SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Looking for free sermon messages?
Sermon Podcast | Audio | Video

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:

FYI, I presented ONE source for the Johannine Comma.

IF youd like, I can dig up literally hundreds of other sources that I used in my studies that show the information as well....
[color=FF0000]THIS IS TRUE - SEE THE FACTS THEMSELVES[/color]
[b]that the Comma is not present in the MAJORITY of Greek manuscripts
[/b]
I absolutely LOVE to see an attack on the messenger when the FACTS begin to fail.
[color=FF0000]THIS IS TRUE - SEE THE FACTS THEMSELVES[/color]
[b]the Comma isnt present in the MAJORITY of greek manuscripts...SUPPOSEDLY where the Textus Receptus is from !!![/b]...therefore...REGARDLESS of who presents this fact..the comma has MOST of the greek manuscripts standing against it.....it does not belong...that is what its own family of texts present...the GMTs

Stever, NOTHING in your long post PROVES that the Comma is indeed contained within the MAJORITY of greek texts....so all I saw was you calling me and this Metzger chap liars without actually providing a single word of proof to the contrary.

Your long post is concerning some argument I care nothing about pertaining to Erasmus....who cares....IS THE COMMA IN the MAJORITY of greek manuscripts?
No, it is not.....

to repeat....
I wouldnt trust the [b]Minority[/b] Texts as far as I can toss my minivan...but anyone who believes the TR or the KJV 'perfect' is greatly deluding themselves....the Comma is proof of that fact.

 2006/5/31 9:30









 Re:

Quote:

Combat_Chuck wrote:
$10 bucks says Stever drops an Atomic Bomb on FOC :-P ;-)


$20 says that bomb stever dropped was a complete dud.

I dont give a hoot about some arguement against the author of that site...attacking the writer instead of what they present is a typical tactic for KJVonlyers from my experience.

[color=330099]Who cares about Metzger or Erasmus....the Johannine Comma ISNT found in the MAJORITY of Greek texts...THAT is all that matters...not some distraction about Erasmus.[/color]

stever didnt refute the assertion, he attacked the writer...

again..
I wouldnt trust the [b]Minority[/b] Texts as far as I can toss my minivan...but anyone who believes the TR or the KJV 'perfect' is greatly deluding themselves....the Comma is proof of that fact.

 2006/5/31 9:42









 Re:

Ill start posting items FROM KJV advocates themselves who ADMIT that the Comma isnt found in the MAJORITY of greek manuscripts....apparently, according to some, this would mean that the MAJORITY of Gods word was 'corrupt' for centuries :rolleyes:

Readers, this will take some time as Im involved with getting my website updated, but I will prove that those KJVonlyers who are HONEST with themselves MUST admit that the Johannine Comma doesnt have the backing of the MAJORITY of greek manuscripts.

If THEY admit it isnt present, then who cares about this Metzger distraction?

http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_1jo5_7.html
[color=0000CC]
"The passage is called the Johannine Comma and is not found in the majority of Greek manuscripts."


"The External Support: Although not found in most Greek manuscripts, the Johannine Comma is found in several."

"It is clear that the reading found in the Textus Receptus is the minority reading with later textual support from the Greek witnesses. Nevertheless, being a minority reading does not eliminate it as genuine."[/color]

[color=993300]...even the studied KJV advocates admit that the very texts to which they say the TR BELONGS (the GMTs) is MISSING the Comma !!![/color]


this site says that the Comma is NOT present in the majority of GREEK texts...but IS present in the LATIN texts.

[color=0000CC]"While the Greek textual evidence is weak, the [b]Latin[/b] textual evidence for the Comma is extremely strong".[/color]

That in itself is very suspicious to me.

Is the TR based on the LATIN texts or the GREEK texts as the KJVonly camp insists?
It almost seems as if its based on the Latin, not the greek, if the GMTs dont contain the Comma, but the Latin ones do...

[color=FF3300][b]Guess its time for the KJVonlyers to stop calling the TR the 'Majority Text' since it is supported from the Latin, not the greek..[/b]

.[/color]

 2006/5/31 10:00









 Re:

Quote:

Combat_Chuck wrote:
Stever,

If the earliest of the Byzantine Texts do not have 1 John 5:7,

Aren't we kind of in trouble?

I mean, after all, since Byzantine is where the textus receptus comes from, wouldn't it make the most sense in this case, that the earliest Byzantine (and majority) Byzantine are the best?

I heard 1John5:7 is only in a few of the 5000 Byzantine texts we have. Is this true?


