Comments for KJV Only Debate Blog http://kjvonlydebate.com Was 1611 the last word for the English Bible? Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:22:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on National Geographic Features the King James Bible and Its Legacy by Leonardo http://kjvonlydebate.com/2011/11/28/national-geographic-features-the-king-james-bible-and-its-legacy/#comment-85981 Leonardo Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:22:06 +0000 http://kjvonlydebate.com/?p=2458#comment-85981 Hi, Is there an up to date translation of the Geneva Bible? Hi,

Is there an up to date translation of the Geneva Bible?

]]> Comment on “The Best Cure for KJVOism: A Real 1611 KJV” by Doug Kutilek by Nicholas http://kjvonlydebate.com/2011/06/06/the-best-cure-for-kjvoism-a-real-1611-kjv-by-doug-kutilek/#comment-85914 Nicholas Mon, 23 Jan 2012 05:58:31 +0000 http://kjvonlydebate.com/?p=2330#comment-85914 Redgreen, do you believe that Rome's gospel saves? Do you disagree with Martin Luther when he wrote that the Pope is the very Antichrist? http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/resources/WrightAntichrist.PDF Redgreen, do you believe that Rome’s gospel saves? Do you disagree with Martin Luther when he wrote that the Pope is the very Antichrist?

http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/resources/WrightAntichrist.PDF

]]> Comment on “The Best Cure for KJVOism: A Real 1611 KJV” by Doug Kutilek by Ahmed http://kjvonlydebate.com/2011/06/06/the-best-cure-for-kjvoism-a-real-1611-kjv-by-doug-kutilek/#comment-83778 Ahmed Sat, 14 Jan 2012 06:53:32 +0000 http://kjvonlydebate.com/?p=2330#comment-83778 May I ask, if your presumption is that God preserved his Word in a specific set of MSS, why did he allow other MSS to survive and to be referred to by church fathers? If God intended to just rely on the TR or the MajT, why preserve Alex-types? I'm all in favor of having an opinion and you're free to prefer the TR or MajT, but why not allow the Alex-types to weigh in on some verses? I have found that doing so often enhances one's view of Christ's deity, not diminishes it. Peace. May I ask, if your presumption is that God preserved his Word in a specific set of MSS, why did he allow other MSS to survive and to be referred to by church fathers? If God intended to just rely on the TR or the MajT, why preserve Alex-types? I’m all in favor of having an opinion and you’re free to prefer the TR or MajT, but why not allow the Alex-types to weigh in on some verses? I have found that doing so often enhances one’s view of Christ’s deity, not diminishes it. Peace.

]]> Comment on “The Best Cure for KJVOism: A Real 1611 KJV” by Doug Kutilek by Ahmed http://kjvonlydebate.com/2011/06/06/the-best-cure-for-kjvoism-a-real-1611-kjv-by-doug-kutilek/#comment-83774 Ahmed Sat, 14 Jan 2012 06:31:20 +0000 http://kjvonlydebate.com/?p=2330#comment-83774 I have no reply except to say your story was inspiring. To just hear how you are searching for the pearl of the gospel essentially (not searching like a Buddhist, but searching within the safe walls of the Scriptures). You want to know the truth, and the Christ that is in them! That's great to read. I too am working through the textual issues but believe that whatever "side" we land on in terms of the MSS, the Christ of Scripture must always be foremost. God bless. I have no reply except to say your story was inspiring. To just hear how you are searching for the pearl of the gospel essentially (not searching like a Buddhist, but searching within the safe walls of the Scriptures). You want to know the truth, and the Christ that is in them! That’s great to read. I too am working through the textual issues but believe that whatever “side” we land on in terms of the MSS, the Christ of Scripture must always be foremost. God bless.

