need it for research purposes but I can't find it :D
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (89)
sorted by:
Byzantine type text came from Asia Minor.
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus came out of Alexandria, Egypt.
Egypt was full of woke Gnostic scholars who edited the original manuscripts like they did the works of Homer, and made many changes, something the book of Revelation commands us not to do.
The reason those documents are the "oldest" is because nobody read them.
The early Church fathers such as Tertullian and Iraneus quoted the Bible in their writings. Those quotes verify the Byzantine type text as authentic.
Edit - u/CoolaAsACucumber can only downvote because he will lose any real debate.
If you don't have a Bible from the 1st-2nd Century AD you cannot compare the differences/similarities of it to one that is made now. Unless early Church fathers quoted the full Biblical text, you cannot know if there were any changes that were in texts that weren't quoted. This is logic that a 5 year old can understand.
There is no proof of that, just suggestions because of its similarity to Papyrus 75.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus#Text-type
Please explain, that makes no sense.
Also if you can please show any sources that Egyptians edited the texts of Homer, I'd be interested in that as well.
I can compare the Old Testament texts with the Dead Sea Scroll fragments and I have.
I've also found quotes from early Church fathers and compared them as well.
If I discover missing verses such as Acts 8:37 quoted by the early Church fathers, I conclude the modern Bibles are forgeries. The fact Vaticanus wasn't copied multiple times until it wore out and was lost to history only provides further confirmation.
If you can't understand why the age of a text has nothing to do with its authenticity, I'm not sure you'll ever understand why the authenticity is better determined by the number of copies in existence that agree with each other in the case of physical manuscripts, especially when believers consider the texts in question to be the Word of God.
Zenodotus was the father of the Alexandrine grammarians, and they continued in his traditions for centuries. As you can see, the Alexandrian scholars were known for literary criticism, which included altering lines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenodotus
You didn't answer my other point and now you're trying to roll around it.
You said:
Then you gave me the book Against Heresies as a reference.
Against Heresies (Book I, Chapter 10)
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103110.htm
So I'm to believe that any bible from that time period (and supposedly made in Egypt) is heretical except your source says the Churches planted in Egypt and many other places around the world all hand down the same knowledge and teach the same faith.
This is just like the bullshit we have with Covid. Just because groupthink tells me this is the Bible most people read, it doesn't mean this was the original words or the words intended. Going back to the earliest Bibles found can give a clearer picture of the Bible as it was originally written. More time passed from the original Bible gives more room for corruption and changes in the wording. If a Pope decrees everyone read the corrupted version, the less corrupted version becomes less used and forgotten.
I asked you to find some Bible verses quoted by the early Church fathers, and compare them with the different Bible versions and come to your own conclusions.
Instead of doing that, you found a quote you think proves there's nothing wrong with Alexandrian manuscripts.
Why is Acts 8:37 missing from Codex Vaticanus?
If you can explain why Irenaeus quoted the verse that supposedly didn't exist in the "earliest" manuscripts, I'm all ears.
After all, the verse "I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God" is a very damaging statement to Gnostics.
Against Heresies (Book I, Chapter 10)
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103110.htm