Virtually all modern translations are based on three Greek manuscripts

  • 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.

Live4Him3

Jesus is Lord
May 19, 2022
1,383
640
113
#41
I'm not here to argue, I was just curious. Thanks for your input.
Well, I'll leave you with a final thought/question.

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.
[18] And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

Do you want to know which "city" shall be made desolate and burned with fire by "the beast" and the 10 kingdoms which give him their power?

If so, then just keep reading:

Revelation chapter 18

[1] And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory.
[2] And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
[3] For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
[4] And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
[5] For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.
[6] Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.
[7] How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.
[8] Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.
[9] And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning,
[10] Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.
[11] And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more:
[12] The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble,
[13] And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men.
[14] And the fruits that thy soul lusted after are departed from thee, and all things which were dainty and goodly are departed from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at all.
[15] The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing,
[16] And saying, Alas, alas, that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls!
[17] For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off,
[18] And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city!
[19] And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.

Why are these merchants lamenting over this "great city" as they see her being "utterly burned with fire" (vs. 8), or "the smoke of her burning" (vss. 8, 18) or as "she is made desolate" (vs. 19)?

Well, because this "great city" is no longer buying their merchandise which is listed for us in verses 12 and 13.

I could easily take you through that list, item by item, and show you that everything on that list pertains to the building of a temple, the sacrifices within a temple, or the people and things needed in relation to the same.

And where is the temple always located in scripture?

Well, of course, the correct answer is JERUSALEM.

I could also easily show you or anybody else that the term "great city" in the book of Revelation ALWAYS pertains to Jerusalem.

Anyhow, if you're ever interested in rekindling this conversation, then I've got plenty more to say on the matter.

In the interim, I'll not hijack your thread.

Thanks for reading.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,176
3,700
113
#42
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]"

The facts are that these so called "oldest and best" are among the most corrupt and contradictory of manuscripts out there. They not only disagree with the vast Majority of all Greek manuscripts, but also with each other. A far more logical and consistent explanation for their old age is due to the fact that they were recognized as being hopelessly corrupt and therefore were not used. That is why they didn't wear out.

Btw, I believe it was found in the Vatican library. Enough said.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,606
13,863
113
#43
Out of curiosity, are you Preterist or Futurist?
I don't subscribe to either, particularly, but I see more sense in the preterist view than the futurist view. The former has some awkward metaphorical interpretations which may or may not be sound, while the latter is sullied with failed prophecies and wild speculations.
 

Vindicator

Active member
Nov 11, 2021
228
71
28
#44
I don't subscribe to either, particularly, but I see more sense in the preterist view than the futurist view. The former has some awkward metaphorical interpretations which may or may not be sound, while the latter is sullied with failed prophecies and wild speculations.

Way too involved to get into right now, but if the Lord wills maybe we can get into discussing that some down the road. You might like my interpretations on end-time prophesy. I'm a Futurist, but I account for the Preterist viewpoint in ways most have never heard before.

God bless, and Lord willing maybe we'll discuss it.
 

kinda

Senior Member
Jun 26, 2013
3,946
1,507
113
#45
This was interesting.

 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,434
3,684
113
#46
This was interesting.

This an interesting video; however, the closer you get tp the end it's clear its intention is to legitimize Sinaiticus. Many of the things the narrator says are misleading and illogical. For example, he says on the "macro level" all Bible manuscripts are exactly the same; nothing changed, nothing removed. But we don't deal with only the macro level; the micro level is very important.

The assertion is made that since the discovery of Sinaiticus, 67 manuscripts have been discovered that can be compared to Sinaiticus. But he fails to mention many of these are fragments; and you can't get a complete picture of the reliability of Sinaiticus by comparing it to incomplete manuscripts and fragments.

The video completely ignores Constantine Simonides who made some pretty believable claims as being the true author of Sinaiticus.

Lastly, textual critics always assert that oldest is necessarily the best because it's the closest to the autographs; but this is obviously faulty logic. Let's say there's a newspaper account of the moon landing dated the day of the event. Thousands of years in the future someone comes across a story dated 100 years after the event that says the moon landing was faked. Let's say it's the oldest known account of the event. Textual critics would tell us it's the closest to the original account and therefore the most reliable. But is it? Just because Sinaiticus is the oldest known complete New Testament doesn't automatically make the text it contains the most reliable.

In summary, the video is educational in some respects but it's pro-Sinaiticus propaganda.
 

kinda

Senior Member
Jun 26, 2013
3,946
1,507
113
#47
This an interesting video; however, the closer you get tp the end it's clear its intention is to legitimize Sinaiticus. Many of the things the narrator says are misleading and illogical. For example, he says on the "macro level" all Bible manuscripts are exactly the same; nothing changed, nothing removed. But we don't deal with only the macro level; the micro level is very important.

The assertion is made that since the discovery of Sinaiticus, 67 manuscripts have been discovered that can be compared to Sinaiticus. But he fails to mention many of these are fragments; and you can't get a complete picture of the reliability of Sinaiticus by comparing it to incomplete manuscripts and fragments.

The video completely ignores Constantine Simonides who made some pretty believable claims as being the true author of Sinaiticus.

Lastly, textual critics always assert that oldest is necessarily the best because it's the closest to the autographs; but this is obviously faulty logic. Let's say there's a newspaper account of the moon landing dated the day of the event. Thousands of years in the future someone comes across a story dated 100 years after the event that says the moon landing was faked. Let's say it's the oldest known account of the event. Textual critics would tell us it's the closest to the original account and therefore the most reliable. But is it? Just because Sinaiticus is the oldest known complete New Testament doesn't automatically make the text it contains the most reliable.

In summary, the video is educational in some respects but it's pro-Sinaiticus propaganda.
Wow! lol

Yeah, I don't know.

What wrong with being "pro-Sinaiticus"?

I thought it was interesting that the Russians might of stolen the Bible, or saved it from ruin....It really depends how you look at it. It's pretty safe in the London library now.

If it is the oldest version of the New Testament, I'm not sure why you aren't more excited to learn about it. The video gave some pretty good insight on how it ended up in London. The Russians sold a stolen Bible to the U.K.. Why wasn't this made into a movie?

Definitely worth telling the story on the big screen. I mean they have Indiana Jones looking for the lost ark, why not the Sinaiticus back to it's proper owners?!?!
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,434
3,684
113
#48
Wow! lol

Yeah, I don't know.

What wrong with being "pro-Sinaiticus"?

I thought it was interesting that the Russians might of stolen the Bible, or saved it from ruin....It really depends how you look at it. It's pretty safe in the London library now.

If it is the oldest version of the New Testament, I'm not sure why you aren't more excited to learn about it. The video gave some pretty good insight on how it ended up in London. The Russians sold a stolen Bible to the U.K.. Why wasn't this made into a movie?

Definitely worth telling the story on the big screen. I mean they have Indiana Jones looking for the lost ark, why not the Sinaiticus back to it's proper owners?!?!
The Bible was around a long time before Sinaiticus was ever heard of; it wasn't even a possibility for the Russians to "steal" it.

I spelled out plainly why older isn't necessarily better; if you still don't get it I'm afraid you're hopelessly thick or have an agenda you're trying to push.

The problem with being pro-Sinaiticus is Sinaiticus isn't all it's cracked up to be. Yeah, it's old, it's beautifully written; but the only thing that matters is if it's reliable. It's good to have as a reference but it should never be held up as the gold standard.