]]> Comment on The Comma Johanneum: A Critical Evaluation of the Text of 1 John 5.7-8 by C.L. Bolt by Jim1 http://kjvonlydebate.com/2011/11/08/the-comma-johanneum-a-critical-evaluation-of-the-text-of-1-john-5-7-8-by-c-l-bolt/#comment-83182 Jim1 Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:48:15 +0000 http://kjvonlydebate.com/?p=2441#comment-83182 (Majority Text) 1 John 2:16 … παν το … επιθυμια … επιθυμια … αλαζονεια … 2:16 every the-thing [neuter in agreement with the natural gender (neuter) of the idea being expressed (things because lust, lust and pride are three things) instead of feminine in agreement with the grammatical genders (feminine, feminine, feminine) of the multiple nouns (lust, lust, pride)] … lust [feminine] … lust [feminine] … pride [feminine] … (Majority Text) 1 John 2:21 … την αληθειαν … αυτην … 2:21 … the truth [feminine] … it [feminine in agreement with the grammatical gender (feminine) of the single preceding antecedent noun (truth) instead of neuter in agreement with the natural gender (neuter) of the idea being expressed (a thing because the truth is a thing)] … (Majority Text) 1 John 5:6 … το πνευμα … το μαρτυρουν … 5:6 … the Spirit [neuter] … the-thing bearing-witness [neuter in agreement with the grammatical gender (neuter) of the single preceding antecedent noun (Spirit) instead of masculine in agreement with the natural gender (masculine) of the idea being expressed (a person because the Spirit is a person)] … (Majority Text) 1 John 5:7 … οι μαρτυρουντες 8 … πνευμα … υδωρ … αιμα … 5:7 … the-ones bearing-witness [masculine in agreement with the natural gender (masculine) of the idea being expressed (a person and things because the Spirit, water and Blood are a person and two things) instead neuter in agreement with the grammatical genders (neuter, neuter, neuter) of the multiple nouns (Spirit, water, Blood)], 8 … Spirit [neuter] … water [neuter] … Blood [neuter] … OR (Majority Text) 1 John 5:7 … οι μαρτυρουντες 8 … πνευμα … υδωρ … αιμα … 9 … την μαρτυριαν των ανθρωπων … 5:7 … the-ones bearing-witness [masculine in agreement with the natural gender (masculine) of the idea being expressed (persons because the men in the witness of the men, to whom the Spirit, water and Blood are being compared, are three persons) instead neuter in agreement with the grammatical genders (neuter, neuter, neuter) of the multiple nouns (Spirit, water, Blood)], 8 … Spirit [neuter] … water [neuter] … Blood [neuter] … 9 … the witness of-the men [the three witnesses in which are the-ones bearing-witness (the three men, hence the masculine gender), to whom the Spirit, water and Blood are being compared] … Just as the gender of the substantive is feminine (GRAMMATICAL GENDER AGREEMENT) instead of neuter (natural gender agreement) in THE SINGLE PRECEDING ANTECEDENT NOUN CONSTRUCTION in 1 John 2:21, likewise the gender of the substantive is neuter (GRAMMATICAL GENDER AGREEMENT) instead of masculine (natural gender agreement) in THE SINGLE PRECEDING ANTECEDENT NOUN CONSTRUCTION in 1 John 5:6. That is what ALMOST ALWAYS happens in EVERY SINGLE PRECEDING ANTECEDENT NOUN CONSTRUCTION in the New Testament. Just as the gender of the substantive is neuter (NATURAL GENDER AGREEMENT) instead of feminine (grammatical gender agreement) in THE MULTIPLE NOUN CONSTRUCTION in 1 John 2:16, likewise the gender of the verb’s subject is masculine (NATURAL GENDER AGREEMENT) instead of neuter (grammatical gender agreement) in THE MULTIPLE NOUN CONSTRUCTION in 1 John 5:7-8. That is what ALWAYS happens in EVERY MULTIPLE NOUN CONSTRUCTION in the New Testament. The verb’s subject οι μαρτυρουντες (the-ones bearing-witness / masculine) is no more supposed to be neuter in agreement with the grammatical genders (neuter, neuter, neuter) of the multiple nouns πνευμα (Spirit), υδωρ (water) and αιμα (Blood) in 1 John 5:7-8 than the verb’s subject παν το (every the-thing / neuter) is supposed to be feminine in agreement with the grammatical genders (feminine, feminine, feminine) of the multiple nouns επιθυμια (lust), επιθυμια (lust) and αλαζονεια (pride) in 1 John 2:16. In the phrase τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες (three they-are, the-ones bearing-witness), the word εισιν (they-are) is the verb, and the phrase οι μαρτυρουντες (the-ones bearing-witness) is the verb’s subject, which is masculine in agreement with the natural gender (masculine) of the idea being expressed (either a person and two things or the three person to whom the person and two things are being compared), which (natural gender agreement) is what always occurs in every multiple noun construction in the New Testament, and the word τρεις (three) is the predicate adjective, which modifies the verb’s subject, describing the verb’s subject to be three in number, and which is therefore masculine in agreement with the verb’s masculine subject. (Majority Text) 1 John 2:16 … παν το … επιθυμια … επιθυμια … αλαζονεια …

