User Tag List

View Poll Results: Who do you THINK will win Battle Royale IV?

Voters
37. You may not vote on this poll
  • JALTUS

    33 89.19%
  • s9s27s54

    4 10.81%
Page 32 of 32 FirstFirst ... 2229303132
Results 466 to 474 of 474

Thread: BATTLE TALK ~ Battle Royale IV - JALTUS vs. s9s27s54

  1. #466
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Tuolumne, California
    Posts
    113
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    221
    <heavy sigh>

    OK, Bill. Whatever. I'll leave the light on for you so you can see in the closet. Whatever you do, though, don't let knowledge get in the way of your faith....
    Your verse on knowledge is good also.

    Jeremiah
    9:23 Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches:

    9:24 But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD.

    1Cor 8:1 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.

    8:2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

    I have absolutely nothing against the knowledge that gives me understanding of the Lord. I am not even against the knowledge associated with seeing if the original bible manuscripts are recoverable. The knowledge I am against is the one that puffeth up.

    If you have a knowledge that says my faith is misplaced by trusting that the KJB is the word of God, I think you are puffed up.

    Now concerning knowledge. What knowledge will you find or are you seeking, that will allow me to have a greater understanding of God so that I may know Him better, than I have already available in the KJB?

    If you cannot improve on that, I ask, why condemn the KJB and pursue something else. Unless, it is you that is searching for the idol.
    Though I be the least of all His servants, nevertheless I am a servant.

  2. #467
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Tuolumne, California
    Posts
    113
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    221
    from Redeemed
    Oh really? Then I suppose those "seditious" Christians in Acts 8:1 should not have fled the persecution THEY were experiencing either? Funny, I don't recall God calling them "seditious" or condemning them for fleeing.... Oh, I forgot.... knowledge of the matter has no bearing -- I must believe they were seditious by faith! Thanks, Bill.

    Acts 8:1 (KJB) "And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles."
    Let's be consistent. If the governing authority had said that all christians were to not flee and be persecuted, well we are bound to obey. Just like Servitus was to obey.

    For the pilgrims the same is true. There may not have been an edict to prohibit their going to America, but for sure, when they took up arms against the King of England, they were being seditious. America was founded on rebellion not christianity.

    Do you think the individualistic spirit of Americans is Christian? Christians are lambs.

    Use your knowledge to figure it out.
    Though I be the least of all His servants, nevertheless I am a servant.

  3. #468
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Tuolumne, California
    Posts
    113
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    221
    Or God either eh?
    If you have a mandate from God, be it far from me to hinder thee.
    Though I be the least of all His servants, nevertheless I am a servant.

  4. #469
    Journeyman Huldrych's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Interior AK
    Posts
    67
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    208

    Coming to a resolution on this 1545 matter

    Yeah, I know you guys are pretty much tired hearing my commentaries on this matter about the "unrevidierte 1545" that's going around. Sorry for boring everyone.

    Good news, though. I was both right and wrong.

    Where I was right: The original 1545 does not contain the Johannine Comma, and the text Dr. Bolsinger is not "unrevised," in the pure sense of the word.

    Where I was wrong: Dr. Bolsinger was not taking it upon himself to insert the Comma out of some religious agenda. He is trying to transmit faithfully someone else's revision of the Luther Text that did include the Comma.

    Both points are explained through the article Dr. B sent me via email today:

    1 JOHN V. 7 AND LUTHER’S GERMAN BIBLE
    By Ezra Abbot
    [From the Christian Intelligencer for May 15, 1879]

    In my reply to Dr. Todd (Christian Intelligencer for April 24), I pointed out the futility of his objection to President Woolsey’s statement that I John v. 7 was a “passage which Luther would not express in his translation.” – a statement which, in the plain fact that Luther did not insert it in any one of the numerous editions of his translation published in his lifetime, Dr. Todd presumed to call a “mistake.” I will here simply remind the reader that Erasmus introduced the passage into his third edition of the Greek Testament in 1522, and that Luther died in 1546. It has been contended, however, by some writers, that, at least in the latter part of his life, the great Reformer changed his mind, and received the text as genuine. (See Knittel’s Neue Kritiken, Braunschw. 1785, p. 133 ff.) The argument rests on the fact that in an exposition of the First Epistle of John, written probably between the years 1543 and 1545, Luther commented on the verse without expressing any doubt of its genuineness. The question whether Luther changed his mind is not important in itself, but is on several accounts not without interest. I will therefore state the circumstances of the case.

    There are two exceptions by Luther of the First Epistle of John, both of which may be found, translated from the original Latin into German, in vol. Ix. Of Walch’s edition of Luther’s Sammtliche Schriften. The first was written somewherew between the years 1522 and 1524. (See Walch’s ed., ix. 908-1079, and Vorrede, pp. 18, 19.) In this, Luther, after quoting the passage of the three heavenly witnesses, remarks: -
    “These words are not found in the Greek Bibles; but it seems as if this verse had been inserted by the Orthodox against the Arians. This, however, has not been done even fittingly, for he [the Apostle] speaks here and there not of the witnesses in heaven, but of the witnesses on earth.” (Col. 1059.)

    We see here that Luther felt not merely the deficiency of the external evidence for the passage, but its internal incongruity.

    The other exposition was certainly written after 1532, and probably between 1543 and 1545. (See Knittel, ubi supra, pp. 134, 135.) It first appeared in 1743, in Walch’s edition of Luther, vol. ix. Coll. 1080-1251. In this exposition Luther not unfrequently remarks upon Greek words, showing that he had the Greek text before him. He is said to have used as a manual in the later years of his life the edition of the Greek Testament published at Basle in 1540 by Thomas Platter, which reproduces substantially the text of the third edition of Erasmus, (See Luther’s Bibelubersetzung kritisch bearbeitet von Blindseil und Niemeyer, Theil vii., Vorrede, p. xv. note +.) This edition contains 1 John v. 7, like nearly all of the editions of the sixteenth centuries published after 1522. In his remarks under 1 John v. 6, which include the larger part of what he says about the seventh verse, Luther begins with observing that “this passage is certainly very difficult and obscure.” Speaking of the three heavenly witnesses, he rejects the supposition that the apostle refers to their testimony at the baptism and the transfiguration of Jesus, because that was a testimony borne on earth, not “in heaven”; and then explains it as given in what some later theologians would call “the covenant of redemption” made between the three persons of the Trinity. Apparently, however, not very well satisfied with this explanation, he concludes with saying, “If this is not the true meaning of these words, I confess that I know of no other.” (Col. 1225)

    On the seventh verse itself, after quoting the words, he only says: “This is the testimony which is borne by the three witnesses, [which] is in heaven, and also remains there. The order here should be observed, namely, that the witness which is the last among the witnesses in heaven is the first among the witnesses on earth; and with reason.” He then proceeds to expound the eighth verse.

    In this second exposition, Luther could no longer say that 1 John v. 7 was not in the Greek Bibles: it had already appeared in a large number of editions of the Greek Testament. Having it before him, he gave such an explanation of it as he could. It does not necessarily follow that he had re-examined the subject, and convinced himself of the genuineness of the passage; but only that he did not choose to go into the critical question. If he had really found any new evidence in favor of the text, here was the place for him to have said so. That he had not become convinced of its genuineness appears from the fact that he did not insert it in the edition of his translation published in 1545, the year before his death. This is confirmed by the circumstance that he seems never to have quoted the passage as a proof-text for the doctrine of the Trinity, though he has often treated of this doctrine in his voluminous writings.

    For example, in his Auslegung der letzten Worte Davids, 2 Sam. xxiii. 1-7, 65-96 (Walch, iii. 2835-59), he sets for the doctrine at length, quoting as proof-texts Ps. Xxxiii. 6; Matt. Xxvii. 19; Luke iii. 22; John v. 17, x. 30, 33, and other passages, but ignoring 1 John v. 7. This treatise was written in 1543. See also, other discussions of the Trinity by Luther, his works as edited by Walch, x. 1215-30; xi. 1548-55; xii. 852-69; xiii. 1508-29, 2624-39. Neither here nor anywhere else have I been able to find the passage quoted by Luther, though it was interpolated into his Catechism by Lyser in 1600. (Rickli, Johannes erster Brief, Anhang, p. 40.) It is omitted in his Auslegung der Epistel [I John v. 4-12] am Sonntage nach Ostern. (Walch, xii. 698, 710.)

    In view of all these facts, the judgment of Michaelis seems reasonable. His remarks : - “As for the circumstance that Luther in his lecture explained I John v. 7, after he had read it from the Greek Testament, without entering into any critical inquiry into its authority, it shows nothing more than that Luther distinguished exegetical from critical lectures, and that in explaining the Greek Testament he interpreted what he and his hearers had before them. That he received it as genuine is an inference which we are not authorized to make.” (Introd. To the N. T., trans. by Marsh, 2d ed., iv. 440 f.)

    Bengel takes the same view. He says, “It is clear that the passage was omitted by Luther not accidentally, but deliberately; nay, his colleague Bugenhagen, with solemn adjuration, warned all person against ever inserting it.” (Apparatus criticus ad N.T., ed. 2da. 1763, p. 459.) Luther’s own warning; prefixed to editions of his own translation of the New Testament from 1530 onward, ought to have been sufficient. His words were as follows: -

    “Martin Luther. I beg all my friends and enemies, my masters, printers and readers, to let this Testament be mine. If they find it faulty, let them make one of their own for themselves. I know well what I make; I see well what others make. But this Testament shall be Luther’s German Testament. For of playing the master and the critic [or “of conceited correcting and criticising,“ meisterns und klugelus] there is nowadays neither measure nor end. And let every man be warned against other copies. For I have had full experience how carelessly and falsely others reprint what I have printed.” (See Luther’s Bibelubersetzung von Bindseil und Niemeyer, Theil vi. P. 15. Compare also the Warnung prefixed in Luther’s Bible of 1541. Ibid., Theil vii. P. 21 f.)

    The warning of Luther and the protest of Bugenhagen (occasioned by the interpolation of I John v.7 in an Evangelieu – und Epistelbuch printed at Wittenburg in 1549) were not without effect, for at least one generation. The first edition of Luther’s German Bible which contains I John v.7 appears to have been printed at Frankfurt-am-Main in 1582, 4to. Panzer and Monckenberg are wrong in saying that the verse was inserted in a Hamburg edition in 1574.
    (See Huther, Krit. Exeg. Handb. Uber die drei Briefe des Ap. Johannes, 3te Aufl., p. 222, note.) It is found in none of the numerous editions printed at Wittenberg before 1596. In the Swiss-German version (not published under Luther’s name) printed by Froschover at Zurich in 1529, it was inserted in smaller type, and so in the edition of 1531; in nearly all the later editions from 1534 to 1589 (that of 1561 is said by Ebrard to be an exception), in brackets; in 1597 without brackets, at which time it was also introduced as a proof-text into the Zurich Catechism. The Basle edition by Byrlinger in 1552 is said to have it without brackets. It was still omitted in Meissner’s Wittenberg edition of 1607, and in a quarto edition printed at Wittenberg in 1620; also, in Hamburg editions of 1596, 1619, and 1620. Since this last date the interpolation has appeared in the numberless editions of Luther’s German Bible without mark of doubt, except that it has been bracketed in the recent authorized “revised edition” of his version of the New Testament (Halle, Canstein’sche Bibelanstalt, 1871), with the following note: “The bracketed words are wanting in Luther’s translation, and were not added till later.” It should be understood that the words auf Erden, “on earth,” in verse 8, are not included in the brackets. They were inserted by Luther in the five editions of his German Bible printed at Wittenberg from 1541 to 1545 inclusive; but this very fact shows that his attention was directed to the passage, and that the omission of the three heavenly witnesses was intentional.

    (Perhaps I may be pardoned for turning aside a moment to correct two errors which have been repeated from Rickli (1828) by a large number of respectable scholars. As De Wette, Tischendorf in his editions of 1841, 1849, 1859, and 1869-72, Berthau in his edition of Lucke on the Epistles of John (1856), Davidson, Braune in Lange’s Commentary, etc. They all speak of Robert Stephens as receiving the passage in his editions of 1546-69, and Beza in his editions 1565-76. They should have said “Robert Stephens the elder in his editions of 1546-51, and Robert Stephens the younger in his edition of 1569” (the great Robert died ten years before); also, “Beza in his editions 1565-98.” Beza published no edition in 1576: the one of that date erroneously ascribed to him by several writers was edited by Henry Stephens.)

    We may observe, finally, that the other early reformers and friends of Luther generally rejected the passage; so Zwingli, Bullinger, CEcolampadius, Bugenhagen (Rickli, ubi supra, pp. 35, 36). So, also, according to Kettner (Historia dicti Johannei…I John v.7, etc., 1713, cap. 13), Melanchton, Cruciger (or Creutziger), Justus Jonas, Forster, Aurogallus. (See Semler, Hist. U. krit. Sammlungen uber I John v. 7, I. 248.) Bugenhagen, as we have seen, was especially strenuous against it; see his Expositio Jonae, 1550, cited by Rickli, p. 39. It was also omitted in the celebrated Latin version of the Bible by Leo Judae, Pellicanus, Peter Cholin, Rudolph Gualther, and others, printed at Zurich in 1543, fol., and commonly called the Zurich Bible or Versio Tigurina. A marginal note explains the reasons for its rejection. The passage was received, though with hesitation, by Calvin, and without hesitation by Beza. Both of them, however, explain “these three are one” as relating not to unity of essence, but agreement in testimony.

    To trace the history of this gross corruption of the text in modern translations, Catechisms, and Confessions of Faith, especially the Greek Church since the sixteenth century, and in modern editions of some ancient versions, as the Peshito Syriac, Armenian, and Slavonic, might be interesting and instructive, psychologically as well as critically; but there is no room for it here.
    I responded by pointing out most of the passages highlighted in blue.

    So, the facts are in--the "unrevised Luther" text is not the original worked on by Luther. That name is misleading.

    However, to his credit, it appears that Dr. B is trying to restore a rather obscure revision of the Luther Bible that did, at one time, contain the Comma.

    jth
    Last edited by Huldrych; October 17th, 2002 at 05:54 PM.
    The free world may be gross, vulgar, and immoral, but that is not something that the slave world can fix

    --Jeff Cooper

  5. #470
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    as far from OSAS and disp'ism as possible
    Posts
    226
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    222
    what?
    (cranking out yet one more substantive post to up the count...)



    I came out of two churches that were KJVO, but I am not a "KJVO" person. I do think that the KJV is the best of all the English translations that I've seen, since for years I've been comparing seven of them with the KJV, using two four-version bibles (both contained the KJV). I've found NUMBEROUS faults with new versions, and the only complaint I have about the KJV is that it would be refreshing to see a FEW (that is, a VERY FEW) words updated. "Let" would be one such word. "Superfluity"would be another. "Quit" would be another. And I'm sure there are a few more.

    But as for the new versions, there are far too many errors in them for me to feel safe to try to read any one of them without a KJV to compare it with. I sense a different spirit behind every new version (that I don't sense about the KJV) because of some horrendous ideas that they promote, as well as the things they omit. The ONLY thing I find them to be good for is to have them available just in case there is a passage in the KJV that is obsure, so I can compare a few of them with it. They have been helpful in such a case at times, whereas at other times they've proven themselves to be a DISASTER.
    Last edited by rapt; October 17th, 2002 at 10:43 PM.



    Revelation 22
    14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

    15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

  6. #471
    BANNED Solly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Gone from this place.
    Posts
    177
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Coming to a resolution on this 1545 matter

    Originally posted by Huldrych
    Yeah, I know you guys are pretty much tired hearing my commentaries on this matter about the "unrevidierte 1545" that's going around. Sorry for boring everyone.

    Good news, though. I was both right and wrong.

    Where I was right: The original 1545 does not contain the Johannine Comma, and the text Dr. Bolsinger is not "unrevised," in the pure sense of the word.

    Where I was wrong: Dr. Bolsinger was not taking it upon himself to insert the Comma out of some religious agenda. He is trying to transmit faithfully someone else's revision of the Luther Text that did include the Comma.

    Both points are explained through the article Dr. B sent me via email todayjth
    Thanks a lot Huldrych, that throws some more wood on the fire.

  7. #472
    Over 500 post club
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    533
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    222
    But as for the new versions, there are far too many errors in them for me to feel safe to try to read any one of them without a KJV to compare it with. I sense a different spirit behind every new version (that I don't sense about the KJV) because of some horrendous ideas that they promote, as well as the things they omit. The ONLY thing I find them to be good for is to have them available just in case there is a passage in the KJV that is obsure, so I can compare a few of them with it. They have been helpful in such a case at times, whereas at other times they've proven themselves to be a DISASTER.
    It is not that the new versions take out passages, it is that the KJV ADDED passages. How can I say that? The earliest and best manuscripts are shorter than the KJV by a considerable amount, at least in the NT.
    For Greek conversion, click here.
    <opinions expressed in this post are not necessarily those of TOL or the TOL Holding Company, and are in fact probably either wrong or dangerous or something even worse. In the event of a world-wide catastrophe coming from one of these posts, all we can say is we did not do it and we warned you not to listen to this post, but NOOOOO, you knew what you were doing all along and yet you STILL managed to destroy part of a continent and yet missed Hollywood! Any resemblance to mathematicians dead or alive is strictly on purpose.>

  8. #473
    Journeyman Huldrych's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Interior AK
    Posts
    67
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    208

    Coming still closer to a conclusion on the 1545 matter

    Originally posted by Solly

    Thanks a lot Huldrych, that throws some more wood on the fire.
    Solly (and other interested parties),

    Here's a copy of my last reply to Dr. B: Quotes in red are his, quotes in blue are mine:

    Ich schätze Ihre Liebe und Arbeit für die Bibel, Herr (Doktor?) Bolsinger, aber auf historische Gründe finde ich mich leider gegen Ihre Position stehen.

    Das Komma wird zurecht als Teil des unrevidierten Textes bezeichnet, weil man ca. 30 Jahre nach Luthers Tod auf Befehl des Kurfürsten August zum Text von 1545 zurückgekehrt ist, gleichwohl aber das Komma damals endgültig eingeschlossen hat.

    Wessen Auflage der 1545 meinte der Kurfürst? Die von Hans Lufft gedrückte Auflage scheint mir als die Ursprüngliche, weil er die erste Luther Bibel (1534) gedrückt hat und persönlich mit D. Luther bis zum Tod des Doktors gearbeitet hat.

    Dies als Revision zu bezeichnen und damit in einen Topf AV- RV oder Lu1545-Lu1912 zu werfen, wäre nicht korrekt.

    Wenn Sie mit “Topf” vorschlagen, daß ich Ihre Version als wertlos halte, das ist Ihre Konklusion, nicht meine. Ihre Version versucht, die Lutherbibel unrevidiert zu präsentieren, wie sie gegens Jahre 1582 mit dem Comma erschien. Man findet das nicht so oft.

    Weiterhin ist richtig, daß das Komma in der Wittenberger Ausgabe von 1545 gefehlt hat,

    Das soll das Ende der Sache sein, weil die 1545 zuerst in Wittenberg erschien. Eine historisch zutreffende Repräsentierung der 1545 Lutherbibel soll treu dem ursprünglichen Text sein.

    aber schon lange vorher in zahlreichen Ausgaben enthalten war.

    Die Frage ist nicht, ob das Comma in früheren oder späteren Versionen (wenn das echt tatsächlich ist) ist, sondern was im Text der von Luther befertigten 1545 zu finden ist. Sie und das Artikel von Abbot haben schon gesagt, daß das Comma nicht darin gefunden ist.

    Luther ist des öfteren störrisch geworden in den Auseinandersetzungen mit seinen Schweizer (und anderen) Zeitgenossen. Wenn ich mich recht erinnere, hat nicht zuletzt auch das mit eine Rolle bei seiner Weigerung gespielt das
    Komma aufzunehmen.


    Aber die von Abbot gegebene Tatsachen erwähnt es so: obwohl Luther von dem Comma wußten, schloß er es in seinen Ausgaben der Bibel nicht ein.

    Mag ihm das manch einer aus der Ferne für einen Fehler rechnen und dabei von sich selbst halten, er hätte es wohl besser gemacht..... so bleibt doch die Tatsache bestehen, daß Luther im Bett und Zwingli auf dem Schlachtfeld gestorben ist.

    Das ist kein guter Beweis von einer guten Bibelübersetzung. Zwingli verlor Luthers Stutz, weil der Schweizer an eine symbolische Interpretation der Kommunion (statt Luthers literarische) hing. Das half ihm mit der Vereinigungsprobleme der schweizerischen Reformation nicht. Das war ein Faktor in Zwinglis Tod auf dem Schlachtfeld.

    Sicher ist auch, daß das Buch von dem die Heiligen deutscher Sprache bis zu Beginn des 20Jhdts gesprochen haben, wenn sie "Bibel" gesagt haben, der unrevidierte Luthertext von 1545 einschließlich des Kommas ist. Einräumen mag ich, daß die Bezeichnung "Luthertext" etwas irreführend ist.

    Meiner Meinung nach ist diese Bezeichnung angesichts der von Abbot berichteten Tatsachen ziemlich mißvertretend, besonders wenn man das ursprüngliche Luthertext lesen will. Vielleicht sollten Sie das denen klar machen, die Ihr Text schon veröffentlicht haben.

