Companion Thread for KJV only debate

[brandplucked]

Mr. Religion and his elusive 'inerrant bible'

Mr. Religion and his elusive 'inerrant bible'

Let's first clarify the distinction between verbal inspiration and inerrancy.

Inerrancy relates to the truth contained in a statement.
Inspiration relates to the Scriptures' wording.

Only the original text of Scripture is inspired.

Copies of Scripture can certainly be inerrant. For example, we have sufficient data in the extant witnesses (manuscripts, etc.) to construct the original New Testament in virtually every place. In other words, the original can be recovered from the materials that exist.

The Evangelical Theological Society affirms: “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.”

So, when I hold the original autographs of Scriptures to be inerrant (and I do claim this), I claim that when all the facts are known and proper interpretations are applied, the Scriptures are completely true in all that they assert or affirm, including doctrine, morality, social, life, or physical sciences.

The bottom line is that the viable textual variants that exist, i.e., the variants that may legitimately represent the original wording, in many manuscripts we have in our possession do not jeopardize any salvific doctrine.

Mr. Religion. You give us several statements that are completely false. You tell us that "Only the original text of Scripture is inspired.", yet The Bible says that what Timothy had in his home was the holy scriptures and that the scripture is given by inspiration of God. Whom should I believe, your statement or the Bible's?

You also tell us: "we have sufficient data in the extant witnesses (manuscripts, etc.) to construct the original New Testament in virtually every place. In other words, the original can be recovered from the materials that exist."

Oh really? Would this be the N.T. according to versions like the NKJV which has some 45 entire verses in its text that the RSV omits, or the NIV that omits 17 entire verses plus another couple thousand other words besides? And that is not even mentioning the scores upon scores of places where none of your modern versions follow the same texts in the Old Testament?

Maybe you missed these quotes from some of your modern version buddies. Look. There is even one from 1998 by Mr. Epps.

The neutral method of Bible study leads to skepticism concerning the New Testament text. This was true long before the days of Westcott and Hort. As early is 1771 Griesbach wrote, "The New Testament abounds in more losses, additions, and interpolations, purposely introduced then any other book." Griesbach's outlook was shared by J. L. Hug, who in 1808 advanced the theory that in the second century the New Testament text had become deeply degenerate and corrupt and that all extant New Testament texts were but editorial revisions of this corrupted text.

As early as 1908 Rendel Harris declared that the New Testament text had not at all been settled but was "more than ever, and perhaps finally, unsettled." Two years later Conybeare gave it as his opinion that "the ultimate (New Testament) text, if there ever was one that deserves to be so called, is for ever irrecoverable."

H. Greeven (1960) also has acknowledged the uncertainty of the neutral method of New Testament textual criticism. "In general," he says, "the whole thing is limited to probability judgments; the original text of the New Testament, according to its nature, must be and remains a hypothesis."

Robert M. Grant (1963) adopts a still more despairing attitude. "The primary goal of New Testament textual study," he tells us, "remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We have already suggested that to achieve this goal is well-nigh impossible." Grant also says: "It is generally recognized that the original text of the Bible cannot be recovered."

"...every textual critic knows that this similarity of text indicates, rather, that we have made little progress in textual theory since Westcott-Hort; that WE SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW HOW TO MAKE A DEFINITIVE DETERMINATION AS TO WHAT THE BEST TEXT IS; that we do not have a clear picture of the transmission and alteration of the text in the first few centuries; and, accordingly, that the Westcott-Hort kind of text has maintained its dominant position largely by default" (Eldon Epp, "The Twentieth-Century Interlude in NT Textual Criticism," Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, p. 87).

"As New Testament textual criticism moves into the twenty-first century, it must shed whatever remains of its innocence, for nothing is simple anymore. Modernity may have led many to assume that a straightforward goal of reaching a single original text of the New Testament--or even a text as close as possible to that original--was achievable. Now, however, REALITY AND MATURITY REQUIRE THAT TEXTUAL CRITICISM FACE UNSETTLING FACTS, CHIEF AMONG THEM THAT THE TERM 'ORIGINAL' HAS EXPLODED INTO A COMPLEX AND HIGHLY UNMANAGEABLE MULTIVALENT ENTITY. Whatever tidy boundaries textual criticism may have presumed in the past have now been shattered, and its parameters have moved markedly not only to the rear and toward the front, but also sideways, as fresh dimensions of originality emerge from behind the variant readings and from other manuscript phenomena" (E. Jay Epps, "The Multivalence of the Term 'Original Text' In New Testament Textual Criticism," Harvard Theological Review, 1999, Vol. 92, No. 3, pp. 245-281; this article is based on a paper presented at the New Testament Textual Criticism Section, Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, November 1998).

Lord willing, I'll get back you you on your statement that "ONLY the original text of Scripture IS inspired".

Will K

 

[brandplucked]

Mr. Religion's imaginary Scripture

Mr. Religion's imaginary Scripture

Mr. Religion. Your opening quote is more than a little confusing.

You said: "Only the original text of Scripture IS inspired". What do you mean by this? If you are referring to the originals, we all know these do not exist, so you cannot accurately speak of them in the present tense IS inspired, as though you had a copy of them on your desk. You should say "WERE inspired".

