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

[Steven Avery]

Another devious misrepresentation. You don't tell the audience the specifics at all. I didn't bring in ANF/PNF references. YOU DID, as diversion damage control. I was confining my post to Latin NT manuscripts, you let one of your ("helppp I can't answer this") scattergun diversionary fireworks factory explosion here there and everywhere bury the point with as much blatherskite text as possible in quick fire succession.

Of course the early writers give an important window. If they show Holy Spirit before the manuscripts (where you basically worked with "possibilities" of no real substance) then it refutes your attempt to claim some sort of verse construction.

Your problem here is an inability to handle simple logic.
And being addicted to posturing.

As I said, you should go to the absurdist attempts of Grantley McDonald if you want to play that game of theorizing how the heavenly witnesses developed. His is at least good for a laugh.

 

[Conan]

Your problem here is an inability to handle simple logic.
And being addicted to posturing.

Perhaps you are projecting your ways onto others.

 

[logos1560]

Your problem here is an inability to handle simple logic.
And being addicted to posturing.

You describe your own illogical human KJV-only reasoning.

You have demonstrated an inability to handle simple logic as you cannot deal with the simple matter of in what sense the three [Father, Word, and Holy Spirit] are three. The three [Father, Word or Son, and Holy Spirit] are not three things as heretical or illogical "oneness" reasoning may suggest. Does illogical "oneness" reasoning deny that these three someone's are three persons? Is it not simple logic that the three [Father, Word, and Holy Spirit] are persons so why do you reject it? Are you unable to say in what sense the three are three without revealing your illogical reasoning?

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Here you fave the Freisinger Fragment, the early ms. you omitted was the Leon Palimpsest.

Another one of your Strawmen.

It was you who started babbling about "omitting" something.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Of course the early writers give an important window. If they show Holy Spirit before the manuscripts (where you basically worked with "possibilities" of no real substance) then it refutes your attempt to claim some sort of verse construction.

Your problem here is an inability to handle simple logic.
And being addicted to posturing.

As I said, you should go to the absurdist attempts of Grantley McDonald if you want to play that game of theorizing how the heavenly witnesses developed. His is at least good for a laugh.

Where did this Strawman come from? How many more can you conjure.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Perhaps you are projecting your ways onto others.

Yep.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Such as your absurd attempt to say that the Vulgate Prologue is not a first-person writing by Jerome (or a skilled, deceptive forger acting like Jerome).

You've gone on record now that it's "we" and "our" first person plural does exist! And you claim a royal "we", and that he didn't work alone but had helpers.

Why are you now pretending you haven't already admitted this?

 

[Steven Avery]

You've gone on record now that it's "we" and "our" first person plural does exist! And you claim a royal "we", and that he didn't work alone but had helpers.
Why are you now pretending you haven't already admitted this?

You are not following.

If there is a plural, it is of little relevance.
And for that reason, I am happy to take your word for it, without any checking.

All it means is that Jerome was writing in the royal we, and/or worked with helpers and/or considered Eustochium a compatriot on these ventures. Also he studied with the Jews on Old Testament, he likely studied with skilled men on the New Testament. So you can add that as another "and/or".

The actual text remains his first-person Prologue as an epistle to Eustochium. A helper does not change that at all. You come up with some real wacky arguments.

You need a basic teaching on either/or logic.

 

[Steven Avery]

Where did this Strawman come from? How many more can you conjure.

Ok, you don't know Grantley McDonald's writing, with theories on the creation of the verse.

 

[Steven Avery]

Another one of your Strawmen.
It was you who started babbling about "omitting" something.

You have never responded as to why you do not have the Leon Palimpsest as a pro-text in your ms. list.

You should respond, rather than more juvenile sand throwing.

 

[logos1560]

You come up with some real wacky arguments.

The poster who accepts the real wacky arguments [fallacies] upon which a modern KJV-only theory depends would be the one throwing sand.

Readers can easily see that you are the one who often incorrectly accuses others of things which you yourself are guilty. Sand throwing is one of your diversionary tactics.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

You have never responded as to why you do not have the Leon Palimpsest as a pro-text in your ms. list.

You should respond, rather than more juvenile sand throwing.

Sigh.

Do I have to go through this again!

The "Leon Palimpsest" was in fact my list of (quote myself "Some of the earliest Latin NT manuscript 'evidences' as you call them" end quote), did you get that Strawman Maker extraordinaire "SOME OF..."?

Just like "the Freisinger Fragment" a.k.a "Codex Frisingensis," or "Fragment of Freising," or "Fragmenta Frisingensia" or "Frisingensis Fragment" etc (plus it's modern name ... ah no ...) Steven, you can go figure that one out for yourself, and eat humble pie like the rest of us when we make embarrassing mistakes.

But, I'll show mercy. Because you genuinely appear to be ignorant in this regard, I'll try (and I mean I've already tried, but it's not lodging in your grey matter) to enlighten you again...

Many manuscripts in this controversy go by different name's in different ages (for which there are many reasons - to many to elaborate here), and therefore, because you don't realize this, you are in fact doubling up on manuscript references if you think I haven't posted the names of both "the Freisinger Fragment" and "the Leon Palimpsest" already (and the same applies equally to some of your ANF/PNF references as well).

Two examples you might be familiar with.

You refer to the Codex Fuldensis. But it's official name is Hessian State Library, Codex Bonifatianus I. It's also known as the: “Victor Codex.”

You may also refer to the Codex Amiatinus. But it's official name is Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, MS. Amiatino I (shelf-mark: Cat. Sala Studio 6.).

Now Steven, >>> you <<< go figure out the rest.

 

[Steven Avery]

If the Leon Palimpsest is in that list, you would have two early Latin mss. with the verse. You wrote that there was only one, the Freisinger Fragment.

Either way you are playing disinformation games, augmented by the ho-hum posturing.

The same old throwing sand routine.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

If the Leon Palimpsest is in that list, you would have two early Latin mss. with the verse. You wrote that there was only one, the Freisinger Fragment.

Either way you are playing disinformation games, augmented by the ho-hum posturing.

The same old throwing sand routine.

Go do some homework.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

If the Leon Palimpsest is in that list, you would have two early Latin mss. with the verse. You wrote that there was only one, the Freisinger Fragment.

Either way you are playing disinformation games, augmented by the ho-hum posturing.

The same old throwing sand routine.

No posturing. I've done my homework. You haven't.

I say what I mean, and I mean what I say.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

If the Leon Palimpsest is in that list, you would have two early Latin mss. with the verse. You wrote that there was only one, the Freisinger Fragment.

Either way you are playing disinformation games, augmented by the ho-hum posturing.

The same old throwing sand routine.

Strawman Extraordinaire. My post in question (unlike how you misrepresent them) wasn't focusing on the "verse" i.e. the Latin counterfeit Parenthetical Text known as the Comma.

Besides, my word's quoted below from the start of the post in question, nullify your objection as a generic qualifying statement that applies to all the references that followed:

Some of the earliest Latin NT manuscript "evidences" (as you call them) only read "the Spirit" (with "HOLY" missing) instead of "the HOLY Spirit" in the Comma/Parenthetical text of 1 John 5:7(Clause-C).

https://forums.carm.org/threads/the...and-earthly-witnesses.9748/page-9#post-741337

I mentioned "Comma" thus the "verse", i.e. the counterfeit Parenthetical text. Your factory is just pumping out the Straw.

Can you ever represent my posts honestly?

 

[Steven Avery]

Go do some homework.

Sure, and it simply confirms what I have said above.
You list 21 mss. (20 when we date Sinaiticus properly) about 11 are Syriac, without the heavenly witnesses.
Then you say:

That's an approximate ratio of 22 Comma-less NT manuscripts to 1 Vetus Latina manuscript (Friesing, where the Comma first appears in the 7th century, six hundred years after the original, in any ACTUAL extant non-conjectured NT ms, in any language - anywhere)

No Leon Palimpsest in the list or the summary.

It looks like that list and summary is deficient, and you confused it with the later rather irrelevant Holy Spirit list.

 

[Steven Avery]

Again your making Strawmen out of two different posts, at two different times, from two different angles/approaches, two different arguments. You're so dishonest. You're misrepresenting me at almost every turn. Can you ever stop making twisted distorted Strawmen out of my posts?

Wake up. I have been clear.

First you did the posts with 21 ms. And in the summary you included Freisinger. You omitted the Leon Palimpsest which was very important, since Freisinger and Leon are among the earliest Latin mss., discovered in the 1800s.

Your summary is still false, never corrected.
So you throw sand and bogus accusations and rabbit trails.

Later you did the Holy Spirit posts, of minimal significance.
Freisinger and Leon were mentioned as “possibilities”.

 

[logos1560]

Your summary is still false, never corrected.
So you throw sand and bogus accusations and rabbit trails.

You do not practice what you preach. You never correct your erroneous KJV-only opinions and your bogus false allegations against other posters. You throw sand and try to introduce rabbit trails.

You are not a qualified expert, Greek scholar, and Latin scholar so you are not well-enough informed for the seeming arrogant declarations that you try to assume and make against others. Different expert scholars may disagree concerning the assumed or claimed estimated date for Greek manuscripts and for Latin manuscripts. Their exact date is often undetermined. They may be unresolved issues concerning the manuscripts to which you blindly appeal.

The Leon Palimpsest may be estimated to be 7th century, but its Latin NT text could be an older overwriting of the original text of that manuscript. This partial manuscript is said to have an younger 10th century overtext that was a copy of Rufinus's translation of Eusebius's Church History, and one article suggested that it could also have another overwritten text. That second possible overwritten text could be 8th or 9th century, and it may be the discovered text concerning which you make your assumptions or claims. You are in effect making assumptions about the Leon Palimpsest, but you do not really know whether they are true or not.

You are blindly trusting the opinions of whomever you find or google that agrees best with your erroneous KJV-only opinions.

 

[Steven Avery]

he Leon Palimpsest may be estimated to be 7th century, but its Latin NT text could be an older overwriting of the original text of that manuscript. This partial manuscript is said to have an younger 10th century overtext that was a copy of Rufinus's translation of Eusebius's Church History, and one article suggested that it could also have another overwritten text. That second possible overwritten text could be 8th or 9th century, and it may be the discovered text concerning which you make your assumptions or claims. You are in effect making assumptions about the Leon Palimpsest, but you do not really know whether they are true or not.

First you say it could be an overwriting, then you say it could be the underwriting of two different text.
What are your sources? Why do you hide the sources?

You are blindly trusting the opinions of whomever you find or google that agrees best with your erroneous KJV-only opinions.

The contras actually give the early date. Are they misled AV defenders?

León, Archivo Catedralicio Ms. 15 (first copied circa. 7th century and palimpsested 10th century C.E.) is likewise damaged, and similarly may have only read "SPS" ("Spiritus" abbreviated) instead of "SPS SCS" ("Spiritus Sanctus" abbreviated) as well as "XPS est veritas" in verse 6 (see previous post over on Syriac thread). Note [ ] bracketed text in the printed references to these verses in this manuscript.

The Fathers True Monarchy (JW Matt)
https://thefathersmonarchy.wordpres...comma-johanneum-clement-of-alexandria-part-1/

Here’s the next oldest occurrence of the CJ in any Bible MS:

León, Archivo Catedralicio Ms. 15 (first copied circa. 7th century and palimpsested 10th century C.E.) Vetus Latina and Vulgate mixed text. Copied in the seventh century, possibly in Toledo. Palimpsested in the tenth century with Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius’ Historia ecclesiastica in Visigothic minuscule. Spanish half-uncial script.
“Quoniam] tres sunt qui t[estimonium dant in terra] spiritus et [aqua et sanguis, et tres sunt] qui tes[timonium dicunt in cælo, pa]ter [et uerbum et spiritus sanctus et hi tres unum] sunt [in Christo Ιhesu].