Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,161,449 members, 7,846,882 topics. Date: Saturday, 01 June 2024 at 05:49 AM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) (5523 Views)
37 Bibles That Removed "Trinity" Verse (1 John 5:7) From Their Translation. / Notorious Insertion To The Bible 1 John 5 :7 / What You Need To Know About Confession Of Sins From 1 John 1:9 - Gabriel Okocha (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) ... (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (Reply) (Go Down)
Re: Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) by Emusan(m): 6:36pm On Sep 27, 2023 |
Maynman: It's called manuscripts. Olodo |
Re: Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) by Maynman: 6:38pm On Sep 27, 2023 |
Re: Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) by Emusan(m): 6:38pm On Sep 27, 2023 |
Maynman: But manuscript is A BOOK writing with hand. So does codex Vaticanus A BOOK written with hand? Illiteracy is bad |
Re: Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) by Emusan(m): 6:39pm On Sep 27, 2023 |
Maynman: They are all MANUSCRIPTS. |
Re: Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) by Maynman: 6:39pm On Sep 27, 2023 |
Emusan:Collection of manuscript is called CODEX. |
Re: Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) by Maynman: 6:41pm On Sep 27, 2023 |
Emusan:What's a CODEX? Manuscript is not a book. You are the illiterate. |
Re: Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) by Emusan(m): 6:41pm On Sep 27, 2023 |
Re: Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) by Emusan(m): 6:42pm On Sep 27, 2023 |
Maynman: And it still manuscripts. Here are the Wikipedia articles on Vaticanus and sinaiticus When you receive your brain back let me know Illiterate.
|
Re: Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) by Maynman: 6:42pm On Sep 27, 2023 |
Emusan:The collection of it is called a CODEX. manuscript is not a Codex. |
Re: Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) by Maynman: 6:43pm On Sep 27, 2023 |
Re: Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) by Emusan(m): 6:45pm On Sep 27, 2023 |
Maynman: Manuscripts is A BOOK |
Re: Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) by Emusan(m): 6:46pm On Sep 27, 2023 |
Re: Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) by Maynman: 6:47pm On Sep 27, 2023 |
Emusan:
|
Re: Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) by Maynman: 6:47pm On Sep 27, 2023 |
Re: Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) by Emusan(m): 6:50pm On Sep 27, 2023 |
Maynman: And it's still called manuscripts. Olodo oshi |
Re: Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) by Emusan(m): 6:51pm On Sep 27, 2023 |
Maynman: Olodo Check my previous attached above Codex Vaticanus and sinaiticus are MANUSCRIPTS If not because you're too dull, I've provided you a dictionary meaning of MANUSCRIPTS AND PAPYRUS. Yet you dish all that only to bring this |
Re: Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) by Maynman: 7:58pm On Sep 27, 2023 |
Emusan:a collection of manuscripts is called a manuscipt lol 😂 Olofo iranu
|
Re: Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) by Maynman: 7:59pm On Sep 27, 2023 |
Emusan:Olofo It has CODEX IN FRONT OF IT. illiterate, codex is a collection of manuscripts. Which dictionary did you use?
