tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post116285047805720183..comments2024-03-17T17:46:24.354+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Coptic Bible blogP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-1164006153556208622006-11-20T07:02:00.000+00:002006-11-20T07:02:00.000+00:00Here is another:http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/Here is another:<BR/>http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/Christian Askelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09381441700351009913noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-1162898118628870402006-11-07T11:15:00.000+00:002006-11-07T11:15:00.000+00:00This is not the first blog by this person, I think...This is not the first blog by this person, I think.<BR/><BR/>http://copticjohn.blogspot.com/<BR/><BR/>I think that I have seen one other bolg established seemingly by the same person or someone with similar ideas. As per the person quote of Leyton {sic!}, I do not know from where it comes. <BR/><BR/>PJW: In what way is the indefinite required in John 1:1? Although I am not about to join the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, it does seem that the Coptic supports their bizarre reading albeit out-of-context. I would see this perhaps as a reading against Arianism contemporary with the Coptic translation. I would think that the definite article would make sense if the intended reading was "The word was (the Hebrew) God."Christian Askelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09381441700351009913noreply@blogger.com