Purified Seven More Times

KJV-Only Archive from Jul. 1/2001 to Dec. 31/2001.
Bill Hoyt
Registered User
Joined: 12 Sep 2001, 10:28

29 Oct 2001, 03:59 #1

As I was playing in the archives, I rediscovered WOTS's question about the KJV being 'purified seven times', and though I had not really examined the argument, I recently discovered this page:
www.ourchurch.com/view/?pageID=5859
It summarizes with the interesting statement: "This paper draws from Bible-Believing study, sermons, and publications to demonstrate that battle lines have been drawn on an issue of importance, but proffers neither scholarly wisdom nor proof positive.", then sends people off to read Gail Riplinger for the real proof positive and scholarly wisdom.
Hmmm... Let's take a look at one of his arguments and see what he does proffer:
The Bible used in China today omits 1John 5:7 (and these three are one). Is this the word of God? It does not match the kept and preserved word of God of the AV1611. It is evidently translated from the corrupted Minority Text.
Now, please, remember this conclusion...it'll play into something fun in a moment.
The KJV in my hand is the only one translated from the proper manuscripts, the Greek Textus Receptus (i.e Received Text, or Majority Text), and the Hebrew Masoretic text.
This is a nice example of Scott(?)'s piece on obfuscation, since the Majority text is not the same as the TR as we'll see in a moment.
Purified seven times? Just coincidence? Look at the sequence of Bible languages:
1. Hebrew
2. Aramaic
3. Greek
4. Old Syriac
5. Old Latin
6. German
7. ENGLISH
Purified seven times, the number of perfection! Coincidence?

No, just cleverly arranged selective data. Take a look at this list. The 'test' for the Chinese was long 1John 5:7-8...if they don't have it, they are corrupted. However, the German is in the list of Seven Bible Languages. Guess what? The German (which mean's Luthers, the main (maybe only?) German translation before the KJV) doesn't have long 1John 5:7-8, either. Oh-oh, we have to throw out the German and that only gives us 6 biblical Languages. We know what that means, right? But wait, it's not found in the Old Syriac either. Now we're down to 5 biblical Languages. Maybe we ought to kick in some of the other early biblical languages to get our numbers back up (Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), but wait, it's not found in those, either. Shoot...
Also, since long 1John 5:7-8 only occurs in 4 Greek manuscripts of the 300 which contain 1John (manuscript numbers 61, 629, 918, 2318) , it's not in the 'majority text' (the compilation of majority readings), either*. If we have to throw out the Chinese, then we have to throw out the Majority Text.
If we have to throw out the Majority Text, then we have to throw out all translations based on it, too, right?
but "The KJV in my hand is the only one translated from the...Majority Text"
Yep, he was right, This paper...proffers neither scholarly wisdom nor proof positive."
But it sure was fun...
*this is a guess on my part. Perhaps DocCas could help me here. Doc?
"The servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth"
-- 2Tim 2:24-25
"The servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,

In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth"


-- 2Tim 2:24-25

Reply

DocCas
Registered User
Joined: 26 Jul 2001, 07:20

29 Oct 2001, 08:29 #2

[Bill wrote: Also, since long 1John 5:7-8 only occurs in 4 Greek manuscripts of the 300 which contain 1John (manuscript numbers 61, 629, 918, 231Image , it's not in the 'majority text' (the compilation of majority readings), either*. If we have to throw out the Chinese, then we have to throw out the Majority Text.
*this is a guess on my part. Perhaps DocCas could help me here. Doc?]
You are correct. Of the 4 Greek MSS which contain the comma, two are of very late origin, and the other two, although older, contain the comma in a marginal note that may be up to several centuries removed from the copying of the text.
However, the Old Latin MSS contain the reading very early on, and it is also quoted by several of the Latin Patristics as early as 250 AD, which predates the bulk of the Alexandrian textform by at least 100 years.
Personally I believe the witness of the Latin MSS is vastly underweighed. There are over twice as many Latin MSS as there are Greek MSS extant.
The history of the comma is a very interesting study all by itself. Image
Reply

Bill Hoyt
Registered User
Joined: 12 Sep 2001, 10:28

29 Oct 2001, 17:12 #3

Doc wrote:
Of the 4 Greek MSS which contain the comma, two are of very late origin, and the other two, although older, contain the comma in a marginal note that may be up to several centuries removed from the copying of the text...However, the Old Latin MSS contain the reading very early on, and it is also quoted by several of the Latin Patristics as early as 250 AD, which predates the bulk of the Alexandrian textform by at least 100 years.
Pardon me for what is (possibly) a stupid question, but doesn't this statement throw a huge monkeywrench in your argument that the Byzantine is lacking nothing? I realize that it (the reading) is amply attested in the Vulgate, but I've seen it stated that the reason it's in the TR is because a manuscript was made to order, leaving only a single document from which to draw our reading. If that's true, then this very important verse, which would put the doctrine of the Trinity clearly outside all reasonable doubt, droppped virtually completely out of the Byzantine.
If we admit that as a possibility, can we have any assurance that the Byzantine is complete, lacking in nothing? If something this important could drop out, how many less important things could drop out? Maybe I'm just misundersanding what you're saying here...
"The servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth"
-- 2Tim 2:24-25
"The servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,

In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth"


-- 2Tim 2:24-25

Reply

DocCas
Registered User
Joined: 26 Jul 2001, 07:20

29 Oct 2001, 18:30 #4

[Bill Hoyt: If we admit that as a possibility, can we have any assurance that the Byzantine is complete, lacking in nothing? If something this important could drop out, how many less important things could drop out? Maybe I'm just misundersanding what you're saying here... ]
It does give me pause. Image However, again, I don't believe in "perfect preservation" in the sense that "perfect" means that any one MSS, text, or version will be perfect in all ways at all times in all instances.
I believe the Byzantine textform is SUPERIOR to the Alexandrian textform, but not necessarily absolutely perfect in every respect. I tend to give much more credence to the ancient vernaculars, especially the Old Latin, than most who study textual transmission.
Even though the Greek MSS evidence for the comma is slim, the Latin evidence is overwhelming. What we often overlook is that those Latin texts/MSS come from an examplar. The examplar must have contained the comma.
But, even then, my major reason for accepting the comma's canonicity is the grammar of the Greek. Without the comma, a grammatical error is introduced regarding the gender of the articles verses the nouns. With the comma, there is no grammatical error. Image
Remember, in my list of reasons for accepting a text as reflecting the autographs, number of witnesses is included, but is not the only reason, or even the most important reason. Image
Reply

Bill Hoyt
Registered User
Joined: 12 Sep 2001, 10:28

29 Oct 2001, 19:45 #5

DocCas wrote:
It does give me pause. However, again, I don't believe in "perfect preservation" in the sense that "perfect" means that any one MSS, text, or version will be perfect in all ways at all times in all instances.
Gotcha. Thanks, Doc.
"The servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth"
-- 2Tim 2:24-25
"The servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,

In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth"


-- 2Tim 2:24-25

Reply

greenbranch
Registered User
Joined: 28 Jul 2000, 14:47

30 Oct 2001, 07:55 #6

You are correct. Of the 4 Greek MSS which contain the comma, two are of very late origin, and the other two, although older, contain the comma in a marginal note that may be up to several centuries removed from the copying of the text.
From what I read, there are as many as 8 Greek manuscripts with the comma, 4 of which have it in the margin.
I disagree with the Latin Patristics evidence. I don't think it is quoted as early as 250 AD. I know some people think Cyprian quoted the verse, but after finding it in context and going over it again and again, I think he is not quoting it, but, suggesting that the "Spirit, the water, and the blood" symbolizes the Trinity. There was at least one other writer who believed that and said so rather specifically.
Tertullian is another who is said to have quoted it, but after finding it in context and doing some careful reading, I think what Tertullian was quoting was the baptismal formula, not the comma because he said "of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
The earliest mention seems to me to be that of a heretic (and I don't remember his name, right now). But, the heresy he followed sees a distinction between the Son and the Word. And, my understanding of those Latin manuscripts is that the comma is not found in the earliest manuscripts. It starts to appear around the 6th century and then, in the Spanish Latin manuscripts.
I read an article somewhere, that explained the grammar problem you brought up in another post. The article states that there is a way that the grammar is not messed up by the lack of the comma. Unfortunately, I don't understand Greek, so I can't explain how it works, and I can't find where that article was. I have searched and searched for it, but I haven't been able to find it.
Reply

phoggy
Registered User
Joined: 11 Oct 2001, 05:27

30 Oct 2001, 17:15 #7

could the article have been at:www.kjvonly.org/gary/gram...gument.htm
Reply

DocCas
Registered User
Joined: 26 Jul 2001, 07:20

30 Oct 2001, 18:21 #8

The above referenced article is very poorly researched. The author states: "As far as we have been able to discover, this argument was first suggested by Robert L. Dabney in 1871. Aware of the fact that the manuscript (external) evidence for the verse is extremely scant, Dabney introduced a new argument in its favor based upon what he believed to be an important internal consideration:" - then give the argument from grammar.
If the author would have done a bit more research he would have found that Gregory of Nazianzus, writing in his "Theological Orations" - the 5th Oration, "On the Holy Spirit" (about 385 AD, almost 1500 years earlier!) wrote these words, "What about John then, when in his Catholic Epistle he says that there are three that bear witness, the Spirit and the Water and the Blood? Do you think he is talking nonsense? First, because he has ventured to reckon, under one numeral, things which are not consubstantial, though, you say this ought to be done only in the case of things which are consubstantial. For who would assert that these are consubstantial? Secondly, because he had not been consistent in the way he has happened upon 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 yourself disclaim in the case of Deity?" (See "The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers" Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978, Volume 7, pages 233-234.) [Emphasis mine]
Reply

phoggy
Registered User
Joined: 11 Oct 2001, 05:27

30 Oct 2001, 21:27 #9

Thanks for your post! I appreciate the reference to Gregory, but, if I may make a brief comment, I must admit to having some trouble understanding the quotation. I have read Michael Maynard's book and have looked up a number of his references in my research into the question of the authenticity of the Johannine Comma. I had the opportunity to read the Gregory passage in its larger context and perhaps you could help me be clear on something. As I read the passage, Gregory is not, in fact, defending the Johannine Comma. What he is doing is defending the Johannine grammar as it exists *without* the Comma. He is somewhat sarcastically suggesting that his (i.e. Gregory's) opponents have misunderstood the passage. They are accusing John of talking nonsense because they think John's grammar is absurd. Consider the first part of the quote. "Do you think he is talking nonsense? First, because he has ventured to reckon, under one numeral, things which are not consubstantial, though, you say this ought to be done only in the case of things which are consubstantial. For who would assert that these are consubstantial?" Here it seems to me that Gregory's opponents *think* that John is talking nonsense. They are saying that John has put "under one numeral things which are not consubstantial." This is, in fact, what John *did.* He used the numeral one to describe the Spirit, the water and the blood in verse 8. They say: John is not making sense here. Gregory says (to paraphrase): *Why* do you think he's talking nonsense...just because he describes 3 non-consubstantial things as being "one" ? In other words, here it seems that Gregory is _not denying_ that John has done what the opponents have accused him of doing. Rather, Gregory is asking them why they think that it is nonsense. "Do you think he is talking nonsense because he says this?" Implied answer, "no!" But the point is that Gregory acknowledges that John did, in fact, do what the opponents suggested! So when we come to the next part of the quote we see Gregory doing *the same thing*-- defending John against a charge of nonsense, **even though he _did_ what Gregory's opponents have accused him of doing!** Gregory: Do you guys think he's talking nonsense secondly "because he had not been consistent in the way he has happened upon terms." They and Gregory are looking at the same text, the one *without* the Johannine Comma. Hence, their accusations of grammatical inconsistency. Gregory's response is not, as I read it, to say he has a text _without_ the grammatical irregularity. Rather, he does the same thing that he did with their first complaint. He says: why do you think it is nonsense ? Just as John *did,* as the opponents said, take 3 non-consubstantial (i.e. not of the same substance/essence) things and spoke of them as being "one," so here "after using THREE in the masculine gender [John] adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down." That's what John did. He used "three witnesses" in the masc. followed by three things (Spirit, water and blood) in the neuter just as it is in the text without the Johannine Comma! That is what Gregory's opponents accused John of doing, and it's what Gregory responds to by denying that it is nonsense. He says what's the difference if John has a masc. "three" followed by three neuter individual nouns, or if he had three masc. nouns followed by a neuter "three"? (And observe the note of disdain in "you" and "your grammarians" who consider such grammar invalid.) If Gregory had a text *with* the Comma, he should/could have said, "Your Bibles are different than mine! You have a grammatical problem in yours, but mine has no such irregularity," precisely as people defending the Comma do today. Instead he presents a response designed to question their charges of John's grammar being "nonsense." In sum, the part of the Gregory quote which you put in bold letters is not Gregory's accusation against his opponents, as if he is saying that their understanding of the passage without the Comma is nonsense. To the contrary, when read in context, the quote seems to be fairly plainly (to me) an indirect reference to something *they* were saying against Gregory in order to ridicule his understanding of the passage. He cites two reasons that they considered the grammar of the passage problematic, and he does not deny their observations, only their judgement of "nonsense." I would appreciate any response that would show me how I have misunderstood the context of the Gregory quote. Thanks.
Reply

DocCas
Registered User
Joined: 26 Jul 2001, 07:20

30 Oct 2001, 23:31 #10

Gregory is objecting to the masculine of verse 7 equating to the neuters of verse 8, which only happens if the comma is omited. He maintans that John is not speaking nonsense, but that the reading without the comma is grammatically incorrect. That is the point of the post, showing the research of the article was incomplete, saying, as it did, that the grammar argument dates only to the late 1800s.
Reply