New Heaven and New Earth

Hervey · Feb 13, 2002

Hi Jim:

No matter how you cute it Jim. You are still making claims, that the words in the parnetheticals "are" the Words of God. Now prove it ! !

If you go back to the third century, there was so much confusion and a lack of agreement, that many made their own claims , that eventually did enter into the greek manuscripts. This is documented facts !

The parentheticals do show us something. That the words inside the parentheticals should be 'considered'. Always ask yourself, as to what purpose , should any parenthetical be considered ? Do you try and understand them ? Do you alter them to make them say whay you want them to say ? Do they have a true source by which you can claim that they come from God, and are a part of the true Words of God ?

Your just playing word games Jim ! You know and I know that there were no punctuation in the greek manuscripts ! Read Romans 10:6 & 7 without any punctuation marks, and see if these words make any sense ! <-- You still have not solved that problem ! !

Remember, there were over 5,000 greek manuscripts , which made up the Stephen's text ! What entered into this text, and what was left out ? They did not agree 100 % of the time ! Their influence (talking about the 5,000 greek manuscripts) were tremendously influenced by what occured during the third certury period. <-- Have you check up on this yet ?

Don't keep giving me endless pieces of information about punctuation ! Or what the KJV translators did ! But start to discuss where that information came from and how we got it ! !

Love IN Christ - Hervey

Jim1 · Feb 13, 2002

Dear Hervey,

Hervey (previous post, dated 02/09/02, 05:59am):

In order for the translators to finish the job of translating from the Greek to the English. They had to find a way in which their disagreements could be considered a compromise. The greatest compromises were made note of. The greatest disagreements about what should enter into this translation were given special types of quotes, or signs. These ended up with what we know of today , as parentheticals.

Even with the use if these major manuscripts, the translators had problems agreeing with everything that should be entered into this KJV translation. Because of the disagreements , we today, end up with these parentheticals, which were "added" pieces of the manuscripts , which were a part of the compromise of the translators.

These parentheticals were added by man, to emphasis that these words that did indeed come from these major manuscripts. But these words were not in agreement from within the so called - major texts.

Hervey (last post, dated 02/13/02, 06:20am):

Don't keep giving me endless pieces of information about punctuation ! Or what the KJV translators did ! But start to discuss where that information came from and how we got it ! !

Jim:

The translators use of punctuation is the issue here, as youve made it the issue. Your view (regarding what happens to the souls of people when they die, and specifically what happened to the soul of Christ when He died) requires that we doubt certain portions of the Biblical text. Since the portion of the Biblical text that your view requires us to doubt happens to be encased in parentheses, youve taken the position that the translators themselves used parentheses to identify those portions of the Bible text the authenticity of which they themselves doubted. Thus, youve made the translators use of punctuation the issue here. It is this issue to which Ive been responding.

It has been shown that whereas the translators of the NKJV have explicitly stated their use of italic print and the footnote reference symbols NU-Text and M-Text to identify supplied words and textual variants, theyve given no indication that theyve used parenthetical punctuation to identify questionable Biblical text. Ive shown that the use of parenthetical punctuation has changed between the KJV and the NKJV, as the use of the rest of the punctuation marks have also changed between the KJV and the NKJV. If the translators use of parenthetical punctuation signified what you claim it does, it would not have changed between the KJV and the NKJV. This change proves that parentheses do not signify what you claim they do, and that parentheses are merely a normal part of English punctuation, which has evolved between the KJV and the NKJV.

It has been shown that the absence of both italicized print and the footnote reference symbols NU-Text and M-Text from Romans 10:6-7 proves that, according to the translators of the NKJV themselves and contrary to your claim, these two verses DO NOT contain either supplied words or textual variants.

Hervey:

No matter how you cute it Jim. Your just playing word games Jim !

Jim:

If my description of the flow of your logic in this issue seems ridiculous to you, I agree that its ridiculous. But I havent made it ridiculous; thats the actual flow of your logic. When I show you facts that refute your claim, you simply dismiss them with a repetitious chant of the unsubstantiated claim which you say overrides those facts. When I ask you for facts (such as a statement from the translators that supports your claim regarding their use of parentheses), you dont provide any, claiming that no facts are required, as your claim regarding the translators use of parenthetical punctuation is simply understood. Does my description of your logic seem ridiculous? Yes, it does. Have I made it ridiculous? No, I havent. Ive merely described it as it is.

Hervey:

You are still making claims, that the words in the parnetheticals "are" the Words of God. Now prove it !

Jim:

I have proven it. According to the explicit statements of the translators of the NKJV themselves, Romans 10:6-7 would display italic print or the footnote symbol NU-Text or M-Text if it contained either supplied words or textual variants. Since it doesnt display either one, the translators of the NKJV themselves have deemed Romans 10:6-7 free of either supplied words or textual variation.

Bart D. Ehrmans argument is that the more recently discovered, Egyptian manuscripts more accurately reflect the original autographs of the New Testament (or at least some of them do, as they do not agree with each other) than the less recently discovered manuscripts (which differ from the Egyptian manuscripts) do. However, by not displaying a reference for the footnote symbol NU-Text in Romans 10:6-7, the translators of the NKJV have declared that these two verses are NOT among the verses of scripture called into question by the Egyptian manuscripts. Thus, even Bart D. Ehrman would not call into question any of the text in Romans 10:6-7.

If parentheses had the significance that youre giving them, the translators use of them would not change between the KJV and the NKJV. The fact that the translators use of parenthetical punctuation changes between the KJV and the NKJV, just as their use of the rest of the punctuation changes between the KJV and the NKJV, proves that the translators do not give parentheses the significance that you claim they do.

Theres your proof. Everything Ive just said here is proof that the translators do not question the authenticity of any of the text in Romans 10:6-7.

Your turn. Show me proof that the translators use parentheses to identify Biblical text which they consider questionable in authenticity. Where do the translators say this? Your previous answer to this question was that the translators dont have to say it (as its just understood). That is what someone says when he doesnt have any proof, which you obviously dont.

Hervey:

You know and I know that there were no punctuation in the greek manuscripts!

Jim:

Yes, we agree on this. Punctuation is a grammatical tool of the English language that the translators use in an effort to clearly express the meaning that they find in the Greek text. This punctuation has evolved. That is why the translators use of punctuation differs between the KJV and the NKJV, including their use of parenthetical punctuation.

Hervey:

Read Romans 10:6 & 7 without any punctuation marks, and see if these words make any sense ! <-- You still have not solved that problem ! !

Jim:

Ill say it again. Punctuation is a grammatical tool of the English language that the translators use in an effort to clearly express the meaning that they find in the Greek text. If we remove punctuation from any passage in the Biblical text, clarity suffers. (We already know that the meaning of Luke 23:43 hinges on where a single comma is placed.)

Romans 10:6-7 makes perfect sense to me. So these verses are not a problem to me. The problem that Romans 10:6-7 doesnt make sense to you isnt my problem to solve. The only reason its a problem to you is that youre unwilling to accept Pauls clear teaching that the soul of Christ descended into the abyss when He died. As long as youre unwilling to accept this scriptural fact, Romans 10:6-7 will always be a problem to you, requiring you to dismiss half of those verses.

Sincerely,
Jim

Hervey · Feb 13, 2002

Hi Jim:

No Jim, I did not make punctuation an issue, you did ! You said keep them, and I said throw them out - remember ? I also said to ignore punctuation, while you defended punctuation - remember ? I said that punctuation was added later ! The translators did not add the puctuation ! They left that to someone else ! Unless you would like to prove me wrong here ! Parentheses came into being in the fifteen century, and were used very little , until such time that they became more common. That did not occur until about the 17 th century. Yet we have our Parentheticals, as if they existed prior to the translations of the Stephen's translation or the KJV translation. Laying all of that aside, you still do not want to answer the obvious question that I have proposed to you !

The translators were in conflict, because of the conflicting information. Or else they would not have left notes, nor would they have added anything, including words in italics.

Your stance on all of this is this Jim, If it is in the KJV or the NKJV it can be believed to be the Words of God. I for one, do not believe as you believe. And your claim that you have proven your stance , is merely a self gratifying - satisfaction to one's self. What you have proven, is that some people who claim to know everything about the translation of the KJV, you believed. Also, you are making a claim, the the KJV is flawless in its translation, and that the translators did not add anything to their translation, that they could not confirm from their information that they translated from. Again, this is not true, but you wish to believe otherwise. During the 15th century, trinitarism was extrememly strong during this period of time. It was a sect within a sect , sort of speaking. It was a part of Christianity, that wanted to supercede anything the Word of God said, and put in their own beliefs into the translations. I can not be sure, because I do not know for sure, but because the Stephen's translation was accomplished also during this time. They might have been more at fault than the KJV translators for added scripture, to make the translation more trinitarian. But from what I understand, the KJV translators were just as much at fault for added scripture. There are many verses at the end of Matthew chapter 28 that were added by man, and from what I understand, but can not prove at this time, that they were not in the original greek manuscripts that the translators took their information from. Matthew 28:19 sticks out like a soar thumb. Because that never occured, that which was spoken about in these verses. The disciples never baptized in the name of the father , and of the son, and of the Holy Ghost" < - Never ! No other records show us , that these words were performed by the disciples !

You might think that I am getting away from the topic at hand. But I am not! Look at another parenthetical in Ephesians 4:9 & 10. It tells us that he ascended "far above all the heavens" - that he might fill all in all". Jesus Christ did not ascend "above" all the heavens ! He ascended up into heaven, not "far above" it ! He is sitting on the right hand of God "in" heaven.

I am amazed at times, as to what people will believe and accept as truth. And how they will justify their beliefs , as truth.

You can hang onto your flawless translation called the KJV , and make such false claims also ! I use the KJV for my daily use, but am not gullable to think , that what I am reading is "always" the Word of God !

Just to make a final comment here about how you believe that Romans 10:6 & 7 makes perfect sense to you. Sure it does, after your added parentheticals and private interpretation ! You made it say, what you wanted it to say, thus clearing up for you, your justified personnal explanation of these two verses. Anyone can do that to the scriptures and come up with another sect of belief, and they have over the last two thousand years ! ! Which denomination do you belong too ? By you belonging to that denomination, do you not make a claim that the other denominations are wrong in their beliefs, and that is why you do not belong to one of those denominations ? The church is divided on many issues. And having life after death is just one of them. I claim that it is a lie from the author of the lie. Saying that the soul goes somewhere , where the scriptures will not defend such a belief, just amazes me , that people are caught into believing such a lie.

Anything to add Jim ? Or are you now going to defend trinitarism, because I brought it up ? Why not defend baptism and how it is performed ?

The prophecy is this -- There first must come a falling away !

Whats next ?

Love IN Christ - Hervey

Jim1 · Feb 13, 2002

Dear Hervey,

Hervey (previous post, dated 02/09/02, 05:59am):

In order for the translators to finish the job of translating from the Greek to the English. They had to find a way in which their disagreements could be considered a compromise. The greatest compromises were made note of. The greatest disagreements about what should enter into this translation were given special types of quotes, or signs. These ended up with what we know of today , as parentheticals.

Jim:

[c]The Evolution Of Punctuation
In The Translators Renderings Of The Epistles Of Paul[/c]

In the following list of scripture, the translators use parentheses in the KJV but not in the NKJV:

Romans 1:2
1 Corinthians 16:15
2 Corinthians 5:7, 6:2, 9:9-10, 10:4, 11:21, 11:23 and 12:2-3
Galatians 2:6
Ephesians 3:18-19
Colossians 2:21
2 Thessalonians 1:10
1 Timothy 2:7 and 2:10
Hebrews 3:7-11, 10:7, 10:23 and 11:38

In the following list of scripture, the translators use parentheses in the NKJV but not in the KJV:

Romans 4:19 and 10:8
Galatians 2:4
1 Corinthians 16:5
2 Corinthians 1:14
Galatians 1:20, 2:4 and 3:13
Hebrews 10:8

Sincerely,
Jim

Hervey · Feb 13, 2002

Hi Jim:

What is your point, that you are trying to make here ?

You could at lest have given a fuller explanation, than just pointing out which translation used parentheses and which translation did not!

For instance, you have shown and it is true, that the NKJV uses parentheses in Romans 4:19.

All that has shown me , is further confusion by the NKJV , which is a way of covering up the parentheticals in the KJV ! And where the NKJV eliminated parentheses is just as bad.

The parenthetical in I Corinthians 16:15 is a clear indication of added words of men ! All the NKJV did is eliminate them (the parentheses) to cause blindness and confusion.

I Corinthians 16:15 and verse 16 are one thought, and should read like this ! >

"I beseech you brethren, That ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with , and laboureth"

The words in verse 16 which state - "submit yourselves unto such" are a reflection of what it says in verse 13 - "stand fast in the faith", ---- and ---- "submit yourselves unto such" ! !

Never are we to submit ourselves unto men ! Never !

Paul says in II Corinth. 1:24 - "Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy : for by faith 'ye' stand" . All leadership in the Church are only examples unto the Church. They never ask that anyone submit unto them. We are asked to submit unto Christ, and to submit unto truth.

If the parenthetical is left in there, it totally contradicts this verse in II Corinth. 1:24 ! !

What is next, Jim ??

Love IN Christ - Hervey

Hervey · Feb 14, 2002

Hi Jim:

Why do you want punctuation to play such an importan role in your tanslation, when in fact, punctuation is not in any of the greek manuscripts ?

Also, I would like to ask you. Do you think, that punctuation can and has been used in a deceitful manner, with the sole purpose to deceive the reader ?

Love IN Christ - Hervey

Jim1 · Feb 14, 2002

Dear Hervey,

Hervey:

No Jim, I did not make punctuation an issue, you did ! You said keep them, and I said throw them out - remember ? I also said to ignore punctuation, while you defended punctuation - remember ? I said that punctuation was added later ! The translators did not add the puctuation !

Jim:

This is what you said in a previous post, dated 02/09/02, 05:59am:

In order for the translators to finish the job of translating from the Greek to the English. They had to find a way in which their disagreements could be considered a compromise. The greatest compromises were made note of. The greatest disagreements about what should enter into this translation were given special types of quotes, or signs. These ended up with what we know of today , as parentheticals.

Your stated position has been that the translators inserted parenthetical punctuation marks to identify to the reader questionable text. I have responded to this stated position with evidence that proves that this stated position is incorrect.

Hervey:

Your stance on all of this is this Jim, If it is in the KJV or the NKJV it can be believed to be the Words of God.

Jim:

Although I do believe that it is more likely that it was the source manuscripts of the Alexandrian Text that were corrupted rather than the source manuscripts of the Received Text, Ive focused on a comparison of the KJV and the NKJV, both of which were translated from the same Greek text (the Received Text), for two reasons:

1) It shows how the English language and its punctuation has evolved. The difference in the use of parenthetical punctuation marks between the KJV and the NKJV reflects this evolution, and it confirms that the translators use of parenthetical punctuation marks does not extend beyond the normal use of these marks in the English language. If the translators use of these marks had extended beyond the normal use of these marks in the English language to signify to the reader what you have claimed, the translators would have made note of this in the Preface, and their use of these marks would not have changed.

2) The translators of the NKJV utilized explicitly stated methods of signifying to the reader supplied words (words added by the translators themselves) and textual variants (differences between the Received Text and the Alexandrian Text or the Majority Text). These methods were italicized print and the footnote symbols NU-Text and M-Text. These methods of identification show that most of the New Testament passages encased in parenthetical punctuation marks do not contain either supplied words or textual variants. For example, these methods of identification show that whereas the words from above were supplied by the translators themselves in Romans 10:6, the rest of the words in Romans 10:6-7 were not supplied by the translators themselves; and they show that whereas the Alexandrian Text differs from the Received Text in Romans 10:15, it does not differ in Romans 10:6-7.

The theory espoused by Bark D. Ehrman is that the Received Text is based on manuscripts that have been corrupted by the addition of words that would not have been found in the original autographs, and that the Alexandrian Text is based on manuscripts that have not been corrupted, as they do not contain these added words. However, the passages that are encased in parenthetical punctuation marks are not listed among the differences between the Received Text and the Alexandrian Text. These passages, such as Romans 10:6-7, are found in the Alexandrian Text as well as in the Received Text. Thus, whatever disagreement exists between the Received Text and the Alexandrian Text, it does not extend either generally to passages encased in parenthetical punctuation marks or specifically to Romans 10:6-7. If the Alexandrian Text is based on manuscripts that have not been corrupted, and if all of the words found in Romans 10:6-7 (except the supplied words from above) are found in the Alexandrian Text, then there is no basis for challenging the authenticity of portions of Romans 10:6-7.

Hervey:

The parenthetical in I Corinthians 16:15 is a clear indication of added words of men ! All the NKJV did is eliminate them (the parentheses) to cause blindness and confusion. I Corinthians 16:15 and verse 16 are one thought, and should read like this ! > "I beseech you brethren, That ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with , and laboureth" The words in verse 16 which state - "submit yourselves unto such" are a reflection of what it says in verse 13 - "stand fast in the faith", ---- and ---- "submit yourselves unto such" ! ! Never are we to submit ourselves unto men ! Never !

Jim:

The word such in 1 Corinthians 16:16 is the adjective toioutos (5108, such as this, of this kind or sort). Your interpretation appears to say that the noun which this adjective is modifying is the noun faith in verse 16:13 and/or the noun charity in verse 16:14 instead of the noun house (oikia, 3614, dwelling, family) and/or the noun Stephanas in verse 16:15. You appear to be averse to the idea that Paul would suggest that anyone should submit (hupotasso, 5293, to subordinate, to obey, to yield to ones admonition or advice) to another human being. However, it was not unusual for Paul (or Peter) to make such a suggestion:

Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject [hupotasso, 5293, to subordinate, to obey] unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil. 13:5 Wherefore [ye] must needs be subject [hupotasso, 5293, to subordinate, to obey], not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

1 Corinthians 16:6 That ye submit [hupotasso, 5293, to subordinate, to obey] yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth.

