Toto

Please use the report post button or PM a moderator for administrative action.

Toto

Since I am the only moderator online right now, I will point out that it is clear that Iasion did not say that the Johannine comma was added in the fourth century, and the readers can draw their own conclusion about praxeus's integrity and/or debate tactics.

Roger Pearse

The account given in the fathers is that Mark wrote down what Peter said. Matthew and John were the apostles; Mark and Luke "apostolic men" (the phrase used by Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem IV).

Well, aged 20 in AD 33 would make him 48 in AD 61. I'm not going to tell you how old I am, but it's not far from that, and I consider myself middle-aged.

I wouldn't take their word for it; on controversial issues, scholars write only as men of their age, in my humble experience. The real reason that Mark's gospel is not by an eyewitness is the passage in Eusebius to the effect that Mark wrote down Peter's preaching. (Pardon me for not giving the proper ref. but I'm on the run).

If we dismiss this as 'hearsay', doesn't that imply much more distance to the facts than is actually the case?

Agreed. But it can only be a matter of interest, surely, for Christians?

This seems to me to confuse two different issues. The bible is composed as a human book. All human books are open to this sort of objection -- even printed ones, you know. The question of whether the infallible deity guided this process for his own ends is not connected to it in any way.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Iasion

Greetings,

Thanks for your comments, Toto :-)
(Sorry for getting procedures wrong in a hasty moment.)

Indeed, it is clear to all I did not say what praxeus claims.

It seems everyone else knows what "later" means, when we say, e.g. that a passage is a "later addition". It means later than the earliest evidence, whatever that may be.

In the case of the Comma, the earliest evidence is more in the form of citations than MSS, as 1 John is a minor book, not well supported in the very earliest centuries.

For example - Tertullian, Augustine, Jerome; and Cyprian who quotes the passage "these three are one" which is found in all MSS WITH and WITHOUT the Comma but does NOT quote the Comma even though he expressly gives the trinity formula (in HIS words, not as a quote.) This is a clear citation of 1 John 5 7 WITHOUT the Comma - yet somehow praxeus pretends the opposite.

However, while the early MSS evidence for 1 John is weak, what is most notable is that NO Greek MSS has the Comma until the time of Erasmus - only 8 very late Greek MSS have the Comma out of 5300 or so - a well known, and critical fact, which praxeus refuses to acknowledge :

http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html

Of course, the crucial test is what we see in most modern Bibles - the Comma is missing. The NIV gives a note with the Comma and explains it is "not found in any Greek MSS before the sixteenth century".

There is no doubt that the Johannine Comma is a later interpolation into the text.

There is also little doubt about praxeus' standards of integrity and knowledge of the facts.


Iasion

Jack the Bodiless

Why are you now talking about the Galilee region?

The problem is that a person approaching from the northeast (Tyre/Sidon) would not pass through the midst of the Decapolis to reach the SEA of Galilee. I never referred to the REGION of Galilee. Why does so much of your post assume that I did?
Why the attempt at misdirection? You consider the Textus Receptus to be erroneous. That is clear, and unescapable.
Your inability to account for this supposed "blunder" is again noted.
I am well aware of the issue here. "Almah" means "young woman", and the expectation that a young woman should be a virgin doesn't change the fact that this is a mistranslation, and that "betulah" was NOT used.
The correct translation is "disease". The Isaiah 53:3-4 mistranslation is especially heinous, because that word is NEVER translated as "grief" ANYWHERE except Isaiah 53. The Jews themselves used "plague" in the Septuagint, and the context is that the king in Isaiah's time (the actual "personification of Israel") was a leper.
This does not change the fact that "pierced" is a mistranslation. There are a number of Hebrew words that DO mean "pierced", and none of those were used here.

I note that you still haven't addressed the fact that the Bible contains many other errors (some of which I have mentioned).

Johnny Skeptic

If you did not believe that the God of the Bible guided the writing of the Bible for his own ends, would you be visiting this forum? I assume that you wouldn't.

I know that this forum is about Biblical Criticism and History, but if the moderators will allow me so say this, if good and evil supernatural beings exist, there are not any good reasons to exclude a reaonably possibility that a deceptive, evil supernatural being inspired the writing of all religious books.

Steven Avery

FYI ..Iasion, you never used "early exemplars" you used the term "early MSS" (after multiple requests for you to be specific). However that does not change the issue.

"ADDED to the Bible much later" than "early MSS".

Please state particularly what MSS you were referencing and what is the date of the MSS.

If they were 4th century, then my statement was 100% accurate, and you and the 'moderator' are both wrong.

And if you come up with early than 4th century MSS then I will gladly offer an apology and appreciate the new information.

Toto, Since you are defacto joining Iasion in attacking my integrity on this point -

(and strangely giving moderator approval to his evasion, the refusal to answer my straightforward question as to the date of the MSS he is referencing)

-- you should also tell us what MSS you think Iasion was referencing.

Amazing.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Again, you said that Emanuel Tov was referring to a pre-Christian variant in his reference to -

"the masoretic interpretation with the etnachta under hikifuni also may favor a verbal form there."

Are you placing you own convoluted theories upon Tov ?
Would you agree that he was referring to the Masoretic Text sans your overlay.

Did Tov ever refer to the DSS verbal reading or the Masoretic Text as a "pre-Christian variant" ?

Shalom,
Steven

Steven Avery

Jack, please, I was noting that you made that error when you said.
"A traveller wouldn't pass "through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis" to get to Galilee"
When one talks about going to Galilee, that would mean the region. The 'sea of Galilee' is the lake. I understand you might have simply slipped (as with "Northeast" below) not a big deal.

Northwest.
However they would go by the coasts (borders) of the Decapolis if the part of the Sea of Galilee they are heading to is around today's Ein Gev and Ha'on region. (Hippo / Gadera at that time). Kapiche?

You love to read words in that were never written. All I said was that a smoothing-oriented scribe might have jumped at the Jeremy verse. They didn't, indicating that the Byzantine scribes had a fealty to the text. Is that so hard to understand. Did I ever even remotely accuse the Bible text ? Please.

As for going over a number of Hebrew-language translation issues the one on current discussion is Psalm 22:16. The first issue (in line with what was written by Emanuel Tov) is whether it is a verb or noun.

I notice a lot of folks glance at a couple of skeptic or anti-mish sites and think they have a really deep understanding of the Hebrew Bible issues :-)

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Iasion has now contradicted his earlier (rather belligerent) assertion that no Greek MSS had the Comma before Erasmus. Why not simply first acknowledge that you were wrong rather than hide the correction in a blizzard post ?

Integrity first.

Shalom,
Steven Avery