Which New Testament Text has been kept pure?

[Second Phoenix]

You know, any Christian seminary or university will allow you to "audit" Greek classes don't you?

God Bless

Till all are one.

Uh huh. To audit a class doesn't mean that you understand the material, does it? An audit actually means you just sit there with no responsibility or accountability for learning the material, no?

That is assuming you are going to a reputable, accredited school. Plenty of places are glad to take your money.

 

[Second Phoenix]

The lexicon I use, no matter how is used in the Greek NT, you can find the parsed word. And based on how it's parsed, it tells you whether its Nom, gen, dat, acc, voc.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Do you think the parsing of the word also offers the various rules?

Also, please tell me how a "Lexicon" can tell you which case is intended by the author when the same declension is shared among two or more cases?

In your good will towards men example, I cannot see how you can argue the genitive is more accurate than the accusative, since the same declension is used.

 

[DeaconDean]

Uh huh. To audit a class doesn't mean that you understand the material, does it? An audit actually means you just sit there with no responsibility or accountability for learning the material, no?

That is assuming you are going to a reputable, accredited school. Plenty of places are glad to take your money.

Are we now going to go down that road?

Audit means you sit in the class, do the work, but your not required to take any tests for credit.

And that assumes you actually want to learn.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Second Phoenix]

Are we now going to go down that road?

Audit means you sit in the class, do the work, but your not required to take any tests for credit.

And that assumes you actually want to learn.

Does it require you to learn?

 

[DeaconDean]

Do you think the parsing of the word also offers the various rules?

Also, please tell me how a "Lexicon" can tell you which case is intended by the author when the same declension is shared among two or more cases?

In your good will towards men example, I cannot see how you can argue the genitive is more accurate than the accusative, since the same declension is used.

"doxa en uyistoiV qew kai epi ghV eirhnh en anqrwpoiV eudokiaV"

eudokia,n \{yoo-dok-ee'-ah}
[SIZE=-1]1) will, choice 1a) good will, kindly intent, benevolence 2) delight, pleasure, satisfaction 3) desire 3a) for delight in any absent thing easily produces longing for it [/SIZE]

Case: G
Number: S
Gender: F

Source

eudokias- gen, sg, f, n

The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, Wesley J. Perschbacher, Hendrickson Publishing, Peabody, Mass., Copyright 1990, p. 179

Two varified sources, that varify what I have said.

I suggest if you have trouble with it, then address the web-site, or the author and publishers of the book.

I'm done arguing with you.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[cubanito]

Having always been terrible at understanding grammar, and refusing to learn textual criticism, I have provided one clear example of why there MUST be copying errors in the Bible: who killed Goliath?

There are many, many examples of numbers being written wrong (especially in Judges) and other such small but definitive examples of copy errors scattered throughout the Bible, but chose to use just one.

I have found no answer to "who killed Goliath?" even attempted by the OP.

I have also shown how Jesus' words about how not the minutest copy error would creep into the Bible available to us UNTIL "...all is fulfilled." I have laid out a decent case for "all" being His first public sermon, the Beatitudes, which His life sis indeed fulfill. Thus, it seems reasonable to conclude that when Jesus cried out "It is finished!" that the UNTIL clause made it possible and in fact implied that copy errors would in fact creep into the "Law and the Prophets" which was a technical term for the OT. I understand that interpretation of the verse runs counter wo 2K years of commentaries. Yet it is a very clear though complex logical deduction. That has also not been addressed.

DeaconDean, being more familiar with Greek, grammar and textual criticism has been laying out his case as well. I can not comment on that as I am ignorant and wish to remain so of English, Greek and any other kind of grammar; as well as textual criticism.

It behooves the OP to answer "who killed Goliath?" if he indeed believes there is not one jot or tittle in error within the Masoretic text.

As to my "attacking the Bible" or the Perfection of Christ, I deny both. I fully subscribe to the "Chicago Statement of the Fundamentals" The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and there copy errors are clearly allowed for.

To preach and absolutely letter by letter perfect Biblical manuscript available today does great diservice. It sets up an easily destroyed "straw man" which has tested and at times at leat temporarily neutralized the faith of those holding a high view of Scripture.

I would like the OP to understand his error and correct it so that we may have a more solid foundation from which to declary full plenary Biblical inerrancy.

JR

 

[DeaconDean]

This may well be my last post here.

I have made the case of the Greek word "eudokiaV" being in the Genitive case.

Genitives serve two purposes;

• to show possession
• to limit "kind"

In the Greek:

"doxa en uyistoiV qew kai epi ghV eirhnh en anqrwpoiV eudokiaV."

"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth, peace on men of good will" is a literal translation.

The word in question "eudokiaV" answers the two questions of a Genitive.

It is only the "kind" of men who "possess" "good will" to whom peace will come to.

If "eudokiaV" were in the Accusitive case, it would look like "eudokian".

So while "glory" goes to God, on the earth, peace goes to what "kind" of men?

"Men of good will."

Nuff said.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Also, I was taught to look at the "ending" of words to help determine the case.

For example:

1st Declention nouns:

Singular: Fem: Neut:

Nom: "V" (s) "same as singular" "n" (n)

Gen: "u" (u) "V" "u" (u)

Dat: "i" (i) "same" "same"

Acc: "n" (n) "same" "same"

Voc: "V" (s)

Plural:

Nom: "i" (i) "same" "a" (a)

Gen: "wn" (on) "same" "same"

Dat: "iV" (is) "same" "same"

Acc: "uV" (us) "V" (s) "a" (a)

Voc: "i" (i) "same" "same"

Voccative usually always follows the same as the nominative case.

That is straight from WIlliam Mounce's "Basics of Greek Grammer" Copyright 2000.

Nuff said.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Second Phoenix]

"doxa en uyistoiV qew kai epi ghV eirhnh en anqrwpoiV eudokiaV"



Source

eudokias- gen, sg, f, n

The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, Wesley J. Perschbacher, Hendrickson Publishing, Peabody, Mass., Copyright 1990, p. 179

Two varified sources, that varify what I have said.

I suggest if you have trouble with it, then address the web-site, or the author and publishers of the book.

I'm done arguing with you.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I was not my intent to argue with you, only understand, you said you taught Greek.

"Eudokias" is both the genitive and accusative form. Therefore I cannot understand how one must say a particular form must relate to a case when the same declension form is shared between cases.

In terms of a website, you must forgive me. I did not learn Greek from a website. All I know is that the letters of the word are those that belong to the genitive and accusative case.

 

[Second Phoenix]

This may well be my last post here.

Really, as the resident Greek expert? Are we left to understand the KJV which is 'heavy in grammar' like the Greek without an understand of the Gree?

[qupte]I have made the case of the Greek word "eudokiaV" being in the Genitive case.[/quote]

Hrm, but in the verse you cited, I noticed that the declension was the same for both the genitive and accusative form. For the people like myself and others reading this topic that don't understand what this means - Greek words are altered based on their place (as English speakers understand) in the sentence. Sometimes words can be written in the same case, which makes it difficult to understand how to interpret the word.

Genitives serve two purposes;

• to show possession
• to limit "kind"

That's really confusing. I thought there was a dative of the possessor? Do you remember my joke about a genitive and scurvy? I don't get how the genitive can be exclusively be used as the possessor.

In the Greek:

"doxa en uyistoiV qew kai epi ghV eirhnh en anqrwpoiV eudokiaV."

"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth, peace on men of good will" is a literal translation.

But how do you determine that the word pertains to the genitive and not the accusative? Also, given the declensions of the Greek language I can't see how that is a literal tranlatino?

The word in question "eudokiaV" answers the two questions of a Genitive.

But that word has both a genitive and accusative form, which is why the KJV uses the accusative. I know that you are smarter than the KJV writers and I - I just wish you could help me understand how the KJV is wrong here.

 

[Second Phoenix]

Also, I was taught to look at the "ending" of words to help determine the case.

For example:

1st Declention nouns:

Singular: Fem: Neut:

Nom: "V" (s) "same as singular" "n" (n)

Gen: "u" (u) "V" "u" (u)

Dat: "i" (i) "same" "same"

Acc: "n" (n) "same" "same"

Voc: "V" (s)

Plural:

Nom: "i" (i) "same" "a" (a)

Gen: "wn" (on) "same" "same"

Dat: "iV" (is) "same" "same"

Acc: "uV" (us) "V" (s) "a" (a)

Voc: "i" (i) "same" "same"

Voccative usually always follows the same as the nominative case.

That is straight from WIlliam Mounce's "Basics of Greek Grammer" Copyright 2000.

Nuff said.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


Yes, declensions are shared within tight categories.

A declension for one word is not necessarily the same as another word - right professor?

 

[Second Phoenix]

Also, I was taught to look at the "ending" of words to help determine the case.

I heard that too.. but I heard that the endings among words are not universal.

 

[DeaconDean]

To the poster above me.

Here is what I see when you post now:

This message is hidden because Second Phoenix is on your ignore list.

As per the rules:

Respect another member's request to cease personal contact.

Link to this rule.

Please do not PM me anymore.

They will not bee seen, nor will I accept them.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Second Phoenix]

Hrm- I never requested that "DeaconDean" ignore me.

I really enjoyed his interesting take on the Greek.

 

[Jack Koons]

I was asked, Who killed Goliath? The following link was provided:

See 2 Samuel 21:19 - Just Who Killed Goliath?


In my normal fashion I will address the material one excerpt at a time. The following excerpts were taken from the above site:

"2 Samuel 21:19

Just Who Killed Goliath?

Everyone knows David killed Goliath, right? Then what's going on with this verse in some translations?:
2 Samuel 21:19 (NIV) "In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod."
2 Samuel 21:19 (NASB) "There was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam."
But here's how it appears in the KJV:
2 Samuel 21:19 (KJV) "And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.""
Following the above excerpts the site goes on to say that this verses "sister verse" is found in 1 Chronicles 20:5 where "all versions say, "the brother of Goliath"."

But isn't a piece of the puzzle missing here? Why is there no mention of the 'detail by detail' account of this event given in 1 Samuel 17?

Jack

(More to come)

 

[Jack Koons]

I apologize for the delay in responding in detail to the question of "Just Who Killed Goliath"? I assure you an answer will come shortly. Up until very recently about 99% of what I do here (including this post), has been done from my iPhone while away from home. Howeve, since I have less 'free-time' away from home to spend on this site, I am now writing from both my iPhone, and my computer at home which simply means that I now have 'partial files' at both locations. Hopefully I will be able to "get things together" and post my writings in a timely manner.

I am curious however to the motive behind the scholars who intentionly try to cast doubt on the Word of God, when the truth of scripture is so clear?

Jack

(I'm not referring to JR, I'm referring to the 'scholars' who insist on deliberately do their best to discredit the truth of God's Word.)

 

[Jack Koons]

2 Samuel 21:19 - Just Who Killed Goliath?

As usual, the following excerpts come from the above site:

"1. Since the Hebrew is therefore lying as well, why was it used for generating the KJV?"

First of all, I for one am not saying the Hebrew is lying. As I will show in a later post, there is no problem with the Hebrew; the problem is with the translation of the Hebrew.

"2. Since the Hebrew appears this way, there must not have been any inerrant Scripture until the KJV came out in 1611. What then of inspired inerrant Scripture prior to the KJV?"

I think we just addressed this issue with answer 1.


"3. Why are "corrections" to the KJV labeled as heresy while "corrections" to the Hebrew scripture that's been around much longer accepted as inspired scripture? Couldn't God get it right the first time?"


1) Anyone that knows anything about translating from one language to another knows that words are added to the 'target' language for clarity and flow. These are not "corrections" as stated here; and if they are, before this is finished, this will get very interesting.

2) Again, the only people talking about "correcting" the Hebrew are 'textual critic scholars' and their followers.


"1. Why are versions like the NIV and NASB, which accurately follow the Hebrew God inspired, criticized so strongly when in fact it's the KJV that has deviated from the Hebrew?"

This point, will be discussed to show that all may not be as is told by the author of this question.

"2. If the Hebrew is the way God intended it to be, how can the KJV be "inerrant and infallible" when versions like the NIV and NASB, have translated more accurately on even a single phrase? (ie. How can the KJV be "inerrant and infallible" when it deviates from the "inerrant and infallible" manuscripts it was translated from?)"


The entire premise of the above question is based on the premise of "if". An insinuation is then made the KJV cannot by "inerrant and infallible" because it "deviates" from the manuscripts it was translated from.

This entire argument is lost if it can be shown that there is no "proof" that the KJV translators "deviated" from the 'original'.

Jack

 

[Jack Koons]

As I begin this subject, please be patient as I present my case.


http://www.kjv-only.com/2sam21_19.html


The following excerpt was taken from the above site:

Again a look at the excerpt:

"2 Samuel 21:19

Just Who Killed Goliath?

Everyone knows David killed Goliath, right? Then what's going on with this verse in some translations?:
2 Samuel 21:19 (NIV) "In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod."
2 Samuel 21:19 (NASB) "There was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam."
But here's how it appears in the KJV:
2 Samuel 21:19 (KJV) "And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.""
Following the above excerpts the site goes on to say that this verses "sister verse" is found in 1 Chronicles 20:5 where "all versions say, "the brother of Goliath"."


At the above site, it would seem as though these are the only witnesses in scripture concerning David killing Goliath. The Bible says that in the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established:

2 Corinthians 13: 1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

In the Old Testament one could not give the death penalty without two witnesses:

Deuteronomy 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.

Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

On the site, “Just Who Killed Goliath?”, there is much that troubles me. First, is the fact that scholars who claim to know the Word of God in both the original tongue and English, ignore the evidence that is about to be presented. Furthermore, they deliberately present their so-called 'evidence' in a way that is unscholarly and deceitful. Secondly, the author of the site finds Biblical truth to be something to use for ridicule and humor in an unprofessional way. Thirdly, the final result of this site is at the least a path that leads to the destruction of faith in the inerrancy of the Word of God.

At this time I would like to present Biblical evidence according to the requirements of 2 Corinthians 13:1. Please keep in mind that all of which would have to be either lies, or ignored if Elhanan killed Goliath.

Witness 1. In order to give any consideration to Elhanan killing Goliath, the entire chapter of 1st Samuel 17 must be counted a lie.

Witness 2. The account of Ahimelech the priest giving David Goliath's sword, had to be a lie.
1 Samuel 21:9 And the priest said, The sword of Goliath the Philistine, whom thou slewest in the valley of Elah, behold, it is herewrapped in a cloth behind the ephod: if thou wilt take that, take it: for there is no other save that here. And David said, There is none like that; give it me.

(Just for the record, as seen in the scriptures concerning putting someone to death, two witnesses were all that were needed, I have just given two, and will now continue.)

Remember, 2 Corinthians 13: 1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

Witness 3. Davids marriage to Michal was based on his killing of Goliath.

1 Samuel 17: 25 And the men of Israel said, Have ye seen this man that is come up? surely to defy Israel is he come up: and it shall be, that the man who killeth him, the king will enrich him with great riches, and will give him his daughter, and make his father’s house free in Israel.

The following witness give evidence to David killing Goliath above and beyond what was required by Jewish law.

Witness 4. The Holy Spirit gives witness just after the event.
And it came to pass as they came, when David was returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, that the women came out of all cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet king Saul, with tabrets, with joy, and with instruments of musick. -1 Samuel 18:6

The Holy Spirit gives witness to the events of chapter 17 by stating that David was returning “from the slaughter of the Philistine ...”.

Witness 5. The witness of Jonathan, the son of Saul (according to the Holy Spirit) would also have to be a lie:

For he did put his life in his hand, and slew the Philistine, and the LORD wrought a great salvation for all Israel: thou sawest it, and didst rejoice: wherefore then wilt thou sin against innocent blood, to slay David without a cause? -1 Samuel 19:5

Witness 6. One of Saul's spies gives witness.
Then answered Doeg the Edomite, which was set over the servants of Saul, and said, I saw the son of Jesse coming to Nob, to Ahimelech the son of Ahitub. -1 Samuel 22:9
And he enquired of the LORD for him, and gave him victuals, and gave him the sword of Goliath the Philistine. -1 Samuel 22:10
While Doeg did not directly state that David killed Goliath, consider the following:
A) This event was one of the most well known events of the time.
B) If Ahimelech the priest would have been lying about David, this would have been reported to Saul by Doeg.
C) The fact that Doeg reported that Ahimelech gave David Goliath's sword, means that both he and Saul knew of the history of David killing Goliath.
D) Since Doeg did not accuse Ahimelech of lying about David killing Goliath, we can determine that Ahimelech was telling the truth.

How many points of David's life as leader of Saul's army were dependent upon the fame David gained by his slaying of Goliath.


Here is what we have:

1) 1 Samuel 17 gives a step by step account of David killing Goliath.

2) 1 Samuel 21:9 Ahimelech the priest testifies to David killing the Philistine.

3) 1 Samuel 17:25 Davids marriage to Michal was based on his killing of Goliath.

4) 1 Samuel 18:6 The Holy Spirit gives witness to the event.

5) 1 Samuel 19:5 The witness of Jonathan.

6) 1 Samuel 22:9 & 10 Doeg the Edomite witnesses that David received the sword of Goliath.

7) 1 Chronicles 20:5 in all versions and the Hebrew text include the words, "the brother of".

Please note:

There are limited possibilities to what the facts can be concerning David killing Goliath:
1) It would be common knowledge of who killed a man of the stature of Goliath.
2) Ahimelech would not have lied about David killing Goliath.
3) Doeg the Edomite would have given testimony, had someone other than David killed Goliath.
4) Jonathan the son of King Saul reminds his father that David killed Goliath, bringing a great victory to Israel.

While I have not yet addressed the text of 2 Samuel 21:19, I believe we can very safely say that anyone who questions the fact that David killed Goliath, has much explaining to do.

Jack

 

[Jack Koons]

Corrected above, thank you.

 

[Jack Koons]

I will try to send this via my iphone,

Jack