Re: Which translation is correct?
I did not avoid it, Norman, you just don't like my answer so you claim I ignored it.
Originally Posted by rejoice44
Manuscripts from Byzantine, Western and Alexandrian agree about 1 John 5:6 including Vaticanus. So, good translations read more-or-less like the KJV.
When you see a difference in Sinaiticus or Alexandrinus, you see cover-up or conspiracy. I say sometimes (most times) a copyist error is just a copyist error. I don't automatically assume guilty until proven innocent like you do. I assume innocent until proven guilty and that it's just human error.
What's silly about this is you use this as proof that they didn't know what to do after supposedly deleting 5:7 all the while you ignore the truckload of evidence against 5:7 and never address it.
This hurts your credibility on this issue. And unfortunately, it will rub off on your credibility for other issues in the process.
Can I name Greek manuscripts around prior to the sixteenth century that did not have 1 John 5:7? Yes, many. But then you add an arbitrary rule: not those found after the sixteenth century. So in other words, if it's found after 16th century, even if it dates earlier, you won't count it? What bias is that?
Originally Posted by rejoice44
Here are Greek manuscripts dated before the 16th century that lack it:
Now those are dated earlier than the 16th century. I can't tell you, without a lot more digging, when they were discovered. But even if they were discovered later, if they are authenticated, the discovery date doesn't really matter.
- Athous Laurae
This doesn't include the Majority which is largely the Byzantine family that the KJV comes from. This reading is so rare and so late, even many KJV preferred readers acknowledge the problem with 1 John 5:7
This doesn't include the lack of it in the church fathers, which you don't address and I don't blame you.
This doesn't include absence from the Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic, Old Latin or the Vulgate as issued by Jerome.
As you can see, I just listed for you the other ancient tongues it's not in. And then you do something amazing. You make a comment about we don't even know if those Greek manuscripts might have been transcribed from the Latin.
Originally Posted by rejoice44
In this issue, you and I are not the experts. We are more like the jury. We listen to the testimony of experts. The experts, of which the vast majority are born again, Spirit-filled believers, do not side with your view. Yet you reject all of the expert witness testimony, even of believers, that disagree with your presupposed conclusion and only accept testimony from those who agree with your already presupposed conclusion.
You are almost, if not, entirely circular in your case.
Also, as members of the jury, we are to come to a conclusion that is beyond reasonable doubt, not all doubt. If we had to be beyond all doubt, then we would never solve anything in textual criticism. Yet, you seem to demand a conclusion beyond all doubt because you will bring up the most bizarre arguments and you will even conjure up suppositions like whether something was transcribed from Latin, to avoid coming to a reasonable conclusion. Yet you don't demand beyond all doubt for your view. I've asked you umpteen times which manuscripts the KJV comes from so we can scrutinize them to the same degree you think we should scrutinize manuscripts that disagree with your position. You have never provided this list.
You will use Philpot and Simonides which others who hate the new versions don't use in their books.
You will argue against new versions because of Roman Catholic Martini yet trust a Bible in which the Greek text is based upon the work of Erasmus, a Roman Catholic who you claim was a homosexual (and I've never heard that before)!
Anything that opposes your view you will declare is from an ureliable source or a hypocrite or a person with questionable character and so you toss out the expert claims. However, you will use anything that supports your view no matter what the character of that witness.
I'm not replying to this thread anymore, unless I see some poor, young believer who uses a new version come in here and fall prey to your line of thinking. I'm the only one replying now. So perhaps if I don't reply, the thread will die.
Norman, you're my brother as far as I know. I have no reason to doubt that. As your brother, and one who loves you and is concerned about everyone in this forum, I'm going to say some things you might not like, but you need to hear.
You are spending a boatload of time fighting Christians. That is wood, hay and stubble. You have formed yourself as a weapon against Christians.
You've admitted that the new versions don't remove doctrines and don't add doctrines such as Roman Catholic distinctives.
Not only have you done this, it is my belief, and the belief of every credible scholar that I am aware of, that your position is incorrect. It's bad enough to fight Christians and form yourself as a weapon against those in the Bible translation industry who are trying to serve the church in a valuable way; it's even worse if you truly are incorrect in your position. The closest credible scholar to your position is those of Maurice Robinson and the deceased Art Farstad. And while they don't hold a view like mine or like Dan Wallace, they are far from your position.
I'm not about taking the KJV out of your hands. I've said it many times before --- I like the KJV. I read the KJV for many years as my primary Bible. I have a lot of good memories from it. Depending on what I quote from memory, a lot of it comes out more KJV than newer versions. But I accept it for it is. I accept the multiple versions of the Textus Receptus that I own for what they are.
Put your skills to better use instead of fighting all your brothers. The Mormons and JW's will only listen to a KJV if being quoted to from some other Bible than their own. You could be studying their work, their doctrines and doing a ministry to rescue lost souls instead of spending tons of time fighting the saints. Why don't you apply your skills to counter-cult ministry or something like that where a person who uses the KJV can be very valuable? People who use newer versions and want to help Mormons have to acquaint themselves with the KJV. You're already there. You could do much more good there than what you are doing in these threads.
Quit accumulating wood, hay and stubble and build up some gold, silver and precious stones by doing something more useful and rescue some lost souls instead of discouraging your brothers from reading Bible translations that are blessing them, but are translations that you don't like as much as the KJV.
In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. - unknown
Read your Bible and pray every single day. - Pastor Jon Courson
If your grace ain't greasier than a bucket full of chitlin's and gravy, you might be a legalist - an internet friend.