The canon was closed with Deuteronomy

[praise_yeshua]

The 300s are considered to be early. The Siniaticus is considered an early source. It is not very early. When you approach 1,000 years, then that is late.

Strong: Hardly any textual conflicts (only tree vs book)

Consistent: Appears in every mss where full text of Revelation exists. Not generally disputed.

No corrections on 19.

Not true. I'll deal with Rev 22:19 extensivley when I get to my PC.

BUT.  You're ignoring the mark of the Beast being 616 instead of 666. The earliest fragment discovered recently list the number clearly as 616. Daniel Wallace has personally witnessed the evidence and confirmed it to be true. They may have it on their website. Irenaneus witnessed 616 himself.

Don't make like this isn't a big deal. Just imagine how this affects traditional interpretations of the mark of the beast.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

BUT.  You're ignoring the mark of the Beast being 616 instead of 666. The earliest fragment discovered recently list the number clearly as 616. Daniel Wallace has personally witnessed the evidence and confirmed it to be true. They may have it on their website. Irenaneus witnessed 616 himself.

Don't make like this isn't a big deal. Just imagine how this affects traditional interpretations of the mark of the beast.

That's going to throw a monkey wrench into all the ways everyone calculates their least favorite politician's name into 666.  Now they have to come up with a way to make it equal to 616.

 

[FSSL]

Is there any good reason to snip it out of Revelation?

 

[FSSL]

BUT.  You're ignoring the mark of the Beast being 616 instead of 666. ....

Because throwing a completely different issue into the thread gives Tomato and PY a reason to snip Rev 22.19 out of Revelation? C'mon... If you are going to toss around Red Herrings, at least make them sound plausible.

I have established the fact that Rev 22.19 was not corrupted in the Siniaticus... eventhough PY tried that diversion already.

I expect that this extensive posting on Rev 22.19 will start with an admission that the early mss of Revelation is essentially identical to what we have had all along.

 

[FSSL]

Not true. I'll deal with Rev 22:19 extensivley when I get to my PC.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Not true. I'll deal with Rev 22:19 extensivley when I get to my PC.

LOL. I am back at my PC but I'm busy at the moment. I'm not in a hurry. You've ignored more than half of what I said. "A watched pot never boils..."

 

[FSSL]

No rush.... an extensive study on Rev 22.19 must be difficult.

About the half of stuff I never answered... I don't like fish unless it is smothered in tartar sauce. So, when you throw me red herrings (i.e.. Sirach, 616), I am unlikely to follow.

 

[praise_yeshua]

No rush.... an extensive study on Rev 22.19 must be difficult.

About the half of stuff I never answered... I don't like fish unless it is smothered in tartar sauce. So, when you throw me red herrings (i.e.. Sirach, 616), I am unlikely to follow.

The only thing you have a problem eating is crow.....

 

[praise_yeshua]

The 300s are considered to be early. The Siniaticus is considered an early source. It is not very early. When you approach 1,000 years, then that is late.

Strong: Hardly any textual conflicts (only tree vs book)

Consistent: Appears in every mss where full text of Revelation exists. Not generally disputed.

No corrections on 19.

300s isn't early. The text is nearing 300 years removed from pen of the author. The vast majority of extant fragments or "texts" are later than 1000 AD.

Before I take too much effort to deal with Codex Sinaiticus.... will you accept Codex Sinaiticus as your primary source for Revelation? Or will you pick and choose?

 

[FSSL]

Since the Siniaticus is the first appearance of Rev 22.19 it is the earliest we have of that passage. It has survived, in the Western, Byzantine and Alexandrian families. There is no amount of exhaustive treatment you can provide that will deny those facts. It is with us today in nearly the exact way it first appeared in Siniaticus.

The usual terms used among mss scholars is "very early," "early" and "late." Less than 300 years from the original is considered "early" by those who study these things.

We have been discussing Rev 22.19 and you show you want to discuss everything other than Rev 22.19. Why would I ever suggest that the Sinaiticus is the primary source for Revelation? It is another red herring.

Stick to the topic and tell us how Rev 22.19 is corrupt.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Since the Siniaticus is the first appearance of Rev 22.19 it is the earliest we have of that passage. It has survived, in the Western, Byzantine and Alexandrian families. There is no amount of exhaustive treatment you can provide that will deny those facts. It is with us today in nearly the exact way it first appeared in Siniaticus.

The usual terms used among mss scholars is "very early," "early" and "late." Less than 300 years from the original is considered "early" by those who study these things.

We have been discussing Rev 22.19 and you show you want to discuss everything other than Rev 22.19. Why would I ever suggest that the Sinaiticus is the primary source for Revelation? It is another red herring.

Stick to the topic and tell us how Rev 22.19 is corrupt.

Just how in the world can "300 years removed from the source" be early? The earliest witnesses is found in quotes from various individuals that lived within 100 to 200 years of the writing.

I can see you're going to "pick and choose" what evidence you want to honor. Its not a red herring to recognize that you have probably never used Codex Sinaiticus as a primary source for any evidence..... but you want to use to here to establish some ideal of "early" reference for you belief. You're being hypocritical in referencing it as evidence and then denying it at the same time.

For hundreds of year the "mark of the beast" has been set at 666. Even though, Irenaeus witnessed a variant reading existing as 616. In recent history, an early fragment of Revelation show that the number is clearly 616.

I mention this solely as an example of your inconsistency in believe the extant texts of Revelation to be without error.

Revelation 22:19 is nothing more than an regurgitation of previous comments found throughout the 66 canon and what some reference as the "deuterocanon". You accept some of these references and deny others. You're entirely inconsistent in application of your beliefs. Either explain why you accept some and deny others or there is no reason to continue this discussion.

 

[FSSL]

Whereas the fragments about 616 have different readings, we don't have the same with Rev 22.19. Apples and oranges. Red Herring argument.

All we have is your opinion that Rev 22.19 cannot be scripture because it is a quotation of other parts of Scripture. That is an absurd opinion.

No special edits or signs of corruption exist in the Siniaticus in Rev 22.19. You wanted us to believe that. You were completely off base on something so easily disproven.

There we are... Your opinion, once again, of what is and isn't scripture is less than convincing.

You were going to provide us an exhaustive rationale behind Rev 22.19. It's more like, exhausting.

 

[FSSL]

Just how in the world can "300 years removed from the source" be early? The earliest witnesses is found in quotes from various individuals that lived within 100 to 200 years of the writing.

Do the math. If you allow for 200 years, then why do you have a problem with Siniaticus? John wrote approx 95ad. The latest possible date for Siniaticus is 360. A maximum of 265 years after John composed Rev 22.19.

Remember, I said "early." You just changed it to "earliest."

Do some reading. Siniaticus is referred to as an early witness. I linked you to an academic article which shows that mss, even dated 450 are considered "early." It is silly to even discuss this. How many mss have you charted by family and date? None, apparently.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Whereas the fragments about 616 have different readings, we don't have the same with Rev 22.19. Apples and oranges. Red Herring argument.

Its not a red herring to understand why you refuse to acknowledge that your methods are inconsistent.

All we have is your opinion that Rev 22.19 cannot be scripture because it is a quotation of other parts of Scripture. That is an absurd opinion.

Its no more absurd than you method of saying it is Scripture because it quotes other parts of Scripture.

No special edits or signs of corruption exist in the Siniaticus in Rev 22.19. You wanted us to believe that. You were completely off base on something so easily disproven.

I never said I had a altered text. I don't want you believe anything but the truth. I know that Revelation has been altered in more than one place. I gave a valid reason why I consider Revelation 22:19 to be an addition to prevent these types of alterations. Its the same reason you find them in the Torah and through deuterocanonical works. The author didn't want their words altered.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Do the math. If you allow for 200 years, then why do you have a problem with Siniaticus? John wrote approx 95ad. The latest possible date for Siniaticus is 360. A maximum of 265 years after John composed Rev 22.19.

No one in their right mind believes "John the Beloved" lived to 95 AD. No one in their right mind can make a case for the writing taking place after the destruction of the Temple.

Do some reading. Siniaticus is referred to as an early witness. I linked you to an academic article which shows that mss, even dated 450 are considered "early." It is silly to even discuss this. How many mss have you charted by family and date? None, apparently.

Please. I don't take another person's word for anything. 300 years removed isn't "early". I don't care what the links says. 300 years of circulation of a hand written/copied text shouldn't be considered "early".

Polycarp and Irenaenus are "early" witnesses to the texts.

 

[FSSL]

Again, show us where Iraneaus and Polycarp are against Rev 22.19.

You are not familiar with conservative, evangelical commentaries: "Most evangelical scholars affirm that Revelation was written in A.D. 95 or 96. This is based on accounts of the early church fathers that the Apostle John had been exiled on Patmos Island during the reign of Domitian who died in A.D. 96. John was then allowed to return to Ephesus." Walvoord, J. F. (1985).

You are not familiar with Iraneaus. Anywhere between ad 81?96, by Irenaeus, Victorinus, Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria, Origen. Osborne, G. R. (2002). Revelation (p. 6). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

You are not familiar with what even scholars write. "Opinions vary as to the time the book was written. Most scholars take it to be either during the latter years of Nero?s reign (A.D. 54?68) or the latter years of Domitian?s reign (81?96), both of whom persecuted Christians. The majority of scholars favor the time of Domitian." Bratcher, R. G., & Hatton, H. (1993). A handbook on the Revelation to John (p. 1). New York: United Bible Societies.

You are not familiar with the terminology used about dating manuscripts. Get yourself Metzger's Bible Commentary and note that when he uses the word "early" witness, he includes the 4th and even 5th centuries. For example, direct quote... "representatives of several early types of text (B 81 syrp, h copbo mss arm Speculum)." Metzger, B. M., United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies? Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (p. 650). London; New York: United Bible Societies.

 

[praise_yeshua]

You are not familiar with conservative, evangelical commentaries: "Most evangelical scholars affirm that Revelation was written in A.D. 95 or 96. This is based on accounts of the early church fathers that the Apostle John had been exiled on Patmos Island during the reign of Domitian who died in A.D. 96. John was then allowed to return to Ephesus." Walvoord, J. F. (1985).

Not true. You last point contradicts this. Since you can't put two and two together, I'll post it for you..
Opinions vary as to the time the book was written. Most scholars take it to be either during the latter years of Nero?s reign (A.D. 54?68)

You are not familiar with Iraneaus. Anywhere between ad 81?96, by Irenaeus, Victorinus, Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria, Origen. Osborne, G. R. (2002). Revelation (p. 6). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

I never said I accepted everything Iraneaus said. Accepting the text has been corrupted and his opinion on when it was written are two different things.

You are not familiar with what even scholars write. "Opinions vary as to the time the book was written. Most scholars take it to be either during the latter years of Nero?s reign (A.D. 54?68) or the latter years of Domitian?s reign (81?96), both of whom persecuted Christians. The majority of scholars favor the time of Domitian." Bratcher, R. G., & Hatton, H. (1993). A handbook on the Revelation to John (p. 1). New York: United Bible Societies.

Most scholars includes A.D. 54-63. Sometimes you're really hard headed. There isn't that much difference between the amount of people who say before the destruction of the Temple and those after. Get a grip man. You don't know how to identify evidence.

You are not familiar with the terminology used about dating manuscripts.

Sure I am. I just reject some of them because they're stupid. "Early" to them..... is relative to the extant texts themselves. "Early" to me is relative to the time period in which they were written. Sorry if you are not too "familiar" with how this works.

 

[FSSL]

Not true. You last point contradicts this. Since you can't put two and two together, I'll post it for you..

Since you cannot read, here it is in larger print (which you snipped): The majority of scholars favor the time of Domitian.

You said above that "no one in their right mind" believes the dating to be around 95. You have shown complete ignorance of what is actually believed. A majority of scholars favor the time, yet you have the absurd notion that no one could possibly believe that unless they were not in their right mind.

I never said I accepted everything Iraneaus said. Accepting the text has been corrupted and his opinion on when it was written are two different things.

Nice... you say that "no one in their right mind" would date the book and you tenaciously tell us that Iraneaus rejected Rev 22.19.

Sure I am. I just reject some of them because they're stupid. "Early" to them..... is relative to the extant texts themselves. "Early" to me is relative to the time period in which they were written. Sorry if you are not too "familiar" with how this works.

Early to you can mean whatever you want if it you need to win an argument with those who do not have the resources. I do. You lost. Metzger defines the terminology, not you.

Get yourself Metzger's Bible Commentary and note that when he uses the word "early" witness, he includes the 4th and even 5th centuries. For example, direct quote... "representatives of several early types of text (B 81 syrp, h copbo mss arm Speculum)." Metzger, B. M., United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies? Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (p. 650). London; New York: United Bible Societies.

PY, you are not in your right mind.

 

[praise_yeshua]

You said above that "no one in their right mind" believes the dating to be around 95. You have shown complete ignorance of what is actually believed. A majority of scholars favor the time, yet you have the absurd notion that no one could possibly believe that unless they were not in their right mind.

There are lot of dumb people in this world. I believe the majority of them work in the field of theology. There is absolutely no evidence to believe the writing was written after the destruction of the Temple. None. Its ludicrous to believe it was.

Nice... you say that "no one in their right mind" would date the book and you tenaciously tell us that Iraneaus rejected Rev 22.19.

I never said Iraneaus rejected Rev 22;19. I said that he said the text was corrupt.

Early to you can mean whatever you want if it you need to win an argument with those who do not have the resources. I do. You lost. Metzger defines the terminology, not you.

Metzger doesn't define anything. I have always defined "early" being relative to the date of the writing. Not the surviving extant texts.

Get yourself Metzger's Bible Commentary and note that when he uses the word "early" witness, he includes the 4th and even 5th centuries. For example, direct quote... "representatives of several early types of text (B 81 syrp, h copbo mss arm Speculum)." Metzger, B. M., United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies? Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (p. 650). London; New York: United Bible Societies.

Metzger was a man. Nothing more. Nothing less. Metzger set out from the beginning..... to validate his own choice in the canon. Not to strictly provide evidence.

PY, you are not in your right mind.

I'll take that as a compliment. I'll start a few more threads about Revelation and we'll see if you can keep up.

 

[FSSL]

There are lot of dumb people in this world. I believe the majority of them work in the field of theology. There is absolutely no evidence to believe the writing was written after the destruction of the Temple. None. Its ludicrous to believe it was.

Okay. You should host the show "PY is smarter than the Theologians" I will watch it

I never said Iraneaus rejected Rev 22;19. I said that he said the text was corrupt.

Hmm.... now that is an interesting conundrum!

Metzger doesn't define anything. I have always defined "early" being relative to the date of the writing. Not the surviving extant texts.

Bwahahahahaha!!!!

THAT is helpful. Start a thread called "PY's Dictionary" and then we can all be on the same page.

Since Metzger defined the system related to the grading and dating of mss, I think I will use his definitions/usages of the terms, not yours.