Heretick or Divisive?

My personal opinion (for which I have no proof) is both. I believe that the message is 100 percent accurate. But at times the accuracy of the message hinges on the words that are used. God did allow the personality and education of the writer to play into the message. For example John 1:1 in the NT uses the same words as the LXX uses n Gen. 1:1. It is different than standard NT Greek of the day. It is without the article. It is a Septuagintalism. John's Greek is very poor compared to Paul's. But the differences are kind of fun to notice. Also there are many phrases that are of Jewish origin in the way they are written. For example "the woman of him" for wife.

I think we speak very similar to the way the Bible is written in a certain sense. At times we are very specific to use certain words to give the correct meaning to the message but at other times we make general statements. In the NT "All Cretans are liars" is one example.

 

From Webster's 1828:

VERB'AL, a. [L. verbalis.]

1. Spoken; expressed to the ear in words; not written; as a verbal message; a verbal contract; verbal testimony.

2. Oral; uttered by the mouth.

3. Consisting in mere words; as a verbal reward.

4. Respecting words only; as a verbal dispute.

5. Minutely exact in words, or attending to words only; as a verbal critic.

6. Literal; having word answering to word; as a verbal translation.

7. In grammar, derived from a verb; as a verbal noun.

8. Verbose; abounding with words. [Not in use.]

Now concerning many "added" words I would lean toward the "verbose", but we are talking about plenary and verbal inspiration, not limiting the Lord's Word by verbal translation.

We fuss about the verbatum, but fail to realize the plenary and verbal inspiration the Lord uses in holy men as they were moved by the Spirit to pen the Word of God. Did they actually and audibly "hear" word for word? Methinkest not, but were inspired. So would it be "murder" to say the KJB translators were "inspired" to present the full contextual meaning to the Word of God in the KJB/AV1611? Methinkest not.

I have a "Church" AV 1611 KJB. It has no references or footnotes, it does have a concordance. Am I somehow restrained from the meaning of the Word of God by this? No, not in the least, the Holy Spirit can guide a hungering and thristing for righteousness converted believer in the things of God can't He? Yes, of course! And I say this reverently.

Extra-biblical helps are meant to help, but the "added" words are not extra-biblical, they are inspired to present context.

 

That's what you're hearing! Whee!!!

 

Ok, let's follow this RABBIT path logically.
According to QS's unusual admission of why scribes ADDED to God's word, this will be justified:

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever, In the KJV, which ever REVISION.

QS, you've finally fallen off the deep end.
Why don't you go out and write your own version and add the above addition. After all, It promotes your doctrine. Therefore God will have to approve it.

 

So do you add Doctrine and Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price and The assumption of Moses, and also 2 Esdras? I forgot Bel and the Dragon and about 100 others too.

 

So do you add Doctrine and Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price and The assumption of Moses, and also 2 Esdras? I forgot Bel and the Dragon and about 100 others too. </font>[/QUOTE]How about them Scofield notes? Hey, they were inspired, too!!

Omighosh I am laughing too hard now.

KJV-onlies sound like evolutionists..... they come up with inconsistencies to cover up their previous inconsistencies.

 

Probably so in the voices inside your head.

The KJB translators could see the thought in the Greek text and the omission of previous scholars. Again, the superiority of the KJB.

Besides, are you people really speaking against the Holy Trinity now?

 

Uh, I believe you're stuck in the rabbits hole and don't understand the quotation marks, the words aren't "added" as you people presume, they are the proper translation of the passage.

Let's put the shoe on your head now; Do you suppose the context of I John 5 denies the agreement of the Father with the Son with the Holy Ghost? I beleive your "understanding" or I should say your lack, is evident, now you deny the Godhead. I suppose you would have God opposed to Himself, next thing we know you'll have Jesus beside Himself in the garden of Gethsemane. (that's all Three rolloing Their Eyes at you)

 

I believe you are saying the Father never said "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased"? Then you deny the Spirit came and lit upon Him in the Form of a dove? hmmm? Prime example of the lunacies associated with the false doctrines propigated by w/h who didn't even believe the Bible.

 

So do you add Doctrine and Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price and The assumption of Moses, and also 2 Esdras? I forgot Bel and the Dragon and about 100 others too. </font>[/QUOTE]You got the heebee gb's? Anything that isn't the Bible is extra Biblical. You do seem well versed in the references you've mentioned.westcoot and hort have taught you well. Maybe I haven't said this to "fit" your twisted ear just right, after all you can't put a straight stick in a twisted hole unless you screw it in.

 

Ok lr17 let's see you read your book without any of those "added" words. Don't you think you'd look rather foolish? Of course then you would have to leave out what w/h added in contradiction to Doctrine/ Bible Doctrine. Amazing, even what two heretics who didn't even believe the Bible would say.

Let's borrow what Wesley has to say in his notes, you do belive John Wesley had insight do you not?

Verse 7
[7] For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

What Bengelius has advanced, both concerning the transposition of these two verses, and the authority of the controverted verse, partly in his "Gnomon," and partly in his "Apparatus Criticus," will abundantly satisfy any impartial person.

For there are three that testify — Literally, testifying, or bearing witness. The participle is put for the noun witnesses, to intimate that the act of testifying, and the effect of it, are continually present. Properly, persons only can testify; and that three are described testifying on earth, as if they were persons, is elegantly subservient to the three persons testifying in heaven.

The Spirit — In the word, confirmed by miracles.

The water — Of baptism, wherein we are dedicated to the Son, (with the Father and Spirit,) typifying his spotless purity, and the inward purifying of our nature.

And the blood — Represented in the Lord's supper, and applied to the consciences of believer. And these three harmoniously agree in one - In bearing the same testimony,-that Jesus Christ is the divine, the complete, the only Saviour of the world.

Verse 8
[8] And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

And there are three that testify in heaven — The testimony of the Spirit, the water, and the blood, is by an eminent gradation corroborated by three, who give a still greater testimony.

The Father — Who clearly testified of the Son, both at his baptism and at his transfiguration.

The Word — Who testified of himself on many occasions, while he was on earth; and again, with still greater solemnity, after his ascension into heaven, Revelation 1:5; Revelation 19:13.

And the Spirit — Whose testimony was added chiefly after his glorification, 1 John 2:27; John 15:26; Acts 5:32; Romans 8:16.

And these three are one — Even as those two, the Father and the Son, are one, John 10:30. Nothing can separate the Spirit from the Father and the Son. If he were not one with the Father and the Son, the apostle ought to have said, The Father and the Word, who are one, and the Spirit, are two. But this is contrary to the whole tenor of revelation. It remains that these three are one. They are one in essence, in knowledge, in will, and in their testimony. It is observable, the three in the one verse are opposed, not conjointly, but severally, to the three in the other: as if he had said, Not only the Spirit testifies, but also the Father, John 5:37; not only the water, but also the Word, John 3:11; John 10:41; not only the blood, but also the Holy Ghost, John 15:26, etc. It must now appear, to every reasonable man, how absolutely necessary the eighth verse is 1 John 5:8. St. John could not think of the testimony of the Spirit, and water, and blood, and subjoin, "The testimony of God is greater," without thinking also of the testimony of the Son and Holy Ghost; yea, and mentioning it in so solemn an enumeration. Nor can any possible reason be devised, why, without three testifying in heaven, he should enumerate three, and no more, who testify on earth. The testimony of all is given on earth, not in heaven; but they who testify are part on earth, part in heaven. The witnesses who are on earth testify chiefly concerning his abode on earth, though not excluding his state of exaltation: the witnesses who are in heaven testify chiefly concerning his glory at God's right hand, though not excluding his state of humiliation. The seventh verse, therefore, with the sixth, 1 John 5:7,6 contains a recapitulation of the whole economy of Christ, from his baptism to pentecost; the eighth, 1 John 5:8 the sum of the divine economy, from the time of his exaltation. Hence it farther appears, that this position of the seventh 1 John 5:7,8 and eighth verses, which places those who testify on earth before those who testify in heaven, is abundantly preferable to the other, and affords a gradation admirably suited to the subject.


Hmmm? Now I suppose yall will say we are supposed to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost? I didn't know this board is overrun by the "Jesus Only" bunch.

 

In the words of the KJ translators all translations are the Word of God even the "meanest" of them.

"as the Spirit leads" The Spirit of God will lead (not force, we must willingly follow His leading) each of us into all truth. He knows our needs, our personality, etc.

Whatever Bible version is suitable for you personally, IMO, He can and does use.

After all, He inspired the originals and He knows where all the introduced human flaws in the copies are.

Personally, I have come to the conclusion that the Lord did not preserve the original MSS in order that our highest exercise in faith and wisdom seeking would be directed to He Himself.

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

...the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

 

QS,

Wow. Where to begin?

Find a dictionary, and look up the word "deny".

 

So do you add Doctrine and Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price and The assumption of Moses, and also 2 Esdras? I forgot Bel and the Dragon and about 100 others too. </font>[/QUOTE]You got the heebee gb's? Anything that isn't the Bible is extra Biblical. You do seem well versed in the references you've mentioned.westcoot and hort have taught you well. Maybe I haven't said this to "fit" your twisted ear just right, after all you can't put a straight stick in a twisted hole unless you screw it in.
</font>[/QUOTE]When I was in seminary Westcott and Hort were never talked about. I have been involved in textual criticism with the Hebrew and Greek texts. We simply studied the texts and their variants. In fact some changes were made to the UBS 3 because some of the students took a closer look at the internal and external evidence of some texts. I am sure the committee would do the same if you were to do some serious textual study.

Maybe you need to study a straight stick to see what it looks like because the way you tell a crooked stick is to lay a straight one next to it.

You may want to apply a case of Prov 18:17, "He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him." and if you cannto understand that read it in the NASU95, "The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him."

You have only read one side of the case.

I noticed that you seemed to think it is okay to add words to the text of scripture. Isn't that dishonest to add words and call it scripture? What kind of integrity is that?

Instead of lame excuses or reasoning why not give us some facts to support your claims? Facts speak for themselves.

 

Since when is asking a question making an accusation?

 

I believe it is fully permissable to pen inspriation into words comprising scripture. I don't see where you are the ruler over scripture or the mss you adhere to, especially those tainted with several contradictions and none really agreeing.

How about the facts that the passage in I John 5:7,8 relate the truth? Isn't that why we have a Bible? to know truth?