No problem! Apologies accepted.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Mat 19:17 and the Word "good"
- Thread starter Heavenly Pilgrim
- Start date
No problem! Apologies accepted.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
Note: I was unable to copy the GK text from the following Adam Clarke's Commentary, so when GK text appears it is noted as (the GK text). If one is a serious GK student, they can pick up his commentary and read the GK. Let me tell you one thing, I am beginning to understand the old adage, "It's all GK to me.":thumbs:
Subsequent to my last post I happened to pick up a commentary by Adam Clarke. Upon reading him in all three gospels that have the account of the man that came running to Christ first noted in Matthew 19, then Mark 10, and subsequently in Luke 18, he would agree that all three accounts speak of the same encounter of Christ with this man. He goes into to some detail in Matthew to explain from the Greek the different clear renderings from the Greek text even the TR was taken from. He clearly takes exception with the way it is most commonly understood in the King James, and claims not only upon his authority but on the authority of many other well-known authorities before him, the text can clearly be read without doing any injustice to the Greek in the following manner. In verse 16 where the King James states "Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?" Adam Clarke states emphatically that he can be clearly understood to say "why dost thou question me concerning that good thing?" Adam Clarke says that "this important reading is found in the be BDL, three others, the Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, Ethiopic, later Syriac, Vulgate, Saxon, all the Itala but one, Origen, Eusebius, Cyril, Dionyisus Areop., Antiochus, Novation, Jerome, Augustin, and Juvencus. Erasmus, Grotius, Mill, and Bengel approve of this reading. This authority appears so decisively to Griesbach that he has received this reading into the text of his second edition, which in the first he had interlined. And instead of, none is good but the one God, he goes on to read, on nearly the same respectable authorities, (the GK text) 'there is one who is good.' Let it be observed also that, in the 16th verse, instead of (the GK text), good teacher, (the GK text) only is read by BDL, one other, non-Evangelistic – arium, the Ethiopic, three of the Itala, Origen, and Hillary. The whole passage therefore maybe read the us: "oh teacher! What good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, why dost thou question me concerning that good thing? There is one that is good.(Or he who is good is one.) But if thou art willing to enter into that life, keep the Commandments." This passage, as it stood in all the common additions, as been by some writers as an incontrovertible proof against the Divinity or Godhead of Christ. "
He goes on to say, that while some have tried to be build the doctrine of the Godhead of Christ from this text, they destroy it by the very rendering they accept it as saying when they agree with the literal meanings purported by the KJV. Obviously he is speaking of those that render it literally from the King James that there is 'none good but one, that is God.' Clearly enemies of the Trinitarian doctrine would desire to let stand the manner in which the King James version translates this passage.
It should be noted as interesting that instead of lining up the Matthew account with the Mark and Luke accounts, Adam Clarke believes all three accounts clearly can be justly read as his comments present it in this Matthew account. Obviously there has been much agreement amongst well recognized and accepted Greek scholars in the past as well as many other authorities in the early church.
One thing is clear to me, good men and able scholars have taken issue with the rendering of the King James in all three accounts of this man running to Christ with his question of what good thing must I do to inherit eternal life.
Before I ever read Adam Clarke, the rendering of the King James simply did not make sense to me. With limited resources I first went to the an eight translation New Testament to seek some insight. As I posted in an earlier post clearly the majority of all of the translations mentioned were in basic agreement with Adam Clarke, yet having established their notions concerning this text by different manuscripts/translations. Adam Clarke does not in any way rely on the textual criticism of Wescott and Hort or others, neither did he base his feelings upon any of the new translations that are now so prevalent. I also felt it more than strange for Christ to make mention of His Deity, when that was not being addressed or called into question.
So now I have to wonder once again about the accounts of this man running to Christ, due to the clear agreement between different scholars dating back to the early Christian fathers to Adam Clark's day, being in basic agreement with the conclusions of the textual criticism that took place in the late 1800s to early1900s and beyond dealing with these passages, yet both groups, those prior to the textual criticism that took place subsequent to Westcot/Hort as well as those hundreds of years prior to any such textual criticism, all arriving at the same basic understanding even though forming their opinions of the Greek from clearly differing manuscripts and or translations,including but not limited to, the TR itself.
