You are wrong. One wonder's if you just do not care. You have made a true Onlyist choice. To throw away your ability to choose. To see the facts, or not. Somewhere you made a bad decision, and have chosen to stick with it. Use your ability to choose before you get to stuck in your ways.
Syriac Peshitta, KJVO "pure" line, and the Comma
- Thread starter Unbound68
- Start date
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
It was already demonstrated in the posts which responded to your posts with the false accusations. You close your eyes to that demonstration.
Readers can also see that my point concerning your false accusations is demonstrated or proven by comparing what posters whom you accuse actually stated to what you incorrectly allege that they said. You try to twist the words of others into something that they did not state.
Thus, there are two ways my statement can be demonstrated to be true (by comparison of what posters actually posted to what you alleged and by the response of those posters to your incorrect allegations).
Last edited:
I want the titles of the works of those men, and page numbers.
Really? You can't connect the dots?
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.
Last edited:
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.
I doubt it.
And so is the possibility of it having been originally written in English.
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!
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.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
The most simple explanation of complete absence of the Parenthetical text (Comma) in the early Syriac manuscripts is because it never was in the earlier Syriac manuscripts - ever. ?
Appealing to a Latin Pseudonymous Paratext that first appears anonymously in a sixth century A.D. Vulgate manuscript, which doesn't even have the said (commented on - matching) Parenthetical text within the same manuscript (i.e. in the Scripture text itself ?), is really grasping at straws.
Appealing to a Latin Pseudonymous Paratext that first appears anonymously in a sixth century A.D. Vulgate manuscript, which doesn't even have the said (commented on - matching) Parenthetical text within the same manuscript (i.e. in the Scripture text itself ?), is really grasping at straws.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Again, appealing to a Latin variant text (actually variant within a variant of a variant of a variant text) as if it somehow that changes the evidence for the actual/earliest New Testament text Syriac manuscripts which date earlier than the earliest manuscript for this council.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Mr Avery should heed Augustine's warning!
Contra Maximinum
Book 2, Chapter 22, Section 3
“Sane falli te nolo in Epistola Ioannis apostoli, ubi ait: “Tres sunt testes; spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis; et tres unum sunt.” […]
propter hoc admonui ne fallaris.”
“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.”
Book 2, Chapter 22, Section 3
“Sane falli te nolo in Epistola Ioannis apostoli, ubi ait: “Tres sunt testes; spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis; et tres unum sunt.” […]
propter hoc admonui ne fallaris.”
“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.”
"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?
And by Athanasius I mean pseudo.
As thinking people know, merely quoting et tres unum sunt isn't proof that the Comma is being quoted at all, and Augustine proves that above.
I don't need a lecture of sources from someone who has never darkened the door of a seminary. Without question, I know far more about available sources and can produce them in mere seconds.
Meaning nobody knows.
Your continued insult to me is funny.
But since you told me to focus and ALSO told me he was using Greek MSS - which Greek MSS was he using? I mean, I'm sure someone like yourself, who insists that people have to be able to name a person who did something can surely provide me with the name of the manuscript Jerome used since otherwise it's methodologically inconsistent (to put it charitably).
Again, I'm far more informed on this issue than you wish to suggest you are here, but so what? Doesn't matter. Give me the actual Mark in Latin or just drop the discussion.
so by your own words, it doesn't even exist. It just POSSIBLY might have existed or probably didn't exist forever ago.
Your appeals to invisible evidence don't exactly instill a lot of authority nor support to the position you're attempting to defend.
Yes, you do, please quit pretending. You've cited Hills making the old "the Christians intentionally didn't quote the Comma Johanneum because reasons" argument.