Companion Thread for KJV only debate
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
oops.
Steven Avery
Member
Cyprian and the Johannine Comma
Cyprian and the Johannine Comma
Hi Folks,
And then the issue goes to one of overall viewpoints, understandings, including whether one believes that the word of God is truly inspired and preserved, whether God has given us his pure word for the ploughman and even the seminarian today, or whether we are only in a time of corruption and confusion about his word. And if we do believe in and accept the full purity of God's word, we seek the precise identity thereof.
Most of the time neither side disagrees about valid substantiated facts (although we may differ as to which facts are the significant evidences) we differ as to the overall understanding of the body of evidence, and the nature of God's promises in regard to his word and its inspiration and preservation.
Let's continue.
Let us remember than the Johannine Comma was raised as a supposed weakness in the pure King James Bible position by the NPB (no pure bible) group here. And it was rather strangely claimed that it only appeared in MSS in the 1500's. A rather gross error that has yet to be acknowledged and corrected, since the Johannine Comma is in many MSS in the first millennium, and the tricky wording can only be applied to "extant Greek MSS", apparently unbeknownst to the original 1500's claimant. And with the incredible MSS distinction still unacknowledged, ignorance has since been coupled with arrogance, working through blindness. Why not simply accept the correction ?
So in defending God's pure word the wealth of early citations (including the Council of Carthage) were given, actually many were omitted that could be added, essentially proving that the Johannine Comma was at least early, refuting the false 1500's claim (along with the early MSS evidence being a part of a multi-refutation).
And one fall-back position of the NPB crew, it was given on this forum, has been the claim of a late fourth century interpolation (remember we have no MSS before the 4th century anyway) at times ascribed to the controversial Priscillian. There are many evidences against this, such as the Council of Carthage not long after showing a wide church acceptance that would be well neigh impossible from a recent interpolation, especially in the midst of a doctrinal dispute. Yet the single most powerful and clear refutation being the Cyprian citation. Any unconvoluted reading of Cyprian, as acknowledged historically by men like Coxe and Scrivener, and amply demonstrated by Marty Shue on the net, must see that Cyprian, a writer noted for accurate scripture referencing, had the Johannine Comma in his Bible in the 3rd century, about a century and a half before our earliest extant MSS.
This if course is very significant in any discussion of the Johannine Comma (interestingly and significantly, Cyprian also clearly references the textual sister verse Acts 8:37, another powerful verse, full of meaning and significance, that the modern versionsists like to (snip) ). Yet when we take the time to correct the errors on the forum about the Johannine Comma history, the response from one like yourself, bereancam, boils down to only a kvetch ! Why are we discussing Cyprian ?
Why are we demonstrating such historical textual truth ? The answer is simple - we were challenged on this verse, as part of an attack against God's word in our hand being pure and perfect, false history was given to support the challenge, and we felt it was important to answer a false accusation and history against the word of God. Simply a reasonable service, one which some readers on the forum might actually appreciate. Attempted to be done carefully and accurately and gracefully, all of which takes a spot of time.
Daniel Wallace
“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.’”
Marty Shue, with exposition.
Since Cyprian wrote the disputed passage in Latin I feel it necessary to list Cyprian’s words in Latin. Cyprian wrote, “Dicit dominus, Ego et pater unum sumus (John x. 30), et iterum de Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est, Et tres unum sunt.” (The Lord says, "I and the Father are One," and again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One."). This Latin reading is important when you compare it to the Old Latin reading of 1 John 5:7; “Quoniam tres sunt, gui testimonium dant in coelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt.” Cyprian clearly says that it is written of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost--”And the three are One.” His Latin matches the Old Latin reading identically with the exception of ‘hi’. Again, it is important to note that Cyprian said “it is written” when making his remarks. He never indicates, depsite Wallace’s claims, that he is putting some sort of “theological spin” on 1 John 5:7 or 8. There is no other verse that expressly states that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are ‘three in one’ outside of 1 John 5:7. If Cyprian was not quoting 1 John 5:7 the question must be asked and answered: What was he quoting?
Marty's discussion is extremely compelling and clear. Please indicate your translation concern. Thanks.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Cyprian and the Johannine Comma
Hi Folks,
Greetings, Bereancam. The inability to work with a consistent dynamic is a continual difficulty of those who defend no Bible anywhere in any language as the pure and perfect word of God. Lets look at the above comment as a simple example and dissect it point by point..bereancam said:
You would have to be more specific as to what "v.s.f" are not answered. If they are in fact v.s.f. then we agree on them, and happily continue the discussion.bereancam said:
And then the issue goes to one of overall viewpoints, understandings, including whether one believes that the word of God is truly inspired and preserved, whether God has given us his pure word for the ploughman and even the seminarian today, or whether we are only in a time of corruption and confusion about his word. And if we do believe in and accept the full purity of God's word, we seek the precise identity thereof.
Most of the time neither side disagrees about valid substantiated facts (although we may differ as to which facts are the significant evidences) we differ as to the overall understanding of the body of evidence, and the nature of God's promises in regard to his word and its inspiration and preservation.
Let's continue.
Now I would call this a beautiful example of reverse dynamics. First throw down the challenge, the gauntlet, and then when the true answer is given loud and clear and strong .. comes forth .. "why are you expressing yourself so forcefully ?".bereancam said:
Let us remember than the Johannine Comma was raised as a supposed weakness in the pure King James Bible position by the NPB (no pure bible) group here. And it was rather strangely claimed that it only appeared in MSS in the 1500's. A rather gross error that has yet to be acknowledged and corrected, since the Johannine Comma is in many MSS in the first millennium, and the tricky wording can only be applied to "extant Greek MSS", apparently unbeknownst to the original 1500's claimant. And with the incredible MSS distinction still unacknowledged, ignorance has since been coupled with arrogance, working through blindness. Why not simply accept the correction ?
So in defending God's pure word the wealth of early citations (including the Council of Carthage) were given, actually many were omitted that could be added, essentially proving that the Johannine Comma was at least early, refuting the false 1500's claim (along with the early MSS evidence being a part of a multi-refutation).
And one fall-back position of the NPB crew, it was given on this forum, has been the claim of a late fourth century interpolation (remember we have no MSS before the 4th century anyway) at times ascribed to the controversial Priscillian. There are many evidences against this, such as the Council of Carthage not long after showing a wide church acceptance that would be well neigh impossible from a recent interpolation, especially in the midst of a doctrinal dispute. Yet the single most powerful and clear refutation being the Cyprian citation. Any unconvoluted reading of Cyprian, as acknowledged historically by men like Coxe and Scrivener, and amply demonstrated by Marty Shue on the net, must see that Cyprian, a writer noted for accurate scripture referencing, had the Johannine Comma in his Bible in the 3rd century, about a century and a half before our earliest extant MSS.
This if course is very significant in any discussion of the Johannine Comma (interestingly and significantly, Cyprian also clearly references the textual sister verse Acts 8:37, another powerful verse, full of meaning and significance, that the modern versionsists like to (snip) ). Yet when we take the time to correct the errors on the forum about the Johannine Comma history, the response from one like yourself, bereancam, boils down to only a kvetch ! Why are we discussing Cyprian ?
Why are we demonstrating such historical textual truth ? The answer is simple - we were challenged on this verse, as part of an attack against God's word in our hand being pure and perfect, false history was given to support the challenge, and we felt it was important to answer a false accusation and history against the word of God. Simply a reasonable service, one which some readers on the forum might actually appreciate. Attempted to be done carefully and accurately and gracefully, all of which takes a spot of time.
Apparently you feel there is a flaw in the Cyprian translation ? I would be happy to go over this with you, however your accusation would have to be more specific. Marty Shue did give the Latin and English, and he actually used the same English as given by Daniel Wallace.bereancam said:
Daniel Wallace
“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.’”
Marty Shue, with exposition.
