12-07-2013, 10:20 AM
Thirdwoe Wrote:You try to hand write the whole NT and see how your copy comes out. <!-- s--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="
I have been checking the "Ashael Grant Manuscript" that is from the year 1199 A.D. and it is near identical to the circa 950 A.D. Khabouris Codex...but, I can tell that it is not an exact copy of it, as it has a few features that are not the same, in spelling and grammar and such...but, the content so far as I have seen, is the very same. I'm making a list as I go slowly through it.
.
Sorry for staying short brother, you already write "near to identical" so it is not 100% identical. Right? This is my point.
The Eastern text might be the best, the Western text might be too, but it is naive to assume it is the original and unmodified language (such as grammar or even the used script) without any mistakes or copyist errors.
The same can be said about the Hebrew text, or any Greek text. During the ages it detoriates and degrades and some branches do more than others due to copyists having the right attitude and skills.
The same can be said about our DNA and I don't like repeating the same arguments but you got my point? Please dont take it as an offense, I simply disagree on this assumption: "We have the original text for 100%" And to me the pericope adultera even was not that place, but it received a honourful place at John 8.