I wish in retrospect I would have read Adam Clarke before I did. It might have aided our discussion earlier on. Of a truth, hindsight runs 20/20. :thumbs:
Subsequent to my last post I happened to pick up a commentary by Adam Clarke. Upon reading him in all three gospels that have the account of the man that came running to Christ first noted in Matthew 19, then Mark 10, and subsequently in Luke 18, he would agree that all three accounts speak of the same encounter of Christ with this man. He goes into to some detail in Matthew to explain from the Greek the different clear renderings from the Greek text even the TR was taken from. He clearly takes exception with the way it is most commonly understood in the King James, and claims not only upon his authority but on the authority of many other well-known authorities before him, the text can clearly be read without doing any injustice to the Greek in the following manner. In verse 16 where the King James states "Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?" Adam Clarke states emphatically that he can be clearly understood to say "why dost thou question me concerning that good thing?" Adam Clarke says that "this important reading is found in the be BDL, three others, the Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, Ethiopic, later Syriac, Vulgate, Saxon, all the Itala but one, Origen, Eusebius, Cyril, Dionyisus Areop., Antiochus, Novation, Jerome, Augustin, and Juvencus. Erasmus, Grotius, Mill, and Bengel approve of this reading. This authority appears so decisively to Griesbach that he has received this reading into the text of his second edition, which in the first he had interlined. And instead of, none is good but the one God, he goes on to read, on nearly the same respectable authorities, (the GK text) 'there is one who is good.' Let it be observed also that, in the 16th verse, instead of (the GK text), good teacher, (the GK text) only is read by BDL, one other, non-Evangelistic – arium, the Ethiopic, three of the Itala, Origen, and Hillary. The whole passage therefore maybe read the us: "oh teacher! What good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, why dost thou question me concerning that good thing? There is one that is good.(Or he who is good is one.) But if thou art willing to enter into that life, keep the Commandments." This passage, as it stood in all the common additions, as been by some writers as an incontrovertible proof against the Divinity or Godhead of Christ. "
He goes on to say, that while some have tried to be build the doctrine of the Godhead of Christ from this text, they destroy it by the very rendering they accept it as saying when they agree with the literal meanings purported by the KJV. Obviously he is speaking of those that render it literally from the King James that there is 'none good but one, that is God.' Clearly enemies of the Trinitarian doctrine would desire to let stand the manner in which the King James version translates this passage.
It should be noted as interesting that instead of lining up the Matthew account with the Mark and Luke accounts, Adam Clarke believes all three accounts clearly can be justly read as his comments present it in this Matthew account. Obviously there has been much agreement amongst well recognized and accepted Greek scholars in the past as well as many other authorities in the early church.
One thing is clear to me, good men and able scholars have taken issue with the rendering of the King James in all three accounts of this man running to Christ with his question of what good thing must I do to inherit eternal life.
Before I ever read Adam Clarke, the rendering of the King James simply did not make sense to me. With limited resources I first went to the an eight translation New Testament to seek some insight. As I posted in an earlier post clearly the majority of all of the translations mentioned were in basic agreement with Adam Clarke, yet having established their notions concerning this text by different manuscripts/translations. Adam Clarke does not in any way rely on the textual criticism of Wescott and Hort or others, neither did he base his feelings upon any of the new translations that are now so prevalent. I also felt it more than strange for Christ to make mention of His Deity, when that was not being addressed or called into question.
So now I have to wonder once again about the accounts of this man running to Christ, due to the clear agreement between different scholars dating back to the early Christian fathers to Adam Clark's day, being in basic agreement with the conclusions of the textual criticism that took place in the late 1800s to early1900s and beyond dealing with these passages, yet both groups, those prior to the textual criticism that took place subsequent to Westcot/Hort as well as those hundreds of years prior to any such textual criticism, all arriving at the same basic understanding even though forming their opinions of the Greek from clearly differing manuscripts and or translations,including but not limited to, the TR itself.
I wish in retrospect I would have read Adam Clarke before I did. It might have aided our discussion earlier on. Of a truth, hindsight runs 20/20. :thumbs:
Last edited by a moderator:
First, Adam Clarke is a Methodist minister and therefore his theologoical bias would lead him in this direction.
Second, the alternative reading he chose to translate DOES NOT come from the TR but from the Critical text tradition. The TR reads exactly as does Mark and Luke.
Third, his admission that it is the same story as in Mark and Luke and his admission there are two alternative readings, one that differs from Mark and Luke and one (TR) that harmonizes with Mark and Luke and yet he chooses to accept the one contrary can only be due to his theological bias rather than Greek scholarship. The whole point of textual criticism is to determine alternative readings by evidence. There is no greater evidence than the inspired witnesses (Mark & Luke) and when a reading harmonizes with INSPIRED writers of Scripture verus one that does not harmonize with inspired writers of scripture - only pure theological bias would choose the reading that differs from INSPIRED writers when he admits it is the same story.
He fails to understand the emphasis being placed on the word "good" by both the young man and then by Christ. The usage of "good" by the young man is equivilent to saying that he was intrinsically by nature EQUAL to Christ.
This is precisely why Jesus asked "why callest thou me good?" Jesus was not denying himself to be intrinsically "good" but he was challenging the young man's perspective of Jesus in regard to himself as the young man was making the claim of intrinsic EQUALITY and that was precisely what Jesus was challenging and denying when he went on to say, "There is none good but one, that is God."
Now, the young man is left with a choice. He could either acknowledge that neither he nor Christ were intrinsically by nature as "good" as God or that Jesus was God and he was not intrinsically as "good" as Christ.
However, Christ does not wait for his response but goes straight to God's standard of what defines intrinsic "good" or the Law of God. Again, the young man responds by asserting again that he is as "good" as God, as that is precisely what the Law defines to be "the glory of God" (Rom. 6:23). He claims to have kept all these laws from his youth up.
Jesus then acknowledges that this is exactly what the Rich man perceives of himself to be "perfect" and challenges this self-perception of perfection to an acid test. The acid test that would prove he is "perfect" and thus "intrinsically good" and thus kept the Law as he claimed would be if he is capable of practical obedience of the two great commandments. A perfect man would do what Christ commanded but an imperfect man could not.
The command to go sell all that he hath and give to the poor would satisfy the second Great commandment to love his neighbor as himself plus require absolute faith in God to sustain his every need since he has now nothing but faith in God to sustain his daily needs.
The command to come follow Christ would require complete faith/dependency upon Christ with all of his being and would satisfy the first great commandment.
He failed both tests and thus failed the essence of the first and second tablet of the Ten Commandments proving he was neither "good" intrinsically and thus had not kept the law from his youth up or was "perfect" as he perceived himself and thus as GOOD AS GOD. It is this very fallicy of self-perception that Jesus challenged at the very beginning when he asked "why calleth thou me good, there is NONE GOOD but One and that is God.
He has made an invalid choice in contradiction to the reading that would agree with both Mark and Luke. He did not need to make that choice. The most important evidence demanded he should not make that choice. Only his theological bias drove him to that choice.
What you are failing to see is that they are not merely taken issue with the King James rendering but they have taken issue with the Holy Spirit's double evidence provided by Mark and Luke who are both INSPIRED! They have no excuse but theological bias to reject a valid rendering that is supported by INSPIRED men.
You are failing to see that there are two options, two renderings and that the TR rendering is the ONLY rendering that agrees with other Biblical writers providing the same Biblical account. What these "scholars" and you are doing is choosing a rendering that does not agree with other Biblical writers while rejecting a rendering that does agree with the Holy Spirit's words twice repeated! Only pure theological bias would make such a choice.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Now we can take the word of Roman Catholics and complete strangers, but God forbid we listen to a Methodist. Strange (or not so strange) you would make this a point. If ones theological positions would influence the rendering on the manner in which the GK is read, all the more reason for some clear thinking men of God, far distanced from the Church of Rome, the notions of Augustine and Calvin, and the appointees by King James, angry over footnotes in another translation, to be listened to carefully. So what if he is a Methodist? Some great men of God in the last few hundred years were Methodists as well. What does that have to do with ones ability to understand the GK? Were the early Christian fathers and scholars he mentioned in support of the same rendering of the texts 'Methodists' as well or influenced by some 'Methodist' agenda?
I would like to know something. Do have more confidence in your skills in the GK than any or all of those listed by Clarke, including Clarke himself? I am not disparaging your understanding of the GK, only asking. What 'Methodist' notion or agenda do you see driving the early Christian fathers mentioned or scholars such as Griesbach?
If in fact there is some hidden agenda for all the scholars and writers listed by Clarke, why would that clear possibility be true for any or all other translator/scholars, including but not limited to those responsible for the KJV, or your own feelings on this passage for that matter? Is everyone biased to a particular agenda but you and those that are in keeping with your own ideas?
The first thing that gave me a clue that something was possibly wrong with the common understood meaning of these passages was the manner in which they were being used by yourself and others to somehow prove a purely Calvinistic notion that all are continuing sinners and none that are good. I certainly saw a clear agenda in your own use of the text. That was my first clue to even take the time to start asking questions. Scripture never indicates anywhere else that no men are good in God's eyes, and in many places clearly indicates that some are indeed good, holy, just, righteous, blameless, perfect, without guile, without rebuke or reproach, and on and on the list goes. So how are you going to convince the audience that it is not your own doctrinal bias driving your GK understanding to the disregard of others that might (depending on your answer to my former question as to your own opinion of your skills of the GK) in fact be miles ahead in their understanding in which the GK can, and even should be, reasonably interpreted? Besides, I would clearly be of the opinion that the verses in question do absolutely nothing to support the notion of the Deity of Christ as you suppose, but rather disparages it and add fuel for those that would want to disparage His Deity.
Last edited by a moderator:
You are missing the point! You have TWO variant readings and both cannot be correct. One of these readings agree perfectly with both Mark and Luke while the other reading does not agree with Mark and Luke. Mark and Luke do not have variant readings and so there is no argument that their readings are correct and they agree with each other.
What evidence do you and Clarke have that would cause you to choose a reading that DISAGREES with Mark and Luke who are directed by the Holy Spirit to say exactly what the very reading you and Clarke are rejecting?
How many uninspired theologions do you think it takes to reject a reading that the Holy Spirit has confirmed by two INSPIRED witnesses???? Only a theologial bias would dare choose a reading that two inspired witnesses did not choose in regard to the same conversation between two persons.
Lastly, if you arbritrarily select a contradictory reading, how does that change what TWO inspired witnesses say??? The very reading you are rejecting is the very reading TWO inspired witnesses are accepting!!! Is God the Author of confusion? Uninspired theologions certainly are the authors of confusion as any look at theology books can readily see.
Have you bothered to look up who Griesbach is? Do you know? Do you anything of the others that he quoted? Who they are? Their beliefs? Their reputations?
It is not a question of "skill" in the Greek in regard to this text. It is a question of CHOICE between two conflicting readings. It is a question of taking sides with TWO inspired Greek writers or taking sides against these TWO inspired Greek writers (Mark, Luke).
In reality it is a CHOICE of siding with GOD or with men. God the Holy Spirit produces TWO witnesses for one of these readings and NO witnesses for the reading these scholars have chosen!!
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
Biblicist, Your comments thus far would again blow the notion out of the water than translators would not be prone to interpret the GK in light of their particular doctrinal persuasions or that no translations affect any doctrines directly.
