On this issue, the NIV (New International Version) is the better rendition.  The NIV presents the verses in italics to clearly mark the interpolation, and includes this explanatory note:
 
[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]
 
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+7&version=NIV
 
That's why I never say, "who is without sin cast the first stone," as those familiar with my posts will notice.  Anyone who uses those verses is likely a novice in bible studies.
 
 
2.  The Johannine Comma
 
1 John 5:7-8 is called the "Johannine Comma" (in ancient Greek, a "comma" is a short clause).
 
The scholarly consesus is that the Johannine Comma is another fake addition or interpolation.
 
The KJV has it in full:
 
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (1 John 5:7-8, KJV)
 
The NIV again has the better rendition on this issue, and renders it this way:
 
7 For there are three that testify: 8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. (1 John 5:7-8, NIV)
 
Footnote (a) of the NIV states:
 
a.1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)
 
The likely motive of the interpolator was a strong belief in the Trinity doctrine, which I believe to be unbiblical.
 

===================================

 
Other KJV errors:
 
http://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/how-to-understand-the-bible/are-there-mistakes-in-the-king-james-version

http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#errors

http://watch.pair.com/TR-kjv-issues.html

[pTrader]

I think I am. I use other version for comparison only.

parang contradicting ah... if you have a perfect translation why use other  for comparison?

[dpogs]

parang contradicting ah... if you have a perfect translation why use other  for comparison?

hmm... is there a contradiciton to compare a perfect from not perfect?
hmm... is there a contradiction to compare an original branded bag and the fake bag?

[dpogs]

No perfect translation exists. 
 
The KJV is one of the best translations in the English language, no question about that.  But all versions have errors, KJV included.
 
 
==================================

Examples of major errors in the KJV:
 
 
1. The Pericope Adulterae

John 7:53 to 8:11 is the story of the adulterous woman, called the "Pericope Adulterae."
 
Among bible scholars, the consesus is that the Pericope Adulterae is a fake addition, called an "interpolation."   
 
In the KJV, it is written if full, without explanation.
 
On this issue, the NIV (New International Version) is the better rendition.  The NIV presents the verses in italics to clearly mark the interpolation, and includes this explanatory note:
 
[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]
 
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+7&version=NIV
 
That's why I never say, "who is without sin cast the first stone," as those familiar with my posts will notice.  Anyone who uses those verses is likely a novice in bible studies.
 
 
2.  The Johannine Comma
 
1 John 5:7-8 is called the "Johannine Comma" (in ancient Greek, a "comma" is a short clause).
 
The scholarly consesus is that the Johannine Comma is another fake addition or interpolation.
 
The KJV has it in full:
 
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (1 John 5:7-8, KJV)
 
The NIV again has the better rendition on this issue, and renders it this way:
 
7 For there are three that testify: 8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. (1 John 5:7-8, NIV)
 
Footnote (a) of the NIV states:
 
a.1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)
 
The likely motive of the interpolator was a strong belief in the Trinity doctrine, which I believe to be unbiblical.
 

===================================

 
Other KJV errors:
 
http://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/how-to-understand-the-bible/are-there-mistakes-in-the-king-james-version

http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#errors

http://watch.pair.com/TR-kjv-issues.html

it will take us another thread to discuss the KJV authenticity and its perfection



so well let this na lang as is - I belive that KJV is the Word of God and is perfect, inspired by God and you believe otherwise.

I believe that God will preserved His word from all generation. He preserved it in Hebrew, He preserved it in Greek, and He preserved it in English - KJV.

I also believe that every character, even a single blot, period etc ay hindi maaring alisin or idagdag sa Salita ng Diyos...

[barrister]

Agree agad ako.

Ok yon sir... Sanay na tayong pareho sa disagreements natin...

Mas nagugulat pa nga ako pag natiyempong pareho ang beliefs natin sa isang issue...

[Philander]

All over the news today...

Nag po protesta ang mga INC members sa harap ng DOJ.

All I can say is wow!

[bumblebee]

That's scary.

[istan]

WoW rin!
May video wall pa.

They'll stay there for 3 days daw. Protesting about the state meddling on the affairs of their church.
Excuse is that the 2 SAF 44 are INC, that should be top priority of DOJ vs the investigation of kidnapping vs their leaders.

All I can say is... They can meddling in the affairs of the government, but not vice versa.
Eh di WOW!

[istan]

http://www.eaglenews.ph/padre-faura-street-closed-to-give-way-to-people/

[dpogs]

Kung nagawa nila yung kidnappingg against sa family mismo ng church founder how much more ang mga normal member na nakadiskubre ng kabulukan ng inc leaders.

[RU9]

Jojo Pasion Malig via ABS-CBNnews.com
17 mins ·
"The plot is: that more and more people will join that crowd and then a big push to EDSA takes place on Friday till Monday."

[dpogs]

Parang catholic lang nun nagkaroon ng edsa 1. Tama ba?

[Philander]

they think that their church leaders are untouchable.

[dpogs]

Di ba kalaban ni delima ang nbi. Eh malakas ang inc sa nbi.

[istan]

May orders pala ang Central nila. May schedule na mga tao na pumunta dun sa DOJ. :|
Trapik na naman. LOL!