2:16 every the-thing [neuter in agreement with the natural gender (neuter) of the idea being expressed (things because lust, lust and pride are three things) instead of feminine in agreement with the grammatical genders (feminine, feminine, feminine) of the multiple nouns (lust, lust, pride)] … lust [feminine] … lust [feminine] … pride [feminine] …

(Majority Text) 1 John 2:21 … την αληθειαν … αυτην …

2:21 … the truth [feminine] … it [feminine in agreement with the grammatical gender (feminine) of the single preceding antecedent noun (truth) instead of neuter in agreement with the natural gender (neuter) of the idea being expressed (a thing because the truth is a thing)] …

(Majority Text) 1 John 5:6 … το πνευμα … το μαρτυρουν …

5:6 … the Spirit [neuter] … the-thing bearing-witness [neuter in agreement with the grammatical gender (neuter) of the single preceding antecedent noun (Spirit) instead of masculine in agreement with the natural gender (masculine) of the idea being expressed (a person because the Spirit is a person)] …

(Majority Text) 1 John 5:7 … οι μαρτυρουντες 8 … πνευμα … υδωρ … αιμα …

5:7 … the-ones bearing-witness [masculine in agreement with the natural gender (masculine) of the idea being expressed (a person and things because the Spirit, water and Blood are a person and two things) instead neuter in agreement with the grammatical genders (neuter, neuter, neuter) of the multiple nouns (Spirit, water, Blood)], 8 … Spirit [neuter] … water [neuter] … Blood [neuter] …

OR

(Majority Text) 1 John 5:7 … οι μαρτυρουντες 8 … πνευμα … υδωρ … αιμα … 9 … την μαρτυριαν των ανθρωπων …

5:7 … the-ones bearing-witness [masculine in agreement with the natural gender (masculine) of the idea being expressed (persons because the men in the witness of the men, to whom the Spirit, water and Blood are being compared, are three persons) instead neuter in agreement with the grammatical genders (neuter, neuter, neuter) of the multiple nouns (Spirit, water, Blood)], 8 … Spirit [neuter] … water [neuter] … Blood [neuter] … 9 … the witness of-the men [the three witnesses in which are the-ones bearing-witness (the three men, hence the masculine gender), to whom the Spirit, water and Blood are being compared] …

Just as the gender of the substantive is feminine (GRAMMATICAL GENDER AGREEMENT) instead of neuter (natural gender agreement) in THE SINGLE PRECEDING ANTECEDENT NOUN CONSTRUCTION in 1 John 2:21, likewise the gender of the substantive is neuter (GRAMMATICAL GENDER AGREEMENT) instead of masculine (natural gender agreement) in THE SINGLE PRECEDING ANTECEDENT NOUN CONSTRUCTION in 1 John 5:6. That is what ALMOST ALWAYS happens in EVERY SINGLE PRECEDING ANTECEDENT NOUN CONSTRUCTION in the New Testament.

Just as the gender of the substantive is neuter (NATURAL GENDER AGREEMENT) instead of feminine (grammatical gender agreement) in THE MULTIPLE NOUN CONSTRUCTION in 1 John 2:16, likewise the gender of the verb’s subject is masculine (NATURAL GENDER AGREEMENT) instead of neuter (grammatical gender agreement) in THE MULTIPLE NOUN CONSTRUCTION in 1 John 5:7-8. That is what ALWAYS happens in EVERY MULTIPLE NOUN CONSTRUCTION in the New Testament.

The verb’s subject οι μαρτυρουντες (the-ones bearing-witness / masculine) is no more supposed to be neuter in agreement with the grammatical genders (neuter, neuter, neuter) of the multiple nouns πνευμα (Spirit), υδωρ (water) and αιμα (Blood) in 1 John 5:7-8 than the verb’s subject παν το (every the-thing / neuter) is supposed to be feminine in agreement with the grammatical genders (feminine, feminine, feminine) of the multiple nouns επιθυμια (lust), επιθυμια (lust) and αλαζονεια (pride) in 1 John 2:16.

In the phrase τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες (three they-are, the-ones bearing-witness), the word εισιν (they-are) is the verb, and the phrase οι μαρτυρουντες (the-ones bearing-witness) is the verb’s subject, which is masculine in agreement with the natural gender (masculine) of the idea being expressed (either a person and two things or the three person to whom the person and two things are being compared), which (natural gender agreement) is what always occurs in every multiple noun construction in the New Testament, and the word τρεις (three) is the predicate adjective, which modifies the verb’s subject, describing the verb’s subject to be three in number, and which is therefore masculine in agreement with the verb’s masculine subject.

]]> Comment on A Play On Words And A KJV Translation by Jennifer http://kjvonlydebate.com/2009/10/12/a-play-on-words-and-a-kjv-translation/#comment-82563 Jennifer Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:36:58 +0000 http://kjvodebate.wordpress.com/?p=299#comment-82563 Any translation coming out of Alexandria, Egypt will be/is flawed. The translation coming from Antioch is the accurate preserved Word of God. Egypt is always the picture of sin. The disciples were first called christians in Antioch. The KJB is highly relevant and accurate for all time periods including today. Many words in the newer versions are actually harder to understand. The newer versions have not the beautiful cadence and poetry of the KJB. Additionally, the KJB defines itself within the text. This is a valuable study should you take an interest in researching it. Any translation coming out of Alexandria, Egypt will be/is flawed. The translation coming from Antioch is the accurate preserved Word of God. Egypt is always the picture of sin. The disciples were first called christians in Antioch. The KJB is highly relevant and accurate for all time periods including today. Many words in the newer versions are actually harder to understand. The newer versions have not the beautiful cadence and poetry of the KJB. Additionally, the KJB defines itself within the text. This is a valuable study should you take an interest in researching it.

]]> Comment on How Usage in English Changes Over Time… by Kate Gladstone http://kjvonlydebate.com/2010/09/21/how-usage-in-english-changes-over-time/#comment-82356 Kate Gladstone Mon, 09 Jan 2012 23:28:03 +0000 http://kjvonlydebate.com/?p=977#comment-82356 Let's hope you're right; that the KJVOnly-ists will have to change their minds when KJV English becomes to posterity as Chaucer or Beowulf has become to us. Remember, though, that the Latin Vulgate translation (also originally meant for the people to understand) remained in use during the millennium-or-so in which it was gradually becoming incomprehensible because Latin was changing into Italian and Spanish and Portuguese and French and Rumanian — the "Latin-Vulgate-Only"-ists (a/k/a the Church of Rome) had no will to change their venerated translation, because the clergy could always interpret it (in whatever way seemed good to the clergy) while the congregation listened. There were, doubtless, certain advantages (for the clergy) in having God speak a language that required the clergy to interpret, more and more of it needing interpretation as the generations passed. Are those clerical advantages — and that history of a book becoming sealed — anything that the KJVOnly-ites might likewise find pleasant and profitable for them, if the KJVOnly-ites can become the gatekeepers of the Word? I fear that KJVOnly-ite pastors, or some of them, would gladly do with their beloved KJV as once the Catholic priests did with their beloved Vulgate. Let’s hope you’re right; that the KJVOnly-ists will have to change their minds when KJV English becomes to posterity as Chaucer or Beowulf has become to us. Remember, though, that the Latin Vulgate translation (also originally meant for the people to understand) remained in use during the millennium-or-so in which it was gradually becoming incomprehensible because Latin was changing into Italian and Spanish and Portuguese and French and Rumanian — the “Latin-Vulgate-Only”-ists (a/k/a the Church of Rome) had no will to change their venerated translation, because the clergy could always interpret it (in whatever way seemed good to the clergy) while the congregation listened. There were, doubtless, certain advantages (for the clergy) in having God speak a language that required the clergy to interpret, more and more of it needing interpretation as the generations passed. Are those clerical advantages — and that history of a book becoming sealed — anything that the KJVOnly-ites might likewise find pleasant and profitable for them, if the KJVOnly-ites can become the gatekeepers of the Word? I fear that KJVOnly-ite pastors, or some of them, would gladly do with their beloved KJV as once the Catholic priests did with their beloved Vulgate.

