Bart Ehrman?

Thank you for your reply. I appreciate your kind answers. It helps a lot.

My next questions:

originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
The KJV's source is the Hebrew Masoretic, and the Textus Receptus ("received text" or Majority Text: meaning the vast majority of the scraps of manuscripts and oldest (we have over 8000) were used for the New Testament translation in the KJV)

Is Textus Receptus already been compiled in both Masoretic and Septuagint?

Why is Septuagint not included in KJV sources?

Do you claim Hebrew Masoretic has error?

How do you know over 8000 scraps in Textus Receptus are Bible's accounts? How do you differentiate this scraps from non-biblical accounts? Do they contradict each others? Do they have other errors?

What are the written languages been used by the scraps?

Is Aramaic a dead language?

originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
Question: Did Mark, Luke, Matthew and John authorize the use of AKJV?

Answer: No.

Who authorize the use of AKJV?

What is the different between KJV and AKJV?

What is the different between KJV and other English translations?

Why are some details in KJV have been removed in other English translations?

What are Biblical's verses for editing ( omitting ) God's Word?

Why do you believe AKJV is the preserved word of god?

originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
Question: Did you said this? : All new english translations have tons of errors in them,

Answer: Yes, ALL new english bibles are filled with errors. Not the KJV though.

Why do you think all new English translations, except KJV, have tons of errors in them?

Should this errors be reviewed and corrected before publication?

Who should be held responsible?

originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
Question: Are you admitting the Bible has error? Are all new English translations not the Bible?

Answer: Only new english bibles. And of course, any new bible in other languages as well that used the same manuscript evidence that the new bibles used (pieces of litteral trash like the Sinaiti"cuss" ((found in a trash can by Constantin von Tischendorf because it was already filled with errors)) , Vaticanus, the Septuagint, Alexandrinus, etc.)

Do you claim god lies in all non-KJV English translations, any other languages, as well as Vatican's, the Septuagint, Alexandrines, etc.?

originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
Question: Do you claim AKJV is free from error?

Answer: Yes, without shame. Happily and confidently.

Question: Did you said the accounts complement each other?

Answer: All the multiple listed accounts in the Bible for any event all compliment each other and gives different perspectives on the event. Sort of like how movies or Sport reviews (instant replays) give you different camera angles so you can be confident of the outcome. God did the same for you with the multiple accounts giving.

Could you explain this:?

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

a reply to: EasternShadow

I think there are all very simple answers for those questions
The bible is not a scientific document and we all understand that

As monarch has said before, there are different views and understandings but for mine in relation to the overall theme they do drive home a simple narrative

The issue will always be, is Jesus our lord and Saviour, I think we can ( Christians) all agree with that

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I think there are all very simple answers for those questions
The bible is not a scientific document and we all understand that

Thank you, Raggedyman.

Don't worry. I'm not going to ask scientific question.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
As monarch has said before, there are different views and understandings but for mine in relation to the overall theme they do drive home a simple narrative

I can understand complementary. It will eventually lead to same conclusion. However, complementary testimonial is not the same as contradiction. With contradiction we could not reconcile the differences. Thus, we do not know which one is the truth.

a reply to: EasternShadow

I can't disagree 👍

a reply to: MonarchofBooks1611

If I’m right they have copies of sermons where the priest was quoting q.. ALOT of the earliest New Testament stuff is from these sermons..

Look at the way the stories between the gospels evolve..

In Mark jesus is clueless to what is happening to him.. he is obviously In shock. Hypothetically he thinks he is the Jewish messiah, but instead of freeing Judea. He is being crucified..

So he screams out “father , father. Why have you forsaken me!”


In I think it is Matthew jesus knows perfectly well what is happening, and what will happen to him afterward..

He even tells the criminal hanging next to him not to worry” we will both be in paradise today”..


They are 2 different stories of the same account, and the 2 authors disagree about what happened exactly..


You also see the blame for his death change from mark to John.. in Mark it’s the Romans fault. In John the Jews..

a reply to: Raggedyman

Listening to the most educated and knowledgeable people on the planet beats the hell out of just making it up myself as I go along lol...

originally posted by: JoshuaCox


Look at the way the stories between the gospels evolve..

In Mark jesus is clueless to what is happening to him.. he is obviously In shock. Hypothetically he thinks he is the Jewish messiah, but instead of freeing Judea. He is being crucified..

So he screams out “father , father. Why have you forsakenhimself,

Both Mark and Matthew share the same views and likely to be the most plausible among any other testimonials. The only problem with this accounts is Jesus cried out, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” ( My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? )
It's so out of Jesus's character. There are many theories, yet none is satisfactory in my point of view.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
In I think it is Matthew jesus knows perfectly well what is happening, and what will happen to him afterward..

