Bibliological lip-service...

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Harald, Feb 22, 2003.

  1. Harald

    Harald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2001
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    0
    Many who profess to love the Bible, the word of God, give lip-service to the doctrine of verbal and plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, and to the attending doctrines of inerrancy and infallibility. With verbal inspiration I understand that all the words of God's word in the original autographs were God-breathed, not just ideas and thoughts in general. The word "plenary" in this connection I understand to mean that all of Scripture is given by inspiration of God, not just the Old Testament, not just the New Testament, not just the prophetic books, and on and on, but precisely all of the writings comprising the Holy Scriptures, that nothing of it is uninspired. With inerrancy of the Scriptures I understand that the Scripture as originally given by God has no errors whatsoever in it, no doctrinal errors, no scientific errors, no factual errors etc. etc.. Absolutely error-free, perfect and absolutely true and truthful in all its statements. With infallibility of Scripture I understand that the Scripture cannot possibly err, is not liable to err or introduce error at any point. I think this is how these doctrines have classically been understood, in brief.

    Like I said many give lip-service and say they believe these points. But, sad to say most of it is nothing but pious babbling, seeing in practice they deny their professed trust in the divine nature of the Scriptures. A proper attitude and reverence for God's holy written word takes into account what God in the Scripture says about the Scripture. If God warns against adding to His words, diminshing from them, and changing them, and He does, then those warnings are to be heeded and obeyed. "Of course, what's your point?", some may ask. This is my point. What use is it to profess love for the Bible and belief in the classical bibliological tenets, when in practice one denies all these by promoting and defending Greek texts and versions of the Bible which deny those classical doctrines of verbal and plenary inspiration, and inerrancy and infallibility of the Holy Bible? I chiefly refer to Greek text editions (e.g. UBS-3) which have been proved to contain doctrinal errors and factual errors and discrepancies, and versions translated from the same editions. Such promoting and defending defect and mediocre texts and versions is a compromise and betrayal of one's professed high view of and love for the holy oracles of God.

    Another kind of compromise and betrayal in the area of bibliology is use of dynamic equivalency in Bible translation, and its defense and promotion. Pious-sounding modern day "evangelical scholars" may profess a high view of Scripture with their mouth, but in practice they deny their profession by resorting to dynamic equivalency when they translate the word of God. What is that if not high treason? What is the use to profess belief in the doctrine of verbal and plenary inspiration when in practice one uses dynamic equivalency techniques, twisting and perverting God's words by adding to them words uncalled for as well as unwarranted interpretitive renderings, omitting divinely given information conveyed by the original wording through neglecting to translate accurately and precisely and faithfully, and changing the author meaning by alterations of syntax and meanings of words etc. ? Dynamic equivalency is practical denial of the verbal and plenary inspiration of the word of God. It is not wrong to call it a satanic method of Bible translation. It does not belong at all in the realm of Bible translation.

    If God Almighty says "Thou shalt not add ought" then the prudent man takes heed and obeys. If God the Lord says "thou shalt not diminish aught" then the wise man takes heed and obeys. The same applies to altering God's words. The knavish modern day "scholar" manifests his knavery by time and time again disobeying God's prohibitions, and that without any remorse or penitence. Such adulteraters of the word of God have not been called by God to translate His holy words, but are presumptuous and daring, having something other motivating them than the honor and glory of God, and the edification of God's true Israel. If they had had a love for God they would have loved His inspired words, and would have utilized the best Greek text available, and would have translated formally and literally, and as unto God, not as unto a "target audience". Not as pleasers of men, but as out of purity, as of God, and as unto God. This not to say any translation is on par with the original Greek Testament as respects perfection, yet a God-called translator strives for perfection, strives to translate as accurately, precisely, and faithfully as ever possible, as a workman who needeth not be ashamed before his God. If anyone translates the Greek Testament, let him translate from the Received Text, formally and literally, as unto God, not adulterating the word of God for some gain like the many.

    Harald
     
  2. Archangel7

    Archangel7
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    Originally posted by Harald:

    Can you provide one or two specific examples to substantiate this claim?

    What do you mean by the "Received Text," given that there are several of them and that they are all somewhat different? Do you mean the text of Erasmus, which also contains the kinds of alterations and errors that you condemn in your post?

    One example of an alteration in Erasmus' text: βιβλιου της ζωης in Rev. 22:19, a reading not found in the text of any pre-Erasmian Greek MS.

    One example of an error in Erasmus' text: the word ακαθαρτητος in Rev. 17:4, a mistake which created a new Greek word not found anywhere else in all known Greek literature.


    [ February 22, 2003, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Archangel7 ]
     
  3. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is so true and it is being demonstrated from two sides of hte modern equation: The liberals on teh one side and the KJVOs on the other. It is destructive from both.

    This is where you depart into something that cannot be proven, and with respect to my position and the position of the vast majority of evangelicalism, has been demonstrated to be false. If you can find a doctrinal error or factual error in the UBS you will have succeeded where thousands before you have failed. To describe these as "defect and mediocre" texts simply betrays an unfortunate lack of familiarity. Surely you can disagree with it without resorting to making statements that simply aren't true. It is one thing to prefer a certain text over another. It is quite another to describe one as defect and mediocre.

    It is a legitimate way to handle translation and most often results in teh clearest communication. If you are to be consistent with your position on plenary inspiration, then you must not translate at all because translation by its nature is the changing of words. DE, while abused by some, is a legitimate method of translation and was used by the KJV translators in many cases.

    Your statements on DE are simply not accurate. You should know more about it. It does not deny verbal, plenary inspiration. It is not satanic. That is argumentation of the worst sort.

    This is certainly true and it is why a dynamic translation can be an accurate, precise, and faithful translation. Properly done, it is no object of shame.

    Why the TR?? It has many questionable readings, some stuff added in with little or no Greek support, and fails to take advantage of numerous textual discoveries. The TR is the text with the least basis for translation in this day and age.
     
  4. Harald

    Harald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2001
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some on this forum has said that the modern Greek text has no errors in it. I would say it does have. And I am not the only one. Below is a link to an article by textual scholar Wilbur N Pickering. He exhibits some clear errors of the modern Greek text, UBS-3. While I do not subscribe to his Majority Text position nor agree with every theological notion or assessment he makes in it I nevertheless think it is worth putting here, as it is an eye-opener as pertains to the textual issue. The fact that the modern Greek text has errors and discrepancies in it is very serious. And it is serious also that some version have been translated from it and thus repeat the same errors and contradictions, making it look like God's word, which they are claimed to be, is not God's perfect and inerrant word, but something else. The blind leading the blind and both fall into the ditch, it says in some good book.


    http://www.esgm.org/ingles/appendh.h.htm


    Harald
     
  5. Harald

    Harald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2001
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    0
    Archangel7. As for me I am not acquainted with any of the Erasmian TR's. Are they available on the net? I have Stephanus 1550, Elzevier 1624, and Scrivener's 1894 ed. All of these three are referred to as "Received Text". They differ somewhat among themselves. Personally I believe Scrivener's TR is the one closest to the very original Greek NT. As for Rev. 22:19 that is a reading I have asked myself what it may mean if indeed the reading is inspired.

    It is not my fault if some TR edition should have a real error of whatever kind in it, yet it is a thing to take note of, and if possible someone ought to correct it. Likewise it is not my fault if some of the modern Greek text editions have errors in them, which I know they do. Neither is it God's fault, but some scribe or copyist along the way has erred, either on purpose or as by mistake. I do not claim absolute perfection for any of the TR editions, because I cannot with 100 per cent certainty know which of them if any of them is an exact duplicate of the original Greek NT. But of the three types of editions I know of; Textus Receptus (Estienne, Elzevier, Scrivener, all these available on the internet), Westcott-Hort type (aka Alexandrian, including UBS-3 & 4 et.al.) and the so called Majority Text type editions (Hodges&Farstad, and, Pierpont-Robinson) I believe the TR and more specifically, as I said, Scrivener's edition is the best representation of the original Greek NT given to the apostles and the other NT penmen.

    I will be thankful to anyone who can give clear examples of factual, doctrinal or any kind of errors in Scrivener's TR edition. I am not afraid of the truth, if so be the truth is this TR has some error. I would have to face it and push onward.

    Harald
     
  6. Harald

    Harald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2001
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK, Larry. We know where the other stands, and we will hopefully respect that if possible. You stand with the "majority of evangelicalism". I do not. In fact I do not give much for "evangelicalism" of today. It is a religious scene with all kinds of compromise and apostasy, generally speaking, and quite hard to define as well. It is easier to define Roman Catholicism than "evangelicalism".

    As for DE I think you could profit somewhat by reading the opening chapters of "evangelical" literary scholar Leland Ryken's new book. He does not perhaps use as straightforward words as me but very convincingly and skillfully and tactfully refutes dynamic equivalency in Bible translation. That is if you are not too much biased toward DE, I cannot tell. I still maintain it is satanic, because it does not care for God's wordS (plural), but professedly it would have that the "thoughts" and "meaning" is all that matters, not so much the inspired words and wording, including the syntax etc. Ryken smashes such knavish arguments to pieces, also giving some sad examples from modern day DE versions.

    As for the TR. Give me some or all clear examples of errors (theological, doctrinal, factual, scientific etc. etc.) or discrepancies in Scrivener's TR and I will have occasion to thank you.

    Harald
     
  7. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,165
    Likes Received:
    322
    John Burgon in his The Revision Revised - 1881 goes into some length as to many of these "defects" and what he loves to call "blunders" of the Wescott and Hort Greek text.

    However it is very difficult to have any discussion around this because of the KJVO "blunder" of pointing to the ENGLISH text as the "inspired".

    If I had to blame satan for anything it would be the smokescreen of this KJVO blunder which has hijacked the Church into fighting THE RIGHT BATTLE IN THE WRONG BATTLEFIELD

    not only that, most of the MV supporters are shell-shock because of the misplaced zeal of the KJVO and put the armour on (and I don't blame them) even when the TRO trumpet (the correct one imo)is blown.

    I agree with Harald and in my view, its the Received text Greek upon which we need to focus.

    DE _ Personally, I have no problem with dynamic equivalence as long as it is both, dynamic and equivalent (oh and one more thing, does not bear a false witness such as the NWT).

    However, (for good or bad) I leave the TR matter alone for the sake of the Church at large.

    As many have said, the Word of God is like a lion, we need not defend him, just let him loose.

    HankD
     
  8. neal4christ

    neal4christ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,815
    Likes Received:
    0
  9. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are problems in evangelicalism to be sure but here, I reference those who believe in inerrancy. I stand with Scripture and its teachings, which happens to be what the majority of conservative evangelicalism holds and has for 100 years.

    I agree that there are some bad attempts at DE. But I maintain that without it, translation is impossible. Leland Ryken has some good stuff. This is a new one I don't have. I am familiar with DE and personally, I find it inconceivable that you attack it the way you do. To call it satanic is beyond the pale. It does not deny that the words matter; that is a gross representation. But those words only matter because they convey meaning. If the meaning is not conveyed, than the words are useless.

    I don't know of any doctrinal, theological, factual, or scientific errors in it. Examples of bad choices with regards to readings are 1 John 5:7, Col 1:14, Rev 22:19-22, Acts 9:36, and a host of other passages that could be laid out. These passages are no in error; they teach no error. They are simply not likely to be what was originally written and that is a problem for those concerned with accuracy of the text.

    As for the perfection of the modern Greek text, you reference someone above who believes that. Who are you talking about?? I have never seen anyone say that at all.
     
  10. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,165
    Likes Received:
    322
    RE: 1 John5:7.

    Yes this verse is an enigma.

    Why? Because it has some of the greatest and incontrovertable support in the witnesses of the Scripture, Just precious little Greek mss support of any kind (although there is some).

    Here are some numbers:

    NOTE ***** Copied without permission from a paper
    by Jesse Boyd "And These Three Are One" (who extracted the data from Michael Maynard's A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8

    I can supply URL reference if any wishes to see the entire work.
     
  11. Archangel7

    Archangel7
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    Harald wrote:

    Generally speaking, I'd have to agree with you on this point. However, I do so with a caveat. While I certainly don't believe that each and every one of the textual choices in the NA27 text is correct, overall I believe it is the most accurate text available to us today. And because of its extensive critical apparatus, I'd have to say that the correct reading for each variant is found somewhere -- in the apparatus, if not in the text itself.

    Pickering seems to be far too quick to condemn the readings of the NA27 as "errors." The first example he cites is that of Ιουδαιας in Lk. 4:44, which he claims is an error because "Jesus was in Galilee (and continued there), not in Judea, as the context makes clear." However, the BAGD lexicon gives the following definitions for the noun Ιουδαια:

    "1. the southern part of Palestine in contrast to Samaria, Galilee, Perea and Idumea, Judea..."

    "2. Judea, broadly understood as the region occupied by the people of Israel, Judea =‘land of the Judeans (Jews)’, i.e. Palestine (Nicol. Dam. [I BC]: 90 fgm. 96 Jac. [in Jos., Ant. 14, 9]; Diod. S. 40, 3, 2; Strabo 16, 2, 34; Memnon [I BC / I AD]: 434 fgm. 1, 18, 9 Jac.; Ptolem. 5, 16, 1; cp. 15, 6-8 and Apotelesmatica 2, 3, 29 and 31. Cass. Dio 37, 16; 47, 28; Tacitus, Hist. 5, 9, 1; LXX; EpArist 4 and12; Philo, Leg. ad Gai. 200; Joseph.; Just., D. 32, 4...."

    Perhaps Luke meant Ιουδαιας in the latter sense, which would mean that Lk. 4:44 could be translated as "and he was preaching in the synagogues of the land of the Jews" or some similar equivalent. Such an interpretation would not be unknown; the KJV renders Ιουδαιας as "Jewry" in Lk. 23:5. At any rate, it's not clear to me that this is an error.

    The second example Pickering cites is εκλιποντος in Lk. 23:45, which he asserts is "a scientific error" because "an eclipse of the sun is impossible during a full moon. Jesus was crucified during the Passover, and the Passover is always at full moon." Two comments are in order. First of all, Luke likely intended the verb εκλιποντος to be understood in a metaphorical sense. He uses the same verb elsewhere in his Gospel where it means "to fail." The following verses are instructive:

    And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye FAIL (εκλιπη), they may receive you into everlasting habitations. (Lk. 16:9, KJV)

    But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith FAIL (εκλιπη) not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. (Lk. 22:32, KJV)

    At least one modern versions translates the verb in exactly this way at Lk. 23:45:

    While the sun's light FAILED (εκλιποντος); and the curtain of the temple was torn in two. (Lk. 23:45, NASB) [NOTE: this should be NRSV, not NASB]

    My second comment is to point out that even if εκλιποντος is taken literally, "with God all things are possible" (Mt. 19:26). If God can make the sun stand still (Josh. 10:12-13), God can cause an eclipse to happen at any time, even during a full moon. Again, it's not at all clear to me that this is an error either.

    [ February 23, 2003, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: Archangel7 ]
     
  12. Archangel7

    Archangel7
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    Originally posted by Harald:
    They might be, although if they are I haven't found them. Perhaps someone else could answer this?

