Are Doctrines affected by Modern Versions

[DNB]

The text themselves explain the word and what it means. To 'cut off' is indeed to separate, to amputate. No issue. The problem is the carnal mind versus the spiritual mind.

Do any really think Paul meant a retaliation, to cut off the male reproductive, rather than to simply be 'amputated', 'separated from', 'cut off' from the body of Christ? [Matthew 5:29,30; Mark 9:43,45; Romans 12:4,5; 1 Corinthians 6:15, 12:12,18,20 KJB]? If so, I pity such, really.

However, let's read it 'their' way, anyway, from an OT perspective which deals with the Physical:

Deuteronomy 23:1 KJB - He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
​

Ought not we think that the NT is the Spiritual, and that Paul understood this?

1 Corinthians 15:46 KJB - Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.​

John Gill [Baptist]:

Galatians 5:12 Notations - "... I would they were even cut off which trouble you. These words are a solemn wish of the apostle's with respect to the false teachers, or an imprecation of the judgment of God upon them; that they might be cut off out of the land of the living by the immediate hand of God, that they might do no more mischief to the churches of Christ: this he said not out of hatred to their persons, but from a concern for the glory of God, and the good of his people. The word here used answers to the Hebrew word קפח, and which is often made use of by the Jews in solemn imprecations; we read (o) of a righteous man, מקפח את בניו, "that cut off his children": the gloss upon it is, ..."​

Adam Clarke [Methodist]:

Galatians 5:12 Notations - "... As the persons who were breeding all this confusion in the Churches of Galatia were members of that Church, the apostle appears to me to be simply expressing his desire that they might be cut off or excommunicated from the Church. Kypke has given an abundance of examples where the word is used to signify amputating; cutting off from society, office, etc.; excluding. ..."​

Treasury of Scripture Knowldge CROSS-references:

"... cut: Gal_5:10, Gal_1:8-9; Gen_17:14; Exo_12:15, Exo_30:33; Lev_22:3; Jos_7:12, Jos_7:25; Joh_9:34; Act_5:5, Act_5:9; 1Co_5:13; Tit_3:10 ..."​

B. W. Johnson:

Galatians 5:12 Notations - "... I would they were even cut off. These men are seeking to make the mark of bondage by cutting your flesh. I would that they would cut themselves off (see Revision). I take it that he means "Cut themselves off from the church so as to have nothing more to do with it." ..."​

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown:

Galatians 5:12 Notations - "...were even cut off — even as they desire your foreskin to be cut off and cast away by circumcision, so would that they were even cut off from your communion, being worthless as a castaway foreskin (Gal_1:7, Gal_1:8; compare Php_3:2). The fathers, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, and Chrysostom, explain it, “Would that they would even cut themselves off,” that is, cut off not merely the foreskin, but the whole member: if circumcision be not enough for them, then let them have excision also; an outburst hardly suitable to the gravity of an apostle. But Gal_5:9, Gal_5:10 plainly point to excommunication as the judgment threatened against the troublers: and danger of the bad “leaven” spreading, as the reason for it. ..."​

Yes, there are merits to the principle that you're stating. And, that is a viable sentiment under the circumstances, plus qualified with your correlated verses, .....it goes without saying that Paul is not a sadist, and that these people are not of the true Church.
...but, in the context, he expresses himself in a sadistic way for the sake of analogy. i.e. they deserve emasculation, because they are mutilating the Church. Paul does not mean it literally, and he won't accept it as a means to either punish or correct them. He's just expressing, in a graphic manner, the harm that these Judiazers are imposing on the Church. His intent is to show an example, of doing whatever it takes to get them to stop. It's hyperbole for the sake of effect.

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(12) I would they were even cut off.--The Authorised version is undoubtedly wrong here. The words may mean "cut themselves off," i.e., from your communion, but it seems far best to take the words, with all the ancient Greek interpreters and a large majority of modern commentators, including Dr. Lightfoot and Bishop Wordsworth, as referring to an extension of the rite of circumcision, such as the Galatians might see frequently practised by the priests of Cybele, whose worship had one of its most imporant centres in their country--I would they would even make themselves eunuchs. Let them carry their self-mutilation still further, and not stop at circumcision.

 

[reformed1689]

It was quoted in the 200's. (third century)

Citation please.

 

[Hidden In Him]

That there is a big discrepancy between Textus Receptus and the modern versions taken from the Westcott and Hort translation.

Oh. Ok. That much I was aware of.
So you don't ascribe to the principle that the shorter reading is to be preferred?

 

[ReChoired]

Citation please.

1 John 5:7 (in very brief, I have a lengthy 80 page study, with documentation on this, and is also posted online in various places),

The Manuscriptural evidence:

[1] Manuscripts [MSS]

Cursives [Greek lowercase]:

[01] #61 [aka Codex Montfortianus] - 16th Cent.
[02] #88 [aka Codex Regis [margin, 16th Cent.]] - 12th Cent.
[03] #177 [BSB Codex graeci 211 [margin, 15th Cent.] - 11th Cent.
[04] #221 [margin, 15th/16th Cent.] - 10th Cent.
[05] #429 [aka Codex Wolfenbuttel, margin, 16th Cent.] - 14th Cent.
[06] #629 [aka Codex Ottobonianus] - 14th Cent.
[07] #535 - 11th Cent.
[08] #636 [margin] - 15th Cent.
[09] #918 - 16th Cent.
[10] #2318 - 18th Cent.
[11] #2473 - 18th Cent.​

Latin:

[01] c [aka Codex Colbertinus, aka 6, 12th/13th Cent. [1200]]
[02] dem [aka Codex Demidovianus, aka 59, 13th Cent. [1250]]
[03] div [aka Codex Divionensis, aka –, 13th Cent. [1250]]
[04] l [aka Codex Legionensis, aka 67, 7th Cent. [750]]
[05] m [aka Codex Speculum, aka –, 4th-9th Cent.]
[06] p [aka Codex Perpinianensis, aka 54, 12th/13th Cent. [1150]]
[07] q [aka Codex Frisingensis, aka 64, 7h Cent. [650]]
[08] r [aka Codex Frisingensis, aka 64, 5th/6th Cent.]
[09] Vulgate [Clementine edition]
[10] La Cava Bible [aka Codex Cavensis [9th Cent.]]
[11] Codex Ulmensis [9th Cent.]
[12] C [aka Codex Complutensis, 10th Cent.]
[13] T [aka Codex Toletanus, 10th Cent.]
[14] Θ [Codex Theodulphianus, 10th Cent.]
[15] S 907 [aka Codex Sangallensis 907, 8th Cent.]
[16] S 63 [aka Codex Sangallensis 63, 9th Cent.]​

“testimonium dicunt [or dant] in terra, spiritus [or: spiritus et] aqua et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt in Christo Iesu. [8] et tres sunt, qui testimonium dicunt in caelo, pater verbum et spirtus.”​

[2] “Church Fathers” [so-called]

[01] Tertullian [circa. AD 220]

[02] Cyprian of Carthage [circa. AD 258], Treatises (I 5:423): “... and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.' ...”

[03] Priscillan [circa. AD 358]

[04] The Speculum [5th Cent.], Pseudo-Augustine

[05] Creed “Esposito Fidei [5th/6th Cent.]

[06] Old Latin [5th/6th Cent.]

[07] Confession of Faith of Eugenius, Bishop of Carthage [circa. AD 484]

[08] Cassiodoris of Italy [circa. AD 480-570] in Complexiones in Ionis Epist. ad Parthos.​

Thus: "... Clementine edition of Vulgate translation; Pseudo-Augustine's Speculum Peccatoris (V), also (these three with some variation) Cyprian, Ps-Cyprian, & Priscillian (died 385) Liber Apologeticus. And Contra-Varimadum, and Ps-Vigilius, Fulgentius of Ruspe (died 527) Responsio contra Arianos, Cassiodorus Complexiones in Ioannis Epist. ad Parthos. ..." - Johannine Comma - Wikipedia

“… “at least four Old Latin manuscripts, over eight ‘Church Fathers’ (including Cyprian who died A.D. 258), four Syriac editions, Slavic and Armenian manuscripts, over 600 distinct editions of the Textus Receptus from 1522 to 1881, 18 pre-Lutheran Bibles, and thousands of Vulgate manuscripts. Among Greek manuscripts which do omit this verse, 97% are late manuscripts, dated from the 10th century and later.”1 …” - Ridiculous KJV Bible Corrections - 1 John 5:7 Scams

“… Some Syriac Peshitto manuscripts, The Syriac Edition at Hamburg, Bishop Uscan’s Armenian Bible, the Armenian Edition of John Zohrob, the first printed Georgian Bible.

...

The evidence is overwhelming for the authenticity of 1 John 5:7-8. Keep in mind that it was Origen who was the father of the false manuscripts who removed this verse as he did verses like Acts 8:37 and Luke 24:40. The Alexandrian school was no friend of the true manuscripts which were taken from Antioch and mutilated according to Gnostic beliefs.” - http://www.scionofzion.com/1 john 5 78.htm​

[3] Lectionaries

[01] “some minority variant readings in lectionaries.”​

The varied Manuscripts [MSS] codices, papyri, palimpsests, etc are not the foundation of proof [for all things require faith in God's word as foundation], but merely further evidence for confirmation.

The Logical evidence:

Divine inspiration without Divine preservation would be a Divine waste of time. This particular phrase whether in text or margin, quotations for varied persons in history, thus has been around a long time, and even with the Textus Receptus [TR], and moreso, in the King James Bible [the preserved word of God in English] for over 400 years. It is obviously being preserved by that which is greater than the human capability or mind.

The phrase is also unique to John, in that the text does not refer to the specific terms of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, but rather to the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost. The phrase "the word", in reference to the person of the Son, is unique to John's mind, among the gospel and epistle writers.

Just standing back and looking at it objectively, the phrase that is in dispute by critics [see wikipedia, etc], is actually quite large to have been purposefully inserted at some point in early history after the completion of the original text, but it would be far easier to drop it in transmission, transcribing.

Some may argue that the phrase is not in the majority of Koine Greek witnesses, and is therefore not to be retained. This is a logical fallacy. While it is true that it is not in the majority of Greek 'witnesses' [most of which are late mss, etc], that does not preclude its having been originally therein, nor of it's validity as standing in the texts of the other languages of the world, such as Latin, etc.

God never stated that He had to preserve His living word in any singular language, even dead [Koine Greek, Latin, etc] languages at that.

God never stated that He would preserve His word in just the 'early' works and fragments, or in just the 'late' works and fragments which are found in the dusty forgotten places of the world. He may use any combination thereof He chooses.

God never stated that He would preserve His word in the majority of texts. God is able to save by many, few or even just one. For instance, see the battles of Gideon and the 300 [Judges 6 KJB], or Jonathan and his armour bearer:

1 Samuel 14:6 KJB - And Jonathan said to the young man that bare his armour, Come, and let us go over unto the garrison of these uncircumcised: it may be that the LORD will work for us: for there is no restraint to the LORD to save by many or by few.​

 

[ReChoired]

...So you don't ascribe to the principle that the shorter reading is to be preferred?

The 'principle' that 'the shorter reading is to be preferred', has no more foundation that simply someone's idea of 'because we said so'. It is to be rejected as man-made hooplah. There is no logical reason to accept it, and no evidential reason to accept it, and no historical reason to accept it, and no manuscriptural evidence to accept it, there is no scriptural (iow, no thus saith the Lord, or It is written) reason to accept it. Even calling it a 'principle' is purely propagandistic, as if it has some actual weight for validity, in acceptation, when it has no such thing. It belongs right with the false idea that the oldest mss (etc) are the most reliable, most correct, most accurate, most untainted, when age has nothing to do with accuracy, or correctness, or even preserved in its contents.

 

[historyb]

Are Doctrines affected by Modern Versions

Really don't know. In my Church our doctrines come from the Ancient Church and can be found in the Creeds like the Nicene Creed, The Apostle's Creed, and The Athanasian Creed

 

[ReChoired]

...Why do you assume that this rendering goes back to the original autographs when the first sign of it in manuscript form isn't until the 16th century?

Not actually true, but then again, who ever 'voted' that the only 'evidence' allowed was manuscriptural (as in from the fragments of dusty archaeological rooms)? There are lectionaries, commentaries, breviaries, personal letters, and all manner of evidence beyond the fragments of actual mss.

 

[Ezra]

Considering I consider 7th-Day Adventist as a cult

what makes them a cult ?

 

[CharismaticLady]

Oh. Ok. That much I was aware of.
So you don't ascribe to the principle that the shorter reading is to be preferred?

They actually change the meaning to a false doctrine, so for those verses, no. For instance, Romans 8:1 deletes the condition of walking in the Spirit. So the false doctrine of your present and future sins being forgiven and there will be no penalty for the sins you keep committing, just as long as you believe in Jesus is a blatant error and not recognizing exactly what Jesus came to do. He came to free us FROM sin, not giving us freedom TO sin.

Interestingly, Westcott and Hort were spiritualists, doing seances, and were fans of Darwin. Knowing that gives me the creeps.

 

[CharismaticLady]

what makes them a cult ?

SDA is not a cult.

 

[Ezra]

f Jesus Christ ascended to the Most Holy Place from Olivet, He is not our Great High Priest,

how do you come to this conclusion ? so you are rejecting scripture ? Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. hebrews 4:14

 

[CharismaticLady]

Citation please.

Already did to Hidden In Him. Go back a couple pages.

 

[Ezra]

SDA is not a cult.

thank you david taylor

 

[CharismaticLady]

thank you david taylor

Are you saying you believe SDA is a cult? Why?

 

[Ezra]

Are you saying you believe SDA is a cult? Why?

mercy did you even read what i asked ?

↑
Considering I consider 7th-Day Adventist as a cult { taylor}
what makes them a cult ? {me}

 

[ReChoired]

how do you come to this conclusion ? so you are rejecting scripture ? Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. hebrews 4:14

mercy did you even read what i [stated] ?

I stated that Jesus Christ is ascended, but that Heb. 9:12 (KJB) does not teach that He went directly to the Most Holy Place, but rather to the Holy Place of the Heavenly (real) Sanctuary, and that if, as others ignorantly (not knowing) state that, Jesus bypassed the ministration in the Holy Place (as typology required of the anti-type, already cited) and went directly to the Most Holy Place, then Jesus could not be the Great High Priest.

Jesus is Great High Priest, as He was anointed in Heaven in the Holy Place, see Revelation 5:6; Psalms 133:1-3; Acts 2:1-3,33, etc.

 

[reformed1689]

Already did to Hidden In Him. Go back a couple pages.

Just pull it for me.

 

[reformed1689]

Not actually true, but then again, who ever 'voted' that the only 'evidence' allowed was manuscriptural (as in from the fragments of dusty archaeological rooms)? There are lectionaries, commentaries, breviaries, personal letters, and all manner of evidence beyond the fragments of actual mss.

What part of my post was not true?

 

[Ezra]

mercy did you even read what i [stated] ?

I stated that Jesus Christ is ascended, but that Heb. 9:12 (KJB) does not teach that He went directly to the Most Holy Place, but rather to the Holy Place of the Heavenly (real) Sanctuary, and that if, as others ignorantly (not knowing) state that, Jesus bypassed the ministration in the Holy Place (as typology required of the anti-type, already cited) and went directly to the Most Holy Place, then Jesus could not be the Great High Priest.

Jesus is Great High Priest, as He was anointed in Heaven in the Holy Place, see Revelation 5:6; Psalms 133:1-3; Acts 2:1-3,33, etc.

you make about as much sense swimming in the river in the dead of winter

 

[Ezra]

mercy did you even read what i [stated] ?

as a matter of fact i did that is why i asked the question