The Alexandrian Cult

[Guest]

THE CREED OF THE ALEXANDRIAN CULT

1. There is no final authority but God.

2. Since God is a Spirit, there is no final authority that can be seen,
heard, read, felt, or handled.

3. Since all books are material, there is no book on this earth that is
the final and absolute authority on what is right and what is wrong: what
constitutes truth and what constitutes error.

4. There WAS a series of writings one time which, IF they had all been
put into a BOOK as soon as they were written the first time, WOULD
HAVE constituted an infallible and final authority by which to judge truth
and error.

5. However, this series of writings was lost, and the God who inspired
them was unable to preserve their content through Bible-believing
Christians at Antioch (Syria), where the first Bible teachers were (Acts
13:1), and where the first missionary trip originated (Acts 13:1-52), and
where the word “Christian” originated (Acts 11:26).

6. So, God chose to ALMOST preserve them through Gnostics and
philosophers from Alexandria, Egypt, even though God called His Son
OUT of Egypt (Matthew 2), Jacob OUT of Egypt (Genesis 49), Israel OUT
of Egypt (Exodus 15), and Joseph’s bones OUT of Egypt (Exodus 13).

7. So, there are two streams of Bibles: the most accurate—though, of
course, there is no final, absolute authority for determining truth and
error: it is a matter of “preference”—are the Egyptian translations from
Alexandria, Egypt, which are “almost the originals,” although not quite.

8. The most inaccurate translations were those that brought about
the German Reformation (Luther, Zwingli, Boehler, Zinzendorf, Spener,
etc.) and the worldwide missionary movement of the English-speaking
people: the Bible that Sunday, Torrey, Moody, Finney, Spurgeon, White-field,Wesley, and Chapman used.

9. But we can “tolerate” these if those who believe in them will tolerate
US. After all, since there is NO ABSOLUTE AND FINAL AUTHORITY
that anyone can read, teach, preach, or handle, the whole thing is a
matter of “PREFERENCE.” You may prefer what you prefer, and we will
prefer what we prefer; let us live in peace, and if we cannot agree on
anything or everything, let us all agree on one thing: THERE IS NO
FINAL, ABSOLUTE, WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF GOD ANYWHERE
ON THIS EARTH.

This is the Creed of the AlexandrianCult

[Guest]

On what authority do the Alexandrians have to make such claims and claim them to be accurate?

[Guest]

roblaine,

Don't be taken-in by this ignorant blather. There is no such cult. This is just the rhetoric of a King-James-Only cultist, who cannot endure the thought of people actually thinking critically and responsibly about the basis of their faith. He is referring to what he believes to be the mentality of those who do not condemn the "Alexandrian Text." Thus they are "the Alexandrian Cult." In fact, he does not understand where the Bible came from, or how it was preserved—he is just terrified at the thought of having to think for himself at all and prefers to let others do this for him. He is not comfortable worshiping an invisible God, so he requires the prop afforded by reverence to a physical object called the King James Version of the Bible.

In fact, there is nothing cultic about those who are willing to consult various Bible translations and who respect the field of textual criticism. Cults are narrow-minded and authoritarian, by definition, and show mindless contempt for those outside their group. The King-James-Only advocates (like the one who posted the above nonsense) thus fit the description of a cult far better than do the people they demonize.

I say this as a person who thinks the Textus Receptus is better than the Alexandrian Text in many particulars. However, unlike our friend, I know that the Textus Receptus does not represent a homogenous tradition preserved in all the major manuscripts, but is an ecclectic text, frequently modified before 1611, which was created by a Catholic scholar, Erasmus, in the sixteenth century. Why we should accept this particular edition of Erasmus, to the neglect and disdain of all other manuscripts, is beyond me. Perhaps our KJO friend can tell us.

[Guest]

Thank you Steve.

