Genesis 3:15, Luke 4:4 - Gnostic?

The only thing I can think of in Genesis 3:15 is the use of offspring instead of seed and crush instead of bruise.

 

In the thread on Gnostism I placed the two verses in the KJV, NKJV, NIV and asked to be shown where is the gnostism. It has not been answered because it is not there. It seems to me these verses were pulled out of a hat, or book that someone else wrote and made that false statement and KJVO believed it without even looking at the verses.

Bro Tony

 

Wait, I got the answer on the other thread.

Now, that is a clear answer given by one who has great understand of statements he made.

Bro Tony

 

Get Jay's book, Gnostics,The New Versions, and The Deity of Christ. READ it for yourself!

 

I can't afford it. Post what he says or you can send me the book so I have it.

 

We don't need nor really want to read his book. I do want to know how the two verse mentioned prove gnostism in the MV's. Askjo, you posted it, we have read the verses, now tell us how they are gnostic in the MV's. If you are not willing to do this then I would suggest you stop making claims your unwilling to back up.

Bro Tony

 

Askjo, saying that the MVs have gnosticism in them is a very serious accusation. You should be willing to back it up. Don't you realize that by saying "buy Green's book" it looks like you are evading the question?

I would never make such a claim without being willing to post examples. Also, we should share here. If I have a book that someone wants info from, I am more than happy to post that info if I can to help them out. We can't all afford to buy books at the drop of a hat, so please share.

 

"I can't tell you what the Bible says, but buy Jay's book?"

Is that actually what is being said here?!?!

 

Since this thread is continuing the previously closed thread, I have two loose ends from Askjo that need to be tied up:

(Loose end #1):

Askjo: "I see, you talk about an unbelieving scholar Metzger."

Askjo, it is totally irrelevant to that story whether it came from Metzger or anyone else who happened to witness the event described, and the humorous nature of the addition found in that manuscript. As noted, the account of this (without any mention of Metzger) was published in the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, and has nothing to do with liberalism, Roman Catholicism, or anything more than the situation of the manuscript that had been discovered. No need to ignore the point (which was intended to be entertaining) by dragging in totally red herrings regarding liberalism. Ease up and learn to enjoy some posts rather than simply react...."Teeth *will* be provided!"

(Loose end #2):

Askjo: "Wrong! James declined to answer Stewart's questions because he is impossible to answer them. James confronted Ruckman, Waite, Gipp and others, but Stewart."

Ok, Askjo, I give up.

As you have so convincingly demonstrated, James White could *easily* take on the strongest advocates of supposed Gnostic influence upon the MVs and all their various arguments and documentation (Ruckman, Waite, Gipp, and don't forget Riplinger) -- but White was laid *totally helpless* by some unknown person named Stewart who made a verifiable error-filled post on the Usenet, who provided *no* real documentation, *no* new evidence, and who said absolutely *nothing* about supposed Gnostic influence on MVs that had not already been stated by Ruckman (explicitly mentioned by Stewart), Waite, Gipp, Ripp, and others.

This Stewart fellow has to be quite the man to be able to stymie James White in such a manner, since never have I seen or heard of James White being rendered so helpless. Ruckman, Waite, Gipp, or especially Riplinger should hire Stewart immediately to ghost-write their books for them. Then White will *never again* be able to show their errors. Amen? (SMNO)

Askjo: "I do not think you tell the truth."

Are you saying I am lying, then? God forbid. As God is my witness, I lie not.

Askjo: "What did this book say? Please give me what Jay wrote."

Excuse me? YOU have claimed that Green's book said it all. I and numerous others here have asked YOU to supply *one* chapter/verse reference where Green claims a Gnostic reading in the MVs. Since YOU made the claim in the first place, it was up to YOU to supply the reference. from Green. Apparently now you have cited Genesis 3:15 and Luke 4:4 -- are you sure that Green stated Gen 3:15 and not Gen 3:1-5? Take a look again to make sure. But indeed Lk 4:4 is typical of Green's cited variants. Now, please tell me how the variant in Lk 4:4 is Gnostic, since that was the claim.

While you're at it, read Green's preface to his Interlinear Bible or Interlinear Greek NT, as well as both volumes of his Unholy Hands on the Bible (all of which I have). Green sings the same song in all these books.

Askjo: "What did a book say? Please give me what YOU learned from him."

Learned? Or learned to *forget* since Green was wrong, misleading, and erroneous? But don't expect me or anyone else who knows Green to be in error to repeat his errors and claim that as a learning experience. The real learning experience is to learn to recognize Green's erroneous claims for what they are.

 

Now, that is a clear answer given by one who has great understand of statements he made.

Bro Tony </font>[/QUOTE]Wow, Bro! Do you think that this could mean that they actually don't have an example of gnosticism in the MV's? Er....Uh....Duh....

AVL1984

 

You can't have what is not there. It is easier to throw bombs and run never having to defend yourself personally or deal with the damage you've done.

Bro Tony

 

Yep, it's the same guy. It's like - do as I say, not do as I do.

 

Dr Bob: “Is this Jay Green the same fellow who translated a revision of the KJV (a modern version)? And he is condemning modern versions?”

One and the same. Green praises modernization of the KJV, particularly (and often *only*) if he is the one doing the modernizing. He generally has little good to say about the NKJV, KJ21 and other such modernizations, relegating all these as well as MVs to be part of a satanic conspiracy against God’s word.

Green opposes the MVs for basically the same (mostly wrong) reasons cited by almost all KJVOs. The humorous part is that most KJVOs reject Green as an evil “Bible corrector” just as though he were a pro-Alexandrian-text person.

OTOH, in terms of translational quality, Green is generally on target, even though his MKJV or LITV are so overly-literal as to read woodenly far too often. My biggest beef with Green’s translation is his inconsistency in rendering parallel passages with identical underlying Hebrew or Greek words (one need only compare Ps 14 and Ps 53 to see the point).

Green as “translator” himself is somewhat misleading, since he was dependent on a team of translators for the OT (see their names in early editions of his Interlinear Bible), and on certain “volunteer proofreaders” (read “translators”) in the NT.

He is careful to state in his various prefaces that he is the “translator” in the sense that he was the one finally responsible for accepting a particular word in cases where his helpers had offered various options. Many editions of his works no longer mention this fact, and some no longer mention even his team of helpers, leaving Green appearing as some sort of translational “expert”, totally unrecognized and bypassed by agencies like Wycliffe and the Bible Societies. Yet by his own testimony (published long ago in some of his own material) he admits he couldn’t even get the hang of first-year Greek (and that’s all he has had) without special tutoring on weekends for more than a calendar year and a half, and no mention whatever regarding any Hebrew abilities.

I would praise Green’s various teams of translational helpers more than the “translator” in this situation.

 

Are you a liar to buy your PC and pay monthy payment for your ISP? Sell your PC and buy Jay's book!