Featured A good ensample

No, and nor does it change the fact that Erasmus wrote his Greek before any other Greek manuscript was written had the Comma(that I know of). The Codex Montfortianus was written in 1520.


Erika Rummel(Erasmus' Annotations on the new testament) also cities de Jonge as well, but maintains Erasmus did issue the challenge and made the change as a result.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

You had said "thousands of examples" are found in modern translations. The ending of Mark counts as one. You have a lot of work to do in order to bolster your claim.

So you should not use the term "removed" --should you?

Oh, you mean like the marginal notes in the orginal KJVs.

You are couching your defense in a dishonest manner. I certainly believe in the Bible. The point is, I do not hold up the KJV as a standard for all other translations to line up under. The KJV is a version of the Bible. That's what the V stands for. It is not the be-all and end-all.

The KJV revisers unknowingly added many verses. If they had the knowledge we have access to today they would not have added anything. And those revisers would most certainly not be in sympathy with the KJV Only movement.

I told you before that the Greek text by Westcott and Hort was published in 1881.
The New Testament of the English Revised Version was also released in 1881.

Are you speaking of the so-called Wycliffe Bible? I say so-called because Purvey was probably the one who put it together. And he said it was an effort to put the Word of God into the language of the people --unlike the earlier version. That translation was done about 600 years ago. The KJV was first published a mere 400 years ago.

Again, you are changing horses in the middle of the stream.
And when you use the phrase "looked upon as God's Word" it does not mean exclusively as such. The people would have regarded the Vulgate, Luthers's versions, and many others as God's Word as well.

So in your point of view the number of English Bible translations account for the evil in the world of the last century?!

Thanks for the admission.

Their is no "seem" about it. I do praise their work. Their godly scholarship regarding the New Testament was monumental.

By the way, you should look at The Gospel According To John

Brook Foss Westcott's work was wonderful and edifying. I had borrowed it from my paster a few years ago when a certain person was bad-mouthing W&H. I challenge you to read it.

 

Hello Stlllearning,
I'm sorry to rain on your parade just a little, but I have done a bit of digging:-

The KJV translates two Greek words as 'ensample.'
Tupos in 1 Cor. 10:11; Phil. 3:17; 1 Thes. 1:7; 2 Thes. 3:9 and
Hupodeigma in 2 Peter 2:6.

However, tupos is also translated as 'example' in 1 Cor. 10:6 and 1 Tim. 4:12.
Hupodeigma is translated as 'example' in John 13:15; Heb. 4:11; 8:5; James 5:10.
As you point out, hupogrammos is translated as 'example in 1 Peter 2:21, and so is deigma in Jude 7.

I can't help wondering why the KJV translators have rendered the same word as 'ensample' in one place and 'example' in another. And what on earth is an ensample anyway??!!

 

The various teams were not able to compare everything as easily as it can be done today. I would cut them some slack.

 

It should be noted that the Comma appears in Latin manuscripts that are much earlier than those above, and that (if memory serves) the first allusion to it in one of the ECFs goes back to the early 3rd Century. It's not quite such a slam dunk as you may imagine.

 

If you go to
http://www.tbsbibles.org/articles
and click on 'Bible Passages,' you will find an article on the Comma which some may find interesting.

 

m -- around the 5th century in the Catholic Epistles
p -- 13th century
c -- 12th -13th centuries
dem -- 13th century
div -- 13th century
q -- 7th century

I can't find one earlier than 5th. Only 2 Latin Manuscripts seem to have it prior to 12th century.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

According to NA, no old Latin Manuscripts have the Comma. Only the revision of Jerome that is associated with 4/5th century on has the Comma.
In fact, maybe I'm missing something here, but do early Latin Manuscripts even contain 1John??? I cant find one. Nothing before Jerome.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

It is found in Zero Greek manuscripts before the 14th century. You are trusting addition by "learned men" to be correct.

Sure is.

So which version of the TR is the exact word of God? How did they figure it out since it doesn't match any other Greek manuscript? How come the KJV doesn't follow the TR 100%?

Is the English KJV the only perfectly preserved word of God on Earth?

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

Hello McCree,
All I wrote was the the Comma appears in Latin manuscripts that are older then the Greek ones and that the verse is quoted by Church fathers at a date that is earlier still. I believe that to be the case. You clearly know much more about the textual situation than I do, but there are other reasons for thinking that the Comma may be genuine. These are mentioned in the link to the TBS website that I gave.

I can understand that some people may not like the TBS, but to refuse to read their stuff is silly. Rsr can hardly complain that Stilllearning doesn't read Metzger if he doesn't read stuff that disagrees with his position. I'm not a member of TBS but I know some of its leadership and although they are a bit wild-eyed, are fine Christian people and they all believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. I'm not sure that Metzger did.

BTW, I'm not at all KJV-only. I tend to use the NKJV.