You also say: "I hold the original autographs of Scriptures to be inerrant (and I do claim this), I claim that when all the facts are known and proper interpretations are applied, the Scriptures are completely true in all that they assert or affirm, including doctrine, morality, social, life, or physical sciences."

There you go again with that "original autographs" thingy. Do you have these in your possession? Have you ever seen them?

If however you are referring to the original texts (and I do not mean "the" Greek nor "the" Hebrew, since no such animal exists) then where are these texts to be found today? You never tell us.

You also seem to imply by your statement that ONLY the original text IS inspired that it would be impossible for a translation to be the inspired words of God. Now, where did you get this idea? Certainly not from the Bible. Consider the following.


Can a Translation be Inspired?

I am frequently told by modern bible version proponents that no translation can be inspired and that only the originals were inspired. This may be what they learned in seminary or from some other Bible teacher they happen to admire, but is it the truth?

Most Christians will affirm that the Bible is our rule of faith and practice. It is a little self contradictory to stand in the pulpit and say the word of God is inspired, when in his heart the pastor knows he is not referring to any book here on this earth that people can hold in their hands and believe. He really should say what he believes - that the word of God WAS inspired at one time but we no longer have it, so the best we can do is hope we have a close approximation of what God probably meant to tell us.

It also seems a bit inconsistent to say he believes the originals were inspired, when he has never seen them, they never were together in one single book, and they no longer exist anyway. How does he know they were inspired? He accepts this by faith. Yet he seems to lack the faith to actually believe that God could do exactly what He said He would do with His words. God said He would preserve them and that heaven and earth would pass away but His words would not pass away.

So, if the Bible itself is our rule of faith and practice, does it teach us a translation can be the inspired words of God? The answer is an emphatic Yes, and it does so many times.

In the Book of Genesis, chapters 42-45, we have the record of Joseph's reunion with his brethren. That Joseph spoke Egyptian instead of Hebrew is evident by Genesis 42:23 "And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter." Joseph spoke in Egyptian yet his words are translated and recorded in another language, which turns out to be the inspired words of God.

A translation does not have to be a "word for word" literal carry over into another language for it to be the inspired word of God. If we have the God given text and the God given meaning of that text communicated by way of another language, as I firmly believe we do in the King James Bible, it is still the inspired word of God.

God's words are like water in a vessel. If the same water is poured out into another vessel, even a vessel of a different shape and size, and there is no addition of foreign matter or subtraction of substance, it is the same water.

Again we see the same thing in Exodus chapters 4 through 14 where Moses confronts Pharoah and speaks with him face to face. Pharoah does not speak Hebrew, so Moses undoubtedly uses the Egyptian language in his verbal exchanges with him, yet the whole series of conversations is recorded in another inspired translation.

In Acts 22 we see another clear example of how a translation can be the inspired words of God. Acts 21:40 tells us: "And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, HE SPAKE UNTO THEM IN THE HEBREW TONGUE, SAYING...". There then follows a lengthly sermon of 21 entire verses preached by Paul in the Hebrew tongue, yet not a word of this sermon is recorded in Hebrew but in inspired Greek. Was Paul's sermon inspired? Undoubtedly. But God also inspired the translation of this sermon into another language.

If no translation can be inspired of God, then how do those who hold this unbiblical position explain all the Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament? They were originally inspired in Hebrew but then the Holy Ghost took these scores of verses and translated them into another inspired language. Not only that, but the Holy Ghost sometimes did not use a strictly literal word for word rendering. God sometimes adds a little more detail or explains further or makes a different application of the original verse to a new situation. This is how God does it and how the Bible itself teaches us about inspired translations.

Brother James Melton has written a very good article on why he believes the King James Bible is the true word of God. In his article he mentions what the true Holy Bible says about the word "to translate". (http://www.av1611.org/kjv/knowkjv.html)

Brother Melton writes: The words "translate" and "translated" occur three times in the Bible, and GOD is the Translator each time. The scholars insist that the KJV cannot be infallible, because it is "only a translation." Do you suppose that such scholars have checked II Samuel 3:10, Colossians 1:13, and Hebrews 11:5 to see what GOD has to say about translating?

In II Samuel 3:10 we are told that it was God Who translated Saul's kingdom to David. We are told in Colossians 1:13 that Christians have been translated into the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and Hebrews 11:5 tells us that God translated Enoch that he should not see death. God was the One doing the translating each time. What's the point? The point is that a translation CAN be perfect, if God is involved in the translating.

When the New Testament writers would quote the Old Testament (Mt. 1:23; Mk. 1:2; Lk. 4:4; Jn. 15:25; Acts 1:20; 7:42; I Cor. 2:9; Gal. 3:13, etc.), they had to TRANSLATE from Hebrew to Greek, because the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, but THEY wrote in Greek. So, if a translation cannot be infallible, then EVEN THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE "ORIGINAL GREEK" ISN'T INFALLIBLE, because it contains translations from the Hebrew text! - (end of quotes from brother Melton. See his article. http://www.av1611.org/kjv/knowkjv.html It is very good!)

Which language did the Lord Jesus Christ speak while He was here on earth, Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic or a combination of the three? No one knows for sure, but we do know that He spoke to Paul in the Hebrew tongue yet His words were translated into Greek. "And when we were all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul. why persecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." There then follows another four long verses all spoken in the Hebrew tongue by our Lord, yet none of it is recorded in Hebrew but is translated into another language.

" And that from a child thou hast known the HOLY SCRIPTURES, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:15,16.

It should be noted that Timothy did not have "the originals" yet what he had in his home is referred to as inspired scripture. In fact, in no case of all the references in the New Testament to the Scriptures that people read and believed, is it ever referring to "the originals only".

So when you hear someone tell you with firm conviction: "No translation can be inspired. Only the originals were inspired" you should know that he didn't get this teaching out of the Bible or from God. If a professing Christian chooses not to believe in the possibility of an inspired translation, he does so contrary to many God given examples in the Bible itself.


Will K

 

[johncalvinhall]

One English word - Hell - is used to translate three different Greek words: Hades, Geenna, Tartaroo. If the KJV translators were 'freakish' about literalism, then why did they translate a geological place, Geenna, with the same word? I guess it could of come from ignorance but these men were not ignorant. It is said about one of these men [citation needed] that if he were at the Tower of Babel during the confusion of tongues he knew so many languages that he would of been able to prevent the dispersion. :dizzy:

When the Fullers came from the Isle of White, they landed in America.
When the Halls came from Sweden, they landed in America.
When the Bingstens came over from Sweden, they landed in America.

Were all of my ancestors living in one specific location? No. The Fullers landed in Massachusetts, the Halls wound up in Pennsylvania, and the Bingstens wound up in Kentucky (?).

They all came to America.

When the term Hell is used, it's definition is more encompassing than what others would prefer. Were they wrong? No. Could they have been more specific? Possibly.

 

[PaulMcNabb]

Wrong. 1 John 5:7 is true Scripture

Here is just a partial list of those who contended for the authenticity of this verse.

Cyprian - 250 AD, Priscillian -385 AD, Jerome 420 AD,

Wrong. 1 John 5:7 is almost certainly NOT original.

Brandplucked, your own post shows it clearly.

The argument is that the Johannine Comma appeared sometime in the mid-3rd century and was later incorporated into the text of 1 John. Your list of early references to it glaringly shows this. ALL writers prior to the mid 3rd century never mentioned the Johannine Comma during their vigorous debates over the Godhead. The absolute best proof text (and only proof text) of the orthodox Trinity was unknown to ALL early Christians, and then gradually started being "found" several centuries after the New Testament epistle of 1 John was written.

This is one of those near certainties in regard to the biblical texts and manuscripts. The evidence against the Johannine Comma as original to the text is overwhelming and without contradiction.

But we've been this route before...

 

[RC_Eagle]

Hi bc. Just a couple of points. You tell us that Athanasius didn't use the verse against the Arian heresy, yet John Gill clearly says he did. You also ignore all the evidence long before the 15th century. Maybe you should sharpen your reading comprehension skills just a tad. Read the whole article I posted very slowly, and then come back with your response if you wish.

Here is part of the article you apparently missed, or at least disagree with.

A Trail of Evidence

We find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful timeline of references to this verse:

Scholars often disagree with each other, but John Gill, in his well known commentary on the entire Bible, remarks concerning 1 John 5:7: "It is cited by Athanasius about the year 350 (Contra Arium p. 109); and before him by Cyprian in the middle of the "third" century, about the year 250 (De Unitate Eccles. p. 255. & in Ep. 73. ad Jubajan, p. 184.) and is referred to by Tertullian about, the year 200 (Contr. Praxeam, c. 25 ) and which was within a hundred years, or little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy anyone of the genuineness of this passage."

200 AD - Tertullian's quote is debated, but he may well be referring to the phrase found only in 1 John 5:7 when he says: "And so the connection of the Father, and the Son, and of the Paraclete (Holy Ghost) makes three cohering entities, one cohering from the other, WHICH THREE ARE ONE entity, not one person. Just as it is said "I and the Father are one entity" refers to the unity of their substance, not to oneness of their number."

250 AD - Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians. Note that Cyprian is quoting and says "IT IS WRITTEN, And the three are One." He lived from 180 to 250 A.D. and the scriptures he had at that time contained the verse in question. This is at least 100 years before anything we have today in the Greek copies. If it wasn't part of Holy Scripture, then where did he see it WRITTEN?

By the way, I do not question the fact that God uses imperfect Bibles to bring His people to faith in Christ. It should also be pointed out that the vast majority of all those people you referred to who believed in the Saviour before 1611 also had 1 John 5:7 in their Bibles! - unlike the versions that began to flood the English speaking market in 1881 and began to undermine the faith of the saints.

Will K

I find it so ironic that Sola Scriptura Protestants appeal to Tradition to defend what is Scriptura.

 

[brandplucked]

1 John 5:7 and the true Bible

1 John 5:7 and the true Bible

I find it so ironic that Sola Scriptura Protestants appeal to Tradition to defend what is Scriptura.

