Does 1 John 5:7 belong in the Bible?

[Twisted]

It is a standard cliche (taught by Metzger, Hort, Bob Jones III, Custer, Zane Hodges, Curtis Hutson, and all apostate Fundamentalists such as Waite, Hudson, Combs, Dell, Walker, Sherman, et al), that 1 John 5:7 has no business being in the Bible because Erasmus only added it after finding a sixteenth-century Greek manuscript (61) probably "written in Oxford in 1520 by a Franciscan friar." On the basis of this "historical" fairy tale the NIV omits the "Johannine Comma," and so does the ASV and NASV along with the RSV and NRSV and similar Roman Catholic Alexandrian productions.

How well do I remember my dear professor at Bob Jones, back in 1951, telling me that there was NO Greek manuscript evidence for the reading. When I called 61 to his attention he said, "Well, only one." He lied. Professor Armin Panning (New Testament Textual Criticism) lists an eleventh century manuscript. I was then told, "Well, that is all." It wasn't all. There was a ninth century manuscript that the Vulgate used to put the verse into its text with. That all? Well, not by a long shot. It shows up in the Old Latin of the fifth century. Knowing this, supercilious little pipsqueaks like Doug Kutilek respond with "Well, if you are going to correct the Greek with the Old Latin why don't you use the Old Latin every time to correct the Greek?" Because we are "eclectic," just like anyone else. The AV translators didn't choose either every time, so why should we?

Here is a twelfth century manuscript (min. 88) with the words found in the margin, but it is cited as scripture in a fourth century Latin treatise by Priscillian. Get rid of Priscillian. They do; all of the critics of the Johannine Comma call him a "heretic." That is what the Roman Catholic Church called him.

The plot thickens. When Cardinal Ximenes planned to print his Polyglot in 1502 he planned to include 1 John 5:7-8 and did. He stated that he had taken care to secure a number of Greek manuscripts; he described some of these as very "ancient codices" sent to Spain from Rome. Why haven't the manuscript detectives given us a complete list of these "ancient codices"? They must have contained 1 John 5:7. Ximenes printed the verse.

Shall we do some homework? I mean, why stop with the insipid, shallow, traditional cliches of the faculty and staff of Louisville, Denver, Chicago, New Orleans, Dallas, BJU, BBC, and the University of Chicago?

John Gill (appealed to by Doug Kutilek as a CORRECTOR of the AV) says that Fullgentius cites the passage at the beginning of the sixth century (where did he get it? From a friar at Oxford in 1520?), and Jerome cites it in his epistle to Eustochium and wants to know why it was excluded (450 A.D.). But Gill says further that Athanasius cites it in 350 A.D. WHERE FROM? Jerome's Latin Vulgate? Jerome hadn't been born yet.

But why stop here? Gill says that CYPRIAN quotes it in 250 A.D. nearly one hundred years before Sinaiticus or Vaticanus were written. (Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament (3 vols.), Vol. 2, pp. 907-8), and Tertullian beats him by fifty years. Tertullian evidently had Erasmus's manuscript 61 in 200 A.D., more than one hundred years before Vaticanus and Sinaiticus removed the verses from the text.

Why was I not given this material at BJU? How is it that the faculty and staff at Tennessee Temple and Liberty University never picked up the information? How does one explain this cocky, blatant, dogmatic correction of the Holy Bible going on year after year by lazy children who have not done their homework? These are the people that think YOU are a fanatic for believing the Book. These are amateurs like Kutilek and Hudson whose lives are taken up with simply reproducing CLICHES that are passed on from one legendary campfire to another as Alexandrian myths move from generation to generation.

When the AV committee sat down they didn't have just Erasmus and his "61." They had Diodab in Italian, Luther in German, Olivetan in French, and Geneva in English, plus six Waldensian Bibles whose sources come from the fourth and fifth centuries. Suppose you couldn't find a Greek manuscript reading for 1 John 5:7 but saw it show up in 200 A.D., again in 250 A.D., again in 325 A.D., again in 350 A.D., and then found it in four anti-Catholic texts which were based on Old Latin that often disagreed with the Vulgate?

Don't get much for your tuition these days, do ya?

Manuscript 61: Professor Michaelis says that this manuscript in four chapters in Mark possess three coincidences with the OLD SYRIAC, two of which agree with the Old Itala, while they differ from every Greek manuscript extant. Do you mind if I remind you of something very basic? The AV of the English Reformation and Luther's Heilige Schrift of the German Reformation BOTH contain the Johannine Comma. "By their fruits ye shall know them." (I just thought I would throw that in there "extra, free of charge," since by now any scholar reading this has already become completely unglued and has forgotten the basics.)

Manuscript 61 was supposed to have been written between 1519 and 1522; the question comes up "from WHAT?" Not from Ximenes; his wasn't out yet. Not from Erasmus for it doesn't match his "Greek" in places. The literal affinities in 61 are with the SYRIAC (see Acts 11:26), and that version was not known in Europe until 1552 (Moses Mardin). The Old Latin and Old Syriac (despite Custer of BJU espousing the liberal theories of the unsaved scholar Burkitt) date from 130 and 150 A.D. The Diatesseron of Tatian (Syriac) which has the King James readings in Luke 2:33 and Matthew 1:25 and Matthew 6:13, contrary to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, was written no later than 180 A.D., and probably earlier.

