Heretick or Divisive?

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by rsr:
Are you suggesting he's a polished troll?

Only Polished in the sense that he managed to dupe me for 3 pages or so. No one can be that blatantly hypocritical and obnoxious at the same time and not know it.


QS is definately the mischievous sort who gets his jollies by stirring the pot. If you want him to stop, deprive him of the one thing he craves, attention.

 

[rsr]

No one can be that blatantly hypocritical and obnoxious at the same time and not know it.

I tend to agree with you, but I have met such people in the flesh and they are extraordinarily hard to deal with.

 

[Precepts]

gb, I am always open to learning, but I must say I find it hard to learn anything from some one who comes across so rash. You insulted my intelligence, that is o.k., but to constantly allude to me as unable to learn due to my ignorance is what is called an oxy-moron.

By your reasoning the English language is a complete failure, but we all know it is comprised of literally hundreds of languages. English relies solely on contextual definition.

In the another topic I have shown John and Scott how the Greek word for word has failed the context of John 11:35. The literally comical remark that "John the Beloved" made a mistake in using a Greek word meaning silently weeping and not to wail.

I searched it out and found the root word is of "uncertain affinity" and went further to find the synonyms to the word John used are fitted exactly in the exclamatory context of the passage. So either I am just learning that the Greek is not so accurate as many have portrayed it to be, or you are simply mistaken that I am incapable of learning.

Now to keep repeating the English is some how inferior is to deny it's rule of measure found by contextual definition. That will apply to any pasasage written in English.

Besides,gb, You had to learn Greek from some sort of diction, so don't knock it when some one makes use of one, o.k.?

Please check the post following:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001291

[ February 03, 2004, 01:54 AM: Message edited by: QuickeningSpirit ]

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Hi Tim, you ask: "Will, would you agree with QS in saying it is ok to add words to the text if those words improve a doctrine?"

No, I would not. Frequently in order to translate the Hebrew or the Greek text into another language, we need to add some words in the sense that what may be said by one word in Greek requires two, three or even four words in English, but it is the same "word" of God.

Likewise, sometimes something that the Hebrew or Greek expresses in 5 or 6 words, can be expressed in 3 or 4 English words. It works both ways.

But by the word of God preserved, I understand this to refer to the actual texts involved. For example - Matthew 6:13 b. "For thine in the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." This is the text. The Lord Jesus either said it and it was intended to be Scripture, or He didn't say it, and/or it was not intended by God to be Scripture.

The RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV all omit this text, while it is found in the KJB, NKJV. Either some bibles can be eliminated as not being the true words of God because they have omitted these words, or others can be eliminated for adding to God's words.

But No, I do not believe we can add a whole verse to Scripture just because we think it supports our doctrines.

Will

Will

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Craig responds to the quote by Cyprian:

A Trail of Evidence
We find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful timeline of references to this verse:
200 AD Tertullian quoted the verse in his Apology, Against Praxeas
250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians. Note that Cyprian is quoting and says "it is written, And the three are One." He lived from 180 to 250 A.D. and the scriptures he had at that time contained the verse in question. This is at least 100 years before anything we have today in the Greek copies. If it wasn't part of Holy Scripture, then where did he get it?
350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will,
Tertullian actually wrote,
"We have indeed, likewise, a second font, (itself withal one with the former, ) of blood, to wit; concerning which the Lord said, "I have to be baptized with a baptism," when He had been baptized already. For He had come "by means of water and blood," just as John has written; that He might be baptized by the water, glorified by the blood; to make us, in like manner, called by water, chosen by blood. These two baptisms He sent out from the wound in His pierced side, in order that they who believed in His blood might be bathed with the water; they who had been bathed in the water might likewise drink the blood. This is the baptism which both stands in lieu of the fontal bathing when that has not been received, and restores it when lost."
Notice that Tertullian does not quote any of the "Johannine Comma" at all, but that his quote is from verse 6.
Cyprian actually wrote,
"The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one;' and again it is written of the Father and of the son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'"
Notice that Cyprian does not quote any of the "Johannine Comma" at all, but that his first quote is from John 10:30 and his second quote is from the undisputed part of 1John 5:8.


Well, Craig, I don't see Cyprian's quote in what you refer to at all. According to the many sources I have on this quote, you should check out the book -The Anti-Nicene Fathers: Translation of the Writings of the Church Fathers down to A.D. 325 (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1926) 5:423 A footnote is provided after "three are one" which reads 1 John 5:7.

Also the quote is in Latin and I know enough Latin to see he is quoting 1 John 5:7.

Will

 

[Will J. Kinney]

To be honest, I agree with QS and Will that 1 John 5:7-8 (the Johnannine Comma) is part of the cannon of Scripture.
HankD

Thank you Hank for acknowledging that you also believe 1 John 5:7 is inspired Scripture and not just a "later addition" to the text.

Will

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Just count me as one of the "fleas" that keep you itching.


"At least you're not a "hairy-tick", haha!"

Thank you Granny, it took me a couple seconds to "get it", but it put a smile on my face when it finally dawned on me.

Speaking of the original subject that started this whole thread, here are a couple interesting things about hereticks and why the KJB is right and why the mvs have changed it to "divisive".

These are replies from another board on the subject of Heretick or Divisive?

Jesus is no doubt too divisive for today's relativist mindsets. Reading this article reminds me that some say mega churches of the 'church growth' sometimes specifically try to exclude those who are 'divisive' by trying to assert absolute truth instead go along get along anything goes-ism.
Here's an excerpt about it:
From:
www.crossroad.to/articles...iaprax.htm
>>>>
For those unacquainted with the term 'Diaprax', it is simply another word for the Hegelian Dialectic or consensus process -- a deceitful procedure designed to bring about change through conflict and compromise that was conceived in the late 1700's by transformational Marxist, Georg Wilhelm Fredric Hegel who sought, as occult-led globalists do to this day, "unity in diversity'" a term many of us became familiar with under the Clinton Administration. Diaprax, a word coined by author and teacher Dean Gotcher, essentially brings together people of diverse and often opposing backgrounds, worldviews and belief systems in hopes they will forfeit their own values, traditions and absolutes for the emotional rewards of group acceptance.

The goal of Diaprax in the church is to rid the flock of its pesky and divisive hang-ups and habits that impede unity and change personal convictions and restrained behaviors that are based on Biblical truth rather than political correctness, pragmatism and personal taste.
>>>>

But of course if Christians are Biblically commanded to reject hereticks then they ought not allow Westcott, Hort, Kittel, Driver, Metzger, Nida, Von Soden, etc etc into the tent. It is no doubt expedient for the new versions to twist this Biblcal truth around 180 degrees to proceed full steam ahead into an ecumenical relativistic anti-truth consensus.


Sounds like this Episcopal Bishop has been reading the new versions - he says the worst sin is being divisive - according to him being a heretic is a lot better -
From:
washingtontimes.com/natio...-2290r.htm
>>>>>
Heresy better idea than schism?

By Julia Duin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Heresy is better than schism, the Episcopal bishop of Virginia said yesterday in a speech that gently chided church conservatives for imperiling the unity of the country's largest diocese over the consecration of the denomination's first homosexual bishop last November.
"If you must make a choice between heresy and schism, always choose heresy," said the Rt. Rev. Peter J. Lee to 500 Episcopalians meeting for the annual diocesan council at the Hyatt Regency in Reston.
"For as a heretic, you are only guilty of a wrong opinion," Bishop Lee said, quoting Presbyterian scholar James McCord. "As a schismatic, you have torn and divided the body of Christ. Choose heresy every time."


Interesting, No?

Will

 

[Will J. Kinney]

gb says; "English is very ambiguous compared to the Greek text. The Greek has ways to say something with far greater accuracy than we do in English. We have to explain what the Greek can say in just one word.
In a Bible study someone can ask a question about a text and I can tell them what the text actually says by looking at the Greek or Hebrew text.
Knowing the languages prevents a lot of argument and the he said-she said kind of stuff. "


gb, this simpleton explanation might work if we were simpletons, but we are not.

So, tell us gb, how did all the different translators of the niv, nasb, come up with these gems if the Hebrew is so clear and the Greek so precise?

Deuteronomy 33:2 "The LORD came from Sinai, and ROSE UP from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints; FROM HIS RIGHT HAND WENT A FIERY LAW FOR THEM."

