SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : trying to buy the Textus Receptus!

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

Stever replies to KingJimmy (and FOC):

I took two years of Latin in High School. Does my understanding of Latin, with all of its nuances of tense (past, present, future, plueperfect & future perfect) and verbs & gender, etc. etc. etc. equal that of a person who studied Latin in High School, College and Graduate School, and then spent his entire life using the language that he mastered in Graduate School as part of his life’s work? I don’t think so.


Edward Freer Hills, who wrote “The King James Defended” had the following educational and life qualifications, and was proficient in Greek, as well as Latin:

Edward F. Hills (1912-1981) was a respected Presbyterian scholar. He was a distinguished Latin and Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Yale University. He also earned the Th.B. degree from Westminster Theological Seminary and the Th.M. degree from Columbia Theological Seminary. After doing doctoral work at the University of Chicago in New Testament textual criticism, he completed his program at Harvard, earning the Th.D. in this field. Though largely ignored by professional textual critics and translators, Hills has encouraged thousands of pastors, evangelists, missionaries, and Bible teachers by his defense of the Received Text and his exposure of the unbelief of modern textual criticism. In 1956, he published The King James Version Defended: A Christian View of the New Testament Manuscripts. Key chapters include “A Short History of Unbelief,” “A Christian View of the Biblical Text,” “The Facts of New Testament Textual Criticism,” “Dean Burgon and the Traditional New Testament Text,” and “The Textus Receptus and the King James Version.”

Hills devastated the Westcott-Text theories and exposed the rationalistic foundation of the entire modern version superstructure. Hills saw the issue of authority in the field of Bible texts and versions.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

When I posted the most recent post to FOC, which you responded to, I posted a quote from Hills, in his book "the King James Defended" that consisted of:

"In the third place, the omission of the Johannine comma involves a grammatical difficulty. The words spirit, water, and blood are neuter in gender, but in 1 John 5:8 they are treated as masculine. If the Johannine comma is rejected, it is hard to explain this irregularity. It is usually said that in 1 John 5:8 the spirit, the water, and the blood are personalized and that this is the reason for the adoption of the masculine gender. But it is hard to see how such personalization would involve the change from the neuter to the masculine. For in verse 6 the word Spirit plainly refers to the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity. Surely in this verse the word Spirit is "personalized," and yet the neuter gender is used. Therefore 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. If, however, the Johannine comma is retained, a reason for placing the neuter nouns spirit, water, and blood in the masculine gender becomes readily apparent. It was due to the influence of the nouns Father and Word, which are masculine. Thus the hypothesis that the Johannine comma is an interpolation is full of difficulties."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Stever concludes:

KingJimmy, since you have already dismissed Hills position on this matter, based upon your own understanding of Greek, I would be interested in seeing your educational and life work qualifications (Resume) posted here in order to decide if your opinion has any merit.


God bless,

Stever :-D

 2006/6/15 10:47









 Re:

Stever, it doesnt matter what you took in this regard.

I took 3 years of french and dabbled in a bit of spanish and have messed with a couple other languages myself, and what it helped me with most of all wasnt speaking to frenchmen....it helped me understand that there is no such thing as 'perfect' translation.

Beyond that the Greek Majority texts where the KJV supposedly came from do not support the Comma.

I dont know what its going to take for this crucial piece of information to finally get thru to you, nor do I care, but you are kidding only yourself when you offer up what you do and ignore the one piece of evidence that is the most overwhelming.

Ive a feeling if this were ANY other issue that youd accept the facts.

If we were talking about ANY other literary work other than the KJV, something tells me youd accept the fact that the FOUNDATIONAL texts dont support a specific reading and be as willing to admit the probability of an addition tothe text as many others of us are.

At this point Ive been informed of some things that I do believe have persuaded me that you arent interested in facts, but only in what you wish to believe.

As such, have at it, believe what you will and ignore every fact you need to to continue in whatever you wish to.....nuff said.

wm

 2006/6/15 11:39









 Re:

Stever responds to FOC:

I would suggest that it is your own lack of understanding of the Greek that is responsible for your position.