    Nochmal sage ich: wenn’s Ihnen so wichtig ist, daß eine historische mit der Comma einschließende Version der Bibel erhaltbar ist, so bin ich froh, daß Sie etwas dafür getan haben, und finde Ihre Arbeit für dieses Ziel gut. Und ich bitte um Entschuldigung, wenn meine “Picky”-heit Ihnen Kopfschmerzen gewirkt hat.


    Danke für die Segenswünsche die ich hiermit erwidre

    Danke für Ihre Ehrbarkeit und Fleiß

    Pfürti,
    jth
    And here is the translation:

    I appreciate your love and work for the Bible, Mr. (Dr.?) Bolsinger, but on historical grounds I find myself, unfortunately, standing against your position

    The Comma is rightly noted as part of the unrevised text, because someone some 30 years after Luther's death returned to the Text of 1545 upon order of the Elector August, but the Comma was finally included all the same

    Whose printing did the Elector mean? Hans Lufft's printing seems to me to be the original, because he printed the first Luther Bible (1534) and worked personally with Dr. Luther until the death of the Doctor.

    To call this a revision and thereby throw it in the same AV-RV (or Lu1545-Lu1912) bucket would not be correct.

    If with"bucket" you are suggesting that I consider your version to be worthless, that is your conclusion, not mine. Your version attempts to present, unrevised, the Luther Bible as it appeared around the year 1582 with the Comma. You don't find that often.

    Furthermore, it is right, that the Comma is missing from the Wittenberg Edition of the 1545,

    That should be the end of the matter, because the 1545 first appeared in Wittenberg. An historically accurate representation of the 1545 should be faithful to the original text.

    but [the Comma] was preserved in numerous previous editions.

    The question is not, if the Comma was in found in earlier or later versions (if that is factually true), rather, what is found in the text that Luther finished in 1545. You and the article by Abbot already said that the Comma is not found therein.

    Luther was often stubborn in the dealings with his Swiss (and other) contemporaries. If I remember right, that played no role with his wavering over taking up the Comma.

    But Abbot's facts tell it this way: although Luther knew about the Comma, he did not include it in his editions of the Bible.

    From far off, that might be considered an error on his part, and it could be opined that he could have done it better....but the fact still remains that Luther died in bed and Zwingli on the battlefield.

    That's not good proof of a good Bible translation. Zwingli lost Luther's support, because the Swiss man took to a symbolic interpretation of the Lord's Supper (instead of Luther's literal one). That didn't help him with the unification problems of the Swiss Reformation. That was a factor in Zwingli's death on the battlefield.

    It's also sure, that the book the German-speaking saints spoke of until the 20th century, whenever they said "Bible," was that of the Luther text of 1545 with the Comma included. I may concede that the notation "Luther text" is somewhat misleading.

    In my opinion, facing the facts reported by Abbot, this notation is rather misrepresentative, especially when someone wants to read Luther's original text. Maybe you should make that clear to those who have already published your text.

    Once more I say, if it is so important to you, that an historical version of the Comma-inclusive Bible is available, then I am happy that you did something about it, and I find your work to this end good. And I apologize if my pickiness gave you a headache.


    Thank you for the blessings that I am hereby responding to

    I thank you for your honesty and hard work

    Pfürti,
    jth
    So, there you have it, a rather reluctant realization, but confession is good for the soul.

    However, that still leaves us without an historically accurate version of the 1545 that's available electronically. No need to worry--I've been working on it for a few days. Unfortunately, it looks like the project will take me at least a year (I've got lots of other things to keep me busy, you know).

    And, at the same time, I might have the 1531 Zürcher Bibel done as well. Look for two new modules for the SWORD Project about this time next year (unless something drastic happens).

    jth
    The free world may be gross, vulgar, and immoral, but that is not something that the slave world can fix

    --Jeff Cooper

  9. #474
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    In front of the strange glowing screen of an inexplicable mechanism.
    Posts
    4,121
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 93 Times in 88 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    There are no fragmanets of any of the New Testament books older than about 125 AD and no copies of any substantial portions of the Christian scriptures that can be dated to a time before the year 200. The original autographs are no longer with us, and we will have to make do with translations, reconstructions and reconstructions of reconstructions.

    And if we cannot believe in a reconstruction, we may not have anything to believe in.

    Sorry to be so blunt.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us