HP: I believe you are in error, although clearly he sees it can be read as he states in his explanation. Do you believe Clarke was ignorant of the TR or the GK manuscripts from which it was derived?
HP: He reasons not only from the text itself, again with much support from well qualified men to make such judgments outside his own theological persuasion, but from the manner the KJ rendering would lead itself to a position far from the truth of the Deity of Christ. I see no personal 'Methodist' doctrine period to be upheld or supported from his rendering of the GK. Just curious. Tell us what might be the 'hidden Methodist agenda' you see by rendering the GK in the manner he and the others mentioned did? Why would the others, removed from Methodism, be supporting 'Methodist notions? Were all the men responsible for latter critical renderings (from the numerous versions I previously posted) from the GK closet Methodists trying to support some Methodist notion?
HP: From my standpoint, not being able to read and understand the GK, I see merit in what you are saying, yet those well able scholars listed, who indeed can read and understand the GK, Latin, and possibly other languages as well, coming from a wide variety of theological understanding and beliefs, would clearly disagree with both of us. Should we not give some fair consideration to these men that most likely are far more knowledgably than even you are concerning the renderings clearly in keeping with the GK texts?
HP: That is precisely where all the listed scholars, from the ones in the early Church to the day of Clarke onward, would disagree with you and those appointed by King James. They obviously felt that the GK placed no such emphasis on the word 'good.'
HP: That is not in keeping with the question he asked according to the GK scholars listed by Clarke. He asked about some 'good' thing he might do to inherit eternal life. Christ's response was not a dissertation on his Deity, but rather clearly pointed him to the righteousnes of the law and the merits of keeping the law, if one would. I know full well how this would disagree with your own doctrinal; position, but surely we would not allow that alone to simply disregard the scholastic abilities of those mentioned in understanding the GK text now would we?
HP: In all fairness, that is sheer philosophical conjecture, not established by the text itself.
HP: I cannot believe you cannot see the position you are trying to take, one at direct antipodes with your own position. If I believe you, I could say, Christ was trying to say that the law, or to come and follow Christ, demands an impossibility, faith in and obedience to the commandments of God. What kind of faith can beleive in something known to be an impossibility? Your position is that it is absolutely impossible to fulfill any of the commandments, or have faith in the commandments, whatsoever. You are making the clear suggestion that God is lying to the man, suggesting that God, via the law, demands the impossible, i.e., keeping the law. One thing I do know, and that is God will never use something that is a complete impossibility to make a point in showing an honest seeker of truth how to obtain eternal life. Your position makes a mockery of the truth Christ plainly stated, and destroys any notion of the justice of God's law, as well as placing faith in the law as just impossible.
HP: Here you make up something not indicated in the least by the text. There was not the slightest indication, from the text itself or from Christ's response that would indicate this man had not in fact kept the commandments as he said he had. The only thing we know is that in light of the new revelation Christ gave him, he was at that time unwilling to follow the new light given him.
Think about the demands Christ made upon Him. How would have you responded? It is a scary thought to me. Oh, I can say, yes Lord I will come and follow you......but I am certainly glad you did not in reality give me that ultimatum...........or does or will He?
HP: According to the many voices cited by Clarke, the GK text itself (you do realize that no translation is devoid of being an interpretation of the original autograph and as such may in fact in error as to what God intended for it to portray,.... or are you saying the KJV is 'infallible' as opposed to all other translations and renditions of the GK?,......in like kind to possibly the KJO crowd) indicates no such thing.
I own a copy of the TR. Anyone that looks at the TR will not see the reading chosen by Clarke and these men. The TR reads exactly the same in Matthew as it does in Mark and Luke.
To choose a reading contrary to Mark and Luke when a reading that harmonizes with Mark and Luke is directly choosing to reject God's Witnesess on this matter.
To choose a reading contrary to Mark and Luke when a reading that harmonizes with Mark and Luke is directly choosing to reject God's Witnesess on this matter.
I believe he chose wrongly and deliberately, according to the fashion of the day which was liberalism, rationalism, and evolution. Here is a paragraph from Sorenson's book, "Touch not the Unclean Thing, page 108, that should give you some insight into who some of these men and what their motivation and background was:
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Let the reader fully understand the position of Biblicist. He has taken the position that the KJV is infallibly the oracles of God as opposed to all other GK scholars looking at the same GK manuscripts, and other manuscripts as well. If that is not KJO in regard to these texts, the Pope is not a Catholic.
How is his postion not precisely showing a complete lack of respect for the Word of God as pointed out by his utter disregard for all other translations and or reditions of even the same GK text itself? His position is in esssence, if it is not KJ as I understand it, it is not Scripture.
Here appears to me a clear distinction between myself and Biblicist. While he clearly advances the KJV alone to be infallible in regard to the passages in question, as well as his understanding of it, it is my position that it is the original autographs alone are infallible. All subsequent translations/interpretations are subject to reasonable debate and or examination.
How is his postion not precisely showing a complete lack of respect for the Word of God as pointed out by his utter disregard for all other translations and or reditions of even the same GK text itself? His position is in esssence, if it is not KJ as I understand it, it is not Scripture.
Here appears to me a clear distinction between myself and Biblicist. While he clearly advances the KJV alone to be infallible in regard to the passages in question, as well as his understanding of it, it is my position that it is the original autographs alone are infallible. All subsequent translations/interpretations are subject to reasonable debate and or examination.
Do you have a problem dealing with the same story from Mark?
If so why?
If not, the let's discuss it from that book instead.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
HP: I believe you are in error, although clearly he sees it can be read as he states in his explanation. Do you believe Clarke was ignorant of the TR or the GK manuscripts from which it was derived?
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
HP: I believe you are in error, although clearly he sees it can be read as he states in his explanation. Do you believe Clarke was ignorant of the TR or the GK manuscripts from which it was derived?
HP: DHK, when did Adam Clarke live? How was he influenced by the work of men such as W&H? Did you even read the comments by Clarke? The men citing agreement with the rendering of these texts goes clear back to the days of the Early Christian fathers no less. This was no product of the textual criticism of W&H or any other modern day scholastic attempt at textual criticism. Clarke was reading the same texts available to the translators of the KJV as far as I can tell. The GK manuscripts W&H used to establish their higher criticism was no where to be found. It was safely tucked away in some trash bin in some monastery as I recall.
And so? Did you bother to look up those men either.
Do your homework HP!!!
For example, Clarke quotes Origen.
Even the RCC declared Origen as a heretic. Some call him the "father of Arianism." Yet Clarke quotes him as authoritative in this area. Look up the people he quotes and find out how reliable they are, not just when they lived!!
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: As I have said all along, we should examine all the passages in their own light. What is interesting to me is, (remember I cannot understand the GK) is that this able commentator, clearly fluent in the GK, indeed found no reason to interpret the passages in Mark of Luke from precisely the manner in which he interpreted the GK concerning the passage in Matt. In both places, he defers his comments to his Matt. comments, that again listed those in agreement with such a rendering as he gave.
It is plainly obvious to me that Clarke found nothing in the GK, dealing with the accounts in Mark or Luke , that would render the text in any other manner than what was already stated concerning the Matt. account. I am certainly willing to seek others on this issue as well, for truth did not die with Clarke or anyone else. I do believe that Clarke did have much support for his understanding of these passages, in light of the others he spoke of that were in agreement to his position, Griesbach among those mentioned, indeed a well educated and capable GK scholar from everything I have read.
You fundementally misunderstand my position. The job of a textual critic when one or more readings of a passage are available is to determine which reading is the correct reading.
In many cases there is no other parallel account in Scripture to determine this and so they must consider the context of that passage and other things like the oldest reading to determine it.
However, that is not the case with Matthew 19:17. The textual critic is not only provided with one inspired witness account of the same story but TWO inspired accounts of the same story.