Ephesians 5:21 Submitting [hupotasso, 5293, to subordinate, to obey] yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit [hupotasso, 5293, to subordinate, to obey] yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

Colossians 3:18 Wives, submit [hupotasso, 5293, to subordinate, to obey] yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

Titus 3:1 Put them in mind to be subject [hupotasso, 5293, to subordinate, to obey] to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,

Hebrews 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit [hupeiko, 5226, to surrender] yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

1 Peter 2:13 Submit [hupotasso, 5293, to subordinate, to obey] yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; 2:14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. 2:15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:

1 Peter 5:5 Likewise, ye younger, submit [hupotasso, 5293, to subordinate, to obey] yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject [hupotasso, 5293, to subordinate, to obey] one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

Also, your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:16 forbids the Corinthians from being subject to the house of Stephanas in verse 16:15, but it ignores the fact that Paul goes on to suggest in verse 16:16 in that they be subject also to every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth. In Pauls day, there were many heretics who were constantly trying to pull the saints away from Pauls doctrine. In such a climate, it would not have been unusual for Paul to therefore endorse to the saints of a given locality certain individuals whom he trusted. In this case, it was Stephanas, the house (or family) of Stephanas and every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth.

Sincerely,
Jim

Hervey · Feb 14, 2002

Hi Jim:

I want you to go and look at this site >

http://biz.ukonline.co.uk/trinitarian.bible.society/articles/tr-art.htm

You said >Your stated position has been that the translators inserted parenthetical punctuation marks to identify to the reader questionable text. I have responded to this stated position with evidence that proves that this stated position is incorrect.

No I did not say that ! I said, that they left identification, and the printers added the parentheses. But you were not reading what I wrote, and thus, my labour becomes vain. I also said, that the translators, made their best judgements and added that which they thought should be added, from the sources they worked with.

What you have told me, is that the translators, not the printers, put respected indentifications within the printed material, to identify with the words/work of the translators, that needed to be indentified.

What I am telling you is, is that the translators did the translating, and the printers did the rest. Your claiming that all the material that we seen in our translations comes from the translators. I disagree ! The printers took certain liberties , just like the translators took certain liberties. The printers added the parentheses, but the translators indicated a questionable piece of material , that they had a hard time agreeing with, by letting the printers know, that these words were added, but questionable.

As you pointed out, the NKJV printers, worked more closely with the translators, (if that is what you would like to call them- I wouldn't) and took some of the parentheses out and added some. This alone should give you a hint as to who added the parentheses ! And what influence in a certain translation takes on. I always say, that a translation has a life of its own. That is, because the translation is not the Word of God ! !

Here we go again Jim ! Why do you go off on these tangents ? I said -- That we are not to submit unto men ! You then start giving me references about a husband and wife, and the brethren as being on equal par with one another. These verses have nothing to do with what I said ! !

The Received Text, is the Stephen's Text, and what sources do you think the Stephen's text, took from to do their translation ? The Stephen's text was translated just before the KJV was translated. And there are many revised editions. (Check out the site above) That is why the KJV tanslators used the Stephen's text as their major source. The Stephen's text was in Greek, and the KJV translation was translated into English. Which is where more private interpretation comes from , in translating from one language to another ! In fact , it is suggested ( and I agree ), that all translations , are nothing more than interpretations, instead of translations !

Love IN Christ - Hervey

Hervey · Feb 14, 2002

Hi Jim:

You said >Also, your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:16 forbids the Corinthians from being subject to the house of Stephanas in verse 16:15, but it ignores the fact that Paul goes on to suggest in verse 16:16 in that they be subject also to every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth. In Pauls day, there were many heretics who were constantly trying to pull the saints away from Pauls doctrine. In such a climate, it would not have been unusual for Paul to therefore endorse to the saints of a given locality certain individuals whom he trusted. In this case, it was Stephanas, the house (or family) of Stephanas and every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth.

Did you ever think about looking at the context in I Corinth. chapter 16 ?

Stephanas was not of Corinth. ! He had to come to Corinth. and Paul tells the Corinthians in chapter 16 and in verse 17 to take into account of him (Stephanas) and Fortunatus and Achaicus, that they supplied things that were lacking on their part.

In verse 10 Paul talks about Timothy coming to Corinth. and in verse 12 he is talking about Apolos coming to Corinth. and in verse 16 , these three men came also. Nowhere do you see Paul indicating that they should "submit" unto them ! They should be given respect, because of who they are and what they represent in the Church. But to submit unto them - NO !

Paul tells them to stand fast in the "faith" in verse 13 , and then says in verse 16 - to submit yourselves unto such - "faith", and to everyone who helps and laboureth. Faith stands front and center in this context !

If you want to see how Paul expresses how to treat these men, just look at verses 10 & 11 & 12.

Let all things be done with charity ( Agape - Love) - verse 14.

