1 John 5:7

Dear Lorelei,

You posted...

>>Try to realize that I am not a scholar in this field>>

Be prepared to become one to whatever degree you wish to devote to the pursuit. You will , no doubt, run into the KJVO controversy.
Be prepared also for a battle. Put on your armour.

Having said that, 1 John 5:7 has (as of yet) very little support (but some) in the Greek extant manuscripts (mss). There are "legends" concerning ancient Waldenses mss containing the passage. Some compare these legends to the so called historic account of the Mormon Gold Plates.
The ancient support for 1 John 5:7 is from 1)the old Itala and/or the Latin Vulgate TRANSLATION(S) which (for the Itala) date back to the 3rd and 4th centuries and 2) The early LATIN church fathers quote it as scripture as early as 250AD. If one is to hold that 1 John 5:7 is part of the inspired text then one has to grapple with that fact. I have, and hold that it is inspired and that somehow it fell out of the COPIES of the original Greek text of 1 John early on, but was retained in the Latin translations.

You can use the BB search engine and find a lot of info about the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8).

Here is a suggestion. In your pursuits, take heed :

James 3:13ff
13 Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.
14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.
17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
18 And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

HankD

[ August 05, 2001: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Lorelei,
You have just run across a difficult issue. First let me state that I Jn. 5:7 is a rather unique passage. While I believe the Greek text issue is an important one, rarely does it noticeably affect a translation. This verse is one of only a handful where the change is significant. Actually, this verse is so unusual, it has been given its own special name, "the Johannine Comma."

I personally do not believe it is original. First it is absent from all the Greek manuscripts of the first millenium. Second, it is absent from all the ancient versions, except for Latin (and it is absent from many of the Latin versions). Third, the debate over the Trinity was central in the early church. This verse is the best proof-text of the Trinity in all of Scripture (though the doctrine of the Trinity is clear without this verse). Despite this, the verse is not quoted once in the writings of the Greek church fathers in support of the Trinity. That seems unimagineable if the verse were in their Bibles.

Anyway, my suggestion for you, is, what the KJV translators said in their preface to the KJV,
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> It hath pleased God in his Divine Providence here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence. Therefore as Saint Augustine saith, that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good; yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So, personally, I think you are doing a good job. Use your KJV as your main Bible. Don't be afraid to check in the NASB or NIV for another way of saying it (but they are both done from a different Greek text). I have found that the NETBible at www.bible.org is also helpful, because of their extensive notes. The Greek text issue is tough. There is good evidence on both sides. Personally, I like the text similar to the one from which the KJV was done, but that is based on my study of history. It is not a Scriptural absolute.

 

http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/1john5-7.htm

http://kjvonlyism.tripod.com/doug/simple_outline.htm

The first of these two articles was written by Daniel Wallace, professor at Dallas Theological Seminary. He is a leading authority in Koine Greek, and has written the Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics which is the best of Second Year textbooks.

Best wishes,

Chick

 

The issue of 1 John 5:7-8 came up on the old board, just before it disintegrated. Fortunately, I was able to copy and save the entire thread just before the meltdown. Below is the discussion between Chick, Tom Cassidy, Blade, and a few others. It begins with Tom Cassidy's reply to Chick's claim that the trinitarian phrase in 1 John 5 was never part of the original text of 1 John.

----------

Thomas Cassidy (3/2/2001):

It always amazes me how the self appointed experts on the BB can pontificate concerning the validity of Mark 16:9-20 and 1 John 5:7-8 while ignoring the definitive defences of both of these passages of scripture. Read "A History of The Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8" by Michael Maynard. He makes it abundantly clear that the comma is canonical.
Learn to read Greek and explain why the articles in verse 6 suddenly change gender in verse 8, violating a fundamental rule of Greek grammar, unless, of course, verse 7 is there which provides the mechanism for the gender change. Take out the comma and you introduce a grammatical error. Leave it in and there is no error. Is your God ignorant of Greek grammar? Mine is not.

Chick Daniels (3/2/2001):

Tom,
I can read Greek just fine. You need to learn Greek, then it would be abundantly clear to you that the gender change is not a grammatical problem WITHOUT the comma. Wallace, on page 330 and following of his book Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, cites several examples of demonstrative pronouns that involve "natural agreement with their antecedents that overrides strict grammatical concord. As such, they are illustrations of constructions according to sense. This natural agreement may involve gender or, much more rarely, number." Wallace cites Acts 8:10, Romans 2:14, 1 Cor. 6:10-11, Acts 9:15, Phil. 3:7, 1 Pet 2:19, Jude 12 in addition to 1 John 5:7. Regarding this verse, Wallace posits that you may not even need to appeal to natural agreement to solve what you Tom see as a grammatical error. He states, "The masculine participle ... [bearing witness] refers to the spirit and the water and the blood (v 8), all neuter nouns. Some see this as an oblique reference to the Spirit's personality (so I. H. Marshall, The Epistles of John [NICNT 237, n. 20), but the fact that the author has personified water and blood, turning them into witnesses along with the Spirit, may be enough to account for the masculine gender. This interpretation also has in its behalf the allusion to Deut 19:15 (the necessity of 'two or three witnesses'), for in the OT the testimony only of males was acceptable. Thus, the elder may be subtly indicating (via the masculine participle) that the Spirit, water, and blood are all valid witnesses."
So in summary, Wallace proves that there are several GNT examples where genders agree in sense not strict concord of gender forms. Furthermore, with 1 John 5:7, one not even need to make an appeal to natural agreement, when considering the personification of water and blood.
And my God is not ignorant of Greek, nor is He bound to always strictly follow Greek "rules". Even if 1 John 5:7 were agreement by sense instead of Grammar, God has no obligation to never stretch grammar rules in communicating His Revelation. If the HS and/or the human authors were never allowed to stretch the grammar, then the above mentioned verses would also be problems with Scripture.
I have no desire to pontificate Tom, just present evidence to which all too often, I receive an arrogant pontificated response.
All things considered there is no good reason to consider the Comma as original.
For the record, I would like to hear you say YES to the question, Do you believe that a portion of Scripture became missing right after inspiration, stayed missing for 1500 years, only to resurface in only few modified 16th century manuscripts, obviously adjusted to confute Erasmus?
Chick

Forever settled in Heaven (3/2/2001):

what amazes anybody more is the desperation with which KJBOs grasp at straws academically. the likes of Burgon and Maynard wld long have been condemned, had they come out with different conclusions than those in support of KJBOism.
but coming back to their much-worshipped Maynard, who uses some of the anathematised "scholarly" methodologies of secular Greek scholarship. this Maynard's tricks have already been exposed by Gary Hudson:
http://kjvonlyism.tripod.com/gary/maynards_deceptive.htm

no wonder (and fortunately) the majority of Greek scholars, Christian or otherwise, steer clear of KJBOist "scholarship"!

Thomas Cassidy (3/3/2001):

I not only read Greek, but teach it at the graduate and post graduate level. And, I don't have to resort to long, complicated, and speculative explanations of the grammatical error in 1John 5:7. You see, my bible doesn't contain the grammatical error. The CNG agree in my bible. Too bad you can't say the same for yours.
As to the antiquity of the reading, it is quoted verbatum as early as 160 AD in the Patristics. Too bad you have to rely on a late revision.

Chick Daniels (3/5/2001):

Tom,
I find it interesting that when I make a point with supporting evidence, that you reply by stressing your credentials instead of interacting with the data presented. I could present my credentials, but choose to not do this because I want the focus to be on the evidence.
Furthermore, my presentation was neither long, complicated, nor was it speculation. You are using this rhetoric in an attempt to discredit the information without dealing with it. My presentation was very simple. You keep saying "grammatical error" and yet Wallace has shown that there is no need to see any anomaly in this passage when you consider the usage of personification of neuter substantives. Furthermore even if it is an anomaly, this is NOT an issue to use in establishing the text. And there are ample examples of this very anomaly of gender change in other passages. Language itself is flexible. I know that you know this Tom, based on the credentials you cited. Take the historical present usage of the present tense. In hundreds of places, all versions (including the KJV) translate Present tense verbs ("he says") as past time ("he said"). Is this an error? Hardly! When a linguist sees examples of gender shifting where one would expect consistent usage, the linguist creates a category to account for it. He does not declare that it is not allowed to be done and call it an "error".
My Bible does not have a grammatical error--I CAN say this of my GNT. What you cannot say of your preferred reading is that you have a Greek mss. to support it prior to the one prepared to confute Erasmus. As to your appeal to the patristic evidence, I call on you to cite the father, and provide the full context. My suspicion is that if it exists, it is probably a church father known for blending sermonic material in with his Scripture text. This is a prime reason to depend on GNT mss first, and Patristic evidence second. I have mss evidence on my side, you claim to have a church father on yours. Lets see your church father.
Chick

Thomas Cassidy (3/5/2001):
Wrong again. If you would check "The Anchor Bible: The Epistles of John" by Raymond Brown you will see the author enquired of Bruce Metzger information on the Greek MSS which contain the comma. Metzgar give Brown the following MSS 61,629,918,2318,88,221,429,363. And this does not take into consideration of thousands of non-Greek MSS dating to as early as the mid second century AD which contain the reading.

Cyprian writing in "De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate" about 250 AD says "Dicut dominus. Ego et pater unum sumus et iternum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est. Et tres unum sunt." (For those of you whose Latin is rusty, the translation would read, "The Lord says 'I amd the Father are one' and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit 'And these three are one."
Again Cyprian in "Epistle to Jubaianus" says, regarding baptism, "If, of the Creator, he cannot be his temple, who had not believed in him; if of Christ, neither can he who denies Him to be God, be His temple; if of the Holy Spirit, since the three are one.
Priscillian (380) in "Liber Apologeticus" says "As John says, 'and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh, the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus.'
Gregory of Nazianzus (385) even uses the argument of grammer pointing out "using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down." He uses the grammatical argument to convice his listeners of the deity of Christ.
In 450 the author of "Conta Vaimadum" says "And John the Evangelist says "in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and God was the word." And also he says to the Partheans "there are three who give testimony on earth, the water, the blood, and the flesh, and the tree are in us. And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the word, and the Spirit, and these three are one."
450 De Divinis Scripturis Suie Speculum contains the reading.
484 "Historia Persecutionis Africanae" the comma was invoked at the council of Carthage.
485 Victor Vitensis "Historia Persecutionis Africanae Provinciae" quote the verse verbatum.
And I can give you 6th and 7th and 8th and 9th and 10th century cites.

Blade (3/5/2001):

Dr. Cassidy,
The MSS you cite do indeed contain the Comma: 61, 629, 918, and 2318 IN the text, the remainder in the margin. I can't speak for Chick, but what I took his statement to mean was that the reading wasn't in [the body of] any manuscript prior to Erasmus' 3rd edition. Clearly, it was in the margin of a GREEK manuscript as early as the 10th century. As to the mss that contain it in the body, 61 is the infamous "made to order" manuscript, and 918 and 2318 are older than Erasmus. That leaves 629 which is probably around the 15th (although some might say the 14th) century. It is possible that it was around prior to Erasmus, but was obviously not available to him if it was. Furthermore, the evidence he had then (which has only been strengthened since) was clearly against it being an authentic Greek reading.
Oddly enough, none of the aforementioned are worded like the reading appears in the TR, instead showing evidence that they were translated into Greek from Latin (I am not fluent in either language; this is from other sources who are).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Cyprian writing in "De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate" about 250 AD says... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, I must preface my statement with this: I do not hold the writings of the early fathers as authoritative. They may be helpful when the evidence is divided or inconclusive (say 50/50, or even 70/30, but we're talking about 99/1 against here), but certainly do not carry the weight a Greek manuscript does.
It doesn't surprise me that you would quote the Latin, either. It is believed by many that Latin speaking Christians first introduced and perpetuated the reading (first as a side thought like modern day study Bibles, later as an alternate reading, and finally as text).
Incidentally, you give early dates for the writings you cite. Was that the original date of the writings (and the reading was found in later copies), or are there copies from 450 A.D., etc. that contain the writings? I could not confirm those dates (as dates of existing copies) from my resources, which, I humbly admit, are most assuredly not as extensive as yours. I ask for clarification purposes, not challenging what you wrote here.
Most sincerely...