The TR reading is the only reading that harmonizes with the two INSPIRED accounts of the same story.
The alternative reading has ZERO inspired accounts to substantiate it as the correct reading.
Context does not play any factor in this decision BECAUSE the same reading attested by the two inspired witnesses is found in the very SAME context as it would be found in Matthew. Therefore, if one argues that the TR reading does not fit the context in Matthew, neither would it fit the context in Mark and Luke. However, the fact is it is the reading found in Mark and Luke and so this argument is stupid.
Nothing but pure theological bias would reject TWO inspired accounts over ZERO witnesses for the reading selected by you and these men.
Your response demonstrates that it is nothing but pure theological bias that makes you choose the UNSUBSTANTIATED and CONTRADICTORY reading to both Mark and Luke. The men whom Clarke quotes share the same THEOLOGICAL BIAS with you. Hence, this is not objective scholarship but pure theological bias trying to justify a clearly false reading.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
DHK, although I believe your advice to be careful of others is indeed wise, I cannot help but see a double standard at work in your comments. I know how you feel about Calvin and the Catholics, so why would not yourself be concerned as to the influences upon the GK translations heavily influenced by some of the men responsible for compiling the GK texts used in the TR itself, as well as many other GK and Latin manuscripts also? What about the ones directly involved in the KJV itself? Are they all white as the driven snow, and not in any manner influenced by the King that appointed them or any doctrinal notions clearly held in their day? What would have been their fate if they crossed the King or the Church hierarchy in their interpretations presented? Are you following your own good advice?
From everything you read?? Did you bother to read what I posted?
This is what you also believe--that the Bible is just a man-made book; not inspired of God, just another book like Shakespeare and no more. Is this also your belief? This man was an apostate.
Voltaire was also a well educated man.
So was Hitler and Marx. Have you read his "Das Capital"?
Not all education is good education!
If a person set aside all theological bias and simply selected the correct reading on the basis of evidence you would have to reject the reading you and Clarke have chosen.
Think about this! In order to choose your selected reading you have to reject two witnesses by the Holy Spirit in regard to the same story in the same context. Only pure theological bias could drive a person to repudiate the double witness of the Holy Spirit.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Let the listener be exceedingly careful in understanding what Biblicist is claiming. We would all agree that the Holy Spirit is indeed infallible. Biblicist is once again taking the position that the King James version, the translation from Greek manuscripts, NOT ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS, nor even in consideration of many other manuscripts, is in fact the infallible witness of the Holy Spirit alone. The King James version, or others in agreement with it, are alone the true witness of the Holy Spirit. Again I ask the reader, how is this not the most blatant witness for the very spirit so often criticized of those holding to KJO? If to question Greek manuscripts and or translations from Greek manuscripts, is paramount to rejecting witnesses of the Holy Spirit, how are not such comments in precisely the same spirit, or even more disrespectful towards all other translations of the word of God, then any one that has ever taken KJO position on this list or anywhere else?
DHK, can you refresh our understanding as to the position of the Baptist Board on those holding and setting forth a KJO position, to the disparagement of all other translations/interpretations of the Greek, setting all others but the King James version in direct opposition to the Holy Spirit Himself? I may be wrong but I think I recall something written about such positions on Baptist Board.
I do not take the position of KJO for very good reason. I do not take the position that to disagree with anything other than the original autographs of Scripture are in fact a denial or rejection of the truth set forth by the Holy Spirit. Biblicist, as I read and understand him, has clearly stepped over the line of reasonable debate, with his assertions made above. I am keenly interested in the remarks possibly from the moderators in relationship to the position he is taken above. Is his position, and yes even his attacks, acceptable rhetoric on this forum? Has he not clearly insinuated that anyone that denies a specific translation of the Greek as found in the King James version, is in essence denying the truth of the Holy Spirit, which well could be possibly termed 'blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?'
His stated positions and feignly camouflaged attack should alarm any reasonable believer and certainly the moderators of this list.
Last edited by a moderator: