tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post8890108110178324217..comments2024-03-20T12:35:12.828-04:00Comments on The Text of the Gospels: More Cracks in Nestle-Aland 28 (Acts-Revelation)James Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-17261666164582611512023-02-10T21:10:03.447-05:002023-02-10T21:10:03.447-05:00So the change that the NET, RSV and NRSV place at ...So the change that the NET, RSV and NRSV place at the end of Acts 20:28 ("the blood of his own Son" instead of "his own blood") could simply be because Hort made a remark about it. And one is reminded this is another one of the infinite number of possible emendations (vis a vis Acts 16:12, 2 Peter 3:10) others might fancifully create; perhaps a few generations later, inserting on such a basis as if it were fact into their Greek New Testament editions. I feel it's necessary to point out that it seems truly like the spirit of corruption or adulteration toward God's word, which was spoken of by Paul in 2 Corinthians 2:17 continues until today, if so.<br /><br />One man or perhaps a few propose the emendations, and much later others (who, perhaps avoiding to acknowledge the brute act of it) finish the whole dirty business by treating said musings as venerable and worthy of inclusion in their editions. What a tenuous basis this would be if these things are so. I am glad however that these facts all seem to speak to (and help confirm) the eternal truth of what Peter said in First Peter 1:23; indeed, Isaiah 40:8 and elsewhere. Regarding the sad and poor corruptibility of man's word and how it keeps being changed, as it says: "this scripture must needs have been fulfilled."<br /><br />Thanks for this article.<br />-AndrewAndrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03466078139557295311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-46985745080821975962023-02-10T20:27:15.898-05:002023-02-10T20:27:15.898-05:00You make an interesting note here about Dan in Rev...You make an interesting note here about Dan in Revelation chapter 7, but I would add there exist some reasons to explain the tribe's omission here for a number of Old Testament reasons, such as: Dan being the only tribe not mentioned anywhere in the genealogy of 1 Chronicles 4-7, and the only tribe to remove their residence outside of the original allotted area according to Joshua. We read of the events in Judges 18, where they relocated to the far north at the place that's now called Dan, reminding one a little bit of Isaiah 14:13. The prophecy by Jacob at the end of Genesis regarding Dan could also seem to figure particularly into all of this. So, it is not like there is no way to possibly explain this feature of Revelation chapter 7 with Dan's omission.<br /><br />Regarding Christ descending into hell, I believe this is referred to in Acts 2:31 and in its connection to Jonah 2:6. And regarding First Peter 3:19, the antecedent carrying over from the previous verse is Christ, but the antecedent being referred to in this verse, we should also add, is said here to have preached "by the Spirit."<br /><br />From a doctrinal perspective, looking at these details carefully, I am reminded of passages such as Hebrews 11:4, whereby Abel is mentioned to "yet speak" by the "witness," that is the witness of what he had done, despite not being present in person. I am also reminded of a good explanation of Matthew 11:14 and the prophecy in Malachi regarding Elijah speaking, along these lines as well. Specifically how it is said to be his "voice," even if John the Baptist is the preacher.<br /><br />In the same way here, I believe Peter speaks of Jesus Christ, who (by the Spirit) preached unto the "spirits [which are now] in prison," and, (this is the key part here), "Which sometime were disobedient" as it says in the next verse, First Peter 3:20. The full picture that is presented then, regarding the individuals referred to in First Peter 3:19, is that they are presently spirits in prison, but we are also reminded that at the time before, that is, when they were being preached to, they were then being disobedient. In this view, Peter says that Christ preached <b>by the Spirit</b> to those who were once disobedient, during the days of Noah. So, Christ preached to them too - specifically, by the Spirit - and preachers, such as Noah, would have been God's prophets to those lost souls then. By this means it was possible for Christ to preach to them, namely, by the Spirit. And so, just as Abel "yet speaks," even today, as it says, in Hebrews 11:4, so too is Christ able to preach to those in Noah's day, as He has accomplished and performed, by the Spirit. So then, in light of the statement by Jesus in Luke 23:43, I don't see this verse in First Peter as referring to an event that happened right before Christ's Resurrection (during the time after His crucifixion). Rather that is referred to quite directly in Acts 2:31, and the Jonah 2:6 and Psalm 16:10 connection, and to insert Enoch's name into 1 Peter 3:19 would not therefore bear on these other passages or this explanation. Hope that makes sense, and God bless!<br /><br />-AndrewAndrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03466078139557295311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-91691629377516873462017-08-08T10:15:59.032-04:002017-08-08T10:15:59.032-04:00In your conclusion: "a case could be made tha...In your conclusion: "a case could be made that Paul teaches essentially the same doctrine in Ephesians 2:9-10, minus the specificity in First Peter." I think you probably meant to reference Ephesians 3:9-10. Though FWIW, I wouldn't see this passage as making a similar point to that made in 1 Pt. 3. Assuming the interpretation of 1 Pt. 3 mentioned above, an actual proclamation would be in view, whereas Eph. 3:9-10 is about God's wisdom being made known not by proclamation but by the very existence of the church, by the realization of God's plan. And then there's the question of audience - a distinction to be made between the spirits in prison & the spiritual rulers & powers, these two groups perhaps being different.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13839454814114652823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-4918397099412461532017-08-06T12:59:23.977-04:002017-08-06T12:59:23.977-04:00Daniel Buck,
Correction made; thanks.Daniel Buck, <br />Correction made; thanks.James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-18974053839572485122017-08-06T08:27:27.352-04:002017-08-06T08:27:27.352-04:00ἐπρίσθησαν refers to being sawn, not burnt. ἐπρίσθησαν refers to being sawn, not burnt. Daniel Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02600146498880358592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-32112606215198811562017-08-06T07:31:54.042-04:002017-08-06T07:31:54.042-04:00I offer another explanation of the list of 12 trib...I offer another explanation of the list of 12 tribes in Rev. 7 in "The Exclusion of Ephraim in Rev. 7:4-8 and Essene Polemic Against Pharisees," Dead Sea Discoveries 2.1 (1995)80-85. If interested, it's available here:<br />http://people.duke.edu/~goranson/Exclusion_of_Ephraim.pdf<br />Stephen GoransonStephen Goransonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15300499142977120746noreply@blogger.com