Love IN Christ - Hervey

Jim1 · Feb 14, 2002

Dear Hervey,

Hervey:

Stephanas was not of Corinth. ! He had to come to Corinth. and Paul tells the Corinthians in chapter 16 and in verse 17 to take into account of him (Stephanas) and Fortunatus and Achaicus, that they supplied things that were lacking on their part.

Jim:

Actually, it appears that Stephanas was of Corinth. In 1 Corinthians 1:14-16, Paul says to the Corinthians, I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. Thus, the house (or family) of Stephanas were Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 16:15, Paul states that the house [or family] of Stephanas was the firstfruits of Achaia. Thus, Stephanas family was among the first to believe in Christ in the province of Achaia, of which Corinth was the capital.

When we compare Acts 18-20 and 1 Corinthians 4:17 and 16:1-19, we can see that the timeframe in which Paul writes 1 Corinthians appears to correlate with Acts 19:21-22. Thus, it appears that Paul was writing from Ephesus, which was located eastward, right across the Aegean Sea from Corinth. In 1 Corinthians 16:17-18, Paul speaks of having been refreshed by Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus (as the saints at Corinth had also been refreshed by them) and of that which was lacking having been supplied by them (compare 2 Corinthians 11:9 regarding the phrase that which was lacking). This indicates to me that these three brethren were probably with Paul at the time that he wrote his letter, and that they took his letter with them when they returned home to Corinth.

Sincerely,
Jim

Hervey · Feb 14, 2002

Hi Jim:

None of the scriptures that you suggest , in any way, say that Stephanas was from Corinth. Only your parenthetical makes any mention , that Stephanas was from Achaia.

By your explanation, you then would have to eliminate the word "coming" in verse 17 , which tells us that the "came" to Corinth. It does not say , that they were "of" Corinth. "anywhere" ! !

Throw out your parentheticals ! They are of man, and not of God !

Love IN Christ - Hervey

Jim1 · Feb 14, 2002

Dear Hervey,

Hervey:

None of the scriptures that you suggest , in any way, say that Stephanas was from Corinth. Only your parenthetical makes any mention , that Stephanas was from Achaia. By your explanation, you then would have to eliminate the word "coming" in verse 17 , which tells us that the "came" to Corinth. It does not say , that they were "of" Corinth. "anywhere" ! !

Paul to the Corinthians:

1 Corinthians 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

1 Corinthians 16:15 I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,) 16 That ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth. 17 I am glad of the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus: for that which was lacking on your part they have supplied. 18 For they have refreshed my spirit and yours: therefore acknowledge ye them that are such.

2 Corinthians 11:7 Have I committed an offence in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely? 8 I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service. 9 And when I was present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied: and in all things I have kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and so will I keep myself. 10 As the truth of Christ is in me, no man shall stop me of this boasting in the regions of Achaia. 11 Wherefore? because I love you not? God knoweth. 12 But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we.

Jim:

In 1 Corinthians 1:14-16, in response to the inappropriate competitiveness among the Corinthians, Paul said that he was glad that he hadnt baptized any of the Corinthians (none of you) with the following exceptions: (1) but Crispus and Gaius (2) I baptized also the household of Stephanas Pauls mention of the household of Stephanas as one of the exceptions to his statement that he had baptized none of you would not fit the logic of what Paul was saying unless the household of Stephanas were likewise Corinthians, and it would have no meaning to the Corinthians unless the household of Stephanas, being fellow Corinthians, were known to them.

Pauls statement in verse 16:15, ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia , is likewise consistent with the household of Stephanas being known to their fellow Corinthians.

In verse 16:17, Paul says that he was glad of the coming of Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus. He then explains why he was glad, saying, that which was lacking on your part they have supplied. This could be a reference to the supply of Pauls material needs, as in 2 Corinthians 11:9; both verses use the phrases that which was lacking and supplied. This also could be a reference to the letter that Paul received from the church at Corinth according to verse 7:1. If this letter to Paul preceded the coming of Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus, then in saying, that which was lacking, Paul may have been referring to missing information regarding the status of the church at Corinth in their letter to him, that missing information being supplied to Paul by Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus themselves when they came to Ephesus.

Sincerely,
Jim

Hervey · Feb 14, 2002

Hi Jim:

Your thinking is not logical ! Just because Paul did not baptize only these in Corinth, does not mean that Stephanas lived in Corinth ! He said, that he "also" baptized the household of Stephanas, but that does not mean that Stephanas lived in Corinth. !!

Your playing word games again !

Did you go to that site I gave you about the "Received Text" ?

If not - here it is again >

http://biz.ukonline.co.uk/trinitari...cles/tr-art.htm

Love IN Christ - Hervey

Jim1 · Feb 15, 2002

Dear Hervey,

Hervey:

Did you go to that site I gave you about the "Received Text" ?

