-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Yes they are.
Get yourself a copy of this book by Dean Burgon:
Causes of Corruption of the New Testament Text
Also, both the Vaticanus and Siniaticus are corrupt because of where they come from. Both of these corrupt manuscripts can be traced back to Origen and his heresies (corrupt sources) as well as Justin Martyr's heresies, the Diatesseron (more corrupt sources).
Now just to give you an idea of how heretical Origen was in his beliefs, here are just a few of the heresies which he believed:
- he beleived in transubstantiation
- believed that the Scriptures were not literal. (Origen was the father of Alleogorical interpretation).
- believed in Purgatory
- believed that Jesus was not God, but that he was only a created being. (Gnosticism).
- believed that Genesis 1-3 was a myth and that Adam never existed.
And those are just a few of his heresies. But this heretic (Origen) and his heretical beliefs are basically the source and foundation of the Siniaticus and Vaticanus manuscripts which are around today.
After all, the greatest corruption of the Biblical manuscripts and texts took place in the Second Century in Alexandria. And again, the mutilating and corrupting which Origen the heretic did to the Antiochan Bible manuscripts in the third century in Alexandria Egypt, would be further carried over a century later into the Vaticanus and Siniaticus manuscripts. Which nearly all the modern bibles and translations are based upon.
L
It was not removed, it was added by the KJV.
You have made for yourself idols of the KJV translators. The KJV is but one of many translations over the years.
When scripture speaks of scripture, it is God's word. When scripture speaks of promises, it is God's words. The bible is not the words of God because the bible makes it clear that it isn't. The bible is inspired, not a word for word dictation.
L
That was an editing mistake due to switching between the bible and the NT. The NT was likely written originally in Greek with a few exceptions such as Mark, although no copies exist of it today in the Hebrew/Aramaic form. The OT in Hebrew. What I meant in my final post was "The bible was written in Greek and Hebrew."
Yes they are.
Well if you want to remain willingly ignorant, then that's you. Acyually he is a recognized scholar. In fact, there is a Society named after him in his honour:
The Dean Burgon Society:
http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/
Yes I did say that they are wrong because they are wrong.
I did back up my claim. Were you not reading my last posts?
Also, that book I recommended you to read even backs up my claim even further.
L
That's what I said.
I was referring to the manuscripts in the original language. You have this absurd belief, it seems, that a particular English translation is better than the original languages.
The bible is not God's "words", they are God's inspired "word". There is no evidence for your claim and it's a man made tradition.
BTW- Which KJV is the right one? They changed the words of God so many times, as you say, that I am wondering which you think got it right.
I was referring to the manuscripts in the original language. You have this absurd belief, it seems, that a particular English translation is better than the original languages.
The bible is not God's "words", they are God's inspired "word". There is no evidence for your claim and it's a man made tradition.
BTW- Which KJV is the right one? They changed the words of God so many times, as you say, that I am wondering which you think got it right.
L
Actually since you made the claim, it is up to you to prove it was removed. The reason it does not appear in other manuscripts is because of copyist errors from the later versions.
I guessed I missed when God said this?
Yes, but that does not mean that God dictated the bible word for word. The bible is obviously not the words of God and makes it clear on many occasions. The bible is the INSPIRED word of God, not dictated word for word.
L
Is that why they changed it multiple times? I have no idea what you consider an 'error'. An error would be a bad translation. The KJV is a fine translation, but it is just a translation. It has a lot of copyists errors from its use of newer manuscripts. That is why it has things that translations that use older manuscripts do not.
L
Then show it. All you have done is made baseless claims.
There are societies for bigfoot and UFOs, that does not mean they are credible or taken seriously. The person you mention is not a credible or recognized source. You apparently believe that ignorance is believing whatever a person tells you, as long as it agrees with you, not whether it is credible or even factual.
That's called a baseless claim. They are not wrong because you said they are wrong, unless you are God.
You never backed up your claims. You have essentially said the other translations are wrong because you say so.
There are societies for bigfoot and UFOs, that does not mean they are credible or taken seriously. The person you mention is not a credible or recognized source. You apparently believe that ignorance is believing whatever a person tells you, as long as it agrees with you, not whether it is credible or even factual.
That's called a baseless claim. They are not wrong because you said they are wrong, unless you are God.
You never backed up your claims. You have essentially said the other translations are wrong because you say so.