Chick Daniels (3/6/2001):

Tom, I must say that you are wrong when you said to me "Wrong again" with reference to NO Greek mss prior to the one (61) used to refute Erasmus. You cited (without page number) Raymond Brown's AB commentary. I am actually looking at the volume right now as I type. On page 776 under the section A. The textual evidence before 1500, 1. The Non-Latin Evidence, Brown lists the mss evidence as provided by Metzger (footnote 3). He cites 61, which of course is the one made to order to refute Erasmus, 629, 14th or 15 century which "has a Latin text alongside the Greek, which has been revised according to the Vulgate." So neither 61 nor 626 count. 918 is 16th century (not prior to Erasmus). 2318 - 18th century (not prior to Erasmus). 88 IS a 12th century mss., BUT the comma is scribbled in the margin in 17th century handwriting! So 88 does not count. 221, which is "a variant reading added to a tenth-century MS." So 221 doesn't count. 429 is a variant reading added to a 16th century ms. And you cited 363, but demonstrated a little dyslexia, because Brown lists it as 636 which is a variant reading added to a 15th century manuscript. Tom, I must confront the way you presented your data. It was simply dishonest to present Brown as revealing standard (non-altered) Greek mss readings prior to Erasmus. Brown stressed that EACH of these readings were either mss copied AFTER Erasmus, or they were mss with the comma added AFTER Erasmus. My statement that you have no Greek mss support for the comma prior to Erasmus STILL STANDS!
Here are some quotes from Brown, who is relying on Metzger:
"Within the uncontaminated Greek tradition the Comma is never quoted by a Greek author of the first Christian millennium." (Brown, 777)
"The Comma is absent from all pre-1500 copies of the Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, and Slavonic translations of the NT--an incredible situation if it were once part of the original Greek text of 1 John." (Brown, 777)
Then you carried on about "thousands of non-Greek MSS." Interestingly, as I looked through Brown and Metzger, I failed to see your thousands--in fact, there are so few. You would see this if you read the rest of Brown's chapter. It would take much space to quote Brown's lengthy discussion, but Carson effectively summarizes it with this quote from his book "The King James Version Debate" on page 35: "The Comma Johanneum is cited in a fourth-century Latin treatise usually attributed to Priscillian. It probably sprang from allegorical exegesis of the three witnesses and, written on an early margin of a Latin manuscript of 1 John, became an established gloss in the Old Latin Bible in the fifth century. It appears in no copy of the Latin Vulgate before about A.D. 800." Of course this means that it never appeared in Jerome's Vulgate.
You see Tom, many early Christian's loved to allegorize Scripture, and certainly the passage in 1 John was ripe for allegory. In fact Brown points out that the Tertullian allusion is really from John 10:30 "My Father and I are one"--scarcely a reference to the comma, but can be seen as an illustration of the allegory to follow. Your example of Cyprian, Brown posits, is a reflection of Tertullian. Other Latin fathers no doubt followed these traditions, which no doubt led to the inclusion in the Latin Vulgate somewhere in the ninth century.
Once in the Vulgate, the battle with Erasmus was inevitable, because Erasmus's GNT was supplied for the purpose of supporting his new Latin translation--a direct affront to the Vulgate.
Further arguing against the comma is the fact that we have the documents recording those early century Trinity debates. Had those arguing for the Trinity known about the comma, it no doubt would have surfaced to the top of the list of verses in their systematic study.
What I find interesting, is the fact that had Erasmus stood his ground and not yielded to political pressure by included the comma in his third edition, it would not have wound up in the TR, and thereby not in the KJV either. Had this happened, I predict that neither Tom, nor any other KJV/TR folks would be arguing for it. I find it particularly ironic that any TR reading is defended vigorously against those dreaded few early Alexandrian mss., but the comma is defended by the same people even though 99.9% of Greek mss are against it, and it rests only on early marginal allegorical interpretations that influenced 9th century inclusion in the vulgate.
It may not be obvious to you Tom, but it is to those of my persuasion, that you are simply arguing backward--starting with the KJV and then seeing the evidence through the grid of how it matches the KJV. I prefer to start with the evidence and see where it leads.

