Why are there so many versions of the Bible?

[Stranger]

And your typical strategy of denial in light of the historical facts is noted.
You just can't argue with history . . .

Again, the doxology is found in the majority of the Greek manuscripts. That is no argument.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

"three times a day," lol. yikes.

Do you have a problem praising God and asking for His help 3 times a day - or do you just like "lol-ing"??

 

[BreadOfLife]

Again, the doxology is found in the majority of the Greek manuscripts. That is no argument.

Stranger

The mere fact that YOU admit it is a "doxology" illustrates that it is not part of Scripture.
Doxology is a liturgical expression of praise to God.

Thanks for admitting that . . .

 

[bbyrd009]

Do you have a problem praising God and asking for His help 3 times a day - or do you just like "lol-ing"??

hmm, couldn't imagine restricting myself to 3 times a day, was all. Please don't take it personally; i think all religious people are nuts, ok.

 

[Stranger]

The mere fact that YOU admit it is a "doxology" illustrates that it is not part of Scripture.
Doxology is a liturgical expression of praise to God.

Thanks for admitting that . . .

I don't mind calling it the doxology. The point is it is found in the majority of Greek manuscripts and is Scripture. Like the 'beatitudes' or 'sermon on the mount' etc.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

I don't mind calling it the doxology. The point is it is found in the majority of Greek manuscripts and is Scripture. Like the 'beatitudes' or 'sermon on the mount' etc.

Stranger

No - the Sermon on the Mount wasn't a mere footnote written on the side of a page by an ancient Catholic scribe . . .

 

[Stranger]

No - the Sermon on the Mount wasn't a mere footnote written on the side of a page by an ancient Catholic scribe . . .

Neither was the doxology in most Greek manuscripts.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

Neither was the doxology in most Greek manuscripts.

Stranger

. . . copied by Catholic scribes, who left the footnotes in the, margins.

Again - you just can't argue with the historical facts . . .

 

[Stranger]

. . . copied by Catholic scribes, who left the footnotes in the, margins.

Again - you just can't argue with the historical facts . . .

Again, the doxology is found in the majority of the Greek texts.

Tell me, what is or are the exact quote that the scribe left in his margins?

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

Again, the doxology is found in the majority of the Greek texts.

Tell me, what is or are the exact quote that the scribe left in his margins?

Stranger

Like I said - we can't argue with history - but you CAN argue with corrupted manuscripts.

You need to do a little homework and study the 1st century document, The Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles) - which is was the earliest catechism the people had LONG before the Canon of the Bible.was declared. As a matter of fact - it was considered inspired Scripture in the Early Church. In it, you'll see MANY things that are rejected by Protestants today - and you'll see the doxology that the KJV added to Matt. 6:13.

Frankly - I don't have a problem with the doxology. We Catholics recite it at every mass.
My purpose was to show you that the KJV is not without its faults . . .

 

[Stranger]

Like I said - we can't argue with history - but you CAN argue with corrupted manuscripts.

You need to do a little homework and study the 1st century document, The Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles) - which is was the earliest catechism the people had LONG before the Canon of the Bible.was declared. As a matter of fact - it was considered inspired Scripture in the Early Church. In it, you'll see MANY things that are rejected by Protestants today - and you'll see the doxology that the KJV added to Matt. 6:13.

Frankly - I don't have a problem with the doxology. We Catholics recite it at every mass.
My purpose was to show you that the KJV is not without its faults . . .

Again, the doxology is found in the majority of Greek manuscripts.

You're the one who brought up this 'scribal quote' left in a margin. So, tell me exactly what the quote said.

Stranger

 

[bbyrd009]

Do you have a problem praising God and asking for His help 3 times a day - or do you just like "lol-ing"??

hopefully you can see how this is the father of obsessive/compulsive disorders, yes? Not Scriptural of course; not even trying. Anti-Scriptural. Anti-Christ.

 

[BreadOfLife]

hopefully you can see how this is the father of obsessive/compulsive disorders, yes? Not Scriptural of course; not even trying. Anti-Scriptural. Anti-Christ.

Please enlighten me how praying the Lord's Prayer 3 times a day is "Anti-Scriptural".

Do you understand what "anti-Scriptural" means??
It means something that repudiates Scripture.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Again, the doxology is found in the majority of Greek manuscripts.

You're the one who brought up this 'scribal quote' left in a margin. So, tell me exactly what the quote said.

Stranger

Judging by the fact that it is an almost verbatim quote from The Didache - it can be deduced with even a modicum of logic that it is from . . . drumroll please . . . The Didache.

But, YOU can continue to live in denial . . .

 

[bbyrd009]

Please enlighten me how praying the Lord's Prayer 3 times a day is "Anti-Scriptural".

Do you understand what "anti-Scriptural" means??
It means something that repudiates Scripture.

exactly. I know it sounds very pious on the surface, ok, and i am not arguing that 3 times a day is better than none. But what i am saying is that it is an arbitrary number, not found in Scripture, and strictly a religious convention that has nothing whatsoever to do with Christ or the Bible.

Eph 6:18
1Thess 5:17
et al

 

[epostle1]

Again, the doxology is found in the majority of Greek manuscripts.

You're the one who brought up this 'scribal quote' left in a margin. So, tell me exactly what the quote said.

