• 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!

The Bible wars.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Anon1379 said:
Ohh I certainly wish there was no variants. I wish in this verse all manuscripts said God or Son. However the fact remains is that we have variants. You can say .4% have the reading God and therefore we should take 99.6%. Now I have no issue with someone taking that stand. But to pretend the .4% of manuscripts that have it mean nothing is wrong. The two papyri that have it are some of the earliest manuscripts we have. They have manuscripts, albeit very small. If they looked at this passage and had 0 manuscripts that read this way and changed it to God, I can agree with you. They aren't basing this reading on nothing. It makes way more sense why someone who reads begotten son elsewhere on John would think it belongs here as well, especially since the two Greek words are very similar. Now you say one is correct and the inerrant word of God is at stake. One has to be right and the wrong and not what God said. And you are correct. But to pretend we didn't have textual variants for thousands of years and pretending that only now they matter is foolish. As I have already said, the Vulgate has many more readings that have less support that John 1:18, and God chose to use the Vulgate longer than any Bible we have right now. Now explain to me why God would use the Vulgate for so long even though it had more textual variants in it than any Bible we have today. The reason why is because IT DOES NOT MATTER. We have God's truth in the Vulgate, we have God's truth in the two papyri that read different. We have God's truth in the 99% of other manuscripts. We have God's truth in the king james, NIV etc. Nobody put a major fuss over variants until kjvo morons. Men like tyndale and Wycliffe both believed their Bible was true and inerrant just as much we do today. Wycliffe used the Vulgate. Tyndale used the TR. Today we mainly use UBS/Aland. Funny how three generations of Christians use different texts with different readings and variants, and yet all still believe the same core doctrines.
Click to expand...
Just wish KJVO would read the preface in the 1611 Kjv, as the translators themselves would have nothing to do with views of Kjvo, neither did their patron saint to them, Dean Burgeon!
 
37818

37818

Well-Known Member
Anon1379 said:
Ohh I certainly wish there was no variants. I wish in this verse all manuscripts said God or Son. However the fact remains is that we have variants. You can say .4% have the reading God and therefore we should take 99.6%. Now I have no issue with someone taking that stand. But to pretend the .4% of manuscripts that have it mean nothing is wrong. The two papyri that have it are some of the earliest manuscripts we have. They have manuscripts, albeit very small. If they looked at this passage and had 0 manuscripts that read this way and changed it to God, I can agree with you. They aren't basing this reading on nothing. It makes way more sense why someone who reads begotten son elsewhere on John would think it belongs here as well, especially since the two Greek words are very similar. Now you say one is correct and the inerrant word of God is at stake. One has to be right and the wrong and not what God said. And you are correct. But to pretend we didn't have textual variants for thousands of years and pretending that only now they matter is foolish. As I have already said, the Vulgate has many more readings that have less support that John 1:18, and God chose to use the Vulgate longer than any Bible we have right now. Now explain to me why God would use the Vulgate for so long even though it had more textual variants in it than any Bible we have today. The reason why is because IT DOES NOT MATTER. We have God's truth in the Vulgate, we have God's truth in the two papyri that read different. We have God's truth in the 99% of other manuscripts. We have God's truth in the king james, NIV etc. Nobody put a major fuss over variants until kjvo morons. Men like tyndale and Wycliffe both believed their Bible was true and inerrant just as much we do today. Wycliffe used the Vulgate. Tyndale used the TR. Today we mainly use UBS/Aland. Funny how three generations of Christians use different texts with different readings and variants, and yet all still believe the same core doctrines.
Click to expand...
So, in other words, because such variants exist there can be no knowable inerrant word of God.
 
A

Anon1379

Member
37818 said:
So, in other words, because such variants exist there can be no knowable inerrant word of God.
Click to expand...
The variants do not take away from God's truth. What he has wanted to give to us has been given to us. Variants don't change that. I don't know how you think today it's such a big deal when people for a thousand years read Bibles such as the Septuagint and the Vulgate that differ so much more than anything we have today. Why is it suddenly a big deal now and not when people read the Vulgate and the Septuagint. You keep spouting off about how we don't have an errant Bible in the way you want. Why do you demand it today when God hasn't worked that way for thousands of years.
 
Last edited:
A

Anon1379

Member
37818 said:
A different visable God or the same God made visable?
Click to expand...
Why don't you have an issue with John 1:1? John 1:1 states the same. In John 1:1, the word which is God is with God. In John 1:18 the only begotten is with God. The words "only begotten" tell you.

