Jesus used a “version” of the Bible

[jbh28]

The sky was blue with big pffy clouds.

The sky was blue with big white puffy clouds.

The heaven was sky blue with big puffy clouds.

The sky was blue and had big puffy clouds.

The sky was blue with big puffy clonds.

The heaven was blue with big puffy clouds.

The sky wsa blue with big puffy clouds.

The sky was azure with big poofy clouds.



Not one of these 8 sentences are the same - none of them agree. What is the original sentence?

With only the information you have provided, I would say this: "The sky was blue with big puffy clouds."


but really I have no idea and have no clue what you are talking about [/sarcasm]

 

[Winman]

IF... We were basing all textual criticism on the one text of the Sinaiticus, then you would be correct in your assertions. But we are not. Biblical scholars compare ALL the extant manuscripts to discern the original text, and the word "all" encompasses the TR as well.

Seeing as how I love to ask side questions, here is another... How many persons posting on this topic have ever actually met and known one of these biblical textual scholars and know what it is that they do?

OK, let's look at the Vaticanus. The foundation of the Critical Text is the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus.

The Vaticanus was missing large portions of scripture.

The following portions of Scripture are missing from the Vaticanus: Genesis 1:1-46; 28; Psalms 106-138; Matthew 16:2-3; Mark 16:9-20; The Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus); Hebrews 9:14-13:25 and all of the book of Revelation. These were intentional omissions because the manuscript was found in excellent condition with no pieces missing. In the Gospels it leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses, and 748 whole sentences. These omissions were intentional since there was room left on pages to write these in. The Vaticanus manuscript was written on expensive Vellum and was in good condition when found which means that the missing areas were not due to missing sections but intentional omission.

Dean Burgon wrote concerning the Vaticanus:

'The impurity of the text exhibited by these codices is not a question of opinion but fact...In the Gospels alone, Codex B(Vatican) leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of careless transcriptions on every page…

So, the Vaticanus was also a horribly sloppy piece of work that showed obvious tampering.

These are the foundational texts for the Critical Text.

 

[Mexdeaf]

The sky was blue with big pffy clouds.

The sky was blue with big white puffy clouds.

The heaven was sky blue with big puffy clouds.

The sky was blue and had big puffy clouds.

The sky was blue with big puffy clonds.

The heaven was blue with big puffy clouds.

The sky wsa blue with big puffy clouds.

The sky was azure with big poofy clouds.



Not one of these 8 sentences are the same - none of them agree. What is the original sentence?

My book says, "This sentence is not found in the oldest manuscripts."

 

[jbh28]

OK, let's look at the Vaticanus. The foundation of the Critical Text is the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus.

The Vaticanus was missing large portions of scripture.



Dean Burgon wrote concerning the Vaticanus:



So, the Vaticanus was also a horribly sloppy piece of work that showed obvious tampering.

These are the foundational texts for the Critical Text.

Your posts is a sloppy piece of work. The Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus is not the foundation of the CT. Also, most manuscripts are not full bibles. In other words, all manuscripts have portions of scripture missing. We look at the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus for certain variants to see what their reading is

 

[annsni]

OK, let's look at the Vaticanus. The foundation of the Critical Text is the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus.

The Vaticanus was missing large portions of scripture.



Dean Burgon wrote concerning the Vaticanus:



So, the Vaticanus was also a horribly sloppy piece of work that showed obvious tampering.

These are the foundational texts for the Critical Text.

OR could it possibly be that "gasp" that's what they had to copy from????

 

[jbh28]

OR could it possibly be that "gasp" that's what they had to copy from????

No, anything different from the KJV had to have a devilish motive to it. again [/sarcasm]

 

[annsni]

My book says, "This sentence is not found in the oldest manuscripts."

Well, that's quite judgmental of you. Can't you just take it on faith? I hear the older posts removed that sentence but the newer posts were faithful to the originals and kept it. You KNOW that God preserved that sentence, right??

 

[Winman]

OR could it possibly be that "gasp" that's what they had to copy from????

Ok, you are trying to tell me that a text found in the VATICAN was lacking text sources? Is that your argument? :laugh:

 

[jbh28]

Ok, you are trying to tell me that a text found in the VATICAN was lacking text sources? Is that your argument? :laugh:

If someone found a KJV in the Vatican would that make it bad?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Okay - that's enough