Let's see now. We have a Mormon who tells us his Mormon church uses the King James Bible and it has 1 John 5:7 in it, but of course this particular Mormon doesn't personally believe it is Scripture and he himself has no inerrant Bible to offer to anyone.

And then we have a Catholic who has the bold-face temerity to criticize the use of "tradition" to support our beliefs! That's a good one coming from a Catholic. No "tradition" in that church, right? ;-)

By the way, the Latin Clementine Catholic bible has the verse you are calling into doubt as well as the Douay-Rheims and the more modern Douay 1950.

Here is the Latin Clementine - guess what, it reads just like the true Bible

7 Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo : Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus : et hi tres unum sunt. 8 Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra : spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis : et hi tres unum sunt.

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."

All of grace,

Will K

 

[RC_Eagle]

And then we have a Catholic who has the bold-face temerity to criticize the use of "tradition" to support our beliefs! That's a good one coming from a Catholic. No "tradition" in that church, right? ;-)

You apparently did not understand what was involved in the irony. I did not criticize the use of Tradition to support your beliefs, nor did I deny that Catholics hallow Tradition. Quite the contrary! What I am criticizing is the inconsistency between maintaining Sola Scriptura (bad) and simultaneously appealing to tradition outside of Scripture (good) to establish the validity of your version of Scripture.

 

[brandplucked]

God's Inspired Book - the King James Bible

God's Inspired Book - the King James Bible

You apparently did not understand what was involved in the irony. I did not criticize the use of Tradition to support your beliefs, nor did I deny that Catholics hallow Tradition. Quite the contrary! What I am criticizing is the inconsistency between maintaining Sola Scriptura (bad) and simultaneously appealing to tradition outside of Scripture (good) to establish the validity of your version of Scripture.

Interesting. Well, the only things I used to defend 1 John 5:7 as being authentic Scripture was not "tradition" but history. Cyprian does quote the Scripture in question way back in 250 A.D. (long before anything we have in the extant Greek copies) and says "it is written" and Athanasius does use it in 350 when disputing against the Arian heresy. These things are not strictly speaking called "tradition" but historical facts.

Will K

 

[daveme7]

Hi Wil,

You said:A Trail of Evidence

We find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful timeline of references to this verse:

Scholars often disagree with each other, but John Gill, in his well known commentary on the entire Bible, remarks concerning 1 John 5:7: "It is cited by Athanasius about the year 350 (Contra Arium p. 109); and before him by Cyprian in the middle of the "third" century, about the year 250 (De Unitate Eccles. p. 255. & in Ep. 73. ad Jubajan, p. 184.) and is referred to by Tertullian about, the year 200 (Contr. Praxeam, c. 25 ) and which was within a hundred years, or little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy anyone of the genuineness of this passage."

200 AD - Tertullian's quote is debated, but he may well be referring to the phrase found only in 1 John 5:7 when he says: "And so the connection of the Father, and the Son, and of the Paraclete (Holy Ghost) makes three cohering entities, one cohering from the other, WHICH THREE ARE ONE entity, not one person. Just as it is said "I and the Father are one entity" refers to the unity of their substance, not to oneness of their number."

250 AD - Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians. Note that Cyprian is quoting and says "IT IS WRITTEN, And the three are One." He lived from 180 to 250 A.D. and the scriptures he had at that time contained the verse in question. This is at least 100 years before anything we have today in the Greek copies. If it wasn't part of Holy Scripture, then where did he see it WRITTEN?

What is the resource for these statements? IN other words, where do you find the article and what resources did the author use? It is usually customary when citing a resource which cites a resource-you utilize both resources(unless your name is G.A. Riplinger which often cites other KJVO books to show how someone else is wrong-borrowing, parroting someone else's opinion).

You also said:

A translation does not have to be a "word for word" literal carry over into another language for it to be the inspired word of God. If we have the God given text and the God given meaning of that text communicated by way of another language, as I firmly believe we do in the King James Bible, it is still the inspired word of God.

God's words are like water in a vessel. If the same water is poured out into another vessel, even a vessel of a different shape and size, and there is no addition of foreign matter or subtraction of substance, it is the same water.

If no translation can be inspired of God, then how do those who hold this unbiblical position explain all the Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament? They were originally inspired in Hebrew but then the Holy Ghost took these scores of verses and translated them into another inspired language. Not only that, but the Holy Ghost sometimes did not use a strictly literal word for word rendering. God sometimes adds a little more detail or explains further or makes a different application of the original verse to a new situation. This is how God does it and how the Bible itself teaches us about inspired translations.

Seems like you make a good argument for modern day translations!

You go around and keep asking what people say what is the inspired, inerrant, infallible word of God is. Yet, you decline to define what you mean by inerrant, infallible, and inspiration means.

 

[RC_Eagle]

Interesting. Well, the only things I used to defend 1 John 5:7 as being authentic Scripture was not "tradition" but history. Cyprian does quote the Scripture in question way back in 250 A.D. (long before anything we have in the extant Greek copies) and says "it is written" and Athanasius does use it in 350 when disputing against the Arian heresy. These things are not strictly speaking called "tradition" but historical facts.

Citation of the Fathers of the Church is precisely among the things that Catholics consider appeals to Tradition. For that matter, the very making of an official translation of the Scriptures, such as the Vulgate, is an act of Tradition. This is how the truth of Jesus Christ is preserved over the course of the ages by the Holy Spirit.

 

[dreadknought]

And the mob says: :idea: One on one...one on one...one on one !!!!!!!

 

[brandplucked]

God's Inspired Book - the King James Bible

God's Inspired Book - the King James Bible

Citation of the Fathers of the Church is precisely among the things that Catholics consider appeals to Tradition. For that matter, the very making of an official translation of the Scriptures, such as the Vulgate, is an act of Tradition. This is how the truth of Jesus Christ is preserved over the course of the ages by the Holy Spirit.

Hi RC. I was rather thinking of "tradition" in terms of being such things that have absolutely no Scriptural nor historical factual support and yet are taught and believed by certain religious groups. Stuff like the assumption of Mary, the immaculate conception, a special order of priestcraft under the New Testament covenant, the sacrifice of the mass. Stuff like that.

Will K

 

[brandplucked]

God's Inspired Book - the King James Bible

God's Inspired Book - the King James Bible

Hi Wil,


What is the resource for these statements? IN other words, where do you find the article and what resources did the author use? It is usually customary when citing a resource which cites a resource-you utilize both resources(unless your name is G.A. Riplinger which often cites other KJVO books to show how someone else is wrong-borrowing, parroting someone else's opinion).

Hi Dave. May I suggest you go to a good bible version site that has lots of online bible commentaries and see what these men themselves have stated. The sources for my quotes and material is no big secret. Here is a good bible study/commentary site:

http://www.studylight.org/

Or just do a Google search. It is amazing what you can find. We live in pretty exciting times.

You also said:

"A translation does not have to be a "word for word" literal carry over into another language for it to be the inspired word of God. If we have the God given text and the God given meaning of that text communicated by way of another language, as I firmly believe we do in the King James Bible, it is still the inspired word of God.

God's words are like water in a vessel. If the same water is poured out into another vessel, even a vessel of a different shape and size, and there is no addition of foreign matter or subtraction of substance, it is the same water.

If no translation can be inspired of God, then how do those who hold this unbiblical position explain all the Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament? They were originally inspired in Hebrew but then the Holy Ghost took these scores of verses and translated them into another inspired language. Not only that, but the Holy Ghost sometimes did not use a strictly literal word for word rendering. God sometimes adds a little more detail or explains further or makes a different application of the original verse to a new situation. This is how God does it and how the Bible itself teaches us about inspired translations."


Seems like you make a good argument for modern day translations!

You go around and keep asking what people say what is the inspired, inerrant, infallible word of God is. Yet, you decline to define what you mean by inerrant, infallible, and inspiration means.

Dave. First of all, I am by no means defend the modern versions. I believe them all to be perversions of the pure words of God, though they do contain to differing degrees many parts of God's true words. If you had read the parts you quoted from me you should have noticed I said "If we have the God given text and the God given meaning of that text communicated by way of another language, as I firmly believe we do in the King James Bible, it is still the inspired word of God."

What we have in the Multiple-choice Bible Babel smorgasbord today is many completely different (usually omitted) or totally different texts and meanings in a multitude of places; sometimes with the opposite meanings in fact.

You know me from another club. All you have to do is go to my site and look at almost any article there to see the bible version comparisons I have done over the years. The differences are often huge and very significant.

As for your definitions of inerrant and infallible, I agree with the ones you put up before. I think you got your definitions right. Do you have a Bible that meets these standards? If so, what is it called? It can't be them all, because the modern versions have hundreds of differences among themselves, both textually and in meaning. So which one is it?

Thanks,

Will K

 

[daveme7]

Wil,
Thanks for that site. I see it as a valusable resource. I would think that perhaps(maybe you did it before-search your other postings here.) Thing is like that is like searching for a needle in the haystack. Irrigaurdless, you gave the guy's name so that should not be to hard to referance. Of course, I did not mention why I ask for resources.
As you know, I am one who affirms the KJV,TR, and MT as the word of God, yet I do not consider my self as a King James Onlyist(for lack of a better term). The reason why is I see my beleif system as doctrine based on scripture mixed with philosophy. Conclusions are drawn on both sides based on their interpretation of evidance.
These interpretations are what I consider the "philosophy" part- the use of logic, language, and Theology which all are tied or bisected by Philosophy.

As you also know me in several Yahoo groups, I am an evidance kind of guy. This is the reason wh I am aspiring to learn Greek(self taught-just started on the alphabet) for my own studies as well as a comparison of the TR(the latest one re-engineered to fit the KJV when there was differances between the various editions of TR's and was not even used at times by the KJV translators), Wescott and Hort Text, and the NA27 derivitive of Wescott and Hort.

With all this, I figure this is a debate and whatever evidances we use should be documented and mainly(not any time soon but this summer during my school break) would like to read, maybe even do that kind of research on the Johannian Comma. I have used it often. So in other words(yes I know I write alot) it is mainly for my own studying. If I find this particular author to be correct, then that allows me to confidantly speek from knowledge-to be able to give others the oppurtunity to learn as I have.

As far as using your comments. I know your stand. It just seemed that some of the logical reasoning you used sounds just the same as some modern versions use.

