Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Are you Protestant? Or, are you sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll need to register in order to post your comments on your favorite topics and subjects. Register in less than a minute, it is simple, fast, and free! We hope you enjoy your fellowship here! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christforums

.... an orthodox Protestant forum whose members espouse the Apostolic doctrines in the Biblical theologies set forth by Augustine, Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin and John Knox etc. We do not "argue" with nor do we solicit the membership of people who espouse secular or cultic ideologies. We believe that our conversations are to be faith building and posts that advance heretical or apostate thinking will be immediately deleted and the poster permanently banned from the forum. This is a Christian community for people to explore the traditional theologies of Classical Protestantism. Those who would challenge the peace and harmony that we enjoy here as fellow believers are directed to another forum.

Enjoy your fellowship

In order to understand the importance of Christian fellowship, we must first understand what Christian fellowship is and what it isn’t. The Greek words translated “fellowship” in the New Testament mean essentially a partnership to the mutual benefit of those involved. Christian fellowship, then, is the mutually beneficial relationship between Christians, who can’t have the identical relationship with those outside the faith. Those who believe the gospel are united in the Spirit through Christ to the Father, and that unity is the basis of fellowship. This relationship is described by Jesus in His high-priestly prayer for His followers in John 17:23. The importance of true Christian fellowship is that it reinforces Christ centeredness in our mind and helps us to focus on Christ and His desires and goals for us. As iron sharpens iron, in true Christian fellowship Christians sharpen one another's faith and stir one another to exercise that faith in love and good works, all to God’s glory.
Sign in to follow this  
FruitNNut

Translations

Recommended Posts

We can remain on the subject if we can conduct ourselves in kindness.
Evidence is neither kind or unkind it simply is and that is all I have asked for.

 

Concerning your question, I would leave that to the scholars who disagree about its validity.
I ask a question in regard to the manuscript evidence. This is no question of validity. A certain number of them have the passage. A certain number to do not. Both side agree on that point and there is where your claim about the majority text comes in.

 

It is not sensible to think you nor I are qualified for such an undertaking as to authenticate manuscript corrections by merely quoting what other scholars think.
Then why did you claim that 1 John 5:7 was part of the N.T.? You said in post 9 "there are enough scholars who do, which is where I learned the information" Did not these so-called scholars provide the information necessary? As for your claim that "It is not sensible to think you nor I are qualified for such an undertaking as to authenticate manuscript corrections" it is very sensible for me to think so. I can read Greek. I can read and understand a critical apparatus. I know who the foremost scholars are on this topic and have read them. I know where to look up the actually Greek manuscripts online so that I can view them.

 

We can share with one another what and who we choose believe without making challenges.
I do not choose to believe because I like it or because it fits what I want to be true. I choose it because it is true and the evidence shows it to be true. I would love for 1 John 5:7 to be part of the Greek text but it is not. Can you follow the evidence, the facts, to the truth of the matter?

 

You don't see me challenging your incorrect statement that the KJ translators did not use Greek manuscripts for their translation!
I don't know where you get your formation but it is wrong. They used printed editions. Since it your claim that they did, name the manuscripts? Which ones did they use?

 

I have much more to share on this subject if your interested.
Let's do it.

 

Edited by Origen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not choose to believe because I like it or because it fits what I want to be true. I choose it because it is true and the evidence shows it to be true.

 

I do not choose to believe because I like it or because it fits what I want to be true. I choose it because it is true and the evidence shows it to be true.

I really like your comment here because it is too easy to get caught up into desiring what we believe to be true above what is actually true. I'm constantly finding error in some of my beliefs by constantly discovering deeper truths in my studies and am always ready to be humble enough to realize this is an ongoing lesson of the Spirit's teachings. Actual truth is always superior to conceived truth, because what we conceive to be truth may not always be true, hence the continuous need of the Spirit's guidance in teaching.

 

“The Comma Johanneum (or Johannine Comma or Heavenly Witnesses) is a comma (a short clause) in the First Epistle of John, 1 John 5:7–8. The scholarly consensus is that that passage is a Latin corruption that entered the Greek manuscript tradition in subsequent copies” (Wikipedia). The “scholarly consensus” consists mainly of modern textual critics who have departed from the methods and beliefs of the traditional scholars. I think the Wikipedia source has pretty accurate documentation on this subject!

 

It goes on to say-“In 1516, Desiderius Erasmus published the first modern Greek critical text, Novum Instrumentum omne. He subsequently produced four more editions. The first two lacked the Comma, which was first included in the 1522 edition of his Greek New Testament. It subsequently appeared in every later edition of the Greek New Testament that came to be called Textus Receptus (Received Text). Thus the Comma is found in the most widely used translations of the New Testament before 1881, when the English Revised Version was published without the Comma; but, from the early 18th century onwards, several individual translators omitted it. Versions from this period which contain it include the Geneva Bible, the King James Version (KJV),[n 1] Young's and both the Rheims New Testament and the Ronald Knox translations which are Roman Catholic.”

 

There is much disagreement in the scholar community between what traditional scholars (TS) and contemporary scholars (CS) accept as authoritative within the manuscript tradition. Those siding with the TS (myself included) claim that the Alexandrian Text base manuscripts (Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Sinaticus – lasts discoveries of oldest known manuscripts comprising most modern versions since 1881) are spurious due to their departure from the majority of extant manuscripts, mostly in content but some in context. This answers to the reason why there are hundreds of omitted words, phrases and entire clauses.

 

It’s insensible to me to suspect that God would allow His Church for the last four-hundred years (Majority Text or Received Text) to use a Bible translation that is not superior to all subsequent translations. Most of the modern translations use recently discovered manuscripts (which most early scribes rejected) which is evidenced by the multitude of translation since the mid 1800’s. I believe many are more influenced by mere change than traditional truth, and I also believe I know why.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really like your comment here because it is too easy to get caught up into desiring what we believe to be true above what is actually true.
Thank you.

 

The scholarly consensus is that that passage is a Latin corruption that entered the Greek manuscript tradition in subsequent copies” (Wikipedia). The “scholarly consensus” consists mainly of modern textual critics who have departed from the methods and beliefs of the traditional scholars. I think the Wikipedia source has pretty accurate documentation on this subject!
This is simply not true.

 

(1) How you ever read any of those scholars? If so which ones?

 

(2) You claim that "modern textual critics have departed from the methods and beliefs of the traditional scholars" What are those method and how do they differ?

 

Furthermore, your claim that it is modern textual critics who are at fault. How far would you like me to go back? How about Adam Carke (1823) or Erasmus (1519). Neither of these believe the Comma was part of the Greek text. The fact is the evidence from the Greek manuscripts shows it was not part of the text and no amount wishing will change that and modern textual critics were not the first to notice it.

 

It goes on to say-“In 1516, Desiderius Erasmus published the first modern Greek critical text, Novum Instrumentum omne. He subsequently produced four more editions. The first two lacked the Comma, which was first included in the 1522 edition of his Greek New Testament. It subsequently appeared in every later edition of the Greek New Testament that came to be called Textus Receptus (Received Text).
I already pointed this out way back in post 12. I stated: "Erasmus did not include 1 John 5:7 in the 1st or 2nd editions of his Greek text. It was included in the following editions. However, Erasmus did not believe that it was part of the Greek text. He added it because of pressure. At the time it was only to be found in one manuscript, Codex Montfortianus which dates to 1520."

 

Thus the Comma is found in the most widely used translations of the New Testament before 1881, when the English Revised Version was published without the Comma; but, from the early 18th century onwards, several individual translators omitted it.
Irrelevant. If the Comma is not in the Greek text, then it does not matter which translation is most widely used.

 

Versions from this period which contain it include the Geneva Bible, the King James Version (KJV),[n 1] Young's and both the Rheims New Testament and the Ronald Knox translations which are Roman Catholic.”
Again, irrelevant. What matters is what the Greek does or does not have.

 

There is much disagreement in the scholar community between what traditional scholars (TS) and contemporary scholars (CS) accept as authoritative within the manuscript tradition.
No there is not. Name 10 of these scholars who are expects in the fields of textual criticism, the Greek manuscripts, and papyrology. What are their credential? Which universities do they teach at? What academia journals have they been published in?

