A good ensample

[McCree79]

Just to note that Metzger retracted details of that story in his Third Edition.

The original:



From the Third Edition:



This does not affect Metzger's opinion on Comma, of course.

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

 

[Rippon]

When I said “all over the Bible”, I was really only talking about the New Testament.

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.

Now, although those verses have not actually been removed from most modern versions,

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

the footnote that is attached to them, is something like this... “these verses are not found in the best Greek manuscripts”.
This casting of doubt upon the validity of God’s Word,

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

This is crux of the argument. I choose to believe the Bible and you chose to believe men who say these verse were added by the translators of KJB.

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.

It wasn’t until 1891,

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.

Although I was talking about the first 600 years that the Bible in the English language had been in existence. I was not referring to that document; I was talking about God, in the person of the Holy Spirit, within the hearts of English speaking believers, who were reading this document.

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.

I was pointing out, how God put His stamp of approval upon this English Bible, by way of the great revivals that covered the English speaking world, during that same time period, that this Bible was looked upon as “God’s Word”!

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.

Now, when you put that record up against the state of the Church, from about 1900 to the present, you can clearly see, that God is not blessing the way things are now.

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

Yes, the KJB, is God’s Word! Are “all” of the other English versions also God’s Word?...
Well, yes they are

Thanks for the admission.

At this point you seemed to praise Westcott and Hort, for their work.

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.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

This morning, I was studying in 1Peter 5: and came across the word “ensample”, and as usual, I simply read it as “example” and started to move on....
Then I thought that I should make sure, that “ensample” us indeed identical to our word “example”, so I dug into it some more.

First of all, I nailed it down that they are identical: But I continued studying this word, when I found that this English word example, was translated from 4 or 5 different Greek words. Then I made a marvelous discovery in 1 Peter 2:21.....
“For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:”

The Greek word used for the English word “example” in this verse, is only found “one time” in the Bible and it has a specific and unique definition in the application of this verse.(I will leave it to you, to discover this application for yourself
------------------------
But in this discovery, I realized how VALUABLE it is, for every serious Bible student to have a copy of Strong’s concordance available to them, for situations just like this.

Then it came to mind, that this “could be”, a reason to compare other English translations(in my study of the Bible): Maybe..., some other version could actually be more “scholarly” than the KJB. Therefore, even though I am a KJB man(all the way), I went to the internet and looked up, how a few of the most popular modern versions, would state 1Peter 2:21, to see if any of them would give any hint, of the unique quality of the word “example”, found in this verse.

I am here to report, that for all the effort that is put into all these other modern translations, it is just a bunch of hooey. We have not been missing ANYTHING, by sticking to our old KJB.

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??!!

 

[rsr]

According to Metzger, the manuscripts are:

61: Codex Montfortianus, dating from the early sixteenth century.
88: a variant reading in a sixteenth century hand, added to the fourteenth-century codex Regius of Naples.
221: a variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
429: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Wolfenbüttel.
629: a fourteenth or fifteenth century manuscript in the Vatican.
636: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Naples.
918: a sixteenth-century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.
2318: an eighteenth-century manuscript, influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Rumania.

 

[rsr]

And what on earth is an ensample anyway??!!

An ensample is an example. The first is from Old French; the second is from Latin, which leads me to believe that the translators, steeped in the Vulgate, used it on occasion because of familiarity. The translators were not necessarily consistent in their translation choices.

 

[Rippon]

An ensample is an example. The first is from Old French; the second is from Latin, which leads me to believe that the translators, steeped in the Vulgate, used it on occasion because of familiarity. The translators were not necessarily consistent in their translation choices.

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

 

[rsr]

I don't fault them. But KJVO folks seem to think that their inconsistent renderings are evidence of great difference in meaning, hence this thread. Some reject versions that spell "Saviour" as "Savior," after all.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

According to Metzger, the manuscripts are:

61: Codex Montfortianus, dating from the early sixteenth century.
88: a variant reading in a sixteenth century hand, added to the fourteenth-century codex Regius of Naples.
221: a variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
429: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Wolfenbüttel.
629: a fourteenth or fifteenth century manuscript in the Vatican.
636: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Naples.
918: a sixteenth-century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.
2318: an eighteenth-century manuscript, influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Rumania.

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.

 

[rsr]

I was simply quoting Metzger, and I do not consider the matter of the authenticity of the Comma a "slam dunk" (I had no idea that idiom was prevalent in the U.K., BTW.) However, the third century ECF quote is from Cyprian, which Daniel Wallace is not convinced proves that the trinitarian formulation was found in the text.

The Comma indeed found its way into translations, including the Vulgate. Whether it was justified is the subject in question.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

 

[rsr]

I'm sorry. Nothing at the Trinitarian Bible Society site is of interest. We have a member -- who devoutly believes in the superiority of the KJV text -- who was ejected from the Society because he believes that not every translation choice the translators made was inerrant.

 

[McCree79]

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.

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

 

[McCree79]

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

 

[stilllearning]

Hello again McCree79

You have quoted Bruce Metzger, who was born in the year 1914; Who was writing about what Erasmus thought about the Bible, over 440 years earlier.
And you are using what they believed and said about the Bible, to shape your faith in the Bible!!

I have also read these things before, telling me that this verse(and other verses of Scripture like it), were not actually found in but a few Greek manuscript.
But my faith is not based upon “the words of learned men”, but on the Word of God.....
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”

It is a dangerous “slippery slope”, to allow anyone(or even an angle from heaven,[Galatians 1:8]), to detract anything from God’s Holy Word.
------------------------
Some would have us to believe, that God, who gave us His Inspired Word, would then allow that same Inspired Word, to be lost or added to, because of the carelessness of scribes. Or for that matter, the political shenanigans of power men.

Which beings me to my second point:
My faith, is also based upon the great body of Biblical teaching, that tell us of God’s providential care of us and His Inspired Word.
I trust my Heavenly Father, to honor my child-like faith in His Word. And He does!
------------------------
Most people it seems, are critical of my rejection of this great body of opposing opinion.
But I find myself, in good company.....
“For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” 1 Corinthians 2:2

Like Paul, I am “determined” not to know any thing, about scholarship that contradicts God’s Holy Word.
“Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge.” Proverbs 19:27

 

[stilllearning]

Good evening Martin Marprelate

You have missed the point of the OP.
It was not written in defense of the use of the word "ensample", but it was about the failure of the modern versions, to give more light on 1 Peter 2:21.

Please reread the OP, with this in mind.

 

[McCree79]

were not actually found in but a few Greek manuscript.
But my faith is not based upon “the words of learned men”, but on the Word of God.....

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

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”

Sure is.

Some would have us to believe, that God, who gave us His Inspired Word, would then allow that same Inspired Word, to be lost or added to, because of the carelessness of scribes.

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

 

[stilllearning]

Hi McCree79

You asked.....

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%?

I don’t know and I don’t care!
------------------------
Next yo asked.....

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

Of course not!! Only for English speaking people!
-------------------------------------------
What you fail to understand, is that the Bible tells us to “trust the Bible alone”!

And there is not one single verse, in the entire 66 books of the Bible, that even hints, that a Christian NEEDS some man to tell them what verses are really in the Bible!

On the contrary........
“But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.” 1 John 2:27

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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

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.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Like Paul, I am “determined” not to know any thing, about scholarship that contradicts God’s Holy Word.

I don’t know and I don’t care!

What you fail to understand, is that the Bible tells us to “trust the Bible alone”!

And there is not one single verse, in the entire 66 books of the Bible, that even hints, that a Christian NEEDS some man to tell them what verses are really in the Bible!

That's sad to me, brother that you blindly accept the scholarship of one group of people [King James translators] about the Bible and you have allowed those men "to tell you what verses are really in the Bible" and yet you say that you don't do that.

There is so much evidence that the extra words in 1 John 5:7-8 were added via someone's marginal notes.

Are those words true? Yes. The Father, the Word (the Son), and the Holy Ghost DO bear testimony of Jesus. And they ARE one.

But these words were not inspired by God to the Apostle John in his letter.

Does that mean something is wrong with the Bible? No. I still like the King James on occasion. And I believe it's a very valid Bible that has been used of God for centuries. I was SAVED when someone preached from a King James Bible.

It just means that an addition was made that we need to recognize as an addition.

God's Word is still perfect and true.

 

[stilllearning]

Hello

You finished by saying......

It just means that an addition was made that we need to recognize as an addition.
God's Word is still perfect and true.

This is a contradiction.
If something is “perfect and true”, it has no additions!
------------------------
I am not trusting ANY TRANSLATOR, I am trusting God and His preserved Word, alone.
I suggest you do the same.

Come on in; The waters of faith are great!