|
Re: Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) by MightySparrow: 12:49am On Sep 28, 2023 |
Emusan: I am back Sir. I can't find the JW's again. What happened? |
Re: Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) by Sand2022: 3:55pm On Sep 28, 2023 |
Emusan: It was added to the Greek master text by Erasmus. That's how it entered the KJV. However, it's origin seem to date back to the 4th century in some latin manuscripts till it found its way to the Latin Vulgate. It seem to be first noted in the margin before it entered the main bible text. |
Re: Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) by Emusan(m): 9:22pm On Sep 28, 2023 |
Sand2022: What do you mean by Greek master text? That's how it entered the KJV. No! KJV only translate Bible using OT: Masoretic Text NT: Textus Receptus Apocrypha: Greek Septuagint; Latin Vulgate And the text was in oldest Latin manuscripts 6-7th century. However, it's origin seem to date back to the 4th century in some latin manuscripts till it found its way to the Latin Vulgate. It seem to be first noted in the margin before it entered the main bible text. And this thread is about the text authenticity. The text was alluded to by many early Christians, so something must have happened along the way. |
Re: Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) by Emusan(m): 9:23pm On Sep 28, 2023 |
MightySparrow: Their mouth have been shut sir! As there no place for manipulation and peddling lie here. 1 Like |
Re: Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) by Sand2022: 11:09pm On Sep 28, 2023 |
Emusan: Erasmus was the one who introduced the comma in his edition of the Textus Receptus. KJV was made from TR after the Comma had been added. And this thread is about the text authenticity. It is spurous. The Comma initially occured in the marginal note. It was never part of the bible until Erasmus added it in the 16th century. 1 Like |
Re: Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) by MightySparrow: 11:13pm On Sep 28, 2023 |
Emusan: They form here as the only knowledgeable people. Almost all their strong doctrines have holes. If you are familiar with their magazines, Awake, it is now a shadow of what it used to be. I was given one li that some years back by my own brother about Trinity. I coudn't really see their claims in history. I have typed here responding to threads about 1914 claim. It is the most unrealistic interpretation of the scriptures. I later found out that all those who challenged it within the organization were disfellowshiped. There was one of the disfellowshiped members who did so much research on YouTube. I learned so much from his research about Trinity. If you remove all this the use including 1 John 5;7. The doctrine is still valid. Well implied. You see their hypocrisy? It is out of this world. They can use inferences to support a claim but would attack your own. Thanks for doing a great job. 1 Like |
Re: Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) by Emusan(m): 2:31pm On Sep 29, 2023 |
Sand2022: But it wasn't originated from Erasmus. Does it? Not true, KJV used those manuscripts I mentioned earlier. It is spurous. The Comma initially occured in the marginal note. It was never part of the bible until Erasmus added it in the 16th century. It is not spurious! People used the comma years long before 16th century. And the comma was found in Old Latin 6th -7th century. An Umluats (double dot) discovered in Codex Vaticanus shows text was missing between 1 John 5:7-8 and the only textual variant here is nothing but the comma |
Re: Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) by Emusan(m): 2:49pm On Sep 29, 2023 |
MightySparrow: That's to those who don't know scripture indepth. Almost all their strong doctrines have holes. Very correct. If you are familiar with their magazines, esoe, Awake, it is now a shadow of what it used to be. It's more lies to cover another lies. I was given one li that some years back by my own brother about Trinity. I coudn't really see their claims in history. Search for their brochure titled "Should you believe in Trinity?" full of lies and misrepresented the teachings of the early Christians on Trinity. Not only that, it even contains the quote of Atheists just to mislead their followers. So after much outcry from the public, the brochure had to be withdrawn from their library to their achieve. To show you how shameless they are like their online robot. Bruce M. Metzger had to personally write a letter to WTBS to stop using his works because they always misrepresented and twisted his words. I have typed here responding to threads about 1914 claim. It is the most unrealistic interpretation of the scriptures. The funny thing about 1914 is that 1. It's not even JWs idea in the first place, it's what Russell borrowed from his former church SDA 2. No Bible verse supported it, reason why if you asked them till thy kingdom comes. No single verse will be provided. 3. Watchtower will use the word of scientists & archeologists but asked them how many archeologists support the date they used to arrive at 1914? None! All archeologists evidences show that Jerusalem was destroyed in 586BC but WATCHTOWER still claiming it happened in 607BC without a single evidence. I later found out that all those who challenged it within the organization were disfellowshiped. That's their way. There was one of the disfellowshiped members who did so much research on YouTube. I learned so much from his research about Trinity. Another fantastic website is HERE If you remove all this the use including 1 John 5;7. The doctrine is still valid. Well implied. True! As other verses can be used to support Trinity. You see their hypocrisy? It is out of this world. They can use inferences to support a claim but would attack your own. I know them and their tactics very well, so I know where to hold them down. You're welcome sir! |