The contested verse (1 John 5:7) is quoted at the Council of Carthage (415 A. D.) by Eugenius, who drew up the confession of faith for the "orthodox." It reads with the King James. How did 350 prelates in 415 A.D. take a verse to be orthodox that wasn't in the Bible? It had to exist there from the beginning. It came out. "Pater, VERBUM, et Spiritus Sanctus" (1 John 5:7).

So the old dead heads at BJU lied to me, like they are Iying right now to a couple of hundred "ministerial students." They have plenty of company. The faculty at Dallas, Denver, and Pacific Coast are doing the same thing. Ditto Lynchburg, Arlington, and Springfield. The CULT IS THE CULT.

by Peter Ruckman

 

[Ransom]

When I called 61 to his attention . . .

Minuscule 61 is Codex Montfortianus, and dates from 1520. It's the very manuscript said to have been manufactured to discredit Erasmus. Therefore, it doesn't count.

Professor Armin Panning (New Testament Textual Criticism) lists an eleventh century manuscript.

Which one? Unidentified manuscripts are like anonymous authorities. They might as well be fairy tales.

There was a ninth century manuscript that the Vulgate used to put the verse into its text with.

In other words, probably Latin, not Greek.

It shows up in the Old Latin of the fifth century.

Latin isn't Greek, Petey. He knows this: "How well do I remember my dear professor at Bob Jones, back in 1951, telling me that there was NO Greek manuscript evidence for the reading." So he's pulled a bait and switch.

Here is a twelfth century manuscript (min. 88) with the words found in the margin,

The manuscript may be 12th century, but according to the Wikipedia article on the Johannine Comma, the margins in Minuscule 88 date to the 16th century. So as for its authenticity, see Minuscule 61, above.

but it is cited as scripture in a fourth century Latin treatise by Priscillian.

Again, Latin, not Greek.

When Cardinal Ximenes planned to print his Polyglot in 1502 he planned to include 1 John 5:7-8 and did. He stated that he had taken care to secure a number of Greek manuscripts; he described some of these as very "ancient codices" sent to Spain from Rome. Why haven't the manuscript detectives given us a complete list of these "ancient codices"?

Good question, Petey. Those "ancient codices" would prove devastating to conventional thinking if they were indeed ancient Greek witnesses to the Johannine Comma. So I wonder why Petey didn't list them?

They must have contained 1 John 5:7.

"They must have, therefore they did" is not an argument made by intelligent people.

John Gill (appealed to by Doug Kutilek as a CORRECTOR of the AV) says that Fullgentius cites the passage at the beginning of the sixth century. . . . But Gill says further that Athanasius cites it in 350 A.D.

Gill doesn't even rise to the level of a secondary source, and should be weighted accordingly. Not saying he's necessarily wrong, but without a paper trail to trace, his claim doesn't seem that significant.

In any case, FSSL is probably a better expert on the fathers than me, so if he wishes, I'll defer to him on the ancient theologians and what they may or may not have quoted as Scripture.

Typical Petey. When you don't have facts and evidence, foam at the mouth.

 

[Twisted]

When I called 61 to his attention . . .

Minuscule 61 is Codex Montfortianus, and dates from 1520. It's the very manuscript said to have been manufactured to discredit Erasmus. Therefore, it doesn't count.

Professor Armin Panning (New Testament Textual Criticism) lists an eleventh century manuscript.

Which one? Unidentified manuscripts are like anonymous authorities. They might as well be fairy tales.

There was a ninth century manuscript that the Vulgate used to put the verse into its text with.

In other words, probably Latin, not Greek.

It shows up in the Old Latin of the fifth century.

Latin isn't Greek, Petey. He knows this: "How well do I remember my dear professor at Bob Jones, back in 1951, telling me that there was NO Greek manuscript evidence for the reading." So he's pulled a bait and switch.

Here is a twelfth century manuscript (min. 88) with the words found in the margin,

The manuscript may be 12th century, but according to the Wikipedia article on the Johannine Comma, the margins in Minuscule 88 date to the 16th century. So as for its authenticity, see Minuscule 61, above.

but it is cited as scripture in a fourth century Latin treatise by Priscillian.

Again, Latin, not Greek.

When Cardinal Ximenes planned to print his Polyglot in 1502 he planned to include 1 John 5:7-8 and did. He stated that he had taken care to secure a number of Greek manuscripts; he described some of these as very "ancient codices" sent to Spain from Rome. Why haven't the manuscript detectives given us a complete list of these "ancient codices"?

Good question, Petey. Those "ancient codices" would prove devastating to conventional thinking if they were indeed ancient Greek witnesses to the Johannine Comma. So I wonder why Petey didn't list them?

They must have contained 1 John 5:7.

"They must have, therefore they did" is not an argument made by intelligent people.

John Gill (appealed to by Doug Kutilek as a CORRECTOR of the AV) says that Fullgentius cites the passage at the beginning of the sixth century. . . . But Gill says further that Athanasius cites it in 350 A.D.

