1John 5:7

Another example is simply the standard myth that "only One" greek text has 1John 5:7. That standard lie is continuously being told, and you repeated it right here, showing you are being duped by the Critical Text crew. Even others of your own thinking have provided some more, though not all of the evidence for that verse. You have repeated a party-line that is a standard lie. Think what you will of Ruckman, and I am no great fan of his, but have m,any problems with many things about him and some of his beliefs, but he naled it on this one. He was told the exact same lie, presented exactly the same way when he was in BJU 50 or so years ago. Why do they do this Dr. Bob??? Why lie? Why not tell the whole truth??? I say they are trying to hide something, and Maynard's book shows why.

 

IMO, We should never attack the person.

Their works, have at it.
Expose their preceived errors, discuss it and then condemn those errors or cede the point of the discussion.

Why accuse someone (W&H, Dr. Bob, Ruckman, Riplinger, HankD) of lying, we can expose error or faulty scholarship or errors of fact but why, why must we persist in accusations of sin which may indeed be true but which in most cases is impossible to prove?

We simply cannot know for sure (IMO) if someone is lying or simply and honestly mistaken or caught up in their own "spin" or citing defective scholarship, etc.

Personally, I don't believe mssrs Wescott and Hort were willfully deceptive but were simply wrong in the major thrust(s) of their theories.

Exposing their errors (in my perception) or disagreement with their theology or writings is not an attack against their person.

I also disagree with Dean Burgon concerning his high-church Anglo-Catholic theology.

Anyway back to the thread:

RE: 1 John 5:7. I believe that 1 John 5:7 is apostolic and should be included in the text of the translation, but if it is not, is it a lie?

No, if it is spurious, the believable reason (IMO) is that the old Latin scribes and/or early Latin Fathers inserted it as a commentary of vs 8 (which are reversed in some old itala citations).

From my research, this in-line commenting seems a common practice of old Latin scribes. According to this propostion it (the Comma) later became absorbed into the actual text.

If it is spurious then it should be removed.

The translation committees of most MVs believe that it is spurious and therefore are justified, nay, obligated to remove or red flag it. IMO they are not agents of Satan but just as sincere in their desire to maintain the purity of the text as I am.

Granted our prejudice and leanings can make it easier to accept one theory over the other.

And yes, once in a while it is indeed scriptural and proper to question another's motive but even that requires the evidence of provable works:

Romans 16
17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

KJV 2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

HankD

 

Provi: "Wilbur Pickering destroyed the modern manifestation of W+H--Nestle, Aland and Metzger. Again, no one has seriously attempted to disprove his work, simply because truth cannot be refuted."

Perhaps you failed to read the devastating reviews of Pickering's book by various scholars?

Especially the article-length critique by Gordon Fee, "A Critique of W.N.Pickering's The Identity of the NT Text: A Review Article," that appeared in Westminster Theological Journal 25 years ago (1979)?

Or perhaps you missed the debate articles between Richard Taylor and Pickering that appeared in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (1977-78)?

Or perhaps you missed the appendix directly dealing with Pickering in D.A.Carson's book The KJV Debate (1979)?

In light of this, I would say that indeed some people *have* "attempted to disprove his work". Whether they succeeded, of course, remains another matter.

 

provi: "NOT A ONE of the papyri have Luke 2:14. I have them all right here on my shelf as published by Comfort and Barrett. It is a great resource, giving you the whole papyri collection printed in Greek, with English intros and explanations and history."

While it is correct that there are *no* existing papyri that contain Lk 2:14 (thus one cannot say one way or another what they might have read in that location), it is *misleading* to suggest that Comfort and Barrett include "the *whole* papyri collection" when they don't.

There are known at this point some 118 extant papyri, and Comfort and Barrett include *only* 64/118 (or 54%) of them.

The reason for this is that C&B *limited* their selection of papyri to *only* those written prior to the 4th century.

 

HankD: "RE: 1 John 5:7. I believe that 1 John 5:7 is apostolic and should be included in the text of the translation, but if it is not, is it a lie?"

The better question should be "Is it canonical?" And if it should not be included, but is, then is the text erroneous? Not necessarily in a doctrinal sense, certainly -- BUT in relation to the original form of the text, if non-canonical material is inserted, such cannot be granted "autograph inerrancy" status, even if the text itself contains no doctrinal or factual error.

HankD: "If it is spurious then it should be removed."

I fully agree. And I would remove it.