The part: "from his right hand went a fiery law for them" is found in the Revised Version of 1881, the ASV of 1901, the Geneva Bible, the NKJV, the Douay, the 1917 and 1936 Hebrew - English versions, Spanish Reina Valera, and Darby. Now let's see what the noted scholars of today have done with this passage.

NIV- "The LORD came from Sinai and DAWNED OVER them from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran. He came with myriads of holy ones FROM THE SOUTH, FROM HIS MOUNTAIN SLOPES." (That's right, this is what is in place of "from his right hand went a fiery law for them".)

NASB - "The LORD came from Sinai, and DAWNED ON them from Seir; He shone forth from Mount Paran, And He came FROM THE MIDST OF (not with?) ten thousand holy ones, AT HIS RIGHT HAND THERE WAS FLASHING LIGHTNING FOR THEM." Was it a "fiery law", "flashing lightning", or "from the south"? Who really cares? As Professor James White says, "If we compare all the bible versions together, we arrive at a better understanding of what is really being said." Don't you agree?


And then we can all play the Greek game too.

The Greek Game


(Stolen from another King James Bible believer)

Once your author, after hearing John 3:3 "corrected" for the "umpteenth" time, decided to do a little "word study" of his own with the verse. If these "Greek-addicts" believe equipped with only a "Strong's" concordance and a Bible they can correct any Bible [In a newspaper debate with one of them we were told anyone with a Strong's can find the errors in ANY Bible simply be looking up the words!], why didn't we see just how far this "correction" could go! Why stop with just changing one word, why don't we change more?

Below we will engage in a little experiment with John 3:3 taking the "Greekophiles" tactics a little farther than they dare.

Here is John 3:3 with Strong's numbers indicating the Greek words:

Jesus <2424> answered <611> (5662) and <2532> said <2036> (5627) unto him <846>, Verily <281>, verily <281>, I say <3004> (5719) unto thee <4671>, Except <3362> a man <5100> be born <1080> (5686) again <509>, he cannot <1410> (5736) <3756> see <1492> (5629) the kingdom <932> of God <2316>.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, set back in your chair and watch as we play THE GREEK GAME! Let's consult "Strong's" (or "Youngs") and see how the same Greek words are translated elsewhere in the KJB.

"Iesous" ("Jesus," #2424) is only translated as "Jesus" in the AV so it will remain for our purposes.
"Apokrinoma" ("answered," #611) is always translated a "answered."
"Kai" ("and," #2532) is also translated as "also" 515 times, "even" 108 times, "both" 43 times, etc.
"Epo" ("said," #2036) is translated "speak" 57 times, "tell" 41 times, "bid" 5 times, etc.
"Autos" ("him," #846) is also translated "them" 1148 times, "her" 195 times, "it" 152 times, etc.
"Amen" ("verily," #281) is also translated "amen" 51 times.
"Lego" ("I say," #3004) is also translated "speak" 61 times, "call" 48 times, "tell" 33 times, etc.
"Soi" ("thee," #4671) is also translated "thou"14 times, "thy" 4 times, etc.
"Ean me" ("except," #3362) is also translated "if not" 16 times, "but" 3 times, etc.
"Tis" ("a man," #5100) is also translated "certain" 104 times, "some" 73 times, "any" 38 times, "anything" 24 times, etc.
"Gennao" ("born," #1080) is also translated "begat" 49 times, "bear" 2 times, "bring forth" 1, etc.
"Anothen" ("again," #509) is also translated "above" 5 times, "top" 3 times, "from the first" 1 time.
"Dunamai" ("cannot," #1410) is always "cannot" with #5736.
"Eido" ("see," #1492) is also translated "know" 282 times, "wist" 6 times, "perceive" 5 times, etc.
"Basileia" ("kingdom," #932) is always "kingdom."
"Theos" ("God," #2316) is also translated as "godly" 3 times.

Now, in view of the above, using KJB usage of the same terms, let's build a "revised" and "corrected" version of John 3:3.
 
"Jesus answered also tell her, Verily, Amen I call unto thee, If not certain bringforth from the first he cannot know the kingdom of the godly."

How's that for a "preference"? We can defend our interpretation with the same "logic" the "Greek-addicts" use. We have the same basis for every word we changed. We simply used another translation of the same Greek word according to KJB usage. You say you don't like our "preference"? Then try this one:
 
"Jesus answered even and bid them, Amen, Verily I speak unto thou, except a man bear from above he cannot perceive the kingdom of God."

