Talk:Internal consistency of the Bible

message: A sourcing error crept in since May 28, 2008, in the following part:
: 3.  Biblical criticism and criticism of the Bible; 3.3 Manuscripts: 
:: "Manuscripts also differ. Usually the differences are minor—matters of spelling and the like—but occasionally they are significant, as in the case of the Comma Johanneum, a clause in the First Epistle of John that bears explicit witness to the doctrine of the Christian Trinity, but is not found in any manuscript earlier than the 10th century (codex 221), where it is shown as a marginal note.Daniel B. Wallace,"The Comma Johanneum and Cyprian"."
The underlined statement is not found in the mentioned reference, which can still be accessed. Could it be that the source was revised since its publication on June 25, 2004? These are the issues:
* "any manuscript earlier than the 10th century" contradicts the source which stated that "The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle [italics added] is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4)..."
* "codex 221" is not found in the source.
The proposed change to match the source could be:
:: "...as in the case of the Comma Johanneum, a clause in the First Epistle of John that bears explicit witness to the doctrine of the Christian Trinity, which is found written only in Latin in the 4th century at the earliest, but is not observed in any Greek manuscripts prior to 1215.Daniel B. Wallace,"The Comma Johanneum and Cyprian"."
Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Using Archive.org saved versions for October of 2004 up to the present, I could find no versions of the page which supported the original quote of May 2008. I therefore agree with 's change. Maximilian Aigner (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the proposed change and support the logic of Maximilian Aigner's review of the earlier versions. , I would suggest you go ahead with making this change. - BobKilcoyne (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks all for the suggestion. The text is changed as agreed. JohnThorne (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment on "Manuscripts" section 

message: #  — this is weird, because the Catholic Church has a more restrictive usage of "apocrypha" compared to the Reformed meaning, so why aren't they even mentioned here? I do not know the meaning of "apocrypha" among EO or OO Christians. 
#  — so, uh, God doesn't lie, but Martin Luther does? Cite #21 is a broken link; can't verify it. Any way you slice it, this is a very strange juxtaposition of sentences. 2600:8800:1880:927:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 04:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird stuff 

message: The discussion of inerrancy vs. infallibility contradicts (ironically) what is found in Biblical infallibility, vis-a-vis Catholic teaching: in this article, one scholar's opinion represents an allegedly modern teaching of infallibility in faith and morals only, whilst the linked article denies that position entirely. It would seem that more sources would need to be marshaled to make a stronger case in either direction. 2600:8800:1880:927:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inerrant/infallible 

message: The eastern orthodox are listed with 78 books, but if I count them on Biblical_canon#Table I get 76 (not counting items that are part of other books in the EO canon).
What's wrong? The note here or the tables in the canon page? I guess the error is here
--Helmut w.k. (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biblical canons 

message: See WP:MEDIUM. tgeorgescu (talk)  18:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert