• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
degree is the fact that the Second Coming of Christ can be proven from the Scriptures. If th re was nothinglse, the Scriptures are a weightier source of affirmation than mere experience due to the probability thathe synoptic Gospel accounts (Matthew 17; Mark 9; Luke 9) had been written by this time, and Peter couldvery well have returned to he mount of Transfiguration through the blessed words of God. On top of that,Peter's testimony could have been corroborated in this manner to boot. Furthermore, we know that not onlywas Peter referring to Paul's epistles as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16) at the time, but Paul referred to Luke10:7 as Scripture alon with Deuteronomy 25:4 in 1 Timothy 5:18. Takin either an le, experiences aresubstantiated or unsubstantiated by the words of the Lord; that, however, is all.Finally, our six reason for refu in Dr. Daniel Wallace's assertion that a true comparative interpretation of he adjective is not warranted in 2 Peter 1:19 is for this purpose: The alteration of the A.V. 1611 text in thispassage rids us of a proof text for the Scriptures being the Christian's sole and final authority. 2 Peter 1:19says, "
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts.
" This verse is telling you inno uncertain terms that the words of Scripture are your final, complete, and highest authority
UNTIL THE DAY DAWN,
meaning that you are to follow the Scriptures and judge experiences by the Scriptures fromnow until the Second Coming of Chr st. The real issue then behind the corrupted sense of 2 Peter 1:19 in theodern, English Bible versions that oppose the A.V. 1611 is that the Scriptures are not promoted as theabsolute standard in separating truth from error.Conclusively, Daniel Wallace has been wei hed and found wantin on all counts. He failed to prove that theomparative adjective couldn't be treated attributively in the passage contextually or lexically, even thoughthere is a paucity of these examples in the NT syntactically. What he termed "
virtually impossible
"grammatically turned out to be complemented by some very strikingly handsome parallels that we examinedarlier in this treatise. Professor Wallace failed to acknowledge that virtually all of Peter's seven other usesof comparative adjective, none of these instances are rendered as an elative functioning by means of acomparative. While he aptly rebutted the verbal predicative interpretation of 

as seen in theNASB, his reason for denying the authenticity of the basal predicative understanding (which carries theame meaning as the A.V. 1611) has been dealt with above on six points. Dr. Wallace's accusation toward theESV that it has "
erred 
" in two ways was only seen to have erred in one way since the substantive use of thed ective can function without the Greek article. The reason for this point is that the appositional approach,though not as idiomatic as the attributive rendition, till carries the same interpretative force as the A.V.1611 i.e. the word of prophecy is more sure than your experience . Thou h in a minority, the A.V. 1611 aswell as the sectarian Anointed Standard Translation; the Duoay-Rheims; the World English Bible;Webster's translation; Rotherham's Emphasized Bible (though closer to appositional than attributive);Green's Literal Translation; Young's Literal Translation (similar to Rotherham); Mace's 1729 NT; and the1560 Geneva Bible (though

is translated as a superlative [most sure] instead of as aomparative [more sure] all treat the comparative ad ective attributively or the like, which upholds thewords of God as the supreme and sole authority by which to judge all matters pertaining to faith anpractice.1 Glenny, W. Edward, et al. he Bible Version Debate: The Perspective of Central Baptist TheologicalSeminary (Plymouth: Central Baptist Theological Seminary, 1997).2 Streeter, Lloyd L. Seventy-five Problems with Central Baptist Seminary's Book The Bible Version Debate(Kearney: Morris Publishing, 2001).3 Glenny, 121-122.4 Glenny, 42.5 Windham, Neal. New Testament Greek For Preachers and Teachers (Lanham: University Press of America, 1991), 15.6 Glenny, 122.7 Glenny, 124.8 Wallace, Daniel. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996).9 Burgon, John William. The Revision Revised (Collingswood: Dean Burgon Society Press, 2000), 197.
N.T. GREEKEXEGESIS
BEYONDTHE BASICS
SEVENTEEN (17) BRILLIANT ARTICLESOF JEFFREY D. NACHIMSONON ADVANCED NEW TESTAMENTGREEK TRANSLATION AND EXEGESISTHAT DEFENDED THE KING JAMES BIBLEAGAINST SCHOLARSHIP ONLYISM
CRITIQUING THE CRITICS OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE:KENNETH WUEST, DANIEL WALLACE,GARY HUDSON, JAMES MAY, FRED BUTLER,RICK NORRIS, JAMES WHITE, DOUG KUTILEK, ETC.
COMPILED BY PERIANDER A. ESPLANA
 
2
N.T. GREEK EXEGESIS BEYOND THE BASICS:
SEVENTEEN (17) BRILLIANT ARTICLES OF JEFFREY D. NACHIMSONON ADVANCED NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TRANSLATIONAND EXEGESIS THAT DEFENDED THE KING JAMES BIBLEAGAINST SCHOLARSHIP ONLYISMCOMPILED BY PERIANDER A. ESPLANA
www.geocities.com/perianthium786
CRITIQUING THE CRITICS OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE
A Critique of Kenneth WuestA More Sure Word of Prophecy than Greek ScholarshipJohn 1:1 in the NWT: A Blasphemous Demonstration of Defunct Greek ScholarshipThe Greek Grammatical DesperadoAn Apocryphal AmalgamationThe Case of the Alleged Perpetual MisprintRick Norris: The Independent Fundamental Immersionist1 Peter 3:19 and "The Spirits in Prison"Evangelical Outreach: A Parroted Case of Scholastic IgnoranceThe Rudimentary Factor Underlying Infallibility"Dirty" Dirk Wood in a Tainted Meat LockerThese Being Dead Yet SpeakethA Critique of Goethe's Faustian Rendition of 

in John 1:1Matthew 23:14Butler's Bumbling Bunk Concerning Final Absolute Authority2 Timothy 3:16 - Which Bible Constitutes the Scriptures?May In Fiction
Note: In this compilation, I have not included his amazing article on VerbalPlenary Inspiration of the Bible entitled “An Inquiry Into the Interpretation ofTranslational Inspiration.” I will publish it together with his other articles ontextual criticism, lisguistics, science, philosophy, politics, and other issues.
 
3
JEFFREY D. NACHIMSON is an educator, polemic/apologeticwriter, conference/seminar speaker, and researcher in the areasof textual criticism, manuscript evidence, and Greekgrammar/syntax.He graduated with Greek award at Pensacola Bible Institute inMay 2005.He is presently studying B.S. in Political Science at TroyUniversity online.By God’s will, he is planning to pursue M.Div. through distancelearning program and an accredited Ph.D. after his graduation.He is now the administrator of Victory Bible Institute.A.V. 1611 critics admitted that J.D. Nachimson is the King JamesVersion defender extraordinaire.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...