Gill doesn't even rise to the level of a secondary source, and should be weighted accordingly. Not saying he's necessarily wrong, but without a paper trail to trace, his claim doesn't seem that significant.

In any case, FSSL is probably a better expert on the fathers than me, so if he wishes, I'll defer to him on the ancient theologians and what they may or may not have quoted as Scripture.

Typical Petey. When you don't have facts and evidence, foam at the mouth.

Jimmyjohns says it best and still makes a great sandwich.

So....you get to pick what is irrefutable and declare the rest questionable? This is why this kind of discussion is useless. I can tell by your pattern that you're just a Google theologian and haven't spent enough time studying the subject.

 

[Ransom]

Jimmyjohns says it best and still makes a great sandwich.

Jimmyjammy is a mental midget who thinks "Is not!" is a devastating rebuttal.

 

[brianb]

It is a standard cliche (taught by Metzger, Hort, Bob Jones III, Custer, Zane Hodges, Curtis Hutson, and all apostate Fundamentalists such as Waite, Hudson, Combs, Dell, Walker, Sherman, et al), that 1 John 5:7 has no business being in the Bible because Erasmus only added it after finding a sixteenth-century Greek manuscript (61) probably "written in Oxford in 1520 by a Franciscan friar." On the basis of this "historical" fairy tale the NIV omits the "Johannine Comma," and so does the ASV and NASV along with the RSV and NRSV and similar Roman Catholic Alexandrian productions.

How well do I remember my dear professor at Bob Jones, back in 1951, telling me that there was NO Greek manuscript evidence for the reading. When I called 61 to his attention he said, "Well, only one." He lied. Professor Armin Panning (New Testament Textual Criticism) lists an eleventh century manuscript. I was then told, "Well, that is all." It wasn't all. There was a ninth century manuscript that the Vulgate used to put the verse into its text with. That all? Well, not by a long shot. It shows up in the Old Latin of the fifth century. Knowing this, supercilious little pipsqueaks like Doug Kutilek respond with "Well, if you are going to correct the Greek with the Old Latin why don't you use the Old Latin every time to correct the Greek?" Because we are "eclectic," just like anyone else. The AV translators didn't choose either every time, so why should we?

Here is a twelfth century manuscript (min. 88) with the words found in the margin, but it is cited as scripture in a fourth century Latin treatise by Priscillian. Get rid of Priscillian. They do; all of the critics of the Johannine Comma call him a "heretic." That is what the Roman Catholic Church called him.

The plot thickens. When Cardinal Ximenes planned to print his Polyglot in 1502 he planned to include 1 John 5:7-8 and did. He stated that he had taken care to secure a number of Greek manuscripts; he described some of these as very "ancient codices" sent to Spain from Rome. Why haven't the manuscript detectives given us a complete list of these "ancient codices"? They must have contained 1 John 5:7. Ximenes printed the verse.

Shall we do some homework? I mean, why stop with the insipid, shallow, traditional cliches of the faculty and staff of Louisville, Denver, Chicago, New Orleans, Dallas, BJU, BBC, and the University of Chicago?

John Gill (appealed to by Doug Kutilek as a CORRECTOR of the AV) says that Fullgentius cites the passage at the beginning of the sixth century (where did he get it? From a friar at Oxford in 1520?), and Jerome cites it in his epistle to Eustochium and wants to know why it was excluded (450 A.D.). But Gill says further that Athanasius cites it in 350 A.D. WHERE FROM? Jerome's Latin Vulgate? Jerome hadn't been born yet.

But why stop here? Gill says that CYPRIAN quotes it in 250 A.D. nearly one hundred years before Sinaiticus or Vaticanus were written. (Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament (3 vols.), Vol. 2, pp. 907-8), and Tertullian beats him by fifty years. Tertullian evidently had Erasmus's manuscript 61 in 200 A.D., more than one hundred years before Vaticanus and Sinaiticus removed the verses from the text.

Why was I not given this material at BJU? How is it that the faculty and staff at Tennessee Temple and Liberty University never picked up the information? How does one explain this cocky, blatant, dogmatic correction of the Holy Bible going on year after year by lazy children who have not done their homework? These are the people that think YOU are a fanatic for believing the Book. These are amateurs like Kutilek and Hudson whose lives are taken up with simply reproducing CLICHES that are passed on from one legendary campfire to another as Alexandrian myths move from generation to generation.

When the AV committee sat down they didn't have just Erasmus and his "61." They had Diodab in Italian, Luther in German, Olivetan in French, and Geneva in English, plus six Waldensian Bibles whose sources come from the fourth and fifth centuries. Suppose you couldn't find a Greek manuscript reading for 1 John 5:7 but saw it show up in 200 A.D., again in 250 A.D., again in 325 A.D., again in 350 A.D., and then found it in four anti-Catholic texts which were based on Old Latin that often disagreed with the Vulgate?

Don't get much for your tuition these days, do ya?

Manuscript 61: Professor Michaelis says that this manuscript in four chapters in Mark possess three coincidences with the OLD SYRIAC, two of which agree with the Old Itala, while they differ from every Greek manuscript extant. Do you mind if I remind you of something very basic? The AV of the English Reformation and Luther's Heilige Schrift of the German Reformation BOTH contain the Johannine Comma. "By their fruits ye shall know them." (I just thought I would throw that in there "extra, free of charge," since by now any scholar reading this has already become completely unglued and has forgotten the basics.)

Manuscript 61 was supposed to have been written between 1519 and 1522; the question comes up "from WHAT?" Not from Ximenes; his wasn't out yet. Not from Erasmus for it doesn't match his "Greek" in places. The literal affinities in 61 are with the SYRIAC (see Acts 11:26), and that version was not known in Europe until 1552 (Moses Mardin). The Old Latin and Old Syriac (despite Custer of BJU espousing the liberal theories of the unsaved scholar Burkitt) date from 130 and 150 A.D. The Diatesseron of Tatian (Syriac) which has the King James readings in Luke 2:33 and Matthew 1:25 and Matthew 6:13, contrary to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, was written no later than 180 A.D., and probably earlier.

The contested verse (1 John 5:7) is quoted at the Council of Carthage (415 A. D.) by Eugenius, who drew up the confession of faith for the "orthodox." It reads with the King James. How did 350 prelates in 415 A.D. take a verse to be orthodox that wasn't in the Bible? It had to exist there from the beginning. It came out. "Pater, VERBUM, et Spiritus Sanctus" (1 John 5:7).

So the old dead heads at BJU lied to me, like they are Iying right now to a couple of hundred "ministerial students." They have plenty of company. The faculty at Dallas, Denver, and Pacific Coast are doing the same thing. Ditto Lynchburg, Arlington, and Springfield. The CULT IS THE CULT.

by Peter Ruckman

I take every word in the TR by faith but for me privately - I wouldn't use it to prove the doctrine of the Trinity (even though Athanasius referred to it and it was used later against the Arians - it was believed to be holy scripture). 

And how did Waite get on that list? Ruckman is divisive btw. Calling someone apostate simply because they disagree with you is divisive.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I am reminded once again that the closest thing the KJVO movement has to a 'scholar' is Stevie Anderson...or Gail Let er rip.

 

[brianb]

I am reminded once again that the closest thing the KJVO movement has to a 'scholar' is Stevie Anderson...or Gail Let er rip.

D.A. Waite is in the broad sense KJVO (He also accepts the TR and MT as the basis for the KJV) so I would consider him to be a KJVO scholar.  The others just get more attention.

Any ways 1 John 5:6 - 13 is not mainly about the trinity but about assurance of salvation through the witness of God but as you know a single "witness" or "testimony" can't be established as true or valid - you need 2 or 3 witnesses.  1 John 5:11 says of the "testimony" or "record" - God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 

 

[illinoisguy]

I met Dr. D.A. Waite in 1983 and was impressed by him - he seemed like a very intelligent scholar and at the same time humble with a sense of humor.  He is not an apostate - not even close to it, and does not deserve to be trashed as such.  I also met Dr. Stewart Custer years ago, another really brilliant and yet sincere, affable and down-to-earth man.  All of us including Ruckman have the right to express disagreement with such men, but it seems to me that we ought to be able to do so without the ugly putdowns, which reflect more poorly on those doing the trashing than upon those who are being trashed.  (By the way, years ago I attended a debate at a Fundamental Baptist Fellowship meeting between Waite and Custer on Bible versions and the 1 John 5:7 issue - I can't remember the specific points they made after all this time, but it was my clear impression that Custer won the debate.)

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I am reminded once again that the closest thing the KJVO movement has to a 'scholar' is Stevie Anderson...or Gail Let er rip.

D.A. Waite is in the broad sense KJVO (He also accepts the TR and MT as the basis for the KJV) so I would consider him to be a KJVO scholar.  The others just get more attention.

Any ways 1 John 5:6 - 13 is not mainly about the trinity but about assurance of salvation through the witness of God but as you know a single "witness" or "testimony" can't be established as true or valid - you need 2 or 3 witnesses.  1 John 5:11 says of the "testimony" or "record" - God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

I did not know Waite, although his name had a familiar ring.
Has he written on the subject?
Has he publicly defended his position?
It does appear that he would be the more likely candidate to do so...and then the KJVO?s could stop quoting Ruckman or let her Riplinger as ?authoritative sources?.

 

[Ransom]

I did not know Waite, although his name had a familiar ring.
Has he written on the subject?
Has he publicly defended his position?

You mean his KJV-only position generally, or a position on the Johannine Comma specifically?

I can't speak to the latter, but on the former, he has written books such as Heresies of Westcott and Hort (probably his best known), Defending the King James Bible (in which he states his theory of the four-fold superiority of the KJV), and many others--all self-published, which does cast some question on whether he counts as a "scholar." He's also responsible for the Defined King James Bible, a KJV-only study Bible that defines all the difficult or archaic words in the KJV. (Hang on--I thought the KJV was easier to read than any modern Bible?)

Waite also founded the Dean Burgon Society, which holds an annual conference to defend the KJV every July. Ironically, the DBS's namesake could never qualify as an Anglican for membership in this Baptist society. Apparently, the keynote speaker this year is David Daniels of Chick Publications, which means Waite and co. are giving tacit endorsement of Ruckmanism now.

