Baptism in Fire

[Mathetes the kerux]

They only go back to 4th century, the Old Itala is dated to the second century. The ideas from folks that Erasmus had somehow added this in, or the Catholic church did somehow, does not measure up when we have texts with it in older than they thought.

Also, the greek requires 1 John 5:7 to be included to not be grammatically wrong. Many scholars have stated this fact, hence why you see the list.

Just because it is grammaitcally possible doesn't mean that the author included it.

The earliest MSS still do NOT testify to its induction.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

I wasn't talking about greek, sorry.

The Old Itala is old latin friend. Also, why is the greek grammtically wrong without 1 John 5:7 inserted, and when it is inserted, it is correct?

This is a flawed arguement.

Assuming the author is John the Apostle . . . NONE of his Greek is grammatically correct . . . he has dangling modifiers, run on sentances, mispelling, bad grammar etc. . . . he was a Palestenian and uneducated at that.

The fact that the insertion makes it "grammatically" correct actually mitigates AGAINST it being original. The Grammatical fluidity of the NT wasn't original to the authors. Luke, for example has GREAT Greek Grammar for the Koine . . . John doesn't.

 

[Dave01]

Just because it is grammaitcally possible doesn't mean that the author included it.

The earliest MSS still do NOT testify to its induction.

Your not understanding it. The greek is grammatically flawed without the passage inserted,...

CRITICAL INTERNAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE "COMMA"

If I John 5:6-8 is removed from the Greek text, the two resulting loose ends will not join together grammatically. The Greek language has "gender" in its noun endings (as do many other languages). Neuter nouns normally require neuter articles (the word "the" as in "the blood" is the article). But the article in verse 8 of the shortened reading as found in the Greek that is the foundation of the new versions (verse 7 of the King James Greek text) is masculine. Thus the new translations read "the Spirit (neuter), the water (neuter), and the blood (neuter): and these three (masculine!! - from the Greek article "hoi") are in one." Consequently three neuter subjects are being treated as masculine (see below where the omitted portion is italicized). If the "Comma" is rejected it is impossible to adequately explain this irregularity. In addition, without the "Comma" verse 7 has a masculine antecedent; three neuter subjects (nouns in vs.8) do not take a masculine antecedent. Viewing the complete passage it becomes apparent how this rule of grammer is violated when the words are omitted.

5:6 ... And it is the Spirit (neuter) that beareth witness (neuter), because the Spirit (neuter) is truth.
5:7 For there are three (masculine) that bear record (masculine) in heaven, the Father (masculine), the Word (masculine), and the Holy Ghost (neuter): and these three (masculine) are one (masculine).
5:8 And there are three (masculine) that bear witness (masculine) in earth, the Spirit (neuter), and the water (neuter), and the blood (neuter): and these three (masculine) agree in one.

When we inquire of the scholars an accounting for this strange situation, the reply is that the only way to account for the masculine use of the three neuters in verse 8 is that here they have been "personalized". Yet we observe that the Holy Spirit is referred to twice in verse 6 and as He is the third person of the Trinity this would amount to "personalizing" the word "Spirit" – but the neuter gender is used. Therefore – as Hills noted – 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.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

I wasn't talking about greek, sorry.

The Old Itala is old latin friend. Also, why is the greek grammtically wrong without 1 John 5:7 inserted, and when it is inserted, it is correct?

Then the point is moot. The original IS Greek . . . so any translation out of Greek, no matter how early it is . . . contains higher probability of insertion due to obvious translation.

 

[Dave01]

This is a flawed arguement.

Assuming the author is John the Apostle . . . NONE of his Greek is grammatically correct . . . he has dangling modifiers, run on sentances, mispelling, bad grammar etc. . . . he was a Palestenian and uneducated at that.

The fact that the insertion makes it "grammatically" correct actually mitigates AGAINST it being original. The Grammatical fluidity of the NT wasn't original to the authors. Luke, for example has GREAT Greek Grammar for the Koine . . . John doesn't.

You can claim a myriad of things my friend, but scholars mightier than you and I have looked at this already, and concluded that it belongs in there.

Just because some guy like Metzger claimed that it didn't belong there, and we don't have any greek manuscripts that are early for this particular book, doesn't mean they are wrong.

 

[mrhappy3]

You guys are professional wordsters......I'm knocked over !!??!!

 

[Dave01]

Then the point is moot. The original IS Greek . . . so any translation out of Greek, no matter how early it is . . . contains higher probability of insertion due to obvious translation.

But you see, that idea doesn't work. We are talking about GOD's word, and if it was an addition it would be wrong.

 

[mrhappy3]

Brothers, I'm off to bed....just discovered my first grey hair......I've aged 12 years in the last hour !!!

blessings...big up MTK & Dave.

 

[Dave01]

Brothers, I'm off to bed....just discovered my first grey hair......I've aged 12 years in the last hour !!!

blessings...big up MTK & Dave.

That is funny Happ. Later on, I got some things to take care of also. It's nice to sharpen ourselves at times, but only if it can get somewhere.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Your not understanding it. The greek is grammatically flawed without the passage inserted,...

The problem is that they have presented a solution that is not necessary . . . and addition of any number of words with the same ending would supply the solution. Not to mention it isn't a problem anyway . . . JOHN WAS BAD AT GREEK!

Scholar or not makes no difference . . . I have studied this in depth myself.

Your "old Itala" seems to be the earliest PICTURE Bible in latin and dates to the 6 cent.

Here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quedlinburg_Itala_fragment

unless you have a link that says something different.

 

[RevDerek]

Actually, it may predate Erasmus and such . . . put it isn't in the Codecies Vanticanus, Sianticus, or Alexandrius. The Scholars can argue with the dates of these if they would so like.

These manuscripts are considered minority (and questionable) texts. If we stick with the Textus Receptus, or majority text, we will have a debate that most can refer to easily. I am basing the original question primarily on the King James Version, and not the Westcott-Hort based texts.

 

[Dave01]

The problem is that they have presented a solution that is not necessary . . . and addition of any number of words with the same ending would supply the solution. Not to mention it isn't a problem anyway . . . JOHN WAS BAD AT GREEK!

Scholar or not makes no difference . . . I have studied this in depth myself.

Well, the concensus of scholars would not agree with your conclusion. They point to it being a requirement for our bible. It poses a problem without it included, and the problem is fixed with it included. Also, with it included, it does not disagree with any of our biblical tenets, none.

Your "old Itala" seems to be the earliest PICTURE Bible in latin and dates to the 6 cent.

Here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quedlinburg_Itala_fragment

unless you have a link that says something different.

Certainly,..

These Old Latin translations going back in their earliest forms to nearly the middle of the 2nd century are very early witnesses to the Greek text from which they were made. They are the more valuable inasmuch as they are manifestly very literal translations. Our great uncial manuscripts reach no farther back than the 4th century, whereas in the Old Latin we have evidence--indirect indeed and requiring to be cautiously used--reaching back to the 2nd century. The text of these Greek uncial manuscripts is neither dated nor localized, whereas the evidence of these Latin versions, coming from a particular province of the church, and being used by Fathers whose period is definitely known, enables us to judge of the type of Greek text then and there in use. In this connection, too, it is noteworthy that while the variations of which Jerome and Augustine complained were largely due to the blunders, or natural mistakes, of copyists, they did sometimes represent various readings in the Greek originals.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/oldlatin.html

 

[RevDerek]

Maybe it was Augustine that supposedly believed in 3 works of grace?

 

[RevDerek]

I have another question. Does anyone here have access to a copy of George Howard's "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew"? It is out of print and no library here has a copy. I am curious how he translated Matthew 3:11-12 from the Hebrew manuscripts. This book was of course based on Shem Tov's Polemic work.

 

[Dave01]

I have another question. Does anyone here have access to a copy of George Howard's "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew"? It is out of print and no library here has a copy. I am curious how he translated Matthew 3:11-12 from the Hebrew manuscripts. This book was of course based on Shem Tov's Polemic work.

I know we have gone off course with you topic, but nothing seems to be pointing to a separate work of grace pertaining to a baptism of fire.

As far as Howards work, I used to have it and was not impressed. IMHO, the hebrew in the texts was translated from the latin. A scholar has reached that conclusion also, and Howard didn't like it. You can still purchase the book online, but I dought it will not do anything to clear up issues for you.

 

[Dave01]

There is some more information on the web if one is interested on our received text and the Old Itala,..

http://www.bright.net/~bkrajcik/itala157.htm

“The Italic or pre-Waldensian Church produced a version of the New Testament which was translated from the Received Text by the year A.D. 157” Fredrick Henry Scrivner, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament , 1874

“The Bible translation of the Italic Church came to be known as the Itala translation. The point of all this is that the Itala Bible was translated from the Received Text” Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts , 1859

 

[quietbloke]

Goodnight chaps. Just come off nightwork. 6am in the UK.

 

[RevDerek]

My interest in the Howard text is more than just this one issue...it is scholarly curiosity as much as anything.

As for going off-topic, I don't mind where this thread went...it all seems related to me...the original question raised was concerning Spirit Baptism as well as the idea of "Fire Baptism". Keep up the discussion, I am sure we are all learning a lot about different views of the work of the Holy Spirit.

 

[RevDerek]

Let me throw in another twist on this: Does anyone know if the Jewish scholars have any concept of a Mikveh in Fire?

I ask this because the "baptism" done by John was really a Jewish mikveh (ritual cleansing in water) and there were different mikvot for different purposes.

I also believe that there is a difference in definitions here concerning Sanctification, baptism, and spiritual gifts.

Would it help if I posted my original notes on the idea of 3 baptisms? It was merely an exercise for a class, but I seriously would like to know for certain if it is even plausible. Of course I have learned a lot in the last 3 years as well, since I originally wrote the outline.

Thanks to all you scholars out there putting in your 2 cents!

 

[Dave01]

Let me throw in another twist on this: Does anyone know if the Jewish scholars have any concept of a Mikveh in Fire?

I ask this because the "baptism" done by John was really a Jewish mikveh (ritual cleansing in water) and there were different mikvot for different purposes.

I also believe that there is a difference in definitions here concerning Sanctification, baptism, and spiritual gifts.

Would it help if I posted my original notes on the idea of 3 baptisms? It was merely an exercise for a class, but I seriously would like to know for certain if it is even plausible. Of course I have learned a lot in the last 3 years as well, since I originally wrote the outline.

Thanks to all you scholars out there putting in your 2 cents!

Why not post your thoughts on it here so we are not running around in ground that you may have covered already.