]]> Comment on “The Best Cure for KJVOism: A Real 1611 KJV” by Doug Kutilek by Donex7 http://kjvonlydebate.com/2011/06/06/the-best-cure-for-kjvoism-a-real-1611-kjv-by-doug-kutilek/#comment-82124 Donex7 Mon, 09 Jan 2012 04:50:50 +0000 http://kjvonlydebate.com/?p=2330#comment-82124 Hello everyone. I have a few questions to those who do not believe (like Doug Kutilek) that we have the preserved Word of God today contained in the KJV. Doug Kutilek (and co.)obviously does not believe that the KJV is reliable..and so are the rest of the modern versions that's why he (they) used other modern versions which he think is more "accurate" but not reliable nonetheless. I think modern versionist position is that they believe that no single Bible translation is perfectly preserved up to today. So here's my few questions: 1. If the KJV (and also your preferred version) is unreliable based on your facts and judgment then how can you say for certainty that you are saved? don't give me John 3:16 or Ephesians 2:8-9, or Acts 16:31, etc. they are all unreliable anyway, is it? 2. The Lord Jesus Christ said in Matthew 5:18 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Do you really think the Lord Jesus Christ did not mean what He said? For you have been busy promoting and teaching others that the Bible(whatever version)has errors on it and therefore is not an exact representation of the very Word of God. Tell me, which of those "jot or title" needs man's correction to arrive at near accuracy but still unreliable version of the Bible? And if still you insist that those "jot or title" needs correction then tell me, did the Lord Jesus Christ lied? if not, then who? 3. So you want me to believe that you are saved, good. Can you tell me please how were you saved? But...please don't use that verse in that "unreliable" KJV Bible. So which Bible version will you use then? They're all unreliable according to your judgment and intellect, remember? So how can you say you are saved if the only thing that can testify for your faith is...according to you is corrupted and unreliable? 4. It must be a mistake on your part, Mr. Kutilek, to believe in God. You see, the very thing (God's Word)that gave you knowledge about God and the Lord Jesus Christ is nothing but erroneous copies of the original. Then tell me, if we don't have the preserved Word of God today, to which did you anchor your faith? Hello everyone.

I have a few questions to those who do not believe (like Doug Kutilek) that we have the preserved Word of God today contained in the KJV. Doug Kutilek (and co.)obviously does not believe that the KJV is reliable..and so are the rest of the modern versions that’s why he (they) used other modern versions which he think is more “accurate” but not reliable nonetheless. I think modern versionist position is that they believe that no single Bible translation is perfectly preserved up to today. So here’s my few questions:

1. If the KJV (and also your preferred version) is unreliable based on your facts and judgment then how can you say for certainty that you are saved? don’t give me John 3:16 or Ephesians 2:8-9, or Acts 16:31, etc. they are all unreliable anyway, is it?

