The Johannine Comma: Inspiration? Or Interpolation?

Originally Posted by Brett Prince

Eliseus,

I don't know who you are, or from where you have previously known me--but you miss the point.

Essaias.

All of the arguments you put forth are straight out of the KJV-only textbook. I did not say you were KJV only. These are the same basic arguments advocated by those that are.

Are the arguments falsified?

Is it true or false that without the Comma the Greek becomes garbled in its grammar?

Is it true or false that the Old Latin manuscripts contain the Comma?

Is it true or false that Cyprian quoted the Comma in about 250 AD?

Is it true or false that the Council of Carthage quoted the Comma as evidence against the Arians around 450 AD?

Has anything I have put forward as actual evidence been shown to be FALSE?

Yes or no? And if so, WHERE and HOW?

I don't believe you can hold to the Comma being inspired...for it does not add up in light of the multiplicity of evidence.

I have been showing that the opposite is in fact the case. What multiplicity of evidence?

I already dealt with the so called evidence.

1. There is no evidence whatsoever as to WHO supposedly invented the verse (besides the apostle John), when they did it, or why they did it.

2. There are only a few Greek manuscripts which even contain the whole chapter, let alone the Comma. And of those which contain the chapter, the majority contain the Comma. And of those which do not contain the Comma, the majority are 'late' (according to the UBS standards).

3. The 'oldest and best' manuscripts which are supposed to be 'evidence of the correct Word of God' and which do not contain the Comma are generally the Sinaiticus manuscript of the 5th century (completely unknown to the world until it was 'discovered' in a trash can at a monastery in the Sinai in the 1800s) and the Vaticanus (completely unknown to the world until discovered in the Vatican Library). These two 'oldest and best' manuscripts differ from each other in THOUSANDS of places (talking real differences here, not spellings or punctuation or whatever). As a result, they are authoritative for NOTHING.

All of the rest of the verbiage can be summed up into this: One accepts the text as Bible, thus we have to maintain that it is Bible, in order that we don't destroy our faith in the Bible being the Word of God. That is poor scholarship. There is no other way for me to put. I have seen far too much evidence of this passage having been a margin note in the majority of the MSS, thus I cannot receive it as authoritative.

Please, it is found as a margin note in about 3 or 4 manuscripts. So what? Do you realise how many other verses and terms in the Critical bible are found in margin notes? Do you have any idea what it means that some words are 'found in amargin note in ABC manuscript'? Do you have any idea what that signifies?

I think you read some books or articles which made the claim 'Pshaw! Those words are found in a margin note and so..." you just assumed they ought to be forgotten about. But again I ask, do you understand what 'margin notes' mean in regard to textual criticism? Personally, I think not.

Thus, when I refer to an interpolation, I do not necessarily immediately consider the interpolation to have been uninspired--just that it did not fit where they put it, necessarily.

Brother - the GRAMMAR IS DESTROYED WITHOUT THE COMMA. Think about that. That alone ought to settle the entire issue!

When you are through with the Comma--why don't we move onto the snake passage in Mark 16? It would prove a far more crucial and interesting scripture than the Comma, IMO.

It is not 'the snake passage' it is several entire verses. If we need a thread on that, sure. The ending to Mark is inspired Scripture.

I really think that people nowadays are being drowned in a flood of delusions regarding the Word of God. Funny how all the 'interpolated verses' just happen to be verses that cross somebodies doctrine.

By the way, if you want to talk Mark 16, you will have to talk Acts 20:28 and 1 Tim 3:16 as well....

I will be back later this evening to deal with all the supposed evidence being proferred, as well as to start a thread on Mark 16 and the other passages which the liberal 'higher critics' say we ought to cut out of our Bibles.

I just love it when people cut and paste snippets from websites as part of their argumentation...

Chan, you included a sentence taken verbatim from a website I just read today. funny.

Oh man, Chan, your post is so full of holes its a sieve.

I will return this evening to sift it.

lol

Just popping in to say that something has come up for tonight, so I will have to post in the am.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Eliseus

I just love it when people cut and paste snippets from websites as part of their argumentation...

Chan, you included a sentence taken verbatim from a website I just read today. funny.

what's wrong with that? Why does he have to take the time to read your long posts and then reword quotes from other sources?

When people do research, write books, do dissertations, they quote others who are experts and give credit...I don't see why it has to be not verbatim as if that some how makes a persons argument less true?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Eliseus

Oh but let us not stop there.

Now we have apostolics questioning Matthew 28:19. They say that too should probably not be in the Bible.

What next?

Shall we just expunge every verse that mentions Father, Son, and Spirit together in one passage, and claim it was 'trinitarian interpolations'?

The fatal error of Marcion is alive and well I see...

Eliseus does your bible include apocryphal and pseudopigrapha books? or do you use a bible that has expunged entire books from it?

BTW nobody says we should expunge Mat 28:19 nor that calling it into question because it says "Father, Son and Holy Ghost"...however it IS very dissimiliar to the rest of scriptures to list those three titles like that AND of all the people calling it into questions the sources are themselves all Trinitarian! Are you going to accuse them too of wanting to expunge all verses that say Father, Son and Holy Ghost? (which don't exist anyways)

My goodness brother...you used to make such factual and logical arguments and not the bulk of your arguments are based on grandstanding non arguments and even appeals to emotion

[Praxeas]

If ones argument is the accusative and emotive "You are expunging from the word of God, what else is next" which presumes that people are subjecitvely saying this is an interpolation because they don't like this verse and NOT rather going by the facts (which is a logical fallicy in itself PLUS nobody is saying let's get rid of other verses AND the argument that it's OPs wanting to get rid of a trinitarian sounding verse is absurd since all the arguments are coming from Trinitarian sources)....THEN

Why not apply that logic to other BOOKS that used to be part of the bible before protestants removed them???

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Theresa

is anyone else just as lost as a goose?

I mean really, it's english they are speaking, I can read it clearly..

but it makes no sense. I dont even know what these words mean.

Are they making this stuff up?

Read Eliseus' posts slowly. He makes alot of sense but doesn't give references.

What words don't you understand? I had to look up interpolation. It just means an addition to the text that wasn't there to begin with.

Try looking for a good site that explains how the Bible was put together especially the NT since they are talking about the 1 John.

[Michael The Disciple]

The more I read of the thread the more convincing Eliseus sounds. And then there is the stale belief that says the whole New Testament had to have been written in Greek.