Since Cyprian wrote the disputed passage in Latin I feel it necessary to list Cyprian’s words in Latin. Cyprian wrote, “Dicit dominus, Ego et pater unum sumus (John x. 30), et iterum de Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est, Et tres unum sunt.” (The Lord says, "I and the Father are One," and again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One."). This Latin reading is important when you compare it to the Old Latin reading of 1 John 5:7; “Quoniam tres sunt, gui testimonium dant in coelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt.” Cyprian clearly says that it is written of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost--”And the three are One.” His Latin matches the Old Latin reading identically with the exception of ‘hi’. Again, it is important to note that Cyprian said “it is written” when making his remarks. He never indicates, depsite Wallace’s claims, that he is putting some sort of “theological spin” on 1 John 5:7 or 8. There is no other verse that expressly states that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are ‘three in one’ outside of 1 John 5:7. If Cyprian was not quoting 1 John 5:7 the question must be asked and answered: What was he quoting?
Marty's discussion is extremely compelling and clear. Please indicate your translation concern. Thanks.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Steven Avery
Member
Amen. The analogy is to the skeptic who says ...SaulToPaul said:
"Prove to me that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the virgin-born son of God, God manifest in the flesh. However I do not accept the Hebrew Bible, I believe in evolution, I believe all the Bible is myth. You must prove Jesus Christ and him crucified anyway, to my satisfaction, else you will have failed."
The only failure in that scenario is the unbelieving rejectionist. The only failure when men stubbornly refuse to see that God has given us his pure and perfect word, readable by the ploughman and even the seminarian, is with those who disbelieve God and embrace corruption and confusion, and then can remake God's word to each person's individual predilections.
Men who not only don't know if Mark gave us a resurrection account of the Lord Jesus Christ, or John wrote the Pericope Adultera, or if the swine ran a 35-mile marathon back to the Sea of Galilee, but have convinced themselves that they do not even care. Many do not even know if Peter wrote 2 Peter or Paul wrote the Pastorals, and these unbelievers are telling you what to (snip) out of the Bible.
Will Kinney is one gentleman, perhaps more than any other I have seen, who has always kept to the majors first. Will understands first and foremost the underlying and fundamental paradigmic issue .. is God's word 100% pure ?
Then, after we struggle with that question, hopefully with a strong affirmative .. how do we identify his pure word ? Will is happy to demonstrate many compelling strengths for the King James Bible position. (In fact anyone can simply read the D. A. Waite writing on the fourfold superiority to at least get a starting-point, or the Crowned with Glory material of Thomas Holland)
However, please understand, to the 'true' committed skeptic Jesus Christ can never be proven, to their satisfaction.
And to those men who are shaky about the authority of God having his pure word tangible, readable, that cannot be remolded to convenience -- to those men the pure Bible in our hands, the authority of the King James Bible, is a true stumbling-block.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Steven Avery
Member
Please remember, Cabinetmaker, that you and the other NPB folks here do not simply reject an "inerrant translation". There is no Bible anywhere in the world, in any language, that the NPB folks here are accepting and defending as the pure and perfect word of God. None .. zilch .. nada.CabinetMaker said:
If you would first acknowledge that, it would be an excellent beginning. Honesty and truth are excellent springboards for understanding. Personally I had a period of time where I believed that the Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic underlying texts were the perfect ones with the King James Bible being simply an excellent translation thereof (and before all that I had used the NIV for many years). There was a progression as I began to understand, spiritually, by God's grace and revelation, more and more about the nature of God's promises and his perfect word. Many of us have walked a similar path, and can try to explain how God's truth of his word came forth to us, precept upon precept, line upon line. For those who have ears to hear.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
dreadknought
New member
Afternoon Steven,
I suggest you read through the thread to see the evidence presented already instead of assuming. The comma can't be proved from the inspired Greek. 2 Timothy 3:16 No more Cyprian biased interpretation or other spuriousness. If the comma was there in 250, Athanasius and the other bishops at the 1st council of Nicea would have used it. A commentary or exegesis on the subject is not inspired text. Now the burden of proof, where is the inspiration of the only perfect only true King James 1611 with apocrypha and cross-references? Why can't I find 2 Edras in my King James 1970 that I have at my side?
bereancam
I suggest you read through the thread to see the evidence presented already instead of assuming. The comma can't be proved from the inspired Greek. 2 Timothy 3:16 No more Cyprian biased interpretation or other spuriousness. If the comma was there in 250, Athanasius and the other bishops at the 1st council of Nicea would have used it. A commentary or exegesis on the subject is not inspired text. Now the burden of proof, where is the inspiration of the only perfect only true King James 1611 with apocrypha and cross-references? Why can't I find 2 Edras in my King James 1970 that I have at my side?
bereancam
Instead of railing on me and others about what we believe, why not just present your case? You state that we don't believe something so why is it so important that we admit to it? Isn't your truth and the support of that truth strong enough to stand?
Start here. What is your definition of inerrant?
PaulMcNabb
New member
Steven,
In order to stay on thread, let's leave the LDS/Bible stuff for another thread. I'd be happy to discuss it if you want, just not here.
A quick check on the Internet will show you examples of how the ad hominem fallacy does not necessarily involve insulting or criticism of the person.
Given these explanations and examples of an ad hominem fallacy, look again at what Brandplucked said in post #37 (not directed against me)
or in post #26 (directed against me)
By the way, the above is called "poisoning the well" and is another frequently used fallacy here on TOL by people who are knowledgeable enough to debate the issue and thus try to preempt a person's argument by whipping up emotion against the person in order to have people reject that person's argument without consideration of its merits.
You might check out post #45 for some minor insults, though not really couched as an argument.
This thread is full of "distractions" from the argument about the Johannine Comma. When talking about which manuscripts included it and which ECFs quoted it, it is entirely irrelevant (and "distracting") to drag in whether someone is a Unitarian, Trinitarian, or Latter-day Saint. It is a red herring to get people talking about, for example, how Joseph Smith viewed the textual integrity of the Bible.
But there IS a time when we can relevantly drag in each other's doctrinal views, and that time is when people start weighting evidence, making assumptions, and drawing conclusions. But that is NOT what Brandplucked (or you, for that matter) is doing here.
I think what you are trying to say is that I am claiming that you believe the Johannine Comma is truly scripture ONLY because you believe the KJV is the pure word of God (possibly despite textual/historical evidence to the contrary or possibly despite the lack of supporting textual/historical evidence). But that is NOT my claim.
In order to stay on thread, let's leave the LDS/Bible stuff for another thread. I'd be happy to discuss it if you want, just not here.
There was no depth at all and no "argument." You merely said it "is opening up an important discussion and understanding of positions" to understand where a person is coming from. I agree. And my statement about Brandplucked's ad hominem wasn't about me (though he's done it quite a bit in other threads), but about his response to bereancam_46151. See posts 41 and 55.
Great. You can cut and paste. But do you understand what you are reading and have you read widely on logic, reasoning, and fallacies? Apparently not since you apparently don't understand what it means to "argue against the person." I'm going to guess here that you have never had any university-level coursework in this area. Am I right? Well, absent that, you could at least check out wikipedia...
A quick check on the Internet will show you examples of how the ad hominem fallacy does not necessarily involve insulting or criticism of the person.
"A Circumstantial Ad Hominem is one in which some irrelevant personal circumstance surrounding the opponent is offered as evidence against the opponent's position. This fallacy is often introduced by phrases such as: "Of course, that's what you'd expect him to say." The fallacy claims that the only reason why he argues as he does is because of personal circumstances, such as standing to gain from the argument's acceptance."
Example of Ad Hominem:
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."
"Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a person."
Given these explanations and examples of an ad hominem fallacy, look again at what Brandplucked said in post #37 (not directed against me)
"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."
or in post #26 (directed against me)
"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."
By the way, the above is called "poisoning the well" and is another frequently used fallacy here on TOL by people who are knowledgeable enough to debate the issue and thus try to preempt a person's argument by whipping up emotion against the person in order to have people reject that person's argument without consideration of its merits.
You might check out post #45 for some minor insults, though not really couched as an argument.