2. The Lord Jesus Christ said in Matthew 5:18 “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Do you really think the Lord Jesus Christ did not mean what He said? For you have been busy promoting and teaching others that the Bible(whatever version)has errors on it and therefore is not an exact representation of the very Word of God. Tell me, which of those “jot or title” needs man’s correction to arrive at near accuracy but still unreliable version of the Bible? And if still you insist that those “jot or title” needs correction then tell me, did the Lord Jesus Christ lied? if not, then who?

3. So you want me to believe that you are saved, good. Can you tell me please how were you saved? But…please don’t use that verse in that “unreliable” KJV Bible. So which Bible version will you use then? They’re all unreliable according to your judgment and intellect, remember? So how can you say you are saved if the only thing that can testify for your faith is…according to you is corrupted and unreliable?

4. It must be a mistake on your part, Mr. Kutilek, to believe in God. You see, the very thing (God’s Word)that gave you knowledge about God and the Lord Jesus Christ is nothing but erroneous copies of the original. Then tell me, if we don’t have the preserved Word of God today, to which did you anchor your faith?

]]> Comment on The Comma Johanneum: A Critical Evaluation of the Text of 1 John 5.7-8 by C.L. Bolt by Jim1 http://kjvonlydebate.com/2011/11/08/the-comma-johanneum-a-critical-evaluation-of-the-text-of-1-john-5-7-8-by-c-l-bolt/#comment-81915 Jim1 Sun, 08 Jan 2012 12:44:09 +0000 http://kjvonlydebate.com/?p=2441#comment-81915 Dr. White's comment that the number three is often masculine in the New Testament does not address why the masculine gender is used in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text (1 John 5:7-8 in the Critical Text and Majority Text). The neuter gender is used in 1 John 5:6 in agreement with the grammatical gender (neuter) of the single preceding antecedent noun (Spirit) because that is what almost always happens in every single preceding antecedent noun construction in the New Testament. The masculine gender is used in 1 John 5:8 in agreement with the natural gender (masculine) of the idea being expressed (either a person and two things because the Spirit, water and Blood in 1 John 5:8 are a person and two things or three persons because the men in the witness of the men in 1 John 5:9, to whom the Spirit, water and Blood are being compared in 1 John 5:8, are three persons) because that is what always happens in every multiple noun construction in the New Testament. Agreement with the grammatical genders of the multiple nouns never occurs in any multiple noun construction in the New Testament. The grammatical genders of the multiple nouns are always irrelevant. The idea that agreement with the grammatical genders of the multiple nouns occurs in 1 John 5:7 in the Received TExt and that agreement with the grammatical genders of the multiple nouns should occur in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text (1 John 5:7-8 in the Critical Text and Majority Text) is a lie that was started in 1815 by Frederick Nolan (1784-1864). In 1 John 2:21, the substantive (it) agrees with the grammatical gender (feminine) of the single preceding antecedent noun (truth) instead of agreeing with the natural gender (neuter) of the idea being expressed (a thing because truth is a thing). In 1 John 5:6, the substantive (the-thing bearing-witness) agrees with the grammatical gender (neuter) of the single preceding antecedent noun (Spirit) instead of agreeing with the natural gender (masculine) of the idea being expressed (a person because the Spirit is a person). That is what almost always happens in every single preceding antecedent noun construction in the New Testament. In 1 John 2:16, the substantive (every the-thing) agrees with the natural gender (neuter) of the idea being expressed (three things because lust, lust and pride are three things) instead of agreeing with the grammatical genders (feminine, feminine, feminine) of the multiple nouns (lust, lust, pride). In 1 John 5:7, the substantive (the-ones bearing-witness) agrees with the natural gender (masculine) of the idea being expressed (three persons because the Father, Word and Spirit are three persons) instead of agreeing with the grammatical genders (masculine, masculine, neuter) of the multiple nouns (Father, Word, Spirit). In 1 John 5:8, the substantive (the-ones bearing-witness) agrees with the natural gender (masculine) of the idea being expressed (either a person and two things because the Spirit, water and Blood in 1 John 5:8 are a person and two things or three persons because the men in the witness of the men in 1 