Originally posted by oliveoil
I'll be back after lunch.

If I was your boss and learned that you sit on ATS writing crap during work hours and then leave for lunch just to come back afterwards and continue discussing, I would fire you (pun intended), and advice you to get help for possible internet addiction.

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.

Can we at least agree on this.?

fragments of john 18, coversation between pilot and jesus. whats that have to do with the comma?

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33

Hey Olive are you a "Kitchen Christian" no church services for you?

I observe the Sabbath.

I lost my train of thought but The point I was trying to make was this. It doesnt really matter how old the original manuscripts are as long as they remain close to the original Autographs.The original manuscripts that contain the Comma remain consistante with the original Autographs.

Yes you are right. The Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus were the first to contain whole new testiments dated 350 AD

The ones I descibed were peices and fragments.

But this is weird,

in 180 AD translations were being made into Latin,Syriac, and Coptic.

And in 195 The first translation of the complete OT and the NT were made into Latin.(Old Latin)

Thats 155 years before the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus, which Westcott & Hort

bases their interpretation on.( Alexandrian Text)

Originally posted by oliveoil
It doesnt really matter how old the original manuscripts are as long as they remain close to the original Autographs.The original manuscripts that contain the Comma remain consistante with the original Autographs.

lol

your not getting it.

how can you say that the comma is faithful to the original "autographs" when it doesnt appear ANYWHERE before the 13th century?

it is not quoted anywhere, it is not written anywhere untill 1200 years after the original writings.

what possible proof do you have that this scripture is authentic.

none.....

Originally posted by oliveoil
I observe the Sabbath.

Good for you. Appart from your terrible 'source criticism' (look it up) you have many times shown an incredible ability to find parallells and normally understand the texts you refer to in detail. However, the language of the Bible is easilly falsified, and the PTB have added and subtracted words and verces of that Book since it first surfaced. The Roman Catholic Church has a long tradition of forging documents to fit their agenda up through the ages. Take the 'Donation of Constantine' for instance, which basically is a supposed will of emperor Constantine the Great who, according to the will, gives his Roman Empire to the Catholic Church. This was quite useful for the Church when they figured out they'd take over Europe and then the World.

I guess it all boils down to 2 choices

Westcott & Hort or the Textus Receptus as far as translation goes.

But interpretation of these is what counts. Thats why I choose the later.

Originally posted by oliveoil
I guess it all boils down to 2 choices

Westcott & Hort or the Textus Receptus as far as translation goes.

But interpretation of these is what counts. Thats why I choose the later.

No you must concider ALL copies and translations. No one copyist or printer shall have concencus for what's CORRECT and whats not. The word-serpent if it is the true Word copper one will withstand source critisism and what most people refer to as eternal torture in Hell. The Word is Owr kind of Serpent anyway.

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

Originally posted by oliveoil[Please do me a favor and do some research on a little old man named Father Tertullian who lived from 160 to 220 AD.

He Wrote treatises on theology. In his work He quotes the Comma From the bible he gave sermons from. Well documented.

tertullian would have killed to have a scripture like the comma, unfortunately he didnt.

the closest reference to 1 john 5:7 is in "De Baptismo" and it is in reference to baptism, not the trinity.

By the benediction we have the same mediators
of faith as we have sureties of salvation. That number of the
divine names of itself suffices for the confidence of our hope.
Yet because it is under the charge of three that profession of faith
and promise of salvation are in pledge, there is a necessary addi-
tion, the mention of the Church: because where there are the
three, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, there is the
Church, which is a body of three.

so try again.

Originally posted by oliveoil
I guess it all boils down to 2 choices

Westcott & Hort or the Textus Receptus as far as translation goes.

But interpretation of these is what counts. Thats why I choose the later.

westcott and hort was a compliation.

so is the textus receptus.

westcott and hort went for the older transcripts, textus receptus derives from the majority texts.

you must be proud to follow the textus receptus, but you still fail to see that you are only following what you WANT to follow.

not only does the dating of the comma smash its credibility, but the context of the bible does too.

Look, regardless of what You believe or What I believe about the comma is irrelevant in proving the trinity.The Comma is not the end all be all in determining weather or not the trinity is real.
It just puts all three in the same verse.

The important thing is to recognize all three for what they are.
.
The Father, The Son, and the Holy Ghost. (I believe them to be one) Either by using received text or critical Text.

Whether you use the "Received Text" or the "Critical Text" one thing remains the same. All text families are doctrinally orthodox.

There is no evil translations or good translations they are just translations.

The problem is when Organizations (Catholic Church, Watchtower,Mormons,ect )
Put their own little twist on them.

I have never stepped foot in a church with a desire to learn about G-d

My personal beliefs are based on after reading many books including the NWT, and Book of Mormon( thats another story) I came to a conclusion that the Received Text was what G-d intended, thus being the KJV.


I've enjoyed this debate and I apologize if I offended anyone hope to see ya around.