Why Does the KJV Call the Holy Spirit an “It?”

J. I. Packer on “it” –

“John underlines the note by repeatedly using a masculine pronoun (“ekeinos,” “he”) to render Jesus’ references to the Spirit, when Greek grammar called for a neuter one (“ekeino,” “it”) to agree with the neuter noun, “Spirit” (“pneuma”): John wants his readers to be in no doubt that the Spirit is “he,” not “it.” This masculine pronoun, which appears in 14.26, 15.26, 16.8, 13-14 is the more striking because, in 14.17, where the Spirit is first introduced, John had used the grammatically correct neuter pronouns (“ho” and “autos”), thus ensuring that his subsequent shift to the masculine would be perceived not as incompetent Greek, but as magisterial theology.”

From: Keep in Step With the Spirit (2nd edition, 2005), p. 54.

Source: https://puritanboard.com/threads/biggest-errors-in-the-kjv.93019/page-3, Comment 61

The Means of Conveying the Word May be Fallible, but the Word is Not

Samuel Rutherford in Pretended Liberty of Conscience:

“Mr. John Goodwin will allow us no foundation of faith, but such as is made of grammars and Characters, and if the Scripture be wrong pointed, or the Printer drunk, or if the translation slip, then our faith is gone: Whereas the means of conveying the things believed may be fallible, as writing, printing, translating, speaking, are all fallible means of conveying the truth of old and new Testament to us, and yet the Word of GOD in that which is delivered to us is infallible.”

Source: https://puritanboard.com/threads/biggest-errors-in-the-kjv.93019/page-2, Comment 47

“Your Translations Are Faulty”

Christopher Fowler, Puritan Sermons, 5:589:

“Object. II. ‘Your translations are faulty.’ (Harding, Rhemists.)

Answer. ‘This is said a thousand times, but never proved; an untruth, joined with slander;’ so Jewel — ‘a spiteful lie;’ so Cartwright answers the Jesuits. ‘Show them,’ saith he. ‘Dr. Martin did attempt it, but was laughed at for his folly by his friend. The words may be short, but the sense is incorrupt.'”

Source: https://puritanboard.com/threads/biggest-errors-in-the-kjv.93019/, Comment 14

The White-Pinto Debate

The White-Pinto debate from a few years ago:

More Reasons To Have Been Struck Out By Heretics Than Inserted By Believers

Rev. Matthew Winzer:

Turretin’s Opera, vol. 4, pp. 289ff., contains the theological disputation on the Three Heavenly Witnesses. The respondent is Benedict Pictet.

Pictet’s view is expressed in his Christian Theology, p. 103: “There are, therefore, three persons in one divine essence; and this is clearly established by the passage in 1 John v. 7, which is brought forward and quoted by Cyprian, although not read in many copies. A far greater number of reasons can be alleged why this passage should be said to have been struck out by heretics, than to have been inserted by the orthodox. It was more to the advantage of heretics to suppress this passage, than to that of the orthodox to add it, because, if it were genuine, the heresy of the former would be entirely overthrown; if spurious, the orthodox creed was in no danger, being clearly established from other passages of scripture. The connection also of the text confirms our opinion; for unless this verse be admitted, there seems no reason why John should say, ‘There are three that bear witness in earth,’ not having before said any thing of ‘three witnesses in heaven.’ Nor can it be objected that these words in earth, were also added afterwards, for the contrary appears from verse 9, where mention is made both of the divine and the human testimony, ‘If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater.'”

It will be observed that the number of copies is not relevant to its inclusion. It has early support in Cyprian, there is greater reason why it would have been suppressed than added, and internally the passage is coherent with its inclusion.

Source: https://puritanboard.com/threads/james-white-the-received-text.92697/page-2, Comment 31

The Reformed v. Fundamentalist Approaches to the AV

Rev. Matthew Winzer:

Steve, as I perceive it, within fundamentalist circles the defence of the AV assumes anti-reformed principles such as their doctrine that the translators were inspired and that the AV can be used to correct the Hebrew and Greek originals. The “baptist” view of regenerate church membership influences the way differences are discussed, especially using terms like “apostate” and “new age” to describe anything which might produce variation from the AV. The Reformed clearly hold to the authenticity of the originals while maintaining the integrity of faithful translations, and make careful distinctions between inspiration and providence, the visible and invisible church, etc.

Source: https://puritanboard.com/threads/james-white-the-received-text.92697/

Reformed Scholastics did not use Empirical Methodology

Rev. Matthew Winzer:

Reformed scholastic views of the text did not operate according to modern empirical methodology. 1 John 5:7 is regularly used as if it were the Achilles heel of the TR. Whatever one thinks of the text, its wholesale acceptance demonstrates that the reformed church believed in the preservation of the Word without requiring the type of inductive, evidential methodology which is the trademark of modern textual criticism. It did not matter that it was not found in the majority of Greek mss. or how old the mss. were. Their doctrine of preservation was not dependent on the number or age of the mss.

Source: https://puritanboard.com/threads/james-white-the-received-text.92697/, Comment 9