As far as inerrancy, if you read the other versions and write a summation of what a particular passage teaches then read the KJV, same passage and write a summation of what the same particular passage taught, would they be altogether different? I am with you on chopping off the end of Mark. I am sure some details could be differant comparing the two, but what is one understanding of it using a modern version.
The point is, going word for word in defineing a translation as inerrant is false. Sometimes there is multiple ways to translate a passage and all could be correct.

So if the KJV translate something one way and say the NASB translates it slightly differently and both are correct according to let's say Greek construction, though both have a slight differance in English, is the KJV the standard of how to translate correctly just because the translators of the NASB, though technichally correct chose a different translation? Are both translations of a particular passage, different but still correct according to language rules-are both inerrant or just one or the other?
God bless
Dave

 

[dreadknought]

Interesting. Well, the only things I used to defend 1 John 5:7 as being authentic Scripture was not "tradition" but history. Cyprian does quote the Scripture in question way back in 250 A.D. (long before anything we have in the extant Greek copies) and says "it is written" and Athanasius does use it in 350 when disputing against the Arian heresy. These things are not strictly speaking called "tradition" but historical facts.

Will K

Good Lord's day Evening to all in the peanut gallery,

Well Will, you have spent more time in the peanut gallery than you have posting in your one on one battle royale. Hmmm.... Your position is crumbling.
Round and round and round and round... On to the Coliseum...

This will make little difference to a hardened heart, so BEWARE OF THE LEAVEN...
Cyprian quotes Scripture from where? Himself? John 10:30

Quotation from an anonymous someone knowldegable of such things:
"Cyprian of Carthage quotes John as saying "these three are one" in
reference to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (not Father, Word and
Spirit). Since he has a habit of quoting Scripture and does not quote
the Comma here, but must appeal to John 10:30 to make his argument
for the oneness of the Father and Son, he is likely quoting a
truncated portion of 1 John 5:8, along with an interpretative spin,
in an attempt to include the Holy Spirit along with the Father and
Son. There would be no need to do this if he had known of the Comma.
He is unaware of the Comma."

"The actual passage of Cyprian: The Lord says, "I and the Father are
one;" (Joh_10:30) and again *it is written of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Spirit, "And these three are one."* And does any
one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength
and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church,
and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who
does not hold this unity does not hold God's law, does not hold the
faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation."

"Notice Cyprian wording - "it is written **of** the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy". He is interpolating verse 8."

Did someone say good commentaries?

And this: I use this quotation from an anonymous someone knowledgable of
the original languages & history (oh I'm sure he has scans of these documents):

"[It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD
from good Old Latin manuscripts.] It is also in the Clementine Vulgate today."
"546 AD | : Vulgate Codex Fuldensis. Does not contain the Comma but
it does contain the Comma phrase "in earth" for 1 John 5:8. It also
contains a reference to the Comma in the Prologue to the Canonical
Epistles allegedly written by Jerome. However, this is considered
spurious by many because the Comma is absent from John's first letter.
The Catholic church finally realized like the English
revisers of 1881 that the "comma" was a later addition to the text
and removed it."

And this:
Albert Barnes (1872) Notes on the Bible:
I. It is missing in all the earlier Greek manuscripts, for it is found in no Greek manuscript written before the 16th century. Indeed, it is found in only two Greek manuscripts of any age - one the Codex Montfortianus, or Britannicus, written in the beginning of the sixteenth century, and the other the Codex Ravianus, which is a mere transcript of the text, taken partly from the third edition of Stephen’s New Testament, and partly from the Complutensian Polyglott. But it is incredible that a genuine passage of the New Testament should be missing in all the early Greek manuscripts.
II. It is missing in the earliest versions, and, indeed, in a large part of the versions of the New Testament which have been made in all former times. It is wanting in both the Syriac versions - one of which was made probably in the first century; in the Coptic, Armenian, Slavonic, Ethiopic, and Arabic.
III. It is never quoted by the Greek fathers in their controversies on the doctrine of the Trinity - a passage which would be so much in point, and which could not have failed to be quoted if it were genuine; and it is not referred to by the Latin fathers until the time of Vigilius, at the end of the 5th century. If the passage were believed to be genuine - nay, if it were known at all to be in existence, and to have any probability in its favor - it is incredible that in all the controversies which occurred in regard to the divine nature, and in all the efforts to define the doctrine of the Trinity, this passage should never have been referred to. But it never was; for it must be plain to anyone who examines the subject with an unbiassed mind, that the passages which are relied on to prove that it was quoted by Athanasius, Cyprian, Augustin, etc., (Wetstein, II., p. 725) are not taken from this place, and are not such as they would have made if they had been acquainted with this passage, and had designed to quote it. IV. The argument against the passage from the external proof is confirmed by internal evidence, which makes it morally certain that it cannot be genuine.

And this:
Adam Clarke's (1762-1832) Commentary on the Bible
But it is likely this verse is not genuine. It is wanting in every MS. of this epistle written before the invention of printing, one excepted, the Codex Montfortii, in Trinity College, Dublin: the others which omit this verse amount to one hundred and twelve.
It is wanting in both the Syriac, all the Arabic, Ethiopic, the Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, Slavonian, etc., in a word, in all the ancient versions but the Vulgate; and even of this version many of the most ancient and correct MSS. have it not. It is wanting also in all the ancient Greek fathers; and in most even of the Latin.
The words, as they exist in all the Greek MSS. with the exception of the Codex Montfortii, are the following: -
“1Jo_5:6. This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness because the Spirit is truth.
1Jo_5:7. For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.

And this:
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary:
1Jn 5:7 - three — Two or three witnesses were required by law to constitute adequate testimony. The only Greek manuscripts in any form which support the words, “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness in earth,” are the Montfortianus of Dublin, copied evidently from the modern Latin Vulgate; the Ravianus, copied from the Complutensian Polyglot; a manuscript at Naples, with the words added in the Margin by a recent hand; Ottobonianus, 298, of the fifteenth century, the Greek of which is a mere translation of the accompanying Latin. All the old versions omit the words. The oldest manuscripts of the Vulgate omit them: the earliest Vulgate manuscript which has them being Wizanburgensis, 99, of the eighth century.

And this:
Robertson's Word Pictures
1Jn 5:7 -
For there are three who bear witness (hoti treis eisin hoi marturountes). At this point the Latin Vulgate gives the words in the Textus Receptus, found in no Greek MS. save two late cursives (162 in the Vatican Library of the fifteenth century, 34 of the sixteenth century in Trinity College, Dublin). Jerome did not have it. Cyprian applies the language of the Trinity and Priscillian has it. Erasmus did not have it in his first edition, but rashly offered to insert it if a single Greek MS. had it and 34 was produced with the insertion, as if made to order. The spurious addition is: en tōi ouranōi ho patēr, ho logos kai to hagion pneuma kai houtoi hoi treis hen eisin kai treis eisin hoi marturountes en tēi gēi (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth). The last clause belongs to 1Jo_5:8. The fact and the doctrine of the Trinity do not depend on this spurious addition. Some Latin scribe caught up Cyprian’s exegesis and wrote it on the margin of his text, and so it got into the Vulgate and finally into the Textus Receptus by the stupidity of Erasmus.

And this:
From the Interpreter's Bible:
7. This verse in the KJV is to be rejected (with RSV). It appears in no ancient Greek MS nor is it cited by any Greek father; of all the versions only the Latin contained it, and even this in none of it's most ancient sources. The earliest MSS of the Vulgate do not have it. As Dodd (Johannine Epistles, p. 127n) reminds us, "It is first quoted as a part of 1 John by Priscillian, the Spanish heretic, who died in 385, and it gradually made its way into MSS of the Latin Vulgate until it was accepted as part of the authorized Latin text.

You have not proved much, except to prove a student of God's Word, well a student. A few contradictions I would say you have. :juggle: What happened to the apocrypha and the cross references of said apocrypha to the Authorized text in this inspired KJV?

Modern translations are perversions? Oh that's right the NASB is a false bible. :rotfl:

bereancam

 

[dreadknought]

Hey Will, guess what else I read....... Luther's Bible doesn't contain the comma. :doh:

 

[brandplucked]

1 John 5:7 and the true Bible

1 John 5:7 and the true Bible

Hi bc. You can quote three or four scholars to support your view, and yet there are other scholars who state quite emphatically the opposite view.

By the way, those of us who are familiar with your stuff know that you are not a Trinitarian, so it is of little surprise that you would not want this verse in the Bible. We also know that you do not believe any bible in any language to be the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God.

This is directly from John Gill's commentary of 1 John 5:7. Looks like a lot of his information is in direct contradiction to what you and others have said.


"As to the old Latin interpreter, it is certain it is to be seen in many Latin manuscripts of an early date, and stands in the Vulgate Latin edition of the London Polyglot Bible: and the Latin translation, which bears the name of Jerom, has it, and who, in an epistle of his to Eustochium, prefixed to his translation of these canonical epistles, complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters. And as to its being wanting in some Greek manuscripts, as the Alexandrian, and others, it need only be said, that it is to be found in many others; it is in an old British copy, and in the Complutensian edition, the compilers of which made use of various copies; and out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens's, nine of them had it: and as to its not being cited by some of the ancient fathers, this can be no sufficient proof of the spuriousness of it, since it might be in the original copy, though not in the copies used by them, through the carelessness or unfaithfulness of transcribers; or it might be in their copies, and yet not cited by them, they having Scriptures enough without it, to defend the doctrine of the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ: and yet, after all, certain it is, that it is cited by many of them; by Fulgentius F26, in the beginning of the "sixth" century, against the Arians, without any scruple or hesitation; and Jerom, as before observed, has it in his translation made in the latter end of the "fourth" century; and it is cited by Athanasius F1 about the year 350; and before him by Cyprian F2, in the middle, of the "third" century, about the year 250; and is referred to by Tertullian F3 about, the year 200; and which was within a "hundred" years, or little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy anyone of the genuineness of this passage; and besides, there never was any dispute about it till Erasmus left it out in the, first edition of his translation of the New Testament; and yet he himself, upon the credit of the old British copy before mentioned, put it into another edition of his translation." - John Gill

 

[brandplucked]

John Calvin on 1 John 5:7

John Calvin on 1 John 5:7

John Calvin included the whole verse in his own translation and says this in his online commentary:There are three than bear record in heaven The whole of this verse has been by some omitted. Jerome thinks that this has happened through design rather than through mistake, and that indeed only on the part of the Latins. But as even the Greek copies do not agree, I dare not assert any thing on the subject. Since, however, the passage flows better when this clause is added, and as I see that IT IS FOUND IN THE BEST AND MOST APPROVED COPIES (caps are mine), I am inclined to receive it as the true reading."

John Calvin

 

[brandplucked]

Matthew Henry on 1 John 5:7

Matthew Henry on 1 John 5:7

Matthew Henry also believe the passage was inspired Scripture.

In part he wrote: "
1. We are stopped in our course by the contest there is about the genuineness of v. 7. It is alleged that many old Greek manuscripts have it not. We shall not here enter into the controversy. It should seem that the critics are not agreed what manuscripts have it and what not; nor do they sufficiently inform us of the integrity and value of the manuscripts they peruse. Some may be so faulty, as I have an old printed Greek Testament so full of errata, that one would think no critic would establish a various lection thereupon. But let the judicious collators of copies manage that business. There are some rational surmises that seem to support the present text and reading. As,

(1.) If we admit v. 8, in the room of v. 7, it looks too like a tautology and repetition of what was included in v. 6, This is he that came by water and blood, not by water only, but by water and blood; and it is the Spirit that beareth witness. For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, the water, and the blood. This does not assign near so noble an introduction of these three witnesses as our present reading does.



It is observed that there is a variety of reading even in the Greek text, as in v. 7. Some copies read hen eisi—are one; others (at least the Complutensian) eis to hen eisin—are to one, or agree in one; and in v. 8 (in that part that it is supposed should be admitted), instead of the common en teµ geµ—in earth, the Complutensian reads epi teµs geµs—upon earth, which seems to show that that edition depended upon some Greek authority, and not merely, as some would have us believe, upon the authority either of the vulgar Latin or of Thomas Aquinas, though his testimony may be added thereto.

The seventh verse is very agreeable to the style and the theology of our apostle; ... Had the text been devised by another, it had been more easy and obvious, from the form of baptism, and the common language of the church, to have used the name Son instead of that of the Word. As it is observed that Tertullian and Cyprian use that name, even when they refer to this verse; or it is made an objection against their referring to this verse, because they speak of the Son, not the Word; and yet Cyprian's expression seems to be very clear by the citation of Facundus himself. Quod Johannis apostoli testimonium beatus Cyprianus, Carthaginensis antistes et martyr, in epistolâ sive libro, quem de Trinitate scripsit, de Patre, Filio, et Spiritu sancto dictum intelligit; ait enim, Dicit Dominus, Ego et Pater unum sumus; et iterum de Patre, Filio, et Spiritu sancto scriptum est, Et hi tres unum sunt.—Blessed Cyprian, the Carthaginian bishop and martyr, in the epistle or book he wrote concerning the Trinity, considered the testimony of the apostle John as relating to the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit; for he says, the Lord says, I and the Father are one; and again, of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit it is written, And these three are one. NOW IT IS NOWHERE WRITTEN THAT THESE THREE ARE ONE, BUT IN V.7 (caps are mine). It is probable than that St. Cyprian, either depending on his memory, or rather intending things more than words, persons more than names, or calling persons by their names more usual in the church (both in popular and polemic discourses), called the second by the name of the Son rather than of the Word. If any man can admit Facundus's fancy, that Cyprian meant that the Spirit, the water, and the blood, were indeed the Father, Word, and Spirit, that John said were one, he may enjoy his opinion to himself.

...Thirdly, Facundus acknowledges that Cyprian says that of his three it is written, Et hi tres unum sunt—and these three are one. Now these are the words, not of v. 8, but of v. 7.


It was far more easy for a transcriber, by turning away his eye, or by the obscurity of the copy, it being obliterated or defaced on the top or bottom of a page, or worn away in such materials as the ancients had to write upon, to lose and omit the passage, than for an interpolator to devise and insert it. He must be very bold and impudent who could hope to escape detection and shame; and profane too, who durst venture to make an addition to a supposed sacred book. And,

The antitrinitarian opposers of the text will deny that either the Spirit, or the water, or the blood, is God himself; but, upon our present reading, here is a noble enumeration of the several witnesses and testimonies supporting the truth of the Lord Jesus and the divinity of his institution. Here is the most excellent abridgment or breviate of the motives to faith in Christ, of the credentials the Saviour brings with him, and of the evidences of our Christianity, that is to be found, I think, in the book of God, upon which single account, even waiving the doctrine of the divine Trinity, THE TEXT IS WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION. (caps are mine)
Having these rational grounds on out side, we proceed. - Matthew Henry

 

[dreadknought]

Will,

Attack me personally all you wish. It won't change the facts 1 bit. Your statements have been refuted and dismissed as spurious and unsubstatiable. Your position is found wanting and not documentable. Desparation is not fruit from the Spirit. Sorry to disappoint. :think:

bereancam