|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It's not a rule, it's a definition. Which he doesn't consistently follow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
In any case you really need to acknowledge after all your insistence that he was only talking about "carelessness, error and folly" and did not mean intentional mutilation, that he most certainly did mean intentional mutilation, some 25 pages' worth of definition of intentional mutilation being what he meant ---the evidence I knew was there somewhere that I'm so glad I finally found.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
See post #803. Having read what Burgon wrote, I'm ahead of you waiting for you to catch up.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
So the question is, What do the MAJORITY of the {Greek} manuscripts say?
The Byzantine majority rejects the Comma. The Alexandrian omits it. The Syriac is silent. The Coptic not a peep. But a around the time of Augustine, it starts popping up in Old Latin which is soon replaced by the Vulgate - the evil Catholic's corrupted text that they want to use to destroy sola scriptura. Erasmus even rejected it from his Greek version until social and political pressures forced him to put it back in.
I'm not up to this at the moment, but are you suggesting that the Latin versions just stuck it in there for no good reason rather than taking it from the Greek originals that were surely their source? Depends what you mean by 'good reason'. If promoting and solidifying the doctrine of the Trinity is a good reason, then no - they had a good reason. If accidentally copying marginalia into the main body of text is a good reason - then they had a good reason. It is unusual that there are little or no Greek copies of the things they used as sources, don't you think? Or that it appears in the margins quite a lot?
That is, the existence of the passage in early Latin manuscripts ought to be evidence that it also existed in the earlier Greek originals. And its omission from everything but some Old Latin and most Vulgates ought to be evidence it was added during the translations into Latin. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 888 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
Erasmus even rejected it from his Greek version until social and political pressures forced him to put it back in. Bruce Metzger mentions that in his The Text of the New Testament, 1st & 2nd Editions
quote: but later retracts the statement as a footnote on the 3rd edition and removed it all together in 4th edition.
quote: While Erasmus did suspect that MS61 (Codex Bntannicus) was influenced by the Vulgate, there is no evidence he thought it was created intentionally to force him to include the Comma Johanneum. De Jonge concludes that
quote: Leaving out the Comma Johanneum was considered a dangerous doctrinal omission and it was this pressure that prompted him to include it in later editions of his work.
quote: Source: Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum The inclusion of the Comma Johanneum is very rare in Greek manuscripts and only appears in late, Medieval manuscripts. From www.bible.ca:
quote: A good example of doctrine compelling translation rather than the other way around. HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 888 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
But saying there is a pattern to the changes doesn't mean that there was a systematic pattern, as I also acknowledged. The references to the Trinity, to Jesus as God, remain in other parts of the manuscript. The only claim is that there is a pattern or a trend that can be identified within the collection of changes, suggesting a mindset that is influenced by one heresy or another. But Dr. A brings up a legitimate point. If these gnostics set out to undermine the credibility of the deity of Christ, then why did they leave ANY references that support it? The funny thing is, I have grown up in churches that exclusively use modern translations and have never had a problem with this doctrine. Modern translations make the divinity of Christ perfectly clear. In fact, there are several verses besides John 1:18 where the modern versions do a better job of clarifying this doctrine.
Rom 9:15KJV "whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." NIV "Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen." NASB "whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen."
Col 2:9KJV "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." NIV "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form," NASB "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,"
Titus 2:13KJV "looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;" NIV "while we wait for the blessed hopethe appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," NASB "looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,"
2 Peter 1:1KJV "Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:" NIV "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:" NASB "To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:" So, why did the gnostics corrupt the text into a reading that better supported the deity of Christ?
Only-begotten Son is always understood to refer to the Son as God because begotten of God, of the same "substance" as God, just as the begotten child is of the same flesh as the parents. But that is a doctrinal interpretation not completely clear from a literal reading. I think the NASB is much clearer support for the Trinity based on a straight, literal reading. These so called "doctrinal perversions" that modern Bibles supposedly are guilty of is really just non-sense. It is interpretation based on our own perversions, our own biases, not from the corruption of modern translations. Are not churches who "handle snakes" KJV-only? Did not those who continued to justify slavery in the US because of African inferiority also rely on KJV texts? What about extremists cults like the Branch Davidians? They were also strict KJV-onliers. Should we blame the KJV for these "doctrinal perversions?" ------------------ In fact, its worse than all that. If you don't read the Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE) you are reading a version that has been corrupted by evil, secular publishers. Tracy over at Jesus-is-Lord.com, who has a "firm grasp of the truth" provides a test to see if your Bible can pass the test of being pure and uncorrupted.
How to Know the Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE) of the King James Bible Criteria:
quote: Are you reading the "correct" version of the Bible, or do you have a corrupt KJV? How about this quote: Seriously? Those are the things we are fighting about? Those are corruptions? HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
How to Know the Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE) of the King James Bible
I have plenty of reason to distrust Cambridge Bibles at this time. I just sent one back and the one that I kept had a dust jacket on it that was putting down the King James Bible. I can't give the quote because I burned it to ashes. [...] Here are some Bibles that I compared to the test below to determine if they are good Bibles [...] This list does not include the other Bibles that we looked at, found that they had errors, and decided to burn without going through the whole test. She couldn't just return them to the shop?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 888 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
Yea, I saw that and was going to bring it up but my post got kinda long and I needed to wrap it up and so forgot.
Actually, maybe that would be a good test all by itself. Throw the Bible in question into the fire and if it burns up - then it was a fake. "What do we do with witches?""BURN THEM!" "Ah. But what do you burn apart from witches?" "MORE WITCHES!" ----------------- It's like you said in Message 797 After all, if you just went about saying that the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus are not entirely reliable, and that Westcott and Hort attributed to them greater evidential weight than they actually possess, you run the risk, not only of sounding sane, but of being downright correct. But a fair and even-handed treatment is just not a possibility for fundamentalists - they have to drive it all the way to crazy town. It makes it hard to get behind anything they claim, even if there is some kernel of truth to it. HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The inclusion of the Comma Johanneum is very rare in Greek manuscripts and only appears in late, Medieval manuscripts. From Interactive Bible Home Page www.bible.ca:
quote: In the time since Erasmus, among all the Greek manuscripts that have been examined, only three more, all of late date, have been found which include the passage, and it apparently comes to these from the Vulgate, not from earlier Greek exemplars. These three include one sixteenth century manuscript, one manuscript which is said to be from either the fourteenth or sixteenth century, and one twelfth century manuscript which has the passage added in the margin by a seventeenth century hand. In spite of the obvious lack of authenticity this passage, which probably originated as an attempt to augment the case for trinitarianism, is today included in the King James Version as if it were part of the inspired word. What "obvious lack of authenticity? You've shown that it was included in some Greek mss which Dr. A was denying altogether. Their being late puts them among all those that underlie the King James anyway, since they had no earlier mss and rejected the Alexandrian type that they knew to be corrupted, the very ones the later revising committee decided to treat as authentic. As Burgon argues, the mss being late is no evidence against their authenticity, nor is being early evidence for authenticity, in fact it proves the opposite, that the later ones were all that remain from a heavily used type of ms that the church recognized as authentic by their very heavy usage, while the older/earlier, for having survived so long, show that they were not used and therefore rejected by the church. The fact that the johannine comma appears in so few mss I'll grant is an argument against it, however. But the fact that it is there at all plus the fact that it appears in a very early Syrian translation, are evidence in favor of it. Even with scanty testimony, since it is perfectly consistent with doctrine that would be affirmed even without it, what's the big problem with including it? It really isn't necessary at all to the defense of the Trinity, handy but not necessary. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You've shown that it was included in some Greek mss which Dr. A was denying altogether. No. Could you try to be more accurate? I said it was absent from the early texts. By which I mean to include the early Byzantine texts, and the Western ones, and the Caesarian ones ...
The fact that the johannine comma appears in so few mss I'll grant is an argument against it, however. But the fact that it is there at all plus the fact that it appears in a very early Syrian translation, are evidence in favor of it. Even with scanty testimony, since it is perfectly consistent with doctrine that would be affirmed even without it, what's the big problem with including it? Well, if the correctness of the text doesn't matter, why are we having this conversation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The fact that the johannine comma appears in so few mss I'll grant is an argument against it, however. But the fact that it is there at all plus the fact that it appears in a very early Syrian translation ... Er, which one? Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Sorry, yes you were talking only about the early mss.
The correctness of the text matters but where the evidence is blurry and the contested passage doesn't contradict doctrine, include it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The correctness of the text matters but where the evidence is blurry and the contested passage doesn't contradict doctrine, include it. Well, that's a whole new rule of textual criticism. But I don't think in this case the evidence is very blurry. We can't find the comma in the early Greek texts, and also we can't find it in the Greek Church Fathers. Now this is odd, because surely they'd have whipped it out when engaged in controversy with the Arians and the Sabellians and whatnot. Any news on that Syrian version?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
The correctness of the text matters but where the evidence is blurry and the contested passage doesn't contradict doctrine, include it. The rather obvious problems with this position is first that the evidence is not really blurry and second that the doctrine is supposed to come from the text and not the other way around. I guess thirdly there is that pesky warning in Revelations 22:19. I don't find it unusual that you express some indifference in this thread given that you are stuck with the short end of the evidence stick. But doesn't taking this position make some of those arguments with Jehovah Witnesses seem a bit more like arguments about whether the communion wafers should be to the left or right of the grape juice? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I have never felt at a loss to argue for the Trinity without the Comma.
If anyone should worry about Revelation 22:19 it's the makers and defenders of the Alexandrian manuscripts, not someone who is not sure of the authenticity of a phrase.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024