The Bible wars.

I agree. I simply point out there are others who have issues with the MT and their arguments ought to be considered as well. More information (both positive and negative) is critical to making an informed decision.

The Byzantine Priority Hypothesis

 

For Jesus to be the ONE Mediator between God & man, He must've been much more than just a man while He was physically, visibly here. Sure, he didn't APPEAR any different from an ordinary man, but what mere man ever calmed a storm, walked on water, & enabled someone else to do so?

He was never just a man. Even in His "passion", He retained the power to stay alive while taking enough physical abuse to have killed 3 men.

And while He was a boy, He astounded the Jewish Scriptural experts with His knowledge of Scripture, & its meanings. He did not learn that knowledge from Joseph & Mary: he had always had it before He was born of Mary.

Yes, He was both God & man the whole time He was here.

And I see you have no reply to the fact that the KJV's English is largely archaic & obsolete. Would you really want to witness to an immigrant who was just learning English from an archaic version he/she wouldn't understand much of ?

 

Actually, the M and Byz reading is not "in salvation" because that is the minority Byz. reading, not a majority reading. Look it up if you have both Greek NTs. The truth is that both Hodges/Farstad and Robinson/Pierpont omit "into salvation" because that is not in the majority of mss, but only in the majority of Dr. Pickering's favorite Kr/Fam35. This is because Dr. Pickering does not have actual access to the majority of mss at this point. (Dr. Robinson informs me on these points.)

On the other hand, my UBS 4 has the reading εἰς σωτηριαν, with Metzger's textual commentary pointing out that the TR omits the phrase. So it looks to me like an Alexandrian reading that crept into Pickering's Kr/Fam35.

Furthermore, doctrinally ἐις σωτηριᾳ is suspect. (I realize that doctrine is certainly not a strong consideration in a reading's authenticity.) But think about it. Do we grow into salvation, or is it an instantaneous miracle?

 

Jesus is still both God and man right now!

 

Jesus is still both God and man right now!

 

Jesus is still both God and man right now!

 

Both statements are true!

 

Both statements are true!

 

But the phrase is ἐν, not εἰς. If it were "in salvation" it would be salvation one already has, but "into salvation" is directional, not continuative, especially because the verb is aorist.

 

Yes, in Greek; that is what I am saying. You grow "in" something, not "into" something. I will change my view if you can find an analogous Greek source that uses αὐξανω with an imperfective aspect (present or imperfect tense) and an εἰς prepositional phrase.

 

I figured you would find that one.

Now, taking a second look at 1 Pet. 2:2, it's an aorist, so aoristic aspect. You could take it as looking at salvation as a whole, then, in which case it would mean growing until the divine act of salvation. But it still doesn't make theological sense to me having εἰς σωτηριαν there.

Eph. 2:21 is a pres. act. ind. verb, of course, and the indicative can be either aoristic or imperfective. In this verse I would take it as aoristic, meaning a time when the growth culminates in becoming a temple. But I can't see taking it as imperfective, growing a temple up.

 

Yep. And?

Eph. 4:15 is an aorist subjunctive & Col. 1:10 is a present pass. participle. What is the significance?

 

I'm puzzled at this. What TR was that? Neither the Scrivener's nor the 1550 Stephanus has the phrase.