8 replies



    Zawadi has assumed that the scribes omitted the words “nor the Son” as opposed to adding them into the text. We will let the commentary provided by the translators of the New English Translation (NET Bible) explain the science of textual criticism to Zawadi and show why the evidence supports the probability that these words were added, rather than omitted:

    53tc Some important witnesses, including early Alexandrian and Western mss (?*,2 B D T ?13 pc it vgmss Irlat Hiermss), have the additional words … (oude ho huios, “nor the son”) here. Although the shorter reading (which lacks this phrase) is suspect in that it seems to soften the prophetic ignorance of Jesus, the final phrase (“except the Father alone”) already implies this. Further, the parallel in Mark 13:32 has oude ho huios, with almost no witnesses lacking the expression. Hence, it is doubtful that the absence of “neither the Son” is due to the scribes. In keeping with Matthew’s general softening of Mark’s harsh statements throughout his Gospel, it is more likely that the absence of “neither the Son” is part of the original text of Matthew, being an intentional change on the part of the author. Further, this shorter reading is supported by the first corrector of ? as well as L W ?1 33 ? vg sy co Hiermss. Admittedly, the external evidence is not as impressive for the shorter reading, but it best explains the rise of the other reading (in particular, how does one account for virtually no mss excising oude ho huios at Mark 13:32 if such an absence here is due to scribal alteration? Although scribes were hardly consistent, for such a theologically significant issue at least some consistency would be expected on the part of a few scribes). Nevertheless, NA27 includes oude ho huios here. (NET Bible: http://www.netbible.org)

    Textual critics have long realized that scribes had a tendency to add words to parallel passages in order to make them read the same way. Moreover, a scribe may have assumed that the shorter reading may have been the result of a bad copy or an accidental omission by a previous scribe, and therefore would add what he felt were the missing words taken from its parallel. This may have been the case with Matthew 24:36, that a scribe thought that the words “nor the Son” should be there since the Markan parallel included them.

    So much for Zawadi’s “irrefutable” refutation.


  2. Now I hope you don’t mind since I am going to start posting all the missing verses and surahs from your corrupt book of porn and violence.


  3. Sam, you trash your own arguments by the constant insults you hurl! When will you understand this??!! How does it further constructive dialogue to call the Holy Quran a book of ‘porn and violence’! It just makes Muslims highlight all the unsavoury verses in the bible! You have yet again changed the thread to both sides hurling insults! Sam please grow up! You seriously need to learn that insults, verbal abuse, derogatory comments are evidence of a FAILED argument!

    Liked by 5 people

    • Jacob, are we at this again? You really have serious issues since Muslims have been assaulting the Bible LONG before I appeared on the scene. And FYI, Muslims were the ones who started with the verbal abuse, insults and derogatory language, a fact I have documented in my articles on the website. In fact, be so kind and explain all the abuse that Williams, Faiz and the others hurls level at Ken and the other Christians that post here, who don’t treat them as they deserve.

      You are also an example of the same thing, since I never met you before and yet when I wrote a reply to Williams post criticizing the deity of Christ, you chimed in by attacking me and mocking my exegesis. So when are you going to start practicing what you preach?

      Finally, why are you so obsessed with me when I don’t really pay you much attention? The only time I do is when you act like an agent of Satan and try to start division and change the topic of the post by focusing on me like you just did here.

      And Williams, if want he says is true then time for you to condemn Muhammad to hell for his abusive, foul mouth and insults. Do I need to post the abuse and filth which your profit spewed here to expose your hypocrisy and inconsistency? Let me know since it will be my pleasure to expose your profit.


    • Sam you deliberately insult others and their faith every day, so you cannot complain if they respond in kind. Ken was right though – you misread the Bible to justify your discreditable behaviour.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Sam, your vile comments make it about the mud you are slinging rather than the actual debate topic. On this thread you are the one who wrote the Quran contains ‘porn and violence.’ There’s no debate value in that comment, it’s just insulting language, designed to wind Muslims up. The problem is that you can’t seem to be able to understand that. Even Ken gets it as he tried to explain to you on the other thread.

    And sam, don’t flatter yourself, you and your derogatory opinios are not worth getting obsessed over! Get over yourself, you really ain’t that that important! LOL

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Oh yeah, you really don’t pay me much attention that’s why you spent four long paragraphs (you just can’t do concise!!) ranting against me!! LOL!! Oh yeah, we can all see how little attention you give my posts. 😜

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: