• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

ESV?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reformed1689

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
SavedByGrace said:
Here is Cyprian, show how you get what you do? you are clearly out of your depth!

“Dicit Dominus, ego et Pater unum sumus, et iterum de Patre, et Filio et Spiritu Sancto, scriptum est, et tres unum sunt”
Click to expand...
He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;” and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.”5
Cyprian of Carthage, “On the Unity of the Church,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Robert Ernest Wallis, vol. 5, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 423.
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Reformed1689 said:
He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;” and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.”5
Cyprian of Carthage, “On the Unity of the Church,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Robert Ernest Wallis, vol. 5, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 423.
Click to expand...

so Cyprian clearly refers NOT to verse 8, but 7!

Dr Frederick Scrivener, who , though he did not accept the text of 1 John 5:7 as being that of the Apostle, had this to say of the evidence of Cyprian. “It is surely safer and more candid to admit that Cyprian read ver. 7 in his copies, than to resort to the explanation of Facundus [vi], that the holy Bishop was merely putting on ver.8 a spiritual meaning” (A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, vol. II, p.405)
 
Reformed1689

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
SavedByGrace said:
so Cyprian clearly refers NOT to verse 8, but 7!

Dr Frederick Scrivener, who , though he did not accept the text of 1 John 5:7 as being that of the Apostle, had this to say of the evidence of Cyprian. “It is surely safer and more candid to admit that Cyprian read ver. 7 in his copies, than to resort to the explanation of Facundus [vi], that the holy Bishop was merely putting on ver.8 a spiritual meaning” (A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, vol. II, p.405)
Click to expand...
Yet verse 8 is what he quotes.... :rolleyes:
 
C

Conan

Well-Known Member
SavedByGrace said:
are you personally for, or against, the Comma Johanneum?
Click to expand...
All scholars and learned people know that the words do not belong there and intrusion from the Latin Vulgate. The only ones that don't know better are King James onlyist and apparently yourself. The coma has no chance whatsoever to be original. Your loyalty to the words are only theological. It is clear even reading an English that they are an intrusion they were inserted by Latin scribes. They are not in the oldest Latin editions but are added more and more as time goes by.
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Conan said:
All scholars and learned people know that the words do not belong there and intrusion from the Latin Vulgate. The only ones that don't know better are King James onlyist and apparently yourself. The coma has no chance whatsoever to be original. Your loyalty to the words are only theological. It is clear even reading an English that they are an intrusion they were inserted by Latin scribes. They are not in the oldest Latin editions but are added more and more as time goes by.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with theology. I have shown beyond any doubt that the Greek grammar from verses 6 to 10 says that the words are part of the original Letter. If anyone can prove this wrong, please feel free to
 
Reformed1689

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
SavedByGrace said:
Nothing to do with theology. I have shown beyond any doubt that the Greek grammar from verses 6 to 10 says that the words are part of the original Letter. If anyone can prove this wrong, please feel free to
Click to expand...
The grammar shows that it was part of the original that is the most ridiculous statement ever.
 
C

Conan

Well-Known Member
SavedByGrace said:
Nothing to do with theology. I have shown beyond any doubt that the Greek grammar from verses 6 to 10 says that the words are part of the original Letter. If anyone can prove this wrong, please feel free to
Click to expand...
You do not know Greek better than all Greek scholars and all Greek scribes throughout history. Are all Greek scholars and all as in every ancient Greek scribe wrong and you are right?
 
Reformed1689

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
SavedByGrace said:
Because you know that your knowledge of Greek grammar will not be able to prove it wrong ;)
Click to expand...
it's so laughable. Again, the grammar has nothing to do with it. The fact is it was never in the original. It doesn't show up in manuscripts to the 1500s. Manuscripts that have it, and most of them have it as a marginal note. It was not in the original.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top