Jim:

Yes:

Are the variations between the editions of the Textus Receptus significant?

No. These variations include spelling, accents and breathing marks, word order and other minor kinds of differences. As it is stated in the preface to the Trinitarian Bible Society edition of the Textus Receptus, "The editions of Stephens, Beza and the Elzevirs all present substantially the same text, and the variations are not of great significance and rarely affect the sense".5

Which edition of the Textus Receptus does the Trinitarian Bible Society print?

In the latter part of the 19th century, F. H. A. Scrivener produced an edition of the Greek New Testament which reflects the Textus Receptus underlying the English Authorised Version. This edition, published posthumously in 1894, is currently published by the Society.

How does the Scrivener edition differ from the other editions of the Textus Receptus?

F. H. A. Scrivener (1813-1891) attempted to reproduce as exactly as possible the Greek text which underlies the Authorised Version of 1611. However, the AV was not translated from any one printed edition of the Greek text. The AV translators relied heavily upon the work of William Tyndale and other editions of the English Bible. Thus there were places in which it is unclear what the Greek basis of the New Testament was. Scrivener in his reconstructed and edited text used as his starting point the Beza edition of 1598, identifying the places where the English text had different readings from the Greek. He examined eighteen editions of the Textus Receptus to find the correct Greek rendering, and made the changes to his Greek text. When he finished he had produced an edition of the Greek New Testament which more closely underlies the text of the AV than any one edition of the Textus Receptus.

How many differences are found between the Scrivener text and the Stephanus and Beza texts?

There are approximately 190 differences between the Scrivener text and the Beza 1598. There are 283 differences between the Scrivener text and the Stephanus 1550. These differences are minor, and pale into insignificance when compared with the approximately 6,000 differences -- many of which are quite substantial -- between the Critical Text and the Textus Receptus.

If you believe that the manuscript source of the Alexandrian Text is not corrupted, why do you not accept Romans 10:6-7 and 1 Corinthians 16:15 in their entirety, which are found in their entirety in the manuscript source of the Alexandrian Text? To reject parts of these passages is to conclude that the manuscript source of the Alexandrian Text is corrupted, which is to disqualify the manuscript source of the Alexandrian Text as a legitimate standard by which to judge the corruption of the manuscript source of the Received Text.

Sincerely,
Jim

Hervey · Feb 15, 2002

Hi Jim:

Oh Jim, I believe they are all corrupted !

I was wondering what you would take with you when you went to that site ? !

There is much more information than this !

I wanted you to take with you, much much more from this site than just the info you posted. There are dates and explanations about printing , and time periods between information. There are lies on this site, but also some good information. What else did you get from this site ?

You never mentioned that word "coming" in I Corinth. 16:17 ! Coming from where ? Or are you going to change "that word" to suit your desire to make the Word say what you want it to say ?

Love IN Christ - Hervey

Jim1 · Feb 15, 2002

Dear Hervey,

Hervey:

You never mentioned that word "coming" in I Corinth. 16:17 ! Coming from where ? Or are you going to change "that word" to suit your desire to make the Word say what you want it to say ?

Jim (previous post, dated 02/15/02, 04:53am):

In verse 16:17, Paul says that he was glad of the coming of Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus. He then explains why he was glad, saying, that which was lacking on your part they have supplied. This could be a reference to the supply of Pauls material needs, as in 2 Corinthians 11:9; both verses use the phrases that which was lacking and supplied. This also could be a reference to the letter that Paul received from the church at Corinth according to verse 7:1. If this letter to Paul preceded the coming of Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus, then in saying, that which was lacking, Paul may have been referring to missing information regarding the status of the church at Corinth in their letter to him, that missing information being supplied to Paul by Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus themselves when they came to Ephesus.

Hervey:

Oh Jim, I believe they are all corrupted !

Jim (previous post, dated 02/15/02, 11:20am):

To reject parts of these passages [Romans 10:6-7 and 1 Corinthians 16:15] is to conclude that the manuscript source of the Alexandrian Text is corrupted, which is to disqualify the manuscript source of the Alexandrian Text as a legitimate standard by which to judge the corruption of the manuscript source of the Received Text.

Jim (this post):

If you believe that all the manuscripts are corrupted, then, according to your belief, not only is the text encased within parenthetical punctuation suspect, so is the rest of the text. If all the manuscripts are corrupted, then there is no uncorrupted objective standard by which to determine where the corruption begins and where it ends. In the absence of an objective standard, it appears from your method of interpreting the Bible that you have adopted a subjective standard: it appears that you have come to the conclusion that whatever makes sense to you and agrees with your view is free of corruption, and whatever does not make sense to you and does not agree with your view is corrupted. This gives you complete control over the Bible. Your manipulative interpretations reflect this controlling mentality. Thus, you have made yourself a lord over the Bible. The license you allow yourself to dismiss or alter scripture demonstrates this arrogance.

