Quote:
Fearful

For someone who claims not to have read Ruckman, you know him well. Your goal here is to try and anger me, in a desperate attempt to misdirect the attention. Why do you need to resort to namecalling in order to defend KJVO? Do the facts not support it enough, but God needs your sarcasm? It appears you dont really accept the KJV either.....sad, really.

Quote:
I will tackle the Johannine Comma for now. As you probably know (maybe you don't) that Erasmus would not include these disputed verses unless one manuscript could be found that contained the "dsiputed" verses. If one could be found Erasmus would include it in his Greek NT.Erasmus left it out in his 1st edition in 1516 on the ground that it was found only in the Latin version and not in any Greek manuscript.

Because of his promise Erasmus included it in his 3rd edition in 1522 and it has been permanently in the TR since that time.


Funny, your friend Chip has strongly called this story a lie. I know of many KJVO authors who have done the same. Which is it?
Quote:

The manuscript which Erasmus was given was 61, a 15th or 16th century manuscript which is housed today at Trinity College in Dublin.

Didnt he strongly feel that this manuscript was a fabrication?

Quote:
The Comma is also found in Codex Ravianus in the margin of 88, and in 629. I admit that the evidence is not weighty, but to claim it has no authority is a fabrication by the enemies of the TR. Other evidence is it seems to have been quoted by Cyprian in the 2nd century. Scrivener asserts that Cyprian was indeed quoting the "Johannine Comma" as he said in 1883, "surely more safer and candid" to admit that Cyprian was quoting it.

The first undisputed quotation was in the 4th century by Priscillian.

In the 5th century it was quoted by several orthodox African writers. Cassiodorus in the 5th century quoted it in Italy.

It is also found in r an Old Latin manuscript of the 5th century, and in the Speculum, a treatise which contains an old Latin text.


So we agree that the Byzantine manuscript record does not support it?

Quote:
Whatever you have said there is evidence that is a true part of the Greek text. Do you want to simply dismiss it because of your hatred for the Greek text from which the KJV translators used?


I dismiss it on the grounds that I do not believe the evidence supports it. Do you not feel that the evidence begs the question: WHAT ON EARTH HAPPENED to this reading? Why is it absent from nearly all manuscripts? Why does it only show up in the Latin? THIS is why I reject it, not because of any hatred, but because I cannot think of nor have I ever heard a logical explination for this question. I can, however, find MANY logical explinations for its addition to the text. Do you understand?

Quote:
I'd rather err on the side of caution.


I find this to be the oddest of statements. Wouldnt caution be to leave it out, since it is at best questionable, and at worst fictitious, and the doctrine it represents is clear even without this passage? The trinity does not need to be supported by spurious readings, and I cant think of why you would think it was "cautious" to keep a reading that very well might not be authentic. Can you explain how this is cautious?


"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose" - Jim Elliott, martyred in Quito, Ecuador 1956