Virtually all modern translations are based on three Greek manuscripts

[Vindicator]

Adding and subtracting from God's word has Grave consequences according to God'=====one should be very careful about their adding or subtracting when it comes to scripture ---


https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Adding-To-The-Bible

Revelation 22:18-19
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

Deuteronomy 4:2
Verse Concepts
You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Proverbs 30:6
Verse Concepts
Do not add to His words
Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.

Proverbs 30:5-6
Every word of God is tested;
He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him.
Do not add to His words
Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.

Deuteronomy 12:32
Verse Concepts
“Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it

Source: https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Adding-To-The-Bible

It's a good point, but if you'll notice the reference was to the Book of Revelation in particular, likely because there may have been an urge to manipulate the text to fit things taking place during New Testament times specifically rather than leaving it intact as is. They did not know it at the time, but the fulfillment of it was not coming in their time but ours.

Granted, my actual position is that they really should not have added to any of the NT, for clarity and to defend against heresy or otherwise. I truly don't care if the Jehovahs Witnesses take over forums in mass because we can't refute them well from the earliest manuscripts. My personal take is that the Spirit of God will confirm the truth with signs and wonders following in the end-times just as He did during New Testament times, so I don't have much concern with that.. But as far as adding to the text to try and undermine heresy from spreading, it is what it is and cannot be undone now.

 

[Nehemiah6]

United Bible Society does the New Testament and (I'm not sure of the new name as it changes regularly) Biblical Hebraica Stuttengartsia (BHS) for the Old Testament.

United Bible Society (UBS)is simply using the corrupted Greek text of Westcott and Hort. You can call it UBS, Nestle, Nestle-Aland, W& H, or W & H N/A Variants, or anything else. They are all using the same corrupted text. As for Biblia Hebraica (BHS), it is the corrupted Old Testament "edited" by Rudolf Kittel. So if you love corrupted bibles, you've got it made. Had you done your research thoroughly you would have rejected all these texts and the bibles that have come from them.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Is anyone but me a little concerned that virtually all "modern" translations of the New Testament are based on only three Greek manuscripts? They are: Codex Alexandrius (A), Codex Vaticanus (B) , and Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph).

You could add a couple more, by you are correct. So it was Aleph, A, B, C, and D which gave us the corrupted modern bible versions. These ancient corruptions (particularly Aleph and B) were elevated to the status of idols simply because of their age. But age is only one criterion in determining the value of any ancient manuscript. For those who want to know the truth, kindly read the works of Burgon and Scrivener on textual criticism.

As Burgon wrote while quoting the apostle John "Little children, keep yourselves from idols".

 

[XavierJesusLovesIndia]

See: https://biblequestions.info/2020/08/29/what-are-the-most-important-new-testament-manuscripts/

"
Contents of Manuscripts
The first two manuscripts on the list below were made from papyrus in the late second century or early third century. The last two were written 100 years or more later, but there is a high level of consistency among the four manuscripts. All four manuscripts contain the Gospel of John, so they can be compared for consistency. The earlier manuscripts show the latter ones were copied carefully.

• Papyrus 66 (GA P66), dated A.D. 200-225, contains a large part of the Gospel of John.
• Papyrus 75 (GA P75), dated about A.D. 175-225, contains a large part of the Gospels of Luke and John.
• Codex Sinaiticus (GA 01, א), dated A.D. 300-399, is the oldest complete New Testament manuscript (it also contains most of the Old Testament), which makes it quite valuable to ensure modern copies of the New Testament are faithful copies.
• Codex Vaticanus (GA 03, B), dated. A.D. 300-399, contains a nearly complete copy of the Old Testament, Apocrypha and New Testament (some of the original leaves have been lost, but replacements were made in the 15th century)."

And also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus#History

"Importance

Exhibition in Warsaw (2015)
Codex Vaticanus is one of the most important manuscripts for the text of the Septuagint and Greek New Testament. It is a leading example of the Alexandrian text-type. It was used by Westcott and Hort in their edition, The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881), and it was the basis for their text.[27]: 34  All critical editions of the New Testament published after Westcott and Hort were closer in the Gospels to the Codex Vaticanus text than to the Sinaiticus, with only the exception of Hermann von Soden's editions which are closer to Sinaiticus. All editions of Nestle-Aland remain close in textual character to the text of Westcott-Hort.[2]: 26–30 

According to the commonly accepted opinion of the textual critics, it is the most important witness of the text of the Gospels, in the Acts and Catholic epistles, with a stature equal to Codex Sinaiticus,[73] although in the Pauline epistles it includes Western readings and the value of the text is somewhat less than the Codex Sinaiticus.[20][10]"

 

[JohnDB]

United Bible Society (UBS)is simply using the corrupted Greek text of Westcott and Hort. You can call it UBS, Nestle, Nestle-Aland, W& H, or W & H N/A Variants, or anything else. They are all using the same corrupted text. As for Biblia Hebraica (BHS), it is the corrupted Old Testament "edited" by Rudolf Kittel. So if you love corrupted bibles, you've got it made. Had you done your research thoroughly you would have rejected all these texts and the bibles that have come from them.

If you actually did real research you would actually know who Wescott and Hort really were. And Eadie and Lightfoot....who these guys were. And of course why they didn't translate scriptures and what functions they served in the Church....before they were slandered, maligned, and feared for their lives.
(Hort was the money guy....he just believed in Westcott for good reasons)

 

[Dino246]

It's a good point, but if you'll notice the reference was to the Book of Revelation in particular, likely because there may have been an urge to manipulate the text to fit things taking place during New Testament times specifically rather than leaving it intact as is. They did not know it at the time, but the fulfillment of it was not coming in their time but ours.

Where is the evidence of this alleged manipulation? It appears that you are allowing an interpretation of the text to colour your perception of the facts.

 

[ResidentAlien]

BUT I vehemently disagree with Pinto on who "Babylon" is, and that was the topic of our brief email interactions. He believes that Rome is "Babylon" in the book of Revelation, but, in reality, Jerusalem is "Babylon" in the book of Revelation.

I don't want to get too sidetracked on this but I'm curious what you think of Revelation 17:9 which says the woman sits on seven mountains or hills. How would this apply to Jerusalem?

 

[JohnDB]

2Timothy 4
3For the time will come when men will not tolerate sound doctrine, but with itching ears they will gather around themselves teachers to suit their own desires. 4So they will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

Happening right in front of our eyes as we read this thread.

 

[John146]

Is anyone but me a little concerned that virtually all "modern" translations of the New Testament are based on only three Greek manuscripts? They are: Codex Alexandrius, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Sinaiticus.

Many, many readers of the New Testament today are most likely using a version based on these manuscripts. These three manuscripts are older, but how reliable are they really? It just concerns me that so many translations would base their text on only three manuscripts.

This is not a KJVO thread. I'm not a KJV onlyist; I lean more toward the Majority Text, which includes the Textus Receptus but also many other Greek manuscripts in the Byzantine family.

These manuscripts contradict each other thousands of times. They are not trustworthy, nor any version coming from them.

 

[ResidentAlien]

What blows me away most about the video is the conspiracy—for lack of a better word—which it reveals. The effort that went into supplanting the Textus Receptus was indeed diabolical. It doesn't look to me like an accident.

For example, is it a mere coincidence that the Jesuit order was created as part of the counter reformation? And that a Jesuit priest, Carlo Maria Martini worked on the editorial committee for the second, third and fourth editions of Nestle's Greek New Testament? See NIV and the Jesuit Priest. I post the link because there's simply too much information to post. This information confirms what's in the video.

The real shocker though is the Novo Vulgata, the "New Vulgate" which has replaced the Latin Vulgate. And surprise of surprises, it's based not on Latin manuscripts but—you guessed it—Nestle's Novum Testamentum Graece; the same Novem Tetmentum Graece which the Jesuit Carlo Maria Martini helped create. The change was initiated at Vatican II, the same Vatican II that stated that now, anyone and everyone who names the name of the one God are brothers and sisters with Christians.

See here: Silent Bible Revolution in the Vatican.

 

[Vindicator]

Where is the evidence of this alleged manipulation? It appears that you are allowing an interpretation of the text to colour your perception of the facts.

What makes you assume that when you don't even know what my interpretation is?

Understand, the statement was regarding an urge to manipulate the text, not regarding its actual manipulation. Now if you are referring to the other books of the NT, I am talking about textual variants (which also exist in Revelation, btw). There are too many to list of the entire NT. Just listing them for one epistle would be considerable work, but again, there are only two places I know of where the meaning is significantly different theologically.

https://biblequestions.info/2020/05...iants-exist-in-the-new-testament-manuscripts/

 

[Vindicator]

there are only two places I know of where the meaning is significantly different theologically.

That is so long as you are a Trinitarian with generally orthodox theology. If you are something like a Jehovahs Witness, the entire Bible is filled with variants that are drastically different in their meaning theologically, with the Received Text being entirely corrupt. I am not of that persuasion, other than the few instances I made reference to.

 

[Dino246]

What makes you assume that when you don't even know what my interpretation is?

You hint loudly at your interpretation.

Understand, the statement was regarding an urge to manipulate the text, not regarding its actual manipulation.

Fair enough. There is plenty of substance in the text to determine the timing intended by the authors, and no need to manipulate the text to provoke a particular conclusion.

 

[Live4Him3]

I don't want to get too sidetracked on this but I'm curious what you think of Revelation 17:9 which says the woman sits on seven mountains or hills. How would this apply to Jerusalem?

In Revelation chapter 17, there are clearly two different entities being spoken of, and we must not wrongly conflate the two as many others have already done throughout the years.

We read:

Revelation chapter 17

[1] And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
[2] With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.
[3] So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
[4] And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
[5] And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
[6] And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
[7] And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.
[8] The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
[9] And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
[10] And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
[11] And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.
[12] And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
[13] These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.
[14] These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.
[15] And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
[16] And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.
[17] For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.
[18] And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

In verse 7, there is clearly a "woman", and there is also clearly a "beast that carries her, which has the seven heads and the ten horns".

In other words, "the seven heads", which the angel identified as "seven mountains" or seven hills in verse 9, pertain to "the beast" and NOT to the "woman".

"The beast" is Rome, which has seven hills, and the "woman" who will sit upon "the beast" in the latter days (which we're presently in) is Jerusalem. Basically, Israel, in its final affront against God, will enter into a last-days covenant with Papal Rome out of which will come a rebuilt Jewish temple, and the antichrist, a "pope" of Rome for sure, will briefly reign from within the same, This coming covenant is what is being depicted by the "woman" (Jerusalem) sitting atop "the beast" (Papal Rome).

Also, the title of "Babylon" pertains to the "woman" in verse 5, and NOT to "the beast".

With such being the case, I vehemently disagree with Pinto (and many others) who insist that "Babylon" is Rome or the Roman Catholic church. Again, Rome is "the beast". If you read verses 12-13 and 16-17, then you will see that the ten horns on the beast are ten kings who will give their power to Rome in the last days. And what will they do with that power? Well, they'll hate "the whore" or the "woman" and "burn her with fire". Again, this "whore" or "woman" is Jerusalem in that Rome will ultimately turn on her. If Pinto and others like him are correct (they're not), then the beast (Rome) will be turning on ITSELF in that "Babylon" is allegedly Rome as well.

It's absolute nonsense.

We're given many descriptors of this "beast" in scripture, and every one of them points directly to Papal Rome.

Similarly, we're given many descriptors of this "woman" in scripture, and every one of them points directly to Jerusalem.

I'll be happy to go through each and every one of them with you or anybody else who is genuinely interested in doing the same.

 

[ResidentAlien]

"The beast" is Rome, which has seven hills, and the "woman" who will sit upon "the beast" in the latter days (which we're presently in) is Jerusalem. Basically, Israel, in its final affront against God, will enter into a last-days covenant with Papal Rome out of which will come a rebuilt Jewish temple, and the antichrist, a "pope" of Rome for sure, will briefly reign from within the same, This coming covenant is what is being depicted by the "woman" (Jerusalem) sitting atop "the beast" (Papal Rome).

Is there something about the description of the Harlot that suggests Israel? From what I see, the description matches Roman Catholicism perfectly:

1. First of all she's a woman as is the "Mother church" or "Mary."

2. She's clothed in purple and scarlet, gilded with gold and precious stones and pearls.

3. Having in her hand a golden cup being filled with abominations and the filthiness of the fornication of the earth.

4. She resembles Babylon in her effort to build a tower to God of her own making which will unite the people of the earth.

5. She's drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. Catholicism has murdered more than its share of true believers who refused to acknowledge its authority.

6. The kings of the earth committed fornication with her. The popes hold great sway and influence over world leaders; there's no question about that.

Do you see all these coming together in Israel as perfectly as they do with Catholicism?

 

[Vindicator]

You hint loudly at your interpretation.

I don't even have Revelations in mind in this discussion, other than that it was brought up because of the warning not to add to it.

Fair enough. There is plenty of substance in the text to determine the timing intended by the authors, and no need to manipulate the text to provoke a particular conclusion.

Well now we may HAVE to talk about interoperation, LoL. Out of curiosity, are you Preterist or Futurist?

 

[Live4Him3]

Is there something about the description of the Harlot that suggests Israel? From what I see, the description matches Roman Catholicism perfectly:

1. First of all she's a woman as is the "Mother church" or "Mary."

2. She's clothed in purple and scarlet, gilded with gold and precious stones and pearls.

3. Having in her hand a golden cup being filled with abominations and the filthiness of the fornication of the earth.

4. She resembles Babylon in her effort to build a tower to God of her own making which will unite the people of the earth.

5. She's drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. Catholicism has murdered more than its share of true believers who refused to acknowledge its authority.

6. The kings of the earth committed fornication with her. The popes hold great sway and influence over world leaders; there's no question about that.

Do you see all these coming together in Israel as perfectly as they do with Catholicism?

Again, Rome, including Roman Catholicism, is "the beast", so I am by no means seeking to defend any of that.

Rome, however, is clearly DISQUALIFIED from being "Babylon", and there are many ways to prove the same.

For now, I'll just give you one, and it's actually based upon your point #5, or the following:

"And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration." (Revelation 17:6)

If we continue reading on to chapter 18 of the book of Revelation, then this "woman", "MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH" (Revelation 17:5), and her insatiable taste for blood is a little bit further described.

We read:

"And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth." (Revelation 18:24)

Whoever this "woman" is, God holds her accountable not only for "the blood of the saints" (Revelation 17:6), "the blood of the martyrs of Jesus" (Revelation 17:6), and "the blood of prophets" (Revelation 18:24), but also for "the blood...of all that were slain upon the earth" (Revelation 18:24). If we're to believe scripture, and to let the Bible be its own interpreter, then there is only one "city" (Revelation 17:18) upon the face of this earth who all of this could possibly be referring to, and that one city is Jerusalem.

For example, Jesus said:

"Nevertheless I must walk to-day and to-morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem." (Luke 13:33)

These are the recorded words of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and He said that "it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem".

IT CANNOT BE.

Therefore, when we read of how "in her was found the blood of prophets" (Revelation 18:24), this "her" must be Jerusalem.

"Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:" (Acts 7:51-52)

Again, it was the Jews of Jerusalem who not only persecuted the prophets, but also slew them. As such, when we read of how "in her was found the blood of the prophets" (Revelation 18:24), this "her" can only be referring to Jerusalem.

"For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their \sin always: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost." (I Thessalonians 2:14-16)

Same scenario.

Yes, once more, it is the Jews of Judaea or those of Jerusalem who have "both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets". With such being the case, when we read of how "in her was found the blood of the prophets" (Revelation 18:24), this "her" can only be referring to Jerusalem.

Remember, now, that whoever this "woman" is, she was also held accountable by God for "the blood...of all that were slain upon the earth" (Revelation 18:24).

Wow!

I wouldn't want such an indictment leveled against me, would you?

Well, again, there's only one city upon the face of the earth who is worthy of this charge, and I'll let Jesus Christ tell you exactly which city that is:

"Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." (Matthew 23:34-39)

Again, those were the words of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and He said that upon Jerusalem would "come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar".

Yes, Jesus Christ cried, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets" and, again, "in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth" (Revelation 18:24), and this "her" or this "woman" is Jerusalem, and Jerusalem alone.

Well, that's just an introduction, and I could easily cite more verses, from both the Old Testament and New Testament alike, which clearly state that Jerusalem is the city that killed the prophets.

As I said earlier, there are multiple descriptors of "Babylon" given to us in scripture or multiple ways to prove that "the woman" or "MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH" is Jerusalem, and this is but one of them.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Ancient Rome killed her fair share of prophets and saints too.

 

[Live4Him3]

Ancient Rome killed her fair share of prophets and saints too.

So, you believe that Rome is going to hate Rome and burn Rome?

Revelation chapter 17

[16] And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.
[17] For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

Again, it's absolute nonsense.

Instead, God will put it in Rome's heart, even as he did in 70 A.D., to burn Jerusalem.

As I said before, there is coming a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, and the antichrist will briefly reign from within the same. Of course, temple sacrifices will also temporarily be restored there, and they will be another blatant denial of the atoning death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and glorification of Jesus Christ, and God will not be pleased with the same.

Anyhow, there are MULTIPLE other ways to easily prove that "Babylon" is NOT Rome.

Again, "the beast" is Rome, and the "woman" who will figuratively sit upon her is "Babylon", and that "woman" is Jerusalem.

 

[ResidentAlien]

So, you believe that Rome is going to hate Rome and burn Rome?

Revelation chapter 17

[16] And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.
[17] For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

Again, it's absolute nonsense.

Instead, God will put it in Rome's heart, even as he did in 70 A.D., to burn Jerusalem.

As I said before, there is coming a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, and the antichrist will briefly reign from within the same. Of course, temple sacrifices will also temporarily be restored there, and they will be another blatant denial of the atoning death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and glorification of Jesus Christ, and God will not be pleased with the same.

Anyhow, there are MULTIPLE other ways to easily prove that "Babylon" is NOT Rome.

Again, "the beast" is Rome, and the "woman" who will figuratively sit upon her is "Babylon", and that "woman" is Jerusalem.

I'm not here to argue, I was just curious. Thanks for your input.