Baptism in Fire

Mathetes the kerux

Tales of a Twice Born Man
Aug 1, 2004
6,619
286
46
Santa Rosa CA
Visit site
✟8,217.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
To ME it seems that a partial Manuscript found in a trash can centuries later is questionable as to the accuracy of the document.
To what are you referring to?

Be a bit more specific . . . the TR is around 1500 AD/ce. . . . the others date back to the 4th Cent. . . . and witnesses to their usage goes back to the late 1st Cent.

So I am not sure what you are referring to.
 
Upvote 0

RevDerek

Regular Member
Feb 21, 2007
513
15
North Carolina
Visit site
✟8,218.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican
To what are you referring to?

Be a bit more specific . . . the TR is around 1500 AD/ce. . . . the others date back to the 4th Cent. . . . and witnesses to their usage goes back to the late 1st Cent.

So I am not sure what you are referring to.
It was either the Codex Sinaiticus or the Codex Vaticanus...I cannot remember which off the top of my head.
 
Upvote 0
D

Dave01

Guest
Dave . . . those who say that it dates back that early are basing a portion of their arguement on saying that it was the in the TR . . . this arguement sees Lucian as supposed originator of the TR . . . but he wasn't. If anything he compiled the earliest type of what is referred to as the "Byzantine" type of MSS . . . of which Erasumus had only a handful of "types" of this MSS . . . and not necessarily even Lucian's (probably not either).

Erasmus and Jerome had nothing to do with the TR, the Old Itala proves that.

The best arguement is only indirect . . . please supply where the church fathers quote the passage (1 John 5:7) for me . . . it seems that this is the strongest arguement for the addition. Links that I can look at myself are the most helpful, as I can read them in context.


1) 200 - Tertullian quotes the verse (Gill, "An exposition of the NT", Vol 2, pp. 907-8)
2) 250 - Cyprian, who writes, "And again concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: 'and the Three are One'" (Vienna, vol. iii, p. 215)
3) 350 - Priscillian cites the verse (Vienna, vol. xviii, p. 6)
4) 350 - Idacius Clarus cites the verse (MPL, vol. 62, col. 359)
5) 350 - Athanasius cites the verse (Gill)
6) 415 - Council of Carthage appeals to the verse as a basic text proving a fundamental doctrine when contending with the Arians (Ruckman, "History of the NT Church", Vol. I, p. 146)
7) 450-530 - several orthodox African writers quote the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis (MPL, vol. 62, col. 243)
B) Victor Vitensis (Vienna, vol. vii, p. 60)
C) Fulgentius (MPL, vol. 65, col. 500)
7) 500 - Cassiodorus cites the verse (MPL, vol. 70, col. 1373)
8) 550 - Old Latin ms r has the verse
9) 550 - The "Speculum" contains the verse
10) 750 - Wianburgensis cites the verse
11) 800 - Jerome's Vulgate includes the verse
12) 1150 - minuscule ms 88 in the margin
13) 1200-1400 - Waldensian Bibles have the verse
14) 1500 - ms 61 has the verse
15) various witnesses cited in Nestle's 26th edition for a replacement of the text as it stands with the Comma: 221 v.l.; 2318 vg[cl]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r; and other important Latin mss.

http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/a1joh5_7.htm

http://www.1john57.com/1john57.htm


Again the grammatical construction is not a convincing arguement.

It should be to anyone that reads greek. Without it, it is grammatically flawed. It has been documented as such, whether you wish to accept it or not, the proof is there.

However, the early citation of the church fathers will be a bit helpful.

Yet if their quotes are from the Byzantine MSS types . . . it doesn't prove anything . . . as the Alexandrian MSS types antedate even mid to late 2nd Cent . . . by 75-100 years . . . making it's ommission from the Alexandrian MSS types the weighter case.

Being early by default does not make them right. In fact, for all the trouble that the alexandrian manuscripts pose, they hardly provide anything to correct the Majority text. There are very few places that they actually help to correct our greek text, very few.
 
Upvote 0

Mathetes the kerux

Tales of a Twice Born Man
Aug 1, 2004
6,619
286
46
Santa Rosa CA
Visit site
✟8,217.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Erasmus and Jerome had nothing to do with the TR, the Old Itala proves that.

How? The TR wasn't even compiled until the 16th Cent. . . . and by Erasmus.

It should be to anyone that reads greek. Without it, it is grammatically flawed. It has been documented as such, whether you wish to accept it or not, the proof is there

Again . . . you don't seem to get it. John's Greek was BAD. Therefore it follows that his construction will be flawed too . . . as it is elsewhere in ALL his writings. To point this out means nothing.

