Yes, NT Greek had Punctuation that Made Sense

 There have been a lot of false claims put out by "learned scholars" regarding New Testament Greek. The Aland's for example, claimed that the original manuscripts didn't use punctuation, that it was added by later scribes. Others have claimed that while there were punctuation marks used, the differences in them in various documents make them meaningless. The scholars have a lot to repent of. 

At the time the New Testament was written, Greek had punctuation marks. Now when most of the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament, was originally penned there may not have been punctuation marks, but that doesn't matter much- we can compare it to the Hebrew in the Masoretic text if need be. The question is whether punctuation marks were in used in the mid to late first century A.D. when the New Testament was penned. And the answer is yes, see this document for more details. 

At the time that the New Testament was penned, there was a point mark that could be placed after a word. If it were placed high, it was like our period, if in the middle, like a coma, and at the bottom, the like a semi-colon. That system of punctuation changed over time so that biblical manuscripts from different eras had different rules of punctuation. This in itself isn't a "conflict" in the text. If an older document had the end-sentence mark as a high-point and a later one had it as a low-mark (as is our period today) this isn't a true "difference" in the text. The text is expressing the same thought and the means by which that thought was expressed changed over time.

I don't want to imply that it is as neat and simple as all that though. Doubtless different manuscripts will have conflicting testimony on punctuation just as they sometimes do on the words in the text. But the answer isn't to dismiss it all as a later imposition, it is to do the hard work of scholarship just as has been done with the language of the text. If there is a specific question about the correctness in punctuation it can be sorted out in a similar manner. 

There is the question of which text of the New Testament is the best, and that question must be sorted on top of the question of punctuation within the text. There are two and a half major candidates for the textual basis of the New Testament. The main dispute is between translations based on the Alexandrian Text, which includes most of our modern translations, and those based on some version of the Byzantine-Text, often called the "Majority Text" because the family of documents from Greece and Asia Minor are most numerous and circulated in the region where the New Testament was originally written. The Eastern Orthodox use this text. The "Textus Receptus" used for the King James Bible comes from a subset of documents from the Majority Text family, with some minor differences introduced mostly due to Latin influence as well as subtle variations where adequate documents from the Majority Text were not available to Erasmus. 

So they can start with with the punctuation in whichever of these is their favorite and then the discussion can begin regarding whether there is a significant conflict among the documents in that linage regarding what the punctuation should be. The Textus Receptus is drawn from such a small pool of documents that there won't be many cases of that, but it could be compared to the Majority Text and documents from the Majority Text with each other. My guess is that there will be very few such discrepancies once one takes into account the evolution of the punctuation marks which transpired during the period these manuscripts were produced.  

                                                                    You Tube Channel