More claims:

If verses were added to the original by mistake, then whoever added them must have also made them verses (numbered them) for them to be verses. This would suggest the same person must have also numbered all the other verses of the bible too. What I soon discovered though, was that the person who allegedly added the verses was not the same person who numbered them into verses afterwards. So there must have been a conspiracy, and not a mistake...Additions can’t have been made to the King James Bible … These verses were removed after they were made verses in the year 1551 AD …

I think the verse numbering system is supposed to their 'smoking gun'. The verse numbering system we mostly use today for English New Testaments appeared in the Geneva Bible. It was published by Estienne, a French publisher who was affectionate towards the teachings of John Calvin.

It's claimed that, "verses were removed after they were made verses in the year 1551". I think we should be looking to historical and archeological sources rather than relying on one of the many chapter and verse systems created very late in Europe.

462 - Euthalius of Alexandria, created a division system in Acts and the Epistles

1248 - Cardinal Hugo de Santo Care, created a chapter system

1500s - Italian scholar Santi Pagnini created a verse numbering system

1508 - Rabbi Nathan, created a verse system for the Hebew Bible

1551 - Estienne creates an alternate numbering in his 1551 edition of the Greek New Testament.

1557 - Geneva Bible' New Testament published with chapter and verse division

1560 - Complete Geneva Bible published, view it here

1611 - Original King James Version w/Apocrypha, view it here

Another claim:

Publishers of modern bibles say that Erasmus created the greek manuscript of the King James Bible, and he corrupted it before he died in 1536. He was the only possible candidate. They say that the “extra” verses in the King James were added by Erasmus to make the King James Bible.

It stated that "Publishers of modern bibles say that Erasmus created the greek manuscript". It's really historians that say and and Erasmus' own name on his work.

I don't know of anyone who claims that the Roman Catholic Scholar Erasmus corrupted his own text, the Textus Receptus. The only claims I've read about this are from King James adherents making this claim that "Publishers of modern bibles say...".

Can someone tell me which modern Bible publisher has claimed that the author is claiming?

Another claim:

Stephens is criticised by opponents that his verse divisions do not make sense, that they are almost randomly done without logic. Thus Stephens randomly selects verse divisions which co-incidentally match Erasmus’ additions fifteen years earlier. … Stephens does this on horseback

Our current chapter and verse system has been criticized, but all the chapter and verse division is really for is easily finding our way in and around thousands of words.

Another claim:

I got it!
What really convinced me:

1.    14 out of 16 verses are whole verses
2.    Stephens defines them in 1551 as whole verses
3.    There is a much greater chance that he would have ‘missed’ the bits Erasmus (or any other monk) added
4.    But he did not miss the bits. So you have to include Stephens in on making the ‘additions’
5.    This means he would have to be present every time a verse was added.
6.    This implies a conspiracy (not a mistake by Roman Catholic Monks)
7.    Or there was no conspiracy at all. This means that the verses were subtracted after they became verses (after 1551).
8.    Verses can only be missing if they are verses in the first place!
To repeat what the New American Standard Bible says 14 times:
“Early mss do not contain this VERSE“

In trying to bring this into reality, verses have never been deleted in newer English translations of the Bible or the Alexandrian texts. Bibles from the post medieval period in Europe contain additions have been added through years of copying, mostly it's accidental and the actual text amount added is very small.

Another claim:

Rooted in the Saturn worship of pagan Rome, every non-King James modern Bible, including the New King James bears this indelible mark. Sometimes called ‘Leningrad’. It is“The Sign of The End”

I've never seen this "indelible mark" in the New King James version or any Christian Bible. Have you?

Conclusion:

The author claimed, “I have discoverd the proof of the forgeries”. Their proof was the chapter and verse divisions later added and scriptural differences in older and newer English translations. The proofs were based on ignorance of textual criticism and an improper education about the history of the English Bible.

The REAL reason for the Alexandrian text (from Egypt) falling out of use is because access to it was mostly cut-off. Access to older copies of many Christian texts was cut-off until someone rediscovered them. I'm not going to tell you what cut them off. I'm going to let you figure it out for yourself. In a prior post here, I linked to a flash map that will give you that reason.

References

New Advent - Hebrew Bible

The Verse Divisions in the Holy Sscriptures

Maps of War

White, James R., The King James Only Controversy, Bethany House Publishers, 1995 (Book)

I would like to know what you think of an article I read on modern bibles. http://alumbrados.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/the-proof-of-forgery-of-modern-bibles-2/

Could it be true?

This article about modern Bibles is more or less a bunch of unsubstantiated claims by a Textus Recepticus/King James Version cultist. I won't examine every claim in the article. After examining a small cross section of the claims you will see why.

1st claim:

Why can’t people think? I am surprised that I have discoverd the proof of the forgeries [Alexandrian manuscripts] and yet hundreds, thousands of churches, dare I say MILLIONS of churches and members and their and pastors have not. Whats behind this blindness? Whats behind this apathy? Spiritual ‘demons’ or just plain instructions from above not to meddle? I believe it is the latter—

The writer of the article is unnamed. The author claims to have discovered proof of Bible forgery that is being ignored by hundreds, thousands, millions of churches and members. What is the cause of this supposed ignorance? In their words, “instructions from above not to meddle”, whatever that means.

Another claim:

THE VERDICT
The King James Bible otherwise known as the Authorised Version is the only true version of the bible. Translators of other bibles use forged Egyptian manuscripts.

Throughout the article, no certain or established evidence is given to the reader to back up their claims about "forged Egyptian manuscripts".

Another claim:

The true manuscript is the King James ‘Textus Receptus’ manuscript. The King James is the only bible that survived on its own for 300 years. It is also called the Received Text. If a bible is not in English, then translators must still use the Received Text manuscript. But not the forged Egyptian manuscript of Westcott and Hort. Westcott and Hort worked solely from forged documents in 1881, called ‘Vaticanus’ and ‘Sinaiticus’. They replaced the Received Text.

The article, before it’s even off the starting line, stumbles. It stated the “King James is the only bible that survived on its own for 300 years”. This statement is untrue. A Bible cannot survive on its own because it needs to be printed by human beings.

The Protestant Geneva Bible was printed in 1560. It’s been around a lot longer than the King James Bible. The Geneva Bible is still printed today. The King James Bible that's sold today isn’t even the original 1611 edition.

Why isn' the Geneva Bible considered to be the "only true version of the bible".  No evidence is given concerning the so-called forged Egyptian manuscripts of newer translations. No evidence is given for Westcott and Hort forging them either.

Consider John 3:16 in the Geneva, 1611 King James and the King James version used today,

Geneva Bible of 1560

For God so loued the worlde, that hee hath giuen his onely begotten Sonne, that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.

King James Bible of 1611

For God so loued ye world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.

King James Bible printed today

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Another claim:

‘Vaticanus’ and ‘Sinaiticus’ forged

Concerning the evidence given about the ‘Vaticanus’ and ‘Sinaiticus’ manuscripts being forged, which was nothing, religionfacts.com states,

...a paleographer analyzes the handwriting of the text, which yields a much more precise date than carbon dating would...

An article on religionfacts.com can give you sourced and substantiated information about the earliest manuscript we have in our possession today, instead of wild claims.

Further claims:

“The true manuscript is the King James ‘Textus Receptus’ manuscript...If a bible is not in English, then translators must still use the Received Text manuscript.”

The Erasmus' Greek NT was the base for the Luther New Testament, Tyndale's NT, and the Geneva Bible's NT. A later edition of Erasmus' Greek NT was used during the creation of the King James version. The author of the article claims "translators must still use the Received Text", which some of the Bible's I previously mentioned did. However the author claims "The King James Bible...is the only true version of the bible." The author of the article has completely contradicted himself.

The article goes on to state that all other Bibles have use “forged documents”. Their proof to this is the differences between the King James and newer English translations. There are a number of problems with statements like this and it reveals a lot of ignorance the author on this subject.

The ‘Textus Receptus’ is a 15th century Greek NT created from many manuscript written in Greek and parts taken from Latin copies by the Roman Catholic scholar Desiderius Erasmus. In order for the claim “true manuscript”, God would have to re-inspire this. The ‘Textus Receptus’ is not a manuscript as such. It’s somewhat a consolidation of information from many manuscripts.

Another claim:

These forged documents [Alexandrian manuscripts] were made to create confusion and raised doubts about what God says in the true Received Text.

Parts of the Alexandrian manuscripts go all the way back to 125 A.D./C.E. So it wasn't until 1500 A.D./C.E., thirteen thousands years later that God's word just reappears in the 'Textus Recepticus/Received Text'?

Another claim:

Today, translators use these forged documents [Alexandrian manuscripts] to produce the commonly accepted modern bibles. The same sixteen verses are removed from the New International Version, the Revised Standard Version, the Good News Translation and many others. The sixteen WHOLE missing verses is the clear mark of the forgeries. Modern translators also copy or remove other bits and pieces as they think fit, from the King James bible.

The New International Version hasn't deleted anything. It's the King James Bible that is faulty here, not the New International Version. The author of the article here has his logic backwards.

The Alexandrian manuscripts are older than what Desiderius Erasmus based his Greek NT on. The strange logic the author displays is that the Alexandrian manuscripts have deletions, on purpose. Desiderius Erasmus Greek NT is been based on manuscripts that have had text that was added over time; text that was not originally written its authors.

