IT’S BIBLICAL !!!👀🙏
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (56)
sorted by:
Read Acts 8:37 in your NIV Bible.
Anything footnoted will eventually be removed.
There are more examples like this, but they have absolutely no affect on any doctrine. The better translations will leave the footnote included.
There are two versions of the Bible in the world today, and hundreds of translations.
You have your choice of -
A: Masoretic OT (Hebrew) and Textus Receptus NT (Koine Greek)
(King James, YLT, Geneva, and others)
or
B: The Greek manuscripts preserved by the Roman Catholic Church edited 13 or more times in some places and written in Classical Greek - (Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Alexandrinus).
All the "modern" Bibles are based on the latter, because they are the "oldest" manuscripts.
And the verses which have been changed absolutely have an effect on doctrine.
Do you notice any differences in Hosea 11:12?
What about Matthew 20:16? Any idea why the part about "for many be called, but few chosen" is lopped off in the NIV?
Axiom Ethiopia has their own Bible as well which is completely unedited by the Catholic Church and includes the 17 books (the Apocrypha) removed by the 2nd Council of Nicaea in 787AD. Their Bibles go all the way back supposedly before the 1st hand written Constantine Bibles. This means they are in their original form from scrolls, compared to Constantine and the 1st Council of Nicaea’s manipulation/editing of the Biblical texts. Of course the Catholic Church never would accept them as true, but historically, the Queen of Sheba played a big part in the Old Testament as we all know. And Ethiopia was never enslaved or library/literacy inquisition cleansed like most other post-established Roman Catholic Church era countries.
Is this Axiom Ethiopia Bible available?
The Manuscripts listed in option B are, indeed, older than the Manuscripts mentioned in option A.
The texts in question that have been omitted (very few and none affecting any major doctrine) in option B are simply not found in the older manuscripts. What's your defense to the charge that those verses in question were added by the scribes in Option A? Therefore the scribes in option B are simply reflecting what the older manuscripts recorded more accurately?
Let me ask this question in a more straightforward way:
How do you know that the verses you cite weren't added to the translation you prefer?
Fundamentally, there are only two streams of Bibles. The first stream, which carried the Received Text (Textus Receptus) in Hebrew and Greek, precious manuscripts were preserved by such as the church in Pella in Palestine where Christians fled, when in 70 A.D. the Romans destroyed Jerusalem, by the Syrian Church of Antioch which produced eminent scholarship; by the Italic Church in northern Italy; And also, at the same time, by the Gallic Church in southern France and by the Celtic Church in Great Britain; by the pre-Waldensian, the Waldensian and the churches of the Reformation.
These manuscripts are all in agreement and are the vast majority of copies in existence, by far.
So vast is this majority that even the enemies of the Received Text admit that 95% of all Greek manuscripts are of this class.
I don't trust the Vatican whatsoever, especially since they kept those manuscripts in hiding until after the Protestant Reformation began. Pretty simple.
u/#q191
It's your choice as to which Bible you choose, but it's simply a fact there are really only 2 Bibles in existence.
P.S. If the verses were added to the Received Text, are you now arguing the complete opposite, that these changes absolutely have an effect on doctrine?