Featured The 'Johannine Comma', does it belong in the Bible?

the original.

 

What evidence do you have the copyist has access to the original?

 

none. you asked what i thought,

 

Of course! It was the next logical question. Since there is no evidence, there is no reason to believe the copyist has access to the original.

 

maybe, maybe not.

 

You said there was none in post 23. Now you say maybe. What is this "maybe" evidence the copyist has access to the original?

 

its possible - stranger things have happened.

Hello From Londinium: Oldest Handwritten Documents In British History Discovered

I believe its hidden in the Vatican library.

 

I understand. There does not appear to be a path for our conversation to move forward. Thank you for your time.

 

you're welcome.

 

Actually the preserved ancient documents discovered in London are evidence that it is possible for original hand written documents to be preserved for 2000 years even without divine intervention.

 

I do not believe I ever said it was not possible. The issue here, however, does not really concern possibility.

Even if we assume that some portion of the original document did survive, there is still no evidence that the scribe of GA. 629 used it as a source, that he knew of it for that matter, or that it has the relevant portion.

 

... Sure there is! The copyist included the comma. THAT is the evidence.
[Sorry, I just couldn't resist.]

Hello Origen!
Really glad to see you here.

 

Hey thanks atpollard. Good to see you as well.

 

true, but it is within the realm of possibility - IMO of course. There is also the possibility of a very early copy (no longer extant or lost) with the Comma. We just don't know.

 

Why don't you guys just remove it from your canon, as you did with the Deuterocanonical books?

Problem solved.

 

Because the 'comma' may or may not be words added to the original autograph (I think that is the term), but the words themselves are not untrue or contra-biblical (contradicting other scripture).

The Deuterocanonical books are both not original (in many cases) and teach lies (in many other cases), so it is really comparing a 'comma' Orange to a bushel of Deuterocanonical rotten apples.

 

You can debate all day long about what might be or could be possible. Nevertheless the fact is there no evidence of either. There simply isn't any.

So as I said in post 28 there does not appear to be a path for our conversation to move forward. And again thank you for your time and for the discussion.

 

but you keep responding.

 

How were Christians duped into believing the Deuterocanoical books were inspired for 1500 years?

--> There is no canon matching the Protestant 66-book one in all of Christian history.

 

I thought post 30 was intended for me. Sorry for the misunderstanding.