• 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!

The Virgin Conception in The Gospel of John

SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Yeshua1 said:
The ECF are a mixed bag, as some were very good, while others such as Origen went off the deep end!
Click to expand...

again, you are looking at their theology, I am more interested in the text that they used and quote from. According to Bruce Metzger, who was the hero of Wallace, he said:

"Lucian influenced the form of the New Testament, and parts of the Old Testament which were used, and are still used, by millions who never heard of his name" (Chapters in the History of New Testament textual criticism, p.27).

Metzger is referring to Lucian of Antioch, who was a friend of the heretic Arius, and enemy of the Holy Trinity, Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit! yet there are many versions that are used today, that are from his text as their basis!
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
SavedByGrace said:
again, you are looking at their theology, I am more interested in the text that they used and quote from. According to Bruce Metzger, who was the hero of Wallace, he said:

"Lucian influenced the form of the New Testament, and parts of the Old Testament which were used, and are still used, by millions who never heard of his name" (Chapters in the History of New Testament textual criticism, p.27).

Metzger is referring to Lucian of Antioch, who was a friend of the heretic Arius, and enemy of the Holy Trinity, Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit! yet there are many versions that are used today, that are from his text as their basis!
Click to expand...
That is why I do not see that God preserved foe us just one main text, say TR, as we need to examine and review all of the available ones to get a reconstruction of the Original texts!
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Yeshua1 said:
That is why I do not see that God preserved foe us just one main text, say TR, as we need to examine and review all of the available ones to get a reconstruction of the Original texts!
Click to expand...

Indeed, my argument exactly, as opposed to John of Japan, and the KJVO lot, and others, who are too narrow in their judgement, and therefore can accept readings that are not even part of the Inspired Scriptures.
 
37818

37818

Well-Known Member
SavedByGrace said:
what Greek grammar books, this is not a grammar! This cannot tell you anything about the how a text should read, as it only analyses the words.
Click to expand...
BTW, you do not know.
Most English speaking Christians rely on their English Bible translations. Is there even a single standard English translation that supports your convoluted interpertation of John 1:12-13?
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
37818 said:
Most English speaking Christians rely on their English Bible translations. Is there even a single standard English translation that supports your convoluted interpertation of John 1:12-13?7^
Click to expand...

oh ye of little faith! so hung up on "versions"! Anyhow, you asked for one English translation, and I give you one, where the singular reading has been rightly used! The Jerusalem Bible. I know it is Roman Catholic, but is still the Word of God in the greater majority of places. By the way, do you accept the reading for the Holy Trinity in 1 John 5:7?

he gave power to become children of God,
to all who believe in the name of him
who was born not out of human stock
or urge of the flesh
or will of man
but of God himself.
The Word was made flesh,
he lived among us,
and we saw his glory,
the glory that is his as the only Son of the Father,
full of grace and truth.
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
SavedByGrace said:
the vast majority don't have to be right! 1 John 5:7 is absent from the vast majority of versions in many languages. Yet, I can prove without any doubt, from the Greek grammar of the passage, verses 6-10, that is is impossible that the words are not the part of the original Epistle! Yet, this evidence is ingored by translators and the text is not included! This shows that these versions are faulty in their handling of the truth in the evidence, especially when the evidence is internal!
Click to expand...
Eramus Himself did not see it as being part of the original text until His third edition though!
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
SavedByGrace said:
oh ye of little faith! so hung up on "versions"! Anyhow, you asked for one English translation, and I give you one, where the singular reading has been rightly used! The Jerusalem Bible. I know it is Roman Catholic, but is still the Word of God in the greater majority of places. By the way, do you accept the reading for the Holy Trinity in 1 John 5:7?

he gave power to become children of God,
to all who believe in the name of him
who was born not out of human stock
or urge of the flesh
or will of man
but of God himself.
The Word was made flesh,
he lived among us,
and we saw his glory,
the glory that is his as the only Son of the Father,
full of grace and truth.
Click to expand...
That translation is very free, made the Niv look like the Asv!
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
37818 said:
No.
Click to expand...

and yet the Greek grammar of the passage, proves beyond any doubt that, it has to be part of the text, otherwise there are grammatical errors in the Infallible, Inspired Word of God, which is impossible! On this Daniel Wallace is so very wrong
 
37818

37818

Well-Known Member
SavedByGrace said:
interestingly, that in the Greek verse 12 ends, "εις το ονομα αυτου", which is singluar and leads into the next sentence. verse 14 starts with the Greek conjuction or conjuctive partice, "καί" (and), which is connecting this verse to the previous. naturally, verse 13 is the Virgin Conception, with the singular reading, and verse 14 details the Incarnation of God the Word, Who became flesh, from the Virgin Mary. end of verse 12, through to verse 14, is very smooth in the Greek as referring to Jesus Christ. With the plural reading, the masculine "male", and plural, "bloods", in the Greek of verse 13, is not grammatically correct
Click to expand...
The Greek καί, and, is typically a new thought.

. . . But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word was made flesh,

and dwelt among us,

(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace

and truth.
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
37818 said:
The Greek καί, and, is typically a new thought.

. . . But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word was made flesh,

and dwelt among us,

(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace

and truth.
Click to expand...
The will of God would be referring to the group described right before this phrase!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top