In a groundbreaking intersection of technology and ancient history, scholars have uncovered a hidden chapter of the Bible within a 1,750-year-old Syriac manuscript preserved in the Vatican Library.
I'm calling BULLSHIT
This hidden chapter, with its emphasis on mercy, reveals a faith not rigidly bound to dogma but alive with reinterpretation and evolution—a window into the beliefs and priorities of communities navigating the complexities of their time.
Yeah, the Vatican and its anti-christ would absolutely love for us to be open to reinterpreting the prophecies about them and the doctrines which demolish their unscriptural dogmas and practices.
But this is likely just the beginning. Who knows what other forgotten chapters, erased writings, or hidden narratives are still waiting to be uncovered?
Ohhhh here we go. Whole new chapters and books incoming. God wasn't able to preserve His words to everyone between 31AD and 2024AD. THIS IS COMPLETE BULLSHIT. Not the first time the harlot church has faked documents either. "Donation to Constantine"? KEK.
You're kind of ignorant about history.
Okay, so back in the 300s and 400s, popes like Damasus I, Innocent I, and Leo the Great were super important for figuring out which books belong in the Bible. Without them, it would’ve been chaos. There were literally hundreds of writings floating around the churches, many of them claiming to have been written by apostles.
Pope Damasus made a list of the books at a meeting in 382 and got St. Jerome to translate the Bible into Latin (the Vulgate). If he didn’t do that, people might’ve been using all sorts of random books. Then Pope Innocent I made sure everyone stuck to the list by writing letters about it. And Pope Leo the Great kept everything organized and made sure the Church stayed on track.
Without these guys, the Bible we know might not even exist. People would’ve been arguing over what counts as Scripture, and the Church would’ve been a total mess.
So it makes no sense that the church would hide scripture as scripture as we know it as today is whatever the Vatican declared to be scripture.
Nowhere does the book of Luke claim to be written by Luke but church tradition claims it was and later the church officially recognized it and declared it in the canon.
The Textus Receptus > Latin Vulgate in terms of accuracy to the original languages. The Catholic church didn't like when Textus Receptus, a superior work, was released.
The true churches knew what was real scripture and what wasn't. The Law and the Prophets were kept it in the Temple for centuries and the true churches would have known what that canon was, because they were all started by born-again Israelites.
Believers in Antioch, Syria collected the holy Scriptures, which formed the New Testament. Antioch is where followers of Messiah were first called Christians. They made many copies of the scriptures and shared them with other churches, and many believed in Messiah through their witness. (Satan countered by having philosophers in Alexandria, Egypt change the Syrian texts to fit their beliefs. Unbelieving philosophers in Alexandria Egypt, such as Origen, amended, added to and deleted many portions of the true text and then palmed off their work as the Word of God. The two most prominent of the corrupt Alexandrian codices are called the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus). These letters would obviously not have been known in full by the false Roman church usurpers, as they came in late to the game. Ears to hear? Anyways,
The Vaudois translated Scriptures into Latin centuries before Jerome butchered them. Their translation became known as the vulgate (literally the word 'common' in Latin) Bible, and it spread all the way to England before 200 AD. The harlot church and her daughters sure have a way of trademarking definitions, don't they? ('Catholic' literally means 'universal'. It's an adjective 😂 Could say the same for 'Pentecostal', 'Baptist', etc.)
Anyways, Jerome followed Origen’s teachings, so the same corruptions occurred in this Bible. It was completed in 405 AD. During the Dark Ages 500-1500 AD, the Catholic church killed millions of Christians for using translations they didn't like, and they burned the texts. They taught from their corrupt Jerome Latin Vulgate bible and forbid people to read others, even as Latin was being replaced by other languages leaving only them with its understanding. Quite convenient to have the priests be the only ones who can read the Scriptures, eh?
As copies of NT manuscripts have been collected over the years, they have formed two groups:
True Path – The ‘Majority Text’, which makes up 95% of 5,300+ existing manuscripts that are in agreement and form the basis for the Textus Receptus which is also called the ‘Received Text’ or ‘Byzantine Text’.
