Steven Avery
Well-known member
However, the heavenly witnesses has far stronger grammatical evidence, and far more massive usage through the centuries.
The similarities are strong, they are actually sister verses textually.
Was the Old Latin Version pure and in agreement with the KJV?
- Thread starter logos1560
- Start date
However, the heavenly witnesses has far stronger grammatical evidence, and far more massive usage through the centuries.
The similarities are strong, they are actually sister verses textually.
TC Calvinist
Active member
Just to be clear....when there's no evidence at all, we get:
And then when the early (uncorrupted? Corrupted? how do you decide this?) Latin just happens to wind up in the AV, well.
And then one can assert things that make it crystal clear that the assertions are not based on any firsthand knowledge of the original language or any manuscript data but were basically picked up in the form of "nonscholar quotes other people."
In short, there's no textual criticism going on at all. The special pleading fallacy begins its circle with the AV and only goes in one direction, backwards, which is a perfect metaphor for the position - completely backwards and contrary to reality.
This view is not only not taken seriously by scholarship, it shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone.
Also, this proxy wedding of Acts 8:37 and the Comma Johanneum is quite convenient but it's also quite farcical. Indeed, were it not for the continually devolving fundamentalist attempt to defend an obviously poorly attested reading merely by virtue of its eventual appearance in the fundamentalist Bible, not even the advocates of this espousal would take it with a tablespoon of serious argument.
And then when the early (uncorrupted? Corrupted? how do you decide this?) Latin just happens to wind up in the AV, well.
And then one can assert things that make it crystal clear that the assertions are not based on any firsthand knowledge of the original language or any manuscript data but were basically picked up in the form of "nonscholar quotes other people."
In short, there's no textual criticism going on at all. The special pleading fallacy begins its circle with the AV and only goes in one direction, backwards, which is a perfect metaphor for the position - completely backwards and contrary to reality.
This view is not only not taken seriously by scholarship, it shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone.
Also, this proxy wedding of Acts 8:37 and the Comma Johanneum is quite convenient but it's also quite farcical. Indeed, were it not for the continually devolving fundamentalist attempt to defend an obviously poorly attested reading merely by virtue of its eventual appearance in the fundamentalist Bible, not even the advocates of this espousal would take it with a tablespoon of serious argument.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
God is not capricious.
He did not throw various oddball verses into ANY of the major historic textlines, Greek Byzantine, Latin Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta, even versional.
Ending of Mark
Pericope Adulterae
Acts 8:37
Father, forgive them
heavenly witnesses
20 more verses
All scripture.
Modern pseudo-scientific textual criticism is an abject failure.
And I will pass over the psycho-babble, which is the major argument here against pure Bible verses.
Last edited:
Theo1689
Well-known member
If God had this kind of "micro-management" control over the manuscripts and versions, they'd all read identically.
They don't.
So He doesn't.
So your assumption is wrong.
<Chuckle>
Modern TC doesn't support your false teachings.
So you falsely label it "pseudo-scientific".
That's the word form of ad hominem.
TC Calvinist
Active member
But he is quite arbitrary in what He preserved in this theory.
No, I'm not willing to blame Him for it, man did that all on His own.
In your opinion. Never forget that. Only in your opinion. Nothing you state has risen to the level of fact, even with all of the attendant insults and distractions that are the product of insecurity.
This again is your opinion. And given the AV translators used textual criticism, well, it, too, was "modern" and it, too, is "textual criticism."
I simply see no need to forsake my intellect and appoint some translators dead nearly 400 years some sort of pope over the text, particularly since they specifically denied that their work was final or perfect or anything else. The modern-day apologists who argue thusly are doing public relations work for people who never even employed them nor endorsed their views.
It isn't my fault that your chosen methodology is capricious, arbitrary, and made up on the spot. The inconsistency is clear, and I'm assuming that reality frigthens you enough to fire off insults at people rather than explain why the method you apply is so inconsistent. In Rev 16:5, you tell us all it doesn't even matter there's no evidence, you can simply assert that it's corrupted - and has been so since the first two centuries. You then marry two verses that have nothing to do with each other in order to make what is clearly a bad argument appear to not be so bad.
Unfortunately, these tactics really do not fool anyone at all. The vast majority of born again people who have ever lived never read anything like the AV in Rev. 16:5, and it obviously didn't have any sort of negative effect on their lives. (You even implicitly admit this with your appeal to an alleged corruption so early in transmission).
Do you have anything better to offer when your inconsistent method is pointed out other than attacking people and insulting them?
One must ask if something "of God" would produce argumentation so poor that such attacks are necessary. I surmise the answer is an undeniable "no."
Simple question: what is your epistemology that leads you to this conclusion?
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Arbitrary? Every historic verse is preserved through the Byzantine, Vulgate and Peshitta lines.
Why is that arbitrary?
Theo1689
Well-known member
"Peshitta" rather than Ethiopic or Coptic sounds INCREDIBLY "arbitrary".
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Not at all. The Syriac lines (Peshitta, along with the Peshitta updates called Philoxenian and Harklean) has long been considered the third major line, after Greek and Latin.
And there was lots of work done on it in the 1500s, during the period of the Reformation Bible. And the dating of the Peshitta was a major aspect of the 1897 Oxford Debate on the textual criticism of the New Testament.
However, afaik, there are no extra verses in the Ethiopic or Coptic either.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
"extra non original words"
This is a wonderful example of a circular argument.
Also known as a loaded claim.
Plus, try to understand the context.
Some lines are in fact lacking words that preserved in another language.
The Syriac Peshitta is lacking the Pericope Adulterae, as an example, as well as Acts 8:37 and more. (There was some restoration in the Philoxenian and Harklean.)
The Syriac and Greek are lacking the heavenly witnesses.
However, none of these lines have false, phony, added, counterfeit verses.
For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
The words in between the [brackets] are the non original words not in the Byzantine nor the Peshitta lines. If they were original they would have been IN the Byzantine and Peshitta lines.
The words in between the [brackets] are the non original words not in the Byzantine nor the Peshitta lines. If they were original they would have been IN the Byzantine and Peshitta lines.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
So you do not think the Pericope Adulterae and Acts 8:37 are original because they are not in the Peshitta?
Why do you believe the Greek Byzantine line was immune from omission corruption in the early centuries?
Now that is a circular argument. No wonder you wrongly accuse others of doing it.
In post #43 you had said "He did not throw various oddball verses into ANY of the major historic textlines, Greek Byzantine, Latin Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta, even versional".
I pointed out that the extra words from the Latin Vulgate were not in the Original Greek Byzantine, Syraic version.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Asking a question can not be a circular argument.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
You do not know what was in the "Original Greek Byzantine". There are very solid evidences that the original Greek had the verse.
You can claim that it is not in our extant manuscripts beginning around 400 AD, and those are very few till about 800 AD.
You are conjecturing about what happened between c. 60 AD and 400 AD to 800 AD.
The grammatical, stylistic and internal evidences massively support the originality in the Greek.
Jerome's Vulgate Prologue and Cyprian (solid in Greek) are also powerful evidences for the original Greek.
There is more, such as the Athanasius Disputation with an Arian at Nicea.
The fact that you are not familiar with these evidences is understandable, as you are played by the textcrits.
TC Calvinist
Active member
You literally just admitted how arbitrary it is. Just so long as you can find it SOMEWHERE out there (beneath the pale moonlight), it has to be original because it wound up in your AV. This, of course, means methdologically you don't really care at all about those "lines" you cite. It's window dressing.
And really? Is Rev. 16:5?
Arbitrary - based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
That's exactly what it is, and I thank you for implicitly admitting it.
TC Calvinist
Active member
Actually, this is not even close to being correct.
Can you name even one passage that you would consider original found solely in the Syriac? And given the disputed passages in Tatian's Diatessaron, this simply doesn't hold up well. The Syriac is a COPY of the Greek just as Latin is. That does not automatically make it a good copy.
Also, limiting the Syriac to the Peshitta or its updates is ludicrous.
There's been a whole lot more done in the last century. Have you read any of those works? I dare say discoveries and articles since then using things found since then are of more relevance than something someone might have thought 500 years ago. Have you read Howard, Joosten, or Peter Williams's more recent works? Those are far more up-to-date than items from a long time ago that didn't know then what we know now. Joosten lists a number of revisions (1990).
Nobody knows the date of the Peshitta, so who really cares what was said in a debate over a century ago? They didn't know, and we don't know.
You didn't bother to mention that the Peshitta is missing five books. That's a pretty large exlcusion, wouldn't you say?
TC Calvinist
Active member
That depends. Do you believe we can know what was originally written? If you do - and your posts suggest as much - then you're engaging in the same circularity which you were quick to accuse.
The only circularity I've seen thus far is your assumption that the AV has everything right - and then you go backwards hunting for data.
Are you really this incapable of making a post without trying to insult people?
In other words, you're saying (but not coming right out and actually saying) that "there's no preserved text anywhere in one spot." I actually agree with this, but it appears your position makes a solid 180 in 1611 or so.
It's lacking five entire books of the NT. This does beg the question of whether your assertion that the Peshitta constitutes "a major line" is actually even in connection with reality.
"Restoration", you admit?
And it was you who said:
The Syriac lines (Peshitta, along with the Peshitta updates called Philoxenian and Harklean) has long been considered the third major line, after Greek and Latin.
So by your own methodology, you should be rejecting this passage that by your own admission is missing from not one but two of the three "major lines" as you call it.
Of course they don't. Because they didn't have verses back then!
So this is quite disingenuous of you to argue thusly. But they all do have extra words, some of them long enough that they would constitute a verse if reading them on a manuscript.
TC Calvinist
Active member
Nor do you. But then you opt to tell us:
In other words, you can know what's in the original but you insist someone else doesn't. Hubris is putting it mildly.
And as far as the Johannine Comma, it's so obviously intrusive that we can say with 100% certainty we know it wasn't written by John.
That isn't a claim, though, it's a realistic fact.
And they're all against the reading, so this isn't exactly a good argument for you to invoke.
No, we don't have to conjecture because the evidence is clear. You, sir, are the only one conjecturing (and projecting, might I add).
Actually, it proves the opposite. The so-called grammatical argument is a reach of apocalyptic proportions, the style is contra John, and there is no "internal evidence" for this passage. Indeed, it's so weak that Bultmann actually dismissed vv. 6-9 as a redaction
My goodness, the superficiality of modern Bible studies. Cyprian isn't preserved in Greek, so this argument is meaningless. (He also didn't quote it, but that's a separate issue entirely). And appealing to the so-called Vulgate Prologue that nobody holds was written by Jerome is a convenient way to ignore the text of the original Vulgate.
Sir - there is much more to the world of biblical scholarship than what you are apparently consuming online.
The mere fact your position requires this level of desperation reveals the conflict within your conscience that reality shows contrary to what you wish to be true.
Ah, the old "finisher insult."
"You, the person reading this, are stupid and I, on the other hand, am smart" is what you're alleging.
But it's crystal clear to the rest of us that once again these insults and poor mouthing of those whom are attempting to merely disagree with you are bothersome to you at some point. What's amusing (sad?) is that this passage doesn't even meet the standard of being in two of the three lines that you yourself tell us are major lines.
Why not just come right out and say, "I don't really care about any of that stuff, I just know the AV is perfect, preserved, whatever"? Because it is very clear that you're allowing your KJVOism to determine what you accept as evidence rather than following the evidence where it goes.
Have a blessed day.
You are the only one trying to play anyone. You refer to the false prologue not really by Jerome. The original Vulgate by Jerome did not have the [bracketed] words. They were never in the original Greek from 1st century AD till Erasmus's 3rd edition. They are missing from the Greek tradition as a whole. The few manuscripts that contained the [bracketed] words were copied from unoriginal secondarily late Latin Vulgate manuscripts. The words are even indicated they are spurious in reformation Bibles by special type, because they knew from Erasmus the words did not belong. Had God wanted those words in the bible he would have put them in the Greek in the first century AD.