MIS-CHARACTERIZATIONS OF MVs OR nonKJVOs?

Paidagogos, what i mean by BASICS are such questions as, "WHERE IS THE AUTHORITY FOR KJVO?
What about KJVO's total lack of Scriptural support, either empirical or implied? Is KJVO of God, or man, along with PROOF for your answer? Is the Geneva Bible a valid version? God promised to preserve His word unto all generations, so what about the 1500 + years between Revelation and the AV 1611?

That's just for starters. If you can get past these basics, then you can move from milk to meat. Without satisfying these basics, you're eating meat while having no teeth or building a structure from the roof down.

Please don't take this as a personal insult. It's just that we sometimes have a well-educated person tell us plebeians how ignorant we are, while in reality being as the fleet base runner who ran home, but missed first base-CALLED "OUT".

 

Facts? We don't disagree on the facts--it's just the interpretation and meaning where we differ. The facts are what exists. MSS exists and there's variability among the MSS. Also, the KJV has been edited over the years. So what? However, there are good arguments against W-H. Read my other posts questioning their assumptions and scientific methodology. If I have to spoon feed you with pabulum, then don't try to debate me.

Dead and gone? So what? There's an evolution of critical text theory here. Modern textual criticism, as a whole generally, is founded on W-H. The exception is the Majority Text position. It's a good idea to know where your ideas originate. Modern criticism doesn't want to be tied to the more obvious errors of W-H with good reason. However, I see strong parallels with organic evolution now that modern evolutionists are highly embarrassed by the foibles of earlier evolutionary theory. They still believe in organic evolution as fact even though the earlier foundational theories are in disrepute and disgrace.

I never said that! My point is not that older is necessarily better but that the Bible-believing church collectively lead by the Holy Spirit has accepted the KJV as the Bible of choice in the English speaking world for four hundred years. Compare this process to the canonization of Scripture, which was not a matter of scholarship, creeds, and councils. It was a matter of usage and acceptance by the believing church.

Furthermore, you are begging the question (if you know anything about debate). Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that just because it is not found in extant Greek MSS that it did not exist in the original? Suppose this was left out very early in the copying and the few early manuscripts containing it are now lost. You are arguing from an unsupported assumption. There is historical evidence for the Johannian Comma. The same is true for Mark 16. I reject your assumptions and place more confidence in God’s preservation and acceptance by the believing church than your so-called scholarship, assumptions, and theories.

I anticipate that you will point out my assumptions as well. True, I am making certain assumptions but you will either agree with the same in canonization, accept the authority of councils and creeds, or open the door to other inspired Scriptures. I like the last two least. Take your pick.

 

1John 3:14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.

 

Facts? We don't disagree on the facts--it's just the interpretation and meaning where we differ. The facts are what exists. MSS exists and there's variability among the MSS. Also, the KJV has been edited over the years. So what? However, there are good arguments against W-H. Read my other posts questioning their assumptions and scientific methodology. If I have to spoon feed you with pabulum, then don't try to debate me.

Dead and gone? So what? There's an evolution of critical text theory here. Modern textual criticism, as a whole generally, is founded on W-H. The exception is the Majority Text position. It's a good idea to know where your ideas originate. Modern criticism doesn't want to be tied to the more obvious errors of W-H with good reason. However, I see strong parallels with organic evolution now that modern evolutionists are highly embarrassed by the foibles of earlier evolutionary theory. They still believe in organic evolution as fact even though the earlier foundational theories are in disrepute and disgrace.

I never said that! My point is not that older is necessarily better but that the Bible-believing church collectively lead by the Holy Spirit has accepted the KJV as the Bible of choice in the English speaking world for four hundred years. Compare this process to the canonization of Scripture, which was not a matter of scholarship, creeds, and councils. It was a matter of usage and acceptance by the believing church.

Furthermore, you are begging the question (if you know anything about debate). Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that just because it is not found in extant Greek MSS that it did not exist in the original? Suppose this was left out very early in the copying and the few early manuscripts containing it are now lost. You are arguing from an unsupported assumption. There is historical evidence for the Johannian Comma. The same is true for Mark 16. I reject your assumptions and place more confidence in God’s preservation and acceptance by the believing church than your so-called scholarship, assumptions, and theories.

