Are Doctrines affected by Modern Versions
- Thread starter Hobie
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Which "Christ"?
Mat_24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Mar_13:22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
Mar_13:22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
Jesus had the true doctrine, and to know the right Jesus, and the true doctrine, one needs the unadulterated inspired and preserved word of the Living God, and His Holy Spirit.
This thread is showing, that there are 'differing Jesus', and differing doctrines' based upon the myriad of 'modern versions', which are all per-versions of the inspired and preserved word of God.
Jesus in the KJB, says, "Here I am.", among the "common people", which hear Him gladly,
but the devil says in the NIV, "No, I ('Jesus') am over here, among the scholars ...",
and yet the devil says in the DR, "No, I ('Jesus') am over here, among the Jesuits ..."
and yet the devil says in the Codex Sinaiticus (aleph), "No, I (Jesus) am in the desert places ..."
and yet the devil says in the Codex Vaticanus (B), "No, I (Jesus) am in the secret places of the vaults of Rome ..."
... ... ...
Thats the problem isnt it, all the arguments over doctrines to try and prove who is the smartest. There is only one Christ, the one that is the way the truth and the life, the one that is the narrow way that leads to life that very few will find, to busy being religious and learned. You can study and argue all you like, till you go to the one who is the truth, the truth will be as far away from you as a simple, Hi Jesus, can you teach me". But that requires faith...
Mischaracterizaton, even straw-man. "smartest" has nothing to do with it. That's your gross distortion to the topic, your 'spin'.
Consider:
GNTTR Mat 6:11 τον αρτον ημων τον επιουσιον δος ημιν σημερον
NA28th Mat 6:11 τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον·
UBS 5th - missing/absent
KJB Mat 6:11 Give us this day our daily bread.
DR Mat 6:11 Give us this day our supersubstantial bread.
NA28th Mat 6:11 τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον·
UBS 5th - missing/absent
KJB Mat 6:11 Give us this day our daily bread.
DR Mat 6:11 Give us this day our supersubstantial bread.
Nothing about "supersubstantial" in the koine Greek and "σημερον" never means "supersubstantial". It means "daily", or 'day by day', or 'every day', and "supersubstantial" is not even in the Greek of Vaticanus, or Sinaiticus, neither UBS5th or NA28th, but is merely in the minds of the superstitious who desire their doctrine to be in the text to justify themselves.
Last edited:
And what is it you are seeking to justify.. I canna understand yahhh.
Luk_10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.
Everyone is wise in his own site, foolishg in Gods
I seek God's vindication, and the vindication of His truth, His glory.
Rom_3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
"... The Bible Dictionary, Vol. II, published by Cassell, Petter and Galpin of London, has this to say about the Codex Vaticanus (B):
"It appears to have belonged to the Vatican Library (where it is numbered 1,209) from a time not long subsequent to its formation by Pope Nicholas V [1328-30 A.D.]. It now consists of 146 leaves of thin vellum, written in three columns on a page, except in the poetical books of the Old Testament, where there are only two. THE ANCIENT WRITING IS DEFECTIVE in the first forty-six chapters of Genesis, in part of the Psalms, also in the NEW TESTAMENT from Heb. IX. 14 to the end of that book, the four pastoral epistles, and the Apocalypse. These DEFECTS (with the exception of the pastoral epistles) have been supplied by a much more RECENT HAND...ANOTHER HAND HAS RETOUCHED the ancient FADED letters, and the same (or some other posterior to the ORIGINAL scribe) has ADDED the accents and breathings. Large initial letters have been placed at the beginning of the several books, INSTEAD of those of the original scribe, which were of the same size as the others in the line" (Article "Vaticanus, Codex (B)," p. 542). ..." - Did the SPEAR WOUND Kill the Messiah?
"It appears to have belonged to the Vatican Library (where it is numbered 1,209) from a time not long subsequent to its formation by Pope Nicholas V [1328-30 A.D.]. It now consists of 146 leaves of thin vellum, written in three columns on a page, except in the poetical books of the Old Testament, where there are only two. THE ANCIENT WRITING IS DEFECTIVE in the first forty-six chapters of Genesis, in part of the Psalms, also in the NEW TESTAMENT from Heb. IX. 14 to the end of that book, the four pastoral epistles, and the Apocalypse. These DEFECTS (with the exception of the pastoral epistles) have been supplied by a much more RECENT HAND...ANOTHER HAND HAS RETOUCHED the ancient FADED letters, and the same (or some other posterior to the ORIGINAL scribe) has ADDED the accents and breathings. Large initial letters have been placed at the beginning of the several books, INSTEAD of those of the original scribe, which were of the same size as the others in the line" (Article "Vaticanus, Codex (B)," p. 542). ..." - Did the SPEAR WOUND Kill the Messiah?
Considering Codex Vaticanus in Matthew 27:49, from wiki, we read:
"... Matthew 27:49 (see John 19:34)
In Matthew 27:49 the codex contains added text: ἄλλος δὲ λαβὼν λόγχην ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευράν, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὕδορ καὶ αἷμα (the other took a spear and pierced His side, and immediately came out water and blood). This reading was derived from John 19:34 and occurs in other manuscripts of the Alexandrian text-type.[41] ..." - Codex Sinaiticus - Wikipedia
In Matthew 27:49 the codex contains added text: ἄλλος δὲ λαβὼν λόγχην ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευράν, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὕδορ καὶ αἷμα (the other took a spear and pierced His side, and immediately came out water and blood). This reading was derived from John 19:34 and occurs in other manuscripts of the Alexandrian text-type.[41] ..." - Codex Sinaiticus - Wikipedia
This directly affects doctrine, and also timing of events and the purity (uncontradictability) of the word of God.
John's account, KJB, rightly says:
Joh 19:29 Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.
Joh 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
Joh 19:33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:
Joh 19:34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
Joh 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
Joh 19:33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:
Joh 19:34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
Yet, the false text of Vaticanus would have us to believe that Jesus was pierced by the spear of the Roman Guard while still alive! Notice the context of Matthew 27:49:
Mat 27:48 And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink.
Mat 27:49 "B"/"aleph" - οι δε λοιποι ελεγον αφες ιδωμεν ει ερχεται ηλιας σωσων αυτον ἄλλος δὲ λαβὼν λόγχην ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευράν, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὕδορ καὶ αἷμα
Mat 27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
However, if we were to place Vaticanus Matthew 27:49 (wherein it adds: ἄλλος δὲ λαβὼν λόγχην ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευράν, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὕδορ καὶ αἷμα (the other took a spear and pierced His side, and immediately came out water and blood) ) in between vs 48 and vs 50 then the piercing of Jesus takes place before His death, which would defeat the whole purpose of the cross itself and the not breaking the legs of Jesus, as done for the other two beside Him.Mat 27:49 "B"/"aleph" - οι δε λοιποι ελεγον αφες ιδωμεν ει ερχεται ηλιας σωσων αυτον ἄλλος δὲ λαβὼν λόγχην ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευράν, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὕδορ καὶ αἷμα
Mat 27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
A picture here
DigiVatLib
https://i.ibb.co/YZDZhQ3/Matthew-27-vs-49-Vaticanus.jpg
Even on the Vatican's own VatLibrary website, we can see whose "Bible" it is:
See, it says, that Vaticanus (codex B) belongs to the "DeViL", and they even use maroon or dark blood red colours (nice touch!)
Sinaiticus (codex aleph) has the same error:
Codex Sinaiticus - See The Manuscript | Matthew |
https://i.ibb.co/FxM4LVt/Matthew-27-vs-49-Sinaiticus.jpg
So, what is the truth? What will you believe? The agreement of Matthew and John from the KJB (and even the GNT TR, οι δε λοιποι ελεγον αφες ιδωμεν ει ερχεται ηλιας σωσων αυτον ), or a contradictory Matthew than John in Vaticanus/Sinaitcus? Spear after death (KJB), or spear before death (causing death; Vaticanus, Sinaiticus)?
Also, isn't it amazing, that all those 'modern versions' which are based upon Vaticanus (B.) and Sinaiticus (aleph) left this bit out? Why, aren't they supposed to be faithful to their texts? Hypocrites. It goes to show that they aren't basing it upon the mss at all, but rather are going with what is in their own hearts - their idea of what the Bible should and shouldn't say.
Matthew 27:49 - Bible Gateway
Last edited:
OzSpen
Well-Known Member
- Mar 30, 2015
- 3,728
- 795
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
You do have assumptions and they are chick.com presuppositions to denigrate the earliest NT MSS.
What you presented sounds awfully like a conspiracy theory.
OzSpen
Well-Known Member
- Mar 30, 2015
- 3,728
- 795
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
Enoch111,
You are dumbing down Westcott & Hort who were excellent textual critics. You don't like their conclusions so you accuse Sinaiticus and Vaticanus of being 'the most corrupt Greek manuscripts'.
These are the facts regarding Acts 8:35-37 (ESV):
Acts 8:35-36 English Standard Version Anglicised (ESVUK)
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. 36 And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?”a]">[a]
Footnotes:
Oz35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. 36 And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?”a]">[a]
Footnotes:
"Some manuscripts"??? and "add"??? (are they implying motive???, shouldn't it just be 'differing' by their own standards, or is there an agenda and bias?)
Acts 8:37, evidence in mss and ECF, etc.
"... Bibles: Tyndales, Great, Geneva, Bishops; Stephanus, Beza, Elzivirs.
Uncials: E
Miniscules: 4, 36, 88, 97, 103, 104, 242, 257, 307, 322, 323, 385, 429, 453, 464, 467, 629, 630, 913, 945, 1522, 1739, 1765, 1877, 1891 & others. Note: the above and following witnesses include those with minor variation.
Von Soden indicates: I b1 (522 1758), I b2 (2298).
Lectionary 59.
Old Latin: ar, c?, e, gig, h, l, m, ph, r;
Vulgate: Clementine, am-2, tol, demid;
Syriac: Harclean-with asterisk;
Coptic: Middle Egyptian; Armenian, Georgian.
[ECF] Irenaeus, Lyons, Latin, 178; Tertullian, N. Africa, Latin, 220; Cyprian, Carthage, Latin, 258; Ambrosiaster, Latin, 384; Pacianus, Barcelona, Latin, 392; Ambrose, Milan, Latin, 397; Augustine, Hippo., Latin, 430, "Praedestinatus", Latin, 434; Bede, England, Latin, also cites Greek mss., 735; Theophylact, (cor.), Bulgaria, 1077. ..." - When the KJV Departs From The "Majority" Text of Hodge & Farstad, cited by the corrupt NKJV, by Jack Moorman; pages 60-61
Uncials: E
Miniscules: 4, 36, 88, 97, 103, 104, 242, 257, 307, 322, 323, 385, 429, 453, 464, 467, 629, 630, 913, 945, 1522, 1739, 1765, 1877, 1891 & others. Note: the above and following witnesses include those with minor variation.
Von Soden indicates: I b1 (522 1758), I b2 (2298).
Lectionary 59.
Old Latin: ar, c?, e, gig, h, l, m, ph, r;
Vulgate: Clementine, am-2, tol, demid;
Syriac: Harclean-with asterisk;
Coptic: Middle Egyptian; Armenian, Georgian.
[ECF] Irenaeus, Lyons, Latin, 178; Tertullian, N. Africa, Latin, 220; Cyprian, Carthage, Latin, 258; Ambrosiaster, Latin, 384; Pacianus, Barcelona, Latin, 392; Ambrose, Milan, Latin, 397; Augustine, Hippo., Latin, 430, "Praedestinatus", Latin, 434; Bede, England, Latin, also cites Greek mss., 735; Theophylact, (cor.), Bulgaria, 1077. ..." - When the KJV Departs From The "Majority" Text of Hodge & Farstad, cited by the corrupt NKJV, by Jack Moorman; pages 60-61
It is also in Erasmus and the Byzantine Greek text, as well as Old Latin, t, w , "... Even the notes in critical text editions tell us that this verse existed in the Old Latin copies, the Coptic Middle Egyptian version, the Ethiopic, Georgian, and Slavonic, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta and Armenian early Bible versions. It is also found in the Vulgate Clementine. ..."- https://brandplucked.webs.com/acts8372829.htm
ECF again:
"... IRENAEUS, Against Heresies (I 1:433) "the believing eunuch himself ... said, 'I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God.'"
CYPRIAN, Treatises (I 5:545). "The said Philip, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest"
PONTUS, Life of Cyprian (I 5:268), "the eunuch is described as at once baptized by Philip because he believed with his whole heart." -----
[personal note from Jack Moorman] I found no indication in ANPF of a pre-400 AD Father quoting the above the general passage with the disputed words omitted. There were no references to verses 36 and 38 in the Indices. ..." - Early Church Fathers and the Authorized Version by Jack Moorman, page 51.
CYPRIAN, Treatises (I 5:545). "The said Philip, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest"
PONTUS, Life of Cyprian (I 5:268), "the eunuch is described as at once baptized by Philip because he believed with his whole heart." -----
[personal note from Jack Moorman] I found no indication in ANPF of a pre-400 AD Father quoting the above the general passage with the disputed words omitted. There were no references to verses 36 and 38 in the Indices. ..." - Early Church Fathers and the Authorized Version by Jack Moorman, page 51.
Other Bibles:
"... The entire verse stands in a multitude of Bible versions both old and new, English and foreign. It is found in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1545, the Great Bible 1540 - "Philip sayde vnto him: If þu beleue with all thyne hert, thou mayest. And he answered, and sayde: I beleue that Iesus Christ is the sonne of God.", Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Douay-Rheims of 1582, the Geneva Bible 1587, The Beza N.T. 1599, the Bill Bible 1671, Mace N.T. 1729, Wesley's translation 1755, Whiston's Primitive N.T. 1745, Worsely Version 1770, Haweis N.T. 1795 the Thomson Bible 1808, The Revised Translation 1815, the Thomson N.T. 1816, The Wakefield N.T. 1820, Webster's translation 1833, the Longman Version 1841, the Hammond N.T. 1845, the Hussey N.T. 1845, the Morgan N.T. 1848, the Hewett N.T. 1850, Murdock's Translation 1851 of the Syriac, The Commonly Received Version 1851, the Kenrick N.T. 1862, The Revised New Testament 1862, The American Bible Union N.T. 1865, the Smith Bible 1876, The Revised English Bible 1877, the Dillard N.T. 1885, Young's 1898, the Clarke N.T. 1913, the Montgomery N.T. 1924, the Amplified Bible 1987, the NKJV 1982, The Recovery N.T. 1985, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, The Interlinear Greek N.T.. 1997 (Larry Pierce), the Third Millennium Bible 1998, the Lawrie Translation 1998.
Acts 8:37 is also in The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Worldwide English New Testament 1998, The Last Days N.T. 1999, The Sacred Scriptures Family of Yah 2001, the Tomson N.T. 2002, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, Green's Literal 2005, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, the the Catholic Public Domain Version 2009, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English of 2010, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, The Conservative Bible 2010, The New European Version 2010, the Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), the 2012 Natural Israelite Bible - "Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Yah’shua the Messiah is the Son of Yahweh.", The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - "And Philippos said: If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said: believe that Yeshua (ישוע) Moshiach is BEN Elohim (אלהים)", The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, The Aramaic New Testament 2011, Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust) - "And Philip said, If you believe with all your heart, you may. And he answered and said, I believe that Yahushua the Mashiyach is the Son of the Elohim.", The Voice 2012, the Knox Bible 2012, The Hebraic Roots Bible 2012, The Biblos Interlinear Bible 2013, The Modern Literal New Testament 2014 and the Modern English Version 2014.
The whole verse is included in the following modern foreign language versions: The Latin Clementine Vulgate - "Dixit autem Philippus: Si credis ex toto corde, licet. Et respondens ait: Credo Filium Dei esse Jesum Christum.", the Afrikaans Bible 1953, the Arabic Life Application Bible 1998, Albanian, Bulgarian 1940, Chinese Traditional and Union versions, Dutch Staterling, Luther's German Bible 1545, and other German Bibles like the Schlachter Bible of 2007 - "Da sprach Philippus: Wenn du von ganzem Herzen glaubst, so ist es erlaubt! Er antwortete und sprach: Ich glaube, dass Jesus Christus der Sohn Gottes ist!", the Danish, Dutch Staten Vertaling, Finnish 1776, the French La Bible de Geneva 1669, the French Martin 1744, the Louis Segond 1910 and 2007, the French Ostervald 1996, the French La Bible du Semeur 1999 - "Si tu crois de tout ton cœur, tu peux être baptisé. ---Oui, répondit le dignitaire, je crois que Jésus-Christ est le Fils de Dieu.", the Hatian Creole Bible, Hungarian Karoli and the Hungarian New Translation of 1990, the talian Diodati 1649, the Riveduta of 2006 and the 1991 New Diodati - "Filippo disse: «Se tu credi con tutto il cuore, è possibile». L’eunuco rispose: «Io credo che Gesù Cristo è il Figlio di Dio».", Japanese JKUG, Korean (in brackets), Latvian, Maori Bible
Modern Hebrew Version N. T. - "יאמר פילפוס אם מאמין אתה בכל לבבך מתר לך ויען ויאמר אני מאמין כי ישוע המשיח בן האלהים הוא׃8:37,
the Modern Greek Version used in the Greek speaking churches all over the world - "Και ο Φιλιππος ειπεν· Εαν πιστευης εξ ολης της καρδιας, δυνασαι. Και αποκριθεις ειπε· Πιστευω οτι ο Ιησους Χριστος ειναι ο Υιος του Θεου."
It is also the reading found in the Nederlands Handelingen 1988, the Norwegian Norsk 1930 and the 1978 En Levende Bok, the Portuguese Almeida of 1681 and the modern Almeida, and the A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués - "E disse Filipe: É lícito, se crês de todo o coraçäo. E, respondendo ele, disse: Creio que Jesus Cristo é o Filho de Deus.", the Portuguese O Libro of 2000, Rumanian, Romanian Cornilescu and the Romanian Nouă Traducere În Limba Română of 2007, Russian Synodal 1876 and Zhuromsky N.T., the Polish Nowe Przymierze of 2011, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, Spanish Biblia de las Américas 1997 (Lockman Foundation), Contemporánea of 2011 and the 2010 Reina Valera Gomez bible,- "Felipe le dijo: «Si crees de todo corazón, puedes ser bautizado.» Y el eunuco respondió: «Creo que Jesucristo es el Hijo de Dios.»", the Russian Synodal Bible and the Russian Easy to Read Version of 2007 - "the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos 1998, Turkish N.T. 1994, Ukranian Bible and Easy to Read Ukranian Bible of 2007, the Somail Bible of 2008, the Vietnamese Bản Dịch Bible of 2011, the Chinese Union Traditional and the Chinese Contemporary Bible of 2011 put out by the International Bible Society. ..." - https://brandplucked.webs.com/acts8372829.htm
Acts 8:37 is also in The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Worldwide English New Testament 1998, The Last Days N.T. 1999, The Sacred Scriptures Family of Yah 2001, the Tomson N.T. 2002, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, Green's Literal 2005, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, the the Catholic Public Domain Version 2009, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English of 2010, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, The Conservative Bible 2010, The New European Version 2010, the Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), the 2012 Natural Israelite Bible - "Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Yah’shua the Messiah is the Son of Yahweh.", The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - "And Philippos said: If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said: believe that Yeshua (ישוע) Moshiach is BEN Elohim (אלהים)", The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, The Aramaic New Testament 2011, Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust) - "And Philip said, If you believe with all your heart, you may. And he answered and said, I believe that Yahushua the Mashiyach is the Son of the Elohim.", The Voice 2012, the Knox Bible 2012, The Hebraic Roots Bible 2012, The Biblos Interlinear Bible 2013, The Modern Literal New Testament 2014 and the Modern English Version 2014.
The whole verse is included in the following modern foreign language versions: The Latin Clementine Vulgate - "Dixit autem Philippus: Si credis ex toto corde, licet. Et respondens ait: Credo Filium Dei esse Jesum Christum.", the Afrikaans Bible 1953, the Arabic Life Application Bible 1998, Albanian, Bulgarian 1940, Chinese Traditional and Union versions, Dutch Staterling, Luther's German Bible 1545, and other German Bibles like the Schlachter Bible of 2007 - "Da sprach Philippus: Wenn du von ganzem Herzen glaubst, so ist es erlaubt! Er antwortete und sprach: Ich glaube, dass Jesus Christus der Sohn Gottes ist!", the Danish, Dutch Staten Vertaling, Finnish 1776, the French La Bible de Geneva 1669, the French Martin 1744, the Louis Segond 1910 and 2007, the French Ostervald 1996, the French La Bible du Semeur 1999 - "Si tu crois de tout ton cœur, tu peux être baptisé. ---Oui, répondit le dignitaire, je crois que Jésus-Christ est le Fils de Dieu.", the Hatian Creole Bible, Hungarian Karoli and the Hungarian New Translation of 1990, the talian Diodati 1649, the Riveduta of 2006 and the 1991 New Diodati - "Filippo disse: «Se tu credi con tutto il cuore, è possibile». L’eunuco rispose: «Io credo che Gesù Cristo è il Figlio di Dio».", Japanese JKUG, Korean (in brackets), Latvian, Maori Bible
Modern Hebrew Version N. T. - "יאמר פילפוס אם מאמין אתה בכל לבבך מתר לך ויען ויאמר אני מאמין כי ישוע המשיח בן האלהים הוא׃8:37,
the Modern Greek Version used in the Greek speaking churches all over the world - "Και ο Φιλιππος ειπεν· Εαν πιστευης εξ ολης της καρδιας, δυνασαι. Και αποκριθεις ειπε· Πιστευω οτι ο Ιησους Χριστος ειναι ο Υιος του Θεου."
It is also the reading found in the Nederlands Handelingen 1988, the Norwegian Norsk 1930 and the 1978 En Levende Bok, the Portuguese Almeida of 1681 and the modern Almeida, and the A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués - "E disse Filipe: É lícito, se crês de todo o coraçäo. E, respondendo ele, disse: Creio que Jesus Cristo é o Filho de Deus.", the Portuguese O Libro of 2000, Rumanian, Romanian Cornilescu and the Romanian Nouă Traducere În Limba Română of 2007, Russian Synodal 1876 and Zhuromsky N.T., the Polish Nowe Przymierze of 2011, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, Spanish Biblia de las Américas 1997 (Lockman Foundation), Contemporánea of 2011 and the 2010 Reina Valera Gomez bible,- "Felipe le dijo: «Si crees de todo corazón, puedes ser bautizado.» Y el eunuco respondió: «Creo que Jesucristo es el Hijo de Dios.»", the Russian Synodal Bible and the Russian Easy to Read Version of 2007 - "the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos 1998, Turkish N.T. 1994, Ukranian Bible and Easy to Read Ukranian Bible of 2007, the Somail Bible of 2008, the Vietnamese Bản Dịch Bible of 2011, the Chinese Union Traditional and the Chinese Contemporary Bible of 2011 put out by the International Bible Society. ..." - https://brandplucked.webs.com/acts8372829.htm
Here is a good explanation on Hort and Westcott I came across:
"Westcott, an Anglican Bishop and professor at Cambridge University,
and Hort – also an ordained Anglican priest and professor at Cambridge
– came to participate on the 1881 Revision Committee of the King James
Bible under the guise of being Protestant scholars. Actually, they were
very Roman Catholic in doctrine, belief, and practice. Both conservative
and liberal branches of Christendom hold Westcott and Hort in high
esteem as if God had greatly used these men to reestablish and restore
the text of the Bible. However, it is most difficult to believe that God
would use two men to perform such a task who did not believe that the
Bible was the verbal Word of God.
Westcott and Hort maintained that they had raised New Testament
textual criticism to the level of an exact science. Thus when they
concluded that the Traditional Text was late and a composite reading
resulting from combining older text-types, they affirmed that this should
be regarded as the true explanation with the same degree of reliance as
one would esteem a Newtonian theorem.1 Indeed, they asserted that
their work had been so scientifically and carefully executed that there
could never be more than one change per thousand words.2 Nevertheless,
today most liberal (or lost) modern scholars say that they no longer agree
completely with the Westcott-Hort theory. Kurt Aland, a foremost leader
of the modern school, is representative when he admits to this in saying:3
"We still live in the world of Westcott and Hort with our
conception of different recensions and text-types although this
conception has lost its raison d' être, or, it needs at least to be
newly and convincingly demonstrated. For the increase of the
documentary evidence and the entirely new areas of research
which were opened to us on the discovery of the papyri, mean the
end of Westcott and Hort's conception."
Still, these same liberals always begin their own investigations with the
acceptance of most of the basic W-H tenants. Sadly, most conservative
scholars have accepted the W-H theory of textual history – largely
because most Christian scholars fear scholastic and intellectual ridicule...."http://www.standardbearers.net/uplo...Is_The_Bible_Dr_Floyd_Nolen_Jones_PhD_ThD.pdf
And more on the Alexandrian manucripts:
"Bible scholarship of the past 150 years has placed much attention on a very small number of manuscripts. While there are over 5000 known New Testament manuscripts, attention has been placed on less than ten. Of these, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus have been exalted as the “oldest and best” manuscripts. The oldest claim has been disproved elsewhere. This document will focus on the nature of these two favored manuscripts. Sinaiticus has been recently made available to all on the internet by the Codex Sinaiticus Project, with the mainstream media and general Christians fawning over this “world’s oldest Bible.” This manuscript, in conjunction with Codex Vaticanus, form the basis for most modern Bible translations. However, these two manuscripts differ substantially from the text of the bulk of the manuscripts. Thus, the public needs to know the truth about these manuscripts.
Contrary to what has been taught in most seminaries, these two manuscripts are worthless, and hopelessly corrupt. Dean John Burgon, a highly respected Bible scholar of the mid to late 1800’s, wrote of these manuscripts, “The impurity of the Texts exhibited by Codices B and Aleph [Vaticanus and Sinaiticus] is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact.”1 These documents are both of dubious origin. It has been speculated by some scholars that one or both were produced by Eusebius of Caesarea on orders of Emperor Constantine2. If this is true, then these manuscripts are linked to Eusibus’s teacher Origen of Alexandria, both known for interpreting Scripture allegorically as opposed to literally. Scholars have designated these manuscripts as Alexandrian, linking them with Alexandria, Egypt, the region responsible for early heresies such as Gnosticism and Arianism. Both are dated in the mid to late fourth century.
Vaticanus is the sole property of the Vatican; it has been a part of the Vatican library since at least 1475. It’s history previous is unknown. It was written by three scribes, and has been corrected by at least two more3. Vaticanus adds to the Old Testament the apocryphal books of Baruch, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit, and the Epistle of Jeremiah. Dean Burgon describes the poor workmanship of Vaticanus:
Codex B [Vaticanus] comes to us without a history: without recommendation of any kind, except that of its antiquity. It bears traces of careless transcription in every page. The mistakes which the original transcriber made are of perpetual recurrence.4
The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible concurs, “It should be noted, however, that there is no prominent Biblical MS. in which there occur such gross cases of misspelling, faulty grammar, and omission, as in B [Vaticanus].”5 Vaticanus omits Mark 16:9-20, yet there is a significant blank space here for these verses.6 Sinaiticus also lacks these verses, but has a blank space for them.7 These two manuscripts are the only Greek manuscripts that omit these verses!
The Sinaiticus was discovered by Constantine Tischendorf in the Greek Orthodox Monastery of St. Catherine, on the Sinai peninsula. Monasteries are known for exceptional libraries, and scholars would often visit to conduct research. St. Catherine’s is no exception. From the monastery’s website:
When Egeria visited the Sinai around the year 380, she wrote approvingly of the way the monks read to her the scriptural accounts concerning the various events that had taken place there. Thus we can speak of manuscripts at Sinai in the fourth century. It is written of Saint John Climacus that, while living as a hermit, he spent much time in prayer and in the copying of books. This is evidence of manuscript production at Sinai in the sixth century. The library at the Holy Monastery of Sinai is thus the inheritor of texts and of traditions that date to the earliest years of a monastic presence in the Sinai. In earlier times, manuscripts were kept in three different places: in the north wall of the monastery, in the vicinity of the church, and in a central location where the texts were accessible.8
This monastery has a library full of old manuscripts. One would then assume that Tischendorf found the prized Sinaiticus one a library shelf, hidden among other manuscripts. Well, this is not exactly the case. He found it in a trash can, waiting to be burnt!"...The Unreliablitity of the Alexandrian Manuscripts - Preserved Word Ministries
"Westcott, an Anglican Bishop and professor at Cambridge University,
and Hort – also an ordained Anglican priest and professor at Cambridge
– came to participate on the 1881 Revision Committee of the King James
Bible under the guise of being Protestant scholars. Actually, they were
very Roman Catholic in doctrine, belief, and practice. Both conservative
and liberal branches of Christendom hold Westcott and Hort in high
esteem as if God had greatly used these men to reestablish and restore
the text of the Bible. However, it is most difficult to believe that God
would use two men to perform such a task who did not believe that the
Bible was the verbal Word of God.
Westcott and Hort maintained that they had raised New Testament
textual criticism to the level of an exact science. Thus when they
concluded that the Traditional Text was late and a composite reading
resulting from combining older text-types, they affirmed that this should
be regarded as the true explanation with the same degree of reliance as
one would esteem a Newtonian theorem.1 Indeed, they asserted that
their work had been so scientifically and carefully executed that there
could never be more than one change per thousand words.2 Nevertheless,
today most liberal (or lost) modern scholars say that they no longer agree
completely with the Westcott-Hort theory. Kurt Aland, a foremost leader
of the modern school, is representative when he admits to this in saying:3
"We still live in the world of Westcott and Hort with our
conception of different recensions and text-types although this
conception has lost its raison d' être, or, it needs at least to be
newly and convincingly demonstrated. For the increase of the
documentary evidence and the entirely new areas of research
which were opened to us on the discovery of the papyri, mean the
end of Westcott and Hort's conception."
Still, these same liberals always begin their own investigations with the
acceptance of most of the basic W-H tenants. Sadly, most conservative
scholars have accepted the W-H theory of textual history – largely
because most Christian scholars fear scholastic and intellectual ridicule...."http://www.standardbearers.net/uplo...Is_The_Bible_Dr_Floyd_Nolen_Jones_PhD_ThD.pdf
And more on the Alexandrian manucripts:
"Bible scholarship of the past 150 years has placed much attention on a very small number of manuscripts. While there are over 5000 known New Testament manuscripts, attention has been placed on less than ten. Of these, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus have been exalted as the “oldest and best” manuscripts. The oldest claim has been disproved elsewhere. This document will focus on the nature of these two favored manuscripts. Sinaiticus has been recently made available to all on the internet by the Codex Sinaiticus Project, with the mainstream media and general Christians fawning over this “world’s oldest Bible.” This manuscript, in conjunction with Codex Vaticanus, form the basis for most modern Bible translations. However, these two manuscripts differ substantially from the text of the bulk of the manuscripts. Thus, the public needs to know the truth about these manuscripts.
Contrary to what has been taught in most seminaries, these two manuscripts are worthless, and hopelessly corrupt. Dean John Burgon, a highly respected Bible scholar of the mid to late 1800’s, wrote of these manuscripts, “The impurity of the Texts exhibited by Codices B and Aleph [Vaticanus and Sinaiticus] is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact.”1 These documents are both of dubious origin. It has been speculated by some scholars that one or both were produced by Eusebius of Caesarea on orders of Emperor Constantine2. If this is true, then these manuscripts are linked to Eusibus’s teacher Origen of Alexandria, both known for interpreting Scripture allegorically as opposed to literally. Scholars have designated these manuscripts as Alexandrian, linking them with Alexandria, Egypt, the region responsible for early heresies such as Gnosticism and Arianism. Both are dated in the mid to late fourth century.
