Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt does not matter to me if it is your version or not. This is consistent with the rest of scripture and were probaly just missed as a copy error. It is much mor likely that a mistake is make in which someting is missed and left out, than for one to copy something that was never there.
It may first be noted that the words “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” (KJ) found in older translations at 1 John 5:7 are actually spurious additions to the original text. A footnote in The Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic translation, says that these words are “not in any of the early Greek MSS [manuscripts], ...[text shortened]... eir spurious nature.—RS, NE, NAB.
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200004211#h=18:0-18:958
Originally posted by RJHindsNo its consistent with nothing but a spurious trinitarian trying to interpolate scriptures where none existed in the original. You have been caught once again Hinds using underhanded and dishonest means to promote your propaganda. The FACT is that the verse does not exist in the best original manuscripts and was added later. That is the FACTS. You and Witness Lee are now bedfellows of unrighteousness.
It does not matter to me if it is your version or not. This is consistent with the rest of scripture and were probaly just missed as a copy error. It is much mor likely that a mistake is make in which someting is missed and left out, than for one to copy something that was never there.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe best original manuscript in your opinion is the one that makes the most copy errors that agrees with your Watchtower's cult interpretation. However, even that was not good enough, because the Watchtower had to come up with their own translation to support their false teachings.
No its consistent with nothing but a spurious trinitarian trying to interpolate scriptures where none existed in the original. You have been caught once again Hinds using underhanded and dishonest means to promote your propaganda. The FACT is that the verse does not exist in the best original manuscripts and was added later. That is the FACTS. You and Witness Lee are now bedfellows of unrighteousness.
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsThe best manuscripts are known by all and have nothing to do with your religious prejudices. I did not mention the watchtower magazine or The new world translation, you did because that's how weak, flimsy and beggarly your arguments are.
The best original manuscript in your opinion is the one that makes the most copy errors that agrees with your Watchtower's cult interpretation. However, even that was not good enough, because the Watchtower had to come up with their own translation to support their false teachings.
Its an interpolation, get over it Hinds.
Bruce Metzger to my knowledge is not a Witness not associated with the Watchtower Bible and tract society, nor is he on the writing committee of the New world translation. Here is what he stated.
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, by Bruce Metzger (1975, pp. 716-718), traces in detail the history of the spurious passage. It states that the passage is first found in a treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus, of the fourth century, and that it appears in Old Latin and Vulgate manuscripts of the Scriptures, beginning in the sixth century. Modern translations as a whole, both Catholic and Protestant, do not include them in the main body of the text, because of recognizing their spurious nature.—RS, NE, NAB.
What does that do for your silly assertions, that's correct, it makes you look stupid and you did it all by yourself.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have a lot more evidence on the Jehovah Witness and watchtower cult than i do on the false teachings of Witness Lee's Local Church cult. If you want, I will gather it all up and refresh my memory and start on that next week.
The best manuscripts are known by all and have nothing to do with your religious prejudices. I did not mention the watchtower magazine or The new world translation, you did because that's how weak, flimsy and beggarly your arguments are.
Its an interpolation, get over it Hinds.
Bruce Metzger to my knowledge is not a Witness not associated w ...[text shortened]... your silly assertions, that's correct, it makes you look stupid and you did it all by yourself.
Originally posted by RJHindsNo no sir, take a month or two to gather your evidence. Why not find some solitude to do it, on the summit of Mount Sinai perhaps?
If you want, I will gather it all up and refresh my memory and start on that next week.
Alas, there is limited internet connection there, but at least you will be free from distractions. (Excluding the voices in your head and the nits in your beard).
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsYou seem incapable of honestly replying to the content of the posts that have been provided already and instead of addressing the issue (that being that you have utilised a text that is clearly spurious and a trinitarian interpolation) you have done the very same thing as Jaywill, attempted to create a diversion by references to irrelevancies like Jehovahs Witnsesses and the Watchtower magazine (none of which were mentioned) making you either incapable of rational thought or intellectually dishonest but certainly hypocritical.
I have a lot more evidence on the Jehovah Witness and watchtower cult than i do on the false teachings of Witness Lee's Local Church cult. If you want, I will gather it all up and refresh my memory and start on that next week.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieJust because one has a copy of a text dated earlier than a copy of another text does not mean one knows which text is the most accurate. That is not an intelligent way to determine accuracy of texts.
You seem incapable of honestly replying to the content of the posts that have been provided already and instead of addressing the issue (that being that you have utilised a text that is clearly spurious and a trinitarian interpolation) you have done the very same thing as Jaywill, attempted to create a diversion by references to irrelevancies like Je ...[text shortened]... you either incapable of rational thought or intellectually dishonest but certainly hypocritical.
