Family 35 Greek Text of the New Testament.

[Eliyahu]

I understand you are persuaded by this information. There is absolutely no evidence that it has any origin in the Greek.

Pickering's translation note: "Those who use the AV or NKJV are used to: “There are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.” The words in italics are only found in five late Greek manuscripts (less than 1% of the total) and part of the Latin tradition, from which they came. To be more precise, the manuscripts are: (61)[16th], (629)[14th], (918)[16th], 2318 [18th], 2473 [17th], wherein the cursives in ( ) all differ from each other; the two that agree verbatim with TR were probably copied from it. The only one that is clearly early enough to have served as TR’s exemplar, 629, is far too different—it lacks the seven last words in TR, omits another five, changes five and adds two—19 out of 40 words is too much; the Textus Receptus is not based on cursive 629, so it must be a translation from the Latin (or its exemplar is lost). The shorter reading makes excellent sense. [Those who make ‘the three heavenly witnesses’ a litmus test for orthodoxy are either ignorant or perverse (or both).]"

The shorter sentence without Comma doesn't make sense.
Oi Treis for the masculine

Spirit, Water, Blood, these 3 gentlemen are one, does this make sense?

I know the manuscripts supporting the Comma are later dated
629 (14th century)
61 (16th century)
918 (16th century)
2473 (17th century)
2318 (18th century)

221 margin (10th century, Comma added later)
635 margin (11th century, Comma added later)
88 margin (12th century, Comma added in 16th century)
429 margin (14th century, Comma added later)
636 margin (15th century, Comma added later)
177 margin (11th century, Comma added later)

But these were copied from the copies which were far older dated than the copies without the Comma.
Old Latin Bible preserved thru the Waldensians contained it.
Old Latin has nothing to do with the vulgate but was preserved by the Albigenes and Waldensians since 157AD
Many scholars like Cyprian quoted it.
The gnosists, Sabelians succeeded in eliminating the comma from so many copies, but couldn't remove it from the exegeses of many scholars.
Satan has worked hard to pervert the Words of God and destroyed many copies of the Bible.
We need to discern what are the true Words of God.
In fact there is no scriptural rule that NT was written in Greek. Gospel Matthew was written in Hebrew as many testified it.
Acts 21:40 says Paul delivered a speech in Hebrew. Where is the Hebrew address now?
Antioch was the centre for the translation of the Bible into many languages and copying the Bibles
If Greek copies failed in preserving the Words of God, then other copies in other languages can be used.
Gnosis and the Sabelianism hated the Comma and removed it from the most of the copies of the bible
Moreover, as I said, the lack of the Comma causes a serious problem with the Greek Grammar.

Eliyahu

 

[Ziggy]

Eliyahu: "There is no scriptural rule that NT was written in Greek....If Greek copies failed in preserving the Words of God, then other copies in other languages can be used."

WCF/SLC 1.8 — "The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and **the New Testament in Greek**....being **immediately inspired** by God, and, by His singular care and providence, **kept pure** in **all** ages, are therefore authentical; so as, **in all controversies of religion**, the Church is **finally** to appeal unto them."

Q. E. D.....

 

[37818]

The shorter sentence without Comma doesn't make sense.
Oi Treis for the masculine

You are blind.
Johannine Comma Greek Grammar Myth.

 

[Conan]

The shorter sentence without Comma doesn't make sense.
Oi Treis for the masculine

Spirit, Water, Blood, these 3 gentlemen are one, does this make sense?

I know the manuscripts supporting the Comma are later dated
629 (14th century)
61 (16th century)
918 (16th century)
2473 (17th century)
2318 (18th century)

221 margin (10th century, Comma added later)
635 margin (11th century, Comma added later)
88 margin (12th century, Comma added in 16th century)
429 margin (14th century, Comma added later)
636 margin (15th century, Comma added later)
177 margin (11th century, Comma added later)

But these were copied from the copies which were far older dated than the copies without the Comma.
Old Latin Bible preserved thru the Waldensians contained it.
Old Latin has nothing to do with the vulgate but was preserved by the Albigenes and Waldensians since 157AD
Many scholars like Cyprian quoted it.
The gnosists, Sabelians succeeded in eliminating the comma from so many copies, but couldn't remove it from the exegeses of many scholars.
Satan has worked hard to pervert the Words of God and destroyed many copies of the Bible.
We need to discern what are the true Words of God.
In fact there is no scriptural rule that NT was written in Greek. Gospel Matthew was written in Hebrew as many testified it.
Acts 21:40 says Paul delivered a speech in Hebrew. Where is the Hebrew address now?
Antioch was the centre for the translation of the Bible into many languages and copying the Bibles
If Greek copies failed in preserving the Words of God, then other copies in other languages can be used.
Gnosis and the Sabelianism hated the Comma and removed it from the most of the copies of the bible
Moreover, as I said, the lack of the Comma causes a serious problem with the Greek Grammar.

Eliyahu

First John 5:7 and Greek Manuscripts

Earlier this month over at the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog, Elijah Hixson offered an informative post which included pictures of the few Greek manuscripts which have the Comma Johanneum in the text of First John 5:7. The earliest is GA 629, a Latin-Greek manuscript dated to 1362. I offered some analysis of the text of First John 5:7 in GA 629 in August of 2016 (see the replica of the relevant part of 629 at this link, or a page-view of the manuscript itself at the Vatican Library’s website at this link). The second-oldest manuscript of First John that has the
Comma Johanneum in the text of 5:7 is GA 61, which was made in the early 1500s. The third-oldest Greek manuscript with the Comma Johanneum in the text of First John 5:7 is GA 918. Hixson, by a series of simple deductions, narrowed his estimate of its production-date to the 1570s.

GA 641: The Comma Johanneum is absent.
And that’s it, unless we include GA 2473 (from 1634) and 2318 (from the 1700s) – both of which were made after printed editions of the Greek New Testament were made, and which very probably include the Comma Johanneum because their copyists used a printed Greek New Testament as an exemplar.
The other manuscripts do not have the Comma Johanneum in the text; the Comma Johanneum is written in the margin instead. Hixson’s post includes pictures of the relevant portions of these manuscripts, so I will only spend a little time reviewing them here:
● In GA 221, a manuscript from the 900s, the Comma Johanneum is written in the margin, but it appears that the Comma Johanneum arrived there rather recently, considering that (as Hixson reports) a description of GA 221 made in 1854 says that the manuscript does not have the Comma Johanneum, with nothing said about a margin-note.
● In GA 177, the Comma Johanneum is written in the upper margin of the page and is identified by its verse-number, which means that the Comma Johanneum was placed in the margin of GA 177 sometime after 1550. (Dan Wallace noticed the Comma Johanneum in the margin of GA 177 in 2010.) Hixson offers a more precise date, however: the annotator of this manuscript left his name in it: Ignatius Hardt, who was born in 1749. Guided by a little more data about Hardt’s
career, Hixson estimates that Hardt wrote the Comma Johanneum in the margin of 177 no earlier than the 1770s.
● In GA 88, a manuscript from the 1100s, the Comma Johanneum appears in the margin with almost no clues about who added it or when. Almost no clues: as Hixson observed, whereas copyists routinely contracted sacred names such as “Father” and “Spirit,” in the margin-note in 88 these words are written out in full, which may indicate that the person writing them was using as his source a printed book, rather than a manuscript.
● In GA 429, a manuscript from the 1300s, the Comma Johanneum is written in the margin, and it matches up with the text of the Comma Johanneum printed in Erasmus’ third edition – because, as Hixson explains, Erasmus’ third edition was its source.
● In GA 636, a manuscript from the 1400s, the Comma Johanneum is written in the margin, and is missing the articles, which is consistent with a scenario in which it was translated from Latin.

Let’s review the implications of this evidence: First, there is no Greek manuscript made before the 1500s in which the Comma Johanneum appears in the text of First John in a form which does not appear to be derived from Latin; strictly speaking, the exact text of the
Comma Johanneum that appears in the Textus Receptus does not appear in the text of any Greek manuscript made before the 1500s. Second, in the Greek manuscripts in which the Comma Johanneum appears in the margin, it either appears to be derived from Latin, or else it appears to have been copied from a printed source.
The Text of the Gospels: First John 5:7 and Greek Manuscripts

 

[Eliyahu]

You are blind.
Johannine Comma Greek Grammar Myth.

Blind man can judge the normal man as blind.
Do you think all the translators of KJV, NKJV, Cyprian, John Gill, John Wesley were blind?
Please stop joking.
Can you explain why NA has : oi treis" ?

Eliyahu

 

[Conan]

Blind man can judge the normal man as blind.
Do you think all the translators of KJV, NKJV, Cyprian, John Gill, John Wesley were blind?
Please stop joking.
Can you explain why NA has : oi treis" ?

Eliyahu

That you cannot understand is clear. You are the one said to be blind, not the others. No one accused the KJV translators, nor the NKJV translators, nor the others of being blind. Who was accused of being blind again?

5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

7 For there are three that bear record,

8 the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

John 19

30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

32 Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.

33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:

34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

35 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe

 

[37818]

Blind man can judge the normal man as blind.
Do you think all the translators of KJV, NKJV, Cyprian, John Gill, John Wesley were blind?
Please stop joking.
Can you explain why NA has : oi treis" ?

Eliyahu

Can you explain why NA has : oi treis" ?

Where in the text do you mean?

The text without it.

οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες
το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν

The text with it.

οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισι
και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισι

As you can see it fixes nothing.

With or without the longer reading,
τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες
is not corrected.

 

[Eliyahu]

Where in the text do you mean?
With or without the longer reading,
τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες
is not corrected.

You don't understand what is the graqmmatical problem with the verse.
It is not oi marturountes.
It is oi treis.

τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν

Spirit, Water, Blood, these 3 gentlemen are in one, does it make sense in your eyes?

You are not serious about the Grammar, which is the problem

Eliyahu

 

[Eliyahu]

First John 5:7 and Greek Manuscripts

Earlier this month over at the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog, Elijah Hixson offered an informative post which included pictures of the few Greek manuscripts which have the Comma Johanneum in the text of First John 5:7. The earliest is GA 629, a Latin-Greek manuscript dated to 1362. I offered some analysis of the text of First John 5:7 in GA 629 in August of 2016 (see the replica of the relevant part of 629 at this link, or a page-view of the manuscript itself at the Vatican Library’s website at this link). The second-oldest manuscript of First John that has the
Comma Johanneum in the text of 5:7 is GA 61, which was made in the early 1500s. The third-oldest Greek manuscript with the Comma Johanneum in the text of First John 5:7 is GA 918. Hixson, by a series of simple deductions, narrowed his estimate of its production-date to the 1570s.

GA 641: The Comma Johanneum is absent.
And that’s it, unless we include GA 2473 (from 1634) and 2318 (from the 1700s) – both of which were made after printed editions of the Greek New Testament were made, and which very probably include the Comma Johanneum because their copyists used a printed Greek New Testament as an exemplar.
The other manuscripts do not have the Comma Johanneum in the text; the Comma Johanneum is written in the margin instead. Hixson’s post includes pictures of the relevant portions of these manuscripts, so I will only spend a little time reviewing them here:
● In GA 221, a manuscript from the 900s, the Comma Johanneum is written in the margin, but it appears that the Comma Johanneum arrived there rather recently, considering that (as Hixson reports) a description of GA 221 made in 1854 says that the manuscript does not have the Comma Johanneum, with nothing said about a margin-note.
● In GA 177, the Comma Johanneum is written in the upper margin of the page and is identified by its verse-number, which means that the Comma Johanneum was placed in the margin of GA 177 sometime after 1550. (Dan Wallace noticed the Comma Johanneum in the margin of GA 177 in 2010.) Hixson offers a more precise date, however: the annotator of this manuscript left his name in it: Ignatius Hardt, who was born in 1749. Guided by a little more data about Hardt’s
career, Hixson estimates that Hardt wrote the Comma Johanneum in the margin of 177 no earlier than the 1770s.
● In GA 88, a manuscript from the 1100s, the Comma Johanneum appears in the margin with almost no clues about who added it or when. Almost no clues: as Hixson observed, whereas copyists routinely contracted sacred names such as “Father” and “Spirit,” in the margin-note in 88 these words are written out in full, which may indicate that the person writing them was using as his source a printed book, rather than a manuscript.
● In GA 429, a manuscript from the 1300s, the Comma Johanneum is written in the margin, and it matches up with the text of the Comma Johanneum printed in Erasmus’ third edition – because, as Hixson explains, Erasmus’ third edition was its source.
● In GA 636, a manuscript from the 1400s, the Comma Johanneum is written in the margin, and is missing the articles, which is consistent with a scenario in which it was translated from Latin.

Let’s review the implications of this evidence: First, there is no Greek manuscript made before the 1500s in which the Comma Johanneum appears in the text of First John in a form which does not appear to be derived from Latin; strictly speaking, the exact text of the
Comma Johanneum that appears in the Textus Receptus does not appear in the text of any Greek manuscript made before the 1500s. Second, in the Greek manuscripts in which the Comma Johanneum appears in the margin, it either appears to be derived from Latin, or else it appears to have been copied from a printed source.
The Text of the Gospels: First John 5:7 and Greek Manuscripts

Thanks for this post as it covered man points from the view of the shorter sentence without Comma.
But this explains a lot that extant copies testifies the sentence without the Comma.
It explains the history of the copies not having the comma.
However, it never clearly explain why the Greek Grammar doesn't match the sentence, why oi treis represent the Spirit, Water, Blood, why not ta treis?
Secondly, it doesn't refute that Gnosis in Western Roman Empire and the Sabelianism in Eastern Roman Empire eliminated
the Comma in most of the copies
Thirdly, it doesn't explain why Old Latin, or the most of the Latin texts before 1500Ad have the Comma, and why the ancient scholars like Cyprian quoted this Comma.
In that aspect, ca, 500 copies of 1 John 5 are corrupted.
500 x 0= 0
Manuscript 629 may be dated to 14 century but it copied much earlier manuscriptlike autograph.
So, the date is not everything to judge upon.
Erasmus, Wesley, John Gill, and 48 KJV translators reviewed this matter properly and concludes Comma is the genuine part of the genuine Bible. So do I.

Eliyahu

 

[37818]

You don't understand what is the graqmmatical problem with the verse.
It is not oi marturountes.
It is oi treis.

τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν

Spirit, Water, Blood, these 3 gentlemen are in one, does it make sense in your eyes?

You are not serious about the Grammar, which is the problem

Eliyahu

So there is no problem in the grammar with or without the longer reading. I agree. What I do not agree with is the notion the longer reading being the word of God. If I understand you, you are for the reasons you have given, that it is.

 

[37818]

However, it never clearly explain why the Greek Grammar doesn't match the sentence, why oi treis represent the Spirit, Water, Blood, why not ta treis?

You need to answer that question.

οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισι
και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισι

 

[Conan]

Thanks for this post as it covered man points from the view of the shorter sentence without Comma.
But this explains a lot that extant copies testifies the sentence without the Comma.
It explains the history of the copies not having the comma.

Or rather it explains God's testimony about His Son. Not some secondary Latin addition added by man to the Word of God.

However, it never clearly explain why the Greek Grammar doesn't match the sentence, why oi treis represent the Spirit, Water, Blood, why not ta treis?

This is nothing more than a desperate attempt to hold onto some words inserted into the Bible from some non-original Latin Vulgate manuscripts. Adding to the Word of God. A great crime.

Secondly, it doesn't refute that Gnosis in Western Roman Empire and the Sabelianism in Eastern Roman Empire eliminated
the Comma in most of the copies

This is made up myth. Its not true. No one was able to destroy God's New Testament in Greek! God preserved His Word's in the Greek manuscripts spread throughout the Greek speaking Christian world. His Word is preserved in thousands of copies, guaranteeing the Preservation of His Word in the Original Greek; not latin!

Thirdly, it doesn't explain why Old Latin, or the most of the Latin texts before 1500Ad have the Comma, and why the ancient scholars like Cyprian quoted this Comma.

"The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text. In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onwards it is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate. In these various witnesses the wording of the passage differs in several particulars. (For examples of other intrusions into the Latin text of 1 John, see 2.17; 4.3; 5.6, and 20.)"
The Johannine Comma

In that aspect, ca, 500 copies of 1 John 5 are corrupted.
500 x 0= 0

It's called God's presevation of His Word's! All 500 copies are the copies of his Word. Without them we do not have His Word's as He gave them to us. Not you nor the gnostics nor any other people are able to destroy His Word's.

Manuscript 629 may be dated to 14 century but it copied much earlier manuscriptlike autograph.
So, the date is not everything to judge upon.

It is a Latin/Greek manuscript. The Latin Comma was inserted in the Greek. The Comma never existed in Greek until
"Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215"

The Johannine Comma

Erasmus, Wesley, John Gill, and 48 KJV translators reviewed this matter properly and concludes Comma is the genuine part of the genuine Bible. So do I.

Eliyahu

Erasmus did not think the passage genuine as proof the Latin Comma wasn't in his first or second additions of his Greek New Testament. He came under fire from some Roman Catholic Church leadership for not having it. So he inserted it in his 3rd edition. He could have been accused of heresy by not having the passage from the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate. They burned men alive in those days.

Wesley and Gills are excused because of a lack of knowledge of the historical facts in their time, as well as the KJV translators. But today in our time there is no excuse to add the non-original Latin Comma to our bibles. It canceled God's testimony about His Son.

 

[Eliyahu]

Or rather it explains God's testimony about His Son. Not some secondary Latin addition added by man to the Word of God.


This is nothing more than a desperate attempt to hold onto some words inserted into the Bible from some non-original Latin Vulgate manuscripts. Adding to the Word of God. A great crime.



This is made up myth. Its not true. No one was able to destroy God's New Testament in Greek! God preserved His Word's in the Greek manuscripts spread throughout the Greek speaking Christian world. His Word is preserved in thousands of copies, guaranteeing the Preservation of His Word in the Original Greek; not latin!


"The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text. In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onwards it is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate. In these various witnesses the wording of the passage differs in several particulars. (For examples of other intrusions into the Latin text of 1 John, see 2.17; 4.3; 5.6, and 20.)"
The Johannine Comma


It's called God's presevation of His Word's! All 500 copies are the copies of his Word. Without them we do not have His Word's as He gave them to us. Not you nor the gnostics nor any other people are able to destroy His Word's.



It is a Latin/Greek manuscript. The Latin Comma was inserted in the Greek. The Comma never existed in Greek until
"Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215"

The Johannine Comma


Erasmus did not think the passage genuine as proof the Latin Comma wasn't in his first or second additions of his Greek New Testament. He came under fire from some Roman Catholic Church leadership for not having it. So he inserted it in his 3rd edition. He could have been accused of heresy by not having the passage from the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate. They burned men alive in those days.

Wesley and Gills are excused because of a lack of knowledge of the historical facts in their time, as well as the KJV translators. But today in our time there is no excuse to add the non-original Latin Comma to our bibles. It canceled God's testimony about His Son.

You can never explain why Spirit, Water, Blood are taken over by the masculine, Oi Treis.
It seems that you don't care about the Greek grammar while you value the Greek texts superior to any other language copies.
As long as you ignore this fundamental problem with the Greek grammar, this debate is useless.
God is the judge, not the majority of the mortal and feeble people.
I don't think you guys have the better access to the manuscripts than those 48 translators of KJV.
I think I explained you enough and any more debate is redundant.


Eliyahu

 

[37818]

You can never explain why Spirit, Water, Blood are taken over by the masculine, Oi Treis.
It seems that you don't care about the Greek grammar while you value the Greek texts superior to any other language copies.
As long as you ignore this fundamental problem with the Greek grammar, this debate is useless.
God is the judge, not the majority of the mortal and feeble people.
I don't think you guys have the better access to the manuscripts than those 48 translators of KJV.
I think I explained you enough and any more debate is redundant.


Eliyahu

It is your problem.

οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες
το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισι

The following does not make it go away.

οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισι
και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισι

 

[Ziggy]

Eliyahu: "You can never explain why Spirit, Water, Blood are taken over by the masculine, Oi Treis. It seems that you don't care about the Greek grammar while you value the Greek texts"

1Cor 13:13 νυνι δε μένει πίστις, ελπίς, αγάπη, τα τρία ταύτα.

Waiting for you to explain why three feminine nouns are described by a neuter plural phrase....unless you don't care about the Greek grammar while you value the Greek texts.

 

[37818]

From my time to time casual study of the New Testament Greek text I find places where I cannot agree with the family 35 text.

 

[Deacon]

From my time to time casual study of the New Testament Greek text I find places where I cannot agree with the family 35 text.

Would you share with us a few of those places of disagreement?

Rob

 

[37818]

Would you share with us a few of those places of disagreement?

Rob

Sure.
Acts of the Apostles 11:17, F35 omits "Christ." And Matthew 3:11 omits "and fire." I think there is a third which I am not remembering. Each should be discussed as to why.

 

[Conan]

So in Acts 11:17, family 35 is the only witnesse to omit "Christ"?

Matthew 3:11 in family 35 omits "and fire", also has the support of Hodges & Farstad (HF), meaning the Majority Text. I wonder what the ancient versions read here?

 

[Eliyahu]

Eliyahu: "You can never explain why Spirit, Water, Blood are taken over by the masculine, Oi Treis. It seems that you don't care about the Greek grammar while you value the Greek texts"

1Cor 13:13 νυνι δε μένει πίστις, ελπίς, αγάπη, τα τρία ταύτα.

Waiting for you to explain why three feminine nouns are described by a neuter plural phrase....unless you don't care about the Greek grammar while you value the Greek texts.

Actually I have waited for you to come up with this verse.

Do you see those words are the Abstract Nouns which have no gender virtually but are neutral concepts . It can be nonsense if they are taken over by feminine. I knew this but didn't tell you so that you may study enough about it.
Can you bring any illustration which shows the neuter gender words taken over by the masculine pronouns? NONE !

Therefore if there were no <<
οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισι >> in that verse, the Greek Grammar of the sentence cannot stand.
Therefore the Comma is the part of the geniune Bible.


Eliyahu