|
Forums118
Topics9,232
Posts196,213
Members1,325
| |
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
9 registered members (dedication, daylily, TheophilusOne, Daryl, Karen Y, 4 invisible),
2,496
guests, and 6
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: The Battle of the Bibles by Walter Veith
[Re: APL]
#159772
12/30/13 05:26 AM
12/30/13 05:26 AM
|
SDA
Active Member 2021
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,003
The Orient
|
|
APL, I teach English grammar, so this is familiar ground to me. However, you can find these explanations online or in a good grammar book as well. Here's the first thing I landed upon via an online search for English comma grammar. Setting off nonrestrictive or nonessential information
After lists, the most important function of the comma is to set off nonrestrictive or nonessential information.
I will give the document to my brother, Tom. (The writer has only one brother. The brother's name is nonessential and therefore set off with a comma.)
I will give the document to my brother Tom. (The writer has more than one brother. In this case, the specific brother—Tom—is essential information and should not be set off with a comma.) That explanation gives you the reason for the difference. When we speak of a "father," it is not the convention to need to specify which one, because traditionally there can only be one. (I'll freely admit that these conventions are fast becoming either irrelevant or unrecognized in today's society, but I hope people here have the ability to recognize that these grammar rules were still firmly adhered to in Mrs. White's day.) Blessings, Green Cochoa.
We can receive of heaven's light only as we are willing to be emptied of self. We can discern the character of God, and accept Christ by faith, only as we consent to the bringing into captivity of every thought to the obedience of Christ. And to all who do this, the Holy Spirit is given without measure. In Christ "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in Him." [Colossians 2:9, 10.] {GW 57.1} -- Ellen White.
|
|
|
Re: The Battle of the Bibles by Walter Veith
[Re: dedication]
#159781
12/30/13 02:04 PM
12/30/13 02:04 PM
|
SDA
Active Member 2024
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,512
Midland
|
|
My point was not based on EGW's statement. Rather it is looking at the history of the Bible and seeing the battle over the truth taking place. I never quoted EGW in the first place. Just agreed with Green that history shows that the Waldenses had the unadulterated Bible.
Whether you are basing a point on EGW's statement or not, that is what is being discussed. The statement says, "They had the truth unadulterated". Not the unadulterated Bible.
|
|
|
Re: The Battle of the Bibles by Walter Veith
[Re: Green Cochoa]
#159782
12/30/13 02:17 PM
12/30/13 02:17 PM
|
SDA
Active Member 2024
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,512
Midland
|
|
APL,
I teach English grammar, so this is familiar ground to me. However, you can find these explanations online or in a good grammar book as well. Here's the first thing I landed upon via an online search for English comma grammar.
So you do realize you are quibbling over English and not manuscripts, right? And making the assumption the the translators still firmly adhered to such grammar rules as you say they did in Mrs. White's day. And as far as your quote about "Setting off nonrestrictive or nonessential information", of all the comma rules I've been through, I do not recall any such rule of setting off a restrictive numeration. Wonder if anyone else has heard of such. "because traditionally there can only be one. " Traditionally? That made me laugh! Can there ever be more than one father?
|
|
|
Re: The Battle of the Bibles by Walter Veith
[Re: Green Cochoa]
#159788
12/30/13 02:36 PM
12/30/13 02:36 PM
|
SDA
Active Member 2020
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,368
Western, USA
|
|
I agree that commas are used to set off non-essential data. I've also learned to not trust commas, even in the KJV!!!
Oh, that men might open their minds to know God as he is revealed in his Son! {ST, January 20, 1890}
|
|
|
Re: The Battle of the Bibles by Walter Veith
[Re: APL]
#159792
12/30/13 02:47 PM
12/30/13 02:47 PM
|
SDA
Active Member 2021
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,003
The Orient
|
|
Can there ever be more than one father? Who was Jesus' father? Blessings, Green Cochoa.
We can receive of heaven's light only as we are willing to be emptied of self. We can discern the character of God, and accept Christ by faith, only as we consent to the bringing into captivity of every thought to the obedience of Christ. And to all who do this, the Holy Spirit is given without measure. In Christ "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in Him." [Colossians 2:9, 10.] {GW 57.1} -- Ellen White.
|
|
|
Re: The Battle of the Bibles by Walter Veith
[Re: Green Cochoa]
#159797
12/30/13 03:00 PM
12/30/13 03:00 PM
|
SDA
Active Member 2024
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,512
Midland
|
|
God. Not Joseph, who was the husband of Mary "and did not know her until she bore her son, the First-born. And he called His name JESUS."
Mt 1:16 And Jacob fathered Joseph, the husband to be of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.
Sorry to have provided you a way of escape from the questions.
|
|
|
Re: The Battle of the Bibles by Walter Veith
[Re: kland]
#159799
12/30/13 03:11 PM
12/30/13 03:11 PM
|
SDA
Active Member 2021
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,003
The Orient
|
|
God. Not Joseph, who was the husband of Mary "and did not know her until she bore her son, the First-born. And he called His name JESUS."
Mt 1:16 And Jacob fathered Joseph, the husband to be of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.
Sorry to have provided you a way of escape from the questions. I fully agree with you that God was Jesus' Father. Unfortunately, the NIV changed the Greek word "Iōsēph" into "his father" to try to imply otherwise. Why would they do that? Blessings, Green Cochoa.
We can receive of heaven's light only as we are willing to be emptied of self. We can discern the character of God, and accept Christ by faith, only as we consent to the bringing into captivity of every thought to the obedience of Christ. And to all who do this, the Holy Spirit is given without measure. In Christ "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in Him." [Colossians 2:9, 10.] {GW 57.1} -- Ellen White.
|
|
|
Re: The Battle of the Bibles by Walter Veith
[Re: Green Cochoa]
#159803
12/30/13 03:49 PM
12/30/13 03:49 PM
|
Global Moderator
Supporting Member 2022
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,705
Canada
|
|
The issue is MANUSCRIPTS!!!
My post was showing how Bibles from one line of manuscripts all interpreted a verse as "father and mother", while the Bibles following the received text all had "Joseph" not "father"
When you go back to the Greek , the received text says JOSEPH.
So yes, this is about manuscripts.
|
|
|
Re: The Battle of the Bibles by Walter Veith
[Re: dedication]
#159804
12/30/13 03:56 PM
12/30/13 03:56 PM
|
Global Moderator
Supporting Member 2022
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,705
Canada
|
|
Kland seems to want to argue over nuances in EGW statements, or whether a certain difference can be explained as insignificant, rather than look at the history of the development of the Bible.
To me this seems to be a cop out refusing to look at reality.
|
|
|
Re: The Battle of the Bibles by Walter Veith
[Re: Green Cochoa]
#159805
12/30/13 04:01 PM
12/30/13 04:01 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
I fully agree with you that God was Jesus' Father. Unfortunately, the NIV changed the Greek word "Iōsēph" into "his father" to try to imply otherwise. Why would they do that? What I don't understand is why Luke 2:33 would imply that God wasn't Jesus' Father but passages like Luke 2:48 and Luke 3:23 wouldn't imply that.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
