tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post7304956348665982656..comments2024-03-20T12:35:12.828-04:00Comments on The Text of the Gospels: John 1:18 - The Only Begotten SonJames Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-6127160796662914282023-02-05T15:36:09.611-05:002023-02-05T15:36:09.611-05:00Useful series on John 1:18. Can you say why Abbot ...Useful series on John 1:18. Can you say why Abbot in his essay notes that a corrector of Sinaiticus went for 'uios'?Arkvaard12https://www.blogger.com/profile/17284201738133992089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-48604755722777925332022-03-06T00:51:05.519-05:002022-03-06T00:51:05.519-05:00Fantastic HalleluYah Fantastic HalleluYah Maxamed muxudin cadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08140444363681979330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-13676817265301438682021-08-01T06:19:50.394-04:002021-08-01T06:19:50.394-04:00Interesting article James. I still haven’t reached...Interesting article James. I still haven’t reached a firm conclusion as to what I think about this text. One of my problems with seeing ‘Only begotten God’ as a gnostic corruption is that they didn’t change it in John 3. Surely they would have done a more thoroughgoing job? What do you think? GrahamNeo Cortexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18277362496755749834noreply@blogger.com