Does it make a difference?

Besides the obvious textual issues between MT/TR & Critical text, putting Paul's freedom first would seem to carry the thought along from chpt. 8. However, Paul's apostleship is a question in chpt. 9. Leave it to you to find another "Hmmm" passage.

 

I don't think it makes much, if any, difference, and we all should avoid reading things into God's word that aint thar. Certainly this thing's not equal to the KJV's reading "slew and hanged" in Acts 5:30.

 

Still confused, eh, roby? Of course the KJB is right in it's chronological order. It's the liberal mindset that says these things don't matter. They want to "be free" then have "rights", but Paul had the right, then he expressed his Christian "freedom"/liberty. It seems more to reason that the Holy Ghost has much to say in our Bible that crushes your limited view of Scripture; remember, God's Word is alive, so stop trying to "kill" it.

Your sidetrack attempt? "Slew" doesn't always carry the conotation of death, neither does "hanged", but the combonation of the two as found in the KJB doesn't leave the reader second guessing. But then again, they "slew" Jesus, He didn't die. They hanged Him upon a tree, He didn't die, but at the appointed time, He yielded up the ghost/ He died.

So does your <personal attack deleted> mentality approve? Who really cares? I don't, I rather believe God!!

[ May 27, 2005, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

Slew is the PAST TENSE of slay.

Slay means to "kill violently". Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=slay

"Slew" by definition means death. There is no connotation where it doesn't.

 

The Coverdale Bible (1535), The Bishops' Bible (1568), and the Geneva Bible (1587) all have apostle first and free second, Apparently the KJV was following the traditional reading of the time. I don't have a clue where the alternate reading comes from...

 

Regarding the text at hand, let's examine the question posted by Pastor Bob:

And also on Pastor Bob's brilliant textual analysis of 1 Corinthians 9:1-->

Well, not exactly.

The use of 'diatribe' (i.e.-- the use of genre in Biblical literature) was a device in order to bolster the Apostle Paul's argument. The diatribe was a style of argument popular with Greek philosophers. The diatribe features dialogues with fictional characters, rhetorical questions, and the use of the emphatic negation (e.g. “may it never be!”) to advance a line of argument. This style is found in Paul’s writings and in James. For example, Paul uses this style in 1 Corinthians 9:1: “Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?”. The statement "Am I not free" may be a reference to Paul's Roman citizenship, in which he was not an indentured servant... hence, he is free. Logically, this may be better placed first rather than "Am I not an apostle?".

So much for the big deal about the order in which the text presents itself. The TR or the Critical Texts do not present any problems here whether "Am I not an apostle?" or "Am I not free?" is placed first or second. Consequently, the hopes of Pastor Bob's a priori argument of an inherently 'superior' TR Greek NT is dashed. Ho-hum....

 

1 Corinthians 9:1 (The Latin Vulgate):
non sum liber non sum apostolus
nonne Iesum Dominum nostrum vidi non
opus meum vos estis in Domino

This source dating from about 500AD has
the apostle ('apostolus') quesiton after the free ('liber'
as in our word 'liberty') question.

Why should we assume that the KJV of 400 years
(and several revisions) is a
better source than the Latin Vulgate, unchanged in 1500 years?

 

OBviously, these English texts were all taken from
the source(s) containing the alternate reading.