Bibical Texts: to be or not to be

[His_disciple3]

Let's get specific. There aren't Coptic Bibles that contain the Johanine Comma of I John 5:7, "and there are three who testify in Heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one." Nor are there Syriac. There are only a few late Greek manuscripts, Latin manuscripts, and Armenian manuscripts.

To assert that an English Bible is wrong to diverge from the KJV on the matter of the Johannine Comma, you must assert that all Coptic and Syriac Bibles are likewise defective.

you said it not me. what Bible was it that you use that says Jesus might not come back?

 

[Epiphoskei]

I don't believe that there are other Languages that don't have Bibles that are translated from good manuscripts, For the Word promises that God will preserve His word, we shouldn't play "what if" with the word of God, just trust God to do what He says He will do

Virtually every translation being done in the present day is being done from the critical text. You may as well have just said you don't believe in Wycliffe.

An example was also provided of a language, namely Coptic, wherein there have never existed any textual traditions containing the Johannine Comma. This is OK with you?

 

[Epiphoskei]

what Bible was it that you use that says Jesus might not come back?

I'm sorry, you're either disingenuous or dense concerning this point.

Simple conditionality does not imply anything about the potentiality of the protasis. "If he returns" does not imply he might not.

 

[His_disciple3]

Virtually every translation being done in the present day is being done from the critical text. You may as well have just said you don't believe in Wycliffe.

An example was also provided of a language, namely Coptic, wherein there have never existed any textual traditions containing the Johannine Comma. This is OK with you?

if they are coming from text they have been tainted with the Alexandria manuscripts then they are tainted A little leaven will leaven the Whole lump. But I think you miss read what I said. I believe God is able to preserve His true Word that all may Know Him! I trust God not wycliffe, I trust God not man. But I do know for a fact that in spanish they too have two translations each based from different manuscripts. Now this is not too take anything away from Wycliffe, there is an inhouse debate among scholars if the Wycliffe Bible text was considered in the KJB, so I am not sure when you say Wycliffe If you mean Wycliffe Himself of the group wycliffe? I think I may know where you are going with this , so let me say this before you get there. there is even some who would say that wycliffe did not use the latin vulgate scripts in His translation, so will we ever know ?

According to Gail Riplinger, the Wycliffe Bible was not translated from the Latin Vulgate and the title page which states “Made from the Latin Vulgate” was added 500 years after its original publication:

“The verse comparison charts in this book dispel the myth that Wycliffe and his followers used a corrupt Bible translated from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate…
“The myth that the Wycliffe bible came from this ‘Latin Vulgate’ arose from the misleading statement – ‘made from the Latin Vulgate’ – added to the frontice page of an 1850 printed edition of Wycliffe’s Bible, edited by Frederic Madden and Josiah Forshall.” (Awe, pp. 788-790)
A chapter on “Wycliffe’s Views” features spliced excerpts from the writings of John Wycliffe (1324-1384) and others as the basis for many false assertions to support her false premise that Wycliffe and his Lollard followers “polished” English scriptures which were already in popular use and that were “in complete agreement with the Traditional Text”:

http://www.watch.pair.com/TR-18-wycliffe-bible.html

 

[Epiphoskei]

I'm talking about the group. There are hundreds of languages with Bibles written in the past hundred years, not taken from the TR, including every Bible Wycliffe does. TR-based translations generally don't exist for nearly every non-European language.

 

[phoenixdem]

Non-Christians who might wander in here might well look at all the dissention regarding Scriptural translations and wonder whether all of us are quite mad since we can't even agree on what translations of the Bible are true and what are false. Christians themselves might wonder the same thing.

 

[Hentenza]

Non-Christians who might wander in here might well look at all the dissention regarding Scriptural translations and wonder whether all of us are quite mad since we can't even agree on what translations of the Bible are true and what are false. Christians themselves might wonder the same thing.

This type of convo only happens when some call every other translation an abomination except the KJV. The KJVO arguments are counter evangelical.

 

[His_disciple3]

I'm talking about the group. There are hundreds of languages with Bibles written in the past hundred years, not taken from the TR, including every Bible Wycliffe does. TR-based translations generally don't exist for nearly every non-European language.

well. We would have to say that you have been misformed. For I know for a fact though working with a printing Co. Ministry, that there is two translations of the Spanish Bible and one is from The TR. and are you ashamed of the translation that you use which says "IF jesus comes back" implying that He might not come back?

 

[ChrisHolland619]

Non-Christians who might wander in here might well look at all the dissention regarding Scriptural translations and wonder whether all of us are quite mad since we can't even agree on what translations of the Bible are true and what are false. Christians themselves might wonder the same thing.

And that's exactly why I am against these types of debates and arguments. It's pointless. It does nothing to benefit or advance Gods kingdom.

 

[His_disciple3]

Non-Christians who might wander in here might well look at all the dissention regarding Scriptural translations and wonder whether all of us are quite mad since we can't even agree on what translations of the Bible are true and what are false. Christians themselves might wonder the same thing.

Amen, I think it is a shame that we have to defend the 400 year old authorized English translation of the Word of God, 170 years we wouldn't have this problem. not until around the 1950's when all the modern day bibles hit the shelves. there was no confusion when you went to buy a Bible. it took about a minute to pick the right one. Now one can spend hours in a store trying to decide which one is the right one for me. so this thread started when Epiphoskei said that their translation in 1 john 3:2 Said "IF Jesus comes back" now is one supposed to sit back and let a non-believer see that post. without defending the promise of the Word of God, That Jesus Will be back. what do you think about about a Bible that questions if Jesus will return?

 

[His_disciple3]

This type of convo only happens when some call every other translation an abomination except the KJV. The KJVO arguments are counter evangelical.

you know you once say that I am not a disciple of Christ and now you tag me as a KJVO, I have stated in my post that I believe The KJB is the best one and that I pray that God can use those other books, I attend a Church now that the Pastor uses the NKJV to study by, but preaches from the KJB some and the NKJV at other times. should we use anything less than the best when it comes to our service for the Lord? if I was a KJVO as you claim, which is a compliment to me, But if I was KJVO would I be attending that Church, we have a saying around here "if it ain't broke don't fix it", there was nothing wrong with the 400 year old english Bible that we had. uneducated adults and small children was coming to the Knowledge of Christ in the 1940's using the Authorized English Version. but now with all our knowledge, that Bible is too hard for our kids to understand. Didn't God say if you seek wisdom to ask Him, I didn't see anything in there about if you seek wisdom Change my Word!!

 

[His_disciple3]

And that's exactly why I am against these types of debates and arguments. It's pointless. It does nothing to benefit or advance Gods kingdom.

standing up for truth does not benefit or advance the Kingdom of God?? satan twisted the Word of God in the Garden. And he tried to twist it again when He tempted Jesus. Changing the word of God is what he is good at and when the Word says "our Father who art in Heaven", and the one world religions will have many different gods, they change to Word of God to say our "father".(omitting which "art in heaven" ), so that even devil worshippers call satan "father", so just a small change here and there to begin with, then the latest Niv even the Liberal christian stores refuse to put it on their shelves. I guess they were wrong in doing that also Hey!!! so let's just let anybody and everybody, do as they please and it will all be alright as long as we don't defend someone in our stand for the truth. really dude!

 

[Hentenza]

you know you once say that I am not a disciple of Christ

Where? Produce where I said that.

and now you tag me as a KJVO

Well, you call every other translation a perversion and defend the KJV as the Word (capital W) of God. This is the typical KJVO argument. Do you deny this?

, I have stated in my post that I believe The KJB is the best one and that I pray that God can use those other books, I attend a Church now that the Pastor uses the NKJV to study by, but preaches from the KJB some and the NKJV at other times. should we use anything less than the best when it comes to our service for the Lord? if I was a KJVO as you claim, which is a compliment to me, But if I was KJVO would I be attending that Church, we have a saying around here "if it ain't broke don't fix it", there was nothing wrong with the 400 year old english Bible that we had. uneducated adults and small children was coming to the Knowledge of Christ in the 1940's using the Authorized English Version. but now with all our knowledge, that Bible is too hard for our kids to understand. Didn't God say if you seek wisdom to ask Him, I didn't see anything in there about if you seek wisdom Change my Word!!

This is merely your opinion. Kids learn just fine from other translations besides the KJV. In fact, they are more bound to read and understand a current English translation than one written in a language that has not been spoken in a couple of hundred years. In my church, we have not used the KJV as the primary bible for preaching and/or study for at least the last 15 years and we have a higher retention of kids that stay with the faith through college than when we were using the KJV. The kids understand the scriptures and enjoy reading them making them much more grounded on their faith. If your church is having success using the KJV then more power to you but our results don't lie.

 

[His_disciple3]

Where? Produce where I said that.




.[/ <A class=bigusername I guess you are not a disciple of Christ? Is Jesus the true vine and the Father the winepresser only for the disciples that Jesus was addressing? Are the teachings of John 15 only for the disciples that Jesus was addressing? Does the great commission apply to only the disciples that Jesus was addressing? I think not. Jesus chose His disciples, not out of convenience, but since the foundation of the world. All of us have been chosen since the foundation of the world simply because all of us ARE His disciples. The great commission does not command us to make believers but to make disciples. Jesus is addressing ALL disciples in His teachings of John 15 not just those present.

Mark 16 most likely ends in verse 8 since verses 9 to 19 do not appear in most of the older extant mss. It is not wise to base doctrine on the disputed verses.

BTW- I don't tithe. I never have. I give as the Spirit leads me. That is the NT teaching.
__________________
&#8220;You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men. &#8220;You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.- Our Lord and Savior.
quote]

 

[Hentenza]

I guess you are not a disciple of Christ? Is Jesus the true vine and the Father the winepresser only for the disciples that Jesus was addressing? Are the teachings of John 15 only for the disciples that Jesus was addressing? Does the great commission apply to only the disciples that Jesus was addressing? I think not. Jesus chose His disciples, not out of convenience, but since the foundation of the world. All of us have been chosen since the foundation of the world simply because all of us ARE His disciples. The great commission does not command us to make believers but to make disciples. Jesus is addressing ALL disciples in His teachings of John 15 not just those present.

Mark 16 most likely ends in verse 8 since verses 9 to 19 do not appear in most of the older extant mss. It is not wise to base doctrine on the disputed verses.

BTW- I don't tithe. I never have. I give as the Spirit leads me. That is the NT teaching.

Wait, this is from the other thread and you are not taking the context in which I said it. In that thread you claimed that John 15 was strictly directed at the apostles and that it did not pertain to anyone else. John 15 is about disciples. If John 15 only pertains to the apostles as you claimed then neither you NOR THE REST OF US would be disciples. My comment to you was in the form of a question for that reason.

 

[Epiphoskei]

well. We would have to say that you have been misformed. For I know for a fact though working with a printing Co. Ministry, that there is two translations of the Spanish Bible and one is from The TR.

What on earth do Spanish Bibles have to do with the fact that there are extraordinarily few non-European languages with TR Bibles.

and are you ashamed of the translation that you use which says "IF jesus comes back" implying that He might not come back?

And that's a lie. I have stated each and every time that "If" implies conditionality of the apodosis upon the protasis and does not indicate anything about the possibility of the protasis occurring or not occurring.

Why should I respect the arguments of the KVJO crowd if they make such patent lies? And why should I respect the arguments of the KJVO crowd if they clearly don't know what the word "if" means in their own language. Others can be forgiven for having only the vernacular understanding that "if" implies something might not happen, but you want to use a non-vernacular text. If you can't understand King James English, you can't use a King James Version.

 

[His_disciple3]

And that's a lie. I have stated each and every time that "If" implies conditionality of the apodosis upon the protasis and does not indicate anything about the possibility of the protasis occurring or not occurring.

.

you are the one that said your text said IF jesus comes back in 1 John 3:2. and what is the name of your bible, please!! and I guess you know the english language better than Ole man Webster did>



Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913 + 1828)

ARTFL > Webster's Dictionary > Searching for if:
Try your search on Wordnik!
Displaying 1 result(s) from the 1828 edition:

IF, v.t. It is used as the sign of a condition, or it introduces a conditional sentence. It is a verb, without a specified nominative. In like manner we use grant, admit, suppose. Regularly, if should be followed, as it was formerly, by the substitute or pronoun that, referring to the succeeding sentence or proposition. If that John shall arrive in season, I will send him with a message. But that is now omitted,and the subsequent sentence, proposition or affirmation may be considered as the object of the verb. Give John shall arrive; grant,suppose, admit that he shall arrive, I will send him with a message. The sense of if, or give, in this use, is grant, admit, cause to be, let the fact be,let the thing take place. If then is equivalent to grant, allow, admit. "If thou wilt, thou canst make me whole," that is, thou canst make me whole, give the fact, that thou wilt.
If thou art the son of God, command that these stones be made bread. Matt.14.
1. Whether or not.

not only would you use a bible that twists if Jesus will return or not, you also try to twist the meanings of english words? talk about going to the extreme the prove you are right!! hey I know let's start a poll and see How many thinks that If 1 John 3:2 says "If Jesus will come back" means that He may or may not come back? according to 1 John 3:2

 

[His_disciple3]

Wait, this is from the other thread and you are not taking the context in which I said it. In that thread you claimed that John 15 was strictly directed at the apostles and that it did not pertain to anyone else. John 15 is about disciples. If John 15 only pertains to the apostles as you claimed then neither you NOR THE REST OF US would be disciples. My comment to you was in the form of a question for that reason.

wait?? it don't matter what thread it was, there it is!

 

[Hentenza]

wait?? it don't matter what thread it was, there it is!

Read the rest of my response.

 

[His_disciple3]

Read the rest of my response.

it's ok dude, God commands me to love you regardless,