Stranger

Missing:
two earliest Greek witnesses of Matthew 6:13 - Sinaiticus and Vaticanus both from the 4th century.
Origen, Tertullian and Cyprian, not used
Vulgate, the Douay-Rheims, the Confraternity Edition, and the New American Bibles

The absence of the doxology in early Alexandrian manuscripts poses no problem to the belief in its authenticity. Origen, a 3rd century Church father from Alexandria, wrote a commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. He makes no mention of the textual variant at Matthew 6:13 but makes a point which should caution us from taking readings found in a few Alexandrian manuscripts at face value.
"older" does not mean "more reliable".
http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/is-the-doxology-to-the-lords-prayer-in-matthew-613-a-late-addition
Found:
Codex Washingtonensis from the 4th to 5th century.
majority of Byzantine manuscripts

Please provide a list of these "majority of Greek manuscripts". Greek Byzantine manuscripts include the Deuterocanonical books so you can't refer to those.


During the reign of Edward VI, the Book of Common Prayer (1549 and 1552 editions) of the Church of England did not change the wording of the Our Father nor add the doxology. However, during the reign of Elizabeth I and a resurgence to rid the Church of England from any Catholic vestiges, the Lord's Prayer was changed to include the doxology.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DOXOLOG.HTM

You can search the Council of Trent from front to back, and nowhere does it close or alter the canon of Scripture. The Church closed the DISCUSSION, she merely reaffirmed the same canon of the Council of Florence (1483) which reaffirmed the same canon of the North African Councils (397) and there the Pope affirmed the Canon of Hippo. In 787, Nicea II reaffirmed the authority of these councils. In 418, the canons of the 16 North African Councils were declared official Church teaching by the Pope.

Nobody has the right to amputate limbs from the written Word of God.

 

[Stranger]

Judging by the fact that it is an almost verbatim quote from The Didache - it can be deduced with even a modicum of logic that it is from . . . drumroll please . . . The Didache.

But, YOU can continue to live in denial . . .

Oh. logic.

Tell me exactly what the scribal quote said. Can you find it and read it somewhere?

Stranger

 

[Phoneman777]

The reason for so many versions is because corrupt ancient MSS from the RCC and Alexandrian - the capitol of occultism - are presumed to be the "best" while the true MSS which find their origin in the place where Christianity was born are said by "scholars" to be the worst.

Every new version of the NT is based on the corrupt "Critical Text", the champion the the RCC long awaited to come along and destroy the Textus Receptus of the Protestant Reformation, which is derived from such a minuscule pile of MSS which are set apart from the VAST MAJORITY of ancient MSS which support the "Textus Receptus" NT simply because these corrupt MSS have the distinction of being the oldest MSS we have.


"Then the Bible, that serpent which with head erect and eyes flashing as it threatens us (the Jesuits) with its venom while it trails along the ground, shall be changed into a rod as soon as we are able to seize it...for three centuries past (From 16th century Luther to 19th century Protestantism) this cruel asp has left us no repose. You well know with what folds it entwines us and with what fangs it gnaws us." The Jesuits in History



But, older doesn't mean "best", it just means "older", and since Paul said they were corrupting the Word of God in his day, we should revisit this ridiculous claim that "since certain verses do not appear in our darling Critical Text which appear later in the Textus Receptus, then the Textus Receptus must be have ADDED them."

If that's true, then why do letters from the Early Church Fathers WHICH ARE OLDER THAN ANY BIBLE MSS ON RECORD contain references to verses that appear in the Textus Receptus BUT NOT in the Critical Text? The only explanation is that the Critical Text discarded verses and is guilty of "taking away from the Word of God".

 

[epostle1]

Oh. logic.

Tell me exactly what the scribal quote said. Can you find it and read it somewhere?

Stranger

I don't know if you are asking a question or being a dumb smartass.

Didache:
Chapter 8. Fasting and Prayer (the Lord's Prayer). But let not your fasts be with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and fifth day of the week. Rather, fast on the fourth day and the Preparation (Friday). Do not pray like the hypocrites, but rather as the Lord commanded in His Gospel, like this:
Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily (needful) bread, and forgive us our debt as we also forgive our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one (or, evil); for Thine is the power and the glory for ever..
Pray this three times each day.

Greek:
VIII
1. Αἱ δὲ νηστεῖαι ὑμῶν μὴ ἔστωσαν μετὰ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν. νηστεύουσι γὰρ δευτέρα σαββάτων καὶ πέμτῃ· ὑμεῖς δὲ νηστεύσατε τετράδα καὶ παρασκευήν. 2. μηδὲ προσεύχεσθε ὡς οἱ ὑποκριταί, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐκέλευσεν ὁ κύριος ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ αὐτοῦ, οὕτω προσεύχεσθε· Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου, ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου, γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς· τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸ ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν, ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφίεμεν τοῖς οφειλέταις ἡμῶν, καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ· ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. 3. τρὶς τῆς ἡμέρας οὕτω προσεύχεσθε.

google search: About 558,000 results for "Didache". The doxology was added by the "all holy and infallible scripture scholar" Queen Elizabeth I, as a shot against Catholics, even though it was EXCLUDED by the same monarchy by King Edward. That's why it's in the "flawless" KJV of 1611, with 30,000 "accidental" errors in it.

The Church is the custodian of Scripture, and she was just doing her job keeping it pure, even though the doxology is found in the liturgy that predates any Protestant Bible by 1450 years. It's a big fuss about nothing IMO.

Why do Protestants cling to one phrase of the Didache that predates ANY Greek manuscript, (50-120 AD) but ignore everything else in it?

 

[mjrhealth]

The Church is the custodian of Scripture, and she was just doing her job keeping it pure, even though the doxology is found in the liturgy that predates any Protestant Bible by 1450 years. It's a big fuss about nothing IMO.

Not yours still trying to give false impressions. This is about so many differnt version, why simply because man made it that way. Look at God in teh old testament, a murdering spitefull so and so, compared to Jesus in the new testament, loving Kind wouldnt swat a fly, yet he came to show God, somethings wrong and its not God...