The canon was closed with Deuteronomy

[praise_yeshua]

Be the way...... why did you ignore my references to Sirach?

It is a complete diversion.

No its not. I listed verses from the deteurocanon that say the same things as Deut 4, 12 and Proverbs 30. Verses that you say.... make the case for you. Its not a diversion at all.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I look at the textual evidence, not assumptions made by an early church father.

The only problem with Rev 22.19 is "book" attested to very late manuscripts.

The verse, itself, has wide and full mss support.

Our difference lies in you following speculations and assumptions.

No extant manuscripts exist that date before the words of Irenaeus. What manuscript do you reference for Revelation?

 

[FSSL]

Oh... I get it. You believe a speculation by an early church father overrules mss evidence.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Oh... I get it. You believe a speculation by an early church father overrules mss evidence.

I didn't say "overrules". Those are you words. I said, there are no manuscript evidence that dates to the time of Irenaeus

In fact, why don't you list the date of the earliest manuscript of Revelation that you reference?

The book of Revelation is only available in various fragments before the 4th century. Codex Sinaiticus is a good example but Codex Sinaiticus also includes the Epistle of Barnabas and portions of The Shepherd of Hermas. By your own standards....surely you can't accept this text. The 5h century collection Codex Alexandrius contains Revelation.... but its got that no good LXX is found in it too. Surely you can't accept those writings.....

In fact, if you apply you're own standards, you can't accept any complete text of Revelation before the Reformation. If you can, then please enlighten us...

 

[FSSL]

The book of Revelation is only available in various fragments before the 4th century. Codex Sinaiticus is a good example but Codex Sinaiticus also includes the Epistle of Barnabas and portions of The Shepherd of Hermas. By your own standards....surely you can't accept this text. The 5h century collection Codex Alexandrius contains Revelation.... but its got that no good LXX is found in it too. Surely you can't accept those writings.....

So this is where you are at in the debate?  Your continued twisting and assumptions are not doing you well.

I believe the 66 books in the KJV is the word of God, even when it included the Apocrypha.

Do you accept the Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas as Scripture? Or is this just a cheap debate trick?

 

[praise_yeshua]

The book of Revelation is only available in various fragments before the 4th century. Codex Sinaiticus is a good example but Codex Sinaiticus also includes the Epistle of Barnabas and portions of The Shepherd of Hermas. By your own standards....surely you can't accept this text. The 5h century collection Codex Alexandrius contains Revelation.... but its got that no good LXX is found in it too. Surely you can't accept those writings.....

So this is where you are at in the debate?  Your continued twisting and assumptions are not doing you well.

I believe the KJV is the word of God, even when it included the Apocrypha.

Do you accept the Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas as Scripture? Or is this just a cheap debate trick?

No cheap debate trick. You demand that I reject the entire book of Revelation because I suspect Rev 22:19 is an late addition to the text. Yet, you pick and choose exactly what you want to include..... even WHEN.... it contains texts that we know that have been changed and corrupted. You're being hypocritical in your demands. You know you are.

 

[FSSL]

Nah... Unless there is spurious or inferior mss evidence in our current 66 books, it is Scripture.

You have ZERO conflicting mss evidence for Rev 22.19.

Your examples are entire books. Textual evidence and canonicity are two different subjects.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Nah... Unless there is spurious or inferior mss evidence in our current 66 books, it is Scripture.

There are.

You have ZERO conflicting mss evidence for Rev 22.19.

You have only LATE texts to examine and evidence of corruption early. Don't ignore the evidence.

Your examples are entire books. Textual evidence and canonicity are two different subjects.

They are to some degree.... but textual evidence influences canonical inclusion. You know this. Don't ignore it.


They are

 

[FSSL]

You have only LATE texts to examine and evidence of corruption early. Don't ignore the evidence.

The earliest fragments include Revelation. The first appearance of Rev 22.19 is in the Sinaticus. Not very late.
All you have is hearsay by Iraneaus.

.... but textual evidence influences canonical inclusion. You know this. Don't ignore it.

Really? What book has been excluded on the basis of textual evidence?

 

[praise_yeshua]

The earliest fragments include Revelation. The first appearance of Rev 22.19 is in the Sinaticus. Not very late.
All you have is hearsay by Iraneaus.

4th Century. Do you have a copy of that text? Iraneaus isn't hearsay.

Really? What book has been excluded on the basis of textual evidence?

What a stupid question. In your canon?

Textual criticism includes concepts of "External evidence". External evidence.... or the lack there of.... have long played a role in canonical inclusion.

Take you pick of the extant texts that lack enough "Eternal Evidence" to be considered for inclusion.

 

[FSSL]

4th Century. Do you have a copy of that text? Iraneaus isn't hearsay.

Yes. I have a picture of it and access to all of the mss.

Iraneaus comes to us through a quote by Eusebius supposedly telling us that Revelation has a late date. <-- the hearsay

Eusebius did not believe Revelation was Scripture. There is evidence that he manipulated documents to make them agree with his perspective.

Whatever happened, one thing is for sure... Iraneaus' supposed rejection of Revelation is no where near conclusive.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Yes. I have a picture of it and access to all of the mss.

Great. Do you see any difference from this text and a post Reformation text of Revelation?

Iraneaus comes to us through a quote by Eusebius supposedly telling us that Revelation has a late date. <-- the hearsay

Whatever happened, one thing is for sure... Iraneaus' supposed rejection of Revelation is no where near conclusive.

Contrary to what you believe. Iraneaus didn't reject Revelation. In fact, he is one of the primary sources for information concerning Polycarp and his claim to be a direct disciple of the apostle John. Which, Ireneaus argues is evidence for the apostle John writing Revelation. I just mentioned the fact that Ireneaus said the text had been corrupted before his time. 

Eusebius did not believe Revelation was Scripture. There is evidence that he manipulated documents to make them agree with his perspective.

I have never been a fan of Eusebius. I don't think I've ever used a single word he said as evidence.

I'm about done with this. I've argued enough about it. Let people make up their own mind.

 

[FSSL]

Great. Do you see any difference from this text and a post Reformation text of Revelation?

No. Just a couple of minor spelling differences. the words are exactly as they are in the UBS.

 

[FSSL]

Which, Ireneaus argues is evidence for the apostle John writing Revelation. I just mentioned the fact that Ireneaus said the text had been corrupted before his time.

If that was so, you have to take his word. The earliest mss evidence of Rev 22.19 is not corrupted. WAY before the reformation.

Why do you reject Rev 22.19 again?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Which, Ireneaus argues is evidence for the apostle John writing Revelation. I just mentioned the fact that Ireneaus said the text had been corrupted before his time.

If that was so, you have to take his word. The earliest mss evidence of Rev 22.19 is not corrupted. WAY before the reformation.

Why do you reject Rev 22.19 again?

Logic... evidence....

Obviously you must accept the witness of Ireneaus for apostolic inclusion. Why not his words on its corruption? Apply the same logic equally.

 

[FSSL]

Were they his words or words altered by Eusebius?

I see no reason to be convinced that Rev 22.19 was not written by John, the same author of the entire book, a 1st century Jew.

All other ideas are speculation. Strong, consistent, early mss evidence attests to the non-corruption of Rev 22.19

 

[praise_yeshua]

Were they his words or words altered by Eusebius?

I see no reason to be convinced that Rev 22.19 was not written by John, the same author of the entire book, a 1st century Jew.

All other ideas are speculation. Strong, consistent, early mss evidence attests to the non-corruption of Rev 22.19

Define strong, consistent, and EARLY.

4th century isn't early. Since you have a copy of Codex Sinaticus.... post 22:19. Codex Sinaticus was heavily corrected.

 

[FSSL]

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.

 

[FSSL]

So, why do you still say Rev 22.19 is a corruption added on to Scripture? There is no evidence of that. All you have are words (we haven't seen yet) supposedly spoken by Iraneaus by a historian who rejected Revelation (Eusebius)

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

So, why do you still say Rev 22.19 is a corruption added on to Scripture? There is no evidence of that. All you have are words (we haven't seen yet) supposedly spoken by Iraneaus by a historian who rejected Revelation (Eusebius)

Why do you care if it's a corruption or a late addition or a forgery, or even added by a false apostle?  It's in the 66-book Bible you own.  So by definition, it must be God breathed.  At least according to you, that is.