The Mark ending is 99.8% of the Greek, Latin and Syriac manuscripts in full agreement.
Really? No textual variation at all, huh?
That the argument you're going with?
The heavenly witnesses are in about 95% the Latin line,
You don't know this, this is just an estimate.
which is about half the total manuscripts.
I'm gonna be charitable and just assume this is poor communication. I'm gonna assume when you say the words "total manuscripts" that what you REALLY mean is "of the 800 or so Latin manuscripts that contain 1 John 5:7," about 95% of them have the CJ.
They're all of French and Spanish descent and most of them are post-11th century, too, but I'm sure you editing that part out was just an oversight and not an intentional deception.
And this support includes the Old Latin mss.
Not the earliest ones.
And btw, here's what you are IN FACT saying
Apples - 99.8% of the Greek, Latin and Syriac MSS have Mark 169-20, EVEN THOUGH MOST OF THESE ARE FROM THE NINTH CENTURY AND LATER!!!
Apples - 95% of LATIN ONLY MSS have the Comma, EVEN THOUGH MOST OF THESE ARE FROM THE 11TH CENTURY AND LATER!!!
Of course, you're hoping nobody notices it's 100% of the Syriac and Greek against your position in those first centuries, but whatever.
Try to think logically.
We are the only ones thinking logically here, since you're the one arguing that 95% matters but only sometimes.
And note the unscholarly and childish argumentation of Bill Brown.
You mean where I pointed out you're wrong?
I can understand the dismissal fallacy - but it's still a fallacy on your part.
On the Mark ending there are massive evidences in support of authenticity, and the virtually unanimous Greek, Latin and Syriac manuscripts are a major part of that support.
And there's as much AGAINST the Comma Johanneum, so one wonders why you suddenly do an incredible 180 when it comes to the actual evidence.
You have to have a real problem to call that "bleats self-righteously".
No, I just have to point out your inconsistency - apparently even to you.
You don't really care AT ALL about how many manuscripts support a reading.
You only care if it wound up in the KJV - and your arguments on both the CJ and Rev 16:5 have made that clear.
Stuff like that is why Bill Brown disqualifies himself from actual dialog and discussion.
This is your opinion.
A wrong and misguided one, but an opinion nevertheless.
Now - get ready for some more world class gaslighting folks....
He works off his presuppositions
Accusation against me, no evidence even presented
(and since you made the allegation - WHAT ARE MY PRESUPPOSITIONS????)
and will wildly attack any arguments for the TR and AV.
Says the guy whose presupposition is (checks notes) the KJV is perfect.
Incredible gaslighting here.
"I'm going to accuse you of that which I am, in fact, doing!"
Unbelievable but no longer surprising.
What a silly attack.
This is in response to this:
In other words, you don’t have any idea. You just figure since a guy says something he like, it must be right even though you’ve slammed McDonald six ways to Tuesday otherwise.
There's nothing at all wrong with what I said.
You've done nothing more than attack the guy, and the only time you agree with him is when he says the opinion you already have.
Reminder: I can do my own work, you're the one who is surfing the Net begging people to help you do your translation work.
Yes, Grantley has some problems which I have exposed.
This simply doesn't change the fact that your arguments have yet to rise above quoting other people as if they were authoritative.
However, I do not work with the genetic fallacy,
Says the guy who repeatedly:
a) doesn't want anyone to know about his Oneness views while
b) slamming someone else as a JW
Sure, you don't work with the genetic fallacy.
And the moon landing was faked, too.
(Oh that's right, you've actually said that).
and often praise what Grantley writes.
But only when it agrees with your presuppositions, so who cares?
Also he really helped advance heavenly witnesses scholarship, as long as you understand the weakness of his overall position against authenticity, which leads to very awkward and skewed writing on his part. And on some issues we had extensive private discussion, including the Vulgate Prologue.
Again, all I see here is a bunch of opinions that I honestly think you're confusing with facts.
The excellent response from Grantley on Fuldensis was truly superb, and should have ended all this stuff about the scribal variant including committentes changing the meaning of the Vulgate Prologue. However, once the contras go into rah-rah mode, they don't let the facts get in the way.
Gee, all I see here is a bunch of:
a) you citing someone else's work
b) not really interacting with the actual data
How many Bibles have comes out - new translations - that you and Dr. McDonald have persuaded to include the Comma Johanneum?
The answer (to those watching at home) is 0.
The same that would have come out if neither of you had ever written anything on the subject. Once again, would the Spirit of God produce so little?