Another claim:

The United Bible Societies (UBS) was established in 1946 to improve cooperation between the various societies. The main ones were The American Bible Society formed in 1816 and The British and Foreign Bible Society formed in 1804. UBS now has a global alliance of at least 130 Bible Societies. This alliance includes most national bible societies around the world. UBS has distributed in over 2200 languages an estimated 7 billion modern bibles. But the UBS text (NU-Text) is almost identical to the forged Westcott and Hort text of 1881. UBS replaced the Received Text after 1881.

Again, wild and baseless accusations by the articles author that are not supplied with one single fact.

More claims:

WHY WE USE THE KING JAMES BIBLE … Modern Bibles Have Removed the following 16 verses - CHECK IT UP - Matthew 17:21, Matthew 18:11, Matthew 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44, Mark 9:46, Mark 11:26, Mark 15:28, Luke 17:36, Luke 23:17, *John 5:4, Acts 8:37, Acts 15:34, Acts 28:29, Romans 16:24, *1 John 5:7 …

I'm not going to check all these verses, because the author of this article makes error after error after error.

• Author states, "Modern Bibles Have Removed Matthew 17:21". Matthew 17:21 in the King James Bible is probably taken from Mark 9:29.^*
• Matthew 18:11 in the King James Bible is probably taken from Luke 19:10.^*
• Matthew 23:14 in the King James Bible is probably taken from Mark 12:40.^*
• Mark 7:16 in the King James Bible doesn't exist in in newer translations or older manuscripts these newer translations are derived from. Mark 7:16 is maybe abridged from Mark 4:9 and 23 in later manuscripts.^*
• Mark 9:44 in the King James Bible was a duplicate copy due to copyist error.^*

I'm not going to mess with the rest of the verses. The author of the article hasn't checked anything out and that should be clear by looking at the information he presents.

^{* White, James R., The King James Only Controversy, Bethany House Publishers, 1995, P. 155}

To be continued...

Gustavo Rodriguez ha sido designado como AMP NETCONNECT Registered Designer luego de completar exitosamente el curso y exámen sobre Diseño de Sistemas de Cableado para Redes Lan en el centro de capacitación de AMP en la ciudad de Pacheco.

Este curso, con un contenido de 60% de parte practica prepara al asistente a manejar distintos criterios de decisión asociados a los sistemas de cableado de redes LAN. El curso hace énfasis en las normativas TIA/EIA para sistemas de cableado estructurado que utilizan una arquitectura abierta, y la forma en la que estos acomodan las tecnologías LAN. Usando las normas TIA/EIA como referencia, los estudiantes diseñan varios sistemas de cableado para redes LAN para las distintas aplicaciones de networking. Estos diseños incluirán los dibujos del campus, esquemas de planta, diagramas de enlaces, el desarrollo del computo de materiales, y una narrativa del diseño. Proporciona la información para mejorar sus habilidades en el diseño de sistemas de cableado de comunicaciones de alta calidad.

The package only comes with the amp head, but I think that you can stack it and it will still work. The EQ gives you amazing control of your tone, and the tube model ensures that you only get professional-grade sound out of your guitar. There is only one channel, which isn't good if you want to cut down on your brutality. However, if you want insane brutality, this amp is for you. There is a 3-band EQ (bass, mid, treble) for great tonal control. The base tone of the amp, however, is the same one used by the King himself.

Overall

Sound- 5/5

Features-2/5

Reliability- 4/5

Overall- 3/5 (5/5 if you're looking for insane metal tone)

Due to the fact that it only has one channel, its utility is limited. It's pricey, at about $1,800, which is a bit much considering the fact that it only has one channel and no reverb or effects. That means that if you want effects, you need to buy footpedals to link up to the amp, which can get expensive. But, its single channel can cause massive destruction with its Kerry King style overdrive.

Overall stats

Sound- 3/5

Features- 4/5

Reliability- 5/5 studio, 1/5 live

Quality- 3/5

Overall- 3/5

Not a terrible amp, but there are definitely better ones out there. Good if you have a low budget and want decent tone.

So I was setting up my stuff to start recording some guitar and bass ideas for my new material. I had some trouble with my mic and eventually found out I just needed to change the options in my program preferences. After I'm all done, I get no signal coming through. You have to realise how annoying this is. I've got to remember my guitar lines because I can't temp record them. Gargh.

I'm pretty sure it's a problem with my mic cable, or maybe just the mic itself. Whatever. I'm going shopping at the weekend and might be able to find some type of temporary replacement until I get any decent amount of money in my pocket. Oh yeah, and I'm getting a hat.

So I should be recording some demos of various ideas in the next following weeks, which I may upload to MySpace, depending how I feel. The area I'm going in is a more warm ambient sound rather than a spacious one, probably with some sampling.