Vaticanus is the sole property of the Vatican; it has been a part of the Vatican library since at least 1475. It’s history previous is unknown. It was written by three scribes, and has been corrected by at least two more3. Vaticanus adds to the Old Testament the apocryphal books of Baruch, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit, and the Epistle of Jeremiah. Dean Burgon describes the poor workmanship of Vaticanus:
Codex B [Vaticanus] comes to us without a history: without recommendation of any kind, except that of its antiquity. It bears traces of careless transcription in every page. The mistakes which the original transcriber made are of perpetual recurrence.4
The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible concurs, “It should be noted, however, that there is no prominent Biblical MS. in which there occur such gross cases of misspelling, faulty grammar, and omission, as in B [Vaticanus].”5 Vaticanus omits Mark 16:9-20, yet there is a significant blank space here for these verses.6 Sinaiticus also lacks these verses, but has a blank space for them.7 These two manuscripts are the only Greek manuscripts that omit these verses!
The Sinaiticus was discovered by Constantine Tischendorf in the Greek Orthodox Monastery of St. Catherine, on the Sinai peninsula. Monasteries are known for exceptional libraries, and scholars would often visit to conduct research. St. Catherine’s is no exception. From the monastery’s website:
When Egeria visited the Sinai around the year 380, she wrote approvingly of the way the monks read to her the scriptural accounts concerning the various events that had taken place there. Thus we can speak of manuscripts at Sinai in the fourth century. It is written of Saint John Climacus that, while living as a hermit, he spent much time in prayer and in the copying of books. This is evidence of manuscript production at Sinai in the sixth century. The library at the Holy Monastery of Sinai is thus the inheritor of texts and of traditions that date to the earliest years of a monastic presence in the Sinai. In earlier times, manuscripts were kept in three different places: in the north wall of the monastery, in the vicinity of the church, and in a central location where the texts were accessible.8
This monastery has a library full of old manuscripts. One would then assume that Tischendorf found the prized Sinaiticus one a library shelf, hidden among other manuscripts. Well, this is not exactly the case. He found it in a trash can, waiting to be burnt!"...The Unreliablitity of the Alexandrian Manuscripts - Preserved Word Ministries
Last edited:
1. The ESV is another one of those corrupted modern translations.
2. Casting doubts on authentic Scripture and placing it in a footnote means "You can ignore this if you wish". Here's the truth:
'The following is an excerpt from Dr. Thomas Holland's Crowned With Glory, ©2000, used with permission.
Acts 8:37 - "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God"
"And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
Here the testimony of this faithful and beloved African, the Ethiopian eunuch, does not appear in the Critical Text. Some have argued that the verse is not genuine because it is found in only a few late manuscripts and was inserted into the Greek text by Erasmus from the Latin Vulgate.
It is true that the passage appears in the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. However, the passage also appears in a vast number of other Old Latin manuscripts (such as l, m, e, r, ar, ph, andgig). It also is found in the Greek Codex E (eighth century) and several Greek manuscripts (36, 88, 97, 103, 104, 242, 257, 307, 322, 323, 385, 429, 453, 464, 467, 610, 629, 630, 913, 945, 1522, 1678, 1739, 1765, 1877, 1891, and others).
While there are differences even among these texts as to precise wording, the essence of the testimony still remains where it has been removed from other manuscripts. [1] Additionally, Irenaeus (202 AD), Cyprian (258 AD), Ambrosiaster (forth century), Pacian (392 AD), Ambrose (397 AD), Augustine (430 AD), and Theophylact (1077 AD) all cite Acts 8:37. (*Note: dates above are deaths of the authors, not dates of the quotes.)
If the text were genuine, why would any scribe wish to delete it? [2] In his commentary on the book of Acts, Dr. J. A. Alexander provides a possible answer. By the end of the third century it had become common practice to delay the baptism of Christian converts to assure that they had truly understood their commitment to Christ and were not holding to one of the various heretical beliefs prevalent at that time. [3] It is possible that a scribe, believing that baptism should not immediately follow conversion, omitted this passage from the text, which would explain its absence in many of the Greek manuscripts that followed. Certainly this conjecture is as possible as the various explanations offered by those who reject the reading.
Nevertheless, because of biblical preservation, the reading remains in some Greek manuscripts as well as in the Old Latin manuscripts. Clearly the reading is far more ancient than the sixth century, as some scholars have suggested. Irenaeus noted that "the believing eunuch himself: . . . immediately requesting to be baptized, he said, 'I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God'." [4] Likewise, Cyprian quotes the first half of the verse in writing, "In the Acts of the Apostles: 'Lo, here is water; what is there which hinders me from being baptized? Then said Philip, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest'." [5]These statements, clearly quotations of Acts 8:37, appear by the end of the second century and at the first half of the third. We see that the passage was in common use long before the existing Greek manuscripts were ever copied. This in itself testifies to its authenticity and to the assurance of biblical preservation.'
[1] The variants within the manuscripts that maintain this passage are minor. For example, 88 omits o Philippos (Phillip) and adds o eunouchos(the eunuch) and auto (very). Thus the verse reads in 88, "And he said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And the eunuch answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the very Son of God." Such variants are common among the vast host of Greek manuscripts. It should be noted, nevertheless, that such variants do not constitute the removal of the passage from the text. Nor, are such variants of like significance as those that would remove the passage from the text.
[2] Metzger, A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament, 315-316.
[3] J. A. Alexander, The Acts Of The Apostle (New York: Scribner, 1967), vol. 1, 349-350.
[4] Against Heresies: I 1:433.
[5] Treatise 12:3:43.
And on the Gnosticism in these versions from the Dean Burgon site:
"Gnosticism, in all of its varieties, was the most influential heresy faced by the early Church. Not only did the Gnostic corrupt many readings found in the New Testament, but offered their own writings as inspired scriptures, such as the The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Peter, The Gospel of Philip, The Gospel of Judas, The Gospel of the Ebionites, The Gospel of The Twelve, The Gospel According To The Hebrews (also called The Gospel According To Matthew, not to be confused with the real Gospel of Matthew), The Gospel According to the Egyptians, The Gospel of Mary (Magdalene), The Acts of Andrew, The Acts of Peter, The Acts of John, etc. Gnosticism had a variety of forms and sects, which broadened its base and growth. Historian Will Durant calls Gnosticism "the quest of godlike knowledge (gnosis) through mystic means" (The Story Of Civilization Vol. III, p. 604). Durant is correct. Gnosticism is thinly veiled Pantheism. Pantheism is the doctrine that identifies God with and in the whole universe, every particle, tree, table, animal, and person being are part of GOD. Or, to explain it in a very basic way, the Greek word pan = all. The Greek word theos = God). Therefore it literally means "God is All" and "All is God".
The Gnostics taught that the physical (material) is evil and the spiritual (non-material) is good. Thus, a good god (spiritual) could not have created a physical world, because good can not create evil (that is the spiritual would not create the physical). So the Gnostic god created a being (or a line of beings called aeons) removing himself from direct creation. One of these aeons, or gods, created the world. The so-called Christian Gnostics believed that Jesus was one of these aeons who created the world. Some Gnostic taught that Jesus did not have a physical body. When he walked on the earth, he left not footprints because he never really touched the earth (he being spiritual and the world physical). Others taught that only our spiritual bodies were important, so the physical body could engage in whatever acts they desired because only the spiritual body would be saved. Still other Gnostics taught that the physical body was so evil that it must be denied in order for the spiritual body to gain salvation, thus shunning marriage and certain foods ().
The influence of Gnosticism can be seen in some of the heresies of today. For example, many of the teachings stated above are found, in revised form, in the teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses. To the Jehovah's Witness, Jesus is a created god, not God manifest in the flesh. It is no wonder that the Watchtower's New World Translation changes "God was manifest in the flesh" in 1 and replaces it with "He was made manifest in flesh." In the TR Greek which underlies our King James Bible reads it reads yeov (theos) (God) <2316> efanerwyh (Ephanerothe) (was manifested/revealed) <5319> (5681) en (in) <1722> sarki (sarki) (the flesh) <4561>. However, the Greek text which underlines the NWT has made a change, so it is natural for the Jehovah Witnesses to choose the reading which reflects their false doctrine. What is interesting is that the NIV, NASB, ESV, and perhaps others says "He" instead of "God," thus following part of the Gnostic corruption. Why, because the NWT, NASB, NIV and, ESV have as their base the corrupt Alexandrian text.
http://deanburgonsociety.org/Versions/gnosticism.htm
"Gnosticism, in all of its varieties, was the most influential heresy faced by the early Church. Not only did the Gnostic corrupt many readings found in the New Testament, but offered their own writings as inspired scriptures, such as the The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Peter, The Gospel of Philip, The Gospel of Judas, The Gospel of the Ebionites, The Gospel of The Twelve, The Gospel According To The Hebrews (also called The Gospel According To Matthew, not to be confused with the real Gospel of Matthew), The Gospel According to the Egyptians, The Gospel of Mary (Magdalene), The Acts of Andrew, The Acts of Peter, The Acts of John, etc. Gnosticism had a variety of forms and sects, which broadened its base and growth. Historian Will Durant calls Gnosticism "the quest of godlike knowledge (gnosis) through mystic means" (The Story Of Civilization Vol. III, p. 604). Durant is correct. Gnosticism is thinly veiled Pantheism. Pantheism is the doctrine that identifies God with and in the whole universe, every particle, tree, table, animal, and person being are part of GOD. Or, to explain it in a very basic way, the Greek word pan = all. The Greek word theos = God). Therefore it literally means "God is All" and "All is God".
The Gnostics taught that the physical (material) is evil and the spiritual (non-material) is good. Thus, a good god (spiritual) could not have created a physical world, because good can not create evil (that is the spiritual would not create the physical). So the Gnostic god created a being (or a line of beings called aeons) removing himself from direct creation. One of these aeons, or gods, created the world. The so-called Christian Gnostics believed that Jesus was one of these aeons who created the world. Some Gnostic taught that Jesus did not have a physical body. When he walked on the earth, he left not footprints because he never really touched the earth (he being spiritual and the world physical). Others taught that only our spiritual bodies were important, so the physical body could engage in whatever acts they desired because only the spiritual body would be saved. Still other Gnostics taught that the physical body was so evil that it must be denied in order for the spiritual body to gain salvation, thus shunning marriage and certain foods ().
The influence of Gnosticism can be seen in some of the heresies of today. For example, many of the teachings stated above are found, in revised form, in the teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses. To the Jehovah's Witness, Jesus is a created god, not God manifest in the flesh. It is no wonder that the Watchtower's New World Translation changes "God was manifest in the flesh" in 1 and replaces it with "He was made manifest in flesh." In the TR Greek which underlies our King James Bible reads it reads yeov (theos) (God) <2316> efanerwyh (Ephanerothe) (was manifested/revealed) <5319> (5681) en (in) <1722> sarki (sarki) (the flesh) <4561>. However, the Greek text which underlines the NWT has made a change, so it is natural for the Jehovah Witnesses to choose the reading which reflects their false doctrine. What is interesting is that the NIV, NASB, ESV, and perhaps others says "He" instead of "God," thus following part of the Gnostic corruption. Why, because the NWT, NASB, NIV and, ESV have as their base the corrupt Alexandrian text.
http://deanburgonsociety.org/Versions/gnosticism.htm
And here is a good overview on the "these are the oldest thus best" idea:
"The oldest representatives of the "purely" Alexandrian group of texts are the two "great" uncials, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (Aleph and B, respectively). Both of these manuscripts date to the 4th century, with Vaticanus proffered as from the latter quarter of the century, and Sinaiticus being from around the middle of the century. Several scholars have even suggested that these uncials are two of the original 50 copies of the New Testament text which were made by Eusebius for official Church use at the behest of Emperor Constantine.5 Thus, the oldest pure Alexandrian manuscripts date to around 350 AD and after, nearly three centuries after the penning of the original autographs. The problem for the antiquity interpretation of the modern textual scholars which immediately arises is that corruption (both accidental and purposeful) in the New Testament text was greatest in the first two centuries after the revelation of the New Testament (roughly 80-200 AD). Scrivener argues that the worst corruption to strike the New Testament texts occurred within a century of their composition.6 Further, Colwell states that "The overwhelming majority of readings were created before the year 200..."7 It was during this period, while many books were still in the process of filtering out to Christian communities all across the Empire, that heretical texts would have been easiest to introduce and pass off as legitimate Scripture. Kilpatrick argues that with the advent of the 3rd century, it then became nearly impossible to change the text of the New Testament in a way which would have been either accepted or unnoticed by Christians at large, "Origen's treatment of Matt. 19:19 is significant in two other ways. First he was probably the most influential commentator of the Ancient Church and yet his conjecture at this point seems to have influenced only one manuscript of a local version of the New Testament. The Greek tradition is apparently unaffected by it. From the third century onward even an Origen could not effectively alter that text. "This brings us to the second significant point - his date.
