100% or 95-98%?

Codeces Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the two oldest MSS we have that contain Mt. 27:49. For Mt. 27:49, they read:

"But the rest said, 'Wait, let us if Elijah will come and save him. But another took a spear and pierced his side, and water and blood came out."

Answer carefully, based on your above statement, the "earliest manuscripts are 100% the word of God." Is the above text from the oldest MSS containing Mt. 27:49 (a) the perfect Word of God; (b) less than the perfect Word of God; or (c) more than the perfect Word of God? Think about your answer.

Yours, Bluefalcon

 

I agree with the statement, "The earliest text is the perfect Word of God." The fallacy too often believed is that the earliest MSS contain the earliest text. As in Mt. 27:49, a MS from the 16th century may contain a text hundreds of years older than a MS from the 4th century.

Yours, Bluefalcon

 

I meant Gnostic.. </font>[/QUOTE]Can you please expand on what you mean by this? In what way would calling Jesus Christ "monogenes theos" be Gnostic, and why whould they wish to change it, to what benefit?

 

"earliest manuscripts", or "earliest text", so whats the difference? What talking about the original autographs, why don't you just say so.

 

Of course we're talking about the original text. My point was that an error in any MS is later than the original text, and if a 16th century MS has the original text, even though it's a late MS, its text is earlier than an early MS with an errant text. (This is called a logical explanation for those who believe the fallacy that the earliest MSS by definition contain the earliest/original text).

Yours, Bluefalcon

 

Funny
Oldest= the one's found in a library garbage can.
I don't know about you, but I don't read a Bible that was trash-worthy!

 

Truth, I guess in your case, is relevant.
I would trust a Christian perspective much more than a British Museums.

Which poses this question. All of you argue your point as if it were the Gospel, however, you never give credit where credit is due. You only know what people tell you, so where do you get your "facts?"

Oh yeah, and what about Codex Vaticanus?

 

loving2daysyouth, you have obviously been misinformed (and probably lied to). Codex Sinaiticus, also called "Aleph," was not found in a "library garbage can" or in a garbage can anywhere else either.

Count Constantin Von Tischendorf went to the Monastery of Saint Catherine, on Mount Sinai in Egypt on January 31, 1859 looking for ancient copies of the bible. Not having found any, on February 4 he decided to go home. "On that day, when walking with the provisor of the convent, he spoke with much regret of his ill-success. Returning from their promenade, Tischendorf accompanied the monk to his room, and there had displayed to him what his companion called a copy of the Septuagint, which he, the ghostly brother, owned. The manuscript was wrapped up in a piece of cloth, and on its being unrolled, to the surprise and delight of the critic the very document presented itself which he had given up all hope of seeing. His object had been to complete the fragmentary Septuagint of 1844, which he had declared to be the most ancient of all Greek codices on vellum that are extant; but he found not only that, but a copy of the Greek New Testament attached, of the same age, and perfectly complete, not wanting a single page or paragraph." (History of Codex Sinaiticus, British Museum, London)

In May, 1975, during restoration work, the monks of St. Catherine's monastery at Sinai discovered a room under the St. George chapel which contained many parchment fragments. Among these fragments, thirteen missing pages from the Sinaiticus Old Testament were found.

The Codex was divided into four parts and distributed to the British Library in London, St. Catherine's Monastery of Sinai, Leipzig University Library, Leipzig, Germany, and the National Library of Russia in St Petersburg.

Please. Truth counts. </font>[/QUOTE]Cassidy, The Codex Sinaiticus WAS in a rubbish bin waiting to be burned, before Tischendorf discovered what it was (http://chi.gospelcom.net/DAILYF/2001/12/daily-12-24-2001.shtml)

I think that it would have been better used in the fire to warm people

 

Wow, icthus and I agree on something.
Tell me though, what do you guys read? Where do you get your info.
I'll start:
"Touch Not an Unclean Thing" -Sorenson
"My plea for the Old Sword"- Pasely
I could go on, I went to the foremost institution for this subject, unfortuanately.

 

Where do I get my info.

Well, I have been studying Textual Criticism, New Testament Greek, Latin, etc for over 20 years now. And, living in London I had the opportunity to the British Museum and see the original Codex Sinaiticus, though under a glass, but also requested a copy for my research. I also visit the Dr Williams Library in London, which also has most of the Greek and Latin manuscripts available (not originals), and the complete works of the Church fathers, some 400 A3 size volumes, in Greek and Latin. My own personal library at home is well stocked.

 

Isn't that a problem?
Follow the logic:
Something that is unused stays around.
Something that is used, gets worn out.
Could that be applied to the Codices being discussed?

 

Let's end your Antioch obsession here and now, Anti_Alexandrian, and in a respectable manner, from Scripture as found in the KJV:

Here's what you're basing your Antiochan theory upon...Acts 11:26
And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Now, did the NT Scriptures come from Antioch?

Acts 11:19
Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.
20And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the LORD Jesus.27And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch.

Now, let's turn to Acts 14. Paul and Barnabas had fled from the unbelieving Jews who had come to Iconium with the purpose of killing Paul. They fled to Lycaonia, a "county" of the province of Galatia in Asia Minor, coming to the city of Lystra. Here, God used them to heal a man crippled from birth, & the people thought they were Jupiter and Mercury. History tells us those people spoke Latin, and so did Paul, who was thus able to preach to them. Scarcely had he convinced the people they were NOT Roman gods, here's what happened next:

Acts 14:19And there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium, who persuaded the people, and having stoned Paul, drew him out of the city, supposing he had been dead.

Yes, Paul may have written some Scriptures while at Antioch, but it was certainly no pure, holy city. It was one of the main places where Greeks were extensively evangelized, and nothing more. It appears Scripture was written in many places.

OT Scripture had made its way to Alexandria, as Apollos(a Jew born there) came from there, preaching the baptism of John, till he was set aright by Aquila & Priscilla. Certainly, Alexandria wasn't ignorant of the NT Scriptures very long.

Maybe no Scripture was first written in Alexandria, but it was doubtlessly copied there, and, since we don't have the originals, we could have the oldest EXTANT copies, and they could well have come from Alexandria. YOU don't know for sure any more than I do.

Scripture proves Ishtar was observed by the Edomites.

But not in HEROD'S time.

Can you provide us with some secular quotes and such that would override Scripture??

No, and I don't intend to try...but I can show YOUR PRIVATE INTERPRETATION wrong, easily. First...Show us a Scripture saying Herod, ANY of the Herods, worshipped Ishtar, either under that name, or under "her" names used in Herod's day...PALLAS ATHENE or MINERVA. It doesn't matter what Esau(Edom) worshipped...That was some 2k years before Herod.I have some Ute Indian ancestors who worshipped totem poles and "Nature" only 150 years ago, but does that mage ME a pagan?

Next, EASTER DID NOT EXIST when Luke wrote Acts. He used the Greek word 'pascha', which IN LUKE'S TIME, meant 'Passover' and nothing else. That word was NEVER, AT ANY TIME, ANCIENT OR MODERN, associated with Ishtar. It was coined from the Hebrew 'pesach', which means Passover and nothing else. Thus, its use in the KJV, especially WHEREn it's used, is a booboo.

Sorry, A_A, you're gonna hafta do a lot better than you have so far to convince anyone you're right. I suggest you might start by dumping your anti-Egyptian discourses today and believe Scripture as written.

 

I have no idea what this guys is talking about or where his post came from!

First of all, you have no idea whether I'm KJVO or Devil's advocate.

Second of all, you are accepting a secular view from a museum over a study of Textual history. What you choose to be truth is up to you, that is, if you have a free will to do so!

 

Again, what little leaves are left are there because they were never used. Church history teaches that it was the TR that was used all the way back to the Waldensians!

I guess it is ignorant to stand for a Bible that does not change gender, exclude scriptures and deny the blood of Christ etc. What was I thinking? Icthus, can you please help me, I don't know what happened???