THE REASON THE NEWER BIBLES DIFFER FROM THE KJV IS DUE TO GNOSTIC CHANGES

[Ronald Nolette]

I just thought of another factor. These texts arent duplicates. Each Gnostic sect had their own doctrines which were reflected in their texts. Sects concentrated on certain books of the Bible as well

There is no recorded history of the gnostics copying any books of the bible. They quoted and misquoted Scripture, but did not copy books of the bible. they had their own gospels and epistles.

Yes they did have different beliefs but were all not found in teh bible at all!




Like
Dislike

Diverse Doctrines Among Gnostic Sects​

Yes — the Gnostic sects were not a single, uniform movement, but rather a collection of distinct groups with many different doctrines, mythologies, and interpretations of salvation Wikipedia+1.

Why the Doctrines Differed​

Gnosticism emerged in the early centuries CE as a broad umbrella term for various religious and philosophical systems that shared a focus on gnosis (spiritual knowledge) as the path to salvation. However, each sect developed its own cosmology, theology, and practices, often influenced by local religious traditions, Hellenistic philosophy, and Jewish-Christian thought Reality Pathing+1.

Examples of Diverse Beliefs​

• Sethian Gnosticism: Emphasized a dualistic worldview with a transcendent God and a flawed Demiurge who created the material world. Salvation came through divine knowledge imparted by a heavenly figure Reality Pathing.
• Valentinianism: Synthesized Christian themes with Platonic emanation theory, positing a complex hierarchy of divine beings (aeons) in the Pleroma Reality Pathing.
• Marcionism: Rejected the Old Testament and much of Christian tradition, teaching that the true God sent a divine Son who did not become fully human www.earlychristiancommentary.com.
• Basilideans: Believed in a divine spark within each person, with salvation through knowledge of the true God Wikipedia.
• 
  
• Mandaeans: A later Gnostic-influenced sect blending Jewish-Christian ideas with baptismal rites and a cosmic struggle between light and darkness Wikipedia.
  

  These Alexandrian texts made specific changes to scripture
  Who in Alexandria taught Jesus was just a man given the Christ until he was crucified?

  Show which changes this old MSS made to existing MSS.
• You tell me who taught Jesus was just a man. Sounds almost like the material in teh shepherd of Hermas.

 

[MonoBiblical]

1. Sorry but the cursives are younger and are very very limited. Cursive writing was mostly for everyday use and not copying large mss.

There is no proof that uncial script is an old Greek script. And cursive is just fine for scripta continua.

2.Wrong again. there are only a few ancinet coptic mss and they date concurrent with koine mss.

Where is the radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon dating is subject, but going without is much more so.

3. Unless the parchment written on or the ink was organic material C-14 dating is impossible.

Then close dating it impossible. But they are worthless and should be dated on the basis of their own fraudulence.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

There is no proof that uncial script is an old Greek script. And cursive is just fine for scripta continua.

Google is your friend. Any bible website that has a section of biblical history will tell you as well. uncials were a common writing style before the NT was written.

Where is the radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon dating is subject, but going without is much more so.

Already answered and shown why mss. cannot be dated by C-14

Then close dating it impossible. But they are worthless and should be dated on the basis of their own fraudulence.

Well we shall use your standardc to trash your "mss evidence". Without C-14 dating then close dating is impossible and your beloved evidence could be fraudulent.

 

[MonoBiblical]

Google is your friend. Any bible website that has a section of biblical history will tell you as well. uncials were a common writing style before the NT was written.

Already answered and shown why mss. cannot be dated by C-14

Well we shall use your standardc to trash your "mss evidence". Without C-14 dating then close dating is impossible and your beloved evidence could be fraudulent.

As I suspected, there is no proof the Majuscule codices are old.

 

[Justified]

If that's what you think, then I don't think you understood what you read there.

I have understood it and your explanation of what they state in the quite goes far beyond that they actually state.

Takes a bit of hubris to think you have the thought of every Biblical writer all the time.

Once again, you are going far beyond what is actually stated.

I'm not in the King-James-Only camp. I'm not tearing down the NIV to prop up the KJV.

I'm tearing down the NIV because it's bad and deserves to be torn down.

It seems to me that just as you are reading your own ideas into the NIV preface quotes, you are likely reading things into the NIV itself, and so think it is a bad translation when it isn’t.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

As I suspected, there is no proof the Majuscule codices are old.

well they are the oldest known manuscripts we have. We have no proof there are any older ones in eistence. All we have is the John ryland papyri of a portion of the gospel of JOhn from the 1st century, and biblical quotes from the ante-niocene fathers which highy suport the oldest manuscripts we have- alexandrius, Sinaiticu and Vaticanus.

 

[MonoBiblical]

well they are the oldest known manuscripts we have. We have no proof there are any older ones in eistence. All we have is the John ryland papyri of a portion of the gospel of JOhn from the 1st century, and biblical quotes from the ante-niocene fathers which highy suport the oldest manuscripts we have- alexandrius, Sinaiticu and Vaticanus.

OLD in what way?

 

[Wick Stick]

I just thought of another factor. These texts arent duplicates. Each Gnostic sect had their own doctrines which were reflected in their texts. Sects concentrated on certain books of the Bible as well

Doug, you need to read more about what the Gnostics believed. Most of them were unconcerned about Christianity or the Bible.

Alexandria may have been a hub of gnosticism, but it was ALSO a hub of Christianity AND Judaism. In the 2nd century, it had the 2nd largest Jewish population in the world. It was a big place. Just because those people were in the same spot doesn't mean that they were interacting.

 

[MonoBiblical]

If the Gnostics didnt write it somebody in Alexandria did. Their changes reflect some of their teachings

What did you think of this
IF YOU ARE AMONG THOSE WHO SAY THERE ARE SCRIBAL ERRORS IN THE KJV, PLEASE READ THIS

I think Roman Catholic and perhaps liberal Lutheran forgeries.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

OLD in what way?

You really don't know? They are the oldest mss of the NT that are available.

 

[MonoBiblical]

You really don't know? They are the oldest mss of the NT that are available.

I doubt that.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I doubt that.

Google is your friend here. Just look it up and don't take my word for it.




Like
Dislike



The oldest surviving New Testament manuscripts are primarily papyrus fragments dating from the 2nd and 3rd centuries, with P52 being the earliest known fragment.

Earliest Papyrus Fragments​

• P52 (Rylands Library Papyrus P52): A small fragment of the Gospel of John, generally dated to around 125 A.D., making it the earliest known New Testament manuscript fragment. It contains a few verses from John 18 and was discovered in Egypt, preserved due to the arid climate.
  
  1
• P46: Dated to around 200 A.D., this papyrus contains most of Paul’s epistles (excluding the pastoral letters) and includes the book of Hebrews, demonstrating early acceptance of Pauline authorship.
  
  1
• P45: Part of the Chester Beatty Papyri, dating to the 3rd century, containing portions of the Gospels and Acts.
  
  1
• P47: Also from the Chester Beatty collection, this papyrus contains the Book of Revelation and is dated to the 3rd century.
  
  1
• P66 and P75: Bodmer Papyri containing the Gospels of John, Luke, and portions of other Gospels, dating from the 3rd century, providing more complete texts for scholarly study.
  
  2
• 
  
  
  
  
  
  2 Sources

Early Codices​

• Codex Vaticanus (B): A nearly complete 4th-century Greek manuscript of the Bible, held in the Vatican Library. It is one of the most important sources for establishing the New Testament text.
  
  1
• Codex Sinaiticus (ℵ): Another 4th-century manuscript, discovered at the Monastery of St. Catherine in Sinai, Egypt. It contains the complete New Testament and is a key reference for textual criticism.
  
  1
• Codex Alexandrinus (A): A 5th-century manuscript, almost complete, providing additional early textual evidence.
  https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=61ee...hcHlydXMvdGV4dHMvbWFudXNjcmlwdHMuaHRtbA&ntb=1
  See, they are the oldest complete NT manuscripts and not just partials or fragmentshttps://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=61ee...hcHlydXMvdGV4dHMvbWFudXNjcmlwdHMuaHRtbA&ntb=1

 

[MonoBiblical]

Google is your friend here. Just look it up and don't take my word for it.



Like
Dislike



The oldest surviving New Testament manuscripts are primarily papyrus fragments dating from the 2nd and 3rd centuries, with P52 being the earliest known fragment.

