1 John 5:7 manuscript evidence....

Status
Not open for further replies.
So 9 out of 16 of out of the ancient copies that Robert Stephens' had contained the passage! Metzger overlooked his research (as he also did when he accused Erasmus of backtranslating the last verses of Revelation). Shows the dangers in trusting spiritual issues to autonomous thinkers who reject the inerrancy of Scripture!

Gill said that, so it's proof. Interesting. So now all you have to do is find someone who will make a bare assertion that there once existed a Byzantine family text that uses Lord instead of Holy One in Rev. 16:5 to prove Erasmus got it right.

How convenient. "I don't have it, but it's out there, since my presuppositions demand it to be".
 
So 9 out of 16 of out of the ancient copies that Robert Stephens' had contained the passage! Metzger overlooked his research (as he also did when he accused Erasmus of backtranslating the last verses of Revelation). Shows the dangers in trusting spiritual issues to autonomous thinkers who reject the inerrancy of Scripture!

Gill said that, so it's proof. Interesting. So now all you have to do is find someone who will make a bare assertion that there once existed a Byzantine family text that uses Lord instead of Holy One in Rev. 16:5 to prove Erasmus got it right.

How convenient. "I don't have it, but it's out there, since my presuppositions demand it to be".

Tim,

I was showing the fallacy in arguing from silence that the Byzantine manuscripts lack the Comma. You are quite happy to cite historical sources as evidence to back your imperfect preservation view so what is sauce for one is surely sauce for the other. Are you arguing here that both Stephens and Gill are lying in their claims?

You are right that my presuppositions demand this as they are Biblically based. What do your presuppositions tell you about the Comma? That for the last 500 years the Reformed Churches would have received as genuine a bogus verse?

However, you are right that there is an element of presuppositional faith but let us put the cards on the table. Neither the CT people or the TR have manuscripts that bridge the first 3-400 years of the Church. Unless you have dug up the originals in California, you are left to adopt the same approach. Why do you reject and scorn the same presuppositional approach for the next 1600 years?

I will answer you "claim" that Christ set us an example by using errant manuscripts and passed them off as Scripture in another thread. It is riddled with theological problems.
 
From the WLC:

Q. 9. How many persons are there in the Godhead?
A. There be three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one true, eternal God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory; although distinguished by their personal properties.35

35 1 John 5:7. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. Matthew 3:16-17. And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Matthew 28:19. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 2 Corinthians 13:14. The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. John 10:30. I and my Father are one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top