Search Results
6/23/2025, 3:36:33 AM
>>17784155
>In this book Epiphanius himself uses the phrase multiple times
Yes, anon, twice, both in sections refuting gnostics. The first time it is just a quotation of them. The other instance is nothing like what you describe; but I see no need to make that case as it hasn't been proven not to be an interpolation. I already mentioned that there have been interpolations, such as that of Irenaeus. A few philosophers from Alexandria also used the term, which makes sense since it's Alexandria where the corruption to the text came from.
>I will note at this point how you also completely ignored the refutation of this claim.
Which is what, exactly? If you read the post before, I said, "They chose the gnostic reading because they have the same theological biases."
>rather than merely quoted by them
Every reference barring a couple of interpolations was made by Arians or Gnostics, who are non-trinitarians. I already quoted where it was included in the Arian Creed, Council of Antioch – which I guess was ignored.
The point is, this was a non-trinitarian reading that modern translations wanted to place in their representation of the Bible because of their biases, so they latched onto it. It also explains a lot of their other choices, in choosing what they translate from and also how they construct critical texts. It's very arbitrary and ad hoc. For John 1:18 only some actually went as far as to put it in their translation, and that's why I brought it up since someone asked about the ESV.
I notice there is no response to the direct charge that these people are picking and choosing what sources to use. They are making a kind of patchwork quilt of different fragmented Greek sources for each translation and source text they make every year. The field created by "higher criticism" grows ever more divergent over time. This divergence is quite the opposite of what scholars did when the TR was made. After Erasmus' early attempts, they quickly converged on the received text.
>In this book Epiphanius himself uses the phrase multiple times
Yes, anon, twice, both in sections refuting gnostics. The first time it is just a quotation of them. The other instance is nothing like what you describe; but I see no need to make that case as it hasn't been proven not to be an interpolation. I already mentioned that there have been interpolations, such as that of Irenaeus. A few philosophers from Alexandria also used the term, which makes sense since it's Alexandria where the corruption to the text came from.
>I will note at this point how you also completely ignored the refutation of this claim.
Which is what, exactly? If you read the post before, I said, "They chose the gnostic reading because they have the same theological biases."
>rather than merely quoted by them
Every reference barring a couple of interpolations was made by Arians or Gnostics, who are non-trinitarians. I already quoted where it was included in the Arian Creed, Council of Antioch – which I guess was ignored.
The point is, this was a non-trinitarian reading that modern translations wanted to place in their representation of the Bible because of their biases, so they latched onto it. It also explains a lot of their other choices, in choosing what they translate from and also how they construct critical texts. It's very arbitrary and ad hoc. For John 1:18 only some actually went as far as to put it in their translation, and that's why I brought it up since someone asked about the ESV.
I notice there is no response to the direct charge that these people are picking and choosing what sources to use. They are making a kind of patchwork quilt of different fragmented Greek sources for each translation and source text they make every year. The field created by "higher criticism" grows ever more divergent over time. This divergence is quite the opposite of what scholars did when the TR was made. After Erasmus' early attempts, they quickly converged on the received text.
6/22/2025, 7:47:09 AM
>>17781995
>he's literally talking about communion here?
If by "communion," in this sentence, you mean gladly receiving the word of God then yes actually.
See the following Bible references:
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."
- John 6:63 (explanation of John 6:52-58)
"Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts."
- Jeremiah 15:16
"For the ear trieth words, as the mouth tasteth meat."
- Job 34:3
"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
- Romans 10:17
>he's literally talking about communion here?
If by "communion," in this sentence, you mean gladly receiving the word of God then yes actually.
See the following Bible references:
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."
- John 6:63 (explanation of John 6:52-58)
"Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts."
- Jeremiah 15:16
"For the ear trieth words, as the mouth tasteth meat."
- Job 34:3
"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
- Romans 10:17
Page 1