Corrupt Path – The ‘Minority Text’ which consists of only 5% of existing manuscripts. The main texts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, contradict each other over 3,000 times in the gospels alone, and they disagree with the ‘Majority Text’ in 13,000 places.
Amazingly, modern Bible versions like the NIV and ESV are based on these ‘Minority Text’ manuscripts.
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were written from 300-400 A.D., so because they’re ‘ancient’, modern Bible translators mistakenly think that they must be 'better'; but the Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD 150), the Vetus Latina (AD 157), the Italic Bible (AD 157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
So it makes no sense that the church would hide scripture as scripture as we know it as today is whatever the Vatican declared to be scripture.
Top. Kek.
Without these guys, the Bible we know might not even exist. People would’ve been arguing over what counts as Scripture, and the Church would’ve been a total mess.
Yeah, the false church would have been, without the light of Christ they would need to scramble quickly before they lost grasp on what the true Church put together in the midst of the whirlwind of error they spawned by trying to fit the Gospel into the Babylonian mystery schools. Johnny-come-latelies! Twisters and grifters, thieves deceiving and being deceived!
Alright, so here's the deal: that post makes a ton of claims that don’t really hold up when you look at the facts. Let’s break it down:
Textus Receptus vs. Latin Vulgate
The Textus Receptus (TR) was put together by Erasmus in the 1500s. He only had a few late Greek manuscripts, some from like the 12th century. The Latin Vulgate, made by Jerome way earlier in 405 AD, used much older Greek and Hebrew texts that were closer to the originals. Also, Erasmus made mistakes, like in Revelation where he didn’t have the full Greek text, so he translated it backwards from Latin to Greek. So yeah, not perfect.
The Catholic Church Didn't Hide the TR
The TR didn’t even exist until way after the Catholic Church had already figured out what books belonged in the Bible (this happened at councils in the 300s and 400s). By the time the TR showed up, the Church wasn’t suppressing it—they were just sticking with what had worked for over 1,000 years.
Antioch vs. Alexandria
The post makes Antioch sound like it was perfect and Alexandria like it was evil. That’s not how it worked. Both cities were big Christian hubs. Alexandria is where some of the oldest and best manuscripts come from, like Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. These are closer to the originals than a lot of the Byzantine manuscripts the TR uses, which are from way later.
The Vaudois and Latin Bibles
This idea that the Vaudois had some super-early Latin Bible that was better than Jerome’s Vulgate? Yeah, there’s no real proof of that. There were Old Latin translations before Jerome, but they were all over the place—messy and inconsistent. That’s why Jerome made the Vulgate: to clean it up and make one solid version.
Majority Text vs. Minority Text
The post says the Majority Text (Byzantine) is better because it’s 95% of manuscripts, but that’s like saying the most popular story is always the truest. A lot of Byzantine manuscripts were copied way later and had mistakes smoothed out over time. The Minority Text (like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) is smaller in number but older and closer to the originals. Sure, they have differences, but that’s just how ancient manuscripts work—they were all copied by hand.
The Catholic Church and Access to the Bible
The claim that the Catholic Church "hid" the Bible? Not true. They made rules about translations because they didn’t want random people twisting Scripture to spread fake teachings. It wasn’t about hiding God’s Word; it was about keeping it accurate. And no, they didn’t kill “millions” of people for reading the Bible. That’s a huge exaggeration with no evidence.
Modern Translations Aren’t Based on “Corrupt” Texts
Modern translations like the NIV and ESV aren’t just based on Alexandrian manuscripts. They use all the evidence—Byzantine, Alexandrian, and more—to figure out what’s most accurate. Scholars don’t just blindly pick the oldest texts; they carefully compare everything.
The Catholic Church Preserved Scripture
Without the Catholic Church, we wouldn’t even have the Bible as we know it. They were the ones copying and protecting it during chaotic times in history. The canon we use today was settled by the Church long before the Reformation even happened. The idea that the Catholic Church "came late to the game"? Nah, they were the ones who made the game.
Bottom Line: This whole post is trying to make it sound like the Catholic Church ruined the Bible and the TR is the only good version, but that’s not true. The Church worked hard to preserve Scripture, and modern translations aren’t based on “corrupt” texts—they’re based on the best evidence we have. History is way more complicated than this post makes it seem.
Thanks for the reply. I do have a habit of stating my understanding of things as matter-of-fact. You're reminding me not to do that on matters with murky details. That said, from my understanding:
He only had a few late Greek manuscripts, some from like the 12th century.
The fact that Erasmus only had a handful of manuscripts when preparing the 1516 edition is irrelevant in regards to the reliability of the texts underlying it and no scholar should dispute the fact that he studied variant readings of the NT throughout his life prior to publishing it. The truth was there, in the underlying texts, waiting to be compiled and to take its rightful place of prominence!
The post says the Majority Text (Byzantine) is better because it’s 95% of manuscripts, but that’s like saying the most popular story is always the truest...
When it comes to matters like this it isn't so much to say that "what's popular = what's true", but rather to say "where the majority of non-collaborating witnesses all testify to the same things = historical fact". I believe this is a key framework to verifying ancient texts. That said, I agree that the number of manuscripts does not matter as long as God providentially provides the manuscripts for a time of spiritual revival. Josiah saw the hand of God in preserving a single copy of the OT canon and never doubted its authenticity or integrity. (2 Kings 23:2).
The difference here is that we've had manuscripts all the way back to the first churches, and 95% agree with one another while 5% differ greatly and had dubious discoveries (at best). It's very fishy that the Vatican produces an almost completely in tact copy of the NT, and Tischendorf's story is even fishier. I'm talking pope hat fishy!
The Vatican is notorious for forgeries. Donation of Constantine, Renaissance art forgeries, book forgeries, I would also argue manuscript forgeries as I am in this thread; I would also argue that the Jesuits in fact penned the 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of Scion' just as they likely did 'The Secrets of the Elders of Bourg-Fontaine', which was used to discredit the followers of Jansenism, who, at the time, via prominent Jansenist Blaise Pascal, who in his 'Provincial Letters' was highly critical of the Jesuits, were a subject of papal ire.
I would also like to posit that the Jesuits were the authors of Martin Luther's 'On The Jews And Their Lies', with a similar tarnishing agenda. No first edition copies of that book exist and it was attributed to Luther after he died. How very convenient. The language used also doesn't really vibe with Luther's other works, but, as with both the Protocols of Scion and the Secrets of Bourg-Fontaine, it most certainly does vibe with the bloody, perfidious Jesuit Order, in both speech and in the deeds which are so sugguested... moving on,
...Sure, they have differences, but that’s just how ancient manuscripts work—they were all copied by hand.
The differences pale when compared to the number of differences (many of which are substantial, so being copied by hand is hardly a good reasoning for them) between the Alexandrian and the TR. Also, many errors in the first edition TR were corrected by Erasmus in later editions.
Despite the back-translation (Latin to Greek) issues in the final 6 chapters of Revelation, Erasmus included a reading in 22:20 that exists in the Greek and not in any edition of the Vulgate: "αμην ναι ερχου” is used instead of “amen veni", which omits the phrase 'Even so'. This means that he couldn't have been limited to the few texts set before him during his editing of the 1516 edition, as you said, those chapters were missing.
At the very least, he consulted notes such as the annotations of Laurentius Valla.
The Catholic Church Didn't Hide the TR.....the Church wasn’t suppressing it—they were just sticking with what had worked for over 1,000 years.
The Catholic church most certainly has a history of suppressing and persecuting those who used the TR, especially after the Protestant Reformation. They even put their Bibles on the "Forbidden Books" list! How can this not be considered suppressing the TR itself, if they were forbidding the Bibles based on it?? Those Bibles were opening the eyes of a multitude of different nations and tongues. Why limit the spread of God's words?
