Anyone planning on attending this conference on the comma?

[Greektim]

Check it out:
http://www.sebts.edu/news-resources/conferences/pericope_adulterae.aspx

Wish I could attend.

 

[Yeshua1]

Check it out:
http://www.sebts.edu/news-resources/conferences/pericope_adulterae.aspx

Wish I could attend.

My pastor went over this topic few weeks ago, as we are studying Gospel of John now, and he commented that a solid majority of earliest manuscripts/varients witness/testify that most in early church knew this story, but few attesting to either John recording it, or in his Gospel!

His best 'guess" from the various traditions, church fathers, varients etc was that the story or something similiar actually had happened, was recorded down, but by mistake got attached in with Gospel of John, as many seemed to want to place it in Luke!

 

[Deacon]

They had a conference like this a few years ago centered around the ending of Mark.

Positions and papers are presented and a short time later a book will be published.

Rob

 

[Yeshua1]

They had a conference like this a few years ago centered around the ending of Mark.

Positions and papers are presented and a short time later a book will be published.

Rob

My pastor is attending a meeting of the Evangelical Society Theology next week I believe, and their main discussion is whether to continue to accept inerrancy of bible or not!

As some in current Evangelical circles seem to want to "redefine: it in less than biblical terms!

 

[Greektim]

My pastor is attending a meeting of the Evangelical Society Theology next week I believe, and their main discussion is whether to continue to accept inerrancy of bible or not!

As some in current Evangelical circles seem to want to "redefine: it in less than biblical terms!

Not that such has anything to do with this thread, "inerrancy" needs to be refined and redefined, since the Bible doesn't really address it explicitly but only by inference. Too rigid of a definition is impossible to sustain, especially considering synoptic issues and the movement to ipsissima vox from ipsissima verba.

 

[Yeshua1]

Not that such has anything to do with this thread, "inerrancy" needs to be refined and redefined, since the Bible doesn't really address it explicitly but only by inference. Too rigid of a definition is impossible to sustain, especially considering synoptic issues and the movement to ipsissima vox from ipsissima verba.

understand what you are saying on this, but think many who want to redefine the term would like to see the bible regarded in a critical way, as only partly fully inspired, errors, accomodations to culture and knowledge of the times etc!

And the conference that you referenced was one in which they were discussing whether woman in adultary should have been in John, or even the bible, correct?

 

[HankD]

My pastor went over this topic few weeks ago, as we are studying Gospel of John now, and he commented that a solid majority of earliest manuscripts/varients witness/testify that most in early church knew this story, but few attesting to either John recording it, or in his Gospel!

His best 'guess" from the various traditions, church fathers, varients etc was that the story or something similiar actually had happened, was recorded down, but by mistake got attached in with Gospel of John, as many seemed to want to place it in Luke!

Yeshua1 um, technically speaking, this conference is for the pericope (John 7:53 - John 8:11).

The Comma is 1 John 5:7.

Personally I believe both are part of the scripture.

HankD

 

[Greektim]

Yeshua1 um, technically speaking, this conference is for the pericope (John 7:53 - John 8:11).

The Comma is 1 John 5:7.

Personally I believe both are part of the scripture.

HankD

That was my bad... posted while busy at work and meant to say pericapae adultera.

 

[Greektim]

understand what you are saying on this, but think many who want to redefine the term would like to see the bible regarded in a critical way, as only partly fully inspired, errors, accomodations to culture and knowledge of the times etc!

And the conference that you referenced was one in which they were discussing whether woman in adultary should have been in John, or even the bible, correct?

What is wrong w/ fully inspired yet w/ errors?

 

[Deacon]

Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will. :smilewinkgrin:

Yoda

 

[Yeshua1]

Yeshua1 um, technically speaking, this conference is for the pericope (John 7:53 - John 8:11).

The Comma is 1 John 5:7.

Personally I believe both are part of the scripture.

HankD

Think the big question wa whether John though penned thre story in his gospel, or didi another author it, and was meant to be in a different book?

Would say that the reading was not in the Gospel originally, but would also say that it can be freely discussed/disagreed upon, and regardless, is NOT proof that one does not accept the bible, as some Kjvo cliam if you don't keep it as genuine, you are "denying the Bible", same way ending of mark!

 

[HankD]

Think the big question wa whether John though penned thre story in his gospel, or didi another author it, and was meant to be in a different book?

Would say that the reading was not in the Gospel originally, but would also say that it can be freely discussed/disagreed upon, and regardless, is NOT proof that one does not accept the bible, as some Kjvo cliam if you don't keep it as genuine, you are "denying the Bible", same way ending of mark!

I believe both were authored by John.

The Comma was probably an error of text ommission because of homoeoteleuton very early on in the mss copying history but retained in some old itala and Latin versions.
There are 6 late Greek mss containing it and several early church fathers who use it as scripture.

If folks don't keep either the Pericope or the Comma as "genuine" I personally wouldn't say they have denied the Bible.

They have made a decision about something that is impossible to prove one way or another.

It should be a faith decision.

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

I believe both were authored by John.

The Comma was probably an error of text ommission because of homoeoteleuton very early on in the mss copying history but retained in some old itala and Latin versions.
There are 6 late Greek mss containing it and several early church fathers who use it as scripture.

If folks don't keep either the Pericope or the Comma as "genuine" I personally wouldn't say they have denied the Bible.

They have made a decision about something that is impossible to prove one way or another.

It should be a faith decision.

HankD

I agree with you, as hold that the story of the woman was probably a well story, actually happened, just not sure should have been inserted into Gospel of John, or in somewhere else!

the three that bear witness verse to me much more problematic, would see that as akin to a scribal insertion/commentary along the way!

either way, still ahve enough either way to have the 'full bible!"

 

[jonathan.borland]

Check it out:
http://www.sebts.edu/news-resources/conferences/pericope_adulterae.aspx

Wish I could attend.

Wish I could. Should be great!

 

[jonathan.borland]

The passage of the woman taken in adultery has some Johannine features, and there is early evidence not only that some church leaders wanted to remove it (cf. Augustine's statement) but also that some actually did (cf. the Old Latin codex Veronensis).

 

[Yeshua1]

The passage of the woman taken in adultery has some Johannine features, and there is early evidence not only that some church leaders wanted to remove it (cf. Augustine's statement) but also that some actually did (cf. the Old Latin codex Veronensis).

didn't some also include it in gospel of Luke also? The story seems to have been well attested to, probably happened, but hard to fit it in right book?