Re: Leviticus 19:2 and 1 Peter 1:16

From: Glen Riddle (glen1@flash.net)
Date: Sat Mar 21 1998 - 14:14:25 EST

Next message: Bill Ross: "Fw: Leviticus 19:2 and 1 Peter 1:16"
Previous message: clayton stirling bartholomew: "Re: Leviticus 19:2 and 1 Peter 1:16"
In reply to: Bill Ross: "Leviticus 19:2 and 1 Peter 1:16"
Next in thread: Bill Ross: "Fw: Leviticus 19:2 and 1 Peter 1:16"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

<x-html><!x-stuff-for-pete base="" src="" id="0"><HTML>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF">

Bill Ross wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> In the
KJV, Leviticus 19:2 reads "Ye shall be holy" In
the Hebrew, "Ye shall be" is not an imperative, but an imperfect: "You
are". In the KJV,
1 Peter 1:16 reads "Because it is written: Be ye holy". In
the Textus Receptus (TR), this is an imperative. But there are several
manuscripts, used in some modern translations, that use a different word
which is in the indicative. * What does
the Septuagint say for Leviticus 19:2? * Which
NT manuscript should I trust here: TR? or the ones that agree with Leviticus? I
think that if the NT agrees with the OT form, it is for a powerful reason.</BLOCKQUOTE>
 
</BODY>
</HTML>

</x-html>

Next message: Bill Ross: "Fw: Leviticus 19:2 and 1 Peter 1:16"
Previous message: clayton stirling bartholomew: "Re: Leviticus 19:2 and 1 Peter 1:16"
In reply to: Bill Ross: "Leviticus 19:2 and 1 Peter 1:16"
Next in thread: Bill Ross: "Fw: Leviticus 19:2 and 1 Peter 1:16"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:14 EDT