"This is my body which is ________ for you?"

RSR, I probably worded my response wrong. I'm with you on this. This argument has destroyed otherwise sound churches, and I hate to see it happen.

Originally posted by tinytim.....

At least I won't have to apologize to God for slandering his words in the NIV.


That is what I was addressing.


The KJV is a translation, a good translation, but still, a translation. It is not inspired obove the original texts, nor does it correct any errors, nor will KJVO's get a mansion on the upper east side opf Heaven, while the MV users get stuck in the slums.

Sorry about the misunderstanding.

 

When the soldiers came to brake the legs of the men on the crosses. They did not brake Jesus' legs because he was already dead. Therefore, his bones were not broken, but I believe Paul is talking about the heart of Jesus.

BTW, great posts Precepts.

 

This is to let everyone know that I took no offense with Precepts comments. He knows that I'm not a cult member, It was a personal joke.

Anyway, back on topic, I see no contradiction in the KJB either. The only way for Christ to be given to us was to be broken. And no, I'm not talking about his bones. I also agree that his heart was broken.

I simply believe that the Holy Spirit decided to use two differing words to describe the same action.

Since Paul wasn't there he had to hear it from someone that was., I'm sure the other apostles filled him in. Later, he wrote what (through the Holy Spirit) he remembered. I'm sure Luke did the same thing.

Just my thoughts.
BTW, Dr Bob, I appreciate the "small" sarcasm.

 

OK Dr. Bob,

Which Gospel got the placard above the cross correct?

 

The only problem with the "it doesn't belong there" theory is that the word "broken" is found in the third corrector of Aleph, the third corrector of C, the second and third corrector of D, G, K, P, Psi, 81, 88, 104, 181, 326, 330, 436, 451, 614, 629, 630, 1241, 1739 (marginal), 1877, 1881, 1962, 1984, 1985, 2127, 2492, 2495, all the Byzantine mss, all the Lectionaries, plus the early versions and many of the Church Fathers.

In fact, the only manuscripts which omit the reading "klwmenon" (broken) are p46, Aleph (prior to correction), A, B, C (prior to correction), 33, and 1739 (prior to correction) and six Church Fathers.

So, the manuscript evidence seems to favor the inclusion of the word.

 

Paul wasn't quoting Luke, He was quoting what he received of the Lord:

1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
1Co 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

 

Originally posted by Daniel David:
Look, I know that it can be theologically explained to mean something other than his bones, but that isn't the issue.

We don't have to go that deep, just check a good dictionary.

The issue is that the KJV translators, errrrggggg, pope worshipers, added more of their pathetic anglican influence into the translation.

I thought this was a purely textual issue?

I honestly tire of posting the errors and horrible examples of pathetic translations in the KJV only to have the KJVO folks cover their ears and blab blah blah blah. Sheeagle, grannygumbo, askjo, timothy1769, AA, are just a few of the guilty ones.

It sounds like you despise the KJV and some of your brothers too. If only we would properly love one another instead. It's not just you, I confess I felt an unkind urge to "slap you down" and "put you in your place" when I first read your post, so please forgive me for that.

Looks to me like we both have a long way to go.

 

I agree, but let me play devil's advocate.

How can they have all gotten it correct? They all report something slightly different.

 

I disagree, it's exactly parallel. For all we know, there was another word (that didn't matter) placed on the sign as well, that NNE reported.

Paul's account IS just as much an historical account as the others, explicitly received from the Lord Himself. Just as with the sign, all the reports of the last supper are complementary, not contradictory. You can put them all together to get the fullest picture in just exactly the same way.

Simply put, if this line of reasoning works for the sign, it works for Jesus's words at the last supper too. After all, all concerned* got their info DIRECTLY from the Lord Himself, so Paul and the four evangelists all stand on exactly the same ground here.

* Excluding Luke and Mark, but since their writings were equally inspired by the Holy Ghost, it really doesn't matter.

 

Was the Lord's body "broken" or not? Yes. Paul was not wrong. The KJB is not wrong.

 

First, UBS/NA could be wrong, and does not represent the final authority. Even UBS/NA admits their confidence in the correctness of that omission is only a "B."

Second, "you KJVOs" could not be more wrong. I am not now nor have I ever been KJVO. I am one of the most vocal opposers of KJVO.

Third, as Paul was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit he may have included that which was given but not recorded in the Gospel account (John 21:25) or Jesus Himself may have been giving the words to Paul. Whatever the case, the manuscript evidence is stronger in support of the reading than the manuscript evidence against it.

Forth, well, there is no forth.

 

So now do we have the product of the democratic process by the majority rule?

Why deny you're KJVO? You fit somewhere in their labeling scheme,why they even fit into at least the # 1 label, we're all KJVO's!

But why not just use common sense? Is that too simple for the "highly edjurmacated"?

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

Pastor Bob
What right, or by what authority do we have to determine whether the Apostle Paul, who was inspired by God Almighty to write what he wrote, and is given authorization to be of the scriptures, to decide what it was he wrote? If the majority of the texts include this word, there should be no questioning it. To make a decision based solely upon the fact that the gospels did not mention this, and denying all those manuscripts that make it quite evident that this was something that Paul said, is denying and usurping the authority of the Apostle Paul, and in reality the authority of God Almighty Himself.

May the Lord richly bless you all!

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle