Re: [TruthTalk] Albert Einstein & Karl Barth

[Bill Taylor]

Like I said, Kevin, I am familiar with both sides of this one. Do you think the epistles were first written in Latin? I wonder why it showed up in the Latin but not in the Greek until many centuries later?   Bill  ----- Original Message ----- From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 3:42 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Albert Einstein & Karl Barth Greek support: It is contained in 629 (fourteenth century), 61 (sixteenth century), 918 (sixteenth century), 2473 (seventeenth century), and 2318 (eighteenth century). It is also in the margins of 221 (tenth century), 635 (eleventh century), 88 (twelveth century), 429 (fourteenth century), and 636 (fifteenth century). It is a minority reading but that never stops the Critical text.   Latin support: It is in the vast majority of the Old Latin manuscripts, which outnumber the Greek manuscripts.   CHURCH FATHERS Cyprian (258 AD) knew of the Comma, "The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one' and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one'."  Treatises 1 5:423 Priscillian (385 AD) As John says "and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh, the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus." Liber Apologeticus.   Varimadum (380 AD) 90:20-21 "And John the Evangelist says, . . . 'And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one'." Also Cassian (435 AD), Cassiodorus (580 AD), Speculum (or m of 450 AD), Victor of Vita (489 AD), Victor Vitensis (485 AD), Codex Freisingensis (of 500 AD), Fulgentius (533 AD), Isidore of Seville (636 AD), Codex Pal Legionensis (650 AD), and Jaqub of Edessa (700 AD).  It is also found in the edition of the Apostle's Creed used by the Waldenses and Albigensians of the twelfth century.As you can see the reading has massive, ancient textual support apart from the Greek witnesses.   Pray tell how these men quoted something that did not exist in their time!   THE GRAMMAR of the GREEK ITSELF If we take out verse 7 then we have the poor Greek grammar of verses 6 & 8 Why are three neuter nouns supported with a masculine participle?   Gregory of Nazianzus (390 AD) . . . (he has not been consistent) in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourselves disclaim in the case of Deity? Fifth Orientation the Holy Spirit You are left with inconsistent Greek grammar if verse 7 is removed. This was the argument of Robert Dabney of Union Theological Seminary The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek (1891). Bishop Middleton Doctrine of the Greek Article AND Matthew Henry in his famous commentary. Bill Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Kevin wrote  >  Is there any explanation other than divine preservation for the fact that a copy of a copy of a copy and so on matches a copy of a copy of a copy In thousands of MS ( of the majority TR type NOT the Minority mangled MS) and from differnt regions of the world and from different times? If all the leafs match, what does that say about the root at the other end?   Where are all those "roots" with the extended 1John 5-7 in the text, Kevin? "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1186 ----- Original Message ----- From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 7:57 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Albert Einstein & Karl Barth Is there any explanation other than divine preservation for the fact that a copy of a copy of a copy and so on matches a copy of a copy of a copy In thousands of MS ( of the majority TR type NOT the Minority mangled MS) and from differnt regions of the world and from different times? If all the leafs match, what does that say about the root at the other end? ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lance, They were not �imaginary originals�.  No one just invented what they were copying from, or it�s pretty amazing that it all fits together so well. Thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls we know how very meticulous OT scripture was copied over the ages, and I am sure that God�s arm is not shortened when it comes to the NT.  What bothers me is the way folks of your persuasion are so eager to diminish what godly men have defended with their very lives over the centuries�all so that you and I can have the blessed opportunity to read God�s Word for ourselves.  Some of us are extremely thankful for that.  Some sneer at it.  Perhaps one is blessed in the Spirit in proportion to their gratefulness for God�s sacred gifts. Izzy   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 4:02 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Albert Einstein & Karl Barth   The first 'copy' was a reproduction of some 'imagined' original. That is what a 'copy' is. (whether or not one has 'sweaty' hands. There ain't none of them babies in existence. ----- Original Message ----- From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 02, 2005 16:55 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Albert Einstein & Karl Barth     Of course.  I was speaking of the original ms.  We do realize that we are reading English translations of such, and must therefore rely upon the best available sources. We don�t need to squabble about those again. Izzy And you question the use of "imagination?"  You make assertions about manuscripts that do not exist.   I can go with thought inspiration quicker than "verbal plenary."   Word for word  dictation would eliminate the personalities of the individual authors  --  which is not the case.  Your last sentence indicates a desire to avoid further discussion.   Alrighty then.  JD   Dear JD,   Please be notified that the FIRST copy of scripture, written by the FIRST writer (ie: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) was THE ORIGINAL.  There definitely WAS one, whether you have a copy in your sweaty little hand or not.   Love, Izzy __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web