this is a second article on the video sam gipp has recently release .. on the king james only related fiction that is constantly regurgitated
statement 4
the critical are from alexandria - eygpt -- what do you know about there area
(not a lot of good came from there, seemed worldly and the jew were in slavery) exactly to use an example in revelation he compares jerusalem to sodom and eygpt ... so the only good thing that came out of eygpt is that it can be used as a bad exaple
we get something else from these places .. it is what i call the antiocan maintaility or phylosophy -- and the alexandrian maintaility or philosophy
--- antiochian can not approved upon
--- alexandrian can be approved on and is not perfect
ANSWER
this type of answer may seem like a good one but it runs the risk of being classed as false in light of real facts
the following point will demonstrate this
A) both place are on earth and at some point been the centre of bad points for our faith -- while eygpt is seen as a bad place at one point for the idea of slavery, it also should be noted that antioch was also known for false teaching like the first one the new testament records the works of law salvation which paul faced -- and we have the early form of gnosticism which was in colossae which is near where ? .. antioch
but the fact that both place are known for bad things does not have any baring on the biblical manuscripts -- this type of argument is centre on a false hope of rising person feeling on the issues rather than dealing with the facts
B) these two thoughts on philosophy are human orientated and are not worth addressing in full .. but to point can be made
Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach[b] to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God
here we see paul make a point that human philosophy can be very deceptive if it is used to silence God work .. and this include the work of his people in preserving his word for all believers to come to know ... in other words this argument that sam gives is not a logical one nore is based on fact but on his own assumed position and his feelings
the next point i will only lightly address in this poin since i will address in full in a later article to this set
but the point is that even the king james translated never held such a view that sam does .. in that king james bible was not the perfect .. they believed it could be improved on with the discovery of newer and more reliable manuscripts -- note taken from the introduction to the k j v
and this is not a bash on kjv as i believe is a fine translation .. it is more to do with this faulty position sam has adopted
statement 5
so you believe that its perfect and needs no change when some of these come from antioch and come down into alexandria where they did not believe -- they were perfect they thought they could approve on it ... so they began to make changes
they didnt believe in the trinity so they removed the verse on it --
ANSWER
this is another interesting statement as it proove sams history is a little less perfect
to start with i do believe the kjv is a very fine translation as i have 2 and the new kingjames and others -- but here is the point it does not matter what we think, sam thinks or any ones does
what matters is what the fact present to us
A -- arianism was one of the first heresy that the early church face and was the centre of the debate od the council in 325 .. but it was not till some years later that this belief was finally put to rest by athanasius who was from eygpt .. and he was one of the prime defenders of the TRINITY agains arianism
so history shows that sams version is a little less than truth .. it is pure fiction and needs to be addressed to some extent
but the important point is that this movement grew out of antioch .. and this make antioch in sams logic a bad place
B -- the trinity is not just based on 1 verse .. that only came to be in the previous centuries to kingjames .. this verse has no hisorical validity .. and if sams teaching of the trinity is based on this one verse then it is weak like the attacks on christian form islam
who alike only attack based on 1 john 5 :7
a typical response from these would be ... you can not believe in the trinity since the soul verse was removed and found to be a fabrication ..
in both cases it not the soul verse .. it is not even a verse that we consider ... for some scriptural proofs look to romans 8 12 -17 and 26 -31, john chapters 14 -16
but more on this subject in a future article .. for this we only need to understand the bible as a whole speaks to the trinity note jus a single verse
C --- now we move to the previos point in the last statement rebuttals that i sai i would make a more substancial response too
do the translaters of the king james bible .. did they veiw it as the supreme translate that need no further improvement .. or is that tradition in the kjv onlyist camp which can not be lgitimately accepted
There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother or neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. concerning the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christian. cap. 14.] so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.
in the underlined sections is what the tranlaters personally believed
and what we note is that they were open to the possiblility of further work where needed .. based on new discoveries "Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures"
also note the last section on this note
so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded
just like these men we also need to adopt the same frame of mind .. and not put a translation on a pedastal as many like sam has done -- this is the only way to deal woth God word in an honest fashion that will honour him in the manner he desires