I anticipate that you will point out my assumptions as well. True, I am making certain assumptions but you will either agree with the same in canonization, accept the authority of councils and creeds, or open the door to other inspired Scriptures. I like the last two least. Take your pick.
</font>[/QUOTE]To prove that 1 John was never in the originals is like proving that you were born. You cannot. You assume you were born because what you have seen numerous times would indicate that you are no different. The likelihood that 1 John 6:7,8 wasn’t is far greater than that it did. We now have a manuscript that dates to the second century and it is not there. I see no reason whatsoever that any scribe would have left out that passage intentionally because it supports the trinity. Do you? Therefore the likelihood that it was ever there is almost zero. If those verses are left out in every manuscript at every location before the sixteenth century don’t you think there is a good chance that it never existed?

” I reject your assumptions and place more confidence in God’s preservation and acceptance by the believing church than your so-called scholarship, assumptions, and theories.”
It is a known fact that none of the manuscripts have contained 1 John 5:7,8 until after the 16th century. That is not a theory.

If there was nothing to preserve then it never existed. If the early church never quoted the passage until the sixteenth century then how could you show that it ever existed. If they didn’t have it how could it have been preserved and quoted. It was never quoted until the sixteenth century. So your assumption is without basis.

”My point is not that older is necessarily better but that the Bible-believing church collectively lead by the Holy Spirit has accepted the KJV as the Bible of choice in the English speaking world for four hundred years”.

If you notice that as time has gone by translations have come at a more rapid pace due to language changes. Changes have had to be made because words have changed meaning more quickly. Therefore a translation is not good for as long as it once was. Just even look at the time between each revision of the KJV 1611. They have the same problem in Germany with the Luther Bible and the newer translations.

”You are arguing from an unsupported assumption. There is historical evidence for the Johannian Comma. The same is true for Mark 16

I am not aware of any so could you give me some. If you find Mark 16 be scripture then are you practicing it in your services and worship? Some do and have lost their lives as a result.

Mark 16:17,18, “These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

Do you speak with new tongues? Do you pick up serpents? Do you drink deadly poison?

Do you practice what you consider scripture?

 

Thank you all of you! I now understand this whole KJB Only stuff!

In 1611 God preserved for all mankind in all nations, languages and cultures His perfectly preserved word in the perfect KJV. In 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769 the perfect KJV was made more perfect. In1881 it was made still more perfect. In 1901 it was made still more perfect. In 1952 it was made still more perfect. In 1960 it was made still more perfect. In 1971 it was made still more perfect. In 1989 it was made still more perfect. In 1995 it was made still more perfect. At this rate, someday the perfectly preserved KJV will be perfect. At the present time, the NASB 1995 update is the most perfectly preserved version of God’s perfectly preserved word available in English.

1. The 1629 edition - This edition was simply put forth in order to correct the printer's errors. Two of the King James Bible translators, Dr. Samuel Ward and John Bois, assisted in this edition.
2. The 1638 edition - This edition also dealt with the printers' errors, mainly the whole words and phrases accidentally left out by the printers. Approximately 72% of the around 400 textual corrections made to the King James Bible were completed and included in the 1638 Cambridge edition.
3. The 1762 edition - This edition was simply to correct the spelling according to the standardization of spelling. The spelling of 1611 was often different from person to person and there was no set standard of spelling. By 1762 the English spelling of words had been standardized and the 1611 was corrected.
4. The 1769 edition - This edition was only 7 years after the 1762 edition's correction of the spelling. This edition was only the final completion of the spelling corrections.

1881-885 RSV
1901 ASV
1946-1952 RSV
1960 NASB
1971 RSV with the second edition of the N.T.
1989 NRSV
1995 NASB Update

 

Ah yes, love my Ruckman
IF the unnamed KJV edition has the
Johannine Comma, change the Greek source
to follow suit. Can you believe from
the same mouth that comes this sweet
also comes sour: Ruckman decrys
the changing the Greek source by
Hort and whatishisface?

 

Rebrent wrote,

Tertullian actually wrote,

"We have indeed, likewise, a second font, (itself withal one with the former, ) of blood, to wit; concerning which the Lord said, "I have to be baptized with a baptism," when He had been baptized already. For He had come "by means of water and blood," just as John has written; that He might be baptized by the water, glorified by the blood; to make us, in like manner, called by water, chosen by blood. These two baptisms He sent out from the wound in His pierced side, in order that they who believed in His blood might be bathed with the water; they who had been bathed in the water might likewise drink the blood. This is the baptism which both stands in lieu of the fontal bathing when that has not been received, and restores it when lost."

Notice that Tertullian does not quote any of the "Johannine Comma" at all, but that his quote is from verse 6.

