Search results

Φῶς ἐκ Φωτός - The preposition is ἐκ. The next phrase is Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ = "true God from true God."

No it would not. You bring up an interesting point. I thought I would compare Priscillian Latin text with that of the Vulgate. The first thing to note is that Priscillian introduces his text with "As John said" (sicut Iohannes ait). The next thing to notice is that verses 7 and 8 are...

I'm sure it is. However I was not addressing the uniformity of any text types. My only point was most scholars favor the Alexandrian text type over the others. I made no judgement concerning that.

Claiming that it does not appear in some manuscripts is disingenuous to say the least. The fact is it does not appear in the vast majority of manuscripts no matter which type. The Comma is omitted by the following manuscripts the bulk of which are Byzantine. א A B K L P Ψ 048 049 056 0142...

I don't know who you are reading but that is not correct. The truth is most scholars favor the Alexandrian text type over the others. Nevertheless, the fact is no two manuscripts are 100% identical, no matter the text type, not even the Byzantine text type.

I could not agreed more.

Neither do I. However what I can't understand is why makes someone would make demonstrably false claim "NIV leaves out the fact that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh--yet another swipe at the divinity of Christ" (See OP). The NIV states: "This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God...

Agreed!

Textual criticism is not possible without manuscripts, without citations, without evidence for or against a reading.

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

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...

Hey thanks atpollard. Good to see you as well.

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...

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

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

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.

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

I am sorry but it is not the first. GA 629 is the first to have the Comma in the body of the text and it is dated to 1362. Since this is the earliest Greek manuscript with the Comma in the body of the text, meaning there is no other Greek manuscript source which is ealrier, what do you think...

Could you please named for me the first Greek manuscript to have the Comma in the body of the text and its date?

That can only mean you would allow the Greek text to be corrected using the Latin manuscripts and the Latin fathers.