Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries

It's not a rule, it's a definition. Which he doesn't consistently follow.

In any case you really need to acknowledge after all your insistence that he was only talking about "carelessness, error and folly" and did not mean intentional mutilation, that he most certainly did mean intentional mutilation, some 25 pages' worth of definition of intentional mutilation being what he meant ---the evidence I knew was there somewhere that I'm so glad I finally found.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

See post #803. Having read what Burgon wrote, I'm ahead of you waiting for you to catch up.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

So the question is, What do the MAJORITY of the {Greek} manuscripts say?The Byzantine majority rejects the Comma. The Alexandrian omits it. The Syriac is silent. The Coptic not a peep. But a around the time of Augustine, it starts popping up in Old Latin which is soon replaced by the Vulgate - the evil Catholic's corrupted text that they want to use to destroy sola scriptura. Erasmus even rejected it from his Greek version until social and political pressures forced him to put it back in. Depends what you mean by 'good reason'. If promoting and solidifying the doctrine of the Trinity is a good reason, then no - they had a good reason. If accidentally copying marginalia into the main body of text is a good reason - then they had a good reason.It is unusual that there are little or no Greek copies of the things they used as sources, don't you think? Or that it appears in the margins quite a lot? And its omission from everything but some Old Latin and most Vulgates ought to be evidence it was added during the translations into Latin.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Bruce Metzger mentions that in his The Text of the New Testament, 1st & 2nd Editions

quote:

---

Erasmus replied that he had not found any Greek manuscript containing these words, though he had in the meanwhile examined several others besides those on which he relied when first preparing his text. In an unguarded moment Erasmus promised that he would insert the Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was found - or made to order! As it now appears, the Greek manuscript had probably been written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy), who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus stood by his promise and inserted the passage in his third edition

---

but later retracts the statement as a footnote on the 3rd edition and removed it all together in 4th edition.

quote:

---

What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus' promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H. J. De Jonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion; see his "Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum,' Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, lvi (1980), pp. 381-9

---

While Erasmus did suspect that MS61 (Codex Bntannicus) was influenced by the Vulgate, there is no evidence he thought it was created intentionally to force him to include the Comma Johanneum. De Jonge concludes that

quote:

---

The real reason which induced Erasmus to include the Comma Johanneum was thus clearly his care for his good name and for the success of his Novum Testamentum.

---

Leaving out the Comma Johanneum was considered a dangerous doctrinal omission and it was this pressure that prompted him to include it in later editions of his work.

quote:

---

It should be borne in mind that Lee had written that the omission of the Comma Johanneum brought with it the danger of a new revival of Arianism. This was of course a very serious insinuation. Erasmus had reason to fear that if he were suspected of heretical sympathies, his Novum Testamentum would miss its exalted goal.

---

Source: Erasmus and the Comma JohanneumThe inclusion of the Comma Johanneum is very rare in Greek manuscripts and only appears in late, Medieval manuscripts. From www.bible.ca:

quote:

---

In the time since Erasmus, among all the Greek manuscripts that have been examined, only three more, all of late date, have been found which include the passage, and it apparently comes to these from the Vulgate, not from earlier Greek exemplars. These three include one sixteenth century manuscript, one manuscript which is said to be from either the fourteenth or sixteenth century, and one twelfth century manuscript which has the passage added in the margin by a seventeenth century hand. In spite of the obvious lack of authenticity this passage, which probably originated as an attempt to augment the case for trinitarianism, is today included in the King James Version as if it were part of the inspired word.

---

A good example of doctrine compelling translation rather than the other way around.HBD

But Dr. A brings up a legitimate point. If these gnostics set out to undermine the credibility of the deity of Christ, then why did they leave ANY references that support it? The funny thing is, I have grown up in churches that exclusively use modern translations and have never had a problem with this doctrine. Modern translations make the divinity of Christ perfectly clear. In fact, there are several verses besides John 1:18 where the modern versions do a better job of clarifying this doctrine. Rom 9:15
KJV "whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."NIV "Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen."NASB "whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen." Col 2:9
KJV "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."NIV "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,"NASB "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form," Titus 2:13
KJV "looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;"NIV "while we wait for the blessed hopethe appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,"NASB "looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus," 2 Peter 1:1
KJV "Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:"NIV "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:"NASB "To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:"So, why did the gnostics corrupt the text into a reading that better supported the deity of Christ? But that is a doctrinal interpretation not completely clear from a literal reading. I think the NASB is much clearer support for the Trinity based on a straight, literal reading.These so called "doctrinal perversions" that modern Bibles supposedly are guilty of is really just non-sense. It is interpretation based on our own perversions, our own biases, not from the corruption of modern translations. Are not churches who "handle snakes" KJV-only? Did not those who continued to justify slavery in the US because of African inferiority also rely on KJV texts? What about extremists cults like the Branch Davidians? They were also strict KJV-onliers. Should we blame the KJV for these "doctrinal perversions?"------------------In fact, its worse than all that. If you don't read the Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE) you are reading a version that has been corrupted by evil, secular publishers. Tracy over at Jesus-is-Lord.com, who has a "firm grasp of the truth" provides a test to see if your Bible can pass the test of being pure and uncorrupted. How to Know the Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE) of the King James BibleCriteria:

quote:

---

1. "or Sheba" not "and Sheba" in Joshua 19:2
2. "sin" not "sins" in 2 Chronicles 33:19
3. "Spirit of God" not "spirit of God" in Job 33:4
4. "whom ye" not "whom he" in Jeremiah 34:16
5. "Spirit of God" not "spirit of God" in Ezekiel 11:24
6. "flieth" not "fleeth" in Nahum 3:16
7. "Spirit" not "spirit" in Matthew 4:1
8. "further" not "farther" in Matthew 26:39
9. "bewrayeth" not "betrayeth" in Matthew 26:73
10. "Spirit" not "spirit" in Mark 1:12
11. "spirit" not "Spirit" in Acts 11:28
12. "spirit" not "Spirit" in 1 John 5:8

---

Are you reading the "correct" version of the Bible, or do you have a corrupt KJV?How about this

quote:

---

Here are some other ploys that some of these other worldly publishing companies are pulling on an unaware publick. One thing a lot of them do is change the spelling of words that end with the letters o-u-r to the more modern American spelling of o-r. For example armour becomes armor... Well Brother Nic what's wrong with that? Remember what we said about the warning labels? Remember what the scripture said about a little leaven leaventh the whole lump?

​

Now the very worst of this battle of o-u-r vs. o-r comes when dealing with the only begotten Son of God, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The modern day counterfeiters have changed Saviour to Savior. They have given us a six-letter Savior in place of a seven-letter Saviour. In Bible numerics seven is the number of completeness, purity, and spiritual perfection. On the other hand six is the number of man which is earthly not heavenly. Every one has heard of 666. It has a bad connotation and is not highly esteemed in Bible numerics.

​

The seven-letter Saviour is the only begotten Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. The six-letter Savior is the son of perdition, the anti christ. He wants to be like the most High (Isaiah 14:14,) but not in a good way, but in an evil way. He is not a follower. He's a counterfeiter. Therefore his final destination is the lake of fire. The new versions, along with the new age movement, and some of the King James Bible counterfeits are preparing the way for this six-letter so called Savior. That's the way he will spell his name, S-a-v-i-o-r not S-a-v-i-o-u-r. No thank you Satan. I'm sticking with the seven-letter Saviour as portrayed in the old black Book that I inherited from my forefathers.

---

Seriously? Those are the things we are fighting about? Those are corruptions?HBD

How to Know the Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE) of the King James BibleShe couldn't just return them to the shop?

Yea, I saw that and was going to bring it up but my post got kinda long and I needed to wrap it up and so forgot.Actually, maybe that would be a good test all by itself. Throw the Bible in question into the fire and if it burns up - then it was a fake."What do we do with witches?"
"BURN THEM!"
"Ah. But what do you burn apart from witches?"
"MORE WITCHES!"-----------------It's like you said in Message 797But a fair and even-handed treatment is just not a possibility for fundamentalists - they have to drive it all the way to crazy town. It makes it hard to get behind anything they claim, even if there is some kernel of truth to it.HBD

What "obvious lack of authenticity? You've shown that it was included in some Greek mss which Dr. A was denying altogether. Their being late puts them among all those that underlie the King James anyway, since they had no earlier mss and rejected the Alexandrian type that they knew to be corrupted, the very ones the later revising committee decided to treat as authentic. As Burgon argues, the mss being late is no evidence against their authenticity, nor is being early evidence for authenticity, in fact it proves the opposite, that the later ones were all that remain from a heavily used type of ms that the church recognized as authentic by their very heavy usage, while the older/earlier, for having survived so long, show that they were not used and therefore rejected by the church.The fact that the johannine comma appears in so few mss I'll grant is an argument against it, however. But the fact that it is there at all plus the fact that it appears in a very early Syrian translation, are evidence in favor of it. Even with scanty testimony, since it is perfectly consistent with doctrine that would be affirmed even without it, what's the big problem with including it? It really isn't necessary at all to the defense of the Trinity, handy but not necessary.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No. Could you try to be more accurate? I said it was absent from the early texts. By which I mean to include the early Byzantine texts, and the Western ones, and the Caesarian ones ... Well, if the correctness of the text doesn't matter, why are we having this conversation?

Er, which one? Thanks.

Sorry, yes you were talking only about the early mss.The correctness of the text matters but where the evidence is blurry and the contested passage doesn't contradict doctrine, include it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, that's a whole new rule of textual criticism.But I don't think in this case the evidence is very blurry. We can't find the comma in the early Greek texts, and also we can't find it in the Greek Church Fathers. Now this is odd, because surely they'd have whipped it out when engaged in controversy with the Arians and the Sabellians and whatnot.Any news on that Syrian version?

The rather obvious problems with this position is first that the evidence is not really blurry and second that the doctrine is supposed to come from the text and not the other way around. I guess thirdly there is that pesky warning in Revelations 22:19.I don't find it unusual that you express some indifference in this thread given that you are stuck with the short end of the evidence stick. But doesn't taking this position make some of those arguments with Jehovah Witnesses seem a bit more like arguments about whether the communion wafers should be to the left or right of the grape juice?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I have never felt at a loss to argue for the Trinity without the Comma.If anyone should worry about Revelation 22:19 it's the makers and defenders of the Alexandrian manuscripts, not someone who is not sure of the authenticity of a phrase.