Search results

Proof that the cursives are older. Consonantal iota doesn't not exist in the Coptic script. The Papyri and Codices which have the Coptic script. Yes. But where is the radiocarbon dating.

All the given "witnesses" are not old and are pathetic. They are in Coptic script and copy Nag Hammadi script. The script has no accent marks or no consonantal Iota. They don't agree with each other most of the time either. It is like the scribes were trained on a printing press.

The Herpes "Virus" seems just as fake. It isn't a virus in my opinion, but it is a piece of nerve tissue and nucleic acid. I am very skeptical viruses multiplying outside of bacteria and fungi. It would seem viruses are only the indicator of types of diseases.

We would still cursive manuscripts and lectionaries. How does the longer ending get accidentally forgotten from a Coptic scripted manuscript.

Cursive seems to be proven to be just as old. Some antique-forgerist could have easily put Late Greek capitals on know Greek monuments. I suspect the capitals are a special Egyptian script of Greek with consonantal iota missing. Admit it. The Uncials look like forgeries which are not...

I would recommend Green's Literal Translation before supporting Rupert Murdoch.

The NIV is very weak, and an extreme total inability bent. James White was behind it. Please don't support Rupert Murdoch [more] than you have too.

Avoiding false friends, limited syntax, is the only way to make it sound perfect. I like it because it is very useful compared to other concorded translations.

How were they dated? Radiometric dating was not used.

On Psalm 51:5, I think this was about Solomon.

like 1st day of the week instead of 1st of sabbaths.

@doctrox Interesting sig!

Edit: I mistakenly responded to you here. :( It would be from the Greek to English, perhaps even Latin. I would have to explain Gnosticism and demonstrate the Gnosticism. I am only in your imagination, KJV only. My apologies.

Gnostics of the classical era denied the humanity of Christ. And if you think Gnosticism is new to the New Testament English bible, I have news for you. Gnosticism is part of Christianity.

1. Usually, unlikely 2. Byzantine variants are often found in different TR years. 3. It is easy enough to make an exact copy. Many codexes with capital letters are a fraud. And copies of the LXX do exist without them.

Valentinian Gnosticism is part of Orthodox Christianity, in case everyone needs to know. For Valentinus says he saw a newborn babe, and questioned it to find out who it was. And the babe answered him saying that it was the Word. Thereupon, he adds to this a certain pompous tale, intending to...

No, they don't. Words are not powers., and the Messiah is not the power of the father. This is the teaching of most translations of John 1:1. The English is Valentinian Gnosticism.

But it is you who has the wrong conclusions, not me. Today's bible scholarship can't even make a translation which makes sense.

Go ahead and be confused then.

And what if the authorities are wrong and inconsistent more than 75% of the time. It is hard to be in error even 100% of the time. I admit lexicon having been based on Latin have been. Latin didn't have an article; this alone implies all languages before needed an indefinite article instead.