Don't like this one either? Why not? Some of you reading this are gullible enough to follow someone when they make one or two changes in the KJ text using the same method, why not accept even more of the same? We went to "the Greek," doesn't that speak for itself? Think about your answer a couple days before you email us. We simply used the same approach to an extreme to show the lunacy of such a destructive method. Many who make these type of changes don't know anymore about Greek than you do.

Imagine what we could do if we didn't limit our definitions to KJB word usage or even if we wanted to use another Greek text. The passage could be rendered unidentifiable. The "Greek Game" is a game by the vain and/or ignorant played on the gullible and/or ignorant. Both groups are deceived. In spite of all their professed knowledge, neither can produce a pure Bible.


And then we have the other one being discussed about "that I can REJOICE in the day of Christ Jesus that I have not run in vain" versus "I CAN BE PROUD in the day of Christ that I did not run in vain."

Very precise, indeed.

Will

 

[robycop3]

Will Kinney:
"Imagine what we could do if we didn't limit our definitions to KJB word usage or even if we wanted to use another Greek text."

robycop:
Yes, imagine. We'd gain a much-greater understanding of the Scriptures, as God intends, rather than be stuck in the rut of a single 400-year-old version.


"The passage could be rendered unidentifiable. The "Greek Game" is a game by the vain and/or ignorant played on the gullible and/or ignorant."

Works both ways. We've proven that the KJV is not free of the choices and opinions of men.


Both groups are deceived. In spite of all their professed knowledge, neither can produce a pure Bible."

Actually, the ones who are deceived are the KJVOs They advocate a doctrine proven man-made and false. They even OPENLY ADMIT that they cannot PROVE it, but they stubbornly cling to it anyway. As for a "pure Bible", the KJV is no more pure than any other valid version, and that's been proven. Will' mistake is that he automatically accepts the KJV renderings as the ONLY correct ones, while, at least openly, refusing to consider that any other rendering of any given verse could be correct, or more correct than that of the KJV. However, I believe Will is more intelligent than that, that deep inside he knows that this doctrine is false, and that he has a wolf by the ears & doesn't know how to safely let go. He just cannot bring himself to let go of that false doctrine.

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
[
Thank you Hank for acknowledging that you also believe 1 John 5:7 is inspired Scripture and not just a "later addition" to the text.

Will [/QB]

which only goes to show that KJBO believes that the Minority Text cld be right at times, esp when it's in agreement w the KJB.

see? ANYTHING's possible--if it agrees w the prejudged conclusion!

 

[HankD]

Over-reactionary,over-reactionary,over-reactionary.

So QS, you also have buttons which are pushable, welcome to the club.

Everyone: Let's "bury the hatchet" and start over?

These issues are very important. Whether a translation of the Scriptures can be called "inspired" has never really been thoroughly researched and tested.

IMO, Some kind of different classification or qualification should probably be assigned to a translation of the inspired text of the original language. I don't think we should call a translation "inspired" unless we qualifly what we mean e.g. "inspiration by derivation" or something else?

The exception would be those OT Scriptures which are quoted (sometimes badly) in the NT.

We also need to resist attributing demonic characteristics and getting into these quarrels with each other when we disagree. It delays the resolution of the problem, gives a less than good witness and causes division as well.

This has been a constant problem in Christendom from day one (well almost).


HankD

 

[HankD]

I feel the need to qualify the word "badly" in my previous note.

I should have said "not in a word-for-word agreement" rather than "badly".

HankD

 

[robycop3]

By "inspired", do we mean, directly controlled by God, with the "inspiree" knowing he/she is being told directly by God to do whatever? Or, do we mean, something God has caused to happen, whether it's obvious or not to anyone that God did it?

I wonder is "influenced" would be a better word for some of these applications?

 

[Precepts]

This has been a constant problem in Christendom from day one (well almost).

