conflicting KJV-only claims

Dr. Waite apparently reserves the right to classify his perceived differences as "substantial", "moderate", "innocuous", according to whether it's time for him to write a new article or not. "Wisdom is justified of her children".

 

Hmmm...No KJVO response. Typical...

 

From this I take it that you are in touch with reality or truth, and we who support the KJV are not? That is what I would call a cheap shot!

 

Dr Bob

I invite you to answer my internal evidence for the KJV reading of 1 John 5:7, which is on another thread.

 

All I can say, Icthus, is that you get with Logos, who's doing a comparison between the AV 1611 & the 1769 Edition, find out what criteria he's using to establish a standard for what makes up a "difference", & make your OWN comparison.

As for the internal "evidence" for 1 John 5:7, you're presenting but one biased view. Many scholars present an equally-biased-to-the-opposite-side opposing view. It's same as arguing whether a 12 oz. cup containing 6 oz of fluid is half-empty or half-full when neither side knows who put the fluid into the cup and for what purpose. This discussion has been going on for generations, and is no closer to resolution than it was in the beginning. What REALITY IS, is that two different sets of translators each made a Bible version. One group was careful not to OMIT anything, while the other group was careful not to ADD anything.

 

Icthus I notice you make a big deal about supporting the KJV and also about attacking the NIV in another thread. I also notice you attend Childs Hill Baptist church. Is this the Childs Hill in Childs hill Cricklewood? If so, doesn't Pastor Brady use the NIV? Have you given him your opinion that he is preaching from a "paraphrase" instead of a translation?. Just curious.

 

Robycop3 Wrote:

As for the internal "evidence" for 1 John 5:7, you're presenting but one biased view. Many scholars present an equally-biased-to-the-opposite-side opposing view. It's same as arguing whether a 12 oz. cup containing 6 oz of fluid is half-empty or half-full when neither side knows who put the fluid into the cup and for what purpose. This discussion has been going on for generations, and is no closer to resolution than it was in the beginning. What REALITY IS, is that two different sets of translators each made a Bible version. One group was careful not to OMIT anything, while the other group was careful not to ADD anything.

I am sorry, but you reasoning is incorrect. None of the works that I have read on the Greek grammar of 1 John 5:6-10, have ever shown why John would have changed to use the masculine gender, whereas the grammer would have required him to use the neuter, which would cause no problems! Even those who reject the verse on the basis of a lack of external manuscript evidence, admid that the Greek grammar requires that the words be included. Thus we have Bishop Thomas Middleton (1769-1822), in his famous. "The Doctrine of the Greek Article", admit that the presence of the Greek article in verse eight, "TO hen", required that "hen" (one) were used in a verse privious to this. But, where else in verses 1-6 does "hen" appear, except in the disputed verse seven?

Its one thing to object to a reading, but quite another to have solid evidence to back up your claim.

Robycop3, do you know of any scholar who has answered the grammatical problems caused with the use of the masculine. I mean, not just someone who is guessing, but factual?

 

Yes, this is the same Church. I have spoken to Pastor Brady about this, and he is of the opinion that the NIV is ok. I no longer attend there, as I feel that he has compromised in that he accepts a translation based on inferior texts!

 

I am surprised at your hollow answer! You obviously have not read any of my posts on the Greek grammar of 1 John 5:6-8! If you care to do so, you will see that without the disputed words in verse seven, what remains for verses seven and eight leave us with unsolvable problems with the Greek grammar!

Anyone who is aware of Greek grammar, will have to admit that the language used by John, without verse seven, is in violation of the rules of grammar!

 

Icthus: Robycop3, do you know of any scholar who has answered the grammatical problems caused with the use of the masculine. I mean, not just someone who is guessing, but factual?


Here are but two small example:
http://www.tektonics.org/af/comma.html

http://www.nehemiahswall.org/Theological/comma.html

I found these examples with about a 30-second search. If I were to do a more in-depth search, I'd turn up many more.

I'm not a Greek reader, but I do have a rudimentary knowledge of it. However, I'm no slouch at history and current events, and I believe you know as well as I do, that the "Comma" argument is still going strong.

Again, I believe that its inclusion or exclusion is decided by the translators of any given BV.

 

Back to the subject of this thread, Logos...

It would be interesting to see the counts if both you and Dr. Waite were to use the SAME CRITERIA for determining differences besides spelling & punctuation. It appears Dr. Waite's standards are a little lower than yours.

 

Hi neither of the links you refer to actually "deal" with the Greek grammar. The remarks from the first link, shows that they don't have a clue as to the problems caused without verse seven! They say:

"7 uses the masculine 'hoy marturountes,' but 8 has pneuma, hudor, and aima, all neuter." The commentaries note this as well, but do not consider it problematic. The use of neuter for all three is taken as a constraint of the grammar, because the list has one personal element (spirit) and two impersonal elements (water, blood)."

The commentaries referred to me not "consider" the Greek grammar to be a problem, is nonsense. Their argument shows their lack of knowledge of Greek grammar. It is NOT the use of the neuter that is the problem, but the masculine gender! the three neuter nouns are referred to in the masculine, "tres eisin hoi marturountes"; whereas the "attraction of gender" rule in Greek grammar, would require John to have written: "tria eisi ta marturounta", as he did for the SAME three neuter nouns in verse six!

Neither of the links you have given deal with this!

 

Waite has done some terrible research in his works. Being a Dr. he ought to know better. Cloud is just lemming of Waite.

 

Actually, Ichthus, it's just guesswork, w/o John here to tell us, or without a plethora of other writings of his to firmly establish his writing style.

Without solid evidence, we must go with what we DO have...a vast lack of ms support for the verse. However, it still boils down to the individual translators' take.

 

Waite also "selectively" quotes Burgon in his "Dean Burgon Society". He totally ignores Burgon's rather scathing comments about the Textus Receptus.