 

Those siding with the TS (myself included) claim that the Alexandrian Text base manuscripts (Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Sinaticus – lasts discoveries of oldest known manuscripts comprising most modern versions since 1881) are spurious due to their departure from the majority of extant manuscripts, mostly in content but some in context.
Two points here. First there is nothing spurious about Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaticus. Second, the majority of extant manuscripts prove that the Comma is not part of the Greek text. If you are going to use that argument again, which you could not support before, then answer my question. How many Greek manuscripts contain the Comma Johanneum according to your source? Now tell how many do not have it? Which is the one majority?

 

This answers to the reason why there are hundreds of omitted words, phrases and entire clauses.
You think that the majority text is the same in every place? It is not. You think that the Byzantine texts are all the same? They are not. According to the majority text and the Byzantine texts, the Comma is not part of the original Greek text. How can you still address this subject when you simply ignore what the majority text and the Byzantine texts do not have? If you accept the majority text, then you need to accept that the Comma is not there. If you to accept the Byzantine texts, then you need to accept that the Comma is not there. You can't have it both ways.

 

It’s insensible to me to suspect that God would allow His Church for the last four-hundred years (Majority Text or Received Text) to use a Bible translation that is not superior to all subsequent translations.
Simply because something is insensible to you means nothing. That is not proof of anything. Evidence, on the other hand, means everything.

 

Most of the modern translations use recently discovered manuscripts (which most early scribes rejected) which is evidenced by the multitude of translation since the mid 1800’s.
First, you do not know what you are taking about. Second, there is no evidence they were rejected by scribes. Third, you have given no evidence to prove such a claim because there is none. Fourth, I find your claim dishonest because you have no proof and you know it. If you had hard evidence, you would have provided it by now and you would have answer my question. You are parroting something someone else wrote and clearly they gave no proof for their claims. Edited by Origen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Oh ok, do when the a previous Pope delcared there wasn't a hell, he wasn't changing things, just correcting.

 

This thread is really interesting reading, just seeing the view of people who know way more than me is really making me think.

 

Thank you all for everything you've mulled over so far :)

 

Well actually, the Catholic Church, and Christianity in general, has bent the bible a bit to fit with their customs.

ESPECIALLY the Catholic Church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How you ever read any of those scholars?

 

Most contemporary Bible translations derive from the NU (Nestle-Aland Greek NT--United Bible Society Greek NT) and they derive their texts from the two naturalists Westcott and Hort text of 1881, who used the recently discovered (mid 1800's) Alexandrian base, which is mostly separated from the Majority Text which only the traditional translations mostly use.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What matters is what the Greek does or does not have.

 

Their are spurious (false) manuscripts and genuine manuscripts in existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Their are spurious (false) manuscripts and genuine manuscripts in existence.
False how? Because they do not have what you want? That is not an argument or proof. What you mean is you don't like them but that proves nothing.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most contemporary Bible translations derive from the NU (Nestle-Aland Greek NT--United Bible Society Greek NT) and they derive their texts from the two naturalists Westcott and Hort text of 1881
Once again, you do not know what you are talking about. Modern scholars use reasoned eclecticism not Westcott and Hort. Besides, it makes no sense. Why would any scholar use a text that is 135 year old out of date text? Since 1881 many more manuscripts have been found. Your point is flat out wrong and makes no sense in regard to the wealth of manuscripts that are available now.

 

who used the recently discovered (mid 1800's) Alexandrian base, which is mostly separated from the Majority Text which only the traditional translations mostly use.
You do not know the facts. You are parroting something someone else wrote. First, Westcott and Hort were not two naturalists. Have you ever read any book by either man? No you have not. Second, there are papyri available now which predate anything Westcott and Hort had. Third, let's get back to it, 1 John 5:7 is not support by the majority text. Edited by Origen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well actually, the Catholic Church, and Christianity in general, has bent the bible a bit to fit with their customs.

ESPECIALLY the Catholic Church.

 

I did read into the whole Christianity taking on then 'pagan' holidays and event's and incorporating into their own, something about it helping to subdue and have the populace more accepting? But that's a whole other argument :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since 1881 many more manuscripts have been found

The oldest NT manuscripts are the Alexandrian texts. The Dead Sea and others writings found recently are OT, no NT as far as I'm aware.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Simply because something is insensible to you means nothing. That is not proof of anything. Evidence, on the other hand, means everything.

If it doesn't matter that the modern translations that omit a great deal of Scripture in comparison to the traditional translations, then this entire subject is irrelevant. I have books that have noted the omissions and significant changes in readings if you would care to see some. That's the proof to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The oldest NT manuscripts are the Alexandrian texts.
Yes, but that is just the way it is. Are scholars to ignore them or reject them because they are of the Alexandrian text type? They have no control over was is found and what is not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it doesn't matter that the modern translations that omit a great deal of Scripture in comparison to the traditional translations, then this entire subject is irrelevant.
You error is you hold to the translations as if they were the issue when it is the Greek manuscripts that matter.

 

I have books that have noted the omissions and significant changes in readings if you would care to see some.
I know them all and there is nothing you can tell me about them. Your claim is nothing more than the same error I pointed out above. I doubt you know any of the evidence for or against any verse, word, or passage. That is clear from your claims about 1 John 5:7 and your inability to cite any of the manuscript evidence. You have simply read something and accepted it without checking the opposing view and what those scholars say, the sources, or evidence. Using that method will never lead to the truth of any matter.

 

That's the proof to me.
Some people are like that. They do not allow themselves to believe something they do not like or cannot understand. The problem is even worse when that person refuses to check the evidence. Edited by Origen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, but that is just the way it is. Are scholars to ignore them or reject them because they are of the Alexandrian text type?

The Alexandrian codexs are rejected by traditional scholars because they greatly differ from most of the existing codexs (Majority Text).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Alexandrian codexs are rejected by traditional scholars because they greatly differ from most of the existing codexs.
Who are these so-called traditional scholars? Name these scholars who are expects in the fields of textual criticism, the Greek manuscripts, and papyrology. What are their credential? Which universities do they teach at? What academia journals have they been published in? You say traditional as if ithat means something or proves something. It does not mean anything nor is it proof of anything. The thing that matter is the manuscript evidence and you have offered none.

 

Moreover, if they reject them because they differ, that is tantamount to saying they reject them because they don't like them. That is not an argument nor is it evidence. Simply because they differ does not prove the so-called majority text is correct. You have assumed it is correct because you prefer it. It takes a lot more than that.

 

You think that the majority text is the same in every place? It is not. You think that the Byzantine texts are all the same? They are not. You have been misled my friend. It is funny how you keep bring up the majority text but according to the majority text 1 John 5:7 is not part of the Greek text. You are not being consistent, nor are you following the evidence of the text you claim is better. Do you have an answer for this?

Edited by Origen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a few from hundreds of omissions:

 

Luk 9:56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village. The entire first sentence is omitted, so you just see the second sentence.

 

Mat 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. This entire passage is omitted, which is the only companion verse to the above omission, which means there are no other direct correlations in their text that reads like these.

 

Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Entire verse omitted.

 

 

These are examples of hundreds of errors of the same, thus if a believer would want to read and continue to reread the NT they would not be seeing "every word of God" (Luke 4:4), unless one wanted to claim that the existing majority of manuscripts we've have for the last half millennial are spurious because they are accused of adding to the Word of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These are examples of hundreds of errors of the same, thus if a believer would want to read and continue to reread the NT they would not be seeing "every word of God" (Luke 4:4), unless one wanted to claim that the existing majority of manuscripts we've have for the last half millennial are spurious because they are accused of adding to the Word of God.
As I said above, simply because they differ does not prove the so-called majority text is correct. You have assumed it is correct because you prefer it. It takes a lot more than that.

 

You tend to ignore anything that proves you wrong, so why don't you address my posts. You think that the majority text is the same in every place? It is not. You think that the Byzantine texts are all the same? They are not. You have been misled my friend. It is funny how you keep bring up the majority text but according to the majority text 1 John 5:7 is not part of the Greek text. You are not being consistent, nor are you following the evidence of the text you claim is better. Do you have an answer for this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is funny how you keep bring up the majority text but according to the majority text 1 John 5:7 is not part of the Greek text. You are not being consistent, nor are you following the evidence of the text you claim is better. Do you have an answer for this?

