Featured Most accurate translations

The only way that the use of the masculine, "τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες", can be accounted for, when the antecedents, "ο πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα", are in the neuter, is the presence of "ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα", where the masculine "ο πατηρ ο λογος", would govern the neuter "το αγιον πνευμα". As I have said, in verse 6 we already have, "τω υδατι και τω αιματι", neuters, which rightly has, "το πνευμα εστιν το μαρτυρουν", also neuter, for grammatical gender agreement. This would have also been the case in the reading, "ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν", which it is not. There is no grammar here to "correct", as there is no mistake!

 

have you ever used the Church Fathers works, and compared their quotes of the Bible? while they might not always be verbatim, yet they generally are very good.

Take, for example 1 Timothy 3:16, where it reads in the Greek, "Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί"

Then we have Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (AD 35-107), where he says: "εν σαρκι γενομενοϛ Θεοϛ" (Eph. VII), and "
Θεου ανθρωπινωϛ ϕανερουμενου" (19).

Clearly that he had this verse from 1 Timothy in mind.

 

"In summary, the epistles of Ignatius offer proof of the author's knowledge of certain NT writings. However, the freedom with which he quotes those writings means that such examples reveal nothing of probative significance for determining the form of the NT text which might form the basis of those citations."

Taken from Paul Foster's article Text Of The NT In The Apostolic Fathers.

 

Well, you have explained what you believe is the correct understanding. Thank you.

 

You fail to demonstrate that the quotations of the "Church fathers" are more reliable than the Greek NT manuscripts. When they quoted from memory, they could sometimes be harmonizing from two different passages or could be adding words. When they are quoting by memory from a Latin translation, that Latin translation is less reliable and less authoritative than original-language texts. Latin NT manuscripts (a translation) are not known to be more reliable than Greek NT manuscripts. Translations add and omit some words in the translation process. The later reprinted words (especially commentaries) of the "Church fathers" may also sometimes have been edited to cite later editions of a Latin translation instead of the actual edition used by that "church father".

 

There are FOURTEEN different readings for Colossians 2.2, with the Greek manuscripts divided. The reading that is found in many English Bibles was adopted on the basis of ONE Greek manuscript and ONE Latin Church father!

The oldest Greek manuscript that has the account in the Gospel of John on the woman caught in adultery, is of the 5th or 6th century. Yet in the 4th century Jerome says that it is found in many Greek and Latin manuscripts! Augustine was also aware of the passage

 

Are you speaking about the ending of the passage or the whole verse?

 

BFL, you need to put your childishness aside.

 

I have the right to post my opinion on Logos posts. If you've read one, you've read them all. I find him extremely boring. Perhaps if he'd change his "style" of responding (I find his phraseology extremely weird) I might be more prone to actually read something he writes. But it all sounds "blah,blah, blah" to me. Please, feel free to ignore me if it bothers you.

 

It sounds as if you are the one who needs to do the ignoring rather than resorting to immaturity.

 

ending.

τοῦ θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ] p46 B vgms Hilary Pelagius Ps-Jerome WH NR CEI Riv TILC Nv NM
τοῦ θεοῦ] D1 H P 6 424c 436* 1881 1912 2464 copsa(ms)
τοῦ Χριστοῦ] 81 1241 (1739 omit τοῦ) pc itb Euthalius (Fulgentius)
τοῦ θεοῦ, ὃ ἐστιν Χριστός] D* itar itd ite ito itx (eth) vgmss Ephraem Augustine1/2 (Augustine1/2) Varimadum Vigilius
τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ] 33 Clement Ambrosiaster
τοῦ θεοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ Χριστοῦ] (‭à* 048 πατρὸς Χριστοῦ) A C 0150 1175 pc l596 (itdiv Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) (itc itf itz vgww copsa(mss) Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ) (itmon κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) (vgst) (vgmss) copbo (Ambrose) Ps-Jerome
τοῦ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ] arm
τοῦ θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ] 075 0208 459 1908 (l809* (itdem κυρίου ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ) (vgcl Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) (vgmss) syrp Chrysostom (Severian) (Pelagius) Theodorelat Cyril omit πατρὸς) (Cassiodorus)
τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς τοῦ Χριστοῦ] ‭à2 L Ψ 256 263 365 945 1319 1573 1962 1984 1985 2127 l422 l593 l603 l809c l1153 vgms syrh geo2 slav
τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ] D2 K L (88 καὶ τοῦ πατρὸς) 104 181 326 330 424* 436c 451 614 (629 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) 630 1852 1877 (2200 πνεύματος for πατρὸς) 2492 2495 Byz Lect (l1154 καὶ Χριστοῦ) syrh* Theodoret John-Damascus ς ND Dio

The first reading, "τοῦ θεοῦ Χριστοῦ", is what is now accepted as the original by most of the modern versions. Before it was found in P66, it was only attested by Codex B and Hilary. In fact, it is not known to a single Greek Church father!

Clement of Alexandria was born in 150, and died in 215, which is about the same time of the Papyri 66, which is also from Alexandria. In 2 places Clement quotes this verse, “Being knit together in love, and unto all the riches of the full assurance of knowledge, to the acknowledgment of the mystery of God in Christ" (The Stromata, Bk. V, 10; and 12)

 

what is up with you? how can you say what @Logos1560 says in #85, is "extremely boring"??? Your response is "EXTREMELY RUDE"!

 

No problem.

Have you ever cosidered the purpose of the definite article in the Greek, in the ending of verse 8? "καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν".

Thomas Middleton, in his excellent work on The Greek Article, who did not accept the reading of the KJV as genuine. Nevertheless admits that he cannot account for "τὸ", in this structure.

“But the difficulty to which the present undertaking has directed my attention, is of another kind : it respects the Article in εις το εν in the final clause of the eighth verse : if the seventh verse had not been spurious, nothing could have been plainer than that το εν of verse 8, referred to hen of verse 7 : as the case now stands, I do not perceive the force or meaning of the Article” (The Doctrine of the Greek Article Applied to the Criticism and Illustration of the New Testament, page 441)

Other for the purpose of "renewed mention", it has no value in the Greek text. Renewed mention is when it has been used a previous time, and the only other place, is the missing words in verse 7!

Can you explain this?

 

All the known epistles attributed to Ignatius can be deemed forgeries dating no earlier than 250 AD.

 

man, you do write some complete nonsense, sometimes!

 

Can you not see that the 2 quotes by Ignatius, are from 1 Timothy 3:16? In this same Letter to the Ephesians, he says in chapter 1, "Being the followers of God, and stirring up yourselves by the blood of God". In Acts 20:28. Paul says, "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood". No doubt Ignatius has this verse in mind.

 

To deny that the 1 John 5:7 were not in the originals is not denying inerrancy nor inspiration though!

 

What Logos has posted for years is extremely boring, and frankly, I find him weird. Your opinion may vary, but I'm entitled to mine. Thank you for your comments.