 

Ziggy:

Calling those "reviews", which mean a SHORT ASSESSMENT of another writing "devasting" remains to be proven. I don't trust Fee as far as you can throw him because of the way he handles the evidence, and his unbiblical theories on Mss evidence. He'd chop a good bit more out of the Bible if we'd let him.

I have the SHORT exchange between Pickering and Taylor, and have written my own rebuttal to the errors of Taylor in those exchanges.

I had the Carson book, and read it, but have lost it over the years somewhere. It was very poorly written and about as convincing as a Watchtower pamphlet.

His idea was to blame Chrysostum for the origin of the TR, whereas Westcott and Hort and most others blamed Lucian, and today, some are pretending the Goths are responsible for the TR! Yeah, and Why don't we just throw in the Druids while we're at it???

All three ideas are pure fiction. The attitude is "anything but the KJV PLEASE!". And they will say almost anything!

No one has written a full-length book, becasue that is whatit would require, to Burgon and Pickering. There ARE REASONS, and they are not hard to perceive. Burgon and Pickering successfully demolished Hort, Nestle, Aland, Metzger, and the rest.

 

Hank, you said:

"Personally, I don't believe mssrs Wescott and Hort were willfully deceptive but were simply wrong in the major thrust(s) of their theories."

Oh but they were. They lied about their intentions, and made everyone on the committee swaer to secrecy. They were supposed to merely update the KJV. What they did behind the scenes was smuggle in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and begin a new translation based on those corrupt forgeries.

Scrivener broke his silence and told the world, when he couldn't take it anymore, and others did also.

W+H insisted on having a Unitarian on that committee, and threatened to pull out if Vance was removed! That is why 1Tim 3:16 was "rendered" the way it was, as many other verses attacked the Diety of Christ in the RSV. These were crooked, deceptive men, not under the influence of the Spirit of God.

Now I would rather NOT look at the lives of people and just deal with the issues, but sometimes, i don't know that you can avoid separating the person from their work, doctrines and theories.

Its hard to believe Calvin was a great expositor of the true doctines about God and salvation, seeing the things he did in his life. Hislife is a witness against trusting this man and his doctrines. Understand?

 

provi: "Calling those "reviews", which mean a SHORT ASSESSMENT of another writing "devasting" remains to be proven."

Yawn....

If they are wrong, then I would suggest giving a point by point refutation, backed up with solid and verifiable *evidence* as opposed to typical KJVO bluster and rhetoric.

Provi: "Scrivener broke his silence and told the world, when he couldn't take it anymore, and others did also."

Simply not true. Nor did Scrivener *ever* criticize W-H in print regarding any liberal or heretical tendencies, let alone purported deceptive practices. Nor did Scrivener ever publicly object to the presence of the Unitarian on the committee (as did Burgon), but instead he remained on the committee from beginning to end.

provi: "His [Fee's] idea was to blame Chrysostum for the origin of the TR, whereas Westcott and Hort and most others blamed Lucian, and today, some are pretending the Goths are responsible for the TR! Yeah, and Why don't we just throw in the Druids while we're at it???

Right...and the KJVOs make equally unsupported claims that the TR/KJV type of text originated in Antioch (home of Lucian)....None of which can be proven either way.

Playing fast and loose with verifiable facts might sit well within a typical KJVO board, but it won't go very far here.

 

Well if you actually READ the exchange between Pickering and Taylor, then you have Pickering's answers. Do you had this exchange? Taylor loses. Pickering also refutes Carson and Fee in his book via the general information in the book and via an enlarged second edition. Do you have Pickerings book? Have you read it? Do you have Burgon's materical's and have you read them?

I am not playing fast and loose with facts, but there is much evidence of that behaviour on this board, I will agree.

Scrivener also wrote a 900 page Introduction to Textual Criticism that was a standard in many classrooms for a long time. Perhaps you need to SEE what Scrivener said?

 

Documentation please.

This was the directive:

Please document that they "smuggled in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus".
Please document that they are "forgeries".

Documentation please.

HankD

 

My only contribution to this little "fracas" will be the following:

HankD said:
"IMO, We should never attack the person.

Their works, have at it.
Expose their preceived errors, discuss it and then condemn those errors or cede the point of the discussion."

And Providential said:
"Now I would rather NOT look at the lives of people and just deal with the issues, but sometimes, i don't know that you can avoid separating the person from their work, doctrines and theories."

And....according to the Apostle Paul...and I cite examples in 1 Timothy 1:20 and again in 2 Timothy 2:17,18...we as Bible believers should always "name names" and expose error wherever it rears up its ugly deceptive head.Seems like Prov has it right here....but it will never be a pleasant or desirable thing to have to do and should be avoided unless essential doctrinal truth is at stake.JMO...carry on guys...good discussion.

Greg Sr.(I'm only qualified to observe this one)

 

I have made a number of points on this thread that no one has acknowledged. I pointed out that Westcott and Hort's theories DO still guide all Modern Textual Criticism, and that their theory for replacing the TR, the Genealogical Method was never applied to the mss of the New testament.

I also pointed out how James White flat lied to me about the papyri in Luke2:14, on his Chatroom, and that Dr. Bob's misrepresentation of the "evidence" for 1John 5:7 is how has been and still is taught all over America. For generations Protestants have been teaching lies to the next generation. And it continues, just like that meanie Ruckman said.

Now what about these things? There are some serious fundamental erros in premises about this whole question, and facts in particular. It would be nice to hear people concede to facts when they are presented.

 

This entire thread has become a joke. By the time the second page got going, there were all kinds of junk being thrown about.

The opening post said, in part:

Different translations use different manuscripts. Not everyone used the TR. So what?

No one has any hard evidence as to which manuscript is the closest to what the original authors wrote. Some claim this one, some that one, but no one has anything to back it up.

No, the comma was not found in the earlier. That is common knowledge. What evidence there is points to a marginal note or inline commentary being adopted as text.

Contrary to what many try to foist over as truth, Erasmus was not 'inspired' in compiling the TR, nor would the TR be considered anything but a waste of paper if he had compiled it today. Just because something is old does not mean we should worship it.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Did you confront him personally? I haven't read all your posts so maybe this has been answered before. If so, I beg your indulgence to answer it again.

 

So where is the evidence for your point?

 

prove: "Westcott and Hort's theories DO still guide all Modern Textual Criticism...."

gb: "So where is the evidence for your point?"

Colwell, "Method in Evaluating Scribal Habits," Studies in Methodology, p. 106:

"The dead hand of Fenton John Anthony Hort lies heavy upon us....Hort's success ... and the cogency of his tightly reasoned theory shaped -- and still shapes -- the thinking of those who approach the textual criticism of the New Testament...Any one who would think constructively here must first rethink Hort's thoughts...We might assume that the influence of Hort's emphasis upon genealogical method is no longer a threat. But this assumption is false. Hort's brilliant work still captivates our minds" etc. etc.

And BTW, Provi, I *do* have and have read all the sources you mentioned and many others besides (Burgon, Scrivener, Miller, Pickering, Taylor, Fee, etc.).

 

Contrary to what many try to foist over as truth, Erasmus was not 'inspired' in compiling the TR, nor would the TR be considered anything but a waste of paper if he had compiled it today.

That's why God had it done in the 1500s. back then men believed the Bible and were not brainswashed by Westcott and Hort. Appealing to the mentality of the last days church is not help for your position, but rather proof and indictment.

Ziggy, if you know this stuff, why do you allow anti-KJV posters to post their fabrications and not correct them? Are you biased?

 

Prov,

Hello! Are you as slow as your posts make you out to be? No one, and I repeat, NNE here is anti-KJV. Just because your sect deifies the KJV and we fight against that blaspemous lie does not mean that we devalue the King James translation of the bible. So get off the KJVO hobby horse and join reality, or you will end up be treated as a crackpot.

So, we do not believe the bible now? And if it was only believed up until then, why do you venerate a translation done by 17th century neo-Catholics?

Ain't nobody been brainwashed by W&H. While I admit the the work they did was ground-breaking, they were not on target. I just refuse to accept that a manuscript cobbled together from a few late manuscripts and reverse-engineered out of the Vulgate to fill in the gaps is a perfect reflection of the original documents penned by the authors. If you do, fine...but that is your personal opinion, and has no grounds in reality.

Try again, bub. I come from a position of faith AND knowledge, not just blind faith in the KJVO's party propaganda. If involving knowledge with faith is a no-no, then call me a heretic, 'cause I ain't movin'.

Gee, it is so comforting to know that I have been judged and indicted by someone who refuses to even look at anything other than the end of his nose. If you want to play that game, you'll have to find a different playground buddy, as I like being a part of this BB, and have no plans on jepordizing that by having to drop to the KJVO tactic of name-calling and derogatory comments.

Like I said, you know the KJVO script pretty, good, but are you wlling to step outside the lines and actually look at the evidence against it? My guess is no, that you prefer your position of willful ignorance.

In Christ,
Trotter