Re: Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) by MightySparrow: 4:33pm On Sep 29, 2023 |
Emusan: Thanks so much Sir. |
Re: Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) by MightySparrow: 4:33pm On Sep 29, 2023 |
Emusan: Thanks so much . 1 Like |
Re: Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) by Maynman: 5:03pm On Sep 29, 2023 |
Emusan:
|
Re: Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) by Sand2022: 3:12pm On Sep 30, 2023 |
Emusan: What wasn't originated from Erasmus, the Textus Receptus? I don't understand your last statement. Do you mean that KJV used the earlier Text you mentioned? If so, I think you did mention Textus Receptus, unless I didn't understand you post. I quote; "NT: Textus Receptus Apocrypha: Greek Septuagint; Latin Vulgate." It is not spurious! Yes, that's possible. I did say that the Comma appeared on the margin for years before it was added to the main text. It first appeared in a latin bible around 5th century. The comma was in Latin, not Greek manuscripts. That's suspicious because the original was written in Greek. So, the latin was a translation. One would wonder why it is not found in all the old Greek manuscripts but a translation, latin. An Umluats (double dot) discovered in Codex Vaticanus shows text was missing between 1 John 5:7-8 and the only textual variant here is nothing but the comma If I understand you, you say that the comma didn't appear in Vatican 1209. Yes, it didn't appear there, and that is significant considering the importance attached to that manuscript. So that phrase must be spurious. 1 Like |
Re: Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) by Emusan(m): 9:31pm On Sep 30, 2023 |
Sand2022: The comma. I don't understand your last statement. Do you mean that KJV used the earlier Text you mentioned? If so, I think you did mention Textus Receptus, unless I didn't understand you post. I quote; I mean KJV didn't used ONLY TEXTUS RECEPTUS but Vulgate where the comma appears. Yes, that's possible. I did say that the Comma appeared on the margin for years before it was added to the main text. It first appeared in a latin bible around 5th century. At what point does it added to the MAIN TEXT? Before 5th century or after 5th century? The comma was in Latin, not Greek manuscripts. Yes! That's suspicious because the original was written in Greek. The original was written in Greek no doubt about it but what we have today are COPIES of the original. So something can happen along the transcription. So, the latin was a translation. Just as the Greek manuscripts we have today are COPIES of the original. One would wonder why it is not found in all the old Greek manuscripts but a translation, latin. If we wonder about how! We can only ask questions. So the question is, what if it was removed intentionally or by omission? What if it wasn't in the original at all? Like I said earlier, an Umluats (double dot) was discovered in 1 John 5:7-8 in one of the oldest Greek manuscripts Codex Vaticanus those who discovered it acknowledged the dots but tried to explained of its non important away. But the truth is the Umluats are there and the only thing missing with the Umluats is the comma. If I understand you, you say that the comma didn't appear in Vatican 1209. I didn't. Yes, it didn't appear there, and that is significant considering the importance attached to that manuscript. So that phrase must be spurious. In 1995 Philip B. Payne discovered “umlauts” (double dots) in the margins of various places in Codex Vaticanus. He and many scholars agree that these umlauts indicate lines where a textual variant was known to the scribe. Interestingly, an umlaut appears next to the phrase “τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες” in Vaticanus. Payne briefly discusses and seemingly dismisses the significance of the umlaut in 1 John 5:7 (p. 112, footnote 34), but without a doubt the umlaut is there. Check the attached below screenshot
|
Re: Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) by Sand2022: 2:12pm On Oct 05, 2023 |
Emusan: The main text for KJV translation is Textus Receptus, Vulgate was secondary. Whether it was found in the vulgate available for KJV translators is open the to question since not all latin versions had the comma. At what point does it added to the MAIN TEXT? I think the majority of scholars, Trinitarians inclusive agree that the comma is spurious. Tomorrow more studies could reveal to the contrary. So let's stick to the best evidence for now. Like I said earlier, an Umluats (double dot) was discovered in 1 John 5:7-8 in one of the oldest Greek manuscripts Codex Vaticanus those who discovered it acknowledged the dots but tried to explained of its non important away. There is umlaut there, Payne acknowledged it was there, but he stated that the Johannine comma was not found there. Where was the umlaut found? Close to the "the" in "there are three witness bearers". This umlaut was not added in the fourth century, but around 10th century by a scribe who saw difference between the Vatican 1209 and other manuscripts in Latin. There had been redaction to the Vatican manuscript over the years. |
(1) (2) (3) ... (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (Reply)
An Atheist's Letter To God. / Party! Party!! Party!!! / Do All Full Time Pastors In Redeem Christian Church Of God Earn Monthly Salary?
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 72 |