    They certainly do: Variations within the Received Text Tradition

    Scrivener's TR was created by taking Beza's 1598 TR and changing it to match the 1611 English KJV where the two disagreed. This method is highly suspect, since it derives a Greek text from an English KJV assumed to be correct in every instance, and then claims autograph originality for that derivative Greek text.

    The previously mentioned examples of Rev. 17:4 and Rev. 22:19 are a good start. These are clear errors in the TR, and are easily corrected.
     
  13. Archangel7

    Archangel7
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    Originally posted by HankD:

    If you look at the breakdown of the evidence, you'll immediately notice an interesting pattern: it comes exclusively from Western Latin sources. (The alleged patristic citations before Priscillan are uncertain, as is the alleged citation in Gregory). This fact, coupled with the Comma's total absence from the text of every known Greek MS of First John before the 14th century and from every other ancient version (including the earliest, the Coptic and Syriac), suggests the truth -- it was a scribal addition that crept into the Western Latin tradition to bolster the doctrine of the Trinity against its theological detractors. It is extremely unlikely that it was originally part of First John.
     
  14. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,165
    Likes Received:
    322
    Yes it has almost Latin authority exclusively with only 8 greek mss and no Greek fathers (except perhaps for Tertullian).
    I understand this logic archangel that because its rare in the greek mss and other witnesses it is suspect and its a definite possibility that it is spurious in the realm of the possible.

    However, I believe that it dropped out early on in the copying of the greek mss because of the similarities of the two lines... (homeoteluton?) there are three which bear witness in heaven/earth

    But it was not left out of the old Itala.
    In this case a verse was preserved in a translation (of the ealiest translations extant) and then found its way into the waldenses mss and then through Beza (I believe it was he) into the TR of the KJV.

    Granted its a theory but a believable one for me.

    I think it's important for people to know the whole story.
    Many teachers commit intellectual dishonesty (imo) by not explaining the Latin witnesses (even if the explanation is "hostile", it better than a purposeful gloss).

    HankD

    [ February 23, 2003, 01:25 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]
     
  15. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,165
    Likes Received:
    322
    Here are a few witnesses for 1 John 5:7

    Judge for yourself.

    AD 220 Tertullian
    The connection, of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Comforter, makes a unity of these three, one with another, which three are one --- not one person; in like manner as it is said, I and my Father are one, to denote the unity of substance, and not the singularity of number."

    AD 250 Cyprian De catholicae ecclesiae unitare
    ‘The Lord says I and the Father are one, and likewise IT IS WRITTEN of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and these three are one.

    AD 380 Priscillian Liber Apologeticus
    As John says “and there are three which give testimony on earth the water , the flesh
    And the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in
    Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit and these three are one in Christ Jesus”

    AD 450 North African author Contra Varimadum
    And John the Evangelist says “in the beginning was the word and the word was with God
    And God was the word”. And also He says to the Partheans, “there are three who give testimony on earth, the water , the blood and the flesh And the three are in us. And there are three who give
    Testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Spirit and these three are one.”

    AD 485 Victor Vitensis Historia persocutionis Africanae Provincia
    And in order that we may teach until now, more clearly than light, that the Holy Spirit is now one divinity with the Father and the Son. It is proved by the testimony of the evangelist John, for he Says “There are three which bear testimony in heaven , the Father , the Word and the Spirit and these three are one”

    AD 527 Fulgentius Responsio contra arianos
    Therefore in the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit we accept the unity of substance, we do not dare confuse the persons, for the blessed John the Apostle gives testimony saying “There are three who bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Spirit and these three are one.”

    Other citations of I John 5:7 which identify the verse AS SCRIPTURE:

    AD 636 Isidore of Seville.
    AD 650 The Leon palimpsest.
    AD 850 The Ulmensis MSS.
    AD 1120 Waldensian Apostle’s Creed
    AD 1150 Codex Demidovianus, Codex Divionensis. Codex Colbertinus
    AD 1170 Waldensian old French NT translation (reportedly from greek mss)
    Nolan, Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text, xviii

    HankD
     
  16. neal4christ

    neal4christ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you using the 1977 NASB? My 1995 Update reads "because the sun was obscured." Just wondering!