Surely, if you or I needed brain surgery, we are not going to use a Surgeon that only recently started practicing brain surgery. We would choose a Doctor that has been doing this procedure over and over and over, with great success.

Since you have taken a position on this issue, without any understanding of the Greek and in what Hills and Moorman have said in regards to the issue of the Greek gender, etc., how can your position be sure?


God bless,

Stever :-D

 2006/6/15 11:48









 Re:

[b]
Fact; the TR and the KJV is said to be based on the greek majority texts.

Fact: the KJV contains the Johaninne Comma

Fact: the greek majority texts do NOT support the Comma.
[/b]

all the scholarly discussion in the world isnt going to change the facts...

 2006/6/15 11:50









 Re:

Dear FOC:

Your response sounds like the mantra of the heathen, or the prayers of the Catholic that repeats words and prayers over and over and over.

Specifically:

Quote:

FOC wrote:
[b]
Fact; the TR and the KJV is said to be based on the greek majority texts.

Fact: the KJV contains the Johaninne Comma

Fact: the greek majority texts do NOT support the Comma.
[/b]



xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Stever concludes:

Surely, you have more to offer than that, especially with the work of Hills and Moorman, that has NOT been refuted by their peers.

God bless,

Stever

 2006/6/15 11:54









 Re:

Quote:

Stever wrote:
Dear FOC:

Your response sounds like that of the heathen, or even the Catholic that repeats words and prayers over and over and over.


Stever


Sticks and stones.....

It sounds like you simply wave your wand of condemnation toward anyone that opposes your errant views.

Sorry, but Im not concerned in the least about your proclaimation here, stever, that Im now a heathen.

(tho I wonder if crsschk is going to be as quick to admonish you as he was me.....lets see if he is)

The facts are the facts...deal with them.

[b]Fact; the TR and the KJV is said to be based on the greek majority texts.

Fact: the KJV contains the Johaninne Comma

Fact: the greek majority texts do NOT support the Comma.
[/b]

Im not interesting in your maze of refuting irrelevance and seemingly that is distressing to you.
Im interested in the FACTS that matter.
[b]
Fact; the TR and the KJV is said to be based on the greek majority texts.

Fact: the KJV contains the Johaninne Comma

Fact: the greek majority texts do NOT support the Comma.
[/b]



Here are some of the bible versions I use;

american standard version 1901
Bible in Basic english
Contemporary english version
Darby 1889
Douay-Rheims 1899
[b]English Majority Text version[/b](based on the actual GMTs, not the TR)
Geneva bible 1599
Good News bible
Gods Word
Hebrew Names Version
International Standard Version
King James Version (also with apocrypha)
Jay P Greens Literal Version
Modern King James version (Jay P Green)
The Message
Websters 1833
Youngs Literal translation
etc.

 2006/6/15 12:02
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Thomas Newberry 'Englishman's Greek New Testament' has an introduction to different editors of the Greek Text and their different philosophies in constructing a Greek Text. Of Christopher Wordsworth, he writes

Quote:
"The text of the present edition," says this editor, "is not a reprint of that hitherto received in any impression of the New Testament. The editor (Wordsworth) has endeavoured to avail himself of the collations of manuscripts which have been supplied by others, and to offer to the reader the result at which he has arrived after an examination of those collations... He feels it his duty to state, that he has not deviated so far from the text commonly received, as has been done in some recent editions. Indeed he cannot disguise his belief that a superintending Providence has ever been watching over the text of the New Testament, and guiding the Church of Christ, as the guardian and keeper of Holy Writ, in the discharge of her duty"

In short, Wordsworth has a confidence in the Greek textform usually referred to as the 'Received Text'. Wordsworth has a massive two volume commentary on the Greek text of the New Testament which has been my study companion for many years. Whenever possible Wordsworth will choose the 'TR' against other textforms. His comments on 1 John 5:7 are significant as the writings of a strong TR supporter.

He writes:
Quote:
Elzivir has this addition... "in heaven the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one, and there are three who are bearing witness on earth." But this addition is not found in Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus, B, G, K, or in the cursive manuscripts of the Epistle - with the exception of three manuscripts of comparatively recent date - nor in the Lectionaries, nor in the best editions of the Ancient Versions, nor in the Greek Fathers of the first Four Centuries, nor in the Latin Fathers of those centuries, with the exception of a single passage in S. Cyprian de Unit. Eccl. c.5, the tenor of which is doubtful.

The earliest Author by whom these words are clearly cited is Vigilius Thapsensis at the close of the Fifth Century. See the statement of the evidence on this subject in the editions of Welstein, Griesbach, Scholz and TIschendorf.

The words in question are not received by Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Tishchendorf. Nor need any one be disturbed by their non-appearance in the text. It is certain, as has been observed by Bentley (Correspondence, vol.ii. p530) that the Ante-Nicene and Nicene Fathers confuted Arianism without the aid of this passage, to which they never refer, because it was not in their copies of this Epistle; ....

The passage therefore according to the best authorities stands thus, "Because three (treis, masculine, not tria, neuter) are those who are bearing witness, the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood, and these three (treis, masculine, not tria neuter) are (joined) into the one (to hen, the one Substance, neuter; not masculine hena).



I don't if this has been raised previously but the fact that the verse was not used during the Arian controversies is surely inexplicable if it had been known at that time?


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/6/15 14:06Profile
deltadom
Member



Joined: 2005/1/6
Posts: 2359
Hemel Hempstead

 Re:

Glad to see you back philologos
Dom


_________________
Dominic Shiells

 2006/6/15 14:11Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
I don't if this has been raised previously but the fact that the verse was not used during the Arian controversies is surely inexplicable if it had been known at that time?



It is relatively certain that they would have left no stone unturned in the quest to prove their points. If it did exist, then it was handled as those who dispute those doctrines handle it today.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2006/6/15 14:56Profile
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

Quote:

I took two years of Latin in High School. Does my understanding of Latin, with all of its nuances of tense (past, present, future, plueperfect & future perfect) and verbs & gender, etc. etc. etc. equal that of a person who studied Latin in High School, College and Graduate School, and then spent his entire life using the language that he mastered in Graduate School as part of his life’s work? I don’t think so.



Of course not. However, if somebody with such a background came out and said that adjectives don't modify nouns, or some other basic part of grammar, such wouldn't make them right just because they had such a background. It would be like somebody with a PhD in Mathematical application saying 2+2=5! You'd look at them and think they were nuts, and know they are wrong.

However, if something was in dispute, and somebody asserts something I'm not quite sure about, I have enough knowledge of Greek to be able to go to other scholarly resources and check them with myself, and against the claims of others.

Quote:

"In the third place, the omission of the Johannine comma involves a grammatical difficulty. The words spirit, water, and blood are neuter in gender, but in 1 John 5:8 they are treated as masculine.



And this is probably why Hill was never taken seriously in the world of scholarship, because it doesn't even appear he can parse basic Greek grammar. In 1 John 5:8 the words water, spirit, and blood are all in NEUTER. And just to check myself, I verified this in a Bible program (e-sword) that already has every Greek word parsed for you.

Quote:

KingJimmy, since you have already dismissed Hills position on this matter, based upon your own understanding of Greek, I would be interested in seeing your educational and life work qualifications (Resume) posted here in order to decide if your opinion has any merit.



My knowledge of Greek comes from 1 year of seminary study at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (perhaps the top conservative evangelical seminary in the country), where I was taught by a professor who has been teaching Greek for over 30 years. I had a B avg in the class. I admit, I'm far from an expert on Greek. However, I have at my fingertips further tools which can aid my study, to check myself and others against.

And based on my understanding of Greek and tapping these resources, I am forced to conclude Hills either doesn't know what he's talking about, or he is lying, or I've totally misunderstood what he's said altogether. Such is my honest conclusion.

You might still choose to stand behind Hills, but if you do such, you do such without really knowing for yourself which of us is right in our assertion.

I recommend you pickup a copy of William Mounce's "Basics of Greek" (www.teknia.com), buy his grammar, workbook, flashcards, and since you don't have a professor around, his audio lectures. Spend about the next 6-12 months working through the Greek yourself (which you could probably quickly pickup with your latin background), and you'll then be equipped with the tools necessary to examine these things for yourself.


_________________
Jimmy H

 2006/6/15 21:57Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy