User Tag List

Page 4 of 24 FirstFirst 123456714 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 358

Thread: Companion Thread for KJV only debate

  1. #46
    Rookie RC_Eagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    11
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    114
    All this sweating over the Johannine Comma demonstrates to me how terribly inadequate it is to depend on a single text for access to the inspired Word of God. As for me personally, I am indifferent to the inclusion or exclusion of the Comma, because whether it is in or out of the Scriptures, it is consistent with the Faith as preserved by inerrant Tradition. It is probably an addition from some later copyist, but that probability does no damage to the Faith unless your belief is based on the Comma's being an integral part of the original text. It seems to me that God allowed some obscurity in these matters precisely to discourage the sort of bibliolatry that freezes the Spirit underlying God's Word into a static object, rather than the divine wind that blows where it will.

  2. #47
    Journeyman PaulMcNabb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Champaign, Illinois
    Posts
    51
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by brandplucked View Post
    "I DO believe it is scripture. It just wasn't part of the ... original text."

    Such a statement can only come from a very confused and self-contradictory mind. Things just keep getting weirder and weirder.

    Will K
    No, you just have a different view of what constitutes scripture than I do. For you "scripture" = "original Bible text." For me, something doesn't have to be part of the original text of the Bible to be scripture. "Scripture" is what the Church has accepted as canonical. That can include text that was added later as long as such text is accepted as inspired, apostolic/prophetic, and binding on believers.

    For example, it doesn't matter whether Paul actually wrote all the letters attributed to him as found in the Bible. Those epistles have been accepted as inspired, apostolic, and canonical and are thus scripture. Whether they are exactly something that Paul wrote or were pieced together later out of oral tradition about what Paul wrote or taught makes no difference. They are still the word of God.

    So for LDS Christians, the Johannine Comma is considered scripture and the word of God whether it was in the autograph or added later.

  3. #48
    Rookie RC_Eagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    11
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by RC_Eagle View Post
    All this sweating over the Johannine Comma demonstrates to me how terribly inadequate it is to depend on a single text for access to the inspired Word of God. As for me personally, I am indifferent to the inclusion or exclusion of the Comma, because whether it is in or out of the Scriptures, it is consistent with the Faith as preserved by inerrant Tradition. It is probably an addition from some later copyist, but that probability does no damage to the Faith unless your belief is based on the Comma's being an integral part of the original text. It seems to me that God allowed some obscurity in these matters precisely to discourage the sort of bibliolatry that freezes the Spirit underlying God's Word into a static object, rather than the divine wind that blows where it will.
    I just thought of a cute analogy to describe this entire dilemma. It's kind of a Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in which you have two complementary aspects (Scripture and Tradition) whose uncertainties mutually constrain each other.

  4. #49
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    5,707
    Thanks
    2,814
    Thanked 2,564 Times in 1,576 Posts

    Blog Entries
    142
    Mentioned
    73 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2088706
    Quote Originally Posted by brandplucked View Post
    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
    You are playing fast and loose with the facts. The passage appeared in the bible for the first time in 1522. Nevertheless, it matters not since the trinitarian doctrines were affirmed in 381 AD from proper Scriptures. Scholars for hundreds of years have recognized that the passage did not belong in the text. Please cite the manuscript evidence for your assertions, e.g., 424cvid, 1739txt, Ambrose MSS-according to Jerome , etc.???
    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the many embedded links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.



    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  5. #50
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    5,707
    Thanks
    2,814
    Thanked 2,564 Times in 1,576 Posts

    Blog Entries
    142
    Mentioned
    73 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2088706
    Quote Originally Posted by RC_Eagle View Post
    I just thought of a cute analogy to describe this entire dilemma. It's kind of a Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in which you have two complementary aspects (Scripture and Tradition) whose uncertainties mutually constrain each other.
    Yes, tradition matters; so does reason and experience. It is just that they need to be placed in a context that is submissive in light of Scripture.
    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the many embedded links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.



    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  6. #51
    Silver Member Ktoyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Alabama and Florida
    Posts
    8,196
    Thanks
    1,483
    Thanked 4,351 Times in 3,164 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147689
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Yes, tradition matters; so does reason and experience. It is just that they need to be placed in a context that is submissive in light of Scripture.
    Tradition is western civilization finds its primary source in scripture

  7. #52
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    5,707
    Thanks
    2,814
    Thanked 2,564 Times in 1,576 Posts

    Blog Entries
    142
    Mentioned
    73 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2088706
    Quote Originally Posted by brandplucked View Post
    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 are trying desperately to link inspiration of Scripture with preservation and so you can claim that if a person denies one they have denied the other. Then you take the opportunity, uninvited by the content to which you are responding, to paste irrelevant content from your web site. Let’s try to stay on point for a bit.


