Featured The Virgin Conception in The Gospel of John

As I said, your premise is ludicrous. Calling me names demonstrates the weakness of your claim. If it was corrupted, you must also claim all the other plurals pointing to "who" being plural must also be corrupted. Ludicrous.

No one is claiming "blood" is singular, but "bloods" being plural is irrelevant to your claim. When we are born anew by the will of God, biology has absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

Right, and I am a low down Yankee prevaricator...

As I said, your premise is ludicrous. Calling me names demonstrates the weakness of your claim. If it was corrupted, you must also claim all the other plurals pointing to "who" being plural must also be corrupted. Ludicrous.

No one is claiming "blood" is singular, but "bloods" being plural is irrelevant to your claim. When we are born anew by the will of God, biology has absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

There are around 1,000 extant Greek MSS of John's Gospel plus many fragments. None of them give the reading for which you are contending. To mention the Pericope Adulterae is to compare apples to oranges. The vast majority of the Greek MSS (900+, I believe) contain the P.A. This is even more pronounced in 1 Tim. 3:16 where 99% of the extant MSS have "God."
Three other quick points:

1. The Church Fathers are unreliable guides. The apostasy set in almost immediately after the passing of the Apostles (c.f. Acts of the Apostles 20:29; 2 Corinthians 11:`3-`5; Jude 4).
2. The idea that the most ancient manuscript must be the most accurate is a myth, as a moment's thought will show. An old MS might have been copied only once, but very badly; a less old one copied 20 times, but faithfully.
3. Making John 1:12 apply to the Lord Jesus is not a proof of His divinity. John uses the phrase 'born of God' several times in his first letter, and 'born of the Spirit' three times in John 3:5-8, each time referring to mortal men.

This is my last post on this matter.

 

In your mind. I do not see such a thing. John 1:12-13, ". . . But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

 

Think MM understands it quite well!

 

Enough to know that a vast majority would see this passage as referring to the saved in Christ being born again due to the will of God!

 

Each one of his points are true though, but would add that I do hold to the Critical Greek text being best, so point 2 not as solid for me!

 

I use Interlinear Greek grammar tools. Such as "Analytical Greek New Testament," by Barbara & Timothy Friberg, Baker Book House.

 

The ECF are a mixed bag, as some were very good, while others such as Origen went off the deep end!

 

I use the various tools for the original languages in Logos, and the Intermediate grammar of Dr Wallace....

 

Has anyone noted how the claim - you do not know what you are taking about - used by Calvinists to defend their doctrine, is now being used to defend another doctrine. Do we conclude that use of such ad hominem arguments indicate the position being defended is as bogus as a three dollar bill. Just saying...