|
|
 | | From: | admin | | Subject: | THE HORTIAN-ECLECTIC THEORY REFUTED #13 | | Date: | Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:24:11 GMT |
|
|
 | This a continuing post from the Book "Which Version is the
Bible" by Floyd Nolen Jones. Chapter 7, pages 83-112
Which Version is the Bible?
Copyright 1995 · Floyd Jones Ministries, Inc.
All Rights Reserved. This book may be freely reproduced in any form as long
as it is not distributed for any material gain or profit
Gilly's studies conducted in the mountains of the Piedmont among the
Waldenses led him to pen:
"The method which Allix has pursued, in his History of the Churches of
Piedmont, is to show that in the ecclesiastical history of every century,
from the fourth century, which he considers a period early enough for the
enquirer after apostolical purity of doctrine, there are clear proofs that
doctrines, unlike those which the Romish Church holds, and conformable to
the belief of the Waldensian and Reformed Churches, were maintained by
theologians of the north of Italy down to the period, when the Waldenses
first came into notice. Consequently the opinions of the Waldenses were not
new to Europe in the eleventh or twelfth centuries, and there is nothing
improbable in the tradition, that the Subalpine Church persevered in its
integrity in an uninterrupted course from the first preaching of the Gospel
in the valleys."
Although Rome has obliterated the records and calumniated the character of
these Christian folk (and many other genuine Christian sects as well) by
lies, falsification and/or destruction of documents and historical records,
many earlier historians such as J. Leger, Comba, and Nolan have reached the
same conclusions as Gilly and Allix. The immediate question before us is:
how could the lineal predecessors of the Waldenses have had such a pure
Biblical doctrine so unlike the Romish church to pass down to the Vaudois as
mentioned in the preceding quote from Gilly? Obviously the pre-Waldensian
Christians of northern Italy could not have held doctrines purer than Rome
unless the text of their Bible was purer than that of Rome; that is, theirs
was not produced from Rome's corrupted manuscripts.
THE ORIGINAL TEXT PRESERVED HISTORICALLY THROUGH THE TRUE CHURCH
Constantine's Hexapla based version was met by God through a powerful chain
of churches, few in number compared with the manifold congregations of an
apostate Christendom but, enriched by the presence of the Holy Scriptures
and able scholars, it stretched from Palestine to Scotland. Rome was thus
not only unable to obliterate in her own land the testimony of the Apostolic
Scriptures but even far less so in the Greek speaking world of the hostile
East. The Greek version of the Bible adopted by Constantine (taken from
Origen's Hexapla and his edited N.T. by Eusebius) was produced at a time
when Bibles were scarce due to the fury against the Christians and their
"book" by the Roman Emperor Diocletian (reigned 284-305 A.D.). Strangely, at
a time when imperial favor meant so much, the version disappeared from
popular use in only one generation as if it had been "struck by some
invisible and withering blast." Why did this happen?
The Textus Receptus or Greek Vulgate (i.e., commonly used or current) had
been the Bible of the Greek Empire, the countries of Syrian Christianity,
northern Italy, Southern France and the British Isles in the second century.
This was more than a full century before Vaticanus and Sinaiticus came to
see the light of day under the direction of Eusebius and Pamphilus. When the
Roman Church began to send out missionaries in later centuries, they found
these people already using the Textus Receptus.
Moreover, the Textus Receptus was the Bible of early Eastern Christianity,
subsequently being adopted as the official text of the Greek Orthodox
Church. Hort himself conceded this. We also have the witness of the great
Syrian Church, the Waldensian Church of northern Italy, the Gallic Church in
France, and the Celtic Church in Scotland and Ireland as to the authenticity
and apostolicity of the Received Text. The ancient records of the first
believers in Christ Jesus in these lands unmistakably reveal that they were
first penetrated by missionaries from Palestine and Asia Minor, not Rome.
Further, the Greek New Testament (or its translation) which they brought
with them was of the text type from which the Protestant Bibles such as the
King James and the Lutheran (in German) were translated.
The first converts in ancient Britain held their ground when the pagan
Anglo-Saxons descended over the land like locusts. In A.D. 596, when the
Pope sent Augustine (not the Bishop of Hippo, see page 30) to convert
England, he treated these early Christian Britons with contempt and even
connived with the Anglo-Saxons in their extermination of those devout folk.
Indeed, British Christianity did not come from Rome.