:rotfl:
I have never questioned Brandplucked's output. I've read nearly all the stuff on his website. I don't doubt he is intelligent. But I think his arguments are defective. As I've said on this thread and in prior threads on this topic, Brandplucked's conclusions are drawn ignoring key evidence and extrapolating beyond what the evidence shows. He repeatedly attacks arguments here by arguing that the person against the Johannine Comma as authentic is not an inerrantist and therefore his reasoning is not to be trusted or accepted because of that bias. It is pure, 100%, absolute, textbook ad hominem.
Sigh... You really, really need to read about 3 good college textbooks on logic...
This thread is full of "distractions" from the argument about the Johannine Comma. When talking about which manuscripts included it and which ECFs quoted it, it is entirely irrelevant (and "distracting") to drag in whether someone is a Unitarian, Trinitarian, or Latter-day Saint. It is a red herring to get people talking about, for example, how Joseph Smith viewed the textual integrity of the Bible.
But there IS a time when we can relevantly drag in each other's doctrinal views, and that time is when people start weighting evidence, making assumptions, and drawing conclusions. But that is NOT what Brandplucked (or you, for that matter) is doing here.
I was merely throwing Brandplucked's ad hominem back at him to help point out what parts of Brandplucked's posts were fallacious and irrelevant, in a probably vain hope that Brandplucked would become less likely to use such tactics if they were pointed out to him.
You wholly misunderstand both me and how this topic needs to be discussed. The views of Ehrman and Metzger (you HAVE read their works completely and aren't just familiar with excerpts, right?) are NOT relevant at some points and ARE relevant at other points. When dealing with the evidence they have discovered and the arguments based on that evidence, it is irrelevant except in the three areas I mentioned above.
This is not a fallacy. Under all common definitions/interpretations of "pure word of God" and "truly scripture" this would be true. If someone believes that the KJV is the pure word of God, that person will also believe that the Johannine Comma is truly scripture.
I think what you are trying to say is that I am claiming that you believe the Johannine Comma is truly scripture ONLY because you believe the KJV is the pure word of God (possibly despite textual/historical evidence to the contrary or possibly despite the lack of supporting textual/historical evidence). But that is NOT my claim.
That is not, and never has been, my position. I committed no logical fallacy.
Huh? I can only guess that you are referring to my statement:
"I started out believing absolutely that the Johannine Comma was authentic, and I was led by the evidence to conclude that it was a later addition."
There is no fallacy here.
dreadknought
New member
Folks,
The reason that I left brandplucked with his own perversions in argumentum ad hominem is because he deflected the subject. I don't care what he thinks he knows, and it has nothing to do with the burden of proof. That was my point entirely about the 1 John 5 discourse. The addition does not fit and deflects the point of the entire passage. He tried to make it about denial of the trinity, and he ate silence.
humbly,
bereancam
The reason that I left brandplucked with his own perversions in argumentum ad hominem is because he deflected the subject. I don't care what he thinks he knows, and it has nothing to do with the burden of proof. That was my point entirely about the 1 John 5 discourse. The addition does not fit and deflects the point of the entire passage. He tried to make it about denial of the trinity, and he ate silence.
humbly,
bereancam
dreadknought
New member
Beware of the Leaven :readthis:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Which version do you use, and why?
How do you know which parts God said and which parts are man's words?
PaulMcNabb
New member
You got it exactly right, Cabinetmaker.
Brandplucked is asserting that "the King James Bible [is] the only complete, inerrant, preserved and 100% true Holy Bible on the earth today." The problem is that Brandplucked's argument depends on there being at least one such Bible in existence. So Brandplucked's mode of arguing in the past is to come down hard on his opponent's belief about biblical inerrancy, expressing shock and dismay when an otherwise believing Christian is content with (1) a Bible that was inerrant in the autographs and (2) modern texts that are "not word-perfect but totally adequate for what God wants us to have." Usually when he gets to this point he'll throw up his hands, say that the person doesn't really believe God and has abandoned the Bible, claim the discussion to be hopeless, and walk away.
All the rest of the stuff---the problems with the TR, the errors in the KJV translation, the changes since the 1611 edition---is a losing battle for Brandplucked as well, but he can at least put up a reasonable fight.
dreadknought
New member
Afternoon STP,
And this has to do with the KJV being the only true perfectly preserved canon of Holy Scriptures how?
But I will answer without adou, the first translation I pick up is the NASB. I compare several, NKJV, ESV, NRSV, NIV, KJV, NIV etc. in hand. And I trust the NASB 1995 as truthful, it being my preferred translation. I have more on pc software but you get the idea. NASB as Literal as the KJV from an older, different source than the King James. So, now you'll pick apart this too....... round and round and round and round... I am totally dismayed. :sigh:
bereancam
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
So, is this my answer? You never came out and clearly stated which variant of the KJV translation you claim to be inspired and inerrant.
dreadknought
New member
By the way, here is what the 1380 and 1395 Wycliffe bible say in 1 John 5:7. Just once it would be refreshing for one of you Bible correctors to admit you were wrong about something instead of hardening yourselves in pride and refusing to admit you blew it. But I don't expect that to happen anytime soon.
I John 5:7 in the 1380 Wycliffe Bible - "For thre ben, that yyuen witnessing in heuene, the Fadir, the Sone, and the Hooli Goost; and these thre ben oon."
Will K[/quote]
Just a reminder. From post #82:
Evening Will,
Since you skipped over the post (#11) which already revealed your mystery of Wyclif. It's translated from the LATIN VULGATE! Not Greek! Round and round and round and round.
bereancam
I John 5:7 in the 1380 Wycliffe Bible - "For thre ben, that yyuen witnessing in heuene, the Fadir, the Sone, and the Hooli Goost; and these thre ben oon."
Will K[/quote]
Just a reminder. From post #82:
Evening Will,
Since you skipped over the post (#11) which already revealed your mystery of Wyclif. It's translated from the LATIN VULGATE! Not Greek! Round and round and round and round.
bereancam
Steven Avery
Member
Hi Paul,
On the ad hominem, the basic fact is that we simply disagree that somebody being LDS, with a totally different viewpoint on the Bible (as I documented from LDS sources including Joseph Smith) is an irrelevant consideration. Many Bible-based Christian Bible forums would quite properly not even entertain LDS viewpoints because of their corruption view of the Bible and their diversionary element. Therefore, because of your organization's outcast status towards the true Bible as secondary, you are trying to make various side issues a centerpiece of the discussion. Something which Will never did in a short comment en passant. And his comment to Bereancam was similarly mild and offhand and can easily be relevant, and at least was more 'in-house'. Yet of course you want to try to piggy-back on others from groups with a more Christian view of the Bible as God's word.
And you actually cut-and-paste from the same source as I used when I pointed out that Will was not addressing "irrelevant personal premises". One man's irrelevant connection is seen by another as a key or at least helpful to really understanding their viewpoint, and many ad hominem claims are themselves diversionary. Yours more so than most, since you are trying to play alliances rather than substance.
And Will was perfectly in order to point out this confusion in your position compared to that of your organization.
As for your view of Will's writing, since your organization and doctrine views the Bible as corrupted, it is clear that you cannot receive his arguments fully. Will is 100% spot-on to point that out. However, if you are now saying that Joseph Smith was wrong in his quotation about the Bible, then maybe you could get a smidgen closer to Christian discussion.
Anyway, all that is between you and your org, I do not consider your views relevant to a Christian discussion on the purity of the Bible, just like I do not consider the views of of a skeptic or atheist relevant, although they may offer an occasional factual tidbit or interesting spin-theory.
Similarly you cannot and will not understand the significance to a Christian to the inerrancy viewpoint, so your attempted critique on that point is also irrelevant. It is like a skeptic trying to get between two Christians discussing inerrancy to put in his own viewpoint. Of course the skeptic will consider inerrancy as not proved, diversionary, poisoning the well, etc.
And I showed how Joseph Smith declared the textual lack of integrity of the Bible because you had given misinformation to the forum on that very issue. Joseph Smith's quote refuted totally what you had said on this forum.
You obviously do not understand that post hoc ergo propter hoc is a causation fallacy, not a fallacy of sequence. Or you do not understand that causation was the impression you tried to give in your attempt to deride my defense of the Johannine Comma as a beautiful and majestic verse from the Lord Jesus Christ.
Anyway, I am realizing more and more that you are not here for substantive discussion of the Bible, but simply to wedge yourself into a Christian discussion of the textual issues of the Bible. It took me a while to catch on to your shtick. Feel free to comment, this is an mostly open forum.
For myself, I will not move back to the other threads which are substantive, such as where I was showing Bereancam and others about the Cyprian reference history. Only if I see something substantive will I reply to you. So far I only see politics, and very flawed and diversionary accusations that are based on your spiritual politics.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
On the ad hominem, the basic fact is that we simply disagree that somebody being LDS, with a totally different viewpoint on the Bible (as I documented from LDS sources including Joseph Smith) is an irrelevant consideration. Many Bible-based Christian Bible forums would quite properly not even entertain LDS viewpoints because of their corruption view of the Bible and their diversionary element. Therefore, because of your organization's outcast status towards the true Bible as secondary, you are trying to make various side issues a centerpiece of the discussion. Something which Will never did in a short comment en passant. And his comment to Bereancam was similarly mild and offhand and can easily be relevant, and at least was more 'in-house'. Yet of course you want to try to piggy-back on others from groups with a more Christian view of the Bible as God's word.
And you actually cut-and-paste from the same source as I used when I pointed out that Will was not addressing "irrelevant personal premises". One man's irrelevant connection is seen by another as a key or at least helpful to really understanding their viewpoint, and many ad hominem claims are themselves diversionary. Yours more so than most, since you are trying to play alliances rather than substance.
And Will was perfectly in order to point out this confusion in your position compared to that of your organization.
"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."
Rather than calling that "poisioning the well" you could simply address the issue raised. And if you need to say :"I believe the LDS church is wrong in using the King James Bible because it has such-and-such errors" or "Well we believe there are errors in our Bible as Joseph Smith stated, and I believe Joseph Smith was including the Johannine Comma as one of those errors." then do so. At least we would know where you stand, beyond the incessant gamesmanship.As for your view of Will's writing, since your organization and doctrine views the Bible as corrupted, it is clear that you cannot receive his arguments fully. Will is 100% spot-on to point that out. However, if you are now saying that Joseph Smith was wrong in his quotation about the Bible, then maybe you could get a smidgen closer to Christian discussion.
Anyway, all that is between you and your org, I do not consider your views relevant to a Christian discussion on the purity of the Bible, just like I do not consider the views of of a skeptic or atheist relevant, although they may offer an occasional factual tidbit or interesting spin-theory.
Similarly you cannot and will not understand the significance to a Christian to the inerrancy viewpoint, so your attempted critique on that point is also irrelevant. It is like a skeptic trying to get between two Christians discussing inerrancy to put in his own viewpoint. Of course the skeptic will consider inerrancy as not proved, diversionary, poisoning the well, etc.
And I simply disagree with this. Textual and Christian views do not exist in a vacuum. Our underlying paridigms are vitally significant. Notice how you did not put in "Atheist" or "Skeptic" being supposedly irrelevant, probably because there you do see the truth, that there are important inter-relationships between one's walk with or without God and their view of the Bible as pure or impure.PaulMcNabb said:
And I showed how Joseph Smith declared the textual lack of integrity of the Bible because you had given misinformation to the forum on that very issue. Joseph Smith's quote refuted totally what you had said on this forum.
You obviously do not understand that post hoc ergo propter hoc is a causation fallacy, not a fallacy of sequence. Or you do not understand that causation was the impression you tried to give in your attempt to deride my defense of the Johannine Comma as a beautiful and majestic verse from the Lord Jesus Christ.
Anyway, I am realizing more and more that you are not here for substantive discussion of the Bible, but simply to wedge yourself into a Christian discussion of the textual issues of the Bible. It took me a while to catch on to your shtick. Feel free to comment, this is an mostly open forum.
For myself, I will not move back to the other threads which are substantive, such as where I was showing Bereancam and others about the Cyprian reference history. Only if I see something substantive will I reply to you. So far I only see politics, and very flawed and diversionary accusations that are based on your spiritual politics.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
dreadknought
New member
From post #35:
"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."