From the early third century onward the freedom to alter the text which had obtained earlier can no longer be practiced. Tatian is the last author to make deliberate changes in the text of whom we have explicit information. Between Tatian and Origen Christian opinion had so changed that it was no longer possible to make changes in the text whether they were harmless or not."8 Thus, even by the 3rd century, and definitely by the fourth, the Scriptures were more thoroughly distributed and Christians were better able to compare texts and reject heretical manuscripts. Once the faithfulness in transmission for the texts had solidified, the issue then becomes one of competing textual lines, between which Christians of that age had to choose. This is where the age of the Alexandrian exemplars actually works to the detriment of modern theories based upon antiquity.
What needs to be understood about the ancient manuscripts is that there were basically two types of media for texts - vellum and papyrus. Neither of these media are especially durable. Vellum (dried skins of sheep or other animals) was more rugged and expensive, and was used in the copies of the Scriptures held for "official" use by the churches, and by more wealthy individuals. Both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are vellum manuscripts, and as such, were probably intended for use in Christian assemblies or liturgy. However, vellum scrolls will wear out over time through use and need to be replaced (just as a well-used Bible today will tend to do). Back in the day, they did not have rebinding services like we have for Bibles to give added years to the life of a scroll, so the scroll had to be transcribed into a new manuscript....
The obvious point to all this, then, is: "why are such old exemplars even still in existence and in the relatively good condition which they are, since they are over fifteen centuries old?" The answer suggested by numerous scholars such as Van Bruggen, Pickering, and others is that these scrolls are in good condition despite their age because they were never used... " http://www.verhoevenmarc.be/PDF/GnosticCorruptions.pdf
"The oldest representatives of the "purely" Alexandrian group of texts are the two "great" uncials, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (Aleph and B, respectively). Both of these manuscripts date to the 4th century, with Vaticanus proffered as from the latter quarter of the century, and Sinaiticus being from around the middle of the century. Several scholars have even suggested that these uncials are two of the original 50 copies of the New Testament text which were made by Eusebius for official Church use at the behest of Emperor Constantine.5 Thus, the oldest pure Alexandrian manuscripts date to around 350 AD and after, nearly three centuries after the penning of the original autographs. The problem for the antiquity interpretation of the modern textual scholars which immediately arises is that corruption (both accidental and purposeful) in the New Testament text was greatest in the first two centuries after the revelation of the New Testament (roughly 80-200 AD). Scrivener argues that the worst corruption to strike the New Testament texts occurred within a century of their composition.6 Further, Colwell states that "The overwhelming majority of readings were created before the year 200..."7 It was during this period, while many books were still in the process of filtering out to Christian communities all across the Empire, that heretical texts would have been easiest to introduce and pass off as legitimate Scripture. Kilpatrick argues that with the advent of the 3rd century, it then became nearly impossible to change the text of the New Testament in a way which would have been either accepted or unnoticed by Christians at large, "Origen's treatment of Matt. 19:19 is significant in two other ways. First he was probably the most influential commentator of the Ancient Church and yet his conjecture at this point seems to have influenced only one manuscript of a local version of the New Testament. The Greek tradition is apparently unaffected by it. From the third century onward even an Origen could not effectively alter that text. "This brings us to the second significant point - his date.
From the early third century onward the freedom to alter the text which had obtained earlier can no longer be practiced. Tatian is the last author to make deliberate changes in the text of whom we have explicit information. Between Tatian and Origen Christian opinion had so changed that it was no longer possible to make changes in the text whether they were harmless or not."8 Thus, even by the 3rd century, and definitely by the fourth, the Scriptures were more thoroughly distributed and Christians were better able to compare texts and reject heretical manuscripts. Once the faithfulness in transmission for the texts had solidified, the issue then becomes one of competing textual lines, between which Christians of that age had to choose. This is where the age of the Alexandrian exemplars actually works to the detriment of modern theories based upon antiquity.
What needs to be understood about the ancient manuscripts is that there were basically two types of media for texts - vellum and papyrus. Neither of these media are especially durable. Vellum (dried skins of sheep or other animals) was more rugged and expensive, and was used in the copies of the Scriptures held for "official" use by the churches, and by more wealthy individuals. Both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are vellum manuscripts, and as such, were probably intended for use in Christian assemblies or liturgy. However, vellum scrolls will wear out over time through use and need to be replaced (just as a well-used Bible today will tend to do). Back in the day, they did not have rebinding services like we have for Bibles to give added years to the life of a scroll, so the scroll had to be transcribed into a new manuscript....
The obvious point to all this, then, is: "why are such old exemplars even still in existence and in the relatively good condition which they are, since they are over fifteen centuries old?" The answer suggested by numerous scholars such as Van Bruggen, Pickering, and others is that these scrolls are in good condition despite their age because they were never used... " http://www.verhoevenmarc.be/PDF/GnosticCorruptions.pdf
How many people on here are actually reading all of this stuff? Help us dear Lord to seek your face!
"When thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, LORD, will I seek." Psalm 27:8
"When thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, LORD, will I seek." Psalm 27:8
I really think cares much about vindication, all he cares about is mans salvation, which is all we should care about, getting His truth, not ours to teh masses and teh religious.
Hidden In Him
Well-Known Member
LoL. ReChoired posts a lot like THBE used to. Pages upon pages. Unfortunately he hasn't posted a thing on a simple little thread I directed him to yet... must be a curve ball he's never seen before, so he doesn't want to swing at it.
I think Oz appears to be right. He's neck-deep in conspiracy theory, and tunnel-visioning in the extreme.
I have nothing against a person who is able to, to then goes ahead and studies things in depth like that, but I fail to see a meaningful purpose to posting it all here on an open forum blindly. Of the few who might have the ability to understand all of that stuff, probably only a handful would also have the time to even simply read it. The best writing in the world is certainly worthless to those who don't read it for whatever reason.
Myself, for a short period, I might be able to follow some of it, but I tire easily so that would soon wear me down to the point where soon my reading comprehension would be nil.
My time for God is also important for me as I believe He wants my time and He does lead my studies. I am here on this thread I believe to write this. Will anyone understand and agree with what I am saying?
This the way I have been on forums for many years. Perhaps his church group gives him brownie points of kind for posting it all?
Similar threads