As it was mentioned before, Erasmus included it in two of his editions of the Greek text and before these later manuscripts were discovered it is found in the most widely used translations of the New Testament before 1881.

 

The omission of 1 John 5:7 isn't near the decadence of the great mass of omissions if your and avid reader of the NT, but most still do not read the Bible and this is why it's not a notable problem with most Christians. To get a good tan you need significant exposure to the Sun. To get to a mature conformation you need significant exposure to the Son--which is effected mostly by minding (or mining) the Word of God.

 

What God has used for my spiritual growth the most among all things has been in rereading the Bible for the last 40 years (OT 4 times--NT 30 times). I remember reading the NIV (same as all the other modern versions, except those not from the recent codexs) when it came out and it didn't take me near as long to read the NT as the ones I've been reading. Then I discovered it was due to the enormous lack of content.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As it was mentioned before, Erasmus included it in two of his editions of the Greek text and before these later manuscripts were discovered it is found in the most widely used translations of the New Testament before 1881.
First, I already pointed this out about Erasmus twice. In posts 12 and 19 I state: "Erasmus did not include 1 John 5:7 in the 1st or 2nd editions of his Greek text. It was included in the following editions. However, Erasmus did not believe that it was part of the Greek text. He added it because of pressure. At the time it was only to be found in one manuscript, Codex Montfortianus which dates to 1520."

 

Second, I also addressed your point in regard to translations of the New Testament before 1881. If the Comma is not in the Greek text, then it does not matter which translation is most widely used. So again I ask, how many Greek manuscripts contain the Comma Johanneum according to your source?

 

The omission of 1 John 5:7 isn't near the decadence of the great mass of omissions if your and avid reader of the NT, but most still do not read the Bible and this is why it's not a notable problem with most Christians.
Irrelevant and does not address my question, posts, or the manuscript evidence.

 

To get a good tan you need significant exposure to the Sun. To get to a mature conformation you need significant exposure to the Son--which is effected mostly by minding (or mining) the Word of God.
Pointless analogy and irrelevant. Does not address my question, my posts, or the manuscript evidence.

 

What God has used for my spiritual growth the most among all things has been in rereading the Bible for the last 40 years (OT 4 times--NT 30 times). I remember reading the NIV (same as all the other modern versions, except those not from the recent codexs) when it came out and it didn't take me near as long to read the NT as the ones I've been reading. Then I discovered it was due to the enormous lack of content.
Does not address my question, my posts, and is not proof of anything related to this topic and therefore is irrelevant.

 

You ignore anything that proves you wrong (and this last post of yours is no exception), so why don't you address my posts. You think that the majority text is the same in every place? It is not. You think that the Byzantine texts are all the same? They are not. You have been misled my friend. It is funny how you keep bring up the majority text but according to the majority text 1 John 5:7 is not part of the Greek text. You are not being consistent, nor are you following the evidence of the text you claim is better. Do you have an answer for this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you keep bring up the majority text but according to the majority text 1 John 5:7 is not part of the Greek text.

I can get you more if you like:

 

The most common statements made by Critical Text supporters about the paucity of evidence for the Comma in the Greek manuscripts sound similar to Metzger's below, who says it,

 

 

"...is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight."7

Metzger then proceeds to list seven of these manuscripts (#61, #88m, #221m, #429, #636m, #918, #2318), excluding the eighth manuscript, Ottobonianus (#629), a 14th-century manuscript which is listed in the United Bible Society's 4th edition of the Greek New Testament.8 Now, there are over 5300 extant Greek New Testament manuscripts, so this would on its face seem to be an overwhelming argument against the authenticity of the Johannine Comma.

 

However, the numbers game is reduced somewhat when we note that only 501 of these manuscripts contain the book of I John, chapter 5. Further, we see that Metzger and the UBS have slighted the actual number of Greek manuscripts which contain the verse. In addition to the ones listed above, D.A. Waite is reported to have identified manuscripts #634 and Omega 110 as containing the Comma, and Holland notes that the Comma appears in the margin of #635.9 Recently, Daniel Wallace reported that the Comma appears in the margin of #177, though he observes that the addition was made very late, at least after 1551. Finally, there are at least two Greek lectionaries (early didactic texts usually containing copious scriptural citations) in which the Comma appears (Lectionaries #60, dated to 1021 AD, and #173, dated to the 10th century).

 

http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can get you more if you like.
More what? More garbage.

 

Ah, the cut and paste method of posting. Nice job in doing research. Did you check any of this for accuracy? NO, you did not.

 

The most common statements made by Critical Text supporters about the paucity of evidence for the Comma in the Greek manuscripts sound similar to Metzger's
Well Metzger was\is THE leaning scholar, expert, authority on such topics.

 

"...is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight."7

Metzger then proceeds to list seven of these manuscripts (#61, #88m, #221m, #429, #636m, #918, #2318), excluding the eighth manuscript, Ottobonianus (#629), a 14th-century manuscript which is listed in the United Bible Society's 4th edition of the Greek New Testament.8 Now, there are over 5300 extant Greek New Testament manuscripts, so this would on its face seem to be an overwhelming argument against the authenticity of the Johannine Comma.

It does not seem to be only to those who are blind. It is a fact.

 

"...However, the numbers game is reduced somewhat when we note that only 501 of these manuscripts contain the book of I John, chapter 5.
So the majority of manuscripts according to your source show that it is not part of the text. Well, if we follow the majority text, then clearly it does not belong. Majority rules according to your claim. And by the way, in 4 of the above manuscripts the Comma is in the margin not the text.

 

Further, we see that Metzger and the UBS have slighted the actual number of Greek manuscripts which contain the verse.
Untrue and you have offered no evidence to support that claim. But lets look at this so-called evidence.

 

In addition to the ones listed above, D.A. Waite is reported to have identified manuscripts #634 and Omega 110 as containing the Comma, and Holland notes that the Comma appears in the margin of #635.9 Recently, Daniel Wallace reported that the Comma appears in the margin of #177, though he observes that the addition was made very late, at least after 1551. Finally, there are at least two Greek lectionaries (early didactic texts usually containing copious scriptural citations) in which the Comma appears (Lectionaries #60, dated to 1021 AD, and #173, dated to the 10th century).
This would be funny if was not so pathetic.

 

Here are the manuscripts.

 

221 margin (10th century, Comma added later)

635 margin (11th century, Comma added later)

177 margin (11th century, Comma added later)

88 margin (12th century, Comma added in 16th century)

629 (14th century)

429 margin (14th century, Comma added later)

636 margin (15th century, Comma added later)

61 (16th century)

918 (16th century)

2473 (17th century)

2318 (18th century)

 

Notice anything about them? There are two main points. Can you see it? If you cannot just say so and I will tell you.

 

But before I go lets do some math. Your source says 501 manuscripts contain the book of 1 John 5. Now lets just accept all 11 of the manuscripts though there is good reason not to do so (if you can answer my questions above you will also know why). 501 - 11 = 490

Thus there are 490 manuscripts that do not have the Comma. Now you claimed the majority text is the text we ought to follow. Therefore, according to the majority text, the Comma is not part of the Greek text. Majority rules, at lest that is what you believed in your others post. Have you changed your mind?

Edited by Origen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Therefore, according to the majority text, the Comma is not part of the Greek text. Majority rules, at lest that is what you believed in your others post.

It's not in most but it is in some! Enough to use it evidently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NetChaplain said:
It's not in most but it is in some! Enough to use it evidently.

That is not what you were saying before but let me get this straight. So you reject the majority text when it does not conform to your wants (and in the case of the Comma it does not)?

 

 

By the way don't forget this.

 

221 margin (10th century, Comma added later)

635 margin (11th century, Comma added later)

177 margin (11th century, Comma added later)

88 margin (12th century, Comma added in 16th century)

629 (14th century)

429 margin (14th century, Comma added later)

636 margin (15th century, Comma added later)

61 (16th century)

918 (16th century)

2473 (17th century)

2318 (18th century)

 

Notice anything about them? There are two main points. Can you see it? If you cannot just say so and I will tell you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you reject the majority text when it does not conform to your wants (and in the case of the Comma it does not)?

 

Regardless, the Majority Text based translations are superior to the manifestation of God's written Word than the Minority Text base, and when more Christians are regularly reading it this will all come out later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×