"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."
Steven Avery
Member
Hi Bereancam,
And if you really want to discuss the Apocrypha, that would be fine. Clearly the King James Bible never placed those books as scripture, you can see that by simply looking at the Holy Bible 1611 online. However, I believe you are raising additional side issues only to avoid having to be consistent and responsive in our discussion.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Oh, I have read the "evidence against" from Daniel Wallace and Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman and others rather extensively, even from the earlier days of the debate, as from the 1600's through the 1800's. So why are you "assuming" that I am "assuming" ?bereancam said:
Hmmm.. I did not know that you claimed a particular inspired Greek. Can you point this "inspired Greek" out to us ? Where is it ? What text ? What manuscript ? Is it God's pure and perfect word ? How inspired is it ?bereancam said:
I have no idea what you are claiming here. Are you actually claiming that the Cyprian quotation does not indicate that his Bible had the Johannine Comma in it ? Did you even read the Marty Shue and Daniel Wallace net dialog ? What is the "bias" and "translation" elements that you repeatedly claim ?bereancam said:
And if you really want to discuss the Apocrypha, that would be fine. Clearly the King James Bible never placed those books as scripture, you can see that by simply looking at the Holy Bible 1611 online. However, I believe you are raising additional side issues only to avoid having to be consistent and responsive in our discussion.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Steven Avery
Member
'usual explainings away'
'usual explainings away'
Hi Bereancam,
Well, at least you are reading.
Now two simple questions.
Do you agree that "it is written..."
by Cyprian is a formulation used for scripture writings,
as it is in the New Testament ?
And where is it written ?
.. of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,
"And these three are one."
Thanks.
Shalom,
Steven
PS.
Oh, one last question. If the issue was not the Johannine Comma, and the claim did not exist that it was a late interpolation:
Do you seriously contend that any textual interpreter would not understand Cyprian to be referring to the 1 John 5:7 heavenly witnesses ?
Please answer carefully this last one, with deliberation.
'usual explainings away'
Hi Bereancam,
Well, at least you are reading.
Now two simple questions.
Do you agree that "it is written..."
by Cyprian is a formulation used for scripture writings,
as it is in the New Testament ?
And where is it written ?
.. of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,
"And these three are one."
Thanks.
Shalom,
Steven
PS.
Oh, one last question. If the issue was not the Johannine Comma, and the claim did not exist that it was a late interpolation:
Do you seriously contend that any textual interpreter would not understand Cyprian to be referring to the 1 John 5:7 heavenly witnesses ?
Please answer carefully this last one, with deliberation.
Steven Avery
Member
Bereancam, I have to say, you seem to not have much understanding of textual matters. It was originally claimed here that there were no MSS with the Johannine Comma before the 1500's. Even putting aside the necessary "extant" this overlooked entirely hundreds of Latin MSS in the Old Latin and Vulgate lines. It was a totally wrong claim. Rather than simply say "we were wrong, thanks for the correction" we get diversionary grandstanding like the above.bereancam said:
We are very aware that Wycliffe translated from Latin MSS to English, while the Tyndale, Geneva and King James Bible translated the Johannine Comma from the Greek Textus Receptus. Properly acknowledged, this would lead to a fascinating discussion of the wonderful textual understandings and labors of the Reformation, of which you seem to be mostly unawares. How they utilized both the Greek and the Latin MSS in giving us the excellent Textus Receptus, the pure Bible of the Reformation that triumphed over the RCC Vulgate. They were not one-dimensional thinkers (Erasmus, Stephanus, Bezae, Calvin, Elzivir, Turretin, Whitaker, John Gill, Matthew Henry and dozens of others). They really understood God's providential hand upon his word and were all used of God to help give us his pure word more excellently.
The modern version confusion is simply a counter-reformation text, disguised by pseudo-scholarship, the backdoor way to fight the histo4ic Received Text.
The Received Text came to full fruition in the majestic and beautiful and perfect King James Bible.
Shalom,
Steven
- Status