Changes

  : and in a confession of faith drawn up by Eusebius, Bishop of Carthage, in 484."

  : and in a confession of faith drawn up by Eusebius, Bishop of Carthage, in 484."

We can add to this the excluded evidence. For example, [https://sites.google.com/site/kjvtoday/home/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57#TOC-Internal-evidence the fact that the internal consistency of the text requires the Comma]. Furthermore, the comments added to the article saying that the TR is unreliable are not the opinions of everyone. They are the opinions of the majority of scholars, but, in my opinion, are not warranted (see for example Pickering, ''[http://www.prunch.org/documentation/ENGLISH/004-Objective_Authority_Of_The_Biblical_Text/The%20Identity%20of%20the%20New%20Testament%20Text%20IV.pdf The Identity of the New Testament Text]''). I will change the article to reflect both sides of the argument. --[[User:Ambassador2|Ambassador2]] ([[User talk:Ambassador2|talk]]) 13:33, 7 November 2017 (EST)

We can add to this the excluded evidence. For example, [https://sites.google.com/site/kjvtoday/home/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57#TOC-Internal-evidence the fact that the internal consistency of the text requires the Comma]. Furthermore, the comments added to the article saying that the TR is unreliable are not the opinions of everyone. They are the opinions of the majority of scholars, but, in my opinion, are not warranted (see for example Pickering, ''[http://www.prunch.org/documentation/ENGLISH/004-Objective_Authority_Of_The_Biblical_Text/The%20Identity%20of%20the%20New%20Testament%20Text%20IV.pdf The Identity of the New Testament Text]''). I will change the article to reflect both sides of the argument. --[[User:Ambassador2|Ambassador2]] ([[User talk:Ambassador2|talk]]) 13:33, 7 November 2017 (EST)

::I removed the section about early Latin from the article. It's not relevant to the story. I got the tidbit about Priscillian from ''New Catholic Encyclopedia''. Isn't that a better source than the Textus Receptus wiki? The scholarly and religious authorities overwhelmingly support the critical/Alexandrian text. There are certainly people who prefer KJV or NKJV, but that has more to do with the literary qualities of 16th century English than with text issues. NKJV doesn't even admit to following TR. According to the preface, it is a translation of the "majority text." If that was true, it wouldn't include the Comma at all.<br/>I checked out the TR wiki and it hardly seems authoritative. Did you write it yourself? [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 22:48, 8 November 2017 (EST)

::I removed the section about early Latin from the article. It's not relevant to the story. I got the tidbit about Priscillian from ''New Catholic Encyclopedia''. Isn't that a better source than the Textus Receptus wiki? The scholarly and religious authorities overwhelmingly support the critical/Alexandrian text. There are certainly people who prefer KJV or NKJV, but that has more to do with the literary qualities of 16th century English than with text issues. NKJV doesn't admit to following TR. According to the preface, it is a translation of the "majority text." If that was true, it wouldn't include the Comma at all.<br/>I checked out the TR wiki and it hardly seems authoritative. Did you write it yourself? [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 22:48, 8 November 2017 (EST)