 

[prophet]

I did not know Waite, although his name had a familiar ring.
Has he written on the subject?
Has he publicly defended his position?

You mean his KJV-only position generally, or a position on the Johannine Comma specifically?

I can't speak to the latter, but on the former, he has written books such as Heresies of Westcott and Hort (probably his best known), Defending the King James Bible (in which he states his theory of the four-fold superiority of the KJV), and many others--all self-published, which does cast some question on whether he counts as a "scholar." He's also responsible for the Defined King James Bible, a KJV-only study Bible that defines all the difficult or archaic words in the KJV. (Hang on--I thought the KJV was easier to read than any modern Bible?)

Waite also founded the Dean Burgon Society, which holds an annual conference to defend the KJV every July. Ironically, the DBS's namesake could never qualify as an Anglican for membership in this Baptist society. Apparently, the keynote speaker this year is David Daniels of Chick Publications, which means Waite and co. are giving tacit endorsement of Ruckmanism now.

This (Chick et al) is the clown show that  casts shadow over all of us that came to be TRO honestly.

Eventually, anyone standing on this position, is tempted to align with the Ruckmanites, for the sake of strength in numbers, resources, etc.

I still don't know wether the Jesuits recruited the Bhuddist when he came to them, to infiltrate the Baptists, or he was already on a mission from Satan when he was "led to the Lord" in that radio studio...(that kind of public conversion theatrics smacks of Loyola's breed...but i digress).  But Pensecola Pimp could not have done more to destroy faith in the common English Bible, from lamenting updates, to endorsing mistake riddled printings of the Bible early on.

Nowadays, all one of you Hortian Maryolaters has to do associate any Bible Believer with Ruckman, Kinney, Gipp, Riplinger, or some other 20th Cenury modernist bapticostal, and the true historical acvount gets tossed out the window.

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I did not know Waite, although his name had a familiar ring.
Has he written on the subject?
Has he publicly defended his position?

You mean his KJV-only position generally, or a position on the Johannine Comma specifically?

I can't speak to the latter, but on the former, he has written books such as Heresies of Westcott and Hort (probably his best known), Defending the King James Bible (in which he states his theory of the four-fold superiority of the KJV), and many others--all self-published, which does cast some question on whether he counts as a "scholar." He's also responsible for the Defined King James Bible, a KJV-only study Bible that defines all the difficult or archaic words in the KJV. (Hang on--I thought the KJV was easier to read than any modern Bible?)

Waite also founded the Dean Burgon Society, which holds an annual conference to defend the KJV every July. Ironically, the DBS's namesake could never qualify as an Anglican for membership in this Baptist society. Apparently, the keynote speaker this year is David Daniels of Chick Publications, which means Waite and co. are giving tacit endorsement of Ruckmanism now.

This (Chick et al) is the clown show that  casts shadow over all of us that came to be TRO honestly.

Eventually, anyone standing on this position, is tempted to align with the Ruckmanites, for the sake of strength in numbers, resources, etc.

I still don't know wether the Jesuits recruited the Bhuddist when he came to them, to infiltrate the Baptists, or he was already on a mission from Satan when he was "led to the Lord" in that radio studio...(that kind of public conversion theatrics smacks of Loyola's breed...but i digress).  But Pensecola Pimp could not have done more to destroy faith in the common English Bible, from lamenting updates, to endorsing mistake riddled printings of the Bible early on.

Nowadays, all one of you Hortian Maryolaters has to do associate any Bible Believer with Ruckman, Kinney, Gipp, Riplinger, or some other 20th Cenury modernist bapticostal, and the true historical acvount gets tossed out the window.

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

The burden one must bear as a true KJVO scholar is evidently very heavy.

 

[prophet]

I did not know Waite, although his name had a familiar ring.
Has he written on the subject?
Has he publicly defended his position?

You mean his KJV-only position generally, or a position on the Johannine Comma specifically?

I can't speak to the latter, but on the former, he has written books such as Heresies of Westcott and Hort (probably his best known), Defending the King James Bible (in which he states his theory of the four-fold superiority of the KJV), and many others--all self-published, which does cast some question on whether he counts as a "scholar." He's also responsible for the Defined King James Bible, a KJV-only study Bible that defines all the difficult or archaic words in the KJV. (Hang on--I thought the KJV was easier to read than any modern Bible?)

Waite also founded the Dean Burgon Society, which holds an annual conference to defend the KJV every July. Ironically, the DBS's namesake could never qualify as an Anglican for membership in this Baptist society. Apparently, the keynote speaker this year is David Daniels of Chick Publications, which means Waite and co. are giving tacit endorsement of Ruckmanism now.

This (Chick et al) is the clown show that  casts shadow over all of us that came to be TRO honestly.

Eventually, anyone standing on this position, is tempted to align with the Ruckmanites, for the sake of strength in numbers, resources, etc.

I still don't know wether the Jesuits recruited the Bhuddist when he came to them, to infiltrate the Baptists, or he was already on a mission from Satan when he was "led to the Lord" in that radio studio...(that kind of public conversion theatrics smacks of Loyola's breed...but i digress).  But Pensecola Pimp could not have done more to destroy faith in the common English Bible, from lamenting updates, to endorsing mistake riddled printings of the Bible early on.

Nowadays, all one of you Hortian Maryolaters has to do associate any Bible Believer with Ruckman, Kinney, Gipp, Riplinger, or some other 20th Cenury modernist bapticostal, and the true historical acvount gets tossed out the window.

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

The burden one must bear as a true KJVO scholar is evidently very heavy.

There you go, editing my post into your strawman kjvo (an undefined term) argument.
Will you admit it, or pretend you are debating honestly?

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I did not know Waite, although his name had a familiar ring.
Has he written on the subject?
Has he publicly defended his position?

You mean his KJV-only position generally, or a position on the Johannine Comma specifically?

I can't speak to the latter, but on the former, he has written books such as Heresies of Westcott and Hort (probably his best known), Defending the King James Bible (in which he states his theory of the four-fold superiority of the KJV), and many others--all self-published, which does cast some question on whether he counts as a "scholar." He's also responsible for the Defined King James Bible, a KJV-only study Bible that defines all the difficult or archaic words in the KJV. (Hang on--I thought the KJV was easier to read than any modern Bible?)

Waite also founded the Dean Burgon Society, which holds an annual conference to defend the KJV every July. Ironically, the DBS's namesake could never qualify as an Anglican for membership in this Baptist society. Apparently, the keynote speaker this year is David Daniels of Chick Publications, which means Waite and co. are giving tacit endorsement of Ruckmanism now.

This (Chick et al) is the clown show that  casts shadow over all of us that came to be TRO honestly.

Eventually, anyone standing on this position, is tempted to align with the Ruckmanites, for the sake of strength in numbers, resources, etc.

I still don't know wether the Jesuits recruited the Bhuddist when he came to them, to infiltrate the Baptists, or he was already on a mission from Satan when he was "led to the Lord" in that radio studio...(that kind of public conversion theatrics smacks of Loyola's breed...but i digress).  But Pensecola Pimp could not have done more to destroy faith in the common English Bible, from lamenting updates, to endorsing mistake riddled printings of the Bible early on.

Nowadays, all one of you Hortian Maryolaters has to do associate any Bible Believer with Ruckman, Kinney, Gipp, Riplinger, or some other 20th Cenury modernist bapticostal, and the true historical acvount gets tossed out the window.

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

The burden one must bear as a true KJVO scholar is evidently very heavy.

There you go, editing my post into your strawman kjvo (an undefined term) argument.
Will you admit it, or pretend you are debating honestly?

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

To which serious, scholarly KJVO ?doctrine? do you refer?
There are more than one.

 

[Ransom]

Nowadays, all one of you Hortian Maryolaters has to do associate any Bible Believer with Ruckman, Kinney, Gipp, Riplinger, or some other 20th Cenury modernist bapticostal, and the true historical acvount gets tossed out the window.

I am of course well aware that there are several various "camps" of KJV-onlyists, with varying degrees of cross-contamination between them. I wouldn't put Steven Anderson, for example, in Ruckman's or Waite's camp. He's in a clown car all his own.

No "Hortian Maryolaters," whatever the Hyles those are, need to associate anyone with Ruckman or whoever. They do that by themselves.

Chick Publications sells books by Sam Gipp, a graduate of Ruckman's toy Bible college. They have articles by him on their Web site. (They used to have his complete Answer book online; for all I know, they still do, though I couldn't find it with a cursory glance at the site.) Gipp is a Ruckman disciple, and Chick therefore endorses his Ruckmanism.

David W. Daniels is Chick Publications' current KJV-onlyist-in-residence. His books cite people such as William Grady (Ruckmanite), G. A. Riplinger (quasi-Ruckmanite), and the late, unlamented Dr. Petey himself. He is operationally a Ruckmanite.

It's the Ruckmanite tendency toward paranoia, ridiculous conspiracy theories, and revisionist history that has likely driven Daniels to the position that Codex Sinaiticus is not a fourth-century Greek manuscript, but a 19th-century forgery. This is the position that Waite's Dean Burgon Society has taken in recent years. That, too, therefore, is a tacit endorsement of Ruckmanism, at least one facet of it.

 

[prophet]

I did not know Waite, although his name had a familiar ring.
Has he written on the subject?
Has he publicly defended his position?

You mean his KJV-only position generally, or a position on the Johannine Comma specifically?

I can't speak to the latter, but on the former, he has written books such as Heresies of Westcott and Hort (probably his best known), Defending the King James Bible (in which he states his theory of the four-fold superiority of the KJV), and many others--all self-published, which does cast some question on whether he counts as a "scholar." He's also responsible for the Defined King James Bible, a KJV-only study Bible that defines all the difficult or archaic words in the KJV. (Hang on--I thought the KJV was easier to read than any modern Bible?)

Waite also founded the Dean Burgon Society, which holds an annual conference to defend the KJV every July. Ironically, the DBS's namesake could never qualify as an Anglican for membership in this Baptist society. Apparently, the keynote speaker this year is David Daniels of Chick Publications, which means Waite and co. are giving tacit endorsement of Ruckmanism now.

This (Chick et al) is the clown show that  casts shadow over all of us that came to be TRO honestly.

Eventually, anyone standing on this position, is tempted to align with the Ruckmanites, for the sake of strength in numbers, resources, etc.

I still don't know wether the Jesuits recruited the Bhuddist when he came to them, to infiltrate the Baptists, or he was already on a mission from Satan when he was "led to the Lord" in that radio studio...(that kind of public conversion theatrics smacks of Loyola's breed...but i digress).  But Pensecola Pimp could not have done more to destroy faith in the common English Bible, from lamenting updates, to endorsing mistake riddled printings of the Bible early on.

Nowadays, all one of you Hortian Maryolaters has to do associate any Bible Believer with Ruckman, Kinney, Gipp, Riplinger, or some other 20th Cenury modernist bapticostal, and the true historical acvount gets tossed out the window.

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

The burden one must bear as a true KJVO scholar is evidently very heavy.

There you go, editing my post into your strawman kjvo (an undefined term) argument.
Will you admit it, or pretend you are debating honestly?

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

To which serious, scholarly KJVO ?doctrine? do you refer?
There are more than one.

Strawman reference #2

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

 

[prophet]

Nowadays, all one of you Hortian Maryolaters has to do associate any Bible Believer with Ruckman, Kinney, Gipp, Riplinger, or some other 20th Cenury modernist bapticostal, and the true historical acvount gets tossed out the window.

I am of course well aware that there are several various "camps" of KJV-onlyists, with varying degrees of cross-contamination between them. I wouldn't put Steven Anderson, for example, in Ruckman's or Waite's camp. He's in a clown car all his own.

No "Hortian Maryolaters," whatever the Hyles those are, need to associate anyone with Ruckman or whoever. They do that by themselves.

Chick Publications sells books by Sam Gipp, a graduate of Ruckman's toy Bible college. They have articles by him on their Web site. (They used to have his complete Answer book online; for all I know, they still do, though I couldn't find it with a cursory glance at the site.) Gipp is a Ruckman disciple, and Chick therefore endorses his Ruckmanism.

David W. Daniels is Chick Publications' current KJV-onlyist-in-residence. His books cite people such as William Grady (Ruckmanite), G. A. Riplinger (quasi-Ruckmanite), and the late, unlamented Dr. Petey himself. He is operationally a Ruckmanite.

It's the Ruckmanite tendency toward paranoia, ridiculous conspiracy theories, and revisionist history that has likely driven Daniels to the position that Codex Sinaiticus is not a fourth-century Greek manuscript, but a 19th-century forgery. This is the position that Waite's Dean Burgon Society has taken in recent years. That, too, therefore, is a tacit endorsement of Ruckmanism, at least one facet of it.

I read Avery's confusing attempt to support/not support the forgery line.
It's unnecessary, as the true story, that Tichendorf never actually saw the entire Codex Aleph, as 25% of it was discovered after the fact, back at the monastery.
It still hasn't existed, in one place, ever, since it's discovery.

The "scholarship" of including those mangled up messes, one under lock and key in the Vatican basement (of all the nefarious sources that should be an immediate disqualifier to any Saint!!!!), is a blight on the Bride 

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I did not know Waite, although his name had a familiar ring.
Has he written on the subject?
Has he publicly defended his position?

You mean his KJV-only position generally, or a position on the Johannine Comma specifically?

I can't speak to the latter, but on the former, he has written books such as Heresies of Westcott and Hort (probably his best known), Defending the King James Bible (in which he states his theory of the four-fold superiority of the KJV), and many others--all self-published, which does cast some question on whether he counts as a "scholar." He's also responsible for the Defined King James Bible, a KJV-only study Bible that defines all the difficult or archaic words in the KJV. (Hang on--I thought the KJV was easier to read than any modern Bible?)

Waite also founded the Dean Burgon Society, which holds an annual conference to defend the KJV every July. Ironically, the DBS's namesake could never qualify as an Anglican for membership in this Baptist society. Apparently, the keynote speaker this year is David Daniels of Chick Publications, which means Waite and co. are giving tacit endorsement of Ruckmanism now.

This (Chick et al) is the clown show that  casts shadow over all of us that came to be TRO honestly.

Eventually, anyone standing on this position, is tempted to align with the Ruckmanites, for the sake of strength in numbers, resources, etc.

I still don't know wether the Jesuits recruited the Bhuddist when he came to them, to infiltrate the Baptists, or he was already on a mission from Satan when he was "led to the Lord" in that radio studio...(that kind of public conversion theatrics smacks of Loyola's breed...but i digress).  But Pensecola Pimp could not have done more to destroy faith in the common English Bible, from lamenting updates, to endorsing mistake riddled printings of the Bible early on.

Nowadays, all one of you Hortian Maryolaters has to do associate any Bible Believer with Ruckman, Kinney, Gipp, Riplinger, or some other 20th Cenury modernist bapticostal, and the true historical acvount gets tossed out the window.

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

The burden one must bear as a true KJVO scholar is evidently very heavy.

There you go, editing my post into your strawman kjvo (an undefined term) argument.
Will you admit it, or pretend you are debating honestly?

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

To which serious, scholarly KJVO ?doctrine? do you refer?
There are more than one.

Strawman reference #2

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

Tomato, tomahhhhhto.
A KJVO by any other name is still a KJVO.

I understand your wanting to deflect, but there is a reason that there are no KJVO, TRO, Ruckmanite scholars or scholarly works.

 

[prophet]

I did not know Waite, although his name had a familiar ring.
Has he written on the subject?
Has he publicly defended his position?

You mean his KJV-only position generally, or a position on the Johannine Comma specifically?

I can't speak to the latter, but on the former, he has written books such as Heresies of Westcott and Hort (probably his best known), Defending the King James Bible (in which he states his theory of the four-fold superiority of the KJV), and many others--all self-published, which does cast some question on whether he counts as a "scholar." He's also responsible for the Defined King James Bible, a KJV-only study Bible that defines all the difficult or archaic words in the KJV. (Hang on--I thought the KJV was easier to read than any modern Bible?)

Waite also founded the Dean Burgon Society, which holds an annual conference to defend the KJV every July. Ironically, the DBS's namesake could never qualify as an Anglican for membership in this Baptist society. Apparently, the keynote speaker this year is David Daniels of Chick Publications, which means Waite and co. are giving tacit endorsement of Ruckmanism now.

This (Chick et al) is the clown show that  casts shadow over all of us that came to be TRO honestly.

Eventually, anyone standing on this position, is tempted to align with the Ruckmanites, for the sake of strength in numbers, resources, etc.

I still don't know wether the Jesuits recruited the Bhuddist when he came to them, to infiltrate the Baptists, or he was already on a mission from Satan when he was "led to the Lord" in that radio studio...(that kind of public conversion theatrics smacks of Loyola's breed...but i digress).  But Pensecola Pimp could not have done more to destroy faith in the common English Bible, from lamenting updates, to endorsing mistake riddled printings of the Bible early on.

Nowadays, all one of you Hortian Maryolaters has to do associate any Bible Believer with Ruckman, Kinney, Gipp, Riplinger, or some other 20th Cenury modernist bapticostal, and the true historical acvount gets tossed out the window.

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

The burden one must bear as a true KJVO scholar is evidently very heavy.

There you go, editing my post into your strawman kjvo (an undefined term) argument.
Will you admit it, or pretend you are debating honestly?

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

To which serious, scholarly KJVO ?doctrine? do you refer?
There are more than one.

Strawman reference #2

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

Tomato, tomahhhhhto.
A KJVO by any other name is still a KJVO.

I understand your wanting to deflect, but there is a reason that there are no KJVO, TRO, Ruckmanite scholars or scholarly works.

See?
I just waited til you said what you would've said anyway, whoopin that strawman reel good...

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I did not know Waite, although his name had a familiar ring.
Has he written on the subject?
Has he publicly defended his position?

You mean his KJV-only position generally, or a position on the Johannine Comma specifically?

I can't speak to the latter, but on the former, he has written books such as Heresies of Westcott and Hort (probably his best known), Defending the King James Bible (in which he states his theory of the four-fold superiority of the KJV), and many others--all self-published, which does cast some question on whether he counts as a "scholar." He's also responsible for the Defined King James Bible, a KJV-only study Bible that defines all the difficult or archaic words in the KJV. (Hang on--I thought the KJV was easier to read than any modern Bible?)

Waite also founded the Dean Burgon Society, which holds an annual conference to defend the KJV every July. Ironically, the DBS's namesake could never qualify as an Anglican for membership in this Baptist society. Apparently, the keynote speaker this year is David Daniels of Chick Publications, which means Waite and co. are giving tacit endorsement of Ruckmanism now.

This (Chick et al) is the clown show that  casts shadow over all of us that came to be TRO honestly.

Eventually, anyone standing on this position, is tempted to align with the Ruckmanites, for the sake of strength in numbers, resources, etc.

I still don't know wether the Jesuits recruited the Bhuddist when he came to them, to infiltrate the Baptists, or he was already on a mission from Satan when he was "led to the Lord" in that radio studio...(that kind of public conversion theatrics smacks of Loyola's breed...but i digress).  But Pensecola Pimp could not have done more to destroy faith in the common English Bible, from lamenting updates, to endorsing mistake riddled printings of the Bible early on.

Nowadays, all one of you Hortian Maryolaters has to do associate any Bible Believer with Ruckman, Kinney, Gipp, Riplinger, or some other 20th Cenury modernist bapticostal, and the true historical acvount gets tossed out the window.

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

The burden one must bear as a true KJVO scholar is evidently very heavy.

There you go, editing my post into your strawman kjvo (an undefined term) argument.
Will you admit it, or pretend you are debating honestly?

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

To which serious, scholarly KJVO ?doctrine? do you refer?
There are more than one.

Strawman reference #2

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

Tomato, tomahhhhhto.
A KJVO by any other name is still a KJVO.

I understand your wanting to deflect, but there is a reason that there are no KJVO, TRO, Ruckmanite scholars or scholarly works.

See?
I just waited til you said what you would've said anyway, whoopin that strawman reel good...

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

I'm sorry but your thoughtful and typical KJVO, TRO, Ruckmanite scholarly arguments are just too thorough to argue with...