Maynman:

It's called a CODEX.
we have few Codex but thousands of manuscript.

Dullard

Emusan:


It's called manuscripts.

Olodo

Maynman:

Bible means books/collection of books. You mean Christian Bible lol
Codex vaticanus is a Codex not a manuscript.
It's called CODEX VATICANUS, I didn't name it

Maynman:

Codex Vaticanus
Codex sinaitcus.
They are Codex not manuscripts.

Emusan:


They are all MANUSCRIPTS.

Emusan:


But manuscript is A BOOK writing with hand.

So does codex Vaticanus A BOOK written with hand?

Illiteracy is bad

Maynman:

What's a CODEX?

You are the illiterate.

Maynman:

Collection of manuscript is called CODEX.

Emusan:


And it still manuscripts.

Emusan:


A book!

Illiterate

Maynman:

The collection of it is called a CODEX.
manuscript is not a Codex.

Maynman:

What's contain in a book?

Dullard

Emusan:


Manuscripts is A BOOK

Emusan:


Are you asking me?

Olodo oshi

Maynman:

Dullard, a codex is book containing manuscript.

Olofo.

Maynman:

Emusan:


And it's still called manuscripts.

Olodo oshi

Emusan:


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 tso bring this

Emusan:


Olodo we're talking about BIBLE here.

I've provided every fact here you're the one jumping up and down like kangaroo.

You first claimed I used Wikipedia, after I have provided you with Dictionary meaning, yet your dull brain is still ranting.

Emusan:
1 John 5:7 in the KJV contains these words called the Johannine Comma (also known as the Comma Johanneum or the Heavenly Witnesses). 

Why this verse was not found in some translations today:

Was it fraudulent inserted?

OR

Was omitted from Ancient Greek?

Sand2022:
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.

MightySparrow:


I am back Sir. I can't find the JW's again. What happened?

Emusan:


What do you mean by Greek master text?



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.

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.

Emusan:


Their mouth have been shut sir!

As there no place for manipulation and peddling lie here.

Sand2022:
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.

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.

MightySparrow:
They form here as the only knowledgeable people.

Almost all their strong doctrines have holes.

If you are familiar with their magazines, esoe, 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.

Emusan:


That's to those who don't know scripture indepth.



Very correct.



It's more lies to cover another lies.



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.



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.



That's their way.



Another fantastic website is HERE



True! As other verses can be used to support Trinity.



I know them and their tactics very well, so I know where to hold them down.

You're welcome sir!

Emusan:


That's to those who don't know scripture indepth.



Very correct.



It's more lies to cover another lies.



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.



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.



That's their way.



Another fantastic website is HERE



True! As other verses can be used to support Trinity.



I know them and their tactics very well, so I know where to hold them down.

You're welcome sir!

Emusan:


But it wasn't originated from Erasmus.

Does it?

Not true, KJV used those manuscripts I mentioned earlier.



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

Emusan:


But it wasn't originated from Erasmus.

Does it?

Not true, KJV used those manuscripts I mentioned earlier.

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

Sand2022:
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."

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.

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.

Emusan:




I mean KJV didn't used ONLY TEXTUS RECEPTUS but Vulgate where the comma appears.

At what point does it added to the MAIN TEXT?

Before 5th century or after 5th century?

For latin it should be in the 5th century. But for Greek it's around 15th century.


[quote]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.



Just as the Greek manuscripts we have today are COPIES of the original.



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.



I didn't.



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