Members BaptistLady02 Posted June 24, 2009 Members Share Posted June 24, 2009 Why is the Johannine Comma in the KJV Bible? Isn't it a text that does not appear in the most ancient texts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members holster Posted June 24, 2009 Members Share Posted June 24, 2009 Isn't it a text that does not appear in the most ancient texts? I've never understood the logic about "best" or "oldest" or "most ancient texts!" Why is a more ancient text assumed to be the "best?" That's children's logic. Truth is Truth. Lies are lies. It doesn't matter if one is written before the other. Give me the "later text" of a blood bought God inspired Christian before the "most ancient text" of an unsaved man anyday.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members PreacherBen Posted June 24, 2009 Members Share Posted June 24, 2009 Here is a good article about the Comma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BaptistLady02 Posted June 27, 2009 Author Members Share Posted June 27, 2009 I've never understood the logic about "best" or "oldest" or "most ancient texts!" Why is a more ancient text assumed to be the "best?" That's children's logic. Truth is Truth. Lies are lies. It doesn't matter if one is written before the other. Give me the "later text" of a blood bought God inspired Christian before the "most ancient text" of an unsaved man anyday.... I was not implying that the most ancient texts are the best. Here is a good article about the Comma. Thank you Preacher Ben. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Wilchbla Posted June 27, 2009 Members Share Posted June 27, 2009 The oldest translation of the Bible, the Old Latin (Vetus Latina- 157 AD) contains the Comma. Also, most of the ancient manuscripts that don't contain the Comma also don't contain the WHOLE 5th CHAPTER OF I JOHN. Only about 500 out of the 5300 manuscripts contain the 5th chapter at all. Also, the Comma was quoted by the early church fathers including Tertullian in 200AD and Irenaeus before that. Finally, the passage wouldn't make sense without I John 5:7 and would be grammatically wrong. So my answer to your question would be, "Why not." I'll side with the believers instead of the unsaved reprobate scholars that came out out the secular universities of Germany and England during the 1800's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members FeatherDuster Posted August 7, 2009 Members Share Posted August 7, 2009 Study your history and get your facts straight before you apply "history" to this issue. The original manuscripts are the most accurate. Since they are lost, the KJV is God's renewal manuscript that His people can trust. Anything from 200 AD, even Greek manuscripts, are not the inspired Word. They are copies. We have the renewed inspired Word in the KJV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Wilchbla Posted August 8, 2009 Members Share Posted August 8, 2009 Study your history and get your facts straight before you apply "history" to this issue. The original manuscripts are the most accurate. Since they are lost, the KJV is God's renewal manuscript that His people can trust. Anything from 200 AD, even Greek manuscripts, are not the inspired Word. They are copies. We have the renewed inspired Word in the KJV. You're gonna get an earful for insinuating the KJV is inspired. Which, by the way I do. It has to be because Paul said all scripture is given by inspiration of God. If it isn't inspired than it isn't the scripture. Paul was referring to copies when he made that claim. Now I don't believe it was some kind of new revelation. It was preservation. But there has to be a degree of inspiration for preservation to work. Job 32:8- But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members holster Posted August 8, 2009 Members Share Posted August 8, 2009 -edited- Paul said all scripture is given by inspiration of God. If it isn't inspired than it isn't the scripture. Paul was referring to copies when he made that claim. That's interesting. Paul said that "all scripture copies are given by inspiration of God." Where did you find that in the Word? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bakershalfdozen Posted August 8, 2009 Members Share Posted August 8, 2009 Do you think Paul had the original manuscripts that Moses wrote? Or David? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Wilchbla Posted August 13, 2009 Members Share Posted August 13, 2009 That's interesting. Paul said that "all scripture copies are given by inspiration of God." Where did you find that in the Word? Before Paul told Timothy that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God" he said to him: 15: And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. They couldn't have been the originals. I highly doubt that Timothy had the originals in his posession. What Timothy had were copies of the originals. Paul clearly says that these copies were inspired by God. If you do a study of the word "scripture" or "scriptures" in the Bible in every case it is referring to copies not the originals. I think people have a misconception of the word "inspiration". They think of "revelation" (II Peter 1:21) when they hear the word but it's not the case. Inspiration can be any elightenment from God within the spirit of man to give him understanding. Job 32:8- But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding. The KJV translators had to have some degree of inspiration in order to preserve the words of God without error. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members holster Posted August 13, 2009 Members Share Posted August 13, 2009 Do you think Paul had the original manuscripts that Moses wrote? Or David? and wilchbla said:Before Paul told Timothy that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God" he said to him: 15: And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. They couldn't have been the originals. I highly doubt that Timothy had the originals in his posession. What Timothy had were copies of the originals. Paul clearly says that these copies were inspired by God. Of course Paul did not have the originals. But (concerning Pauls own writings) it was not Paul speaking (writing). It was God. Pauls writings are verbal plenary inspiration FROM GOD. So when Paul (in the Holy Word) says that "all scripture.." it is God saying it. Paul never said that copies were inspired by God. God said thru Paul that the Scriptures were inspired." And I am using the strict sense of "inspiration." Verbal plenary inspiration. "Breathed of God", the act of God "breathing" the scriptures. That only happened one time... No copy is inspired. And a true copy is PRESERVED (by God, not man) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Revelation3:20 Posted August 13, 2009 Members Share Posted August 13, 2009 and wilchbla said: Of course Paul did not have the originals. But (concerning Pauls own writings) it was not Paul speaking (writing). It was God. Pauls writings are verbal plenary inspiration FROM GOD. So when Paul (in the Holy Word) says that "all scripture.." it is God saying it. Paul never said that copies were inspired by God. God said thru Paul that the Scriptures were inspired." And I am using the strict sense of "inspiration." Verbal plenary inspiration. "Breathed of God", the act of God "breathing" the scriptures. That only happened one time... No copy is inspired. And a true copy is PRESERVED (by God, not man) For the sake of the discussion would you care to define exactly what the term "scripture" means to you? To me it means the Holy writings inspired by God and passed down to us without error. Is the English KJV the scriptures in English in your opinion or is the term scripture only applicable to the originals or the copies in original languages? I find more and more people who call themselves IFB and may use the KJV but deep down don't actually believe that it is truly scripture, or "the Holy writings of God". Instead they seem to view the English KJV as only a passable stopgap for those who cannot read greek or hebrew, but not something that can be really trusted as God's pure word. I believe Gods word survived translation into English by the guidance of his hand, remained pure by his power, and is thus still the scriptures with nothing lost, but many don't believe that it seems any more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Wilchbla Posted August 14, 2009 Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 and wilchbla said: Of course Paul did not have the originals. But (concerning Pauls own writings) it was not Paul speaking (writing). It was God. Pauls writings are verbal plenary inspiration FROM GOD. So when Paul (in the Holy Word) says that "all scripture.." it is God saying it. Paul never said that copies were inspired by God. God said thru Paul that the Scriptures were inspired." And I am using the strict sense of "inspiration." Verbal plenary inspiration. "Breathed of God", the act of God "breathing" the scriptures. That only happened one time... No copy is inspired. And a true copy is PRESERVED (by God, not man) Paul would have been referring to the OT scriptures when he spoked to Timothy. In another case when Christ said "this day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears" or when it says in the book of Acts that the Bereans searched the scriptures daily you can't say they were originals. You also can't say that the Bereans were searching the NT. They were in a synagogue and would have been searching the OT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Wilchbla Posted August 14, 2009 Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 For the sake of the discussion would you care to define exactly what the term "scripture" means to you? To me it means the Holy writings inspired by God and passed down to us without error. Is the English KJV the scriptures in English in your opinion or is the term scripture only applicable to the originals or the copies in original languages? I find more and more people who call themselves IFB and may use the KJV but deep down don't actually believe that it is truly scripture, or "the Holy writings of God". Instead they seem to view the English KJV as only a passable stopgap for those who cannot read greek or hebrew, but not something that can be really trusted as God's pure word. I believe Gods word survived translation into English by the guidance of his hand, remained pure by his power, and is thus still the scriptures with nothing lost, but many don't believe that it seems any more. The "scripture" is that book you hold in your hand that says AV 1611 on it. If it is scripture than it must be inspired of God. If it isn't inspired than you can't call it scripture. It doesn't matter if you say "preserved" or not because if it is "preserved" without error (which it is) than it is the scripture and "all scripture is given by inspiration of God. Like I said before; in order for us to have God's inerrant, inspired word preserved in the KJV than their would have to be somekind of inspiration involved. If not, than it is no longer the scripture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Revelation3:20 Posted August 14, 2009 Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 The "scripture" is that book you hold in your hand that says AV 1611 on it. If it is scripture than it must be inspired of God. If it isn't inspired than you can't call it scripture. It doesn't matter if you say "preserved" or not because if it is "preserved" without error (which it is) than it is the scripture and "all scripture is given by inspiration of God. Like I said before; in order for us to have God's inerrant, inspired word preserved in the KJV than their would have to be somekind of inspiration involved. If not, than it is no longer the scripture. My point exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.