    Neal
     
  17. Harald

    Harald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2001
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    0
    Archangel7.

    I can agree that Scrivener's procedure may seem peculiar. But can you verify with some quote from him what you said: "claims autograph originality for that derivative Greek text".

    As for Rev. 17:4 I can understand your claim that it is a "clear error" if you mean that it has absolutely no support from any Greek MSS now in existence. I researched into this last night with what little sources I have, and it does seem it has no MSS support from the Greek. This was new to me, for which information I thank you. Nevertheless the word akathartêtos in and of itself, as compared to the other reading, ta akatharta tês, introduces no doctrinal or theological error or discrepancy. And I cannot see that it introduces any grammatical error either. Nor can I see that the noun is an illegitimate Greek word, which none of the lexicons and other sources I checked claim for that matter. What some said if they did comment upon the verse or wording was that akathartêtos is not found in any Greek MSS. What I now wonder is, have there been found any Greek copies up to this day that would have this said word? Secondly, does it have any support from early versions and the so called "fathers"?

    As for Rev 22:19. Jack Moorman says in "When The KJV Departs From The "Majority" Text" that the wording "book (of life)" has support from Codex 2049, and two other, 296 & 2067, whether these are codexes or whatever I do not know. He also names some ancient versions and "fathers". Whether the divinely inspired reading is "book" or "three" this verse seems to introduce a theological discrepancy or contradiction. But it is not real, the fault lies with my limited understanding, because God's word contains no discrepancies or contradictions, and those seeming to be such are not real such. If the reading should be "tree of life" the implication, at least at first glance, would be that someone who has (already secure) a part or share in the (future in time) three of life (eternal bliss, heavenly joy?) may forfeit that part by doing the things the angel warns of in vv. 18-19. This seems to go against the teaching of the rest of God's revealed word, which teaches eternal preservation of those saved by the grace of Christ. And if the reading should be "book of life" quite the same implication is presented to the mind. Both ways it seems like this verse as such supports the (Arminian, Romanist) heresy which says someone having been saved by God's grace may forfeit that salvation through some sin or disobedience etc. Literally "the God shall take away the part of him from book (or, "the tree") of the life...". I have so far found no better and a more biblically harmonizing explanation to this verse than that of John Gill in his commentary. He does not go into which of the readings is the correct one, but in his comments he follows the KJV (TR) reading. I will not try to be wise above that gifted servant of God.

    If you have any other instances in Scrivener's TR which you consider errors (of whatever nature) by all means present them to my view. Thanks anyway for bringing these things up. It is interesting to look into them.

    Harald
     
  18. Harald

    Harald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2001
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    0
    Larry you said:

    "As for the perfection of the modern Greek text, you reference someone above who believes that. Who are you talking about?? I have never seen anyone say that at all. "

    A bit previously you said, first quoting me:

    quote:

    What use is it to profess love for the Bible and belief in the classical bibliological tenets, when in practice one denies all these by promoting and defending Greek texts and versions of the Bible which deny those classical doctrines of verbal and plenary inspiration, and inerrancy and infallibility of the Holy Bible? I chiefly refer to Greek text editions (e.g. UBS-3) which have been proved to contain doctrinal errors and factual errors and discrepancies, and versions translated from the same editions. Such promoting and defending defect and mediocre texts and versions is a compromise and betrayal of one's professed high view of and love for the holy oracles of God.

    This is where you depart into something that cannot be proven, and with respect to my position and the position of the vast majority of evangelicalism, has been demonstrated to be false. If you can find a doctrinal error or factual error in the UBS you will have succeeded where thousands before you have failed. To describe these as "defect and mediocre" texts simply betrays an unfortunate lack of familiarity. Surely you can disagree with it without resorting to making statements that simply aren't true.
    (end of quote)

    In between these two posts of yours I posted a link to an article by Pickering, where he shows some errors in UBS-3.

