Grieve the Holy Spirit?

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Bluefalcon, Feb 13, 2005.

  1. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    4
    Just reading in Ephesians recently and noticed that the earliest Greek manuscript in the world containing Eph. 4:30 (p46 = papyrus manuscript #46) says: "And grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed unto the day of redemption."

    Just a note that we cannot put our full faith in the earliest manuscripts, for many of the earliest manuscripts are also the most <word not allowed when describing manuscripts per BB rules>.

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon

    [ February 13, 2005, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: Phillip ]
     
  2. LRL71

    LRL71
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    ^^^

    For one, your statement that the 'earliest' manuscripts are 'corrupt' is a violation of BB rules.
    Secondly, your baseless assertions haven't been proven. Prove your point without making a charge that you haven't substantiated with proof!

    So much for "KJV-only" 'scholarship'.... :rolleyes:
     
  3. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    He's right on the first count Bluefalcon. Use something like "less accurate" just to keep all of us in the clean. I think most of us know that you didn't have bad intentions here.


    LRL71, Bluefalcon is NOT a KJVo. He simply believes the older Alexandrian texts are not as accurate, which is his right. He has never pushed the mythical KJVo belief on anybody here.

    I'm not saying that I agree (or disagree) with him, but he is arguing textual accuracy to the originals and that is all. ;)
     
  4. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    The Holy Spirit is a BEING, with thoughts and personality, same as are Yahweh and Jesus. Therefore He can be grieved. I sure don't wanna do it!
     
  5. LRL71

    LRL71
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    Phillip,

    Thanks for the edit & info about Bluefalcon. I assumed that if one calls 'earlier mss' to be 'corrupt', it is easily assumed that such a person is a KJV-only. Such comments are the typical KJV-only modus operandi.
     
  6. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    No problemo, LRL71. [​IMG]
     
  7. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
  8. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    What's this for James? Just curious.
     
  9. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    9. Certain terms are off limits in this forum.
    For example:

    * The KJVO crowd will not not refer to the Modern Versions as "perversions," "satanic," "devil's bibles," etc...nor call those that use them "Bible correctors," "Bible doubters," etc.
    * The MV crowd will not refer to the KJVOs as "cults," "heretics," "sacrilegious," etc...nor refer to the KJV in derisive terms such as "King Jimmy's Bible," etc.

    So this 'rule' now extends to general comments about manuscripts? We just make 'corrupt' a four letter word? Double-plus ungood.
     
  10. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    4
    So we can't say that a biblical MS that commands us to grieve the Holy Spirit is not a corruption at that point? Textual criticism demands we do this, and not to do so is pure idiocy! I never called God's Word corrupt, and as you will note, no version ever at Eph. 4:30 commands us to grieve the Holy Spirit, only ONE single corruption in the midst of the earliest MS we have ever found containing Ephesians.

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon
     
  11. LRL71

    LRL71
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    ^^^^

    BlueFalcon,

    Do you honestly think that you can insult our intelligence about the veracity of the baseless statements in your first post? Instead of stating that the reading of the verse at hand (Eph. 4:30) in P46 was 'corrupt' (and, to back up your assertions with textual proof!), you said this:

    "Just a note that we cannot put our full faith in the earliest manuscripts, for many of the earliest manuscripts are also the most corrupt."

    I don't think that you were speaking about just the reading of the passage at hand! The spirit in which you accused 'the earliest manuscripts' was wrong, and now you say that you didn't mean what you said? You made a blanket statement about how you thought the 'earliest manuscripts' were corrupt-- in the nastiest sense. I believe your intentions were NOT as you have just stated them above, and if they weren't, you need to take what you said back with a fully-worded retraction. :mad:
     
  12. LRL71

    LRL71
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perhaps you might have read into something I didn't see, but to make a generalized and blanket statement that BlueFalcon did was NOT in the spirit of the rules of the BV/T forum. To say that the 'earliest manuscripts' are corrupt is 'Double-plus ungood', and will not stand here as becoming of proper etiquette. I am under the impression that BlueFalcon's intentions were other than what he just stated. :eek:
     
  13. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Perhaps BF could have resolved the problem by saying something like - "In this case this is clearly a corrupt section of this early manuscript."

