1 John 5:7-8

[nate]

Originally posted by TCassidy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by nate:
NO the TR doesn't represent the Byzantine text that well

Come on, nate. You can't ignore proven historic fact and expect to be taken seriously. The various editions of the TR (roughly 30 of them) are representitive of the Byzantine textform just as the various editions of NA (27 of them) are representitive of the Alexandrian textform. </font>[/QUOTE]I believe the Robinson/Peirpont Byzantine New Testament is a much better representative of the Byzantine text type. I just have a very low regard for the TR Erasmus rushed to get it complete and in Revelation it has many poor translation choices.

 

[nate]

Originally posted by gb93433:
The TR was often seen as a text with a conglomerate of additions.

I would agree with this.

 

[Eliyahu]

Better than Vatican text and the (kindling) garbage of Sinaiticus, though.

 

[nate]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
Better than Vatican text and the (kindling) garbage of Sinaiticus, though.

How many times does this myth have to be corrected it was found in a closet wrapped in a red silk cloth. I've been told the cloth is still there with it. It's not garbage.

 

[Eliyahu]

Monks at the manastery intended to use it as kindling material for fire.
It was not intended to be used for any texts, but it was a work of writing exercise by the monks.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Okay folks - lets return this thread to the topic of 1 John 5v7-8 and stop stating personal opinions about particular manuscripts.

We have already passed the five page limit so closure may result if we continue in this vein.

 

[Eliyahu]

This is what I already mentioned. In this thread everyone should focus on Johannine Comma ( JOhn 5:7-8). Now it is not wise if anyone tries to discuss on Amos 4:4 here, and then in the thread for Amos 4:4, the same person tries to discuss on 1John 5:7-8.

 

[Eliyahu]

Regarding Torah and Tanak, when Jesus was asked about the resurrection, He had to find the proof only in Torah, because Saducees disbelieve the rest of Tanak other than Torah as a genuine part of Words of God. Saducees didn't approve Daniel ch 12 or Isaiah or Job as the genuine part of God's Word. Therefore whenever there was a debate between Pharisees and Saducees, it bacame the debate about the authenticity of the Prophets. Therefore Pharisees could never convince Saducees about the resurrection.
When Jesus came to the world, He knew the truth about the resurrection is stated in Torah also, even though Pharisees didn't know about it.
Pharisees were very much amazed because it was a question bothering them so much in the past.
If Jesus presented other part of Bible (Tanak) to convince Saducees, they would have rejected it, because Saducees disbelieve the other part of Tanak than Torah.

What Jesus pointed out is the tense, I believe.
Jesus mentioned that The present Tense was used for God of Abraham, God of Issac, God of Jacob. If they all died and didn't exist then current time, then the past tense should have been used.
Pointing out that amazed the people.
Of course, it is related to the fact that Abraham, Issac, Jacob are the people having Eternal Life, Living Men.
Pre-existence of Jesus is what I have been emphasizing all the time and that's why I fought against Mother of God concept in the other thread, vigorously.

Hope now everyone can return to the original subject.