[color=993300]
It is true and if you look MOST of the KJVonlyers who have actually done their homework will AGREE that the Comma is missing from the very family of texts they say the TR belongs to...the GMT.[/color]

There are arguments for the Comma, many that make a LOT of sense, including grammatical issues when the Comma is removed....but that is proof of nothing....it is overshadowed horribly by the Comma not being present in the MAJORITY of Greek texts....the one place it should be in abundance *IF* the KJVonlyers were correct that the TR IS the Majority Text....make sense?


additionally, no, we're not in trouble.
I believe God has permitted just enough of this sort of thing so that we do not 'worship' a book as being perfect instead of God.

Probably for the same reason God hid the body of Moses. Men have a knack of wanting to worship idols instead of God.

We see enough bible worship as it is, making the letter a god as almighty as the author Himself.

What we need for salvations sake is there.

 2006/5/31 10:11









 Re:

Additionally...

I am not 'against' the KJV bible, nor am I an advocate for the Minority Texts or any bibles that use them.
I believe the [b]ACTUAL[/b] GREEK MAJORITY TEXTS (over the TR which apparently is influenced by the latin texts) are the ones to be trusted for our NT...meaning that where a discrepancy exists, the Greek is what I consider correct.

 2006/5/31 10:30









 Re:

Here is a site that is rabidly KJ only from what I can tell....and yet...
[b]
"For the absence of the Johannine comma from all New Testament documents save those of the Latin-speaking West the following explanations are possible"
[/b]

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdcha8.htm


IS the TR based on the ACTUAL GREEK MTs or the LATIN texts themselves?
Sure seems to be the Latin...

The TR nor the KJV bible is THE authority, or the end all, beat all resource for the body of Christ.

They are both wonderful works...no more, no less.

 2006/5/31 10:55
Combat_Chuck
Member



Joined: 2006/1/27
Posts: 202


 Re:

Something to note,

Although the comma is not found in the earliest majority byzantine manuscripts, (which does bring in the valid question, of "then why is it in the TR?), we should note that the comma is found in other ancient sources.

One of the sites you linked to says,

Quote:
"Likewise, the anti-Arian work compiled by an unknown writer, the Varimadum (380 AD) states: "And John the Evangelist says, . . . 'And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one'." [6] Additionally, Cassian (435 AD), Cassiodorus (580 AD), and a host of other African and Western bishops in subsequent centuries have cited the Comma. [7] Therefore, we see that the reading has massive and ancient textual support apart from the Greek witnesses."



We must remember that Erasmus was a textual critic. Maybe this is why the comma is not in his first 2 editions of the greek text. Perhaps later on he found out that several external sources contain the comma, and decided it was scripture so he went with the minority on that point within the 3rd edition? This seems reasonable to me.

I do believe 1John5:7 is scripture. This verse seals the deal. We see the trinity all throughout the Bible, and 1John5:7 sets the record straight. I see no reason why a mss. copyist would add it, but I see plenty of reason why someone would remove it. Or there is always the chance that 1john 5:7 was simply lost by an early byzantine copyist.

For the record, I have not done much study, and am not a "KJV Only", but I do believe the KJV is the living Bible and is the closest translation to the originals we have in the english language.

And here's some internal evidence that 1john 5:7 is scripture:
Quote:

Internal Evidence: The structure of the Comma is certainly Johannine in style. John is noted for referring to Christ as "the Word." If 1 John 5:7 were an interpretation of verse eight, as some have suggested, than we would expect the verse to use "Son" instead of "Word." However, the verse uses the Greek word logos, which is uniquely in the style of John and provides evidence of its genuineness. Also, we find John drawing parallels between the Trinity and what they testify (1 John 4:13-14). Therefore, it comes as no surprise to find a parallel of witnesses containing groups of three, one heavenly and one earthly.

The strongest evidence, however, is found in the Greek text itself. Looking at 1 John 5:8, there are three nouns which, in Greek, stand in the neuter (Spirit, water, and blood). However, they are followed by a participle that is masculine. The Greek phrase here is oi marturountes (who bare witness). Those who know the Greek language understand this to be poor grammar if left to stand on its own. Even more noticeably, verse six has the same participle but stands in the neuter (Gk.: to marturoun). Why are three neuter nouns supported with a masculine participle? The answer is found if we include verse seven. There we have two masculine nouns (Father and Son) followed by a neuter noun (Spirit). The verse also has the Greek masculine participle oi marturountes. With this clause introducing verse eight, it is very proper for the participle in verse eight to be masculine, because of the masculine nouns in verse seven. But if verse seven were not there it would become improper Greek grammar.

Even though Gregory of Nazianzus (390 AD) does not testify to the authenticity of the Comma, he makes mention of the flawed grammar resulting from its absence. In his Theological Orientations he writes referring to John:

. . . (he has not been consistent) in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourselves disclaim in the case of Deity? [8]

It is clear that Gregory recognized the inconsistency with Greek grammar if all we have are verses six and eight without verse seven. Other scholars have recognized the same thing. This was the argument of Robert Dabney of Union Theological Seminary in his book, The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek (1891). Bishop Middleton in his book, Doctrine of the Greek Article, argues that verse seven must be a part of the text according to the Greek structure of the passage. Even in the famous commentary by Matthew Henry, there is a note stating that we must have verse seven if we are to have proper Greek in verse eight. [9]



However, the question still stands: Why don't the early Byzantine manuscripts contain 1John 5:7?

I wish philologos was still around. :-(


_________________
Combat Chuck

 2006/5/31 16:38Profile









 Re:

Quote:
Although the comma is not found in the earliest majority byzantine manuscripts, (which does bring in the valid question, of "then why is it in the TR?),


PRECISELY !

KJVonly advocates clearly maintain, even violently so, that the TR IS the MT....and yet we have this terrible contradiction.

The TR cannot be based solely on the MT or the overwhelming evidence IN the MT would clearly show that the Comma doesnt belong....based on sheer numbers.

Quote:
we should note that the comma is found in other ancient sources.


thats not right of you to do this....its very misleading.
We can say that the OLDEST manuscripts are the Minority texts, therefore THEY are the correct ones....are they?
They disagree among themselves more than all of the greek MTs, even tho they are only a handful of texts.
Stating that the comma is present in other sources does not validate it in any way ...those very sources may be the corrupted ones.
Older does not mean better or more reliable.

Quote:
Perhaps later on he found out that several external sources contain the comma, and decided it was scripture so he went with the minority on that point within the 3rd edition? This seems reasonable to me.


To keep from turning this into something uglier than it has to be, I will simply suggest you keep searching all the facts....theres much more to this issue than Stever or I have presented.


Quote:
I do believe 1John5:7 is scripture.


"Belief" isnt what makes something 'true'....facts are.

The Comma does seem to fit the concept of the rest of the passage, and i believe was honestly part of Johns intent...but that doesnt mean that John actually wrote the Comma himself.

Quote:
I see no reason why a mss. copyist would add it, but I see plenty of reason why someone would remove it.


And why exactly would they remove it?

The trinity is c.learly presented in Scripture, removing the comma pretty much does nothing as far as understanding the trinity.

this is equivelent of some catholics saying the Jews omitted some books of canon to try to dismiss the Christ.
If this were true, the Jews were completely oblivious since they left the one book that is the most convincing pertaining to the Messiah....Isaiah.
*IF* the Jews wanted to do away with Christ, as some catholics maintain, they sure did a lousy job of picking which books to omit from OT canon.

Same with the Comma.
There are other passages, such as John 1;

[b]Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[/b]

...that show who Jesus is....and also OT passages that clearly state who this Man Jesus is...

"[b]Isa 9:6 For unto us [color=990066]a child is born[/color], unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: [color=990066]and his name shall be called[/color] Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, [color=990066]The everlasting Father[/color], The Prince of Peace. [/b]

...among others.

*IF* the comma WERE authenic...and IF there was a conspiracy to omit the trinity from the texts, the bonehead who decided what to omit surely should have been fired on the spot.


Quote:


For the record, I have not done much study, and am not a "KJV Only", but I do believe the KJV is the living Bible and is the closest translation to the originals we have in the english language.


I believe it to be the greatest translation of all time....and always will be.
But that doesnt validate the Comma and it doesnt change the fact that there is no such thing as 'perfect' translation.....you students of foreign languages know what Im talking about.

There are some Hebrew phrases that CANNOT be rendered 'perfectly' into english..that alone keeps the KJV bible from being 'perfect'



Quote:
However, the question still stands: Why don't the early Byzantine manuscripts contain 1John 5:7?


why indeed..

 2006/5/31 17:19









 Re:

Additionally, I believe that the Comma was a sidebar notation, presenting an 'interpretation' of what the passage in John might represent, and at a point was mistakenly or purposely added to the text.

This removes the 'conspiracy' factor (in that the conspirators would have to be complete morons to have missed all the rest of the trinity related scriptures), allows for the Comma to be 'authenic' in that it DOES show the intent in the passage it is in...and also makes sense of why it is not present in so many GREEK texts where it surely should be contained

 2006/5/31 17:28
KingJimmy
Member



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

 Re:

Instead of getting just a TR, why not just get NA27 or UBS4? Any verses that are in question will be highly footnoted with all/most variants. Any reason for just looking for a TR itself?


_________________
Jimmy H

 2006/5/31 22:38Profile





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy