THE SAVIOR LIFTED UP & FAITH

RnMomof7 | 9/7/01 | Charles Finney

[Matchett-PI]

#53: "...the Jesuit bible, which modeled as closely as possible the magnificent language of the King James."

Are you STILL a proponent/advocate/supporter of the kooky "King James Only Bible" movement?

[fortheDeclaration]

To George W.Bush-Holy Cow! The Father's pre-eminence in the Trinity! Are you kidding! The concept of the co-equality of the Trinity is a foundation of the Christian faith!

You are the one bringing up the idea of 'maybe' this or 'maybe' that.

I tell you why you are so confused on the Trinity is because Calvin was confused also, accepting the critical text reading of John 1:18, 'only begotton God' instead of 'only begotten Son'(the correct reading). The corrupt reading is the reading of the NAS and JW's 'New World Translation'

As for Servitus, the nonsense that Calvin was not resposible is typical 'Catholic' doubletalk. The Catholic's also claim that the 'Church' was not responsible for any deaths, they just turned the victims over to the 'civil authorities'.

Calvin was the chief witness against Servitus

Upheld the death sentence (albit wanted it done with the sword instead of burning)

And defended his actions in print.

Cranky?!, how about disgusted! Disgusted with a thological system that purports to know something about God, will call other people 'heretics' and' unsaved' and yet, when pushed into the corner will raise up their hands as you are doing now and say,'who can comprehend the deep mysteries of God'

All you guys are good for is throwing out a bunch of fancy theological double-talk which makes it appear you actually know something!

Let us hear you definition of the Trinity, since you want to explain 1Tim.2:4 by attacking it!

The mystery in the Trinity comes with the Incarnation when Christ willingly sets aside His own use of His Deity to obey as a man the Father's will on earth (Heb.10:5,Psa.2:7, Phil.2:6-8)

Yet, He never stopped being God (Jn.3:13,ITim.3:16)

That aspect is a mystery but the eternal equality is not (Phil.2:6,Jn.10:30)

We just had a thread on the Trinity and all the Calvinists wanted to discuss was Rom.9 and Eph.2:8, not the Trinity.

As I said when Uriel was called on this, he cried that he was misunderstood!

Say it clear-was the Son co-equal and co-eternal with the Father and Holy Spirit or not!

Even so, come Lord Jesus

[RnMomof7]

#53: "...the Jesuit bible, which modeled as closely as possible the magnificent language of the King James." Are you STILL a proponent/advocate/supporter of the kooky "King James Only Bible" movement?

I would be concerned if the KJV was patterned on the Jesuit Bible,rather than the other way around!. All this proves to me is the sovereignity of God in keeping HIS word..

I was listening to a sermon this morning by a Presbyterian Pastor on Romans (WHAT ELSE??) anyway at one point he said he was going to "skip" the next few verses,because they were "mis translated..."You do know", he went on," man unlike God is fallible,and the Bible was edited by men". It is men he said that decide where to put the commas and periods,and in this case they errored.

I sat down on my bed and LOL..Here is a man that professes the sovereignity of God..but does not believe that God could protect His word from the mistakes of man..

There is a reason that the KJV has been the standard for generations..

[RnMomof7]

But I'll point out that FR Calvinists are, in fact, diligent in their financial support of the forum, a diligence which parallels amazingly our scriptural support for the TULIP

Well Wesleyans know you can loose what is most precious if you are not dilligent in your perserverence...so we would like all to preserve this forum *grin*

[Thinkin' Gal]

John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

5312 hupsoo {hoop-so'-o}
from 5311; TDNT - 8:606,1241; v
AV - exalt 14, lift up 6; 20

1) to lift up on high, to exalt
2) metaph.
2a) to raise to the very summit of opulence and prosperity
2b) to exalt, to raise to dignity, honour and happiness

Compare...

08314 saraph {saw-rawf'}
from 08313; TWOT - 2292a,2292b; n m

AV - fiery serpent 3, fiery 2, seraphim 2; 7

1) serpent, fiery serpent
1a) poisonous serpent (fiery from burning effect of poison)
2) seraph, seraphim
2a) majestic beings with 6 wings, human hands or voices in attendance
upon God

TWOT - 2292a

saraph  I. Fiery serpent. This word is used five times: of the poisonous snakes in the wilderness (Numbers 21:6, 8; Deut. 8:15) and figuratively of threatened dangerous snakes (Isaiah 14:29; Isaiah 30:6). The snakes in the wilderness were a natural phenomenon used by God to punish Israel's murmuring. But the healing brought about by the brass serpent Moses made was as miraculous as that which it prefigured (John 3:14). It is of interest that when Jesus referred to his being lifted up in terms of this verse he was actually predicting his crucifixion. "Being lifted up" was a well-understood euphemism in Jesus' day for death by crucifixion (John 12:32).

***

KJV - 5 verses found containing the phrase "daily sacrifice":

Daniel 8:11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily [sacrifice] was taken away [7311], and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.
Daniel 8:12 And an host was given him against the daily [sacrifice] by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.
Daniel 8:13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily [sacrifice], and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?
Daniel 11:31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away [5493] the daily [sacrifice], and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.
Daniel 12:11 And from the time that the daily [sacrifice] shall be taken away [5493], and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

In every case, 'sacrifice' was added in by the translators. Not that it isn't appropriate, but it gives the impression that a physical temple will exist with animal sacrifices.

Hebrews 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

for ever...

1519 eis {ice}
a primary preposition; TDNT - 2:420,211; prep
AV - into 573, to 281, unto 207, for 140, in 138, on 58,
toward 29, against 26, misc 321; 1773

1) into, unto, to, towards, for, among

1336 dienekes {dee-ay-nek-es'}
neuter of a compound of 1223 and a derivative of an alternate of
5342;; adj

AV - continually + 1519 2, for ever + 1519 2; 4

1) continuously, continuous

Compare the word used in Daniel: ha-tamiyd [153 x 3], "the daily"...

08548 tamiyd {taw-meed'}
from an unused root meaning to stretch; TWOT - 1157a; n m

AV - continually 53, continual 26, daily 7, always 6, alway 4, ever 3,
perpetual 2, continual employment 1, evermore 1, never 1; 104

1) continuity, perpetuity, to stretch
1a) continually, continuously (as adverb)
1b) continuity (subst)

The 'ner tamiyd' in the synagogue is the 'eternal light'.

2.3.2 The Eternal Light

Suspended above and in front of the Aron HaKodesh is the ner tamid, the eternal light. The use of a perpetual light is based on passages in Exodus and Leviticus in which the Jewish people were commanded to kee a lamp burning in the Mishkan, as they carried it with them in the wilderness. Twice God instructed Moses:

And you [Moses] shall command the Children of Israel to bring you pure olive oil... to make a lamp burn continually. —Parshat Tetzaveh, Exodus 27:20

and

Command the children of Israel to bring you pure olive oil... to make a lamp burn continually. —Parshat Emor, Leviticus 24:2

From these passages, we can understand why the ner tamid is a prominent feature of the synagogue.

Originally, the ner tamid was an oil-burning lamp. Today, for the sake of convenience and safety, an electric light is used.

Exploring Jewish Tradition, pgs 30-31

John 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

***

But back to those five verses in Daniel, note the Strong's numbers next to the verbs translated 'take away'.

8:11

07311 ruwm {room}
a primitive root; TWOT - 2133; v
AV - (lift, hold, etc...) up 63, exalt 47, high 25, offer 13, give 5,
heave 3, extol 3, lofty 3, take 3, tall 3, higher 2, misc 24; 194

1) to rise, rise up, be high, be lofty, be exalted
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to be high, be set on high
1a2) to be raised, be uplifted, be exalted
1a3) to be lifted, rise
1b) (Polel)
1b1) to raise or rear (children), cause to grow up
1b2) to lift up, raise, exalt
1b3) to exalt, extol
1c) (Polal) to be lifted up
1d) (Hiphil)
1d1) to raise, lift, lift up, take up, set up, erect, exalt,
set on high
1d2) to lift up (and take away), remove
1d3) to lift off and present, contribute, offer, contribute
1e) (Hophal) to be taken off, be abolished
1f) (Hithpolel) to exalt oneself, magnify oneself
2) (Qal) to be rotten, be wormy

Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily [sacrifice] was lifted up.

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God*, shewing himself that he is God.

* 1 Corinthians 3:16-7 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

Hebrews 6:4-6

4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

shewing himself that he is God...

Genesis 3:4-5 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Which brings me to the other Hebrew word translated 'take away'...

05493 cuwr {soor} or suwr (Hos 9:12) {soor}
a primitive root; TWOT - 1480; v
AV - (put, take,...) away 97, depart 76, remove 35, aside 29, take 14,
turn 12, turn in 9, take off 6, go 3, put 3, eschewed 3, misc 14; 301

1) to turn aside, depart
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to turn aside, turn in unto
1a2) to depart, depart from way, avoid
1a3) to be removed
1a4) to come to an end
1b) (Polel) to turn aside
1c) (Hiphil)
1c1) to cause to turn aside, cause to depart, remove, take
away, put away, depose
1c2) to put aside, leave undone, retract, reject, abolish
1d) (Hophal) to be taken away, be removed

Daniel was given a message by Gabriel, addressed to the Jew first, and then to the Gentile [Church]. There is still unfinished time of the '70 weeks' clock. What will cause it to start ticking again?

Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Romans 1:18-19 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

Look at the time on the clock!

Daniel 12:09 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

[fortheDeclaration]

To Matchett-PI-the Jesuit bible comes from a different text, no matter how they tried to make it sound like a King James.

Here is one example-Col.2:18-the King James reads,...intruding into those things which he hath NOT seen'

the Catholic readings (in ALL new versions (NKJV footnotes the N/UBS reading)is ...intruding into those things which he HATH seen' Two different readings, two different bibles.

The TR is the Bible of the Reformation and it overthrew the critical text Vulgate that had plunged Europe into the Dark Ages.

If you do not think Bibles matter, look at the countries still dominated by Rome and their bible.

Rome understood the importance of the differences and that is why they will never tolerate the King James, or the TR and the Erasmus text was placed in the Catholic index of forbidden books.

Now, the Catholic church, unable to kill those who read the Book, have taken a different approach, they simply put out enough counterfeits (using their text) to make the simple and naive think that all bibles are the same.

We can thank the Princton school of Hodge and B.B. Warfield with their 'originals only' being inspired nonsense for aiding this assault on the greatest Book ever written-the King James Bible 1611!

Even so, come Lord Jesus

[Lent]

Always can count on TG for a good word study. Thanks.

[Matchett-PI]

#66: "....the greatest Book ever written-the King James Bible 1611!"

So are you also a proponent of the kooky "King James Only Bible" movement?

[Matchett-PI]

#17: "1 Timothy 2 KJV"

Quote I heard: "If the King James version of the Bible was good enough for Jesus, I guess it must be the best one to use." :)

http//www.aomin.org/Marrs.html

http//www.aomin.org/kjvo.html

[George W. Bush]

As I said when Uriel was called on this, he cried that he was misunderstood!

Say it clear-was the Son co-equal and co-eternal with the Father and Holy Spirit or not! Oh, my goodness! We went to bed cranky and we got up cranky too!

Well if you can calm yourself a little and lay off the coffee, I'll examine your claims.

The mystery in the Trinity comes with the Incarnation when Christ willingly sets aside His own use of His Deity to obey as a man the Father's will on earth (Heb.10:5,Psa.2:7, Phil.2:6-8) Hebrews 10:5 - Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

The broader context of the verse is that of the abolishment of the Old Covenant under Christ, it is only if you insist upon plucking the verse from its original context that you can twist to your purpose. You haven't demonstrated your statement that Christ "willingly set aside His own use of His Deity" in my reading.

Psalm 2:7 - I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Is a statement like this which affirms a particular day upon which Christ was begotten really the testimony you think it is? This says Christ was begotten in an eartly body but does not tell us His power was set aside.

Philippians 2:5 - Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

These verses testify that Christ, while in the form of God (a purely spiritual existence) "thought it not robbery to be equal with God". Well, there is your idea of equality with the Father. But let's examine another translation, the rather non-controversial NASB:

6 who, although He ¹¹ existed in the ¹² form of God, ¹³ did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

So, now it is no longer "not thought robbery to be equal with God" but has changed to "did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped". And what do I think this means? I can't explain it personally. But it isn't a problem for me. I suspect it might be for you.

Kind of demolishes any of the readings you try to place upon it, doesn't it?

As to your use of John 10:30 "I and my Father are one", I would note that the NASB further explains the Greek words being translated here indicate "a unity, or one essense". In fact, most of the verses dealing with the nature of the Trinity make some use of the concept of a single "essense" of God. I won't even claim to understand how "essense" might differ from "spirt" since we are told in the Old Testament that God is Spirit and that that is His essential being.

Let's turn to a conventional source of Reformed theology, the Westminster Confession, Chapter II, Of God, and of the Holy Trinity (1646) and examine its tellingly brief statements and scriptural references in the third subsection which deals with the three Persons of the Trinity:

3. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost:[o] the Father is of none, neither begotten, not proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father;[p] the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.[q]

[o]. Matt. 3:16-17; Matt. 28:19; II Cor. 13:14; see Eph. 2:18
[p]. John 1:14, 18; see Heb. 1:2-3; Col. 1:15
[q]. John 15:26; Gal. 4:6

There we have it. The statement is that all three Persons of the Godhead eternally co-existent. I affirm this. Notice that God that Father is eternal and unbegotten. But God the Son is called "eternally begotten of the Father" and the Holy Spirit "eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son".