    [ February 14, 2005, 08:10 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]
     
  14. LRL71

    LRL71
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    ^^^

    Thank you, C4K! [​IMG]

    That is exactly what I think he SHOULD have said. :rolleyes:
     
  15. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    On the other hand I would have to question the wisdom of questioning another poster's motivation:
    Lets all play nice guys. Things have been going VERY smoothly here of late ;) .

    Thanks
     
  16. Slambo

    Slambo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    0
    Burgon said it;he wasn't "KJVONLY".
    Numerous authors said it not being "KJVONLY."
    They were just declairing the obvious.
     
  17. LRL71

    LRL71
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lets all play nice guys. Things have been going VERY smoothly here of late ;) .

    Thanks
    </font>[/QUOTE]That's why you are the moderator, and to that effect, we commend you for your fairness in being the 'referee'! [​IMG]
     
  18. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Also, I hope all of you will please take into consideration that I am a new moderator and I will make mistakes. My view of this is to keep the debate on-track, within the rules of the board and be fair with EVERYBODY regardless of my beliefs (Even though I may post debating a position.)

    In this particular case, I felt the word should not be used to describe manuscripts in general and as C4K said, would be better to say that it is "a corruption of the manuscript".

    Since there is disagreement with which ARE the best manuscripts, it is not really fair to say that a "manuscript is corrupt", when we know that all manuscripts differ at points.

    I stand by my call.

    I just wanted to let all of you know where I am coming from and my views of the moderator position. If I am at fault, the other moderators will no doubt correct me and set me in the right direction.

    Sorry to go off subject, I just wanted to state my position here where you will see it.

    That's all I will say about this and I do commend the posters for keeping these threads quite civil over the past few days.

    Thank you!
    Phillip
     
  19. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Phillip is a very welcome addition to the moderating team.

    The proper adn decent thing to do when you disagree with a moderating decision is to PM the moderator rather than dealing with it in the open.

    Thanks
     
  20. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    4
    That the earliest MSS in general are the most different from all other MSS including the ones most relied on for making the critical Greek texts of our day is common knowledge. They predominate in "special" readings, i.e., those that "differ" from both the critical text (NA27/UBS4) and the Byzantine/Majority Consensus. They are thus described as "free", but almost all textual critics that favor the critical text spare no words for calling the Byzantine type of MSS "corrupt", the effect of later scribal "harmonizations", "improvements", "pious expansions", etc. The textual critical term for an error in the scribal transmission of the original text is "corruption".

    Now for my blanket statement: More early MS (3rd century & earlier) variations disagree with both the Byzantine Texttype AND the Critical Text (NA27/UBS4) more than they agree with either.

    For example, a ca. A.D. 200 papyrus #45 (p45), among its 125 variation units in Matthew & Mark:

    It agrees with the Byzantine Text 42 times (34%)
    It agrees with the NA27/UBS4 against Byzantine Text 18 times (14%)
    It reads against both of them 65 times (52%).

    POINTS:

    #1. The best textual scholars in the world believe the variations in p45 in Matthew and Mark are "corrupt" more than they are not.

    #2. p45 is usually the earliest MS extant for its portions containing Matthew and Mark.

    #3. The portions of Matthew and Mark extant in one of the earliest MSS ever discovered are NOT followed by any textual scholar more than they are followed.

    #4. The earliest MSS are not necessarily the most reliable. Many times they are percentage-wise the most "different" (although you know what this word really means!).

    I've read the rules and wish to abide by them. However, anything that is not the original text, isn't that a corruption? Are the rules saying we can't debate what is and isn't a corruption? Or do we simply need to call it something different, like a "difference" or something else even?

    Don't mean to ruffle anyone's feathers here.

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon
     

Share This Page

Loading...