Furthermore, I only mockingly accused you of not knowing Greek because you accused me of the same. I was simply illustrating that such appeals do nothing to support or refute data. Furthermore, I am not at all threatened by facts in this discussion. That is why I keep replying with evidence and information versus appeals to my degrees.

Chick

Blade (3/7/2001):

Chick,
I commend you on a nicely researched response. I knew that someone with more extensive resources and knowledge than myself would fill in the gaps I left.
To all,
I also found 2 papers around the net that I thought might be interesting. They essentially reiterate the previously stated facts with some more background information on the various manuscripts and ancient versions.
One is by Doug Kutilek (which, I'm sure, will not be appreciated by Dr. Cassidy). The URL is: A SIMPLE OUTLINE REGARDING I JOHN 5:7
The other is by Dr. Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary. He is one of the most respected Biblical Greek scholars of our time. That probably automatically makes him one of the most disrespected scholars of our time for the KJVO crowd. Anyway, the URL is: The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8

I am eager to hear what y'all think if you haven't already read these (or even if you have).

 

A relatively new book on the pro-comma side is available (already mentioned but lost in the verbage above as well as the author being ad hominem-ed):

A History of The Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8.
Michael Maynard,
Comma Publications; PO Box 1625
Tempe Arizona. 1995, 382 pages.

[ August 06, 2001: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Hank,

Read the following on the credibility of Mr. Maynard:
http://kjvonlyism.tripod.com/gary/maynards_deceptive.htm

Chick

 

&gt;&gt;credibilty of MM...&gt;&gt;

yes, I am aware of this. No author on earth is free from the misrepresentation of others.
This is apparent here on this board even from post to post (or is that coast to coast).



I am truly pained when Christians perform these ad-hominems on each other.
I ask myself "do they realize what they are doing"? Actually, I hope that they do not.

Apart from his typical human failings, Michaels work is for the most part honest in those things that I have verified.

HankD

 

Lorelei,

Now you see the limitations of academia in determining what is and is not to be considered canonical.

Men for centuries have tried to summarize the tests of canonicity only to find an exception to each one in the Bible? Who among us would have included the Book of Esther? It does not mention God, and it deals with those Jews who lacked the necessary zeal for God's house and chose to remain in exile than to return to Jerusalem with the faithful remnant.

The only true test of canonicity is the testimony of God the Holy Spirit to the authority of His own Word.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This testimony found a response of recognition, faith, and submission in the hearts of God's people who walked in covenant fellowship with Him.--Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, p. 85.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Jesus bears witness of this testimony when He said:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am not teaching something that I thought up. What I teach comes from the one who sent me. If you really want to obey God, you will know if what I teach comes from God or from me.--John 7:16-17 CEV.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nothing anyone says here will help you understand the canonicity of 1 John 5:7. God must bear witness of it in your own heart, but only as you seek to obey Him.

Just a side bar--many I know who had a former contempt for the KJV, gained a deep respect and reverence for it when they began seeking to OBEY.

To answer your question, "Wouldn't it make sense that the earliet manuscripts were the most valid since they came first?"

Not always, and not even most of the time. There are seven items textual critics consider, and the preferred reading is the one that:<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Is older, AND<LI>Is more difficult, AND<LI>Is shorter, AND<LI>Best explains variants, AND<LI>Has the widest geographical support, AND<LI>Conforms to the style and diction of the author, AND<LI>Reflects no doctrinal bias.[/list]

 

Man was created in Gods image. we are body soul and spirit. are you one person or three?
the Bible KJV says God is ONE LORD. we do not have 3 Gods. I john 5:7 says the 3 (father son and holy spirit) are one. the old testament says the Lord is one God. electrons are protons neutrons and electrons and are one atom. in the westcott and hort
( who were occultists) manuscripts of the catholic vatican originals they delete the trinity proof text and they say the three agree as one. so instead of one God you have three. in the Book of revelation you have the satanic trinity of the beast and the false prophet and the antichrist and they will agree as one believe that. so also look on my post on the NIV and why is Jesus going to hell (pit) they destroy the bible. God said let us make man in our image and in our likeness.

want more info write me. trust the KJV as Gods word.

 

bob walker,

Your reply is so full of confusion, that I don't even know where to begin. Westcott and Hort were not involved with the occult, and nothing was deleted by those dreaded Alexandrian manuscripts, quite to the contrary, 1 Jn 5:7 was added to Erasmus' third printed edition after pressure brought about by those who viewed the Latin Vulgate to be the ultimate standard. As noted above, this verse appears in no unaltered Greek manuscript prior to this issue with Erasmus. It only got into the Vulgate due to the presence of allegorical interpretations from the writings of a few church fathers. Let's start with the evidence, and see where it leads versus an apriori assumption that the KJV is perfect as a translation, and then move toward making the evidence fit that assumption.

Best wishes,

Chick

 

Read the post on the NIV why is Jesus going to Hell. westcott and hort were in the occult and loved darwin evolution and prayed to mother mary. read their own quotes from their own book written in their own hand. I posted the quotes for all to see. they did not believe the Bible was inspired. Do you believe the Bible was inspired? I have my doubts...if you like westcott and hort why waste your time in a baptist board? go to the "mother church" like they did. they loved the pope and visited him. they agreed with the Jehovah witnesses that Jesus is only a creation of God. do you agree with them? I suppose someone will say the quotes are out of context or fabricated. that is ok they did not believe in HELL either...
I bet they believe in HELL RIGHT NOW!!!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bob walker:
Do you believe the Bible was inspired? I have my doubts...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Bible is inspired. The KJV is not. It is nothing more than a good translation of the best original language texts and evidences that were available at the time.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>if you like westcott and hort why waste your time in a baptist board? go to the "mother church" like they did.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If you like TR so well, why don't you ask for the pope's blessing like Erasmus did. He also loved the pope. If you like the AV so well, why don't you ask for the approval of the English monarch (the Head of the Anglican church) like they did. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>they agreed with the Jehovah witnesses that Jesus is only a creation of God. do you agree with them? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ruckman reportedly does not believe in the Trinity. He also believes that a man who has three living wives is qualified to pastor. Do you agree with him? Riplinger believes that she was divinely inspired in writing a book full of errors. She believes that she can teach and exercise theological authority over men. Do you agree with her? The KJV translators believed in infant baptism and a form of baptismal regeneration amongst other false doctrines. Do you agree with them? Erasmus believed RCC doctrine. Do you agree with him?

 

Oh boy! Just what we needed . . . another obnoxious, holier than thou KJVer!

 

wellsjs ... i'm trying to follow this thread. Who were you putting down?

Stephen

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wellsjs:
Oh boy! Just what we needed . . . another obnoxious, holier than thou KJVer! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As opposed to another obnoxious, holier than thou NON KJVer?

 

Don't forget the reverence in which the KJV translators held St. Augustine.

Joshua

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Riplinger believes that she was divinely inspired in writing a book full of errors. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Unlikely. I've read her books and listened to some of her tapes and she hasn't even come close to saying what you claim.

Frank.