Let's Be Honest(Bible based Religion).

[defender_1611]

---

bro its in bible.org kong ga toon ka no need for him to mention those texts or MSS. kay ang mga scholars ani kabalo na kong unsa nga mga MSS ang gigamit.

logical fallacy man ni imo gibuhat bro.

now i can sense nga di pa ka andam mo refute, sige bro maghuwat ko ha, as of now basaha sa og balik then if you are ready ihatag lang nya ang refutation.

gabii naman gud sayo pa ko mata ugma.

cge bro....pabota lang akong refute....wala kaayo ko ka huna huna kay ako anak diri sigeg samok....ato niya ni tiwason atong discussion bro.....next time.....

[Mandirigma]

naa unta koy gusto i-recommend nga English version sa Bible pero murag delikado, hehe... u're using your mind so much... actually, delikado pud if ako mo basa ky mind ako pirmi gamiton. dugay nko wai basa2x, I can't say if DAILY ba to gigamit... That version I'm referring to ky gi-translate gikan jud sa raw Greek words, not from translated na daan.

wow mao ba bro. unsa kaha na sa? di nimo puede ma share diri?

[Mandirigma]

cge bro....pabota lang akong refute....wala kaayo ko ka huna huna kay ako anak diri sigeg samok....ato niya ni tiwason atong discussion bro.....next time.....

ok bro no problem.

[akosabni]

let's be honest, how sure are you?

[cebu.opportunities]

wow mao ba bro. unsa kaha na sa? di nimo puede ma share diri?

ayaw lang sa siguro... much better if mag-meet nlng mo with someone nga possible mka-answer sa imo questions...
ngita sako ha...hehe

dayon reply unta nko ani:

ok so what about it bro? how is it related sa atong topic?

ky di nlng nko ipadayon, hehehe....

[defender_1611]

mao ba...

paki refute lng ko ani...

In the last six verses of Revelation, Erasmus had no Greek manuscript (=MS) (he only used half a dozen, very late MSS for the whole New Testament any way). He was therefore forced to ?back-translate? the Latin into Greek and by so doing he created seventeen variants which have never been found in any other Greek MS of Revelation! He merely guessed at what the Greek might have been.

AND also this...

1 John 5:7-8, Erasmus followed the majority of MSS in reading ?there are three witnesses in heaven, the Spirit and the water and the blood.? However, there was an uproar in some Roman Catholic circles because his text did not read ?there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit.? Erasmus said that he did not put that in the text because he found no Greek MSS which had that reading. This implicit challenge?viz., that if he found such a reading in any Greek MS, he would put it in his text?did not go unnoticed. In 1520, a scribe at Oxford named Roy made such a Greek MS (codex 61, now in Dublin). Erasmus? third edition had the second reading because such a Greek MS was ?made to order? to fill the challenge! To date, only a handful of Greek MSS have been discovered which have the Trinitarian formula in 1 John 5:7-8, though none of them is demonstrably earlier than the sixteenth century.


pangutana lang kong na kay wa masabtan.

bro maayong gabei....This is my 1st refutation sa imong post....(See red bold letters)

A. The usual complaint, voiced by Doug Kutilek, an opponent of the AV, goes something like this: "Erasmus had the feeblest of manuscripts. He chiefly used one manuscript from the Gospels from the 12th century, and one manuscript of Acts and the Epistles also from the 12th century . . . It was hastily produced . . . There is no ground whatsoever for accepting the Textus Receptus as the ultimate in precisely representing the original text of the New Testament . . . It was in fact the most rudimentary and rustic, at best only a provisional text . . . The Greek texts of Griesbach, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Alford and Westcott and Hort were . . . a great improvement over the text of Erasmus because they more accurately presented the text of the New Testament in the form it came from the pens of the apostles." (1) This is very inaccurate and misleading.

What of the manuscripts he used? Erasmus was ever at work, ever collecting, comparing, publishing. He classified the Greek manuscripts and read the Fathers. By his travels he was brought into contact with all the intellectual currents of his time. (2) He looked for manuscripts everywhere during his travels and he borrowed them from everyone he could. His text was mainly based on the Basel manuscripts, but included readings from others to which he had access. He had collated many Greek manuscripts of the NT and was surrounded by all the commentaries and translations by the writings of Origen, Cyprian, Ambrose, Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, Jerome and Augustine. (3) Erasmus had access to Codex Vaticanus, but rejected its readings that were at variance with the Byzantine text. He also had access to D, Codex Bezae, but also rejected it. (4) The AV translators also had these variant readings and rejected them. (5) The readings of these much boasted manuscripts recently made available are largely those of the Vulgate. The Reformers knew of these readings and rejected them, as well as the Vulgate. (6) The pedigree of Erasmus' "late minuscule manuscripts" thus date back to antiquity. (7) The text Erasmus chose had an outstanding history in the Greek, Syrian and Waldensian churches. (

The texts used by Erasmus for his first edition:

1. 1 - 11th century, contained the Gospels, Acts, Epistles. Erasmus did not rely very much on 1 because it read too much like Codex B/Vaticanus. (9)

2. 2 - 15th century, contained the Gospels.

3. 2ap - 12th-14th century, contained Acts and the Epistles. Erasmus depended upon 2 and 2ap because they were the best and most accurate texts. (10)

4. 4ap - 15th century, containing Revelation.

Erasmus mainly used 2 and 2ap, occasionally used 1 and 4ap. (11) Erasmus may have had as many as 10 manuscripts at his disposal, 4 from England, 5 at Basle and one loaned to him by John Reuchlin. (12)

Thomas Strouse mentions that the earliest of his manuscripts went back to the 5th century, "advisedly." (13) Bishop Charles John Ellicott, Chairman of the Revision Committee, said about the Received Text:

"The manuscripts which Erasmus used differ, for the most part, only in small and insignificant details from the bulk of the cursive manuscripts. The general character of their text is the same. By this observation the pedigree of the Received Text is carried up beyond the individual manuscripts used by Erasmus . . . That pedigree stretches back to remote antiquity. The first ancestor of the Received Text was at least contemporary with the oldest of our extant manuscripts, if not older than any one of them." (14)

So the question is not, "How old were those manuscripts that Erasmus used?" but rather whether those "late manuscripts" accurately preserve the originals. We state the Erasmus manuscripts were part of that Traditional stream of manuscripts that have always been accepted by God's people. The age of the individual manuscripts is not important, but rather their accuracy in preserving the older manuscripts which contained the very Word of God.

2nd refutation nako: (See blue bold letters)


A. Yes, there is overwhelming evidence for it. We may say indeed that if anyone doubts whether I John 5:7,8 belongs in Scripture, thy are wholly ignorant of the textual support in favor of it. First John 5:7,8 is an integral part of Scripture.

The earliest references to it would be Tertullian (160-230), Cyprian (200-25, Priscillian (d. 385), Cassiodorus (480-570), Augustine (5th century), Athanasius (4th century) and Jerome (4th century). (1) It appears in the Vulgate. (2) It also appears in Manuscript 61 and Codex Ravianus. Stephanus found it in 9 of his 16 manuscripts. (3)

Its attack and deletion from some manuscripts no doubt arises from the heresies in the early church, especially Arians. Those who oppose the inclusion of I John 5:7 are supporting the Unitarians and Jehovah Witnesses while ignoring the overwhelming mass of manuscript evidence.

Erasmus' role in the debate over these verses had been distorted by enemies of the AV. The standard position that liberals assume reads something as follows, given by AV-critic James White:

"When the first edition of Erasmus' work came out in 1516 . . . (I John 5:7, was not in the text for a very simple reason: it was not found in any Greek manuscript of I John that Erasmus had examined. Instead, the phrase was found only in the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus rightly did not include it in the first or second editions. The note in the Annotations simply said, 'In the Greek codex I find only this about the threefold testimony: 'because there are three witnesses, spirit, water and blood.' ' His reliance upon the Greek manuscripts caused quite a stir . . . Since Erasmus had promised, in his response to Edward Lee, to include the passage should a Greek manuscript be found that contained it, he was constrained to insert the phrase in the third edition when presented with an Irish manuscript that contained the disputed phrase." (4)

This is furthered by Stewart Custer of Bob Jones University:

"Now Erasmus made a rash promise. He said, 'If you can show me a Greek manuscript that has the text in it, I will print it there' . . . They went back and summoned their scribes and got them to translate the Latin Vulgate into Greek and put that verse in. (It) came right back to him. The ink was hardly dry on the manuscript . . . those two manuscripts are 61 . . . the date is 16th century, the time of Erasmus. The other one is 629 . . . Those are the only two manuscripts out of those 5000 that have verse 7 in it . . . Told him frankly that if he didn't put that verse in, they'd excommunicate him. He, being a good Roman Catholic, put it in." (5)

Both White and Custer are in error! Now for the facts:

On the "fact" that Erasmus made a rash promise, this was demonstrated to be false. This remark is one of the cherished legends about the history of New Testament scholarship. It is no more than a legend. Erasmus did not put the verses in his third edition on the basis of any supposed promise to Edward Lee. (6) Even Bruce Metzger admitted that Erasmus' "promise" needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H.J. de Jonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies, who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion. (7)
Was the ink hardly dry on 61, as Custer claimed? Erasmus didn't see it until a year after it was produced. Custer simply exaggerated. (
What of Custer's claim that there were only 2 manuscripts that contained the verse? R.E. Brown said a year earlier than Custer (1982) that there were 8 manuscripts. And it wasn't "5000" manuscripts as Custer claimed for, as of 1982, only 498 Greek manuscripts had been examined and in eight of them, the verses are found. (9) How could Custer assume the other 4500 manuscripts did not have the verses?
Was Erasmus threatened with excommunication? No evidence exists of it (10) because by the time of the third edition, he had found sufficient evidence to include it. Erasmus initially defended his omission of the verses as late as October, 1524. He had changed his views sometime between 1522-1527. (11)

Note: correction lang bro sa statement na imong gi state sayop ning 17 actually 10 ra siya. (See green text and see brown text for my answer).

pangutana lang pod bro kung naa kay wala masabtan pod.....

[truthseeker]

@mandirigma

bro unsa may imong reference diay sa imong religion? by the way,are you a christian or not? honest lang.

[defender_1611]

@mandirigma

bro unsa may imong reference diay sa imong religion? by the way,are you a christian or not? honest lang.

ambot bro kung christian ba na siya.

[truthseeker]

mao ni lisud bro kung dili christian kay walay basis sa iyang religion. kung naa man gani, dako sad kayong lalisonon. kung christian pud, doubtful ni sya sa iyang belief about God and his word.

Battle For The Bible- The English Bible Wycliffe, Tyndale, Cranmer (Full Length) - YouTube
we should be thankful instead kay nakaabot jud sa atoa ang translation sa bible into english kaysa gi suppress ni padayon sa church kay dili gustong mga leaders/pope mayagyag ang kamatuoran.

[defender_1611]

mao ni lisud bro kung dili christian kay walay basis sa iyang religion. kung naa man gani, dako sad kayong lalisonon. kung christian pud, doubtful ni sya sa iyang belief about God and his word.

mao gyud bro...ang battle of doubting about the Word of God is started in Genesis 3 where satan question God's Word. Until now padayon pa gihapon ang gubat mahitungod sa pulong sa Ginoo.