It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Two Jehovahs of Psalm 110

page: 10
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic



Well, if you concider mideaval copies ORIGINAL



These first copies were translated into Latin. Which also contain evidence of the comma. Jerome spoke of the comma,

He specificly said and I quote

"irresponsible translatrs left out this testimony in the Greek Codices"




posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic


All Original Greek NT MSS are written in Konie Greek.


All Original Greek manuscripts are not the same they either have Byzantine or Alexandrian influence.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by oliveoil
 


Century Gothic for this reply

Not that it is important



[edit on 1-11-2009 by Blue_Jay33]



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic



Well, if you concider mideaval copies ORIGINAL



These first copies were translated into Latin. Which also contain evidence of the comma. Jerome spoke of the comma,

He specificly said and I quote

"irresponsible translatrs left out this testimony in the Greek Codices"


SIC. It's easy to explain how the ancient "irresponcible translaters" left the Trinity doctrine out of the original Greek MSs, but that later Catholic Latin translations based on these ancient Greek ones who had left this Comma out, are more correct since the Latin includes the Comma?!? Can't you see that this is just perverted lingo?



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by oliveoil
 


Century Gothic for this reply

Not that it is important


LMAO! I prefer Verdana or Myriad for web and Adobe Garamond plus Helvetica Neue for print. Check out New Baskerville for that grotesque, but classic look! Hehe, Mon Dieu!



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic

I see that the comma was in the original Greek. It was in the old Latin. It was in copies of the Vulgate.

Am I missing something here? I don't mean to be ignorant. I really would like to know. If someone could please explain this clearly.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   
First off the Latin Vulgate is one of the worst translations to date. It is said to have been based on an ancient Greek version of the original Aramaic NT which conveniently enough doesn't exist, and was created so noone could question Catholic dogma such as Trinity and the infallibility of Jesus, while at the same time changing Jesjuah - Iesos to Jesus, and in the same turn change 616 to 666, thus avoiding that Jesus actually equals 616 in Hebrew gematria etc. No scholar would say the Vulgate is anything but a forgery or at best a terrible translation from unknown Greek source into Catholic Latin.

Secondly. All Latin MSS are later translations from Greek. While the Greek are translations from the original Hebro-Aramaic ones, often refered to as Gospel Q where Q is short for Fr. Quelle - Source

[edit on 1/11/2009 by Neo Christian Mystic]

[edit on 1/11/2009 by Neo Christian Mystic]



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
original Greek manuscripts that contain the fifth chapter of John 1. #61, #88m, #221m, # 429;#636,#918,#2318.
The Ottobonianus #629 Bible Society's 4th edition of the Greek New Testament.
D.A Waite #634 and Omega 110.

Does it really matter when. These are ORIGINAL GREEK MANUSCRIPTS !


NONE, count them... zero of the above manuscripts are before the 13th century.

how are the "original"?

read page 236 of this book.
books.google.com... Rdw&hl=en&ei=5KntSuzsO5G5jAeo8rGjDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
These first copies were translated into Latin. Which also contain evidence of the comma. Jerome spoke of the comma,

He specificly said and I quote

"irresponsible translatrs left out this testimony in the Greek Codices"


and yet, he doesnt even provide the comma in his codex either...

hmmm



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by oliveoil
original Greek manuscripts that contain the fifth chapter of John 1. #61, #88m, #221m, # 429;#636,#918,#2318.
The Ottobonianus #629 Bible Society's 4th edition of the Greek New Testament.
D.A Waite #634 and Omega 110.

Does it really matter when. These are ORIGINAL GREEK MANUSCRIPTS !


NONE, count them... zero of the above manuscripts are before the 13th century.

how are the "original"?

read page 236 of this book.
books.google.com... Rdw&hl=en&ei=5KntSuzsO5G5jAeo8rGjDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false


So what you are saying is that the older the manuscripts are the more correct it is.?



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by oliveoil
These first copies were translated into Latin. Which also contain evidence of the comma. Jerome spoke of the comma,

He specificly said and I quote

"irresponsible translatrs left out this testimony in the Greek Codices"


and yet, he doesnt even provide the comma in his codex either...

hmmm


Here is the Vulgate version of 1 John 5:7f

"quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant Spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt"

As Miriam correctly points out, the Comma isn't included in the fourth century Latin Vulgate. You may find it in quite early Latin translations, but is found first in Mideaval versions of the Greek texts.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
So what you are saying is that the older the manuscripts are the more correct it is.?


partially.

what im saying is that a passage that doesnt appear until the 13th century has no claim to authenticity.

if that statement is not logical to you, then there literally is no reasoning with you.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
So what you are saying is that the older the manuscripts are the more correct it is.?


I guess she means like most other biblical students and scholars that the older a codex is the closer to the original source it becomes. Which is only natural. You don't use modern skeletons to make a reconstruction of a dinosaur....



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by oliveoil
So what you are saying is that the older the manuscripts are the more correct it is.?


partially.

what im saying is that a passage that doesnt appear until the 13th century has no claim to authenticity.

if that statement is not logical to you, then there literally is no reasoning with you.


In what century would an original Greek manuscript have to be in order to be deemed original?



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
In what century would an original Greek manuscript have to be in order to be deemed original?


lol.

are you serious?



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
In what century would an original Greek manuscript have to be in order to be deemed original?


The older it is, or more closely related to the early Christians, the more relevant it gets. Hopefully, one day archaeologists or librarians will find the original Herbo-Aramaic originals where Jesjuah is refered to as the JHVH (replaced with Adonai or Ha-Shem or LORD in later editions), to explain why the Jewish elite in the first and second centuries were horrified at how the Christians used the Tetragrammathon in place of Jesjuah in their Gospels among other things.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by oliveoil
In what century would an original Greek manuscript have to be in order to be deemed original?


lol.

are you serious?



Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by oliveoil
In what century would an original Greek manuscript have to be in order to be deemed original?


lol.

are you serious?


I am dead serious. Please say with me on this.

Its a known fact that the manuscript that dates most closely to the original autograph is p 52. It was copied around 125 AD. within 35 years of the original.

Can we at least agree on this.?



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
Its a known fact that the manuscript that dates most closely to the original autograph is p 52. It was copied around 125 AD. within 35 years of the original.

Your "p.52" is a referance to a page# in some book. As far as I know no original Greek codex is called "p.52" or "page fifty two".


The Codex Sinaiticus is the oldest known Greek codex, a biblical manuscript believed to date back to the fourth century. Scholars rate the Codex bible, Codex Sinaiticus, as one of the most important books in the world.

www.squidoo.com...

The oldest complete codex is from the fourth century and your "Page 52 Codex" dates back to the early part of the second century? Try again...

[edit on 1/11/2009 by Neo Christian Mystic]



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic

Originally posted by oliveoil
Its a known fact that the manuscript that dates most closely to the original autograph is p 52. It was copied around 125 AD. within 35 years of the original.

Your "p.52" is a referance to a page# in some book. As far as I know no original Greek codex is called "p.52" or "page fifty two".


The Codex Sinaiticus is the oldest known Greek codex, a biblical manuscript believed to date back to the fourth century. Scholars rate the Codex bible, Codex Sinaiticus, as one of the most important books in the world.

www.squidoo.com...

The oldest complete codex is from the fourth century and your "Page 52 Codex) dates back to the early part of the second century? Try again...


The 'p' stands for papyrus. which it was written on.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Ok this one will be easier for you to find. Bodmer "p" 66

Is the second oldest



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join