1. 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 Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, etc

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by icthus, Mar 18, 2005.

Top Posters
Page 5 of 5
  1. icthus

    icthus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    What I am saying is, that the opinions and suggestions of some "scholars" on textual readings are taken into consideration, and often their conclusions are accepted. Take, for example Dr G Vance Smith who was on the Committee of the Revised Version of 1881-1885, it was his strong objection to the reading of "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16, that won the day. He was a Unitarian! Likwise the USB Textual Commentary on the New Testament, often quotes/refers to Dr Ezra Abbott, when examining the reading of a text. He too was a Unitarian! Who we consult or quote is of importance to the bearing of the Truth, and to appeal to a Unitarian scholar to determine a reading for a text on the Deity of Jesus Christ, in my opinion is foolish indeed!
     
    #81 icthus, Mar 22, 2005
  2. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, but you are not aware of what I am or am not aware of. Nor do you encourage me to continue a reasonable discussion when you continually try to divert main points into ridiculous extremes, side-issues and personal jibes.
     
    #82 natters, Mar 22, 2005
  3. icthus

    icthus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is a quote from the note on 1 John 5:7, as found in the USB Greek Commentary of the New Testament, which is part of the textual evidence used by the USB text:

    "For the story of how the spurious words came to be included in the Textus Receptus, see any critical commentary on 1 John, or Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 101 f.; cf. also Ezra Abbot, "I. John v. 7 and Luther’s German Bible," in The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays (Boston, 1888), pp. 458–463."

    Notice Ezra Abbot's name! Why the need to quote from a Unitarian on the Holy Trinity?
     
    #83 icthus, Mar 22, 2005
  4. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    1
    #84 Ransom, Mar 22, 2005
  5. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because honest textual criticism deals with the facts, regardless of who says them. If a Mormon tells me that Mark 1:2 has "Isaiah the prophet" in the Syrian Peshitta, but "the prophets" in the Syrian Harclean, does the fact that a Mormon said that make it any less true? No. Nor do you have to agree with Mormonism to acknowledge when a Mormon speaks a truth. If a Unitarian speaks a truth about 1 John 5:7 and Luther's Bible, that truth remains the truth regardless of the speakers doctrine.
     
    #85 natters, Mar 22, 2005
  6. mioque

    mioque New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ichtus (to quote yourself)
    "to suppose that because Burgon and Scrivener were Anglicans, and not "reformed", that this in any way demeans their judgement as scholars, is complete nonsense!""

    "I would not consult the likes of Barth or Bultman, even though they wrote on this subject. Likewise, it is not worth looking at "evidence" that is against what Scripture teaches, like most of the Dead Sea Scrolls "


    Now here is evidence of a double standard.
    Time to explain yourself ichtus.
     
    #86 mioque, Mar 23, 2005
  7. icthus

    icthus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because honest textual criticism deals with the facts, regardless of who says them. If a Mormon tells me that Mark 1:2 has "Isaiah the prophet" in the Syrian Peshitta, but "the prophets" in the Syrian Harclean, does the fact that a Mormon said that make it any less true? No. Nor do you have to agree with Mormonism to acknowledge when a Mormon speaks a truth. If a Unitarian speaks a truth about 1 John 5:7 and Luther's Bible, that truth remains the truth regardless of the speakers doctrine. </font>[/QUOTE]Firstly, Isaiah 1.2 cannot read "Isaiah the Prophet", since the actual quotation is a conbination of Isaiah and Malachi!

    Secondly, do you like to arge for the sake of it? If someone speaks the truth, then how can I ignore it? But, you again fail to understand, that, for example, Ezra Abbott wrote AGAINST 1 John 5:7, a work that I have actually seen, where he further quotes other Unitarian scholars to try to disprove the reading! Again, please get your facts right
     
    #87 icthus, Mar 23, 2005
  8. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    957
    Likes Received:
    15
    I thought this thread was supposed to be about Aleph & B. Can't anyone stay on topic here?

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon
     
    #88 Bluefalcon, Mar 23, 2005
  9. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you for completely missing my point.

    I've been wondering the same thing myself.

    No, I DO understand that.

    Where have my facts been wrong?
     
    #89 natters, Mar 23, 2005
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 5 of 5
Loading...