Search results

Thank you for the clarification Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I do actually. He seems to be suggesting we can use "god" to add emphasis. Such as a substitute for "strongly" forbid. Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I actually like James Snapp a lot. I disagree with him on a few things in textual criticism, but he is one of the best in his Camp. I like reading and listening to his arguments. Very smart guy. Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Jesus is fully man, but not just a man. My Christology is fine. One person, two natures. Tou cannot split Jesus into two person. He is not separately a man and separately God. Jesus is both. Your language is suggesting you hold to a type of Nestorianism, which is not the historical view of...

Those numbers mean very little. It ignores historical events and the nature of errors to be propagated. The early manuscripts have a much higher likelihood of being accurate. Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

There does seem to be some disconnect on who Jesus is. In post 101 you denied he is God. When Jesus took on flesh at birth, Jesus did not cease to be God. You seem to be wanting to split the person of Jesus into 2 persons. You seem to be much closer to Neostorianism then the belief of "one...

Μονογενης is not used in that verse. It would not prompt memory recall like the other reading. Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

So the word "god" is suitable for Christians to use as an adverb to convey a greater or higher degree? Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Correct. I meant 3:18. I used lexical form for simplicity Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

No....and yes. Fully God and fully man. Jesus is Yahweh. Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

If the change was intentional, it would make more sense to change 1:18 to "Son" to harmonize with John 3:16. That being said, we are just one letter off in the Nomina Sacra which has been mentioned multiple times on this thread. Also, accidental scribal error could occur through error of...

With Jesus being called the μονογενης θεος here, it is arguably the strongest verse of Jesus' diety in light of the context of chapter 1. It also echos what John said in 1:1. Jesus is the μονογενης God. Not only is He unique among all that walks on earth, but He is even unique among the...

Oops....didnt see you already posted it Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Yes. It has been "glitchy" recently. I think they are updating. Manuscript GA 03 - CSNTM You can also view other manuscripts from this website. Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

To say that the NA or even the UBS is "almost the same" as using the NKJV footnotes is a comparison without warrant. I have also never came across a variant where Vaticanus is not cited. [This would not count spelling differences] The purpose of the NA or any Greek text is not so we can...

. Islamic Caliphates are common knowledge. Even a secular History book will cover it. Every Christian History book I have covers it as well, such as Baker's "Christian History" 3rd Edition pp.108-110 and Kuiper's "The church in history" pp. 61-68. Needham's large work covers it as...

It is also just really well done. I don't like it is based on the TR, but the translators did really well from the text they worked from. Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I do see where the UBS shows an early version of the Vulgate reading just ό μονογενης. No "son", no "God", just "The unique one" or "The Begotten One". Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I can't find this....I was wondering the same thing. Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

They used the phrase μονογενης υίος as well. Which could very well have came from John 3:16. As Paul McReynolds* has pointed out, Bart Ehrman failed to distinguish from the early church fathers whether John 3:16 or John 1:18 is referenced. Without John 1:18 being specifically cited, we can...