In fact it proves that the addition is NOT original. If I write something and my grammar is bad almost everywhere . . . and suddenly you run into a passage that was copied by someone else quoting me . . . and suddenly the passage has correct grammar? Logic requirs one to assume that the portion of "good" grammar in the midst of bad grammar is an addition . . . or perhaps an editorial correction . . . but an editor would have corrected the whole work and not just one passage.

Also . . . any wording with the correct gender added would solve the problem as well . . . the Trinitarian referrence is not required. The addition could saying ANYTHING and still solve the Greek problem. So to the one
that reads greek.
it really is not a problem at all . . . as I said . . . unconvincing.

Being early by default does not make them right

You don't seem to understand history and historical study of ancient MSS, or what is refered to as textual criticism. The earliest copies represent the truest prose.

If a textual variant is shown to have arisen from the conflation or mixture of two other variants, it is plainly later than these other two; and this conflate type of variant is very characteristic of the Byzantine text [upon which the Textus Receptus is based]. This in itself suggest that the Byzantine text is later than those other types we have enumerated

from
http://biblestudymanuals.net/original_bible.htm

This dates the additions as later for the addition is found in the conflated texts (those of the Byzantinian type) but not in the earlier texts . . . those of the Alexandrian type. BTW, the other types that the author refers to are variants of the Alexandrian scribal tradition.


In fact, for all the trouble that the alexandrian manuscripts pose, they hardly provide anything to correct the Majority text. There are very few places that they actually help to correct our greek text, very few.

Again . . . you have inverted the process . . . the Alexandrian MSS are EARLIEST. This makes them the truest witness. The Byzantinian MSS (which became the Majority Text . . . not the TR) then become attempts to correct the Alexandrian . . . not vice versa. And they do diverge . . . mostly over non-essential matters . . . but sometimes greatly . . . like the whole latter portion of Mark 16.
 
Upvote 0

Mathetes the kerux

Tales of a Twice Born Man
Aug 1, 2004
6,619
286
46
Santa Rosa CA
Visit site
✟8,217.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It was either the Codex Sinaiticus or the Codex Vaticanus...I cannot remember which off the top of my head.
Hmm . . . but that only deals with one . . . there are two extant others . . . that are the same. Not to mention that they pre-date the TR anyway.
 
Upvote 0

Mathetes the kerux

Tales of a Twice Born Man
Aug 1, 2004
6,619
286
46
Santa Rosa CA
Visit site
✟8,217.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Erasmus and Jerome had nothing to do with the TR, the Old Itala proves that.









It should be to anyone that reads greek. Without it, it is grammatically flawed. It has been documented as such, whether you wish to accept it or not, the proof is there.



Being early by default does not make them right. In fact, for all the trouble that the alexandrian manuscripts pose, they hardly provide anything to correct the Majority text. There are very few places that they actually help to correct our greek text, very few.
Thanks for the references . . . I will check them.
 
Upvote 0

Mathetes the kerux

Tales of a Twice Born Man
Aug 1, 2004
6,619
286
46
Santa Rosa CA
Visit site
✟8,217.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Erasmus and Jerome had nothing to do with the TR, the Old Itala proves that.









It should be to anyone that reads greek. Without it, it is grammatically flawed. It has been documented as such, whether you wish to accept it or not, the proof is there.



Being early by default does not make them right. In fact, for all the trouble that the alexandrian manuscripts pose, they hardly provide anything to correct the Majority text. There are very few places that they actually help to correct our greek text, very few.
The second link you provide is from a KJV only site . . . hardly objective . . . I notice they also want to include Acts 8:37. Try to provide a little more objective and less colored sites.

I have to search the second site more . . . I also have to peruse Tertullian's writings for the Johannine quote.

I will get back shortly (relatively) . . .
 
Upvote 0
D

Dave01

Guest
How? The TR wasn't even compiled until the 16th Cent. . . . and by Erasmus.

My friend, you're not getting it,...

This is dated to the second century, prior to Jerome, actually, they are some of the texts that were used by Jerome to write the latin vulgate. Erasmus was not even born during that period. I've already provided a list of Old Itala manuscripts that do have 1 John 5:7 in it.

As I said, Erasmus is not tied to this. This is way before he was ever around.


Again . . . you don't seem to get it. John's Greek was BAD. Therefore it follows that his construction will be flawed too . . . as it is elsewhere in ALL his writings. To point this out means nothing.

In fact it proves that the addition is NOT original. If I write something and my grammar is bad almost everywhere . . . and suddenly you run into a passage that was copied by someone else quoting me . . . and suddenly the passage has correct grammar? Logic requirs one to assume that the portion of "good" grammar in the midst of bad grammar is an addition . . . or perhaps an editorial correction . . . but an editor would have corrected the whole work and not just one passage.

Also . . . any wording with the correct gender added would solve the problem as well . . . the Trinitarian referrence is not required. The addition could saying ANYTHING and still solve the Greek problem. So to the one

it really is not a problem at all . . . as I said . . . unconvincing.

Well this list of documented scholars hardly agrees with you,..

contestants for (pro) and against (contra) 1 John 5:7-8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edward F. Hills, ThD (1912-1981) pro
Dr. David O. Fuller (1903-1988) pro
Dr. Harold Bennett Sightler (1914-1995) pro
Dr. Curtis F. Hutson (1934-1995) pro
Dr. B. Myron Cedarholm (1915-1997) pro
Bruce M. Metzger, PhD (1914-) contra
R. J. Rushdooney (1916-) pro
Dr. M. James Hollowood (1916-) pro
Dr.* M. H. Reynolds, Jr. (1919-) pro
Timothy Tow, STM, DD (1920-) pro
Peter S. Ruckman, PhD* (1921-) pro [BJU]
Dr. Bruce D. Cummins (1924-) pro
Siang Hwa Tow, MD (1925-) pro
Ian R. K. Paisley (1926-) pro
Dr. Robert Gray (1926-) pro
Dr. Clinton Branine (1926-) pro
Dr. Allan Dickerson (1926-) pro
Dr.* Jack Hyles (1926-) pro
Robert G. Taylor, MD (1926-) pro
D. A. Waite, ThD, PhD (1927-) pro
Koa Keng Woo, BTh (1929-) pro
Dr. J. G. Tharp (1930-) pro
Stewart Custer, PhD* (1931-) contra [BJU]
Dr. Russel Dennis (1932-) pro
James V. Reynolds (1933-) pro
Dr.* Robert J. Barnett (1933-) pro
Wilbur N. Pickering, PhD (1934-) contra
Dr. Rodney Bell (1936-) pro
Floyd N. Jones, PhD*, ThD* (1936-) pro
C. Ken Johnson, MDiv, DMin (1936-) pro
James H. Sightler, MD (1937-) pro
Stephen Khoo, PhD (193:cool: pro
David J. Engelsma, ThM (1939-) pro
Jack A. Moorman (1941-) pro
John M. Krinke, BA (1942-) pro
James Qurollo, ThD (1942-) pro
Harris D. Himes, J.D. (1942-) pro
Edward Paauwe, MDiv, STM (1942-) pro
Dr. Robert Hitchens (1942-) pro
Dr.* Gary E. La More, MA (1943-) pro
Curtis A. Pugh (1944-) pro
Dell G. Johnson, ThD (1944-) pro
Gerardus D. Bouw, PhD (1945-) pro
Thomas M. Strouse, PhD* (1945-) pro [BJU]
Dr.* Ron Tottingham (1945-) pro
Dr.* Gail Anne Riplinger, MA,MFA(1947-) pro
Dr. Thomas Cassidy (1947-) pro
Maurice A. Robinson, PhD (1947-) contra
David W. Cloud (1949-) pro
D. A. Waite, Jr., MLA (1949-) pro
John P. Thackway (1950-) pro
Samuel C. Gipp, ThD* (1950-) pro
Theodore P. Letis, MTS, PhD (1951-) pro
James E. Bearss, ThD, DMin (1951-) pro
Dr.* Kirk D. DiVietro (1952-) pro
J.D. Watson, D.R.E. (1953-) pro
Kevin R. James, BSME (1954-) pro
Quek Suan Yew, MDiv, STM (1955-) pro
Michael Maynard, MLS (1955-) pro
Wei Kang Tsai, PhD (1956-) pro
Thomas Holland, ThD* (1956-) pro
Lawrence M. Vance, ThD* (1962-) pro
James R. White, MA, ThM* (1962-) contra
Charles Seet, MDiv (1962-) pro
Dr.* John Cereghin (1964-) pro
Jeffrey Khoo, STM, PhD (1964-) pro
Jeffrey A. Young, PhD (1965-) pro
Prabhudas Koshy, MDiv, ThM (1965-) pro
Daniel S. Waite, MDiv (1965-) pro
[ed. of Monarch Standard] Nigel C. Harris (1965-) pro
Merrick J. Stemen, MS (1966-) pro

You keep saying that there is no grammatical flaw in the greek when the proof that there is has already been provided,..


Internal Evidence

Dr. Thomas Holland, who recently wrote "Crowned with Glory", a very good book which defends the King James Bible, states: "The strongest evidence, however, is found in the Greek text itself. Looking at 1 John 5:8, there are three nouns which, in Greek, stand in the neuter (Spirit, water, and blood). However, they are followed by a participle that is masculine. The Greek phrase here is oi marturountes (who bare witness). Those who know the Greek language understand this to be poor grammar if left to stand on its own. Even more noticeably, verse six has the same participle but stands in the neuter (Gk.: to marturoun). Why are three neuter nouns supported with a masculine participle? The answer is found if we include verse seven. There we have two masculine nouns (Father and Son) followed by a neuter noun (Spirit). The verse also has the Greek masculine participle oi marturountes. With this clause introducing verse eight, it is very proper for the participle in verse eight to be masculine, because of the masculine nouns in verse seven. But if verse seven were not there it would become improper Greek grammar."

Michael Maynard, M.L.S. in his 382 page book "A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8" quotes from Gregory of Nazianzus (390 AD) who remarks concerning this verse in his Theological Orations: . . . "he has not been consistent in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourselves disclaim in the case of Deity?"

Mr. Maynard concludes: "Thus Gregory of Nazianzus objected to the omission of 1 John 5:7."

It is clear that Gregory recognized the inconsistency with Greek grammar if all we have are verses six and eight without verse seven.

Other scholars have recognized the same thing. This was the argument of Robert Dabney of Union Theological Seminary in his book, “The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek” (1891).

Bishop Middleton in his book, “Doctrine of the Greek Article,” argues that verse seven must be a part of the text according to the Greek structure of the passage.

Even in the famous commentary by Matthew Henry, there is a note stating that we must have verse seven if we are to have proper Greek in verse eight.

Dr. Edward F. Hills argues the same grammatical points in defending the legitimacy of 1 John 5:7 in his book "The King James Version Defended" on pages 211-212.
Dr. Hills says: "...the omission of the Johannine comma involves a grammatical difficulty. The words spirit, water, and blood are neuter in gender, but in I John 5:8 they are treated as masculine. If the Johannine comma is rejected, it is hard to explain this irregularity. It is usually said that in I John 5:8 the spirit, the water, and the blood are personalized and that this is the reason for the adoption of the masculine gender. But it is hard to see how such personalization would involve the change from the neuter to the masculine. FOR IN VERSE 6 THE WORD SPIRIT PLAINLY REFERS TO THE HOLY SPIRIT, THE THIRD PERSON OF THE TRINITY. SURELY IN THIS VERSE THE WORD SPIRIT IS "PERSONALIZED," AND YET THE NEUTER GENDER IS USED. Therefore, since personalization DID NOT bring about a change of gender in verse 6, it cannot fairly be pleaded as the reason for such a change in verse 8. If, however, the Johannine Comma is retained, as reason for placing the neuter nouns spirit, water, and blood in the masculine gender becomes readily apparent. IT WAS DUE TO THE INFLUENCE OF THE NOUNS FATHER AND WORD, WHICH ARE MASCULINE. Thus the hypothesis that the Johannine comma is an interpolation is full of difficulties." (Emphasis mine.)
Dr. Gaussen in his famous book "The Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures" uses the same grammatical argument and concludes: "Remove it, and the grammar becomes incoherent."

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/1John5-7.html
You don't seem to understand history and historical study of ancient MSS, or what is refered to as textual criticism. The earliest copies represent the truest prose.

from
http://biblestudymanuals.net/original_bible.htm

This dates the additions as later for the addition is found in the conflated texts (those of the Byzantinian type) but not in the earlier texts . . . those of the Alexandrian type. BTW, the other types that the author refers to are variants of the Alexandrian scribal tradition.

Again . . . you have inverted the process . . . the Alexandrian MSS are EARLIEST. This makes them the truest witness. The Byzantinian MSS (which became the Majority Text . . . not the TR) then become attempts to correct the Alexandrian . . . not vice versa. And they do diverge . . . mostly over non-essential matters . . . but sometimes greatly . . . like the whole latter portion of Mark 16.

That is a presumptious statement my friend. Just because a batch of badly written papryus from a trash heap in egypt appears, we are to just accept it because it is the oldest by default?

Because someone finds an old greek manuscript, we are to just throw everything out and trust it, even though it becomes unintelligible to read in the greek because so much has been pruned out?

Are you actually going to label that as textual criticism?

In it's barest form, that is what scholars from the school of westcott/hort/metzger do. I'm sorry, The Holy Spirit within me does not agree with that sort of evil.
 
Upvote 0
D

Dave01

Guest
The second link you provide is from a KJV only site . . . hardly objective . . . I notice they also want to include Acts 8:37. Try to provide a little more objective and less colored sites.

