In the year 1707, John Mill shattered all faith in the infallibility of the Bible by demonstrating 30,000 various readings which were produced from 80 manuscripts. The findings of, first Mill, and then Wetstein (1751), proved once and for all that the variations in the biblical texts, many of which were quite serious, had existed from the earliest of times.
In the Preface to the Revised Standard Version of the bible this notable statement is made regarding the need for a revision of the English translation: "Yet the King James Version has grave defects... was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus".
One of the oldest copies of the Bible which dates back to the fifth century is the Codex Bezae, of which the Britannica writes: "Codex Bezae… has a text that is very different from other witnesses. Codex Bezae has many distinctive longer and shorter readings and seems almost to be a separate edition. Its 'Acts, for example, is one-tenth longer than usual’". How can we have a Bible that is said to be "almost… a separate edition"? If this is true, it is important for us to know which edition is the correct one? And in answering this question, we must also determine the criteria we should employ in our effort to choose which of these separate editions we should use in our Bible translations? The traditional answer to this question is very simple -- i.e., we choose the biblical texts that support our doctrines of belief, and reject the texts that do not -- but is this the means by which we are able to be certain that we have chosen the correct edition?
Regarding this serious problem presented by Codex Bezae, Dr. Vincent Taylor writes that: "It is characterized by a series of remarkable omissions in Luke, especially in chapters XXII and XXIV, and by many striking additions and variations in the Acts" (The Text of the New Testament, Dr. Vincent Taylor). How would these "remarkable omissions" and "striking additions and variations" effect our doctrines of belief? We don't know, because we only translate what supports church doctrine and agrees with what we want to believe. From a biblical perspective, this is not only spiritually dishonest, but could well be detrimental to our spiritual well-being!
Do we need more proof? Further evidence that has been preserved for us in our evaluation of the passages of scripture pertaining to the little ones is seen in the fact that, in his commentary, Origen makes no mention of the inserted verses: "Teacher, we saw one casting out demons in thy name; and we forbade him, because he followed not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man who shall do a mighty work in my name, and be able quickly to speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us". Why wouldn’t Origen comment on the placement of these verses? In view of the facts, it is a no brainer to conclude that this separate and alien teaching does not belong in the middle of the Lord's discourse pertaining to children. If these verses were present in the scriptures that Origen used in the second and third century, then he would have noted them when he compared the differences between Matthew, Mark and Luke in his commentary on Matthew, which we still have today.
Going still one step further: As with all writings pertinent to the Christian religion, even the copy of Origen's Commentary of Matthew has verses removed, as can be seen in the following:
And next to that He says, that "He," - Jesus to-wit - "took a little child, and set him in the midst of His own disciples, and taking him in His arms, He said unto them, Whosoever shall receive one of the little children in My name receiveth Me." But what was the little child which Jesus took and placed in His arms, according to the deeper meaning in the passage?
it the Holy Spirit? And to this little child, indeed, some were likened, of whom He said, "Whosoever shall receive one of such little children in My name receiveth Me." According to Luke, however, the reasoning did not arise spontaneously in the disciples, but was suggested to them by the question, "which of them should be greatest."
One of the most common biblical manuscripts used to make our modern English translations is known today as the Nestle Text.
The Nestle text is not a manuscript. It is a printed edition. Actually it's many printed editions, by now somewhere around the 28th edition. And over the years the text has changed a bit. If memory serves, the first edition, around the beginning of the 20th century, had as its "main text" the text synthesized in 1880 by Westcott and Hort from a few of the earliest codices -- not because Nestle necessarily agreed with Westcott & Hort, whose particular method had actually been undermined by subsequent paleographic discoveries, but simply because that text was probably the most popular scholarly edition of that time. But the crucial element of Nestle's editions is that about a third of each page is packed with the variant readings of hundreds of other sources -- various kinds of Greek manuscripts going back to the second century and early medieval versions in Latin, Ethiopic, Gothic, etc.
By now the Nestle edition, which is periodically revised and printed by a Bible Society in Germany, uses as its main text the main text of the current edition (I think now up to the fourth or fifth ed.) of the United Bible Society, although the running notes of the two editions are worked up differently.
About 99% of the text of the New Testament is very solidly supported and not the least doubted or disputed. It's that remaining one percent that seems to get all the attention.
As for the KJV, it was not based on any one edition of the Greek New Testament. At the time the KJV was worked up, there were more than a hundred different Greek NT editions available, about twenty leading editions among them, and at hundreds of places the editions differed among themselves. The KJV follows no one edition, and some of its readings do not come from any Greek edition but perhaps from the Latin Vulgate. No Greek printed edition nor manuscript agrees completely with the KJV text.
Location: judicial district of tens: milwaukee the county: yisra'el nation.
Posts: 2,617
A THREAT TO ROME
In addition to being a threat to the king of England, the Geneva Bible was outspokenly anti-Roman Catholic, as one might expect. Rome was still persecuting Protestants in the sixteenth century. Keep in mind that the English translators were exiles from a nation that was returning to the Catholic faith under a queen who was burning Protestants at the stake. The anti-Roman Catholic sentiment is most evident in the Book of Revelation: "The beast that cometh out of the bottomless pit (Rev. 11:7) is the Pope, which hath his power out of hell and cometh thence." In the end, the Geneva Bible was replaced by the King James Version, but not before it helped to settle America.
Location: judicial district of tens: milwaukee the county: yisra'el nation.
Posts: 2,617
One of the greatest ironies of history, is that many Protestant Christian churches today embrace the King James Bible exclusively as the “only” legitimate English language translation… yet it is not even a Protestant translation! It was printed to compete with the Protestant Geneva Bible, by authorities who throughout most of history were hostile to Protestants… and killed them. While many Protestants are quick to assign the full blame of persecution to the Roman Catholic Church, it should be noted that even after England broke from Roman Catholicism in the 1500’s, the Church of England (The Anglican Church) continued to persecute Protestants throughout the 1600’s. One famous example of this is John Bunyan, who while in prison for the crime of preaching the Gospel, wrote one of Christian history’s greatest books, Pilgrim’s Progress. Throughout the 1600’s, as the Puritans and the Pilgrims fled the religious persecution of England to cross the Atlantic and start a new free nation in America, they took with them their precious Geneva Bible, and rejected the King’s Bible. America was founded upon the Geneva Bible, not the King James Bible. http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-en...bible-history/
It should be explained whether you mean the Roman Catholic church.
I presume that "Roman Catholic" is your intent, from the common usage of "Catholic," but the word Catholic means:
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) cath·o·lic [kath-uh-lik, kath-lik] –adjective
1.broad or wide-ranging in tastes, interests, or the like; having sympathies with all; broad-minded; liberal. 2.universal in extent; involving all; of interest to all. 3.pertaining to the whole Christian body or church.
Not trying to be a smart ass. Just wanting the specificity of "Roman" added, if intended.
__________________ BEFORE YOU HIRE A LAWYER, READ THIS!
In The Nazarene Gospel Revealed by Robert Graves and Joshua Podro Catholic is the name of the Herodian cashiers/bankers that Judas reported Jesus' wherabouts to.
Quote:
DECAY DiKHeeY
DE-KHEE____________________[D-KH-Y]
ROOTS: DECAY is traced to Latin decidere (to fall down, fall away). This term is from de(down) + cadere (to fall), and the IE root kad (to fall).
(...) DIKHE means fall or ACCIDENT; (...) DEKHE is translated "stumbling" in Psalms 116:8. The D and K don't reverse in all the "fall" words of English and Hebrew, as (...) KOD(AD) is to bow down.
BRANCHES: Cognates of DECAY under IE kad (to fall) include ACCIDENT, CADAVER, CADENCE, CADENT, CASCADE, CASE, CHANCE, CHUTE, DECADENCE, DECIDUOUS, ESCHEAT, INCIDENT, OCCASION and RECIDIVISM.
Greek kata (down) should link up with the Hebrew terms above, as well as with (...) TAKHAT (under, below -TK >KT). This would yield the many CATA- words, from CATABOLIC and CATACLYSM to CATHODE and CATHOLIC. At CATHOLIC the dictionary reveals a second meaning for Greek kata- completely. This recalls AKHAT HE (it is all one and the same).
Just the same, the premise of the topic is that all bibles are corrupt? I like the Nazarene Gospel's style of rebuilding the original Gospels out of time's corruption. It finds all seemingly related verses, analyzes commonality and discards most parts that cannot be verified elsewhere. The resurrection of Lazarus is a great example:
And then there is the Gospel of Thomas if you want to analyze corruption. In the 1950's a cave copy of Thomas was found that verified the Gospel of Thomas has survived - probably because it was so unpopular with the early corruptions, nearly intact. Until recently, scholars were never sure they were reconstructing the segments completely.
It is of course offensive to many social Christians but it seems fitting here, since the corruptions of the Bible are the topic.
Regards,
David Merrill.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoonra
It is worth noting that the fealty to the Pope, which you cited for its explicit mention of the Templar abbey in Dover, is the legal basis for the invalidation of the Magna Carta after it was sealed at Runnymede.
During discussion about the Treaty of 1213 and the Magna Charta (1215).
