SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
prove it.
Read my thread
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
prove it.
since I like reading I will read it. Which link are you referring to?Read my thread
The Text of the Gospels: First John 5:7 and Greek Manuscripts
Here are the very few manuscripts in Greek that have the extra words from the Latin. They were all made from Latin manuscripts. In other words under Latin influence . over 500 Greek manuscripts do not have the words from the Latin. Please read from real scholars.
The Text of the Gospels: First John 5:7 and Greek Manuscripts
since I like reading I will read it. Which link are you referring to?
This has been pointed out. Greek grammar is not even relevant to whether or not a word is included in the Greek.Do you personally know any Greek grammar?
Did you know that the Modern Language Bible which was published in 1969, has more inclusive language than the ESV?My current preferences are ESV and NASB 95.
The Gender Inclusive movement has a lot to do with that.
That's just my take on it, of course.
I skimmed through it what you have yet to deal with is the fact that your rendering does not show up until the 1500s and is mostly in marginal notes.See #27
This has been pointed out. Greek grammar is not even relevant to whether or not a word is included in the Greek.
I skimmed through it what you have yet to deal with is the fact that your rendering does not show up until the 1500s and is mostly in marginal notes.
[/ Quote] Why does it not show up until the 1500s? Why do you shirk away from that?when you understand Greek grammar, read again what I have written, and you might just understand. It is clear that at the present, you do not understand Greek grammar, or else you could not write silly comments as this!
1 John 5:6, ". . . And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. . . ." is being referred to as the witness of God in 1 John 5:9-10, ". . . If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: . . . He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: . . ." The gloss of the 1 John 5:7 add "witness . . . in heaven . . ." is in error.The Holy Trinity in 1 John 5:7
which Greek word do you refer to in verse 8, where you say, "can legitimately have the sense, “I am not now going,”? I don't know if you are here quoting from someone else, or these are your own words? In either case, the Greek grammar is faulty! Show how simply with the use of the Greek present, you can get, “I am not now going”? This is not even a paraphrase, but a commentary on what it might or should, read. this is known as conjecture!
That "man made" doctrine you refer to holds up even the way the NKJV translates it so I'm not really sure what your complaint is.The NKJV is to be preferred over the deeply flawed ESV. Take a look at Revelation 13:8. The ESV deliberately mistranslated the verse, changing "from or since" the foundation of the world to read "before." That should tell you all you need to know, they alter the text to conform to man-made doctrine.
Words have meaning. "Apo" means out of or out from and points to origin. From or since the foundation of the world refers to the interval since creation, not before creation. Honest and accurate translations are to be preferred over those that alter the translation to harmonize with man-made doctrine.That "man made" doctrine you refer to holds up even the way the NKJV translates it so I'm not really sure what your complaint is.
It is the same Van. It points to a singular point in time before you and I were born, before Paul was born, before all of us were born that God chose. Period. It changes nothing no matter how ridiculous of an argument you want to make about it because you don't like the truth of it.Words have meaning. "Apo" means out of or out from and points to origin. From or since the foundation of the world refers to the interval since creation, not before creation. Honest and accurate translations are to be preferred over those that alter the translation to harmonize with man-made doctrine.
Utter nonsense, arguing over absurdity for the purpose of obfuscation. Since the foundation of the world does not point only to a time before you and I were born, it includes now and to the end of the age!!!It is the same Van. It points to a singular point in time before you and I were born, before Paul was born, before all of us were born that God chose. Period. It changes nothing no matter how ridiculous of an argument you want to make about it because you don't like the truth of it.
Nope. You are wrong Van and you always dig yourself a hole.Utter nonsense, arguing over absurdity for the purpose of obfuscation. Since the foundation of the world does not point only to a time before you and I were born, it includes now and to the end of the age!!!
The level of ignorance among the naysayers is manifest, folks. Accordingly they hurl false charges like "you don't like the truth of it."
Can you believe this idiotic argument. Did I say the interval did not start in the past? Nope.Nope. You are wrong Van and you always dig yourself a hole.
67.131 ἐκl; ἀπόh: markers of the extent of time from a point in the past—‘since, from.’
ἐκl: εἶδεν ἄνθρωπον τυφλὸν ἐκ γενετῆς ‘he saw a man who had been blind from birth’ Jn 9:1.
ἀπόh: ἐσώθη ἡ γυνὴ ἀπὸ τῆς ὥρας ἐκείνης ‘the woman became well from that moment’ Mt 9:22; τρίτην ταύτην ἡμέραν ἄγει ἀφ̓ οὗ ταῦτα ἐγἐνετο ‘this is now the third day since these things happened’ Lk 24:21.
Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 645.