    Inspired text is the text written by the original author under inspiration (superintended by) of the Holy Spirit so that the text so written contained no error and was the infallible word of God. That is what inspired text means. That is what 2 Tim 3:16 teaches—they were God-breathed. In fact, Paul’s message is more about what the Scriptures do than what they are.

    You are attempting to lay pipe to claim that the majority text perspective is “doctrine” (like Pickering and his ilk). It is not. Yet, just like Pickering, you fail to provide any support that there is a biblical doctrine linking inspiration with preservation. Simply quoting Matthew 5:18, Isaiah 40:8, or John 10:35 without exegesis won’t cut it. You can start by explaining exactly how God preserved the text.
    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the many embedded links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.



    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  8. #53
    Veteran brandplucked's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    330
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    68555

    "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God"

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulMcNabb View Post
    No, you just have a different view of what constitutes scripture than I do. For you "scripture" = "original Bible text." For me, something doesn't have to be part of the original text of the Bible to be scripture.
    Yes, Paul. I understand how you are looking at it, and it is a totally unbiblical and heretical point of view. The Bible itself says that "ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God". 2 Timothy 3:16.

    If something is NOT given by inspiration of God, then it is NOT Scripture. It would be a man made addition, and man made additions are strictly forbidden by God Himself.

    "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

    Will K

  9. #54
    Veteran brandplucked's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    330
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    68555

    Mr. Religion and his 'facts'

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    You are playing fast and loose with the facts. The passage appeared in the bible for the first time in 1522. Nevertheless, it matters not since the trinitarian doctrines were affirmed in 381 AD from proper Scriptures. Scholars for hundreds of years have recognized that the passage did not belong in the text. Please cite the manuscript evidence for your assertions, e.g., 424cvid, 1739txt, Ambrose MSS-according to Jerome , etc.???
    Mr. Religion. It is you, my friend, who needs to get his facts straight. You tell us here very plainly that "The passage appeared in the bible for the first time in 1522."

    Uh, need it be pointed out that Wycliffe had the whole passage in his Bible and this was in 1380. That is just a tad before 1522. It was also in the Old Latin, and in other Latin copies.

    Then you give us the very misleading statement -"Scholars for hundreds of years have recognized that the passage did not belong in the text." Well, there also have been other scholars who vehemently defended the text as being God inspired Scripture. You do know what "fudging the truth" is called, right?

    Then you say: "Please cite the manuscript evidence for your assertions." I have to wonder where you have been all this time, and how much you have been paying attention. Were you looking out the window while the lesson was being given?

    Did you even bother to read the article I posted about 1 John 5:7, or the commentaries by men like John Gill, John Calvin and Matthew Henry?

    May I suggest you go back and read the article I put together that documents the historical evidence for the inclusion of 1 John 5:7. Then when you don't believe what it says, just look up the commentaries of John Calvin, John Gill and Matthew Henry. Then do your homework using a Google search and find the various articles that defend rather than cast doubt on this passage. Dr. Thomas Holland is a good source of scholarly information on textual issues. But of course he is a Bible believing King James man, so you undoubtedly won't like him very much.



    You only make yourself look very silly when you come out with statements like: "You are playing fast and loose with the facts. The passage appeared in the bible for the first time in 1522." and "Scholars for hundreds of years have recognized that the passage did not belong in the text."

    Here is just a portion of what you will find in my article.

    It is also important to note that most of the Greek copies that have existed throughout history are no longer with us today. Several well known Christians mention Greek texts that contained 1 John 5:7 that existed in their days centuries ago. Among these are Theodore Beza, John Calvin and Stephanus. Beza remarks that the reading of 1 John 5:7 is found in many of their manuscripts; Calvin likewise says it is found in "the most approved copies"; and Stephanus, who in 1550 printed the Greek text that bears his name, mentioned that of the 16 copies he had 9 of them contained 1 John 5:7. John Gill, who also believed in the inspiration of this verse, likewise mentions in his commentary that nine of Stephanus' sixteen manuscripts contained this verse. There was a time in history when over 50% of the providentially available Greek manuscripts contained the reading found in the King James Bible.

