Why is the Comma of 1 John 5:7,8 deemed preserved when it lacks Greek mss witnesses for over 1300 years; yet, Acts 15:34b "and Judas alone departed to Jerusalem" has two (2) 5th century Greek mss witnesses, yet is not in the KJV? What exactly does KJVO "preservation" mean?
The “pericope adulterae” refers to Jesus and the woman taken in adultery in John 7:53-8:11. A “pericope” is simply a portion of text or a passage in the Bible. It is a controversial text because it is not in the earliest manuscripts and actually shows up in different places in John and even at the end of Luke in some manuscripts.
There's a big difference between 1) a sacred canonical text, and 2) an academic scholar's text. Jeff Riddle defends 1) a sacred canonical text, and James White defends 2) an academic scholar's text. Also, regarding the printing press, Protestantism couldn't exist before the printing press. And regarding James White's attempt to invite himself to the Text and Canon Conference and turn it into a debate was not only rude but was also devious.
"... Protestantism couldn't exist before the printing press." -- How so? Is there no chain of custody from the original autographs up to the time before the printing press?
@@InfinitelyManic Can you imagine a Protestant church in which no one owns a Bible? It's hard to believe anyone would proclaim a doctrine of sola Scriptura! without a copy of the Scriptures being available to everyone, and in their own language. Anyway, the fact is Protestantism only came to be after printing. That wasn't a coincidence.
@@AJMacDonaldJr Yes, I could imagine a Protestant church wherein no one owns a complete Bible in their language. But that's complete conjecture on my part. Nonetheless, I am not suggesting that the printing press was NOT the single most important catalyst for the reformation movement; but rather, that the printing press was not the sole proximate cause of the pre-Reformation movement. It seems, to me, that you are declaring that, but not for the printing press, protestantism would not exist to any degree or sense. Is that what you really mean?
@@Xenotypic I agree they were similar but I don't think the sola Scriptura position could be realized until printing became widely available. Printing was an important factor in why Luther was successful but Jan Hus was not.
Cyprian quotes the Comma directly in 250 AD, meaning he had a manuscript of 1 John that included it. This is exactly within James' hypothetical timeframe where he would accept a manuscript of 1 John with the Comma. So I assume he believes the Comma is genuine now?
Actually Cyprian does NOT "directly" quote the Comma. He said “The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one’; and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one.’” but that's not a direct quote at all. What it is is a reference to his interpretation of the original text of 1 John 5:7-8, that the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood are references to each member of the trinity. The only part that he directly quotes ("and these three are one") is present in both the Comma and in the manuscripts that don't have it
@@justinj_00 He says "it is written", and the thing that he says is written does not appear in the Critical Text version of 1 John. The only place it's written in Scripture, about the persons of the trinity (as he says) that "these three are one" is in the Received version of the Comma. I know modernists have made up their cope that he was just providing his own interpretation but there's nothing in his text that supports that. He does indeed appear to have quoted the Comma.
@@tiptupjr.9073 Even if what you say is true (I think you're reading more into Cyprian's text than is warranted but I admit it's inconvlusive) that doesn't really prove much in the way of the Comma's originality because Cyprian was a Latin father, and nobody denies that the Comma has existed in Latin for over a millennium. This whole discussion is about the original GREEK, and anyone that works in new testament textual criticism will tell you that the generally accepted view (by everyone except TR advocates-including Byzantine and Majority Text prioritists!) is that the Comma arose in Latin first and then made its way into Greek via transposition in Greek-Latin diglots
@@justinj_00 The consensus among academics is that the Comma was added in the late 4th century. Cyprian is obviously referencing it in the middle of the 3rd. So why can't they just admit it? They don't even have to say it's original. Just admit that Cyprian was referencing it. 1 John has widespread signs of tampering in the Greek. It is now universally acknowledged that 1 John 2:23b is genuine, despite being an extreme minority reading. I simply propose something similar happened to the Comma. As James White himself acknowledges, the Greek-speaking world was gripped by Arianism to an astonishing degree that the West was not.
We should stop saying earliest text when referring to codex vaticanus and sinaticus. There are much controversies around these two as being less than authentic. That is why there is some value in the kjvonlyism. I don’t know of any modern English Bible that ignores those two codex.
@@Xenotypic What about to the nth power of generations? Keep waiting till your life is gone, the PURE and PERFECT words of God the Holy Bible the KJV standeth forever. All modern bibles are corrupt, imperfect, and dangerous fake bibles. The KJV is the PURE and PERFECT words of God.
@@timkhan3238 How can you defend things like Revelation 16:5 in the King James when that reading hasn't been found in any manuscript? We always have and always will have the Word, but there are many languages and many years before the textus receptus and kjv. There will be many years after, as well, and eventually, kjv english will be essentially unreadable, it's just the nature of language. What happens then? We are slowly approaching that point. Why let a translation hinder someone from reading the word? Most churches who use modern translations today haven't went off of the rails due to them. Granted, plenty are off the rails, but it's not because of the version of the Bible they're using. I'm definitely not for all versions, and I attend an independant baptist church in west virginia, so I am in no way liberal. I just want as many people to hear the word as possible with as little hinderance as possible.
@@Xenotypic The KJV is the PURE and PERFECT words of God.. How could you doubt His words? Those 47 super Geniuses were not born in that era by coincidence, they were chosen by God as His workmen to preserve His words. Ever since from that time of 1600s, God has never again gather such incredible super geniuses BIBLE scholars to do lots of arduous works for the preservation of His Holy words. Never again, nay, for it was DONE! It was finished. PURIFIED 7 times! 7 is the number of completion. The KJV is the PURE and PERFECT words of God, all modern bibles are imperfect, corrupted, and fake bibles.
@@timkhan3238 I see your comments all over the place… and you don’t offer anything new and rarely answer anyone’s questions. Do you believe God re-inspired His word in 1611? Do you believe in this special revelation? Do you believe the KJV corrects the Hebrew and Greek underlying manuscripts? And do you have evidence that the men that were on the translation committee of the KJV were all “super geniuses”? Also please provide some evidence that all other Bibles are flawed, without appealing to circular reasoning.
Why is the Comma of 1 John 5:7,8 deemed preserved when it lacks Greek mss witnesses for over 1300 years; yet, Acts 15:34b "and Judas alone departed to Jerusalem" has two (2) 5th century Greek mss witnesses, yet is not in the KJV?
What exactly does KJVO "preservation" mean?
What was he referring to when he said the "prigegay adulteri"? Something like that
The “pericope adulterae” refers to Jesus and the woman taken in adultery in John 7:53-8:11. A “pericope” is simply a portion of text or a passage in the Bible. It is a controversial text because it is not in the earliest manuscripts and actually shows up in different places in John and even at the end of Luke in some manuscripts.
@@professorburris Very great response!
James, it is not "for Peter and I" It is "for Peter and me"
There's a big difference between 1) a sacred canonical text, and 2) an academic scholar's text. Jeff Riddle defends 1) a sacred canonical text, and James White defends 2) an academic scholar's text. Also, regarding the printing press, Protestantism couldn't exist before the printing press. And regarding James White's attempt to invite himself to the Text and Canon Conference and turn it into a debate was not only rude but was also devious.
"... Protestantism couldn't exist before the printing press." -- How so? Is there no chain of custody from the original autographs up to the time before the printing press?
@@InfinitelyManic Can you imagine a Protestant church in which no one owns a Bible? It's hard to believe anyone would proclaim a doctrine of sola Scriptura! without a copy of the Scriptures being available to everyone, and in their own language. Anyway, the fact is Protestantism only came to be after printing. That wasn't a coincidence.
@@AJMacDonaldJr Yes, I could imagine a Protestant church wherein no one owns a complete Bible in their language. But that's complete conjecture on my part.
Nonetheless, I am not suggesting that the printing press was NOT the single most important catalyst for the reformation movement; but rather, that the printing press was not the sole proximate cause of the pre-Reformation movement. It seems, to me, that you are declaring that, but not for the printing press, protestantism would not exist to any degree or sense. Is that what you really mean?
@@AJMacDonaldJr john wycliffe and the lollards? may not be completely protestant as we know it today, but it shows it was possible.
@@Xenotypic I agree they were similar but I don't think the sola Scriptura position could be realized until printing became widely available. Printing was an important factor in why Luther was successful but Jan Hus was not.
Cyprian quotes the Comma directly in 250 AD, meaning he had a manuscript of 1 John that included it. This is exactly within James' hypothetical timeframe where he would accept a manuscript of 1 John with the Comma. So I assume he believes the Comma is genuine now?
Actually Cyprian does NOT "directly" quote the Comma. He said “The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one’; and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one.’” but that's not a direct quote at all. What it is is a reference to his interpretation of the original text of 1 John 5:7-8, that the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood are references to each member of the trinity. The only part that he directly quotes ("and these three are one") is present in both the Comma and in the manuscripts that don't have it
@@justinj_00 He says "it is written", and the thing that he says is written does not appear in the Critical Text version of 1 John. The only place it's written in Scripture, about the persons of the trinity (as he says) that "these three are one" is in the Received version of the Comma. I know modernists have made up their cope that he was just providing his own interpretation but there's nothing in his text that supports that. He does indeed appear to have quoted the Comma.
@@tiptupjr.9073 Even if what you say is true (I think you're reading more into Cyprian's text than is warranted but I admit it's inconvlusive) that doesn't really prove much in the way of the Comma's originality because Cyprian was a Latin father, and nobody denies that the Comma has existed in Latin for over a millennium. This whole discussion is about the original GREEK, and anyone that works in new testament textual criticism will tell you that the generally accepted view (by everyone except TR advocates-including Byzantine and Majority Text prioritists!) is that the Comma arose in Latin first and then made its way into Greek via transposition in Greek-Latin diglots
@@justinj_00 The consensus among academics is that the Comma was added in the late 4th century. Cyprian is obviously referencing it in the middle of the 3rd. So why can't they just admit it? They don't even have to say it's original. Just admit that Cyprian was referencing it.
1 John has widespread signs of tampering in the Greek. It is now universally acknowledged that 1 John 2:23b is genuine, despite being an extreme minority reading. I simply propose something similar happened to the Comma. As James White himself acknowledges, the Greek-speaking world was gripped by Arianism to an astonishing degree that the West was not.
We should stop saying earliest text when referring to codex vaticanus and sinaticus. There are much controversies around these two as being less than authentic. That is why there is some value in the kjvonlyism. I don’t know of any modern English Bible that ignores those two codex.
James White when younger said KJV onlyism is few already, today he lost all his hair and KJV onlyism thrive throughout the whole world. What happened?
kjv onlyism will be dead in a generation or two and is already on the way out.
@@Xenotypic What about to the nth power of generations? Keep waiting till your life is gone, the PURE and PERFECT words of God the Holy Bible the KJV standeth forever.
All modern bibles are corrupt, imperfect, and dangerous fake bibles. The KJV is the PURE and PERFECT words of God.
@@timkhan3238 How can you defend things like Revelation 16:5 in the King James when that reading hasn't been found in any manuscript? We always have and always will have the Word, but there are many languages and many years before the textus receptus and kjv. There will be many years after, as well, and eventually, kjv english will be essentially unreadable, it's just the nature of language. What happens then? We are slowly approaching that point. Why let a translation hinder someone from reading the word? Most churches who use modern translations today haven't went off of the rails due to them. Granted, plenty are off the rails, but it's not because of the version of the Bible they're using. I'm definitely not for all versions, and I attend an independant baptist church in west virginia, so I am in no way liberal. I just want as many people to hear the word as possible with as little hinderance as possible.
@@Xenotypic The KJV is the PURE and PERFECT words of God.. How could you doubt His words? Those 47 super Geniuses were not born in that era by coincidence, they were chosen by God as His workmen to preserve His words.
Ever since from that time of 1600s, God has never again gather such incredible super geniuses BIBLE scholars to do lots of arduous works for the preservation of His Holy words. Never again, nay, for it was DONE! It was finished.
PURIFIED 7 times! 7 is the number of completion.
The KJV is the PURE and PERFECT words of God, all modern bibles are imperfect, corrupted, and fake bibles.
@@timkhan3238 I see your comments all over the place… and you don’t offer anything new and rarely answer anyone’s questions.
Do you believe God re-inspired His word in 1611? Do you believe in this special revelation? Do you believe the KJV corrects the Hebrew and Greek underlying manuscripts? And do you have evidence that the men that were on the translation committee of the KJV were all “super geniuses”?
Also please provide some evidence that all other Bibles are flawed, without appealing to circular reasoning.