Let's leave aside how Jesus can be called "eternally begotten" since the word begotten refers to a specific beginning. It effectively robs the word begotten of any meaning which it has throughout the Bible. This "eternally begotten" notion is tracable to Origen, a most suspicious but utterly brilliant RC theologian (not a church father because he castrated himself for the glory of God, having overread a certain NT verse). Also, there is the question of how He was begotten prior to the His conception in the womb of Mary. Again, this is consistent with my prior statements. I'm not saying these things to cause you problems because they present no problem to my faith. I am confident in the Lord and all wilil be revealed to me someday. Until then, I am granted a faith from God that is sufficient to the challenges I meet.

Perhaps you'd like to explain the precise equality you find of all three Persons of the Godhead. In particular, can you explain them as they were revealed historically, as recorded in the Bible, to mankind?

I think that if you look closely, you're going to find that systematic theology always stumbles or papers over this matter of the Trinity. We are simply not, in my reading, granted a full understanding of the nature of the Trinity and how the three Persons of the Trinity interract with each other nor how they interact with mankind under the Old Covenant and under the New Covenant. And, for me, that presents no problem. I don't find my favored Confession here (or the historic Baptist confessions) to be an absolute and full description of the Trinity which finally answer every question. I don't think God ever intended to fully reveal the nature of the Trinity to men in this life. I think He wants us to look to Him only through His Son. I do.

I do hope that your urgent belief over the possibility of a full understanding of the Trinity by any man doesn't make a stumbling block for you. It is enough for me to know the Trinity is. That is all any Christian actually needs, I think. And yet, if your ideas about the Trinity, as unconvincing and unprovable as they seem to me to be, are important to your faith, then I would urge to grasp them tightly. I don't claim to know your heart or how God may be dealing with you. I suggest that you might consider why it is that systematic theologians across the board stumble over this and why the more honest ones just come out and tell you that much of the real details surrounding the Godhead are not knowable.

We aren't going to go to heaven based on whether we understand the Godhead fully or not. It is completely determined by our personal relationship with Christ. These other explanations, to me, have real limits. And God doesn't seem to want to fully reveal all of it to us now. It's enough for me. How about you?

[RnMomof7]

Ignorant woman asking a question..TR??

[RnMomof7]

Always can count on TG for a good word study. Thanks.

ditto Gal

[George W. Bush]

I sat down on my bed and LOL..Here is a man that professes the sovereignity of God..but does not believe that God could protect His word from the mistakes of man.. You're right. That was very weak. If he couldn't explain those verses properly or use one of the dozens of translations avaoiable, he better give up the clergy and get a job at 7-11.

There is a reason that the KJV has been the standard for generations. I do prefer it as a standard. I've begun to compare versions and have acquired a certain appreciation for the NASB which doc and Jerry say is more technically correct in some sections. I have a certain suspicion of the NASB's manuscripts and I do recall that Logsdon repudiated his own central role in the NASB's founding and recommended that everyone return to the KJV. And yet, there are times when I find it can be helpful. I'm not KJV-only. I'm KJV-first-and-foremost, I guess.

[RnMomof7]

Gw I have many bibles..I am wealthy in the word..truly wealthy.

But you know how you have ONE that is REALLY your bible?

As we had discussed before I have always had a Scofield KJV,that like a diary, held personal notes and sermon notes

That was the bible I wanted to take to my grave with me.

Acouple years ago I decided there was no more margin room and purchased what I believed was a duplicate of my current bible

When I got home I found I had an NIV..I decided to use it..and have now for a couple of years..

As I went about replacing it I was going back to the Scofield KJV..but on the advise of another poster I purchased the King James Study Bible..I had forgotten the richness of the KJ...It is like reading it again for the first time!

I consider all of them the word of God..but no question that today, as since it's writing, it is fully the word of God..every jot and tittle..and inspite of the claim of that Pastor it is without error!

[RnMomof7]

I consider all of them the word of God..but no question that today, as since it's writing, it is fully the word of God..every jot and tittle..and inspite of the claim of that Pastor it is without error!

Should read I consider all of them the word of God..but no question that today the KJV, as since it's writing, it is fully the word of God..every jot and tittle..and inspite of the claim of that Pastor it is without error!

[the_doc]

Actually, most Arminians are semi-Pelagian, since they do have a doctrine of original sin. Finney just happens to be a bit more repulsive than most Arminians in his understanding of sin.

[George W. Bush]

"If the King James version of the Bible was good enough for Jesus, I guess it must be the best one to use." :) You're right. If it was good enough for Jesus...

Okay, now you've convinced me. No more peeking at that NASB translation ever.

You do, by the way, oversimplify the debate. I suggest you abandon any reading of the ridiculous modern "advocates" of the KJV (Riplinger!) and instead examine the work of some real scholars like Dean Burgon of Chicester. They will, if you are interested, lay out the real case against the Bibles based upon Rome's Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, pointing out their obvious corruption and many revisions as well as the real conflicts between them although the textual critics entirely ignore the glaring differences between them. These manuscripts are in such disagreement with one another that no real unity can exist between them, not a problem in the Byzantine family of the received text. The history of how these manuscripts were discovered should alone make you a little more wary of these claims. And the real background and beliefs of Westcott and Hort, the translators of the modernist Greek text, makes it very clear they were not Christians in any way that anyone on this thread would accept. And that is provable from their own writings and papers and the organizations they founded.

The King James does have some minor flaws, all outside key doctrinal teachings. These minor errors are well-known and easily learned. One cannot say that for the Tower of Babel that is the publishing industry of modernist Bibles. You're welcome to Rome's manuscripts if you're comfortable with such things. When it comes down to choosing the manuscript stream of the Greek Orthodox church versus the church of Rome, I'll take the manuscripts of Byzantium, ordinary and textually unexciting as they are to modern "higher" textual critics.

[ValerieUSA]

The most exact literal translation of the Bible is still going to be misunderstood unless the reader has been granted understanding. If the reader's prayers for understanding have been answered, even the most confusing, convoluted translation of the Bible will enlighten him.

Christ was lifted up by Satan to look down on creation and tempt him to rule over it.
Christ was lifted up by man to suffer and die on the cross.
Christ was lifted up by God our Father to take his rightful place in Heaven and prepare the way for us to come home with Him.

[ValerieUSA]

The woman who touched the hem of Jesus and was healed of her unclean disease was not a Jew.... she wasn't yet a sister of Jesus in the family of God. It marked a turning point in His ministry. I think it may have also stirred the prejudices of Judas Iscariot who feared that Jesus may not destroy the Gentiles, but welcome all believers into the fold. Even Peter would balk at such inclusion. This did not fit their preconceived notions of the Messiah's purpose on earth.

[George W. Bush]

When I got home I found I had an NIV..I decided to use it..and have now for a couple of years.. You almost gave me a heart attack there. To go from an Authorized to an NIV. I consider the NIV to be absolutely the worst of the modern translations. I would, literally, burn it on the spot if anyone ever gave me one. I mean it. It is truly awful. I'm sure you're heard me rant about it before so I'll stop before my blood pressure hits 250.

To answer your question to Declaration, the TR is the Textus Receptus, the Greek translation produced by Erasmus from the traditional text a.k.a. the received text. These are the manuscripts of the Eastern church of which over 95% of all ancient manuscripts are members. These are also called Byzantine.

The Textus Receptus was the Greek translation of the New Testament which was the basis of the bibles of the Reformation: Lutheran, Geneva, KJV, Olivetti (Ogilvie? French anyway), Diodati, and many others. Of all of them, only the KJV survives and stands alone against the modernist bibles.

The other manuscript family is the Alexandrian. It is led by Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaticus as the exemplars of this text type. There are, as I pointed out earlier, real problems with this family.

From the Alexandrian family, we get the Westcott-Hort tranlation of the Greek New Testament. Although Jerry and perhaps some others will disagree, the Nestle-Aland is really no more than a variation of this family and shares its defects generally. This family includes every Bible translation you've ever seen, althouth the English Revised, less than 120 years old, is the first of these Bibles to be produced in the countries of the Reformation. The manuscripts for this family were discovered in 1) a dusty and unused back shelf of the Vatican library and 2) in the trash can (yes the trashcan) of the St. Catherine's Convent at the foot of Mt. Sinai. Kind of a glorious history, huh?

If you accept the claims of the modernists that they have the "true" Bible based on these strange manuscripts, you then accept that God's real and full Word was kept from his people for over 1500 years. I don't believe it. The Word was preserved, even when the Dark Ages all but extinguished literacy in Europe.