Syriac Peshitta, KJVO "pure" line, and the Comma


Active member
False analogy.

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!!!


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?


Active member
Seven years ago ...
Where did you ask this question? Do you have the url?

You know full well you were asked this question on CARM.
You know full well the link is gone because CARM crash.

Now rather than this pedantic Greg Brady nonsense - why not just answer the question right here and now and save us all some time?

You could have simply done this rather than the “I’m scared and don’t know what to say so I’ll project back on the inquiry!” tactic used here.

You are back to circular reasoning, using your own personal quirky presuppositions.
e.g. The Cyprian usage c. 250 AD could not be rooted in the 4th century.

Since Cyprian didn't quote it, this doesn't even apply.
That being said - we still have your position running around in circles since all we have is a Latin corruption.

In fact, if Jerome's Vulgate Prologue is accepted, the debate about heavenly witnesses authenticity is basically over, since Jerome would have had manuscripts going back much earlier than 400 AD, and he acknowledged the heavenly witnesses in his source manuscripts.

This statement is 100% false.
And you know that it is.

Again - all he had to do was whip out his Vulgate and say, "See? HERE IT IS!"
He never did that - and there's only one reason.

Thanks for basically conceding heavenly witnesses authenticity. At least tentatively.

Again, we see you continue to confuse me with you.

Might want to see a doctor about that one.

Why do you think pointing out evidences raises the temperature?
You don't "point out evidences."

You make claims without evidence - as even your "possibly" equivocation makes clear.


Active member
You brought up this date.

No, I didn't.

Unbound did.

Can you seriously not read???

And then you responded to it.

We could ask Thomas Strouse his thinking.

No need to do so unless he's changed his position.

However, the missing five books are definitely an evidence for an early Peshitta, likely 2nd century.

Or more likely not.
But your insistence on the 2nd century date is amusing to say the least.

This is mentioned in p. 42 of the Oxford Debate, by Edward Miller.

Has to go back 125 years to find a resource.........

Your paper was self-contradictory.

An accusation you don't even bother to prove.

Your paper was self-contradictory. You built your false logic on the difficulty or lateness of Arian omission, and at that point you simply "forgot" that the Sabellian issues make that whole argument moot.

Wait, I did????

You clearly didn't read the paper at all if this is what you think you read.

1) A bunch of KJVO guys MADE ASSERTIONS - it's not my fault that KJVOs are, by definition, stupid people who cannot make decent arguments. Sorry, not my fault.


3) You assert I forgot something that is IN THE PAPER......

"Hills does not explicitly advocate removal by heretics but suggests that Christians refused to quote the Comma because the text can be interpreted favorably by Sabellians."

Did you not even bother to read this - a paper linked on your site since at least February of 2021 - before you responded with that demonstrably false claim?

Or did you read it and just hope nobody else would notice?

You didn’t know who brought up the date first and you didn’t know what was in the paper you attacked, and it’s demonstrable.

And if you come back at me with “but you had the date first in the paper,” I was quoting Strouse, which makes it his fault not mine.


Well-known member
"And these three are one"....Isn't that the exact same phrase Athanasius used that Avery claims is a quotation of the comma?

Perhaps our modalist editor will now try to correct Augustine above, as he did with Conti? Or will he concede the fact that Athanasius isn't quoting the Comma at all?

The immediate and preceding CONTEXT of the ambiguous 1 John 5:8(Clause-C) quotation in this fictitious and pseudographic polemic consists of a purely allegorical (i.e. figurative, spiritual, symbolic, mystical kinds of) eisegesis about the "number" "three" found in passages of Isaiah, Moses, Elijah, Paul, then (suprise suprise...) John.

Eucherius of Lyon

De Quaestionibus difficilioribus Veteris et Novi Testamenti

“Concerning Difficult Questions in the Old Testament and New Testament”

Chapter 3

"...The majority interpret the passage here mystically, reading into that particular place the Trinity. But why? Because it is held to be a witness to the Christ. 'The water,' because it indicates that this is speaking of the Father Himself. "Lest I forsake the Source of living water" [Jeremiah 2:13]. 'Blood,' points out that through his passion, blood flowed from out of the Christ. 'Spirit,' is obviously and truly the Holy Spirit…”

Augustine of Hippo

Contra Maximinum

Book 2, Chapter 22, Section 3

“Certainly I do not want you to be mistaken about the letter of the Apostle John, in that place where he says: “There are three witnesses, the spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are one.” […] It is for this cause that I have admonished you,
so that you may not be mistaken.
Last edited:


Active member
The heavenly witnesses is simply one textual issue, and it is one where the Peshitta agrees with the Greek ms. lines.


"That thing I said about 99.8% of the manuscripts? Forget about it! Doesn't apply except when i want it to apply!"

AKA equivocation fallacy

There is no agreed, sensible definition of "DISTINCTIVE Byzantine readings".

This again is an OPINION offered by someone who cannot even read Greek by his own admission.

Even Scrivener accepted the Athanasius Disputation and the Synopsis of Sacred Scripture as Greek evidences.

1) Of what? Page and book please
2) And so what if he did, doesn't make him right.

There are many clear evidences in the early centuries. Including hundreds of orthodox at the 484 Council of Carthage.

That's evidence (singular) of what...that a bunch of guys liked the reading.
Doesn't make it original.
They're not infallible bishops though I guess a KJVO might try to argue that.

And there are clear evidences before Jerome.

In Latin.
Priscillian, the heretic, who quotes it and adds to it - though for some reason you don't bother to defend the addendum......

Maybe you are playing the "Church Father" game of Metzger?

You mean where I expect an ACTUAL QUOTATION?
That's hardly a game.

Citing a phrase from verse 8 and you arbitrarily deciding it means the whole verse is there is a quite irresponsible way to proceed.

We don't bother with evidences unless they fit our definition of Fathers?

All they have to do is quote the COMMA section in Greek.
And I'm guessing your frustration here is because nobody did.
Nobody. Not in Greek.

If so, that is so dumb.

I'd think dumb would be someone trying to argue, "Even though the most pertinent section is NEVER QUOTED in Greek, they DID HAVE IT in Greek, and here's my list of excuses as to why they didn't quote it!!!"

Uh....I'm not the one who is arguing that.

Now we get a bunch of irrelevant data.
Bruce Metzger on the Pericope Adulterae
"No Greek father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage,"

Yet Didymus the Blind in the 4th century used the Pericope.

Also Jennifer Wright Knust
"The story was cited by one Greek father during the sixth century, in a work that is not widely known and preserved only in Syriac, the Historia Ecclesiastica mistakenly attributed to Zacharias Rhetor."

Not sure what this has to do with the CJ AT ALL.
Also Jerome worked with Greek and Latin mss.

Which Greek manuscripts did he work with that lets you assert that?
What Greek from Jerome is preserved?

Again - I'm simply holding you to THE STANDARD UPON WHICH YOU PERSONALLY INSIST when the situation is reversed. "If you can't name the person who interpolated the passage, it didn't happen." Well, if you can't name the manuscripts he used, you have zero evidence he used any, particularly since (wait for it) Aleph and B both predate Jerome.

and commented on the passage.

An intentionally vague comment.
The textcrit charlatan

As opposed to the "name calling guy who cannot answer basic questions about his position...."

can then turn around and say "that is not a Greek Father".

If you have a GREEK CHURCH FATHER quoting the Comma Johanneum in the first six centuries then BY ALL MEANS, give us the citation and the quotation where it may be found.

Not that hard if you have as much "evidences" as you insist you do.

It's not a game to expect you to able to provide the cash for the money you insist you have.

So I first have to see if Bill Brown is trying to play that trickster game.

Just cough up the Greek Church Fathers who cite the portion about the pater, the logos, and the pneuma in the first six centuries.

If you can't - then I'm not the one playing the game.....


Well-known member
Even Cassiodorus whom he quoted the other day gives a "myst[ical]" eisegesis/interpretation of the text!


Complexiones In Epistollis Apostolorum, Epistolam S. Joannis ad Parthos

Chapter 10

“Cui rei testificantur in terra tria mysteria : aqua, sanguis et spiritus, quae in passione Domini leguntur impleta: in caelo
autem Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus; et hi tres unus est Deus.”

“To which defendant [Or: “legal matter/case” “lawsuit” “legal party”] is he testifying to? On earth, the three mysteries, “the water, the blood, and the Spirit,” which we are to read into as being fulfilled [Or: “as having fulfillment”] in the suffering of the Lord, but on the other hand [Or: “but by contrast”], in heaven the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and these three persons are [the Latin text here is "unus" masculine gender not "unum" neuter gender] the single God [Or: "and these three persons constitute the single God"].”
Which mystical interpretation Mr Steven Spencer Avery "hand waves" ;) (i.e. must ignore)!
Last edited:


Well-known member
Seven years ago ...
Where did you ask this question? Do you have the url?
As Maestroh said, why don't you just answer the question? What difference does it make WHERE the question was originally asked? He just asked it again HERE on this forum.

Anyone who knows you knows exactly what you're doing here......STALLING.


Well-known member
As Eucherius and Augustine (and Cassiodorus interprets as well) mystical or symbolic interpretations of 1 John 5:7-8 go way back.

LATIN TEXT: “'Iste est,' inquit, 'qui venit per aquam et sanguinem'; et iterum, 'quia tres sunt, qui testificantur, spiritus,' quod est vita, 'et aqua,' quod est regeneratio ac fides, 'et sanguis,' quod est cognitio, 'et hi tres unum sunt.' In salvatore quippe istae sunt virtutes salutiferae, et vita ipsa in ipso Filio eius exsistit.” - (Fragements 1, Section 3, “Comments on the First Epistle of John,” Page 214, “[Clemens Alexandrinus:] Adumbrationes in Epistolas Canonicas,” eds. O. Stählin et al.; GCS 17; 2d ed.; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1970.)
[FTN. 1]:
Cf. MPG Vol. 9, Col. 738, C.
[FTN. 2]: 23 “et iterum” in Ras. M2 [M2 = die Korrekturen spaterer Hand “corrections of a later hand.” [Von Labbe, identifies the corrector as: “Mingarelli”]

Dr. Friedrick Zoepfl, 1914.
M2 = die Korrekturen spaterer Hand “corrections of a later hand.”
M* = der ursprungliche Text (bei Korrekturen) “the original text (with corrections)”

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (circa. 130-215 C.E.): “He says: “this is he who came through water and blood,” [1 John 5:6] and again: [1 John 5:7] “because there are three that testify, the spirit,” which is life: “and the water,” which is re-generation [Or: “re-birth”] and [Or: “as” Perhaps: “with”] faith: “and the blood,” which is knowledge: [1 John 5:8] “and these three things they are one [Lit., “one thing”].” For indeed, these saving powers [Or: “virtues”] are in the Savior, and the life it-self, in itself, exists in [John 5:26 Vul.] His [very] own Son...” - (Fragments 1, Section 3, “Clement of Alexandria, the Elder, Outlines in several Canonical Epistles - from out of the interpretation of [Flavius] M[agnus] Aurelius Cassiodorus.” My Translation 2017.)

Clement allegorically applies the three life-saving virtues (1. life 2. regeneration or faith 3. knowledge) below to the three (1. spirit 2. water 3. blood) found in the one-person Jesus Christ, God's Son.

1. “The Spirit,” = “which is life”
2. “The water,” = “which is regeneration and faith”
3. “The blood,” = “which is knowledge”

Both Clement and Origen are commentaries on the specific text and Epistle.

GREEK TEXT: [6.43.222] Εἰκὸς δέ τινα τὰς διαφόρους ἐπινοίας τοῦ σωτῆρος μὴ νενοηκότα προσκόψειν τῇ ἀποδοθείσῃ περὶ τοῦ Ἰορδάνου ἑρμηνείᾳ, διὰ τὸ λέγειν τὸν Ἰωάννην· «Ἐγὼβαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι, ὁ δὲ ἐρχόμενος μετ’ ἐμὲ ἰσχυρότερός μού ἐστιν, αὐτὸς ὑμᾶς βαπτίσει ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ.» [6.43.223] Πρὸς ὃν λεκτέον ὅτι ὥσπερ ποτὸν τυγχάνων ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγος οἷς μέν ἐστιν ὕδωρ, ἑτέροις δὲ οἶνος εὐφραίνων καρδίαν ἀνθρώ που, ἄλλοις δὲ αἷμα διὰ τὸ «Ἐὰν μὴ πίητέ μου τὸ αἷμα, οὐκ ἔχετε ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς»· ἀλλὰ καὶ τροφὴ λεγόμενος οὐ κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸ νοεῖται ἄρτος ζῶν καὶ σάρξ· οὕτως ὁ αὐτός ἐστιν βάπτισμα ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος καὶ πυρός, τισὶν δὲ καὶ αἵματος. [6.43.224] Περὶ δὲ τοῦ τελευταίου βαπτίσματος, ὥς τινές <φασιν>, φησὶν ἐν τῷ «Βάπτισμα δὲ ἔχω βαπτισθῆναι, καὶ πῶς συνέχομαι ἕως ὅτου τελεσθῇ.» Τούτῳ τε συμφώνως ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ <ὁ> μαθητὴς Ἰωάννης τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα ἀνέγραψεν τὰ τρία εἰς ἓν γινόμενα. Καὶ ὁδὸς δέ που καὶ θύρα εἶναι ὁμολογῶν, σαφής ἐστιν μηδέπω τυγχάνων θύρα ᾧ ἔτι ὁδός ἐστιν, καὶ μηκέτι ὁδὸς ᾧ ἤδη θύρα. [6.43.225] Πάντες οὖν οἱ στοιχειούμενοι τῇ ἀρχῇ τῶν λογίων τοῦ θεοῦ…” – (Book 6, Chapter 26, [Vol 14, Col. 275-276 [6.43.222-6.43.225]] MPG.) 11-17/Commentarii in evangelium Joannis.pdf

ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA (circa. 185-254 C.E.): “…Now, it may very well be that some one not versed in the various aspects of the Saviour may stumble at the interpretation given above of the Jordan; because John says, “I baptize with water, but He that cometh after me is stronger than I; He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” [Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; Acts 11:16; also comp., Acts 1:5; Acts 2:1-4; 1 Cor. 12:13;] To this we reply that, as the Word of God in His character as something to be drunk is to one set of men water, and to another “wine, making glad the heart of man,” [Psa. 104:15] and to others blood, since it is said, “Except ye drink My blood, ye have no life in you,” [John 6:35] and as in His character as food He is variously conceived as living bread [John 6:51] or as flesh, so also He, the same person, is baptism of water, and baptism of Holy Spirit and of fire, and to some, also, of blood. It is of His last baptism, as some hold, that He speaks in the words, “I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished?” [Luke 12:50] And it agrees with this that the disciple John speaks in his epistle of: “the spirit, and the water, and the blood,” [Or: “The disciple John has described the spirit, the water, and the blood,” (Bengel, J. A. 1866)] [1 John 5:7] as being one [Or: “the three things as concurring “in one”” (Bengel, J. A. 1866)] [1 John 5:8]. And again He declares Himself to be the way [John 14:6] and the door, [John 10:9] but clearly He is not the door to those to whom He is the way, and He is no longer the way to those to whom He is the door. All those, then, who are being initiated in the beginning of the oracles of God…” – (Book 6, Chapter 26, [MPG Vol 14, Col. 275-276] “Commentary on the Gospel of John,” Translated by Allan Menzies. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 9. Edited by Allan Menzies. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1896.)'s_Commentary_on_the_Gospel_of_John/Book_VI/Chapter_26

ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA (circa. 185-254 C.E.): “…So this very same person is a baptism of water and of spirit and of fire (yet [Or: “but”] which is to some people even [Or: “also”] blood). It is about this very last baptism that some say he speaks of in the words: [Luke 12:50] “Indeed, I have a baptism with which to be baptized, and how I am distressed until it is finished!” This [interpretation [from the context of ἑρμηνείᾳ]] is also (συμφώνως) in harmony with [the] disciple John in his epistle: [1 John 5:7] “the spirit and the water and the blood,” which (ἀνέγραψεν) he described as the three things which [Or: “that”] become one [Lit., “result in one thing” Or: “result in one testimony” “agree as one”].” - (Book 6, Chapter 26, [MPG Vol 14, Col. 275-276] “Commentary on the Gospel of John,” 06/03/21)

Baptism in:
  1. water
  2. spirit
  3. fire (or blood)
"Three things" = three types of baptism (βάπτισμα ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος καὶ πυρός, τισὶν δὲ καὶ αἵματος)

"One" = the one person Jesus Christ (οὕτως ὁ αὐτός εἰς)

GREEK TEXT: “...ἓν γὰρ μόνον γέγονε Μωσῆς ὁ νόμος καὶ Ἠλίας ἡ προφητεία Ἰησοῦ τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ, καὶ οὐχ ὥσπερ ἦσαν πρότερον τρεῖς, οὕτω μεμενήκασιν, ἀλλὰ γεγόνασιν οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν. [1 John 5:8(C) GNT] ταῦτα δέ μοι νόει ὡς πρὸς τὰ μυστικὰ πράγματα. πρὸς γὰρ τὸ ψιλὸν τοῦ γράμματος...” (Book 2, Section 45, “Commentary On Matthew,” [commenting on Matthew 17:8] Migne, PG, Vol., 13, Col. 1083-1084, Sections A-C.)
Codd. Anglicanus, Vaticanus et Tarinianus (recte): ὴ προφητεία. Editio Huetli: οί προφηταί (non προφηται. R.

ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA (circa. 185-254 C.E.): “...For he has become one alone as the Law of Moses and Elijah the prophet with the Gospel of Jesus [Or: “and the prophecies of Elijah, with the Gospel of Jesus,” “and Elijah's prophecy about Jesus, with the Gospel”], and so, these three did not remain as they had been formerly, but instead they have become 'these three agree as one.' [Or: “these three agree as to the one thing”] [1 John 5:8(Clause-C)] But you will need to think these things out [as you follow along] with me, as to there relation to mystical matters. For in regards to the literal [Lit., “naked/bare” Or: “plain” “simple”] meaning of the text...” - (Book 2, Section 45, “Commentary On Matthew,” [Commenting on Matthew 17:8])

The three testimonies of the Prophets combined with the Gospel testify to the one person Jesus as being the Christ and God's Son.
  1. Moses
  2. Elijah (or Elijah's prophecy)
  3. The Gospel of Jesus (Gospels viewed as a combined/single whole)
The one alone = Jesus.


Well-known member
From what is claimed to be a work of Cyprian’s, which quotes a Vetus Latina text 1 John 5:6-8

Full Manuscript Title
Codex Vaticanus Reg. Lat. 324
Folio 2

"Caecilii Cypriani de rebaptismate non debere denuo baptizari qui semel in nomine Domini [nostri] Iesu Christi sint tincti."
Of Caecilius Cyprianus, concerning re-baptising, that they must not be baptized [Or: “immersed”] again in the name of Jesus Christ once they are stained.”

LATIN TEXT: “Ait enim Joannes de Domino nostro in Epistola sua nos docens: “Hic est qui venit per aquam et sanguinem, Jesus Christus, non in aqua tantum, sed in aqua et sanguine. Et Spiritus est qui testimonium perhibet, quia Spiritus est veritas; quia tres testimonium perhibent, Spiritus et aqua et sanguis. Et isti tres in unum sunt…” – (Chapter 15, “Liber De Rebaptismate,” Villanova University.)

Folio 9v = Chapter 15
Folio 10r = Chapter 19

CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (circa. 200-258 C.E.): “For John, in his Epistle, says concerning our Lord: ‘This is he, Jesus Christ, who came by water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood ; and it is the Spirit that bears witness, because the Spirit is Truth ; for there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, [and] the water, and the blood, and these three agree in one.” – (Chapter 15, “De Rebaptismate,” Page 1360, “Exposistion of the Old and New Testaments,” Volume 3, by Matthew Henry, ‎J.B Williams, 1828.)
From Codex Vat. Reg. 324, Folio 9v, and Codex Vat. Barb. 653.


Well-known member
Steven Avery needs to (for once) actually study what the ECFs that TNC has provided wrote in the proper CONTEXT.

None of them were Comma warriors, as KJVOs would like them to be.

There is simply no excuse for rejecting proven allegorical interpretations AS allegorical interpretations.


Active member
Steven Avery needs to (for once) actually study what the ECFs that TNC has provided wrote in the proper CONTEXT.

None of them were Comma warriors, as KJVOs would like them to be.

There is simply no excuse for rejecting proven allegorical interpretations AS allegorical interpretations.

There’s also the cruel irony of hiding one’s own anti-Trinitarian views while arguing for the inclusion of the passage.

The only reason for all of the ranting and raging and insistence on seeing invisible things (“possibly”) is singular: it’s because even the ones making the claims know the claims are thin evidentially while simultaneously claiming to have tons of proof.

It’s doubly ironic in that Trinitarians such as I would LOVE to have this passage as original.

Fact is, not only it wasn’t but even the CJ adherents know it wasn’t. Hence the insecure babbling.

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Which brings us back to Maestroh's point in his excellent article about the Comma having been supposedly dropped from the Greek mss by Arian tampering. An impossibility, as he points out, because the translation of the Peshitta occurred 2 centuries prior.

However the Sabellian controversy omission theory is far more important than the Arian theory. And the Eusebius quote gives this lots of support. Bill Brown's emphasis on the Arian issues at that point was obviously skewed and faulty.

(Also the original dropping could easily have been homoeoteleuton.)

And the Peshitta original translation could be between c. AD 200 and c. AD 400.
So there is no impossibility, even if the Peshitta is early.

The Peshitta was omitting Acts 8:37, even though it is given in the 2nd century by Irenaeus (and in the 3rd century by Cyprian.) It is an error to come to dogmatic conclusions about how exactly the early text and translation decisions developed. By the logic above there would be no explanation as to why Acts 8:37 is not included in the Peshitta.

And I don't think Bill Brown claims the Peshitta was 2nd century, or even 3rd. That would help destroy the Critical Text. He was arguing in a classical ad hominem approach, (to the man, accepting his argument) that some AV supporters claim the 2nd century, noting Thomas Strouse with a AD 165 date. He attacked the Strouse date.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Steven Avery needs to (for once) actually study what the ECFs that TNC has provided wrote in the proper CONTEXT.
None of them were Comma warriors, as KJVOs would like them to be.
There is simply no excuse for rejecting proven allegorical interpretations AS allegorical interpretations.

The convoluted special pleading interpretations are generally worthless. (Let me find the word figurative somewhere and make ridiculous speculations.)

He simply wants to ignore the clear words of passages, and will support the absurd invisible allegory attempts. This can dupe the contras.

Plenty of early church writers give the full text, starting in the fourth century, and this supports the earlier allusions since it is clear the text was in the Latin Bibles.

This is also proven by the AD 484 Council of Carthage showing the universality of the heavenly witnesses in a wide geographical region. It would take hundreds of years to take over a line with an interpolation, if it were even possible.

Steven Avery

Well-known member
You describe your own incorrect allegations and unsound KJV-only opinions. You oppose the stating of the truth about KJV-only opinions.
Incorrect. It has been demonstrated or proven that you make false accusations against other posters, personally attacking them, in some of your posts. You make claims and allegations that you fail to prove to be true.
Other posters are often not guilty of what you allege. You may be more guilty of what you accuse others than those you accuse. You do not practice what you preach.
Your incorrect opinion. Any serious thinking believer can see
that you start with your unproven KJV-only assumptions and then proceed by circular reasoning to try to advocate them. KJV-only reasoning involves circular reasoning. The KJV is assumed by circular reasoning and by begging the question to be the standard for itself.
You selectively look for evidence to support your preconceived unproven assumptions. You have never provided any sound arguments for your KJV-only reasoning that do not involve use of fallacies.
You have failed to prove that to be the case. Blind belief in something does not make it true or scriptural.
You assume and believe assertions concerning the KJV that have not been proven to be true.
I have not asked you to prove anything to my satisfaction.
You have been soundly and scripturally asked to prove according to the scriptural command: "Prove all things" (1 Thess. 5:22).
Do you try to suggest that this command does not apply to you or that you disobey it?

There are more meaningless jargon posts like these.

Not a word of substance to the thread.

Steven Avery

Well-known member
That's funny. I can understand though why you wouldn't want your tampering with Conti's clear reference to 1 John 5:8 (which you changed to verse 7 in your "book") to be likened to the creation of the Comma.

Someone quoted what I said about this, it is on the purebibleforum, so you should know that the accusation that I changed anything is untrue.

And I discussed with the book author the verse citation question when it was pointed out, and recommended changes.

Steven Avery

Well-known member
And so is the possibility of it having been originally written in English.

And I should have said Hebrew or Aramaic.

There is good information in the following paper.

The Language of the Apocalypse* (1965)
C.G. Ozanne
Tyndale Bulletin 16 (1965) 3-9.

One of the resources is Charles C. Torrey's Introduction to The Apocalypse of John (Yale University Press, 1958)

Your English comment is childish.

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Since you have now approved a 2nd century date for the Peshitta, all you have to do now is prove your "mixed Greek" invented story, in order to explain the Comma's absence from the mss from whence the Peshitta came. I can't wait!

See the post above, #193.

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Do you actually think all those at that LATIN Council, who read the scriptures in LATIN, from LATIN mss, somehow constitute individual witnesses for the authenticity of a reading entirely absent from the GREEK mss that they didnt read and wouldn't have known was missing from them anyway? If so, THAT'S dumb.

There was no Chinese Wall between Latin and Greek. In the early centuries many read both languages.

The Council of Carthage basically proves that the Latin text from the time of around Tertullian and Cyprian and forward would have the heavenly witnesses. In order to become universal in the Latin line. Someone could still speculate a very early addition to the Latin.

However, interpolation theories are very weak, so the contras ignore their responsibility to give and discuss a careful explanation.


Well-known member
That's funny. I can understand though why you wouldn't want your tampering with Conti's clear reference to 1 John 5:8 (which you changed to verse 7 in your "book") to be likened to the creation of the Comma.
did you write a book ????
whats the name so I can find a copy somewhere