Sincerely,
Jim

Hervey · Feb 15, 2002

Hi Jim:

No, my standards are not according to my beliefs ! Your standards are with what you can see with your eyes, and make claims that your eyes have seen, like the doubting Thomas.

You have made claims that nothing is corrupt, when in fact everything you have for reading and trying to understand the translations, is all corrupt. Where it came from, whoever tried to translate, whoever did the printing, whoever did the RT , whoever , whoever, whoever !

There are spiritual standards within the Word of God that never change ! Because God is a God that never changes !

Yet, all manuscripts from the copiest, to the translations and many translations, everything "changes". This is a fact, that no one can deny ! However, many will only claim that the subtle changes do not change anything. What a lie ! Only those who are willing to believe a lie , will take that lie, as a truth. Trusting in man, when God says, that every man is a liar !

God did not call out the translators, nor did he call out those who put together the RT ! God called out men of God, who spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

If you will only look at the Word of God - which is in our translations, and only look at that which changes not. Then and only then , do you have the Word of God ! !

The parentheticals "change" the Word of God ! Thus rendering the translations worthless , "as they are" ! If you throw out the parentheticals, then that helps bring you closer to the truth !

Every time I have seen you use the parentheticals, I also have seen you include your private interpretations . You also make false claims, by using scripture out of context. If you would stop doing this, then you would come closer to the truth, and not until then ! !

If Stephanas "came" with two others, then he "came" from somwhere outside of Corinth. Yet you are still trying to discount this truth !

Read the Word of God and "look" for those things which change not ! !

It is God's business whom he has chosen from before the foundation of the world!

It is God's business whom he blots out of the book of life !

Those whom he chose - ascend
Those whom he blots out of the book of life - descend

Both are none of our business.

Throw out the parentheticals in Romans 10:6 & 7 , then and only then do you have "truth" !!

Love IN Chrsit - Hervey

LittleLambofJesus · Sep 14, 2009

Hervey said:
Dear Hervey,
Hervey:

There will be a #1 - New Heaven and #2 - a New Earth. The New Jerusalem comes down out of -- Heaven ( which Heaven ? -- The old heaven has passed away ! --- She comes down from the New Heaven - Rev. 21:1 & 2) - from God - having the glory of God, and her - Rev. 21:10 & 11. She - the New Jerusalem is the "glory of God", and she is the wife of the Lamb.

Jim:

Yes, there will be a new heaven and a new earth. Yes, the New Jerusalem will descend from God out of the new heaven to the new earth. Yes, this city, New Jerusalem, is the Lambs wife. John was standing with the angel on a mountain of the new earth watching the Lambs wife, the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descend from the new heaven to the new earth (21:10). That is what Revelation 21 says. I dont see the point youre trying to make here.

Hervey:

Then why would the Word of God use the words "enter into it" in two verses pertaining to two different understandings of the group whoes names are written in the "Lamb's book of life" ? Once in verse 24 and again in verse 27.

Jim:

What do you mean by two different understandings? The one understanding that I gather from verses 21:24 and 21:27 is that the kings of the earth in verse 21:24 are written in the Lambs book of life as stated in verse 21:27.

Hervey:

The new city called the New Jerusalem is "not" the New Heaven. So where is the New Heaven ? ----- The answer is --- "Outside" of the New Earth, is the New Heaven

Jim:

In my opinion, the assumption that the New Jerusalem is the new earth has no scriptural basis. Also, in my opinion, the statement that the new heaven is outside the New Jerusalem is not consistent with verse 22:15, which states that those who participate in the second death are without the city.

Hervey:

Christians were designed by God to be in 'heaven', and they also can come to the earth, as they will with Christ upon this earth in the last days.

Jim:

John 14:3 says, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. 1 Thessalonians 4:17 says, and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Revelation 3:12 says, Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out Revelation 21:22 says, And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. Revelation 22:3 says, the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him. In my opinion, these passages indicate that Christians are not designed to be in heaven; they are designed to be with Christ wherever He may be. According to Revelation 21-22, Christ will be in the New Jerusalem with His servants. In contrast, verse 22:15 states that those who will participate in the second death will be without the city. It appears to me from Revelation 21:2-3, 21:10 and 22:3 that Gods tabernacle and throne will no longer be in heaven; they will be in the New Jerusalem, which will be on the new earth.

Sincerely,
Jim

One of the most interesting conversations I have see on CF yet

New Heaven and New Earth

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Similar threads