N.Testament interpretation

[Kutless]

One question that is raised is the notion of poosible additions to the original.

Example: ICorin. 14:29-37.

Right smack in the middle of a prophecy discussion is the insertion of the whole "women keeping silent" thing. What does that have to do with it?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Kutless

One question that is raised is the notion of poosible additions to the original.

Example: ICorin. 14:29-37.

Right smack in the middle of a prophecy discussion is the insertion of the whole "women keeping silent" thing. What does that have to do with it?

The chapter is about order and conduct of people in service. And silence or speaking is an issue of order.

[Kutless]

So out of the 1000's of manuscripts over the last 2000yrs the textus receptus is most reliable?

[Kutless]

Supposedly it is well documented that Erasmus (KJV)was pressured by the ecclesiastical authorities of the day to include words, phrases, and entire verses that were not part of the original text.

Originally Posted by Kutless

Supposedly it is well documented that Erasmus (KJV)was pressured by the ecclesiastical authorities of the day to include words, phrases, and entire verses that were not part of the original text.

Erasmus relied at least in part on Jerome's Latin Vulgate when he came up with his Greek text. He added passages such as 1 John 5:7 that were most likely margin notes that were mistakenly put into the text.

[Kutless]

Originally Posted by Chan

Erasmus relied at least in part on Jerome's Latin Vulgate when he came up with his Greek text. He added passages such as 1 John 5:7 that were most likely margin notes that were mistakenly put into the text.

So in knowing this how can we be sure that the NT wasn't a interpretation free-for-all?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Kutless

So out of the 1000's of manuscripts over the last 2000yrs the textus receptus is most reliable?

I think so!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Kutless

Supposedly it is well documented that Erasmus (KJV)was pressured by the ecclesiastical authorities of the day to include words, phrases, and entire verses that were not part of the original text.

Whatever the case, the Textus Receptus is from a starin of texts carried through the centuries by people generation after generation who felt God's Word qwas not lost but inspired and that they were being used by God to ensure it remain intact. The Alexandrian line is simply NOT that conscientious about it all. So it comes down to a matter of faith. Will we trust God for His word?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Chan

Erasmus relied at least in part on Jerome's Latin Vulgate when he came up with his Greek text. He added passages such as 1 John 5:7 that were most likely margin notes that were mistakenly put into the text.

I disagree that 1 John 5:7-8 are unreliable and not correct. This "Johanine Comma" says nothing against what the rest of the bible says. I like how it includes THE WORD, instead of the SON, indicating oneness.

[Kutless]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I disagree that 1 John 5:7-8 are unreliable and not correct. This "Johanine Comma" says nothing against what the rest of the bible says. I like how it includes THE WORD, instead of the SON, indicating oneness.

Then why do they not appear before 385 A.D.