Cyprian actually wrote,

"The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one;' and again it is written of the Father and of the son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'"

Notice that Cyprian is not necessarily quoting the "Johannine Comma." He may have merely been interpreting the first part of verse 8 and quoting the last part of the same verse. The matter is not certain.

 

1John 3:14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, come on! For crying out loud, don't turn pious here. There is no malice, implied or otherwise, in my post. Your insinuation is false. Perhaps you ought to check your own motives and thoughts. I have nothing against this brother. I'm doing my best to win an argument. There's nothing personal. It's rather like the chatter at a good baseball game. It's okay for you guys to bash and ridicule the KJVO crowd until someone gives as much to you--then it is cry baby time. One reason that I am defending the KJVO crowd is because of the smug, condescending little attitudes being expressed toward these people. So, get a mirror and check out your own eyes before you begin messing around in mine. I don't trust your poking around and your trembling hand.

 

1. Authority? (a)Acceptance by the Bible-believing church in the English speaking world for 400 years. (b) A belief that God has promised to preserve His word. Where is your authority for an eclectic text?
2. Proof? The Bible is a book of faith. You accept or reject it by faith. There's no proof. The nature of revelation is such that it is rational but not provable (i.e. testable). You can't PROVE that God exists. You may marshall arguments but you can't prove the thesis one way or the other.
3. Is the Geneva Bible a good Bible? Yes, as well many others but the KJV has been the standard for 400 years. Nuff said. There's too much to discuss and not enough time but all this is really irrelevant.
4. Did God preserve His Word from the first century through 1611? Most certainly. It existed in Latin for those who could read it.

Robycop, I fear you are mixed up about what is basic. All these things are just trivia. The basics are more concerned with the concept of a received text tradition than necessarily its most accepted translation, the KJV. Your questions have absolutely nothing to do with the real basic issue: "Is there an eclectic text more accurate than the so-called TR?" If so, how? Just what standard, other than your own a priori assumptions, are you using? Since you asked me for Scriptural support, do you have Scriptural support? BTW, the burden of proof is in your court since the KJV/TR traditional text was the accepted standard and any modern text is the upstart. So, prove your claim. Give me an objective standard to compare.

Robycopy, just what makes you think that I am educated. This is twice that you have alluded to my education. You don't even know me or anything about me. I even use poor grammar and unacceptable lingo (e.g. ain't) at times. Now, this is a novel argument! Oh, I'm just a poor, ignorant farm boy that tries to think for himself sometimes. You won't find much spit and polish on me. Or, I may have six bogus doctorates from the finest mail-order degree mills in the country. Some preachers do. No, I'm as plain as an old brown shoe. Thanks for the compliment though.

 

Rebrent wrote,

I have further considered the quote from Cyprian and it is clear to me that he was NOT quoting the "Johannine Comma."

Now let’s consider Priscillian. Priscillian, in his Latin work, Contra Varimadum, did quote the "Johannine Comma" (in Latin).

Now let’s consider the Latin manuscripts. Dr. Raymond E. Brown, in his commentary of the Epistles of John writes on p. 779,

"As for the Comma itself, in the MSS. known to us it does not appear in the OL until after A.D. 600, nor in the Vg until after 750, although obviously these MSS reflect an already existing tradition. Even then its appearance is geographically limited, for until near the end of the first millennium the Comma appears only in Latin NT MSS. of Spanish origin or influence." These include:

•Palimpsest of Leon Cathedral: OL-Vg, seventh century Spanish origin.
•Fragment of Freising: OL-Vg, seventh century, Spanish.
•Codex Cavensis: Vg, ninth century, Spamsh.
•Codex Complutensis: Vg, tenth century, Spanish.
•Codex Toletanus: Vg. tenth century, Spanish.
•Codex Theodulphianus: Vg, eighth or ninth century, Franco-Spanish
•Some Sangallense MSS.: Vg, eighth or ninth century, Franco-Spanish

If we try to go back beyond the evidence of our extant MSS.2 it is not clear that The Comma was included in the text of I John when St. Peregnnus edited the Vulgate in Spain in the fifth century. After a stage when the Comma was written in the margin, it was brought into the Latin text in or before the time of Isidore of Seville (early seventh century). In the period of the Spaniard Theodulf (d. 821), who served in France as bishop of Orleans, the Comma was brought from Spain and made its way into some of the copies of the Vg written in the Carolingian era. Nevertheless,in a survey of some 258 MSS. of the Vg in the National Library of Paris, among those predating the twelfth century more lacked the Comma than had it."