Earliest Papyrus Fragments​

• P52 (Rylands Library Papyrus P52): A small fragment of the Gospel of John, generally dated to around 125 A.D., making it the earliest known New Testament manuscript fragment. It contains a few verses from John 18 and was discovered in Egypt, preserved due to the arid climate.
  
  1
• P46: Dated to around 200 A.D., this papyrus contains most of Paul’s epistles (excluding the pastoral letters) and includes the book of Hebrews, demonstrating early acceptance of Pauline authorship.
  
  1
• P45: Part of the Chester Beatty Papyri, dating to the 3rd century, containing portions of the Gospels and Acts.
  
  1
• P47: Also from the Chester Beatty collection, this papyrus contains the Book of Revelation and is dated to the 3rd century.
  
  1
• P66 and P75: Bodmer Papyri containing the Gospels of John, Luke, and portions of other Gospels, dating from the 3rd century, providing more complete texts for scholarly study.
  
  2
• 
  
  
  
  
  
  2 Sources

Early Codices​

• Codex Vaticanus (B): A nearly complete 4th-century Greek manuscript of the Bible, held in the Vatican Library. It is one of the most important sources for establishing the New Testament text.
  
  1
• Codex Sinaiticus (ℵ): Another 4th-century manuscript, discovered at the Monastery of St. Catherine in Sinai, Egypt. It contains the complete New Testament and is a key reference for textual criticism.
  
  1
• Codex Alexandrinus (A): A 5th-century manuscript, almost complete, providing additional early textual evidence.
  https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=61ee...hcHlydXMvdGV4dHMvbWFudXNjcmlwdHMuaHRtbA&ntb=1
  See, they are the oldest complete NT manuscripts and not just partials or fragmentshttps://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=61ee...hcHlydXMvdGV4dHMvbWFudXNjcmlwdHMuaHRtbA&ntb=1

I find the Coptic script suspect, and without carbon dating, you cannot prove it is old.

 

[ElieG12]

There were several major English Bible translations before the 1611 King James Version (KJV). Key versions included the Wycliffe Bible (1380s), Tyndale New Testament (1526), Coverdale Bible (1535), Geneva Bible (1560), and the Bishops' Bible(1568). The KJV was actually a revision of these earlier works, particularly the Bishops' Bible and the Geneva Bible.

 

[OneGospel]

There were several major English Bible translations before the 1611 King James Version (KJV). Key versions included the Wycliffe Bible (1380s), Tyndale New Testament (1526), Coverdale Bible (1535), Geneva Bible (1560), and the Bishops' Bible(1568). The KJV was actually a revision of these earlier works, particularly the Bishops' Bible and the Geneva Bible.

Some people may find this helpful

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I find the Coptic script suspect, and without carbon dating, you cannot prove it is old.

whatever. I think we have beat this subject to death enough. You do not accept what millions do based on the way they date manuscripts, but do not have evidence to prove it is not old.

And C-14 cannot be done on the manuscript, it is not organic.

 

[MonoBiblical]

but do not have evidence to prove it is not old.

You don't have any evidence that they were direct copies from someone whose 1st language was Greek. None the majuscules and papyri conform to the minuscule text.

Better yet, there is no proof that the script or the manuscripts are old.

 

[MonoBiblical]

And C-14 cannot be done on the manuscript, it is not organic.

Wood is not organic enough?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

You don't have any evidence that they were direct copies from someone whose 1st language was Greek. None the majuscules and papyri conform to the minuscule text.

Better yet, there is no proof that the script or the manuscripts are old.

And you have no proof they are not! I can play the same game as you! And if they are not copies of a previous manuscript, Mr I know better, what are they??"????????????????????

Wood is not organic enough?

The codices you are reviling were not written on wood.

The process to try to date by C-14 ancinet parchemtrns and papyri makes it nigh impossible to get any date from them that is accurate.

 

[MonoBiblical]

And you have no proof they are not!

There is a lot of circumstantial evidence, that they are young. But I would need all the historical documents about how they were found, and their extreme number of variants. These are much more than you would find credited in English or, printed with apparatus, Greek bible.

It is too much study for me to do it justice.