I have to search the second site more . . . I also have to peruse Tertullian's writings for the Johannine quote.

I will get back shortly (relatively) . . .

And what is a matter with Acts 8:37? It too, just happens to be in the Old latin manuscipts.
 
Upvote 0

Mathetes the kerux

Tales of a Twice Born Man
Aug 1, 2004
6,619
286
46
Santa Rosa CA
Visit site
✟8,217.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
And what is a matter with Acts 8:37? It too, just happens to be in the Old latin manuscipts.
The fact that Luke never uses such terminology . . . ever.

It is another scribal addition.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mathetes the kerux

Tales of a Twice Born Man
Aug 1, 2004
6,619
286
46
Santa Rosa CA
Visit site
✟8,217.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
My friend, you're not getting it,...

This is dated to the second century, prior to Jerome, actually, they are some of the texts that were used by Jerome to write the latin vulgate. Erasmus was not even born during that period. I've already provided a list of Old Itala manuscripts that do have 1 John 5:7 in it.

As I said, Erasmus is not tied to this. This is way before he was ever around.




Well this list of documented scholars hardly agrees with you,..

contestants for (pro) and against (contra) 1 John 5:7-8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edward F. Hills, ThD (1912-1981) pro
Dr. David O. Fuller (1903-1988) pro
Dr. Harold Bennett Sightler (1914-1995) pro
Dr. Curtis F. Hutson (1934-1995) pro
Dr. B. Myron Cedarholm (1915-1997) pro
Bruce M. Metzger, PhD (1914-) contra
R. J. Rushdooney (1916-) pro
Dr. M. James Hollowood (1916-) pro
Dr.* M. H. Reynolds, Jr. (1919-) pro
Timothy Tow, STM, DD (1920-) pro
Peter S. Ruckman, PhD* (1921-) pro [BJU]
Dr. Bruce D. Cummins (1924-) pro
Siang Hwa Tow, MD (1925-) pro
Ian R. K. Paisley (1926-) pro
Dr. Robert Gray (1926-) pro
Dr. Clinton Branine (1926-) pro
Dr. Allan Dickerson (1926-) pro
Dr.* Jack Hyles (1926-) pro
Robert G. Taylor, MD (1926-) pro
D. A. Waite, ThD, PhD (1927-) pro
Koa Keng Woo, BTh (1929-) pro
Dr. J. G. Tharp (1930-) pro
Stewart Custer, PhD* (1931-) contra [BJU]
Dr. Russel Dennis (1932-) pro
James V. Reynolds (1933-) pro
Dr.* Robert J. Barnett (1933-) pro
Wilbur N. Pickering, PhD (1934-) contra
Dr. Rodney Bell (1936-) pro
Floyd N. Jones, PhD*, ThD* (1936-) pro
C. Ken Johnson, MDiv, DMin (1936-) pro
James H. Sightler, MD (1937-) pro
Stephen Khoo, PhD (193:cool: pro
David J. Engelsma, ThM (1939-) pro
Jack A. Moorman (1941-) pro
John M. Krinke, BA (1942-) pro
James Qurollo, ThD (1942-) pro
Harris D. Himes, J.D. (1942-) pro
Edward Paauwe, MDiv, STM (1942-) pro
Dr. Robert Hitchens (1942-) pro
Dr.* Gary E. La More, MA (1943-) pro
Curtis A. Pugh (1944-) pro
Dell G. Johnson, ThD (1944-) pro
Gerardus D. Bouw, PhD (1945-) pro
Thomas M. Strouse, PhD* (1945-) pro [BJU]
Dr.* Ron Tottingham (1945-) pro
Dr.* Gail Anne Riplinger, MA,MFA(1947-) pro
Dr. Thomas Cassidy (1947-) pro
Maurice A. Robinson, PhD (1947-) contra
David W. Cloud (1949-) pro
D. A. Waite, Jr., MLA (1949-) pro
John P. Thackway (1950-) pro
Samuel C. Gipp, ThD* (1950-) pro
Theodore P. Letis, MTS, PhD (1951-) pro
James E. Bearss, ThD, DMin (1951-) pro
Dr.* Kirk D. DiVietro (1952-) pro
J.D. Watson, D.R.E. (1953-) pro
Kevin R. James, BSME (1954-) pro
Quek Suan Yew, MDiv, STM (1955-) pro
Michael Maynard, MLS (1955-) pro
Wei Kang Tsai, PhD (1956-) pro
Thomas Holland, ThD* (1956-) pro
Lawrence M. Vance, ThD* (1962-) pro
James R. White, MA, ThM* (1962-) contra
Charles Seet, MDiv (1962-) pro
Dr.* John Cereghin (1964-) pro
Jeffrey Khoo, STM, PhD (1964-) pro
Jeffrey A. Young, PhD (1965-) pro
Prabhudas Koshy, MDiv, ThM (1965-) pro
Daniel S. Waite, MDiv (1965-) pro
[ed. of Monarch Standard] Nigel C. Harris (1965-) pro
Merrick J. Stemen, MS (1966-) pro

You keep saying that there is no grammatical flaw in the greek when the proof that there is has already been provided,..





That is a presumptious statement my friend. Just because a batch of badly written papryus from a trash heap in egypt appears, we are to just accept it because it is the oldest by default?

Because someone finds an old greek manuscript, we are to just throw everything out and trust it, even though it becomes unintelligible to read in the greek because so much has been pruned out?

Are you actually going to label that as textual criticism?

In it's barest form, that is what scholars from the school of westcott/hort/metzger do. I'm sorry, The Holy Spirit within me does not agree with that sort of evil.
Sorry chief . . . most scholars do aggree that the Alexandrian type MSS represent the closest alignment to the autographa.

Your list of people who are pro 1 John 5:7 really means nothing. Chances are most just desire to maintain the TR.

Take for example Pentecostalism. The Pentecostal understanding of Spirit Baptism/Empowerment most of the scholars you refer to would not agree with . . . so do you take their side because of their consensus? I think not. The Commata can be solved by any insertion of any content one desire (to even talking about cats and mice) as long as the gender distinctions are maintained. The supposed insertion represents thought flow uncommon to John . . . this is the only passage where John hints at some sort of explicit Trinitarian concept . . .

The TR was complied BY ERASMUS . . . give me proof otherwise.

You keep saying that there is no grammatical flaw in the greek when the proof that there is has already been provided,..

Again you misread me . . . am I not clear? I have never said that there is NO grammatical flaw. I have said that the flaw (the Commata) doesn't present a problem.
 
Upvote 0
D

Dave01

Guest
Sorry chief . . . most scholars do aggree that the Alexandrian type MSS represent the closest alignment to the autographa.

Your list of people who are pro 1 John 5:7 really means nothing. Chances are most just desire to maintain the TR.

It would do you well to look over some of those names listed.

Take for example Pentecostalism. The Pentecostal understanding of Spirit Baptism/Empowerment most of the scholars you refer to would not agree with . . . so do you take their side because of their consensus? I think not. The Commata can be solved by any insertion of any content one desire (to even talking about cats and mice) as long as the gender distinctions are maintained. The supposed insertion represents thought flow uncommon to John . . . this is the only passage where John hints at some sort of explicit Trinitarian concept . . .

This has nothing to do with our subject. It's nice to look around at things, but our subject is 1 John 5:7

The TR was complied BY ERASMUS . . . give me proof otherwise.

Here you go,..

1) 200 - Tertullian quotes the verse (Gill, "An exposition of the NT", Vol 2, pp. 907-8)
2) 250 - Cyprian, who writes, "And again concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: 'and the Three are One'" (Vienna, vol. iii, p. 215)
3) 350 - Priscillian cites the verse (Vienna, vol. xviii, p. 6)
4) 350 - Idacius Clarus cites the verse (MPL, vol. 62, col. 359)
5) 350 - Athanasius cites the verse (Gill)
6) 415 - Council of Carthage appeals to the verse as a basic text proving a fundamental doctrine when contending with the Arians (Ruckman, "History of the NT Church", Vol. I, p. 146)
7) 450-530 - several orthodox African writers quote the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis (MPL, vol. 62, col. 243)
B) Victor Vitensis (Vienna, vol. vii, p. 60)
C) Fulgentius (MPL, vol. 65, col. 500)
7) 500 - Cassiodorus cites the verse (MPL, vol. 70, col. 1373)
8) 550 - Old Latin ms r has the verse
9) 550 - The "Speculum" contains the verse
10) 750 - Wianburgensis cites the verse
11) 800 - Jerome's Vulgate includes the verse
12) 1150 - minuscule ms 88 in the margin
13) 1200-1400 - Waldensian Bibles have the verse
14) 1500 - ms 61 has the verse
15) various witnesses cited in Nestle's 26th edition for a replacement of the text as it stands with the Comma: 221 v.l.; 2318 vg[cl]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r; and other important Latin mss.

I guess Erasmus told Cyprian to say "It is written" in his quote huh?

Erasmus was just one of the first people to compile greek manuscripts.


Again you misread me . . . am I not clear? I have never said that there is NO grammatical flaw. I have said that the flaw (the Commata) doesn't present a problem.

Really? So we just think grammatical errors in languages are ok? We are able to say stuff like "pass that man her lunch" and things are just fine huh?!?

I've ran into people who have tried to justify the greek as being ok, a good percentage of scholars have already said that the passage goes against basic greek fundamentals unless the passage is inserted in there.

Also, we are talking about GOD's word here, no one just throws things in there and it all of the sudden agrees with everything around it. That doesn't agree with a common sense understanding of a mistake or a corruption. If someone adds something that is not suppose to be in there, then it proves itself to be wrong in context.

Can you prove this to be wrong contextually with the passage added?
 
Upvote 0

Citizen of the Kingdom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 31, 2006
44,368
14,511
Vancouver
Visit site
✟341,755.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Sorry chief . . . most scholars do aggree that the Alexandrian type MSS represent the closest alignment to the autographa.

Your list of people who are pro 1 John 5:7 really means nothing. Chances are most just desire to maintain the TR.

Take for example Pentecostalism. The Pentecostal understanding of Spirit Baptism/Empowerment most of the scholars you refer to would not agree with . . . so do you take their side because of their consensus? I think not. The Commata can be solved by any insertion of any content one desire (to even talking about cats and mice) as long as the gender distinctions are maintained. The supposed insertion represents thought flow uncommon to John . . . this is the only passage where John hints at some sort of explicit Trinitarian concept . . .

The TR was complied BY ERASMUS . . . give me proof otherwise.



Again you misread me . . . am I not clear? I have never said that there is NO grammatical flaw. I have said that the flaw (the Commata) doesn't present a problem.
And white dogs are better than brown dogs except in the case a white dog is female then the brown dog is better...sounds like an OJ Simpson trial...
 
Upvote 0
“Because thou sayest, I am rich and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich” (Rev. 3:17-18).

“Buy of me gold” means to pay the price for the divine nature of our Father to be brought forth in our lives! “Tried in the fire” means that His nature has become an experiential reality within us. It speaks of an intimate, direct encounter with God that causes all that is contrary to His nature to be consumed by the all-consuming fire of His Spirit, resulting in our spiritual growth and maturity in Christ. Our Lord has called upon His elect to buy of Him this gold tried in the fire, that we may be rich! Now we know what the true riches are! The riches of which He speaks are not the riches of the world, either of money, material things, or of stature, position, fame, or self-glory. The riches of this world corrupt the spiritual man and prevent a manifestation of the true Life of God. The gold that we are to buy of Him represents a life that has been tried and tested, even as gold is refined, to bring forth the qualities of the Christ life within all who are His called and chosen ones.


The gold of which our Lord speaks is symbolic of the divine nature and the divine life of those who put on the Lord Jesus Christ. The gold of the realm of the Spirit represents the spiritual riches of the saints, for Christ said that we should buy this gold tried in the fire, “that thou mayest be rich.” Therefore gold represents our true wealth! Jesus pointed out to the multitude gathered at His teaching, “A man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things that he possesseth” (Lk. 12:15). The gold of the realm of the Spirit is the true riches! The man who lives and walks in the attributes of God is a rich man indeed!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Fire from the Greek word “pur” that we get English words like pure, purify, purge and yes the Catholic Purgatory.

Fire was first used in a sacrifice of Abel = where the sweat of the works of Cain’s was not significant or acceptable.

Fire was first used with the sacrifice of Able. Sacrifices were always done using fire symbolic of our flesh must be purified to be in the presence of God. The sweat of Cain was not sufficient and was not an acceptable offering unto God for sin. All flesh (self) must be burnt by the fire of God. Sweat or work is not acceptable. The Priest in the Aaronic order could not wear wool; wool causes sweat or works.

I love the type of Moses who went up the mountain; when Moses came down the glory of God made His face glow to where the children of Israel could not even look at His face.
You know Jesus received a dove when He was baptized in the river Jordon; on the day of Pentecost believers got cloven tongues of fire on the day of Pentecost. Jesus is perfect and mature; we are not.

Lampstand


Isaiah 11:2
The lampstand was a piece of furniture that was in the Tabernacle in the wilderness as well as both temples. Like all the furniture in the temple there was always a much deeper and awesome meaning. I am just going to touch on a few thought I thought were interesting.


Lamp stand was made by beaten gold; that is the craftsman would literally beat the gold to desired shape. Gold is symbolic of divine life which takes trials and tribulations to accomplish.


The lamp had seven staffs attached to one staff; symbolic of seven spirits of God in Isaiah 11:2; but one God.


Fire is symbolic of the purging power of Holy Spirit. Everyday the priest would have to immerse the lamp in olive oil (symbolic of God’s anointing) and light the lamp with fire.


Then the light was placed in the Holy Place for light. The first court or the outer court had no lamp but was lit by the sun by day; but at night there was no lamp. The Holy of Holies also had no lamp for God’s Glory would be all the light it needed on the Day of Atonement.


Ps. 104:4 Who maketh his angels spirits: and his ministers a flaming fire.


Isa 48:10 Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction. (KJV)

Fire melts spiritual principals until they are pure. Gold(Devine Life) , silver (Silver) , brass (Judgment)


Jesus eyes were like a flaming fire; Word of God is a two edged sword/ Flaming sword guarded: Gen 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. (KJV)


Isa 9:18. For wickedness burneth as the fire: it shall devour the briers and thorns, and shall kindle in the thickets of the forest, and they shall mount up like the lifting up of smoke. 19. Through the wrath of the LORD of hosts is the land darkened, and the people shall be as the fuel of the fire: no man shall spare his brother. (KJV)

Consuming Fire:
Deut 4:24 For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God. (KJV)



















 
Upvote 0

RevDerek

Regular Member
Feb 21, 2007
513
15
North Carolina
Visit site
✟8,218.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican
Fire from the Greek word “pur” that we get English words like pure, purify, purge and yes the Catholic Purgatory.

Fire was first used in a sacrifice of Abel = where the sweat of the works of Cain’s was not significant or acceptable.

Fire was first used with the sacrifice of Able. Sacrifices were always done using fire symbolic of our flesh must be purified to be in the presence of God. The sweat of Cain was not sufficient and was not an acceptable offering unto God for sin. All flesh (self) must be burnt by the fire of God. Sweat or work is not acceptable. The Priest in the Aaronic order could not wear wool; wool causes sweat or works.

I love the type of Moses who went up the mountain; when Moses came down the glory of God made His face glow to where the children of Israel could not even look at His face.
You know Jesus received a dove when He was baptized in the river Jordon; on the day of Pentecost believers got cloven tongues of fire on the day of Pentecost. Jesus is perfect and mature; we are not.

Lampstand


Isaiah 11:2
The lampstand was a piece of furniture that was in the Tabernacle in the wilderness as well as both temples. Like all the furniture in the temple there was always a much deeper and awesome meaning. I am just going to touch on a few thought I thought were interesting.


Lamp stand was made by beaten gold; that is the craftsman would literally beat the gold to desired shape. Gold is symbolic of divine life which takes trials and tribulations to accomplish.


The lamp had seven staffs attached to one staff; symbolic of seven spirits of God in Isaiah 11:2; but one God.


Fire is symbolic of the purging power of Holy Spirit. Everyday the priest would have to immerse the lamp in olive oil (symbolic of God’s anointing) and light the lamp with fire.


Then the light was placed in the Holy Place for light. The first court or the outer court had no lamp but was lit by the sun by day; but at night there was no lamp. The Holy of Holies also had no lamp for God’s Glory would be all the light it needed on the Day of Atonement.


Ps. 104:4 Who maketh his angels spirits: and his ministers a flaming fire.


Isa 48:10 Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction. (KJV)

Fire melts spiritual principals until they are pure. Gold(Devine Life) , silver (Silver) , brass (Judgment)


Jesus eyes were like a flaming fire; Word of God is a two edged sword/ Flaming sword guarded: Gen 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. (KJV)


Isa 9:18. For wickedness burneth as the fire: it shall devour the briers and thorns, and shall kindle in the thickets of the forest, and they shall mount up like the lifting up of smoke. 19. Through the wrath of the LORD of hosts is the land darkened, and the people shall be as the fuel of the fire: no man shall spare his brother. (KJV)

Consuming Fire:
Deut 4:24 For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God. (KJV)



















This is some good stuff, and good observations. I have been working on a sermon about the Fire of God, in which I use some of these same references. My focus has been on the Pillar of Fire, which provided all the light they needed at night. Fire represents so many different things in the Bible...I love it. Guidence, sanctification, purification, refining, etc.
 
Upvote 0
This is some good stuff, and good observations. I have been working on a sermon about the Fire of God, in which I use some of these same references. My focus has been on the Pillar of Fire, which provided all the light they needed at night. Fire represents so many different things in the Bible...I love it. Guidence, sanctification, purification, refining, etc.
Hey use all you want it is God's he Word it should be always freely given.

Don't forget Daniels friend’s thrown in the Fiery Furnace in Babylon. Only heir bondages were burn.

Dan 3:23 And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.
24Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonished, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king.
25He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.


Cloud by day, fire by night; cloud is another beautiful example of how God hides His glory. Moses on the Mount, Ark at tabernacles.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums