Christ's body, broken for you

For whatever it's worth:

On page 727 Volume III of Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the NT it states that the general usage of the word klao (outside the NT) has the meaning of "to break off" as a branch of a tree and not necessarily to break or tear into pieces. That is to cut off rather than to shatter etc...

Isaiah 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

Could this be the metaphor that Paul had in mind?

HankD

 

Actually, this reasoning is incorrect and has been refuted in a number of places. In this forum, some time back, there was a thread that discussed this and I gave relevant information there. The bottom line is that even with the addition you still have the grammatical problem because hoi marterountes is repeated in v. 8 and there governs the same neuter substantives as in v. 7. The bottom line is that the addition does not solve the grammatical problem. However, there are places where the masc gender does govern neuter nouns.

When you study the argument of 1 John 5, the addition is totally out of place. It has nothing to do with what John is saying. It was an addition, probably from a scribal marginal note that noted a similarity. A later scribe saw it in the margin and added it in tthe text. The veritable paucity of manuscript support precludes any serious consideration of its textual authenticity.

 

And you talk about us making things up. That's funny. Okay, everyone, the issue is closed because we now know for a fact that 1 John 5:7 was probably from a "scribal marginal note," and a "later scribe" saw it in the margin and added it. Yay. Do we have to discuss this anymore?

 

RE: 1 John 5:7

The Latin fathers starting with Tertullian (disputed) from around 175AD quote the passage with the statement "the scripture says" (or words to that affect).

It is found in many of the old Itala (dates from 200AD) and the Vulgate mss but only a few late Greek mss.

HankD

[ December 18, 2002, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

I believe (underline "believe") that the Spirit of God moved Paul to use the word "broken" as a fulfilment of the Isaiah passage combining "cut off" and "stricken". into the word klao.

Although I am not strictly KJVO (I know there are translation weaknesses) I believe "broken" is original.

Interesting thread.

HankD

 

NO one is making this up. Notice I said Probably and consider that this addition is found in 4 margins and 4 texts. That is 8 texts out of more than 5000. That is not good odds. Virtually everyone agrees on the supposition of how it got added. You are right however: we shouldn't have to discuss this anymore.

 

And you talk about us making things up. That's funny. Okay, everyone, the issue is closed because we now know for a fact that 1 John 5:7 was probably from a "scribal marginal note," and a "later scribe" saw it in the margin and added it. Yay. Do we have to discuss this anymore? </font>[/QUOTE]The notable difference with the way Pastor Larry handles issues and the way KJVO's handle issues is that he said what was "probably" true then presented real evidence to support the claim.

At no time did he declare that it was wrong because it disagreed with his preferred version nor did he say that the KJV is not the Word of God because the phrase is included. In fact, Pastor Larry has affirmed that the KJV is the Word of God on numerous occasions.

The statement whether original or not does not insert a false doctrine nor detract from God's message to man. Therefore, it is not an error. However, if you demand a word for word, verse for verse equivalent to the originals then it probably is an error.

[ December 18, 2002, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

The Revelation 22:19 Question - Since I did not have a clue what he was talking about when he mentioned this variant I will not be presumptuous and give my own answer. I will only refer to another web site.

http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_re22_19.html

Hey, only an idiot acts like he knows every answer.

 

My original quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I make the doctrinal assumption of the perpetuity of the scriptures. Any manuscript line that did not survive use for an extended period of time is deemed unreliable in its variant reading.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your response:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your assumptions are not only unsupported by evidence and logic, they contradict them. The more generations a hand copied document line contains, the more likely that errors will be introduced.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A doctrinal assumption is a doctrine that is taught by a religious group (in this case many denominations of Baptist) in which I did not want to fully explain but took for granted that you understood and probably accepted.

However, since you claim that it is illogical and without evidence I will explain it.

First: Psalm 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

The Word of God is magnified above the Name of God. This expresses the extreme importance of the Bible. It would be illogical to believe that God would hap hazardly protect His Word when He has placed such preeminance.

Second: Psalm 100:5 For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.

God claims that His Truth endures to all generation. If it misses a generation, or if the Bible disappears then God lied.

Third: Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Here the contrasting of grass and the flower with the Word of our God gives the definition of preservation. The Bible will not be decay nor will it ever be destroyed.

Therefore the Perpetuity of the Scriptures is based in scripture.

I do not discount logical arguments. However, never make a one that supplants Biblical Revelation. The Perpetuity of the Scriptures is based in the Sovereignty of God. It is illogical to conclude that since we have manuscripts that have errors or even variants then this doctrine is incorrect.

You must prove that the Perpetuity of the Scriptures is false based on actual undeniable fact, not interpretation of evidence.

 

Quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet at the same time you trust Erasmus to collate the perfect Greek text? Surely you see the inconsistency here... You trust him to select at random a handful of incomplete mss and collate them into an inerrant text while denying that Nestle-Aland was able to come up with an accurate text considering 100's if not 1000's.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

I rely on the Sovereignty of God. This argument requires me to accept that Erasmus did not collate the perfect Greek text (and please note that I already mentioned the straw man argument of a perfect text). First prove that He did not. Bring undeniable facts that his Greek text contains false or misleading inclusions (do not give opinion).

I do not accept Nestle-Aland because of the assumptions that they make when performing a textual criticism, namely that the Alexandrian text is superior because it dates older. When in fact, any corrupting of the text that was attempted began before any extant text that we have. Also, the early fathers quote from the TR line more than the Alexandian line (as soon as I again find the title of the book that details this I will post it). These assumptions of theirs are not held by all. Therefore, these assumptions must be proven.

Also, I will state that if God does not providentially work in the preservation of His Word, man cannot and will not do it.

 

I apologize if either you mistook the meaning of my post or if I was not clear enough about what I objected to. I also believe in the perpetuity of Scripture. What I would argue with is the assumptions you draw related to it such as the idea that if a mss line falls out of use it can only be because it was corrupt in addition to many of your other ideas that have weak support in evidence as well.

 

Quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------
You appear to have made up your mind what your conclusion would be then imparted on a single-minded journey to reach that pre-determined end.
-------------------------------------------------------------

I spent two years researching this subject (1996-1997). I used the NIV for a number of years prior. I tried to understand as much as I could without a working knowledge of Greek at the when I did research it. I may not be able to adequately present some of my findings but I do what I can and continue to research it.

The bottom line problem that I have is Textual Criticism that is the underlying factor of all of the modern translations. Somehow I am supposed to trust some man that I have never met nor know what his doctrines are. He tells me that he does trust worthy work yet he had to update his own work 27 times. None of the major translations used the most recent edition. And since Nestle-Aland had to correct themselves that many times should I wait to see if they do it again. This may sound critical and unscholarly - well it is. These are very simple and practical objections. I guess when they can be reliable on the simple and practical, then I may begin to trust them on the complex and scholarly.

If you can give me any solid reason that I should rely on them, without using Greek variant arguments, please tell me. I am open (it may not sound that way, but I am). God came down in the form of a man, how much more practical could He get when He died on the Cross to save me.

 

The reason that I come to that conclusion is because of Psalm 100:5. How can a mss line be part of the perpetuity if it is not present in every generation? How can it be preserved if it fades for a while? I cam accept if some how the line was in existence but we do not have the manuscripts today that they used. Is there any evidence that the Alexandrian line was in continual use between 900 AD and 1880 AD (dates may be off I do not have them in front of me right now)?

 

As do I. By His providence, we have over 5000 mss, 12000 witnesses, and 10000+ ancient versions. And while all of them have variants in wording, the substance of God's Word is preserved.

It is not my assertions and assumptions that we are debating, it is yours. I already gave a couple of arguments against Erasmus' text, whether you want to call it perfect, inerrant, or even just superior. I skimmed the link you provided about Rev. 22:19. It was long on words, long on argument, and short on proof. I recall the author citing one Gr. text that reads like the TR then reverting back to the "old Latin" argument.

In actuality, I think they give them more weight because they are presumed to be fewer generations from the originals. I am not trying to argue words with you but this is an important distinction. Being old doesn't make anything more accurate but being closer to the source does.

Even if your premise that someone "attempted" to corrupt the texts was accepted, you put the Byzantine in the same boat as the Alexandrian. Heresies arose throughout the Mediterranean area during that period, not just in Egypt. Any assumptions you apply to one line is just as valid for the other... the majority of mss might have just repeated an error many times.

As mentioned before, there is no such thing as a TR line.

In any event, you are the first person I have ever run across to make this claim. Every authority I have read has held the exact opposite view. In fact, this is widely considered a validation of the Alexandrian texts.

As must yours. Volumes have been written to prove the validity of the assumptions used by modern textual critics. The result has been that the vast majority of scholars agree with these methods over the simple majority method and especially over what appears to have been Erasmus' "method."

On this, we agree.

 

During the revival led by Josiah (II Kings 22), the book of the law which had been "lost" was found as they restored the house of the Lord. When read, he tore his clothes because they had so badly departed from God's law.

The heights of RCC heresy and suppression of true Christianity came between 700 AD and the late years of the Reformation. During the same period, muslim infidels controlled Egypt and the holy lands. I do not dispute that the BT is an accurate transmission of God's Word. However, when attempting to reconstruct the originals, I think consideration must be given to the line of text that contains the oldest mss especially since many of them seem to have been frozen in time so to speak.

 

You said,
I have no problem accepting God's word as is.It's not hard try it;your argument is built on sinking sand.

Perhaps someone else in this thread has already point this out... but...

When you say "God's word," I assume you are referring to the KJV? Assuming that you are --

Do you acknowledge that the KJV was the work of scholars who studied and referred to manuscripts and older Bible versions in the making of the KJV?
If so, then do you believe that the scholars of the KJV were able to choose variant readings and the proper translation for each and every reading in all the Old Testament and New Testament? If yes, then how did the KJV scholars achieve this?

 

It's different from the King James Bible.

Just because it does not read word-for-word like the KJV doesn't mean it's bad or untrustworthy. The KJV did not read word-for-word like the Bible versions that came before it -- should the KJV have been rejected since it was "different" from the other versions?

And, if you are tempted to bring up the ol' KJVO motto that "Things that are different are not the same," Please take a look at this web page:
http://www.kjvonly.org/gary/axiom_vs_thesis.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bible Versions Discussion Board

[ December 21, 2002, 01:02 AM: Message edited by: Gromit ]