[Guest]

Dear Steve:

Perhaps you should get your facts straight before you pontificate about things you know absolutely zero about--which would be what you think I know or don't know. Your response here is the real "blather". I have over 100 books/booklets on this issue alone that I have studied with great interest for 22 years. I have books pro and con, I'm sure many more than you, and I'm sure I am far more versed on this issue than you. This is not boasting, but simply information.

If you'd like to discuss the theories of Textual Criticsm, be my guest.

My post was simply to show WHAT the "logic" of the Westcott and Hort crowd is and leads to, even though they won't admit it. And it IS in fact CULTIC, because no amount of facts, no matter how nicely presented can get through to the purveyors of these things, or those brainwashed by them. The Cult undermines the very foundation of Christianity, and they shrug their shoulders like it is nothing.

Tell me, what have you read on this issue? What have you read from the KJV side? Have you read Burgon, Miller or Scrivener? Hills or Letis?

[Guest]

It doesn't matter how many books a man has—or even how many he has read—but how much he grasps the reality of the issues. If you think what you have written about "The Alexandrian Cult" bears any resemblance to the people who disagree with you, then you certainly have no grasp whatsoever of the realities of this issue, and have merely been totally submerged in the dogma of your little cult.

The King James Translators did not work from a single homogenous text called the "Textus Receptus" (nor did they produce a translation in any form of English that any modern English-speaker—even one who loves and reads the modern KJV—could read or understand). They used as their main sources the 1550 and 1551 editions of Stephanus' text and the 1589 and 1598 editions of the work of Beza.

The term "Textus Receptus" was unknown in 1611, and is associated with a publication that was first published in 1624, mostly containing Beza's 1565 edition of the Greek text. In the preface to the second edition of this text, the publishers (Elzevir Brothers, Leiden), in 1633, wrote that this book contained "the text which is now received by all"—from which came the popular term "Textus Receptus."

However, the edition published under these words was neither the first nor the last revision of the Greek text. Why should we receive this one—and not an earlier one or a later one—as sacrosanct? Why not the first edition of Erasmus (1516)? Or why not his third edition (1522)? Or Stephanus' third edition (1550), which was actually received as the "received text" in Britain—or the Elzevirs second edition (1633), which was the "received text" on the continent (and the text about which these words were coined, but which came along too late to be used by the KJV translators? Which of these is the "unchanged" and "providentially preserved" text of the New Testament? And how do you know?

Unlike the New Testament manuscripts, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. Fortunately! Since it is He and not any particular book in the English language that is the ultimate object of the Christian's faith. Millions of Christians can't even read English. How shall they be saved without reading the KJV?

I have always preferred the King James Version to those translations that use the Alexandrian Text, but you have provided no evidence of any of the following:

A) that any of the things you have said in characterizing those who disagree with you are in any sense true;

B) that there is a single text called the "Textus Receptus" which is demonstrably truer to the original writings than is any other manuscript set;

C) that there is any biblical reason to believe that the King James Version is a flawless (even "inspired") translation (you only assume this to be the case);

D) that the church of God would suffer the loss of any vital truth were the KJV to be completely replaced by, say, the New King James Version or the NASB;

E) that you personally have a relationship with Jesus Christ that would survive if every copy of the KJV were to be collected and burned by a dictator.

I have books by all the authors you named, but have only read a few of them. What is the point of reading more?

If you are not able to provide any evidence for the five propositions above, then you will not likely get any further in your attempts to convince any thinking believer that you have anything profound to say. I will search your future posts for the evidences proving these points. If you choose not to provide them, I will spend my time corresponding with people of a more honest sort.

[Guest]

Well Steve, thanks for the very short and abbreviated history of the TR.

If you have actually READ books by the authors I listed, there is no possible way you can ask those questions as if they weren't addressed in detail by those same authors. Therefore I suspect you may own a few, by not read them carefully or thouroughly.

And it does matter how many books we read on certain things, for some subjects are vast, and osme authors bring out things others didn't. Are you saying reading one church history book is really enough to be well grounded in not only church history, but the history of dogma, abberrant groups, etc???

As for the term cult you seem so free to throw at those who believe the Bible is the Word of God, I simply say that the above posted Creed stands true, and is 100% factual and describes you and any who reject our understanding. This has been proven to me a thousand times over, and you are yet another who does what he denies.

Tell me Steve, do you have a Bible???

Do you have God's infallable Word, the Holy Scriptures?

If you do, WHERE is it? Can you hand it to me.

Where is the book called the Bible, that is perfect and inspired??

Your attempts to answer these questions will show that the Alexandrian cult has indeed infected your thinking to some degree. It doesn't matter whether you prefer the KJV or the TR or not, the question really is, DO YOU BELIEVE IT IS GOD'S WORD OR NO?

[Guest]

I am looking for your evidence. You apparently have none, since you evade the topics. I gave you five propositions to defend. Defend them, or address me no further. I am in the position to delete your posts. I will not do so, if you behave like an adult and a Christian. Venom is from the serpent. We need no more of it from you. We have standards of conduct here to which you must adhere or go elsewhere.

[Guest]

I've seen this before. The set up begins. You see the handwriting on the wall, and so will try to create the appearance that i had no evidence, and only gave "venom", so you can justify deleting my posts, so that the truth of the matter can be hidden--you don't know this subject as well as you would like to make others think you do. The groundwork to get me "outta here" has already begun by your last post, very subtil-Gen 3:1, but something I am familiar with. We'll see.

That's another reason I don' make long posts anymore. I used to, years ago. I found that most Christians didn't have the common courtesy to even READ, let alone intelligently discuss an answer I spent many hours crafting. They just wanted to argue or change the subject, or bring up new questions without ever admitting I answered the original ones. Then the best was having your posts deleted, or the webmaster changing to a new "look", and EVERYONE losing archived posts etc.

I wish I had saved them all.

So now, I cut and paste many answers or articles. I will not ever spent 2 or more hours typing out my own. I grieve the loss of the time and some well written pieces.

And so Steve, back to you.

There is no shame in admitting youdon't know everything! Its obvious you are a well studied man on many subjects, and I really liked your debate on OSAS. I like your rebuttals of Calvinism. Well done. Divorce and remarriage--well done.

Textual Criticism and the whole KJV debate? How about you admit you are not as strong there as some other things? How do I know this? Becasue your questions PROVE it. If you have read what you claim, then you should know who answered your questions already. You should be able to evaluate the answers, not demand them from me.

My point in not answering is to show that you don't know as much as you mkae yourself appear, and becasue, I won't spend HOURS covering intracite details of textual history. Its been done by men better than both of us.

So, I can tell you where the answers to your questions can be found for your study, if you like, or I can post the links where you can read the relevant chapters yourself online. Then we can discuss the merits of the answers.

Also, I still do want to know if you possess an infallable, inspired book called the Holy Scriptures or no. Do you believe the book you call the Bible is inspired and infallable? Where can I get one?

Thanks.

[Guest]

My point in not answering is to show that you don't know as much as you mkae yourself appear, and becasue, I won't spend HOURS covering intracite details of textual history. Its been done by men better than both of us.

For someone who is so intelligent, you seem to be missing something. This is a discussion forum. It's here for the purpose of discussion. It's not here primarily for making assertions alone. When Steve asked questions you refused answering them. Makes it hard for us to follow a discussion when there's no discussin' goin on. You then ask questions back. Interesting.

You post on a discussion forum, yet you show little if any interest in discussion. So what exactly are you here for if it's not to interact with others? Is it just to spout off all your knowledge? You seem to want to beat people down who have not reached the same conclusions as you but are offended if you are asked questions as if you are stumbled by the questions. It might pay to read what the bible says about this type of attitude. I'm sure you'll find the subject in ye little book.