Now let’s consider the Greek manuscripts. Dr. Raymond E. Brown, in his commentary of the Epistles of John writes on pp. 776-777,

"A. The Textual Evidence before 1500
The key to the Comma lies in the history of the Latin Bible in Spain, but first let us discuss the non-Latin evidence (or lack thereof) pertinent to the Comma.

1. The Non-Latin Evidence
The italicized words above that constitute the Comma appear in only eight among some five thousand known Greek biblical MSS. and lectionaries; and in none of the eight can they be dated before A.D. 1400. In four of the eight the Comma appears in the text; in the other four it is a marginal addition serving as an alternative or variant reading. The eight are as follows according to the Gregory enumeration:

•61: the Codex Montfortianus (Britannicus), an early-sixteenth-century MS. at Trinity College, Dublin.4 This codex was copied from an earlier Lincoln (Oxford) Codex (326) that did not have the Comma. Insertions elsewhere in Montfortianus have been retroverted from the Latin.
•629: the Codex Ottobonianus at the Vatican. It is of the fourteenth or fifteenth century and has a Latin text alongside the Greek, which has been revised according to the Vulgate.
•918: an Escorial (Spain) MS. of the sixteenth century.
•2318: a Bucharest (Rumania) MS. of the eighteenth century influenced by
the Clementine Vulgate.
•88vl: a variant reading of the sixteenth century added to the twelfth-century
Codex Regius at Naples.
•221vl: a variant reading added to a tenth-century MS. in the Bodleian Li-
brary at Oxford.
•429vl: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century MS. at Wolfenbuttel.
•636vl: a variant reading added to a fifteenth-century MS. at Naples.

It is quite clear from a survey of this evidence that the Comma in a form probably translated from the Latin was added very late to a few Greek MSS. by scribes influenced by its presence in Latin MSS. Within the uncontaminated Greek tradition the Comma is never quoted by a Greek author of the first Christian millennium. This silence cannot be dismissed as accidental; for the genuine Greek text of I John 5:7 is quoted (e.g., three times by Cyril of Alexandria) without the Comma. And there is no reference to the Comma by the Greeks even in the midst of the trinitarian debates when it would have been of help were it known. Indeed, the first instance of the appearance of the Comma in Greek seems to have been in a translation of the Latin Acts of the IV Lateran Council (1215). Later Manuel Kalekas (d. 1410), who was heavily influenced by Latin thought, translated the Comma into Greek from the Vulgate."

Now let’s consider the ancient versions other than the Latin. Dr. Raymond E. Brown, in his commentary of the Epistles of John writes on p. 777,

"If we turn from the Greek to ancient versions other than the Latin, we note that the Comma is absent from all pre-1500 copies of the Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, and Slavonic translations of the NT—an incredible situation if it were once part of the original Greek text of I John."

 

paidagogos replied:
This is a good, valid point. However, I am trying to raise the possibility because it is not an open and shut case. A lot of MSS were destroyed in the fourth century. An early omission could result in many daughter MSS with the omission if it survived. We really don't know a lot about those early MSS. The eclectic guys seem to think they know it all and have all the arguments and data in their corner. Not so.

We must consider how it came to be anyway. Why was it inserted? When? By whom? How do you know? I know there are speculations about these questions but no compelling answers. We must assume that we have lost the data that could have given us the answer. When in doubt, don’t. Leave it in.

 

Paidagogos wrote,

Almost all of the contemporary translations of the Bible include the J. Comma, either in the text or in the margin or a footnote. The current situation is that the manuscript evidence for the J. Comma is very poor (see my post immediately above yours). Should it be completely left out of contemporary translations? No, it belongs in the margin or in a footnote.

[ February 01, 2004, 10:45 PM: Message edited by: Craigbythesea ]

 

And the KJVO's still claim to be right!

 

I'm sure that they know that we are right—they just argue for the fun of it.

 

Yes 1 John 5:7.8 was in the Latin Vulgate, a Latin translation, but not any manuscript until the 16th century.

 

Rbrent wrote,

Rbrent,

I see that you are quoting Cyprian out of context, making it look as though he wrote something that he did not write. Here is the quote in context:

"The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one;' and again it is written of the Father and of the son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'"

The only quote from 1John 5 in this quote from Cyprian is this, "And these three are one," quoted from verse 8 which is not part of the J. Comma.