John 5:9, to whom the Spirit, water and Blood are being compared in 1 John 5:8, are three persons) instead of agreeing with the grammatical genders (neuter, neuter, neuter) of the multiple nouns (Spirit, water, Blood). That is what always happens in every multiple noun construction in the New Testament. The grammatical genders of the multiple nouns are always irrelevant. There is no such thing as agreement with the grammatical genders of multiple nouns. It never happens. Never. Dr. White’s comment that the number three is often masculine in the New Testament does not address why the masculine gender is used in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text (1 John 5:7-8 in the Critical Text and Majority Text). The neuter gender is used in 1 John 5:6 in agreement with the grammatical gender (neuter) of the single preceding antecedent noun (Spirit) because that is what almost always happens in every single preceding antecedent noun construction in the New Testament. The masculine gender is used in 1 John 5:8 in agreement with the natural gender (masculine) of the idea being expressed (either a person and two things because the Spirit, water and Blood in 1 John 5:8 are a person and two things or three persons because the men in the witness of the men in 1 John 5:9, to whom the Spirit, water and Blood are being compared in 1 John 5:8, are three persons) because that is what always happens in every multiple noun construction in the New Testament. Agreement with the grammatical genders of the multiple nouns never occurs in any multiple noun construction in the New Testament. The grammatical genders of the multiple nouns are always irrelevant. The idea that agreement with the grammatical genders of the multiple nouns occurs in 1 John 5:7 in the Received TExt and that agreement with the grammatical genders of the multiple nouns should occur in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text (1 John 5:7-8 in the Critical Text and Majority Text) is a lie that was started in 1815 by Frederick Nolan (1784-1864). In 1 John 2:21, the substantive (it) agrees with the grammatical gender (feminine) of the single preceding antecedent noun (truth) instead of agreeing with the natural gender (neuter) of the idea being expressed (a thing because truth is a thing). In 1 John 5:6, the substantive (the-thing bearing-witness) agrees with the grammatical gender (neuter) of the single preceding antecedent noun (Spirit) instead of agreeing with the natural gender (masculine) of the idea being expressed (a person because the Spirit is a person). That is what almost always happens in every single preceding antecedent noun construction in the New Testament. In 1 John 2:16, the substantive (every the-thing) agrees with the natural gender (neuter) of the idea being expressed (three things because lust, lust and pride are three things) instead of agreeing with the grammatical genders (feminine, feminine, feminine) of the multiple nouns (lust, lust, pride). In 1 John 5:7, the substantive (the-ones bearing-witness) agrees with the natural gender (masculine) of the idea being expressed (three persons because the Father, Word and Spirit are three persons) instead of agreeing with the grammatical genders (masculine, masculine, neuter) of the multiple nouns (Father, Word, Spirit). In 1 John 5:8, the substantive (the-ones bearing-witness) agrees with the natural gender (masculine) of the idea being expressed (either a person and two things because the Spirit, water and Blood in 1 John 5:8 are a person and two things or three persons because the men in the witness of the men in 1 John 5:9, to whom the Spirit, water and Blood are being compared in 1 John 5:8, are three persons) instead of agreeing with the grammatical genders (neuter, neuter, neuter) of the multiple nouns (Spirit, water, Blood). That is what always happens in every multiple noun construction in the New Testament. The grammatical genders of the multiple nouns are always irrelevant. There is no such thing as agreement with the grammatical genders of multiple nouns. It never happens. Never.

]]> Comment on “The Superiority of the Majority Text” by Brian Schwertley by Ahmed http://kjvonlydebate.com/2011/09/27/the-superiority-of-the-majority-text-by-brian-schwerty/#comment-80835 Ahmed Thu, 05 Jan 2012 02:55:44 +0000 http://kjvonlydebate.com/?p=2403#comment-80835 What always strikes me is that I'm not aware of any sermons/homilies from the early church fathers on what MSS we should be relying on. I suppose they had other priorities back then. Perhaps we should too. What always strikes me is that I’m not aware of any sermons/homilies from the early church fathers on what MSS we should be relying on. I suppose they had other priorities back then. Perhaps we should too.

]]>