-
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!
Written authority?
- Thread starter citizenofheaven
- Start date
Archangel7
New Member
The issue isn't whether or not 1 Jn. 5:7 is clear about the Trinity. The issue is whether or not 1 Jn. 5:7 was originally what God inspired John to write. And the evidence *overwhelmingly* tells us that the Trinitarian clause in 1 Jn. 5:7 was a later addition.
Let me put it to you another way: suppose a new edition of the KJV came out and in it 1 Jn. 5:7 read as follows: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one; and this is the Holy Trinity" (1 Jn. 5:7, 2004 KJV). That would be an even clearer statement of the Trinity which the old 1611 KJV "waters down" by comparison. Why not accept this new 2004 KJV?
James_Newman
New Member
Unless I misunderstand, your are saying that God did not provide His Word before 1611. I don't think I'm alone in thinking that is rediculous. I don't need any scholars or MV's to convince me of that. The KJV says it plainly. </font>[/QUOTE]The argument goes like this:
Mr MV: There is no perfect Word of God that you can hold in your hand.
Mr KJV: Sure there is, God has given us the Bible in plain English.
Mr MV: Where was the perfect Bible before the KJV?
Mr KJV: I don't know... What does it matter?
Mr MV: How did people get saved before the KJV?
Mr KJV: ACK! I never realized! I Repent, you are right, there NEVER WAS A PERFECT WORD OF GOD, and I need SCHOLARS (read scribes) to tell me what God really means.
What I am saying plainly is that we have been given a perfect Bible in English and we do not need a scholarly class to interpret dead languages for us to know the will of God. The scholarly class replies 'Not so, Mr KJO, God has always need of us to keep His words pure.' This is the crux of the matter.
James said "The argument goes like this:
Mr MV: There is no perfect Word of God that you can hold in your hand.
Mr KJV: Sure there is, God has given us the Bible in plain English.
Mr MV: Where was the perfect Bible before the KJV?
Mr KJV: I don't know... What does it matter?
Mr MV: How did people get saved before the KJV?
Mr KJV: ACK! I never realized! I Repent, you are right, there NEVER WAS A PERFECT WORD OF GOD, and I need SCHOLARS (read scribes) to tell me what God really means. "
No, that's NOT how the argument goes. If you think that's the argument, it is obvious you don't even know what the argument is.
James said "What I am saying plainly is that we have been given a perfect Bible in English"
How do you know? By what authority?
Mr MV: There is no perfect Word of God that you can hold in your hand.
Mr KJV: Sure there is, God has given us the Bible in plain English.
Mr MV: Where was the perfect Bible before the KJV?
Mr KJV: I don't know... What does it matter?
Mr MV: How did people get saved before the KJV?
Mr KJV: ACK! I never realized! I Repent, you are right, there NEVER WAS A PERFECT WORD OF GOD, and I need SCHOLARS (read scribes) to tell me what God really means. "
No, that's NOT how the argument goes. If you think that's the argument, it is obvious you don't even know what the argument is.
James said "What I am saying plainly is that we have been given a perfect Bible in English"
How do you know? By what authority?
James_Newman
New Member
I have answered plenty of questions, I have one for you. By what authority do you hold to a 66 book canon. What if I just want to believe the gospels and 2nd timothy are inspired NT and the Gospel of Barnabas to boot?
James asked "I have one for you. By what authority do you hold to a 66 book canon."
The authority of the church. By what authority do you believe in this KJV-resurrection hypothesis?
James said "What if I just want to believe the gospels and 2nd timothy are inspired NT and the Gospel of Barnabas to boot?"
Go ahead. It would make much more sense than this resurrection hypothesis of yours.
The authority of the church. By what authority do you believe in this KJV-resurrection hypothesis?
James said "What if I just want to believe the gospels and 2nd timothy are inspired NT and the Gospel of Barnabas to boot?"
Go ahead. It would make much more sense than this resurrection hypothesis of yours.
Trotter
<img src =/6412.jpg>
James Newman wrote:
In Christ,
Trotter
Nice. Very subtle, but still insulting to any who do not agree with King James Version Onlyism. "...may or may not be the correct one." Who gave youe the right and priveldge to limit God to one translation of His word?
So...we who do not bow and worship your bible apparantly ignore what God has to say? So we make up our own rules? Get a grip.
I wouln't know about any such neutral versions, as I only go for the truth. Quite unlike worshipping a bible version...
In Christ,
Trotter
Archangel7
New Member
There are many people who read both Greek and English. What are they to do when the Greek text differs from the KJV's translation of it?
James_Newman
New Member
Thats not scriptural. What church has that authority? Show me in the Bible where you can decide how many books are in the Bible.
James_Newman
New Member
Nice. Very subtle, but still insulting to any who do not agree with King James Version Onlyism. "...may or may not be the correct one." Who gave youe the right and priveldge to limit God to one translation of His word?
So...we who do not bow and worship your bible apparantly ignore what God has to say? So we make up our own rules? Get a grip.
I wouln't know about any such neutral versions, as I only go for the truth. Quite unlike worshipping a bible version...
In Christ,
Trotter </font>[/QUOTE]Is Homosexuality a sin, trotter? Did you follow that link I posted? Thats the fruit of the NIV, and the kind of thinking that leads men to 'improve' God's word.
James_Newman
New Member
There are many people who read both Greek and English. What are they to do when the Greek text differs from the KJV's translation of it? </font>[/QUOTE]Which greek? The one that you like best? The fallacy of 'the original greek' is getting old.
James said "Thats not scriptural."
Mark 13:34, 2 Cor 10:8, 1 Tim 3:15.
James said "What church has that authority?"
The church in general. I believe the early church, using its authority and being guided by God, recognized and solidified the NT canon. To alter the NT canon now would be to reject the church's authority in this matter and to go against what God help establish.
James said "Show me in the Bible where you can decide how many books are in the Bible."
I can't, the Bible doesn't tell me. The church does. Who tells you of your KJV-resurrection hypothesis? By what authority do you accept it, by what authority should I?
Mark 13:34, 2 Cor 10:8, 1 Tim 3:15.
James said "What church has that authority?"
The church in general. I believe the early church, using its authority and being guided by God, recognized and solidified the NT canon. To alter the NT canon now would be to reject the church's authority in this matter and to go against what God help establish.
James said "Show me in the Bible where you can decide how many books are in the Bible."
I can't, the Bible doesn't tell me. The church does. Who tells you of your KJV-resurrection hypothesis? By what authority do you accept it, by what authority should I?
AVL1984
<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
I have answered plenty of questions, I have one for you. By what authority do you hold to a 66 book canon. What if I just want to believe the gospels and 2nd timothy are inspired NT and the Gospel of Barnabas to boot? </font>[/QUOTE]This is a typical response of many KJVO hardliners. They try to turn the tables when asked a question by asking another question. James, just answer the question, please.
AVL1984
AVL1984
<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
This is very obvious, Ransom. See how he squirms to try and bring the homosexuality issue into the debate? Of course, now the MV's could attack King Jimmy as a possible homosexual, too.
But, that wouldn't really be a fair thing to do, now, would it? Besides, it seems to me that the NIV is more clear on homosexuality than the KJV's "abusers of themselves with mankind" ...I mean, who talks like that!?! AVL1984
Regarding I John 5:7,8
We talked about this passage on Sunday and used it as an example of how to rate the textual support for a specific passage where there are variants in the body of manuscripts. Here is some highlights of my notes.
Check the textual apparatus of your greek NT
The textual support for the shorter reading which excludes the reference to the "heavenly witnesses" dates back to the 3rd century and is represented in all three of the text types.
The textual support for the longer reading is not highly supported by the Byzantine texts, nor is it seen at all in the Alexandrian. The first original language manuscript that includes the longer reading dates from the 10th century, the reading is primarily supported by quotes from the writings of a few early church fathers.
It is highly possible that one of the early church fathers made an allegorical interpretation of the implied meaning of the verse in that there seems to be a hanging phrase that indicates a parallel to the earthly witnesses. This interpretation as a side note or footnote may have been included in a few early versions, most in latin, including early versions of the Vulgate. It was than most likely perpetuated into the later greek manuscripts that contain the longer variant.
Which variant is more easily explained by the presence of the other. Would a scribe intentionally strike out a passage with such obvious doctrinal significance? It is easy to see how the three witnesses on earth could lead to teaching of three witnesses in heaven, and how that notation could be included in the text by later copyists. Does this verse or the lack therof damage the trinity? No, it does not. It has even been used in some circles as evidence that the three are not one, since it makes no reference to their oneness.
The doctrines are not affected by the less than 2% significant textual variation between the various manuscripts. I have great confidence that the Bible I hold in my hand is an accurate reflection of the original autographs, and is the inspired and inerrant word of God, Praise the Lord.
The above exercise does not impact the doctrine of inspiration at all, it merely extends from the view that inspiration happened miraculously one time, at the time of authorship, and that God has providentially preserved His word for us through the efforts of men.
We talked about this passage on Sunday and used it as an example of how to rate the textual support for a specific passage where there are variants in the body of manuscripts. Here is some highlights of my notes.
Check the textual apparatus of your greek NT
The textual support for the shorter reading which excludes the reference to the "heavenly witnesses" dates back to the 3rd century and is represented in all three of the text types.
The textual support for the longer reading is not highly supported by the Byzantine texts, nor is it seen at all in the Alexandrian. The first original language manuscript that includes the longer reading dates from the 10th century, the reading is primarily supported by quotes from the writings of a few early church fathers.
It is highly possible that one of the early church fathers made an allegorical interpretation of the implied meaning of the verse in that there seems to be a hanging phrase that indicates a parallel to the earthly witnesses. This interpretation as a side note or footnote may have been included in a few early versions, most in latin, including early versions of the Vulgate. It was than most likely perpetuated into the later greek manuscripts that contain the longer variant.
Which variant is more easily explained by the presence of the other. Would a scribe intentionally strike out a passage with such obvious doctrinal significance? It is easy to see how the three witnesses on earth could lead to teaching of three witnesses in heaven, and how that notation could be included in the text by later copyists. Does this verse or the lack therof damage the trinity? No, it does not. It has even been used in some circles as evidence that the three are not one, since it makes no reference to their oneness.
The doctrines are not affected by the less than 2% significant textual variation between the various manuscripts. I have great confidence that the Bible I hold in my hand is an accurate reflection of the original autographs, and is the inspired and inerrant word of God, Praise the Lord.
The above exercise does not impact the doctrine of inspiration at all, it merely extends from the view that inspiration happened miraculously one time, at the time of authorship, and that God has providentially preserved His word for us through the efforts of men.
With all due respect, Mr. Newman, do you have any new arguments to support the KJBO myth? The ones you've presented so far were first unloaded over 30 years ago & were shot down less than a month after they first appeared.
Speaking of oldies, here's one for you to try:
WHERE'S THE SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR THE KJVOISM MYTH?
Since Scripture is our highest written authority, any doctrine about it MUST BE SUPPORTED by it! Otherwise, it's a LESSER "authority" trying to correct the HIGHEST authority, plain and simple.
Perhaps YOU can do better than those who've come before. NONE of'em have EVER gotten past this one little question.
Speaking of oldies, here's one for you to try:
WHERE'S THE SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR THE KJVOISM MYTH?
Since Scripture is our highest written authority, any doctrine about it MUST BE SUPPORTED by it! Otherwise, it's a LESSER "authority" trying to correct the HIGHEST authority, plain and simple.
Perhaps YOU can do better than those who've come before. NONE of'em have EVER gotten past this one little question.
CitizenOH:The final authority was not "made unfinal, corrected and replaced". It was translated into the most common language, keeping it's purity, and the old, unecessary manuscripts were allowed to fade away just like all the others.
Including the later valid versions. God didn't retire in 1611.
At the time the KJB was translated, both languages (greek and english) were at their pinnacle of purity.
BUUZZ!
The language of the Greek mss, KOINE Greek, was already"dead" in 1611. And the belief that English was at its height in that era is just plain wrong.True, English was better than it had ever been, same as it is now. As a continuously-used language, English is PROGRESSIVE. New words come, old words sometimes go, as time marches on.
An analogy is that of a spaceman who reaches the moon and says, "Wow! This is the farthest away from earth I've ever been! But there's a LOT more out there and I'm gonna keep going! English is NEVER going to be finalized during this age, and the works made in any time are frozen in that time. The KJV is such a work, frozen in the time of 400 years ago. BUT...the AUTHOR, GOD is still very much alive, and still IN CHARGE. He did NOT retire in 1611, and He continuously provedes His word in the languagess currently in use.
since then both languages have degenerated to a point where any new translation is unreliable.
A COMPLETELY WRONG STATEMENT!
Why? Because the Scriptural mss are exactly the same as they've been since they were written centuries ago.
WHERE'S THE SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR THE KJVO MYTH?
Including the later valid versions. God didn't retire in 1611.
At the time the KJB was translated, both languages (greek and english) were at their pinnacle of purity.
BUUZZ!
The language of the Greek mss, KOINE Greek, was already"dead" in 1611. And the belief that English was at its height in that era is just plain wrong.True, English was better than it had ever been, same as it is now. As a continuously-used language, English is PROGRESSIVE. New words come, old words sometimes go, as time marches on.
An analogy is that of a spaceman who reaches the moon and says, "Wow! This is the farthest away from earth I've ever been! But there's a LOT more out there and I'm gonna keep going! English is NEVER going to be finalized during this age, and the works made in any time are frozen in that time. The KJV is such a work, frozen in the time of 400 years ago. BUT...the AUTHOR, GOD is still very much alive, and still IN CHARGE. He did NOT retire in 1611, and He continuously provedes His word in the languagess currently in use.
since then both languages have degenerated to a point where any new translation is unreliable.
A COMPLETELY WRONG STATEMENT!
Why? Because the Scriptural mss are exactly the same as they've been since they were written centuries ago.
WHERE'S THE SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR THE KJVO MYTH?
Anti-Alexandrian
Member
And you've never gotten past my little challenge:chapter and verse supporting God's word coming from Egypt please...