Define "Christendom" please? If you do correctly, you will begin to see why there is so much turmoil within it's "boundaries"

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:

A Trail of Evidence

We find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful timeline of references to this verse:

200 AD Tertullian quoted the verse in his Apology, Against Praxeas

Here's the actual quote:

"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person, as it is said, “I and my Father are One,” in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number." (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 25.1)

We can see that Tertullian describes the triune nature of God in this passage and clearly quotes Jn. 10:30, but it's not at all obvious that he's quoting the Comma. His use of the phrase "these three are one" is no more a quotation of the Comma than Chrysostom's use of "the three are one" in the passage below is a quotation of the Comma:

"Behold again a third ground of obligation; for he shows that a man leaving them that begat him, and from whom he was born, is knit to his wife; and that then the one flesh is, father, and mother, and the child, from the substance of the two commingled. For indeed by the commingling of their seeds is the child produced, so that THE THREE ARE ONE flesh." (Chrysostom, Homily 20 on Ephesians).

Tertullian's alleged citation must be set aside because of its extremely high degree of uncertainty.

250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians. Note that Cyprian is quoting and says "it is written, And the three are One." He lived from 180 to 250 A.D. and the scriptures he had at that time contained the verse in question. This is at least 100 years before anything we have today in the Greek copies. If it wasn't part of Holy Scripture, then where did he get it?

First of all, the alleged Cyprian citation is from On the Unity of the Catholic Church 6, and not from the works you cite. Secondly, Cyprian's alleged citation of the Comma is also uncertain because it's not at all clear whether the words he's actually quoting from 1 John are from the disputed Comma or from the undisputed sentence next to it. There are numerous variations of 1 Jn. 5:7-8 in the Old Latin texts, both with and without the Comma. The basic reading of the form *with* the Comma (with some variation) is:

"Tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in terra, spiritus (et) aqua et sanguis, et (hi) tres unum sunt; et tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in caelo, pater (et) verbum et spiritus, et (hi) tres unum sunt."

"There are three who bear witness on earth, [the] Spirit (and) [the] water and [the] blood, and ([the]/these) three are one; and there are three who bear witness in heaven, [the] Father (and) the Word and the Spirit, and ([the]/these) three are one."

The basic reading of the Old Latin text *without* the Comma (again, with some variation) is:

"Tres sunt qui testimonium dant, spiritus (et) aqua et sanguis, et (hi) tres unum sunt."

"There are three who bear witness, [the] Spirit (and) [the] water and [the] blood, and ([the]/these) three are one."

Compare both forms with Cyprian's quotation:

"Dicit Dominus: 'Ego et pater unum sumus;' et iterum de Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto, scriptum est: 'Et tres unum sunt.'" (De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate 6).

"The Lord says, 'I and [the] Father are one;' and again of [the] Father, [the] Son, and [the] Holy Spirit it is written: 'And [the] three are one.'"

Since the only words Cyprian explicitly quotes from 1 John following the introductory formula "scriptum est" ("it is written") are "et tres unum sunt" ("and [the] three are one"), and since those words appear in forms of the Old Latin text both *with* and *without* the Comma, we have no certain way of knowing which form Cyprian knew and used.

Cyprian's alleged citation must also be set aside because of its extremely high degree of uncertainty

[350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]

Priscillan's citation is the first indisputable instance of the Comma being quoted in a patristic source. The Comma is found in *no sources of any kind* prior to the mid-4th C., and then it appears *only* in Western Latin sources until the 7th C. This tells us that the Comma was a late addition to the text originating in the Latin West sometime in the mid-4th C. and eventually spreading to other regions by the 7th C.

Many critics of this passage like to say that 1 John 5:7 occurs in no ancient language version except the Latin. Well, not only is the passage found in the Latin Vulgate, but it is also in some Old Latin manuscripts, and the Old Latin dates from around 200 A.D.

The Latin Vulgate dates to the 5th C., and the earliest copies (Fuldensis, 6th C. and Amiatinus, early 8th C.) don't have the Comma. And while the Old Latin might date to 200 A.D., our earliest extant Old Latin copies are 5th C., so we have no way of knowing if the Comma existed in the most ancient Old Latin text. The only other early sources are patristic quotations. As we have already seen, Cyprian and Tertullian offer no certain evidence. The only other Latin source we have dating to c. 200 A.D. is the anonymous work On Rebaptism, which quotes 1 Jn. 5:6-8 in their entirety *without* the Comma:

'For John says of our Lord in his epistle, teaching us: “This is He who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood: and it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For three bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one.”' (On Rebaptism 15).

So the *only* certain Latin witness we have from the same time and locale as Cyprian and Tertullian does *not* have the Comma. In other words, there's not a single shred of certain evidence from *anywhere* before the 4th C. that the Comma existed.

Internal Evidence

Dr. Thomas Holland, who recently wrote "Crowned with Glory", a very good book which defends the King James Bible, states: "The strongest evidence, however, is found in the Greek text itself. Looking at 1 John 5:8, there are three nouns which, in Greek, stand in the neuter (Spirit, water, and blood). However, they are followed by a participle that is masculine. The Greek phrase here is oi marturountes (who bare witness). Those who know the Greek language understand this to be poor grammar if left to stand on its own. Even more noticeably, verse six has the same participle but stands in the neuter (Gk.: to marturoun). Why are three neuter nouns supported with a masculine participle? The answer is found if we include verse seven. There we have two masculine nouns (Father and Son) followed by a neuter noun (Spirit). The verse also has the Greek masculine participle oi marturountes. With this clause introducing verse eight, it is very proper for the participle in verse eight to be masculine, because of the masculine nouns in verse seven. But if verse seven were not there it would become improper Greek grammar." [

Not all the biblical writers always used good grammar, and some biblical writers bent the rules of grammar to make theological statements. The apostle John was one of them. "Before Abraham was, I am" (Jn. 8:58) is not good grammar in either English or Greek, but it is profound theology. So is John's personalizing of the "Spirit, water, and blood" in 1 Jn. 5:8 by using the masculine with reference to three neuter nouns.

Michael Maynard, M.L.S. in his 382 page book "A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8" quotes from Gregory of Nazianzus (390 AD) who remarks concerning this verse in his Theological Orations: . . . "he has not been consistent in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourselves disclaim in the case of Deity?"

Mr. Maynard concludes: "Thus Gregory of Nazianzus objected to the omission of 1 John 5:7."

And Mr. Maynard is mistaken, because even though Gregory notes an inconsistency in the Greek grammar, he does not object to either the verse as it stands without the Comma or to its theological significance. Even more telling, Gregory does not quote the Comma itself -- which he surely would have done had he known it because it would have proven *exactly* what he was attempting to prove, namely, the unity and consubstantiality of the Trinity.

 

[HankD]

Define "Christendom" please? If you do correctly, you will begin to see why there is so much turmoil within it's "boundaries"

It consists of both the wheat and the tares.

HankD

 

[tinytim]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Hi Tim, you ask: "Will, would you agree with QS in saying it is ok to add words to the text if those words improve a doctrine?"

No, I would not. Frequently in order to translate the Hebrew or the Greek text into another language, we need to add some words in the sense that what may be said by one word in Greek requires two, three or even four words in English, but it is the same "word" of God.


Likewise, sometimes something that the Hebrew or Greek expresses in 5 or 6 words, can be expressed in 3 or 4 English words. It works both ways.

But by the word of God preserved, I understand this to refer to the actual texts involved. For example - Matthew 6:13 b. "For thine in the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." This is the text. The Lord Jesus either said it and it was intended to be Scripture, or He didn't say it, and/or it was not intended by God to be Scripture.

The RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV all omit this text, while it is found in the KJB, NKJV. Either some bibles can be eliminated as not being the true words of God because they have omitted these words, or others can be eliminated for adding to God's words.

But No, I do not believe we can add a whole verse to Scripture just because we think it supports our doctrines.

Will

Will

Thank you Will, even though you and I may diagree with some things, I'm glad to see we agree with this.

 

[tinytim]

Originally posted by robycop3:
By "inspired", do we mean, directly controlled by God, with the "inspiree" knowing he/she is being told directly by God to do whatever? Or, do we mean, something God has caused to happen, whether it's obvious or not to anyone that God did it?

I wonder is "influenced" would be a better word for some of these applications?

I believe Paul did'nt know that what he was writing was going to be called scripture someday. Look at the book of Philemon. It's just a letter from a friend to a friend. But God chose to inspire Paul to write it, Even though Paul didn't know what God had up his sleave that day.

I know this could open a can of worms, because someone can say the KJV translators were inspired to correctly translate w/o them knowing it. But no where does the Bible say that translators were inspired. But it does say the authors were.

BTW, Granny, I also liked the Hairy-tick joke.
I even went looking for a picture of a hairy tick to post, but couldn't find one.

Oh, and no fair posting my picture!!!lol

 

[BrianT]

Booga booga! Us "MV-ers" are gonna getcha!

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
gb, I am always open to learning, but I must say I find it hard to learn anything from some one who comes across so rash. You insulted my intelligence, that is o.k., but to constantly allude to me as unable to learn due to my ignorance is what is called an oxy-moron.

By your reasoning the English language is a complete failure, but we all know it is comprised of literally hundreds of languages. English relies solely on contextual definition.

In the another topic I have shown John and Scott how the Greek word for word has failed the context of John 11:35. The literally comical remark that "John the Beloved" made a mistake in using a Greek word meaning silently weeping and not to wail.

I searched it out and found the root word is of "uncertain affinity" and went further to find the synonyms to the word John used are fitted exactly in the exclamatory context of the passage. So either I am just learning that the Greek is not so accurate as many have portrayed it to be, or you are simply mistaken that I am incapable of learning.

Now to keep repeating the English is some how inferior is to deny it's rule of measure found by contextual definition. That will apply to any pasasage written in English.

Besides,gb, You had to learn Greek from some sort of diction, so don't knock it when some one makes use of one, o.k.?

Please check the post following:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001291

I appreciate your honesty. It was not my aim to insult your intelligence but to get your attention. I didn't feel as though I was able to that in the beginning. I had the impression that others were trying to do the same without success. So I became a little harsher in trying to do that.

"In the another topic I have shown John and Scott how the Greek word for word has failed the context of John 11:35. The literally comical remark that "John the Beloved" made a mistake in using a Greek word meaning silently weeping and not to wail."

I disagree. If one knows the usages of the word he will also understand its proper meaning in that context. .

For example in our culture if someone runs over a cat and it dies we might say, "He ran over a cat." We wouldn't say a cat passed away. We wouldn't say the cat was murdered. Yet the end result is the same. To murder and animal has very different meaning. We also use the expression when a person dies, "He passed away." We don't say he vaporized or was eliminated.

The word for wept in Jn 11:35 is an ingressive aorist active indicative. That's quite specific. The word never means to wail. It means to shed tears in grief too deep for words.

English relies heavily on word order also. But Greek does not very much.

"I searched it out and found the root word is of "uncertain affinity" and went further to find the synonyms to the word John used are fitted exactly in the exclamatory context of the passage."

I would disagree. A.T. Robertson writes in 1932, " Jesus wept (edakrusen ho Iêsous). Ingressive first aorist active indicative of dakruô, old verb from dakru or dakruon, a tear

#Ac 20:19
only here in N.T. It never means to wail, as klaiô sometimes does. "Jesus burst into tears." Klaiô is used of Jesus in #Lu 19:41

See #Heb 5:7
"with strong crying and tears" (meta kraugês kai dakruôn). Apparently this was as Jesus started towards (see verse)

#38
the tomb. In a sense it was a reaction from the severe strain in verse
#33
but chiefly it was the sheer human sympathy of his heart with Martha and Mary touched with the feeling of our common weakness

#Heb 4:15
Often all that we can do is to shed tears in grief too deep for words. Jesus understood and understands. This is the shortest verse in the Bible, but no verse carries more meaning in it.

Louw and Nida write
25.137: dakruvw : to weep, with the clear implication of shedding tears - `to weep, to cry.' edakrusen ho Ihsous'" `Jesus wept' #John 11:35 . In a number of languages a clear distinction is made between weeping which results from sorrow and grief and weeping caused by physical suffering. Without careful attention to such a distinction, a translator may seriously distort the meaning of the text.

English is very much a failure compared to Greek. I agree with you to a degree in that words only have meaning in a given context. But to exclude to value of Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic is to speak against so many who have had a very different experience. I fi were to travel to Spain I could get by with just English but knowing Spanish would be much better. So it is with a working knowledge of the languages. I have heard many mistakes from pulpits by those who claim to have studied some Greek and really have little knowledge. So it shows to those who know better.

The one thing I learned most when I took languages was not so much what I learned about the language but how much more I needed to learn. I thought I knew the Bible rather well until I started studying and listening to the professors. I was really dumb and didn’t even know how much. But I found out when I was assigned some exercises. How little I knew and even know now. I am learning new nuggets all the time.

Greek does not solve all problems but it does solve many.