    When Cardinal Ximenes planned to print his Polyglot in 1502 he included 1 John 5:7-8. He stated that he had taken care to secure a number of Greek manuscripts; and he described some of these as very "ancient codices" sent to Spain from Rome. Why haven't the manuscript detectives given us a complete list of these "ancient codices"? They must have contained 1 John 5:7 because Ximenes included the verse.

    1 John 5:7 was in the first English Bible by John Wycliffe in 1380, in Tyndale’s New Testament of 1525, the Coverdale Bible of 1535, Matthew’s Bible of 1537, the Taverner Bible of 1539, the Great Bible of 1539, the Geneva New Testament of 1557, the Bishop’s Bible of 1568, and the Authorized Version of 1611. The whole passage was included in the Mace New Testament of 1729, and John Wesley strongly believed it was genuine Scripture and included it in his own translation in 1755. It is still found in the NKJV 1982 Young's, the New Life Bible 1969, Green's 'literal' translation of 2000, the KJV 21st Century Version, and the Third Millenium Bible. It was even included in the Catholic Douay version of 1950, but removed from later Catholic versions. It did not disappear from a standard English Bible until the English Revised Version of 1881, based on the Westcott-Hort Greek texts, omitted it.

    It is important to note that the Greek Orthodox Church's New Testament contains 1 John 5:7 both in the ancient and in the Modern Greek versions. The passage is also included in the following foreign language Bibles today: Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Afrikaans 1957, the Basque N.T.; Czech Kralicka Bible, Dutch Staten Vertaling, Finnish 1776, the French Ostervald 1996 and La Bible de l'Epée 2005, the Italian Diodati, Hungarian Karoli, Icelandic 1981, Latvian N.T.; Maori, Lithuanian, Romanian Cornilescu, Russian Synodal, Russian Victor Zhuromski, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera used throughout Mexico, Central and South America 1909, 1960 and 1995, the Thai Bible, Tagalog bible, Ukranian Kulish 1871, the Vietnamese bible, and the Xhosa language Bible.

    Either God has been faithful to preserve His pure words with nothing added or He has failed and the scholars of today who do not believe any Bible on this earth is the perfect word of God are right. You decide.

    Will K

  10. #55
    Journeyman PaulMcNabb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Champaign, Illinois
    Posts
    51
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by brandplucked View Post
    All I did was plainly state that you are not a Trinitarian, so it is not hard to understand why you would not want 1 John 5:7 to stand in the Bible.
    And you are a KJV-Onlyist, so it is not hard to understand why you would want 1 John 5:7 to stand in the Bible despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

    See? The ad hominem fallacy works both ways.

  11. #56
    Over 1000 post club dreadknought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    just outside the forrest
    Posts
    1,314
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts

    Blog Entries
    90
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    8028
    And the mob says: one on one... one on one... one on one...

    ONTO THE COLISEUM!!!

  12. #57
    Over 1000 post club dreadknought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    just outside the forrest
    Posts
    1,314
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts

    Blog Entries
    90
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    8028
    Quote Originally Posted by brandplucked View Post
    Hi bc. Uh, need I remind you that there is no such animal as "the original autographs in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic"? In other words, you have no complete and inspired Bible NOW. That has been and still is my main point. What happened to all the promises of God and what the Bible says about itself?

    What you are left with is no Final Written Authority, and no Standard by which all others are measured. Instead you have an ever growing multitude of conflicting, contradictory 'ballpark approximations' of what God may or may not have said, and the simple and well documented fact is that fewer and fewer people every day believe the bible is the inerrant words of God, and they read it less and less.

    The Bible predicts a falling away from the faith in the last days, when there will be a one world religion. How does this take place? Well, by fewer and fewer people believing The Book.

    It is not the King James Bible believer that is sowing doubts as to the absolute and perfect truth of the Bible; it is todays seminaries who all teach their future pastors that the Hebrew texts have been corrupted in numerous places and that there is no sure way to find out what the New Testament says for sure in hundreds of readings.

    Most Christians today are far more like Bart Ehrman than they are true Bible believers. At least Bart Ehrman was honest about what he really believed and followed his reasoning to its only logical end.

    "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matthew 11:15

    Will K

    Morning,

    Are you suggesting the inspiration of the Holy Spirit written in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic is an animal? Paul and John speak by revelation in letters. The collection of these into a canon of Holy Scripture. The "book" predicts no such thing.

    Your controversy produces doubt and division, not God nor current more accurate translations. Your assertions are false. "You will know them by their fruit." BEWARE OF THE LEAVEN

    humbly,
    bereancam

  13. #58
    Member of the 10 year club on TOL!! CabinetMaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    On the back of a horse someplace in Colorado
    Posts
    4,298
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 342 Times in 248 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    215082
    Quote Originally Posted by daveme7 View Post
    The KJV was authorized by King James.
    Is that why it is considered the only inspired and inerrant manuscript?
    Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

    What are my fruits today?

    Cityboy With Horses A blog about what happens when you say, "I Promise"

    "Moral standards" are a lot like lighthouses: they exist to help us stay on course as we sail through life. But we have to steer BY them, but not directly AT them. Lest we end up marooned on the shoals of perpetual self-righteousness.

  14. #59
    Over 1000 post club dreadknought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    just outside the forrest
    Posts
    1,314
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts

    Blog Entries
    90
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    8028
    Muz made an interesting point here:
    What's interesting is that something happened around 400AD (what, we don't know), but there are very few copies of Scripture that survived from before this date from any tradition. It appears that the church was having problems with poor copies of manuscripts running around, and they wanted to coalesce and come up with an authoritative copy, and it is from this apparent work that all traditions (including the one the KJV is based in) come from. From before 400AD, all we have are small fragments, although one may be dated as early as 130AD, from the book of John.
    So, that's enough textual history for now. But I think we can see that the Church definitely had a hand in making textual decisions regarding the original as early as 400AD. (It's interesting to note that the canon of Scripture was established in 325AD, and that might explain the need to consolidate texts.)


    Here's some history that broadens the scope of the picture:


    Augustine letter 71 AD 403 To Jerome
    4. For my part, I would much rather that you would furnish us with a translation of the Greek version of the canonical Scriptures known as the work of the Seventy translators. For if your translation begins to be more generally read in many churches, it will be a grievous thing that, in the reading of Scripture, differences must arise between the Latin Churches and the Greek Churches, especially seeing that the discrepancy is easily condemned in a Latin version by the production of the original in Greek, which is a language very widely known; whereas, if any one has been disturbed by the occurrence of something to which he was not accustomed in the translation taken from the Hebrew, and alleges that the new translation is wrong, it will be found difficult, if not impossible, to get at the Hebrew documents by which the version to which exception is taken may be defended. And when they are obtained, who will submit to have so many Latin and Greek authorities pronounced to be in the wrong? Besides all this, Jews, if consulted as to the meaning of the Hebrew text, may give a different opinion from yours: in which case it will seem as if your presence were indispensable, as being the only one who could refute their view; and it would be a miracle if one could be found capable of acting as arbiter between you and them.
    5. A certain bishop, one of our brethren, having introduced in the church over which he presides the reading of your version, came upon a word in the book of the prophet Jonah, of which you have given a very different rendering from that which had been of old familiar to the senses and memory of all the worshippers, and had been chanted for so many generations in the church. Jonah 4:6 Thereupon arose such a tumult in the congregation, especially among the Greeks, correcting what had been read, and denouncing the translation as false, that the bishop was compelled to ask the testimony of the Jewish residents (it was in the town of Oea). These, whether from ignorance or from spite, answered that the words in the Hebrew manuscripts were correctly rendered in the Greek version, and in the Latin one taken from it. What further need I say? The man was compelled to correct your version in that passage as if it had been falsely translated, as he desired not to be left without a congregation,—a calamity which he narrowly escaped. From this case we also are led to think that you may be occasionally mistaken. You will also observe how great must have been the difficulty if this had occurred in those writings which cannot be explained by comparing the testimony of languages now in use.

    Jerome to Augustine Letter 172 ad 416 Jerome's response to Augustine's request.
    (As a postscript.) We suffer in this province from a grievous scarcity of clerks acquainted with the Latin language; this is the reason why we are not able to comply with your instructions, especially in regard to that version of the Septuagint which is furnished with distinctive asterisks and obelisks; for we have lost, through some one's dishonesty, the most of the results of our earlier labour.

    excerpted from: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/


    bereancam

  15. #60
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    13
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by CabinetMaker View Post
    Is that why it is considered the only inspired and inerrant manuscript?
    No. It was authorized for British, Irish, and French churches.

    France is no longer ruled by the British.

    British monarchies have been broken by democracy.

    The Anglican church has since adopted later translations.

    It was called "authorized" because King James authorized the work for it.

    Surely, if the translators did this without permission from King James and the Anglican church, it would have never been known as "The Authorized Version"

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