Psalm 12 and 1 John 5:7

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by kman, Jan 24, 2003.

  1. kman

    kman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2002
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does Ps 12 teach that God will preserve his perfect, pure words for every generation?

    If so..I have a question regarding 1 John 5:7 (the comma/trinitarian formula). How could the comma disappear from every known Greek manuscript except 8 late ones ( and it's in the margin of 4 of those)? Out of 5000 Greek manuscripts only 4 have it in the text and I think some of those were from the 15th century.

    If Ps 12 teaches that the perfect pure words of God are preserved for every generation..what implications does that have on the comma of 1 John 5:7?

    :confused:

    -kman
     
  2. Pure Words

    Pure Words
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    0
    No. it SAYS that God will preserve His WORDS.

    None. Who said that God only preserved His WORDS in the Greek language? This might be evidence that God's words have not been in greek for approx 1850 years?!?!?

    No. I forgot. It is much more comforatable to worship God according to lost manuscripts...
     
  3. kman

    kman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2002
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well..where did God preserve 1 John 5:7 then?
    Surely you're not going to tell me He preserved
    it in the apostate Roman Catholic Church's Latin
    Vulgate are you? And allowed it to disappear from every other witness?

    -kman
     
  4. Pure Words

    Pure Words
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well..where did God preserve 1 John 5:7 then?
    Surely you're not going to tell me He preserved
    it in the apostate Roman Catholic Church's Latin
    Vulgate are you? And allowed it to disappear from every other witness?

    -kman
    </font>[/QUOTE]No. He preserved EVERY word, jot, and tittle through various languages at various times in the local churches. These Bible do not exist anymore (completely) because catholics were killing these people and burning their Bibles. We do not have to have every edition of every real Bible to know that we have God's words today!
     
  5. kman

    kman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2002
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    0
    How do we know we have God's Words today?

    What criteria do you use?

    -kman
     
  6. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I posted this in another forum, so forgive me if it sound like I'm repeating myself. If you look at the original Hebrew that was used as the source for the KJV, this is what it literally says:

    Yahweh's commands are pure commands. Monetary silver, earthly furnace smelted, refined sevenfold. Yahweh to guard and protect this age eternal(ly).

    While the KJV authors read this to mean that the words of God will be protected and preserved, others tend to think that God's words are used to protect his people forever.

    One thing is clear to me in the Hebrew, however. This verse has NOTHING to do with the KJV being the preserved word of God.
     
  7. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    [ January 24, 2003, 08:49 PM: Message edited by: Scotty aka Scott J ]
     
  8. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Only the Hebrew has jots and tittles.

    How convenient... those dirty catholics killed the real Christians and destroyed all the real Bibles right up until the time 17th century Anglicans used a catholic scholar's Greek text to re-create the perfect, errorless Bible. That is an incredibly creative story... but can provide at least a shred of proof?

    BTW, this answer just doesn't quite jive with:

    1Peter 1:24 ΒΆ For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
    25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
     
  9. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,615
    Likes Received:
    6
    I've read a little about this--the Johannine Comma--myself, but I could probably read more. I'm certainly not KJO, but I believe the Majority Text is probably the more faithful witness to the original than the Critical text (which underlies most modern versions except the NKJV). I John 5:7 is one of those few places where the Received Text differs from the Majority Text, and since it is in the version I use (NKJV) I've often been curious about it.

    From what I've gathered, although the Comma has only been in a handful of late manuscripts, it MAY have been alluded to by some Early Church Fathers in the West when confronting the Arian heresy. There are also reportedly some OLD Latin (which precedes the Vulgate) manuscripts which contain it. Some have pointed to some grammatical problems which would disappear if the Comma was included. (I can't speak to this possibility, since I don't know much Greek). Others have pointed to that fact that the Comma uses the formula: "Father, WORD, and Holy Spirit" rather than the more familiar "Father, SON, and Holy Spirit", indicating that this may be more appropriately attributed to John rather than to some gloss from a later scribe incorporated into the text.

    As to why the Comma "fell out" of the Majority (or Byzantine) text, some have suggested that initially copying errors (spec. "homoeoteleuton") may have omitted the Comma in certain copies. Then, during the Sabellian controversey, the copies WITHOUT the Comma were more likely to be retained (the ones with the Comma being discarded), as some(heretics) could possibly interepret I John 5:7 from a modalistic viewpoint (ie the "three" merely signifying three MODES of "one" being rather than representing three distinct PERSONS). It is then speculated that the Comma was "retained" in the West for the opposite reason: the heresy fought there being Arianism which denied the unity of the Son and the Father.

    Whether all this is true or not, I don't know. It sounds intriguing, but I definitely need to research this more to see how plausible it really is. I just treat the Comma as POSSIBLY being part of the original text but not PROBABLY. At any rate, its teaching is not inconsistent with the rest of Scripture. OTOH, the Trinity can still be supported from the Bible in many more places without resorting to this particular verse.

    I could say more, but I'm going to bed... [​IMG]
     
  10. kman

    kman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2002
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting you should mention that. I was just reading Edward Hills defense of the comma and
    he mentions very similar reasons:

    http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdcha8.htm
    (see section 3)

    -kman
     
  11. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,615
    Likes Received:
    6
    Kman,
    I believe I have read that link before. There have also been a few other articles which made similar arguments but which emphasized the particular points to varying degrees. I've also SEEN (but not READ) an article on another site "debunking" the grammatical argument--I'm sure I'll get around to reading it at some point. My position right now is that I can't be dogmatic about either the Comma's inclusion in or exclusion from the original.
     
  12. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Psalm 12 is not speaking about the Word of God per se. We've seen that discussed and clarified many times. Only the rabid [my choice of words] kjvonlies would try to wrest Scripture to mean something it does not mean.

    And I jn 5 late addition has also been discussed. While some see cryptic reference to similar wording in Church Fathers, there is little or no proof of the passages authenticity.

    It is a late, marginal addendum that has added a lot of confusion to the Church over the years. Not that it is wrong or bad doctrine; just that it has corrupted some late-but-good Greek manuscripts. Not many, but a couple. :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page

Loading...