Who am I? (Your worst nightmare!) just KIDDING!

[Bluefalcon]

Hey, if you want to talk about the Vatican, start a new thread. This one's supposed to be only about ME!!!!!

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Bluefalcon:


I understand the views of modern eclectics (pick & choose readings from among the "best" manuscripts), although am not persuaded by them. I agree that the best manuscripts should be followed, but disagree with modern eclectics as to what the best manuscripts actually are.

With this in mind, are the TR/KJV correct at I John 5:7-8 or Revelation 22:19?

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:

Nothing like consistency!!!!!!

Consistently wrong. Relying on the majority text method is much like relying on pagans to tell the world what it the truth. After all there are more pagans than believers. So if the majority is right then the pagans are right and Christians wrong. So much for the majority text method.

BTW modern day textualt critics have 5000+ manuscripts to examine. Mind telling how many the translators of the KJV had to work with? </font>[/QUOTE]Thank you for clarifying that for me, since the majority don't hold to the KJB anymore, then the KJB is right afterall, by your logic, but then.... The KJB is right anyhow.

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bluefalcon:


I understand the views of modern eclectics (pick & choose readings from among the "best" manuscripts), although am not persuaded by them. I agree that the best manuscripts should be followed, but disagree with modern eclectics as to what the best manuscripts actually are.

With this in mind, are the TR/KJV correct at I John 5:7-8 or Revelation 22:19? </font>[/QUOTE]Considering they are correct, YES.

 

[Trotter]

Hey, if you want to talk about the Vatican, start a new thread. This one's supposed to be only about ME!!!!!

Yours,

Bluefalcon

Yep. You're a Baptist, all right.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[HankD]

Hey, if you want to talk about the Vatican, start a new thread. This one's supposed to be only about ME!!!!!

Get used to it. Having your threads hijacked is a way of life here.

HankD

 

[Bluefalcon]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bluefalcon:


I understand the views of modern eclectics (pick & choose readings from among the "best" manuscripts), although am not persuaded by them. I agree that the best manuscripts should be followed, but disagree with modern eclectics as to what the best manuscripts actually are.

With this in mind, are the TR/KJV correct at I John 5:7-8 or Revelation 22:19? </font>[/QUOTE]The TR/KJV are absolutely wrong at 1 Jn. 5:7-8. And in Rev. 22:19, Erasmus indeed got many words wrong, although I'd say he did a pretty good job translating from Latin back into Greek, wouldn't you. Did a lot better than I could have done!

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

[mioque]

"How does one lose an entire library?"
"
Misplaced when the pope moved to Avignon?
We are talking a 1000+ years of fires, mismanagement and warfare. Still nobody doubts that that library once existed (allthough some suspect it wasn't all that huge).
It's the notion that it still exists hidden away from the public for no good reason that is questioned.

That Catholic encyclopedia is also rather outdated by the way. Nowadays a lot more is available to outside scholars, with exception of the private archives of recent popes.

 

[HankD]

Misplaced when the pope moved to Avignon?
We are talking a 1000+ years of fires, mismanagement and warfare. Still nobody doubts that that library once existed (allthough some suspect it wasn't all that huge).
It's the notion that it still exists hidden away from the public for no good reason that is questioned

That Catholic encyclopedia is also rather outdated by the way Nowadays a lot more is available to outside scholars, with exception of the private archives of recent popes.

mioque are you a former Catholic? Do I hear the echos of Jesuit casuistry in your statement?

HankD

 

[HankD]

BTW Bf, if you are tired of me and others hijacking your post you can request the moderator to shut it down.

Another BTW, my conviction is that the Johannine Comma is authentic.

HankD

 

[pcs1991]

Someone remind me what the Johannine Comma is. I cannot remember

 

[mioque]

"mioque are you a former Catholic?"
"
I grew up in a IFB church and never switched to another one.

"Do I hear the echos of Jesuit casuistry in your statement?"
"
One does try.

 

[Dogsbody]

I John 5:7 Some claim it's not in the originals or in very few mss. Others defend it vehemently. May happen right here and now so I'm ducking for cover!

 

[HankD]

I grew up in a IFB church and never switched to another one.

Sorry, mea culpa, mea culpa mea maxima culpa!

I am a former Catholic sprinkled when 8 days old, baptised at age 25.

HankD

 

[HankD]

I John 5:7 Some claim it's not in the originals or in very few mss. Others defend it vehemently. May happen right here and now so I'm ducking for cover!

Been there, done that, more than once here at the BB.

HankD

 

[Dogsbody]

Been there, done that, more than once here at the BB.

Any Purple Hearts?

 

[HankD]

Any Purple Hearts?

No, but I've had a few self-pity parties.

HankD

 

[Bluefalcon]

Originally posted by HankD:
BTW Bf, if you are tired of me and others hijacking your post you can request the moderator to shut it down.

Another BTW, my conviction is that the Johannine Comma is authentic.

HankD

Hank, didn't mean to step on your toes, but accepting 1 Jn. 5:7b-8a is not easy if one desires to be consistent with the evidence. You may do so, and actually there is more manuscript support for this passage than for many in the NIV (!), but still for me it is inconsistent to claim, on basic manuscript transmission principles, that in one case, the Greek manuscripts with the original reading that must have dominated the Christian world in A.D. 80-180 did not produce enough descendents to continue dominating the world, and in another case to claim that they did. It is far too inconsistent and I cannot bring myself to hold that contention.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

[HankD]

I cannot bring myself to hold that contention.

I understand. My theory is that it was dropped out of the first Greek copy of the autograph but not the first Latin translation.
I realize it's really thin ice in terms of evidence.

Where it does exist in the Latin/Old Itala I understand that it sometimes appears this way with 8 and 7 reversed:

6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

HankD