the original.
-
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!
The 'Johannine Comma', does it belong in the Bible?
- Thread starter Hobie
- Start date
Origen
Active Member
What evidence do you have the copyist has access to the original?
none. you asked what i thought,
Origen
Active Member
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.
maybe, maybe not.
Origen
Active Member
You said there was none in post 23. Now you say maybe. What is this "maybe" evidence the copyist has access to the original?
its possible - stranger things have happened.
Hello From Londinium: Oldest Handwritten Documents In British History Discovered
I believe its hidden in the Vatican library.
Origen
Active Member
I understand. There does not appear to be a path for our conversation to move forward. Thank you for your time.
you're welcome.
Origen
Active Member
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 matter, or that it has the relevant portion.
Last edited:
atpollard
Well-Known Member
... Sure there is! The copyist included the comma. THAT is the evidence.
[Sorry, I just couldn't resist.]
Hello Origen!
Really glad to see you here.
Origen
Active Member
Hey thanks atpollard. Good to see you as well.... Sure there is! The copyist included the comma. THAT is the evidence.
[Sorry, I just couldn't resist.]
Hello Origen!
Really glad to see you here.
true, but it is within the realm of possibility - IMO of course. There is also the possibility of a very early copy (no longer extant or lost) with the Comma. We just don't know.
atpollard
Well-Known Member
Because the 'comma' may or may not be words added to the original autograph (I think that is the term), but the words themselves are not untrue or contra-biblical (contradicting other scripture).
The Deuterocanonical books are both not original (in many cases) and teach lies (in many other cases), so it is really comparing a 'comma' Orange to a bushel of Deuterocanonical rotten apples.
Origen
Active Member
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 discussion.
but you keep responding.
Walpole
Well-Known Member
Because the 'comma' may or may not be words added to the original autograph (I think that is the term), but the words themselves are not untrue or contra-biblical (contradicting other scripture).
The Deuterocanonical books are both not original (in many cases) and teach lies (in many other cases), so it is really comparing a 'comma' Orange to a bushel of Deuterocanonical rotten apples.
How were Christians duped into believing the Deuterocanoical books were inspired for 1500 years?
--> There is no canon matching the Protestant 66-book one in all of Christian history.
Origen
Active Member
I thought post 30 was intended for me. Sorry for the misunderstanding.