Leaderboard

You previously stated you were unfamiliar with confirmation bias. This is a prime example of how it works.

There is no punctuation in the Greek. How then could it be moved? I’ve tried to find other verses in Luke where Jesus reminds his audience that he is speaking to them on the same day that they are listening to him. MOREOVER, Jesus and those two criminals knew that day on the cross was their last. Would that dying criminal need to be reminded that the day Jesus was speaking was the day he was speaking? Which other day, if not today? But, hey, if there is a religious theological position to advance, and one clings and clutches to inerrancy, well, one will just have to MAKE it fit, like a hand in a…

One of the crazy things I learned with the Dead cover bands is dance to the Garcia diddling they do so well. Somehow I learned I could dance to the lead guitarists by "playing the air guitar" with my feet. So far I only fell once!

Grandiosity might be a nice place to start.

I’ve looked at critical Greek texts over the years and investigated that field to a small extent. If you even spend a cursory amount of time reading about the field you come to quickly learn it is really a specialized field. It has a lot in common with archaeology. There are also the same names that keep showing up as experts in that area. VPW was uneducated in that area as evidenced by numerous comments in different contexts. Here is a basic Wikipedia link on the Greek New Testament NA28. If you read through it all and don’t censor the material it has several pointers to many different areas for investigative study. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece

Its interesting wierwille was likely referring to the Textus Receptus if we go by the fifth century reference. Westcott-Hort used Codex Sinaticus and Codex Vaticanus that dates a century earlier as you noted. Yet - wierwille appearantly either didnt know this at the time pflap was published or was simply mistaken when pflap was published and forgot about westcott-hort or...yeah, who really knows. But wierwille was not a KJV only kinda guy, though he insisted his followers used a KJV with heavily edited center margins, like some kind of custom Scofield type study bible based on way theology that always seemed to be largely unintelligible cause the notes had to be written so small..I digress...Wierwille uses Westcott-Hort interchangeably throughout his publications and especially when it suited him...makes me wonder if he knew the difference until much later when he had people like Walter Cummins around who had a real education This clearly shows either ignorance or sloppy writing with no cross checking by the author...mmmm...this your guiding light mike? wierwille had a doctorate?....

That said a lot. One of the things it said was that vpw was slow in learning what were the most recent copies extant. The average layman, as of 1942, could have learned better than that. (With the internet, we know a lot more than that.) He had the centuries wrong, and the languages wrong. "Aramaic primacy" has gone the way of the do-do because older resources have surfaced- in Greek, and older by more than a century. By pinning his hopes on the obscure "Aramaic first" movement, vpw added another layer of "only we have the secret answers"- but only did so at the expense of passing along ERROR to twi. Since this was before the internet, he neither cared nor thought they'd get caught teaching ERROR. Anyone foolish enough to lock their thinking into thinking vpw was correct in both century and language, exposes their deficiencies rather plainly. EVERYBODY knows better by now- at least, those who care and bother to spend more than a few seconds looking things up. Another thing it said was that "WE" can get to "thus saith the LORD" -and outlined the process how WE could get there. It was pretty straightforward. Anyone claiming vpw was the final word on things, that vpw was authoritative on things, who has the nerve to contradict him on the actual things- like how we can get to "thus saith the LORD"- well, hypocrisy is sometimes easy to find.

Ok, I should check the Orange Book myself and see what it says about the verses. Clear enough. Ok, found what I was looking for, in the Orange Book, pages 127-128. The Orange Book, page-127-128 says "In proceeding as a workman, there is basic information which must be kept in mind, the first of which is that no translation or version of the Bible may properly be called the Word of God. The Bible from which I have been quoting is called the King James Version. It is not the King James Translation. If I had a King James translation in my hands, I would have a Bible that is worth a great deal of money as a collector's item. Once a translation has been made from an original text, like the Stephens Text from which the King James was translated, the first copy is called a translation. When scholars begin to rework the translation in any way, it becomes a version. Now, I said that no translation, let alone a version, may properly be called the Word of God. As far as anybody knows, there are no original texts in existence today. The oldest dated Biblical manuscript is from 464 AD and written in Aramaic in Estrangelo script. There are older Aramaic manuscripts written in the Estrangelo script which predate 464 AD, but these are not Biblical texts. What students or scholars refer to as 'originals' really date from 464 AD and later. These manuscripts are not originals--the originals are those which holy men of God wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. At best, we have copies of the originals. When I refer to the Word of God, I do not mean a copy or a translation or a version; I mean that Word of God which was originally given by revelation to holy men. Since we have no originals and the oldest manuscripts that we have date back to the fifth century AD, how can we get back to the authentic prophecy which was given when holy men of God spoke? To get the Word of God out of any translation or out of any version, we have to compare one word with another word and one verse with another verse. We have to study the context of all the verses. If it is the Word of God, then if cannot have a contradiction for God cannot contradict Himself. Error has to be either in the translation or in one's own understanding. When we get back to that original, God-breathed Word- which I am confident we can- then once again we will be able to say with all the authority of the prophets of old, 'Thus saith the Lord'. "

Thanks OldSkool