The Majority Text has been known throughout history by several names. It has been known as the Byzantine text, the Imperial Text, the Traditional Text and the Reformation Text as well as the Majority Text. This text culminates in the Received Text which is the basis for the King James Bible, which we know also as the Authorized Version.... We describe this text with the term "Universal," because it represents the majority of extant manuscripts which represent the original autographs.
Professor Hodges of Dallas Theological Seminary explains, "The manuscript of an ancient book will, under any but the most exceptional conditions, multiply in a reasonable regular fashion with the result that the copies nearest the autograph will normally have the largest number of descendants. Thus the Majority text, upon which the King James Version is based, has in reality the strongest claim possible to be regarded as an authentic representation of the original text. This claim is quite independent of any shifting consensus of scholarly judgment about its readings and is based on the objective reality of its dominance in the transmissional history of the New Testament text."
http://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/textusr1.html
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsThe authors of the King James version based their text not on original Greek manuscripts, of which they could of had no more than a handful, but on the Latin Vulgate making the King James version not a translation, but a translation of a translation. Now the translators did an excellent job with what they had but since then thousands of manuscripts, codices and papyri have become available and can be cross examined with one another and a consensus reached upon which texts were in the original autographs and which were later interpolations. None of these resources was available to the translators of the King James version making your professor friends comments demonstrably false because older autographs are very useful in determining the authenticity of a text. As a consequence the King James version cannot possibly have the strongest claim as the authentic representation of the original text and your professor friend must either be extremely ignorant, religiously biased or found his doctorate floating in the Gulf of Mexico!
Just because one has a copy of a text dated earlier than a copy of another text does not mean one knows which text is the most accurate. That is not an intelligent way to determine accuracy of texts.
The Majority Text has been known throughout history by several names. It has been known as the Byzantine text, the Imperial Text, the Traditional Text and ...[text shortened]... ional history of the New Testament text."
http://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/textusr1.html
3 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe way I understand it, there were a few doubtful or missing portions and the the Latin Vulgate was used as a check and to help fill in missing portions of text. Anyway we have many other versions that include all the text and I compare them to determine if any text might have been left out during copying.
The authors of the King James version based their text not on original Greek manuscripts, of which they could of had no more than a handful, but on the Latin Vulgate making the King James version not a translation, but a translation of a translation. Now the translators did an excellent job with what they had but since then thousands of manuscripts, ...[text shortened]... be extremely ignorant, religiously biased or found his doctorate floating in the Gulf of Mexico!
I have already checked out the NWT of the Watchtower and in most places it is correct and in a very few places even more accurate than the KJV, but there are some deliberate manipulation and deceptive translating performed by the Watchtower folks too.
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsI noticed that you have not yet identified any false teaching from Witness Lee.
Your only doctrinal objection has been about the trinity.
In the mean time there's second opinions out here.
Scholars Who Affirm the Working Together of the Three of the Divine Trinity
A Response to Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes’ Defense of the “Open Letter” and Critique of the Christian Research Journal’s Reassessment of the Local Churches
[T]he will of the Father and the Son is one, and their working indivisible. In like manner, then, let him understand the incarnation and nativity of the Virgin, wherein the Son is understood as sent, to have been wrought by one and the same operation of the Father and of the Son indivisibly; the Holy Spirit certainly not being thence excluded, of whom it is expressly said, “She was found with child by the Holy Ghost.” - Augustine, “On the Holy Trinity,” Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series I, Volume 3, Philip Schaff, ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1887, 1978), p. 41
The Son indeed and not the Father was born of the Virgin Mary; but this very birth of the Son, not of the Father, was the work both of the Father and the Son. The Father indeed suffered not, but the Son, yet the suffering of the Son was the work of the Father and the Son. The Father did not rise again, but the Son, yet the resurrection of the Son was the work of the Father and the Son. - Augustine, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series I, Volume 6, “Sermon II: Of the words of St. Matthew’s Gospel, Chap. iii. 13, ‘Then Jesus cometh from Galilee to the Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.’ Concerning the Trinity.”, Philip Schaff, ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1887, 1979), p. 261
I say not this as though one person succeeded unto another in their operation, or as though where one ceased and gave over a work, the other took it up and carried it on; for every divine work, and every part of every divine work, is the work of God, that is, of the whole Trinity, inseparably and undividedly… – John Owen, Pneumatologia, p. 94, available at www.ccel.org/ccel/ owen/pneum.i.v.iv.html
Perichoresis means that not only do the three members of the Trinity interpenetrate one another, but all three are involved in all the works of God. While certain works are primarily or more centrally the doing of one of these rather than the others, all participate to some degree in what is done. Thus, while redemption is obviously the work of the incarnate Son, the Father and the Spirit are also involved. Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995), p. 235
http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/responses/Geisler-Rhodes/scholars-on-coworking-of-the-Three.html