More destruction to God’s word from the magic marker of W&H

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
KJV Matthew 9:13 have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Many MV’s have removed to repentance .No mystery there Satan hates when a sinner repents. NIV
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 9:13 - But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’[fn]For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” ESV Mat 9:13 - Go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinner. NASB
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 9:13 - “Now go and learn [fn]whatthis means: ‘I DESIRE [fn]COMPASSION, [fn]RATHER THAN SACRIFICE,’ for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” RSV

Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 9:13 - Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.' For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners." ASV
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 9:13 - But go ye and learn what this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice: for I came not to call the righteous, but sinners. Why would W&H remove “to repentance”Could it be that they were both occultist and purposely removed key verses, words for the specific purpose of watering down God’s word to create confusion ?
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Well-known member
Is this yet another example of the KJV-only use of different measures/standards [double standards]?

Your judgments would be unrighteous when you refuse to apply the exact same measures/standards consistently and justly.

You evade and dodge a consistent, just application of the same measures/standards.
 

praise_yeshua

Well-known member
Just another one of those silly empty arguments from the KJVOist.

From the ESV

Luk 5:32 I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.”

Leatherneck0311.... I bet you didn't even know what Luke 5:32 says in "modern translations" did you? You're just parroting what you got from someone who didn't know themselves. If the blind lead the blind.....

Well you don't really need the "ditch part". You know it isn't good for the blind to lead the blind.
 

Shoonra

Member
"To repentence" was not dropped from Matt 9:13 because of W&H; it was dropped out nearly two centuries earlier by Edward Wells in 1707, and then by Griesbach, Laschmann, and Tischendorf.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
KJV Matthew 9:13 have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Many MV’s have removed to repentance .No mystery there Satan hates when a sinner repents.

Once again, the biased-KJV only ASSUMES that their preferred reading was original, and so any difference is a result of something being Satanically "removed". It never occurs to them that the phrase may have been added later for innocent reasons.

Let's look at the chronological record of the manuscripts:

4th century:
Sinaiticus: "οὐ γὰρ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς"
Vaticanus: "οὐ γὰρ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς"

5th century:
Bezae: "οὐ γὰρ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς"
Washingtonianus: "οὐ γὰρ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς?"
Ephraemi Rescriptus: "ου γαρ ηλθον καλεσαι δικαιους αλλα αμαρτωλους εις μετανοιαν"

8th century:
0233: "οὐ γὰρ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς"
0281: "ου γαρ ηλθον καλεσαι δικαιους αλλα αμαρτωλους εις μετανοιαν"
Regius: "ου γαρ ηλθον καλεσαι δικαιους αλλα αμαρτωλους εις μετανοιαν"
Koridethi: "ου γαρ ηλθον καλεσαι δικαιους αλλα αμαρτωλους εις μετανοιαν"

9th century:
Sangallensis: "οὐ γὰρ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς"
33: "οὐ γὰρ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς"
Cyprius: "ου γαρ ηλθον καλεσαι δικαιους αλλα αμαρτωλους εις μετανοιαν"
038: "ου γαρ ηλθον καλεσαι δικαιους αλλα αμαρτωλους εις μετανοιαν"

11th century:
f13: "ου γαρ ηλθον καλεσαι δικαιους αλλα αμαρτωλους εις μετανοιαν"

12th century:
f1: "οὐ γὰρ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς"

13th century:
579: "ου γαρ ηλθον καλεσαι δικαιους αλλα αμαρτωλους εις μετανοιαν"



So once again, we see that the earliest manuscripts didn't have the phrase, "unto repentance", and it was added later. So why was it added? Again, it's not difficult to figure out:

Matt. 9:13 [...] For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Luke 5:32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Scribes either intentionally or unintentionally tried to make Matt. 9:13 match Luke 5:32.

But once again, the absence of the phrase, "to repentance" from Matt. 9:13 is NOT a "denial" of repentance, it's simply a lack of mentioning it at a particular verse.

I've always wondered at the ridiculousness of the KJV-Only view, "Satan removed it". Well, is Satan really that incompetent? If Satan was allegedly able to remove its from Matt. 9:13, why didn't he manage to remove it from Luke 5?
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
Once again, the biased-KJV only ASSUMES that their preferred reading was original, and so any difference is a result of something being Satanically "removed". It never occurs to them that the phrase may have been added later for innocent reasons.

Let's look at the chronological record of the manuscripts:

4th century:
Sinaiticus: "οὐ γὰρ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς"
Vaticanus: "οὐ γὰρ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς"

5th century:
Bezae: "οὐ γὰρ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς"
Washingtonianus: "οὐ γὰρ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς?"
Ephraemi Rescriptus: "ου γαρ ηλθον καλεσαι δικαιους αλλα αμαρτωλους εις μετανοιαν"

8th century:
0233: "οὐ γὰρ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς"
0281: "ου γαρ ηλθον καλεσαι δικαιους αλλα αμαρτωλους εις μετανοιαν"
Regius: "ου γαρ ηλθον καλεσαι δικαιους αλλα αμαρτωλους εις μετανοιαν"
Koridethi: "ου γαρ ηλθον καλεσαι δικαιους αλλα αμαρτωλους εις μετανοιαν"

9th century:
Sangallensis: "οὐ γὰρ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς"
33: "οὐ γὰρ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς"
Cyprius: "ου γαρ ηλθον καλεσαι δικαιους αλλα αμαρτωλους εις μετανοιαν"
038: "ου γαρ ηλθον καλεσαι δικαιους αλλα αμαρτωλους εις μετανοιαν"

11th century:
f13: "ου γαρ ηλθον καλεσαι δικαιους αλλα αμαρτωλους εις μετανοιαν"

12th century:
f1: "οὐ γὰρ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς"

13th century:
579: "ου γαρ ηλθον καλεσαι δικαιους αλλα αμαρτωλους εις μετανοιαν"



So once again, we see that the earliest manuscripts didn't have the phrase, "unto repentance", and it was added later. So why was it added? Again, it's not difficult to figure out:

Matt. 9:13 [...] For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Luke 5:32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Scribes either intentionally or unintentionally tried to make Matt. 9:13 match Luke 5:32.

But once again, the absence of the phrase, "to repentance" from Matt. 9:13 is NOT a "denial" of repentance, it's simply a lack of mentioning it at a particular verse.

I've always wondered at the ridiculousness of the KJV-Only view, "Satan removed it". Well, is Satan really that incompetent? If Satan was allegedly able to remove its from Matt. 9:13, why didn't he manage to remove it from Luke 5?
Again anything is acceptable to some as long as it is labeled textual criticism. Your loss not mine.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
That is your view, since you just claimed it, and I never made any such assertion.
Not even close. When the KJV was translated the paganistic RCC had a stranglehold on God’s word, which the KJV broke their stranglehold. The RCC loves the minority texts as it largely supports their errors.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Not even close. When the KJV was translated the paganistic RCC had a stranglehold on God’s word, which the KJV broke their stranglehold.

And Wycliffe (1320's-1384), Luther (1483-1546), and Calvin (1509-1564), had absolutely NOTHING to do with it?

Wow....

The RCC loves the minority texts as it largely supports their errors.

You truly have no clue what you're talking about.
And you haven't demonstrated any rigorous and accurate way to determine "error", other than "anything that disagrees with the KJV that I worship".
 

Steven Avery

Active member
Textual criticism is in effect acceptable to KJV-only advocates so long as it involves that of a select few such as Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the Church of England makers of the KJV.

While the phrase textual criticism is anachronistic, it is true that their textual understandings were far superior to that today. You like the Geneva Bible, at times, and it was a result of the textual analysis of the learned men of the 1500s. So you should agree with the basic understanding.
 

Steven Avery

Active member
If that were true, then why were Wycliffe and Luther so successful in getting Bibles out?
You keep DODGING the facts that prove you wrong.

Your question does not make any sense.
Wycliffe used a Latin version, generally Vulgate. Luther used the early Erasmus text. This was way back.

I was pointing out how the RCC recently cemented their deal with the Westcott-Hort recension with the Nova Vuglata.
 

Steven Avery

Active member
Matt. 9:13 [...] For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

There are actually two verses that are omission corruptions in the Vaticanus-primacy versions.

Matthew 9:13 (AV)
But go ye and learn what that meaneth,
I will have mercy, and not sacrifice:
for I am not come to call the righteous,
but sinners to repentance.

Mark 2:17 (AV)
When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them,
They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick:
I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.


In your discussion of the Matthew verse, you left out the Old Syriac ms. And lots more that supports εἰς μετανοιάν.

You should give your source for the Greek mss., since the apparatus has a trick to hide many uncials that support the Byzantine verse. You are probably not familiar with that trick.

You also left out, per John William Burgon and Edward Miller, discussing the two corruptions:

The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospesl (1896)
https://books.google.com/books?id=ajQ1AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA104

1625361999288.png
1625362025543.png

==========================

Epistle of Barnabas
Justin Martyr - Apology
Irenaeus
Origen
Eusebius
Hilary
Basil

Many of which are way before your manuscripts.

William Whitaker on the Matthew verse, following Chemnitz and Calvin, brought this up to Robert Bellarmine and emphasized Chrysostom and Theophylact. as well. https://books.google.com/books?id=PhYXAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA193

Chemnitz asserts that a most noble passage is here mutilated, becauso the Latin hath nothing to represent “to repentance"

1625362525702.png

==========================

Textcrits trying to support modern version corruptions are generally dupes to their handlers. They avoid really understanding the New Testament text.
 
Last edited:

Theo1689

Well-known member
In your discussion of the Matthew verse, you left out the Old Syriac ms.

The Greek takes precedence over versions.

And lots more that supports εἰς μετανοιάν.

Sorry, but unlike you, I'm not biased, and I'm not trying to self-servingly look for support for one PARTICULAR reading (like the KJV).

You should give your source for the Greek mss., since the apparatus has a trick to hide many uncials that support the Byzantine verse. You are probably not familiar with that trick.

<Chuckle>
Thank you for the insult.
And I'm amused by your conspiracy mindset.

You also left out, per John William Burgon and Edward Miller, discussing the two corruptions:

I'm only interested in primary sources, not biased secondary sources.


The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospesl (1896)
https://books.google.com/books?id=ajQ1AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA104

View attachment 1423
View attachment 1424

==========================

Again, Greek manuscripts take priority over ECF's and lectionaries.

Textcrits are generally dupes to their handlers.

Apparently you have nothing of value to contribute, only childish insults.
 

Steven Avery

Active member
You are just repeating the Edit per mod, once again.

Early church writers (example: Irenaeus and Cyprian on Acts 8:37) are far more significant than individual manuscripts.

Your approach is wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
<Chuckle>
If that were true, then why were Wycliffe and Luther so successful in getting Bibles out?
You keep DODGING the facts that prove you wrong.
Do you even think about what you post ? There was no wide spread bible in the English speaking world before the KJV. Sure some folks had a bible but before the printing press ( which Rome thought was evil) bibles were expensive and few actually could afford one, and Rome did everything it could to prevent any circulation of all bibles.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Do you even think about what you post ?

Far more than you do, obviously...

There was no wide spread bible in the English speaking world before the KJV. Sure some folks had a bible but before the printing press

Um, the Tyndale and the Geneva POST-DATED the printing press...
Hello?!
History... It's a good thing to study.
You should try it some time.

But your response seems nonsensical... So now you're trying to argue that being "wide spread" is more important than accuracy, in terms of the "one true Bible"?

Seriously?!

( which Rome thought was evil) bibles were expensive and few actually could afford one, and Rome did everything it could to prevent any circulation of all bibles.

So you're saying hate KJV used "cheaper" paper than the Geneva?!
 
Top