Heidi Guedel

Posted by Roger Pearse:
OK..... Are you saying that Peter was not an 'apostle'? If not, why should Mark write down anything that Peter supposedly said?

But Dennis the Short's calculations are deemed to be in error... right? So it's all pure speculation.

Thanks. Me, too!

I'm just holding the witness(es) to the same standard of truth as in a court of law - no hearsay evidence can be accepted as accurate testimony.

Speaking for myself, it is of interest to me because of the enormous influence Christians have had on the history of this planet. Their actions affect the entire world, IMHO, and their doctrines and dogma have an impact upon everyone.

Well, I respectfully disagree. The question of whether an infallible deity guided the writing of biblical scripture for his/her/its own ends has a definite bearing on whether or not the Bible is important enough to deserve this degree of ongoing speculation and argumentation about its authenticity and accuracy. Many,many other books - books that are far more constructive, intelligent, and inspirational - receive far less time and attention than The Wholly Babble.

Not only that, but differences of opinion about the meaning of biblical scripture have been used for centuries as an excuse (or rationale) for persecution and bigotry - both by Christian denominations vs each other (i.e. Ireland) and by Christian sects vs non-Christians (i.e. the Crusades, the Inquisition) - all because hoards of determined people believe that The Bible was inspired by their deity du jour.

Apikorus

Nonsense. Nowhere does Tov say that "pierced" is an appropriate translation. His email indicates that what appears as K)RY in the MT of Ps 22:17 is likely a corruption of some verb. If you think he supports Flint's reading of "the have pierced," please provide some evidence.

Hardly. Significant textual corruptions in the Hebrew Bible are generally few and far between. It is your view, that the text is perfect and without error, that is laughable.

By the way, Tov literally wrote the book on corruptions of the Masoretic Text.

Iasion

Greetings all,

Let's recap some of praxeus' claims :

praxeus' claim:
? Iasion stated "the Comma was added much later than the 4th century".
Reality:
* Iasion claimed "the Comma was added much later" (than the earliest evidence)

praxeus' claim :
? Cyprian cited the Comma
Reality:
* Cyprian did NOT quote the Comma - he stated it NOT as part of a quote.

praxeus' claim :
? Tertullian is evidence for the Comma.
Reality:
* Tertullian does NOT mention the Comma at all.

praxeus' claim :
? Athanasis (in Contra Arium, De Incarnatione) cites the Comma
Reality:
* I searched these books, could find NO mention of the Comma

praxeus' claim :
? Jerome Prologue Canonical Epistles (Preserved in Codex Fuldensis) - cites the Comma.
Reality:
* Jerome in his known writing does NOT mention the Comma
* Codex Fuldensis does NOT contain the Comma in the text.
* the UNKNOWN writer of the prologue complains that the Comma is MISSING

praxeus' claim :
? John Cassian cites the Comma.
Reality:
* I searched the books, could find NO mention of the Comma


Then the Greek MSS nonsense -
I stated a well known FACT :
"NO Greek MSS has the Comma until the time of Erasmus."

praxeus rejected this known fact, so I cited more evidence such as a note from the NIV and repeated my claim :
"no Greek MSS had the Comma before Erasmus"

Now praxeus (refusing to acknowledge his error) astonishingly claims I am contradicting myself - that
"NO Greek MSS has the Comma until the time of Erasmus"
contradicts with
"no Greek MSS had the Comma before Erasmus"

Well,
at this point I am sure readers will understand why I won't be bothering with praxeus anymore.


Iasion

Amaleq13

Just to clarify for myself if no one else, what is the generally accepted dating of the "earliest evidence"?

Iasion

Greetings,

The evidence for 1 John 5 with no Comma consists of three forms -
[a] MSS of 1 John 5 without the Comma (strongest)
[b] quotes of 1 John 5 without the Comma
[c] discussions of Trinity without mention of the Comma (weakest)

In chronological order then, the evidence for 1 John WITHOUT the Comma includes the following :

2nd C.
[b] Clement Alex. Fragments
[c] Theophilus

3rd C.
[b] Cyprian
[b] Tertullian
[c] many writers- Origen, against Novatian, Liturgies, against Sabellians, Gregory Thaumaturgist, Hippolytus,

4th C.
[a] Aleph (01) C. Sinaiticus
[a] B (03) C. Vaticanus
[b] Ambrose,
[b] Augustine
[c] various writers- Athanasius, Basil, Cyril

5th C.
[a] A (02) C. Alexandrinus
[a] C (04) C. Ephraemi Syr. R.
[b] Council of Chalcedon
[b] Leo the Great

6th C.
[a] C. Fuldensis vulgate

8th,9th C.
[a] C. Amiatinus vulgate
[a] Psi (044) C. Athous Lavrensis
[a] P.apr (025) C. Porphyrianus


By comparison,
evidence for 1 John WITH the Comma is a few centuries later :
1. citations from 4th C.
2. (latin) MSS evidence from 8th C.
3. Greek MSS evidence from 16th C.


Iasion

Jack the Bodiless

A reminder: this "deterioration" began when you falsely accused me of referring to the Galilee region (ignoring the context of the discussion), and wilfully chose to persist with this misconception despite being corrected on this.
This indicates that YOU have dug your head in the sand. Apparently the only reason you choose to assume that this was "an error by the Alexandrian scribes" is because it suits your religious presuppositions: you can present no actual case here. This is indeed "such nonsense".
Cute... and revealing. Neutrality on the issue of "which is the original text" is labelled a "presupposition". Presumably, a pre-existing conviction that all Alexandrian texts are mistranslations is "open-mindedness".

BTW, my belief in the falsehood of the Bible is a conclusion, not a presupposition. I was once a Christian.

Doug Shaver

I guess I worded my question too open-endedly. Let me try to be more specific.
Before you began your studies of the manuscript and historical evidence, did you believe:

(a) That the documents now comprising the Bible were written originally without error of any kind;
(b) That God has always ensured the existence of inerrant copies of the original documents; and
(c) That for English-speaking Christians, God has always ensured the existence of an inerrant English translation based on inerrant copies of the original inerrant documents?

Amaleq13

Thanks, Iasion.

So, what praxeus should have said was:

"Iasion claimed the Comma was added much later than the 2nd century."

Roger Pearse

I don't know about anyone else, but such compilations of 'authorities' without references always ring a warning bell to me. Treat this list as fiction intended merely for rhetorical effect until you have specific references for each, have checked those references, and have considered whatever has been omitted.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Sauron

The above sounds like a high-winded version of "Oh yeah? Well, I'm not going to trust your sources because I don't like them."

If you don't believe that the sources support this claim, then you're free to check them and verify them -- or failing that, to embarrass Iaison by pointing out the mistakes.

But just waving your hands and saying "I don't like it, so don't trust it" reeks of intellectual laziness and tantrum-throwing.