Search results

It is not an accusation nor it it false. The language of Gen. 7:20 is Hebrew thus it is the grammar of the Hebrew Scriptures that refutes your claim. Except when the Hebrew grammar refutes your opinion. No one said anyone about a religion. Hebrew is a language and it is the language used by...

The language of Gen. 7:20 is Hebrew thus it is the grammar of the Hebrew Scriptures that refutes your claim. Sounds good!:Roflmao Never let Hebrew grammar get in the way of your personal opinions. The other posters\readers can decide for themselves which approach is credible and based upon...

That does not address the grammar. The reason why you don't is obvious. That is no reason to accept the claim of someone who knows shows zero knowledge of the Hebrew when there are numerous Hebrew scholars (both Jewish and Christian) which may be consulted.

I am going to divided this sentence into two parts. חֲמֵ֨שׁ עֶשְׂרֵ֤ה אַמָּה֙ מִלְמַ֔עְלָה גָּבְר֖וּ הַמָּ֑יִם וַיְכֻסּ֖וּ הֶהָרִֽים גָּבְר֖וּ הַמָּ֑יִם וַיְכֻסּ֖וּ הֶהָרִֽים = "The waters prevailed and covered the mountains" (main clause). No problem there. Also the depth of the water is clear: חֲמֵ֨שׁ...

The word εν is a preposition and has many different usages\functions in Greek. Some of those usages are locative, agency, temporal, instrumental etc. It depends on the context. The same is true of the English word "in." Note these English examples. He is in the house. He is in love. He is...

(1) It is the same thing I point out. I have highlighted the Greek in blue. Again the difference is only one letter. ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας That is the same thing I posted above. Here it is again. The TR has: ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία. The CT has: ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας...

THANK YOU!

If there is no evidence to believe something exist, and there is evidence to believe it did not exist (as cited above but not addressed), then there is no justifiable reason to believe it.

(1) Because there is no evidence it was part of the Greek manuscript tradition. (2) It does not even show up in the Greek until ca. 1300 years later. (3) It does not show up in any Old Latin manuscripts until the 7th century. (4) The two oldest Vulgate manuscripts (i.e. Codex Fuldensis and...

Who rejected the Trinity? I believe in the Trinity.

It is the difference between the Greek texts. It is the same word in both texts (i.e. εὐδοκία) but the TR is in the nominative case and the CT is in the genitive case. That one letter changes how the whole clause should be translated\understood. The TR has: ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία. The CT has...

A difference of only one letter. The KJV...the "Model T Bible Version

Does that mean those who do not agree with you about the Comma, do not hear Jesus voice but you do? In other words they are NOT true believers?

A few questions if you please. First, what is the evidence the quote is from a Latin manuscript (and which one)? Second, why favor the Latin manuscript tradition against the Greek manuscript tradition? Third, is it really a good idea to alter the Greek text on the basis of a Latin Church...

The question in my opinion is not really relevant. Beside given the manuscript evidence and all the other evidence as well, the better question would be is there any reason to believe it did existed as part of the text? Not impossible but the majority of scholars believe it was a gloss, a...

Etymologically they are related however τρεῖς was never used as a reference for the Trinity.

The word Τριάς is never used in the N.T. The word used in the Comma is τρεῖς. ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσὶν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. καὶ τρεῖς εἰσὶν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ, τὸ Πνεῦμα, καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ, καὶ τὸ αἷμα· καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἓν...

Thank you.

I said nothing negative about the KJV. I merely pointed out the reason for the difference between the two translations.

Thank you. Agreed. Also correct. No disagreement there. It should be everyone's goal.