I guarantee if all manuscripts said God nobody would bat an eye or think twice about this verse. In the same way nobody who does proper exegesis of "I and my Father are one." If you wanted to pretend this verse teaches heresy, then you certainly can. Anyone can take scripture and butcher it to mean something it doesn't and make issues out something that is not an issue. You want to pretend only begotten God is an issue. It's not. If I wanted to pretend "I and my Father are" is an issue, I certainly can and could even make a viable argument for it. But at the end of the day just because a verse can mean something else if you twist does not mean it's wrong.
 
Last edited:
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Anon1379 said:
The variants do not take away from God's truth. What he has wanted to give to us has been given to us. Variants don't change that. I don't know how you think today it's such a big deal when people for a thousand years read Bibles such as the Septuagint and the Vulgate that differ so much more than anything we have today. Why is it suddenly a big deal now and not when people read the Vulgate and the Septuagint. You keep spouting off about how we don't have an errant Bible in the way you want. Why do you demand it today when God hasn't worked that way for thousands of years.
Click to expand...
Has there been any changes in doctrines and theology from the Kjv to the modern translations?
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Anon1379 said:
Why don't you have an issue with John 1:1? John 1:1 states the same. In John 1:1, the word which is God is with God. In John 1:18 the only begotten is with God. The words "only begotten" tell you.

I guarantee if all manuscripts said God nobody would bat an eye or think twice about this verse. In the same way nobody who does proper exegesis of "I and my Father are one." If you wanted to pretend this verse teaches heresy, then you certainly can. Anyone can take scripture and butcher it to mean something it doesn't and make issues out something that is not an issue. You want to pretend only begotten God is an issue. It's not. If I wanted to pretend "I and my Father are" is an issue, I certainly can and could even make a viable argument for it. But at the end of the day just because a verse can mean something else if you twist does not mean it's wrong.
Click to expand...
Just curious as to what is there in that verse that can be used to support wrong understandings>
 
A

Anon1379

Member
Yeshua1 said:
Regardless of one starts off the TR or the CT ot the Bzt, still end up in English with word of the lord to us now!
Click to expand...
Yeah. The old testament of let's say the nasb (or any modern Bible kjv included) is so much closer to the Hebrew old testament than the Septuagint ever was, and yet the Septuagint was used by the church for much longer. The new testament of the nasb (or any modern Bible kjv included) is so much closer the Greek new testament than the Vulgate ever was, and yet the Vulgate was used much much longer. For a literal thousand years. Today we are soooooo blessed to have the TR and the UBS. And yet people still find a way to complain. Just be happy that we have a plethora of manuscripts and are closer to the originals than anyone else in history. The textual variants between the UBS and the TR are nothing compared to the textual variants between the Septuagint and the masoretic text, or the Vulgate and whichever Greek text you choose.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk
 
A

Anon1379

Member
Yeshua1 said:
Just curious as to what is there in that verse that can be used to support wrong understandings>
Click to expand...
Some people take I and my Father are one to mean that they are same person as in there is no Father and son, as in They are the same person and not distinct. The son is just a manifestation of the father on earth, but is still the father.

So in other words instead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God. The three are all the son, the father, and the spirit at the same time. Basically they are not three and one, just one
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Anon1379 said:
Some people take I and my Father are one to mean that they are same person as in there is no Father and son, as in They are the same person and not distinct. The son is just a manifestation of the father on earth, but is still the father.

So in other words instead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God. The three are all the son, the father, and the spirit at the same time. Basically they are not three and one, just one
Click to expand...
So that would be used by those supporting Oneness doctrine as relating to the person of God?
I have read how JW and others have used it to man that they are one in purpose, but not one ae in both being God!
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Anon1379 said:
Yeah. The old testament of let's say the nasb (or any modern Bible kjv included) is so much closer to the Hebrew old testament than the Septuagint ever was, and yet the Septuagint was used by the church for much longer. The new testament of the nasb (or any modern Bible kjv included) is so much closer the Greek new testament than the Vulgate ever was, and yet the Vulgate was used much much longer. For a literal thousand years. Today we are soooooo blessed to have the TR and the UBS. And yet people still find a way to complain. Just be happy that we have a plethora of manuscripts and are closer to the originals than anyone else in history. The textual variants between the UBS and the TR are nothing compared to the textual variants between the Septuagint and the masoretic text, or the Vulgate and whichever Greek text you choose.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I am much more concerned with the philosophy behind the translation, as in formal or dynamic, then in which Greek sources used...
 
A

Anon1379

Member
37818 said:
Oh, so you believe all the variants are caused by God Himself.
Click to expand...
That is not what I said.... I'm simply saying that just because there are variants, God's truth is not diminished. I still have yet to see you answer why you care about the variants today but not those of the Vulgate or Septuagint. Why do you make it a big deal about it now and not question why God allowed Bibles with tons more variants to be used for good.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top