Pro produkty Adobe existuje obrovské množství online školicích materiálů od různých autorů. Jejich kvalita je velice různorodá a na tomto webu bych chtěl občas odkázat na ty, které považuji v některém směru za vyjímečné.

Dnes jsem si vybral Dr. Russella Browna. Dr. Brown začal pracovat v Adobe Systems v dubnu 1985 jako Art Director. Během let se stal jedním z nejznámějších specialistů na Adobe Photoshop. Styl prezentací Dr. Browna je velmi neobvyklý a velice zábavný.

Občas také vytváří různá zajímavá videa - určitě se podívejte třeba na krátké video z roku 2005 - Adobe Man (Pozor: video je v formátu Quicktime, takže musíte mít QuickTime nebo jiný přehrávač, který umí tento formát.)

Pokud jste klepli na předchozí odkaz, viděli jste, že Russell Brown se nechová příliš jako Dr. Přesto nebo možná i proto jsou jeho tutoriály jedny z nejlepších, co znám a přináší hodně velmi zajímavých konceptů a nápadů, jak Photohop využívat.

V současné době existují dvě základní série jeho tutoriálů. První se jmenuje The Russell Brown Show a můžete si ji stahovat prostřednictvím iTunes jako podcast. Také se na něj můžete podívat na stránkách Adobe TV. Třetí možností je stáhnout si Adobe Media Player a přihlásit si show na stahování do něj.

Druhá série se jmenuje Dr. Brown' Photoshop Laboratory. Opět ji můžete najít na stránkách Adobe TV, případně přihlásit prostřednictvím Adobe Media Playeru v sekci Adobe TV.

Podívejte se na jeden příklad z Dr. Brown's Photoshop Laboratory. Tento tutoriál je o pokročilých postupech při spojování více fotografií do jedné. Pozor video trvá asi 20 minut.

[vodpod id=Groupvideo.1504428&w=425&h=350&fv=v%3Dhttp%253A%2F%2Fadobe.edgeboss.net%2Fflash%2Fadobe%2Fadobetvprod%2Fdr_browns_photoshop_laboratory%2F02_drb_005.flv%253Frss_feedid%253D927%2526xmlvers%253D2%26feedid%3D927]

"Hallo, ich bin Luke Leighfield, ich stinke!" So herrlich uncharmant eröffnete Luke Leighfield sein Set beim Auftaktkonzert seiner Deutschland-Tour und schnell war allen Anwesenden klar, das wird ein lustiger Abend. Schon beim Soundcheck vor dem Interview mit uns war zu erkennen, dass im Zusammenspiel der Drei alles andere als Routine herrscht. Wer das AMP in Münster kennt, weiß, das es teilweise bei den Konzerten unter chronischem Besuchermangel leidet. Nicht so an diesem Abend, schon beim Support "Einmannjan" sind schätzungsweise 70 Leute anwesend, eine Zahl, die im Laufe der Show auf 100 angewachsen sein dürfte.

Passenderweise wurde Luke Leighfield auch schon von "Einmannjan" als lustiger Typ angekündigt und so stürmten Luke, Dan und Mike punkt 22:45 die Bühne, uniformiert in grünen Adidas Gerd Müller Gedenk T-Shirts. Gleich der erste Song zauberte auch allen Anwesenden ein Lächeln aufs Gesicht, spätestens als sich Bassist Mike Richtung Verstärker umdrehte, um seinen Bass anzustellen, natürlich nicht ohne sich breit und verlegen grinsend wieder umzudrehen. Nach dem Song entschuldigte Luke im Namen von Mike, "this is the first time, we're playing a show together, we don't live very close to one another, we actually met for the first time, when we drove off to Germany!", worauf Mike erwiderte "Yeah, I actually thought he was Gary Glitter."

So gut eingestimmt verlief dann auch der Rest der 45-minütigen Show, bei der Luke mit seinem zuckersüßen Pianopop irgendwo zwischen Vanessa Carlton und Ben Folds eine schöne Stimmung erzeugte, die wohl niemanden kalt gelassen haben dürfte. Während des Sets stimmte er sogar noch den Refrain von "Fascination" von Alphabeat an, das sie während der Tour covern möchten, "I think, as soon, as Dan and Mike can play my songs properly, they might also be able to play a Cover with me!"

Nach dem letzten Song ließ sich Luke sogar noch zu einer Zugabe überreden, wies aber noch darauf hin, "normally I don't do this in the UK, merely because they don't want this and it's so Def Leppard". Zurück blieb ein schöner Abend mit einem gut gelaunten Sänger und einem aufgeschlossenem Publikum.

Fotos von Ariane
Myspace von Luke Leighfield

Iain WhiteTapes