• 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!

ESV?

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Conan

Well-Known Member
SavedByGrace said:
See #42 from the best Textual scholar Dr Scrivener
Click to expand...
Exactly. Scrivener doesn't believe verse 7 belongs. He thought it safe to say he (Cyprian) quoted the words in Latin. Not that he thought the words were original. He was a brillant Textual Scholar. On that we agree. Scrivener does not accept the Comma as original. He thought it best to play it safe that Cyprian quoted in Latin. Unfortunately he is not here to review the way all scholars today review it. Just like shown by Reformed 1689.
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Conan said:
Exactly. Scrivener doesn't believe verse 7 belongs. He thought it safe to say he (Cyprian) quoted the words in Latin. Not that he thought the words were original. He was a brillant Textual Scholar. On that we agree. Scrivener does not accept the Comma as original. He thought it best to play it safe that Cyprian quoted in Latin. Unfortunately he is not here to review the way all scholars today review it. Just like shown by Reformed 1689.
Click to expand...

I have given Latin of Cyprian above. Try to translate it to Greek and you can see that it is verse 7 and not 8 that Cyprian quoted. Don't forget that Tertullian before Cyprian also quoted verse 7. Reformed1689 is wrong because he like you cannot accept the fact that 1 John 5.7 is original of John
 
Reformed1689

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
SavedByGrace said:
I have given Latin of Cyprian above. Try to translate it to Greek and you can see that it is verse 7 and not 8 that Cyprian quoted. Don't forget that Tertullian before Cyprian also quoted verse 7. Reformed1689 is wrong because he like you cannot accept the fact that 1 John 5.7 is original of John
Click to expand...
He did not quote verse 7, that is just asinine.
 
C

Conan

Well-Known Member
SavedByGrace said:
I have given Latin of Cyprian above. Try to translate it to Greek and you can see that it is verse 7 and not 8 that Cyprian quoted. Don't forget that Tertullian before Cyprian also quoted verse 7. Reformed1689 is wrong because he like you cannot accept the fact that 1 John 5.7 is original of John
Click to expand...
There is the gross violation right there. Translating Latin into Greek. The original New Testament was written in Greek. Not Latin.
 
robycop3

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Baptist4life said:
Our pastor has recently switched from the NKJV to the ESV in his preaching, and our S/S curriculum. I'm not really familiar with the ESV (I prefer the NKJV, actually) so would appreciate the board members opinions on it. Whether good, bad, or indifferent.Thanks!
Click to expand...
It's not bad, but like you, I prefer the NKJV, with the NASV being my 2nd choice.

The ESV contains its share of idions that aren't overly-familiar, & is sometimes TOO-literal in its translation, not allowing for the differences in how sentences are constructed in the old languages & in English. But again, it's not a bad translation.

I'll venture to say Logos has likely read it more-closely than I have.
 
C

Conan

Well-Known Member
SavedByGrace said:
You have MUCH to learn :Biggrin
Click to expand...
We already learned that lesson. Erasmus didn't have the verses in his 1st or 2nd edition because he did not find it in the Greek. He came under fire from roman catholic church leaders. He included in his 3rd edition because of real pressure. He could have been accused of hersey by those enemies of the reformation. Even Tyndale and Coverdale both put the extra words in brackets knowing they did not belong.
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Conan said:
We already learned that lesson. Erasmus didn't have the verses in his 1st or 2nd edition because he did not find it in the Greek. He came under fire from roman catholic church leaders. He included in his 3rd edition because of real pressure. He could have been accused of hersey by those enemies of the reformation. Even Tyndale and Coverdale both put the extra words in brackets knowing they did not belong.
Click to expand...

And God the Holy Spirit made sure that the Words were restored in the KJV :Biggrin
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Reformed1689 said:
So God did not preserve His word for centuries before?
Click to expand...

Bible has been under attack from the time of the Apostles

And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
2 Peter 3:15-16
 
C

Conan

Well-Known Member
Please see the last post by 37818.

The Newe Testament dylygently corrected and compared with the Greke by Willyam Tindale, and fynesshed in the yere of our Lorde God A.M.D. & xxxiiij. in the moneth of Nouember.

VVhosoever beleveth that Iesus is* Christ / is borne of god. And every o∣ne [ A] that loveth him which begat / loveth him also which was begottēn of him. In this we
knowe that we love the children of god / whēn we love god / & kepe his cōmaūdemente. This is the love of god / that we kepe his cōmaundemē¦tes / & his cōmaundementes are not greveous* ✚ For all that is borne of god / over commeth the worlde. And this is the victory that over cōmeth the worlde / even oure * fayth. Who is it that overcommeth the worlde: but he which beleveth that Iesus is ye sonne of god?

This Iesus Christ is he that cāme by water and bloud / not by water only: but by water & [ B] bloud. And it is the sprete that beareth wit∣nes / because the sprete ys trueth. For there are thre which beare re¦corde, the sprete / & water / and bloud: and these thre are one. Yf we receave the wit∣nes of men / the witnes of god is greater. For this is the witnes of god / which he testifyed of his sonne. He that beleveth on the sonne of god / hath the witnes in him silfe. ✚ He that beleveth not God / hath made him a lyar / be¦cause he beleved not the recorde that god ga∣ve of his sonne. And this ys that recorde / how that god hath geven vnto vs eternall lyfe•* and this lyfe is in his sonne. He that hath the sonne / hath lyfe: and he that hath not the sonne of god / hath not lyfe

The Newe Testament dylygently corrected and compared with the Greke by Willyam Tindale, and fynesshed in the yere of our Lorde God A.M.D. & xxxiiij. in the moneth of Nouember.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top