At the forefront of early evangelism was the little island of Iona, located
off the northwest coast of Scotland. Its most historic citizen was Columba,
an Irish churchman of royal lineage. Columba (521-597) founded a theological
school upon that island rock, utilizing manuscripts from Asia Minor. From
Iona, the Gospel was carried to the Picts on the mainland, to the
Netherlands, France, Switzerland, Germany, and even Italy. When Rome began
to send out missionaries to extend her power, she found Great Britain and
northern Europe already professing a
|
|
| | From: | admin | | Subject: | Re: THE HORTIAN-ECLECTIC THEORY REFUTED #14 | | Date: | Tue, 30 Nov 2004 06:09:47 GMT |
|
|
| #14
This a continuing post from the Book "Which Version is the
Bible" by Floyd Nolen Jones. Chapter 7, pages 83-112
Which Version is the Bible?
Copyright 1995 · Floyd Jones Ministries, Inc.
All Rights Reserved. This book may be freely reproduced in any form as long
as it is not distributed for any material gain or profit
Christianity which could trace its origin back through Iona to Asia Minor.
About 600 A.D., Rome sent missionaries to England and Germany to bring these
simple Bible believing Christians under her dominion as much as to subdue
the pagans.
When the Gallic Christians of southern France were massacred by the heathen
(177 A.D.) a record of their agony was prepared by the survivors and sent to
their true brothers in Asia Minor - not to the Pope of Rome. Christianity
came to France from Asia Minor, not Rome, and the same may be said for
England, albeit possibly not directly but through France and then on to
Briton. As Italy, France and Great Britain were provinces of the old Roman
Empire, the first translations of the Bible in those areas were into Latin.
Rome did not begin to send missionaries westward before 250 A.D. The old
Latin versions, well established among these early disciples before they
came into conflict with Rome, would later bring into sharp focus the
depraved nature of the text of Jerome's Vulgate and the version of
Constantine. Great bloody conflict eventually ensued as Rome moved to
replace these ancient versions with her own Eusebio-Origen type of "bible".
The struggle between these two text types continues unabated through their
descendants today.
The old Italic version, written in the rude Low Latin (thus verifying its
antiquity) of the second century, held its own as long as Latin continued to
be the language of the people. Jerome's version was only able to replace it
when Latin ceased to be a living (changing) language and became the language
of the learned. The first Latin translations maintained themselves against
Jerome's Vulgate for nine hundred years. The Gothic version N.T. was
translated from the Traditional Text c.350 A.D. by Ulfilas, missionary
bishop to the Goths; this proves that the T.T. existed prior to that date.
Like the Old Latin, this ancient version also held its own against the Latin
Vulgate of Jerome until the tongue in which it was written ceased to exist.
The apostle John's long life enabled him to bear apostolic witness to the
true text of Scripture and canon until almost the year 100 at which time his
hand-trained associates carried forward that same witness. Upon returning
from his banishment to the isle of Patmos, John completed the sacred Canon
by composing his Gospel, epistles and Apocalypse. Then combining these with
the writings of the other Evangelists, he sanctioned them all with apostolic
authority.
This Traditional Text arose from the place of obscurity and humiliation
forced on it by Origen's version in the hands of Eusebius and Constantine,
to become the Received Text of Greek Christianity. With the Greek East
completely shut off from the Latin West for 1,000 years, the noble Waldenses
of northern Italy still possessed the Received Text in Latin form. They
became one of the main instruments in the hands of the Holy Spirit through
which He kept the many promises to preserve the Word of God.
In view of all the preceding, the Roman Church's claim that she gave the
Bible to the world is seen as false. What she gave was an impure text, a
text with thousands of alterations so as to make way for her unscriptural
doctrines. At the same time, she heaped upon those who possessed the
veritable Word of God long centuries of pitiless, relentless, merciless,
bloodthirsty persecution. IS NATURALISTIC TEXT CRITICISM SCIENTIFIC?
|
|
| | From: | admin | | Subject: | Re: THE HORTIAN-ECLECTIC THEORY REFUTED #15 | | Date: | Tue, 23 Nov 2004 00:10:06 GMT |
|
|
| This a continuing post from the Book "Which Version is the
Bible" by Floyd Nolen Jones. Chapter 7, pages 83-112
Which Version is the Bible?
Copyright 1995 · Floyd Jones Ministries, Inc.
All Rights Reserved. This book may be freely reproduced in any form as long
as it is not distributed for any material gain or profit
Christianity which could trace its origin back through Iona to Asia Minor.
About 600 A.D., Rome sent missionaries to England and Germany to bring these
simple Bible believing Christians under her dominion as much as to subdue
the pagans.
When the Gallic Christians of southern France were massacred by the heathen
(177 A.D.) a record of their agony was prepared by the survivors and sent to
their true brothers in Asia Minor - not to the Pope of Rome. Christianity
came to France from Asia Minor, not Rome, and the same may be said for
England, albeit possibly not directly but through France and then on to
Briton. As Italy, France and Great Britain were provinces of the old Roman
Empire, the first translations of the Bible in those areas were into Latin.
Rome did not begin to send missionaries westward before 250 A.D. The old
Latin versions, well established among these early disciples before they
came into conflict with Rome, would later bring into sharp focus the
depraved nature of the text of Jerome's Vulgate and the version of
Constantine. Great bloody conflict eventually ensued as Rome moved to
replace these ancient versions with her own Eusebio-Origen type of "bible".
The struggle between these two text types continues unabated through their
descendants today.
The old Italic version, written in the rude Low Latin (thus verifying its
antiquity) of the second century, held its own as long as Latin continued to
be the language of the people. Jerome's version was only able to replace it
when Latin ceased to be a living (changing) language and became the language
of the learned. The first Latin translations maintained themselves against
Jerome's Vulgate for nine hundred years. The Gothic version N.T. was
translated from the Traditional Text c.350 A.D. by Ulfilas, missionary
bishop to the Goths; this proves that the T.T. existed prior to that date.
Like the Old Latin, this ancient version also held its own against the Latin
Vulgate of Jerome until the tongue in which it was written ceased to exist.
The apostle John's long life enabled him to bear apostolic witness to the
true text of Scripture and canon until almost the year 100 at which time his
hand-trained associates carried forward that same witness. Upon returning
from his banishment to the isle of Patmos, John completed the sacred Canon
by composing his Gospel, epistles and Apocalypse. Then combining these with
the writings of the other Evangelists, he sanctioned them all with apostolic
authority.
This Traditional Text arose from the place of obscurity and humiliation
forced on it by Origen's version in the hands of Eusebius and Constantine,
to become the Received Text of Greek Christianity. With the Greek East
completely shut off from the Latin West for 1,000 years, the noble Waldenses
of northern Italy still possessed the Received Text in Latin form. They
became one of the main instruments in the hands of the Holy Spirit through
which He kept the many promises to preserve the Word of God.
In view of all the preceding, the Roman Church's claim that she gave the
Bible to the world is seen as false. What she gave was an impure text, a
text with thousands of alterations so as to make way for her unscriptural
doctrines. At the same time, she heaped upon those who possessed the
veritable Word of God long centuries of pitiless, relentless, merciless,
bloodthirsty persecution. IS NATURALISTIC TEXT CRITICISM SCIENTIFIC?
We close this rebuttal with the question: in view of all the foregoing, is
naturalistic textual criticism actually scientific? Having previously been
employed as a paleontologist and geophysicist over a 14 year career, this
author submits that his years of study and training in the scientific method
as well as its accompanying discipline in logic and mathematics qualifies
him to address this question somewhat more dispassionately than the textual
critics themselves. Like Westcott and Hort, whose views on the matter have
already been cited, naturalistic critics uniformly proclaim that their
methods follow scientific standards. They believe that they have been
scientific largely because they have taken a naturalistic view and approach
to the New Testament Text, priding themselves on having treated it just as
they would the text of any other ancient book. As Hort has put it:
"... we dare not introduce considerations which could not reasonably be
applied to other ancient texts, supposing them to have documentary
attestation of equal amount, variety, and antiquity."
Before (by Lachmann, Semler, Griesbach, etc.) and since the publication of
these words, text critics have taken this position as representing a
"neutral outlook" in approaching the problem - but they are tragically
mistaken; such is not a "neutral" approach at all - it is pagan. Having
studied many years over the writings of representatives of both sides of
this issue, this author must agree with the summary statement by the
conservative Christian text critic, the late Dr. Edward Freer Hills:
"... if precision and dependability be the marks of an exact science, surely
naturalistic New Testament textual criticism fails to meet the test. It
leaves the major phenomena of the New Testament text unexplained, especially
the Traditional text found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament
manuscripts. This deficiency readily becomes apparent when we consider the
vain efforts of naturalistic textual critics to account for this Traditional
text".
The reader should note that when this author mentions "scientific" methods,
he is not referring to "science falsely so called" like the thoroughly pagan
philosophical speculations such as the "Big Bang" or "Steady State"
cosmogonies. Neither does he mean other nature myths that likewise deal with
origins such as the hypothesis of evolution (any version - being incapable
of falsification, organic evolution fails to meet the technical requirements
to merit theory status) nor many of the pantheistic fancies of relativist,
all of which have been erected based upon a few actual facts of science but
whose support pillars are merely philosophy. All of these are no more that
fairy stories for adults, full of metaphysical self-defeating contradictions
into which unbelieving scientists have fallen because they have rejected
and/or ignored God's revelation of Himself.
Real Science is based upon what you see. Indeed, the first premise in the
scientific method states that we begin with an "observed" phenomenon. Thus,
if that which is under investigation is not observable to the eye, it may or
may not be true but, by definition, it is not science. It will be
immediately noted that as no one alive today has actually physically seen
God, the scientific method places God beyond and exterior to the realm of
science. However it also places many supposed scientific hypotheses and
theories outside the same realm for no mortal "observed" the origin of the
universe or the solar system. Neither has anyone "seen" any organic
evolution occur.
|
|
| | From: | admin | | Subject: | Re: THE HORTIAN-ECLECTIC THEORY REFUTED #14 A | | Date: | Tue, 30 Nov 2004 06:10:24 GMT |
|
|
| #14 A
This a continuing post from the Book "Which Version is the
Bible" by Floyd Nolen Jones. Chapter 7, pages 83-112
Which Version is the Bible?
Copyright 1995 · Floyd Jones Ministries, Inc.
We close this rebuttal with the question: in view of all the foregoing, is
naturalistic textual criticism actually scientific? Having previously been
employed as a paleontologist and geophysicist over a 14 year career, this
author submits that his years of study and training in the scientific method
as well as its accompanying discipline in logic and mathematics qualifies
him to address this question somewhat more dispassionately than the textual
critics themselves. Like Westcott and Hort, whose views on the matter have
already been cited, naturalistic critics uniformly proclaim that their
methods follow scientific standards. They believe that they have been
scientific largely because they have taken a naturalistic view and approach
to the New Testament Text, priding themselves on having treated it just as
they would the text of any other ancient book. As Hort has put it:
"... we dare not introduce considerations which could not reasonably be
applied to other ancient texts, supposing them to have documentary
attestation of equal amount, variety, and antiquity."
Before (by Lachmann, Semler, Griesbach, etc.) and since the publication of
these words, text critics have taken this position as representing a
"neutral outlook" in approaching the problem - but they are tragically
mistaken; such is not a "neutral" approach at all - it is pagan. Having
studied many years over the writings of representatives of both sides of
this issue, this author must agree with the summary statement by the
conservative Christian text critic, the late Dr. Edward Freer Hills:
"... if precision and dependability be the marks of an exact science, surely
naturalistic New Testament textual criticism fails to meet the test. It
leaves the major phenomena of the New Testament text unexplained, especially
the Traditional text found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament
manuscripts. This deficiency readily becomes apparent when we consider the
vain efforts of naturalistic textual critics to account for this Traditional
text".
The reader should note that when this author mentions "scientific" methods,
he is not referring to "science falsely so called" like the thoroughly pagan
philosophical speculations such as the "Big Bang" or "Steady State"
cosmogonies. Neither does he mean other nature myths that likewise deal with
origins such as the hypothesis of evolution (any version - being incapable
of falsification, organic evolution fails to meet the technical requirements
to merit theory status) nor many of the pantheistic fancies of relativist,
all of which have been erected based upon a few actual facts of science but
whose support pillars are merely philosophy. All of these are no more that
fairy stories for adults, full of metaphysical self-defeating contradictions
into which unbelieving scientists have fallen because they have rejected
and/or ignored God's revelation of Himself.
Real Science is based upon what you see. Indeed, the first premise in the
scientific method states that we begin with an "observed" phenomenon. Thus,
if that which is under investigation is not observable to the eye, it may or
may not be true but, by definition, it is not science. It will be
immediately noted that as no one alive today has actually physically seen
God, the scientific method places God beyond and exterior to the realm of
science. However it also places many supposed scientific hypotheses and
theories outside the same realm for no mortal "observed" the origin of the
universe or the solar system. Neither has anyone "seen" any organic
evolution occur.
"admin" wrote in message
news:fg2nd.2086$Tq6.364@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> This a continuing post from the Book "Which Version is the
>
|
|
|
