Good commentary on the Alexandria vs Antioch debate

[BigChrisfilm]

Check it out.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/BTP/av_gipp1.ram

​

DR. SAMUEL C. GIPP Th.D.

 

[Logos1560]

Samuel Gipp is not a very reliable source on the Bible translation issue.

 

[BigChrisfilm]

Samuel Gipp is not a very reliable source on the Bible translation issue.

May I ask you why that is?

 

[JPPT1974]

Well that is just his opinion my friends!
Everybody has opinions!

 

[Logos1560]

May I ask you why that is?

After reading Gipp's books and writings, I find that too often his claims are inaccurate and that some of his arguments seem to be based on fallacies.

On the John Ankerberg Show, Samuel Gipp stated: "I believe all question of Greek translation, of proper translation, ended in 1611" (Which English Translation of the Bible Is Best, p. 23). Gipp even wrote: "A true Bible-believer can truly say, 'Well, the King James was good enough for the Apostles Peter and Paul and for the Lord Jesus Christ, so it's good enough for me'" (Answer Book, p. 56).

 

[BigChrisfilm]

After reading Gipp's books and writings, I find that too often his claims are inaccurate and that some of his arguments seem to be based on fallacies.

On the John Ankerberg Show, Samuel Gipp stated: "I believe all question of Greek translation, of proper translation, ended in 1611" (Which English Translation of the Bible Is Best, p. 23). Gipp even wrote: "A true Bible-believer can truly say, 'Well, the King James was good enough for the Apostles Peter and Paul and for the Lord Jesus Christ, so it's good enough for me'" (Answer Book, p. 56).

I don't think you did it on purpose, but I have heard him say those things, and in context, they don't seem as foolish as what you posted there. Where ever you got that from, it's a classic case of miss quoting, and taking something out of context, although I want to make sure you know, I am not accusing you of doing that knowingly. Please listen to the sermon, because most of those things you brought up, are put into context in this commentary.

 

[Logos1560]

Samuel Gipp wrote that “no event following the 14th is ever referred to as the Passover” (Answer Book, p. 7). Gipp contended that “the days of unleavened bread are NEVER referred to as the Passover” (p. 7).


Luke, who was also the human writer of the book of Acts, clearly used the Greek word pascha to refer to either the entire period--the one day of Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread or as an acceptable name for the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Luke wrote: “Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover” (Luke 22:1). Along with Luke 22:1, Gipps' statements also ignore Ezekiel 45:21 where the Passover is referred to as “a feast of seven days.” In Ezekiel 45:21, the name “Passover” was clearly used for or used to include the feast of Unleavened Bread, which is a feast of seven days. In Matthew 26:17, the name “Passover” was also used for a time on or after “the first day of the feast of unleavened bread.”

 

[BigChrisfilm]

Samuel Gipp wrote that “no event following the 14th is ever referred to as the Passover” (Answer Book, p. 7). Gipp contended that “the days of unleavened bread are NEVER referred to as the Passover” (p. 7).


Luke, who was also the human writer of the book of Acts, clearly used the Greek word pascha to refer to either the entire period--the one day of Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread or as an acceptable name for the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Luke wrote: “Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover” (Luke 22:1). Along with Luke 22:1, Gipps' statements also ignore Ezekiel 45:21 where the Passover is referred to as “a feast of seven days.” In Ezekiel 45:21, the name “Passover” was clearly used for or used to include the feast of Unleavened Bread, which is a feast of seven days. In Matthew 26:17, the name “Passover” was also used for a time on or after “the first day of the feast of unleavened bread.”

Ok, so it's not that he isn't a good source, it's just that he doesn't agree with you, and your Greek scholars. Now I understand. It's ok if you have a different opinion than he, but please don't make it sound like he is some type of horrible source, and no one should listen to him. You were being condicending, in my opinion. And I don't know anything about the Greek, but I have a perfect Bible, and all questions conserning it, will always have an answer, even if you don't know what it is yet. Let me ask you a question, do you think God perserved a perfect copy of his Word, or didn't he? If so, were is it?

 

[Logos1560]

it's just that he doesn't agree with you,

It has nothing to do with whether he agrees with me.
According to Luke 22:1 and Ezekiel 45:21, Gipp's two statements that were quoted were incorrect. Are you suggesting that Luke 22:1 and Ezekiel 45:21 are wrong while Gipp has to be right?

 

[BigChrisfilm]

It has nothing to do with whether he agrees with me.
According to Luke 22:1 and Ezekiel 45:21, Gipp's two statements that were quoted were incorrect. Are you suggesting that Luke 22:1 and Ezekiel 45:21 are wrong while Gipp has to be right?

"And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the Lord. And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast of unleavened bread--seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten" (Num. 28:16,17; see also Mark 14:12; 1 Cor. 5:7,8, etc.)

Notice it doesn't say, the 14th - 21st is the passover, and the 15th - 21st is also the feast of unleavened bread.

 

[Logos1560]

"And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the Lord. And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast of unleavened bread--seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten" (Num. 28:16,17; see also Mark 14:12; 1 Cor. 5:7,8, etc.)

The verses you cite do not prove that Gipp's statements are correct. I never said that the word passover was never used to refer to the fourteenth day. A word can be used in more than one way, and in some cases its meaning can expand or change over time.

Samuel Gipp wrote that “no event following the 14th is ever referred to as the Passover” (Answer Book, p. 7). Gipp contended that “the days of unleavened bread are NEVER referred to as the Passover” (p. 7).

Luke 22:1 Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.

Ezekiel 45:21 In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten.

Gipp's "no ... ever" and "never" in his statements clearly makes them incorrect.

 

[Logos1560]

On his TV program discussing Bible translations, John Ankerberg asked Samuel Gipp, a KJV-only advocate, the following question: "So if a guy is in Russia and he really wants to get to the truth of the Word of God, would he have to learn English?" Gipp's reply was "Yes" (Which English Translation, p. 1).

 

[BereanTodd]

I think it's been clearly shown here that Gipp is a kook. The average-run-of-the-mill KJVO person is bad enough, but the ones who take it to the level that Gipp does - that being that if people of other languages want to read the innerant Bible they have to learn English and read the KJV -- that crosses the line from "slightly kooky" to completely unorthodox false teaching in my book. English did not exist for well more than a 1000 years after the last book of the BIble was written. When we get to heaven it won't be English that is being spoken.

 

[peacechild]

I've met Gip personally and heard him speak, and all I can say is, the man is a mean-spiritied heritic, a completely false teacher. I wouldn't trust anything he says.

 

[BigChrisfilm]

Well, we have alot of bad opinions of the guy, but I have listen to about 4 of his sermon's so far, and don't come up with the same opinion as any of you. I wounder if others would do the same?

 

[BigChrisfilm]

Please do not call me a kook, I resent that, it is not approprite, and I think it was meant as a direct cheap shot at me.

 

[Hagios17]

I've noticed that when I talk about Gail Riplinger people come in and cause trouble. And I think this it is because they're uncomfortable with being wrong. They avoid what is being said, and pick on something totally irrelavent to the topic and pick at it and pick at it and pick at it. Its so irritating. And when they are picking at flaws, the flaws are usually irrelevant to the topic too. They spoil any chance of people being informed, because they are just too childish, attracting aggresion and hate.

Well, I haven't looked at this guys stuff yet... I plan on doing that now.

Why dont you check out Gail Riplinger's site: AVpublications.com.

I dont worship her, or think she is perfect, but shes ok

 

[BigChrisfilm]

I've noticed that when I talk about Gail Riplinger people come in and cause trouble. And I think this it is because they're uncomfortable with being wrong. They avoid what is being said, and pick on something totally irrelavent to the topic and pick at it and pick at it and pick at it. Its so irritating. And when they are picking at flaws, the flaws are usually irrelevant to the topic too. They spoil any chance of people being informed, because they are just too childish, attracting aggresion and hate.

Well, I haven't looked at this guys stuff yet... I plan on doing that now.

Why dont you check out Gail Riplinger's site: AVpublications.com.

I dont worship her, or think she is perfect, but shes ok

I have ALOT more audio commentaries from him, if you want then, let me know, and I will send them to you.

 

[peacechild]

I've noticed that when I talk about Gail Riplinger people come in and cause trouble. And I think this it is because they're uncomfortable with being wrong. They avoid what is being said, and pick on something totally irrelavent to the topic and pick at it and pick at it and pick at it. Its so irritating. And when they are picking at flaws, the flaws are usually irrelevant to the topic too. They spoil any chance of people being informed, because they are just too childish, attracting aggresion and hate.

Well, I haven't looked at this guys stuff yet... I plan on doing that now.

Why dont you check out Gail Riplinger's site: AVpublications.com.

I dont worship her, or think she is perfect, but shes ok

How highly would you trust the teaching and instruction of an English teacher who never went to College, usually misspelled words on the blackboard, constantly used improper grammar, and told you things like "an adjective is a person, place, or thing"-- which you know is completely wrong?

How would you respond to someone who told you it was irrelevent to bring up the fact that the English teacher did not appear to be very educated or proficient in the English Language?

 

[BigChrisfilm]

How highly would you trust the teaching and instruction of an English teacher who never went to College, usually misspelled words on the blackboard, constantly used improper grammar, and told you things like "an adjective is a person, place, or thing"-- which you know is completely wrong?

How would you respond to someone who told you it was irrelevent to bring up the fact that the English teacher did not appear to be very educated or proficient in the English Language?

I don't want this to be taking the wrong way, but what in the world are you talking about, and how does this have anything to do with the Alexandrian vs. Antioch debate session that I provided here?