He even tells the criminal hanging next to him not to worry” we will both be in paradise today”..

It was Luke's account. According to Luke, there were some women who followed Jesus and wept and mourned, contradicted with Mark and Matthew accounts. I think Luke falsify some of the events. It's unlikely for crowds who demanded Jesus's death to "wept and mourned" for Jesus.
There were other different views on Luke's testimonials, such as the robbers talked to Jesus to save them. But, as long as, this different views were not contradictory, it's fine with me.

And John's account was completely out of picture. A total fabrication and contradicted almost everything Mark, Matthew and Luke accounts. It's appear John was not interested in Jesus's humanity, but more interested to promote "the beloved disciple". To John, Jesus carried the cross all by himself, speak to Mary on the cross, drank the wine and said, "It is finished," before he died. The lack of narrative details in Jesus crucifixion and lot of contradictions, show John is the least credible source of all the canon Gospels.

One thing for sure, we know Mary was the only true eyewitness to Jesus crucifixion and resurrection. I'm still trying to find out what Mary's account is.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Raggedyman

Listening to the most educated and knowledgeable people on the planet beats the hell out of just making it up myself as I go along lol...

Yeah exactly what I suggest you do, listen and stop saying silly stuff.

Stop making up what you think something is all about, you just havnt a clue
Go listen to Ehrman before making stupid comments Josh

Your assumptions above are just dumb and ignorant, you havnt a clue

My problem isn't you make stupid comments, my problem is you make stupid comments and claim you know you are right about aid stupid comments

Below I have explained why your comments on Marks gospel are wrong, go listen to Ehrman, go learn something, stop thinking you know you have any idea what you are talking about, it's dumb

a reply to: EasternShadow

Eloi Eloi lambda sabachthani
from Psalm 22


"When Jesus says "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?", He is, as you no doubt already know, quoting from Psalm 22 (verse 1 in the English versions). This is important to understand, because Psalm 22 is a prophecy of Jesus' crucifixion. The rejection of the Messiah by the people (v.6), the insults they hurled at Him on the cross (vv.7-8 - compare with Matt.27:38-43), the pain of the crucifixion (vv.14-15), the piercing of His hands and feet (v.16), the dividing up of His clothing by lot (v.18) are just some of the more obvious parallels this Psalm prophesies. Jesus knew exactly what was going to happen to Him because He understood this Psalm and how it applied to His death on our behalf (cf. Matt.20:18-19). By quoting Psalm 22, our Lord makes this clear, and makes it clear to all who would later hear these words of His that He was well aware that He would have to die on our behalf in order to save us - for this reason He came into the world (Jn.3:16-17). from
Ichthys.com

So what Christ was doing was verbalising the prophecy of His own death
Reaching back to the psalms, explaining how what was happening was a fulfillment of Gods promise of a new covenant, Christ was verbalising and in so doing fulfilling prophecy

Jesus knew He was going to die, in every gospel, from the beginning of time

a reply to: Raggedyman

Well spoken! ↑↑↑ And 'Ill get to answering those questions posted above from EasternShadow soon. All are pretty straight forward and easy enough.

Same for the other comments. But a lot of the issues are not textual in nature, they are theological in nature and must be answered in that light.

originally posted by: MonarchofBooks1611
a reply to: Raggedyman

Well spoken! ↑↑↑ And 'Ill get to answering those questions posted above from EasternShadow soon. All are pretty straight forward and easy enough.

Same for the other comments. But a lot of the issues are not textual in nature, they are theological in nature and must be answered in that light.

Yet you would question my faith because I don’t believe the bible is perfect?

a reply to: Raggedyman

Yet you would question my faith because I don’t believe the bible is perfect?

Oh to have a set of those perfect eyes to see with . :>)

1 Corinthians 13:12 King James Version (KJV) 12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Oh yes, I think those words are far deeper than I care to muse over
If only we could live as Christ called us to, that would be perfect

a reply to: Raggedyman

One of the themes I have discovered to understand is the "already but not yet" ...we are already perfect in Him but being perfected and so not yet perfect . We have eternal life already but have not entered into eternity so not yet . That theme can be carried throughout the bible in helping us to understand our condition as well as scripture like that Corinthians verse .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Yeah but, if the bible was perfect I am so imperfect that I would still botch everything up
Yes I need Jesus
I like where you are coming from, it's very good

The Spirit in me, I am in Jesus and Christ is in God, neat isn't it

a reply to: Raggedyman

Lol..

I do listen to Ehrman..

I don’t think there is a single debate of his online I haven’t watched..


You watched one video and made your assessment on him..

Not even knowing that he left the church because of suffering.. something he says every other debate or lecture..

I got all my comments on mark from Ehrman.. he is hands down the most credible biblical scholar on the planet.. he is the one guy both sides quote and is infinitely respcted by both sides..

No one argues his knowledge or experience in the field.. no one.. not even Craig lane or the other crazies..

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Says you
Ehrman is basically a gnostic
if you are going to just listen to Ehrman then that would explain a heap about your ignorance Josh
What you are saying is basically , "Hawkins is the only person I listen to about physics, I know no one else or what they teach, everyone else agrees" and that's stupid

There are many physicists with multiple opinions, it's a bit like theology
Ehrman is just one and there is heaps I would disagree with in relation to Ehrmans theology
Moaning that the bible isn't perfect is one, suffering in a broken world is another

Sorry, your argument is still childish

a reply to: EasternShadow

Is Textus Receptus already been compiled in both Masoretic and Septuagint?

I'll keep the answers short, because as we both know these questions can be answered with a quick google search, but I will give the theological answer to the questions and perspective not given from scholarly references:

No Textus Receptus (from here on referred to as "TR") has ever been a part of the 2nd century Septuagint. The earliest known example of the greek translation of the Hebrew old testament known as the Septuagint is from Origen's Hexapla, in the fifth coloum of the text. There is no, nor has there ever been any proof showing the Septuagint was created before Christ was born by a group of 72 Hebrew priests (hence LXX, roman numerals for 70......should be LXXII but I digress.)

Look it up, there are no Septuagint(s) prior to Origen in Alexandria Egypt and his copy of his comparative (and impressive book) the Hexapla, which had six copies of the Jews Old Testament text. Thus Jesus and his disciples NEVER quoted or used it as it came 200 years after the events of Jesus. The whole thing is a KNOWN hoax but there are sinister elements in play that NEED the Septuagint...which we shall look into.

Why is Septuagint not included in KJV sources?

Because the translators of the KJV knew the Septuagint was filled with errors. Proof? They said so themselves in their preface to the KJV text called the "Translators to the readers". On page 4 and 7 of that preface they said the Septuagint had errors and was not used.

Do you claim Hebrew Masoretic has error?

No, I do not.First of all, I CAN'T read Hebrew so there is no way for me to verify it anyway...and expanding on that thought, WHAT WOULD I USED TO Verify THEM AGAINST?!?!? We have nothing to compare it too. So how do we tell what is right? Well, you trust a filthy man/woman to determine what God's words are. Or, you trust God in providing His words for us down through translations by examining the fruit of the translations (By their fruit you shall know them....right?)

How do you know over 8000 scraps in Textus Receptus are Bible's accounts? How do you differentiate this scraps from non-biblical accounts? Do they contradict each others? Do they have other errors?

These are the question you need to stick with, these are honest questions that DEMAND an answer from God. Well, like above, you compare the fruits of the texts. The KJV literally changed the world, brought us out of the dark ages of Roman Catholic rule, brought about the creation of America, created the largest missionary movement since the book of Acts, and no one can argue against that. So lets look at the text the KJV used since the KJV has a flawless reputation for being USED of God. Those 8000+ plus manuscript scraps are called the majority text and received text because they do all agree, without contradictions and were used by the earlier church as a whole.

Now, there are copies of the TR that men put together starting in 1633AD, and these compiled copies DO CONTRIDICT each other. For example, Erasmus's copy differs with Beza's copy in over 600 places, and Beza's copy differs with the Stephanus in many places, not to mention the Elzevir brothers copy. The KJV translators primarily used Erasmus's TR text that was published in 1633. But you say the KJV was published in 1611, how can this be?!?!? I'll let you think about for a little bit, the answer is very simple. Similar to where were the "dinosaurs" before the term "dinosaurs" was created.

What are the written languages been used by the scraps?

Almost exclusively greek.

Is Aramaic a dead language?

Basically. And no, none of the gospels were written in Aramaic. Despite what the "passion of the Christ" alleges. The Catholic church HAS to have an Aramaic copy to prove Matt 16:19 is talking about Peter being the ROCK which the church is founded on, when the context is Christ is the rock. Aramaic the word Peter is ROCK, but in greek the word Peter is stone.

1. Who authorize the use of AKJV?
2. What is the different between KJV and AKJV?
3. What is the different between KJV and other English translations?
4. Why are some details in KJV have been removed in other English translations?
5. What are Biblical's verses for editing ( omitting ) God's Word?
6. Why do you believe AKJV is the preserved word of god?

1. King James VI for the use in the church of England. Also, the first national published Bible in the language of the common people (not Latin finally) so they could read the Bible themselves instead of relying on the godless church leaders to interpret the Bible for them, therefore getting rid of fake teachings and heresies such as infant baptism, confession to a priest, purgatory, selling of indulgences, church and state co-rule, etc.
2. Nothing as far as I know, same thing. Authorized King James Bible. Just different ways to abbreviate the Version.
3. 10's of thousands. Over 64,000 alone in the NIV cf. KJV. And this is where the point of contention lies.
4. Just a SUPER small sampling: Matt 17:21 Matt 18:11 Acts 8:37 1 Tim 3:16 1 John 5:7 Col 1:14 Rev1:11 John 3:13 John 5:4 Acts 9:6 and thousands more that CHANGE doctrine completely
5. We are not to add of subtract from God's words. But God (working through a man) can add or subtract from them all He wants. Or quote them differently as He wants considering He is the author and the author can use His words as He wants. Example: Habakkuk 2:4 compared to Hebrews 10:38. The word "his" is removed. God did this to show personal faith in an action or work is no longer enough to save you (such as the laws of Moses). Now Faith in a person (Jesus) is required for salvation, not faith in our own works.
6. Simplest question of all: Because God promised to preserve His words for us. And Jesus GAVE us as a command to KEEP HIS WORDS. He must provide the words or He is a irresponsible liar. And I have more respect for people like "Bart" who realize this. Sadly they don't have all the info to allow them to continue to be Bible believers. This is willful ignorance on there part of course, the info is out there, they just close their eyes to it because they don't want to be practical Christians, they want to be celebrity Christians.

a reply to: EasternShadow

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness. GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

No, God did not create light. God created darkness and formed light as He is the primeval light. [Isaiah 45:7]
Darkness was created with the heaven [universe] and earth. As the Creator then began to form that which He created, He showed His primeval light to His creation and withdrew a portion to create time.

GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created. GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.Text

No, the seeds only were planted in Gen 1:11 [in the second era] --

a reply to: EasternShadow

Why do you think all new English translations, except KJV, have tons of errors in them?

I've compared them. And what did I use as the authoritative scale to weigh all the new bibles with? Why the Authorized King James Bible of course. The one that God has HOUNORED AND BLESSED for over 400 years, irrefutably. I have 30+ english translations in my library, and over 100 I keep in electronic format. I have multiple 4 column translation comparison bibles, and I have looked up hundreds of comparisons. Conclusion? All new English Bibles use an absurdly small collection of manuscripts to translate their bibles (4-8 sources) whereas the KJV used over 8000+ sources to translate from and more sources are being found to this day, including the Dead Sea Scrolls.
And I can post "pics" to prove it. Ignore Westcort and Hort, and stick with Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elzevir.

Should this errors be reviewed and corrected before publication?

The "errors" in the new english bibles are there on purpose....don't be misstaken about that. This is completely on purpose to attack the itegrity of God's words. Make no mistake, this is the Devils works, which he started in Genesis 3:1:
Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
The Devil does not work in bars, dance halls, drug hangouts, rock concerts, or wall street....he works in churches and bible translation committies. Proof? Some of the new bible translators have come right out and said the Devil himself inspirted their work making new englisg bibles. Out of his own mouth..... Frank Logston

Who should be held responsible?

Satan, the "accuser of the brethren". And the pride of man.

Do you claim god lies in all non-KJV English translations, any other languages, as well as Vatican's, the Septuagint, Alexandrines, etc.?

God does not lie, man did ABOUT God's words.

Could you explain this:?

1. GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

2. GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

3. GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

4. GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

1. The "Light" is not the Sun, neither visa-versa. The Sun gives FORTH light, but the Sun is not light. Light and Darkness, Day and Night in Gen 1:3-5 are a reference to the forces of good verses evil. God divides these forces because Lucifer went crazy and tried to take over the Universe (i.e Thanos style). So God casts him out with his evil angels (verse 4, God divided the two.) Notice God never created darkness. Darkness by definition is the absence of light, thus the evil ones LEFT the presence of God (LIGHT) and became dim. This is ALL pre-history, pre-Adam. Study this out with a KJV Bible, NOT HEBREW. Study "light" and children of LIGHT verses CHILDREN of darkness.

2. Don't see any issue here. Other than the fact that God created a special place in Eden where He planted a garden that had trees. What am I missing?

3 & 4. Sadly I still don't see an issue Are you concerned over the chronological order of things? Chapter 2 is not in chronological order, nor does it need to be, nor is half the movies or books you read. Almost all books/movies jump ahead of the present tense to lay ground work for literary development. This is called "foreshadowing". The Bible is a....book...after all. The Bible also jumps back a lot called "flashbacks" in common speak. There is, nor has there ever been an issue or error here.


Anything else? I'll be writing a thread in the conspiracies for religion area soon talking about Why there are so many english translations. The answer of course is WAR. Miscommunication is the first step in any war, to destroy the enemies means of communication with "headquarters". Confusion begins and God is not the author of that.