l*****e
发帖数: 112 | 1 From New Age Bible Versions
by Mrs. Gail Riplinger
Vaticanus (B)
1. The use of recent technology such as the vidicon camera, which creates a
digital form of faint writing, recording it on a magnetic tape and
reproducing it by an electro- optical process, reveals that B has been
altered by at least two hands, one being as late as the twelfth century.
Metzger admits, "A few passages therefore remain to show the original
appearance of the first hand." The corrector "omitted [things] he believed
to | k*d
发帖数: 615 | 2 Be specific : do you think there is any correction discovered HERE
AT 1 john 5:7 in Sinaiticus or in Vaticanus?
Or do these two codex differ significantly HERE?
My knowledge so far says NO and NO.
(But I'd be happy to change my mind if there is a solid
proof otherwise.)
Is there an earlier codex discovered to be without correction?
I do not know of any. I'd be happy to know if otherwise. | l*****e
发帖数: 112 | 3 To be honest, I don't know this specific point.
This post is not specific to the 1 John 5:7 discussion.
As for 1 John 5:7, from the materials and links I posted
here, it seems in those ancient manuscripts that contain
1 John 5:7, the majority (i.e. > 50%) contain the Trinity
verse. Then also in very early (2nd century) church
father writings, that verse was also quoted.
At least, it was not like what has been claimed by
those as the reason to omit it. I don't want to argue,
but rather want to pr
【在 k*d 的大作中提到】
: Be specific : do you think there is any correction discovered HERE
: AT 1 john 5:7 in Sinaiticus or in Vaticanus?
: Or do these two codex differ significantly HERE?
: My knowledge so far says NO and NO.
: (But I'd be happy to change my mind if there is a solid
: proof otherwise.)
: Is there an earlier codex discovered to be without correction?
: I do not know of any. I'd be happy to know if otherwise.
| q*******s
发帖数: 193 | 4 Personally, I appreciate the research that the two of you (Lanyjie and Kid)
have done. The posts regarding Bible versions have been quite helpful, and
very relevant.
：I don't want to argue,
【在 l*****e 的大作中提到】
: To be honest, I don't know this specific point.
: This post is not specific to the 1 John 5:7 discussion.
: As for 1 John 5:7, from the materials and links I posted
: here, it seems in those ancient manuscripts that contain
: 1 John 5:7, the majority (i.e. > 50%) contain the Trinity
: verse. Then also in very early (2nd century) church
: father writings, that verse was also quoted.
: At least, it was not like what has been claimed by
: those as the reason to omit it. I don't want to argue,
: but rather want to pr
|
|