    Larry you said:

    "Who are you talking about?? I have never seen anyone say that at all."

    Larry, you are that man. You did not say it expressly, I admit. But your statement conveyed to me that the modern Greek text has no errors which can be proved. That implies perfection. Pickering refutes such a notion.

    Harald
     
  19. Archangel7

    Archangel7
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    Originally posted by HankD:

    It is not at all clear that Tertullian (who is a Latin Father, and not a Greek Father) is quoting the Comma here. He may have been alluding to I Jn. 5:8 in the Old Latin which reads, et (hi) tres unum sunt ("and the three are one.") Or he may simply have been making his own remarks about the unity of the Trinity. Tertullian's use of the phrase "these three are one" is no more a quotation of the Comma than Chrysostom's use of "the three are one" in the passage below is a quotation of the Comma:

    "Behold again a third ground of obligation; for he shows that a man leaving them that begat him, and from whom he was born, is knit to his wife; and that then the one flesh is, father, and mother, and the child, from the substance of the two commingled. For indeed by the commingling of their seeds is the child produced, so that THE THREE ARE ONE flesh." (Chrysostom, Homily 20 on Ephesians).

    Tertullian's alleged citation must be set aside because of its high degree of uncertainty.


    Cyprian's alleged citation of the Comma is uncertain because it is not at all clear whether the words he is actually quoting from First John are from the disputed Comma or from the undisputed sentence next to it. There are numerous variations of 1 Jn. 5:7-8 in the Old Latin texts, both with and without the Comma. The basic reading of the form with the Comma (with some variation) is:

    Tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in terra, spiritus (et) aqua et sanguis, et (hi) tres unum sunt; et tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in caelo, pater (et) verbum et spiritus, et (hi) tres unum sunt.

    "There are three who bear witness on earth, [the] Spirit (and) [the] water and [the] blood, and ([the]/these) three are one; and there are three who bear witness in heaven, [the] Father (and) the Word and the Spirit, and ([the]/these) three are one."

    The basic reading of the Old Latin text without the Comma (again, with some variation) is:

    Tres sunt qui testimonium dant, spiritus (et) aqua et sanguis, et (hi) tres unum sunt.

    "There are three who bear witness, [the] Spirit (and) [the] water and [the] blood, and ([the]/these) three are one."

    Compare both forms with Cyprian's quotation:

    Dicit Dominus: 'Ego et pater unum sumus;' et iterum de Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto, scriptum est: 'Et tres unum sunt.' (De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate, 6).

    "The Lord says, 'I and [the] Father are one;' and again of [the] Father, [the] Son, and [the] Holy Spirit it is written: 'And [the] three are one.'"

    Since the only words Cyprian explicitly quotes from First John following the introductory formula scriptum est ("it is written") are et tres unum sunt ("and [the] three are one"), and since those words appear in forms of the Old Latin text both with and without the Comma, we have no certain way of knowing which form Cyprian knew and used.

    Cyprian's alleged citation must also be set aside because of its high degree of uncertainty


    Priscillian's citation is the first clear and undisputed example of I Jn. 5:7 appearing in any Latin Father, so the first certain reference to the Comma appears in the late 4th century. The other references in your list are all of Western Latin provenance, which suggests that the Comma was not original to First John, but was later added to some (but not all) Western Latin MSS in the mid- to late-4th century. The alternative is utterly improbable -- that a verse as theologically significant as the Comma was somehow omitted from every known Greek copy and every known ancient version so completely that no trace of it can be found anywhere outside the Latin West before the 7th century.

    [ February 23, 2003, 10:08 AM: Message edited by: Archangel7 ]
     
  20. Archangel7

    Archangel7
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you using the 1977 NASB? My 1995 Update reads "because the sun was obscured." Just wondering!

    Neal
    </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry...that should be NRSV, not NASB. My mistake!
     

Share This Page

Loading...