The post makes Antioch sound like it was perfect and Alexandria like it was evil. That’s not how it worked. Both cities were big Christian hubs. Alexandria is where some of the oldest and best manuscripts come from, like Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. These are closer to the originals than a lot of the Byzantine manuscripts the TR uses, which are from way later.
Alexandria was a gnostic hub full of pompous Platonic philosophers, afaik... Much of what we know today of the secret societies' beliefs can be traced back to it. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are not "oldest and best" either, as my earlier posts addressed already, and idk where you're gettting that they are closer to the Byzantine manuscripts the TR uses?
...And no, they didn’t kill “millions” of people for reading the Bible. That’s a huge exaggeration with no evidence.
(super low end) Estimated 50million martyrs total at the Catholic church's hand, not to mention all the non-lethal yet horrendous torture, for more than merely owning a Bible, yes, but owning a Bible was for sure a reason. To deny this is absurd. Imagine Jesus telling His desciples "and one day you will design what we call the Iron Maiden, a metal box full of spikes which you will stick people who don't agree with you in!" 😱 A quote from ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER
KILLED BY THE PAPACY IN
THE MIDDLE AGES AND
LATER::
"....This is especially true because of many millions, perhaps 45 million, killed in Europe in
the Counter-Reformation after 1517 and before 1700. Therefore the population figures
permit, and even invite, the conclusion that the death toll due to persecution in the Middle
Ages is astronomical, and many times larger than 50 million."
Add to that the "excommunications", public shaming (had real consequences), restriction of commerce, theft of property even to your next of kin, on and on we can go with this...
Modern translations like the NIV and ESV aren’t just based on Alexandrian manuscripts. They use all the evidence—Byzantine, Alexandrian, and more—to figure out what’s most accurate. Scholars don’t just blindly pick the oldest texts; they carefully compare everything.
You speak as if you don't think scholars can be compromised and working ulterior motives. I'll have to agree to disagree with this whole quote..
Without the Catholic Church, we wouldn’t even have the Bible as we know it.
Even if this is true, which I doubt, God used ancient Babylon to fulfill His purposes, so why couldn't He use modern Mystery Babylon? I see no reason to argue it.
The canon we use today was settled by the Church long before the Reformation even happened
Yes, it was settled before the Catholic church existed; before the Roman government married Christianity and turned into Phase II beast.
The idea that the Catholic Church "came late to the game"? Nah, they were the ones who made the game.
Yes, some 3 centuries late. They made the game of false, works-based faith and idolatry as we know it today. The Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles made the real faith, and won that game before these anti-christs even started playing it!
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I really appreciate how passionate you are about this topic, and I think it’s awesome that we’re both digging into the history of the Bible. I’ll do my best to respond to your points one by one and explain where I’m coming from.
Erasmus and the Textus Receptus
You’re absolutely right that Erasmus was a smart and hardworking guy who devoted himself to the study of Scripture. But the fact that he only had access to a handful of Greek manuscripts from later periods does matter. It’s like trying to solve a puzzle with only a few pieces—especially when the manuscripts you’re working with are from the 12th century or later, as his were. That’s why modern textual scholars rely on thousands of manuscripts, including ones much older than those Erasmus had, to get a fuller picture of what the original texts might have said.
Yes, Erasmus added to his notes and made corrections in later editions, but his work was still limited by the resources available to him at the time. This doesn’t make the Textus Receptus bad or unimportant—it was groundbreaking for its time—but it’s also not the final word on the New Testament text. We now have access to earlier manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, which help us go back even closer to the originals.
The Majority Text Argument
I hear what you’re saying about the Majority Text—that 95% of manuscripts agreeing should count for something. But here’s the thing: it’s not just about numbers. A lot of those Byzantine manuscripts come from a later period when scribes had already made corrections and adjustments over time. That’s why they tend to agree more—they’re part of a shared tradition. But that doesn’t automatically make them more accurate.
Imagine you had 95 friends telling you the same story, but they all heard it from a single person who made a mistake. The numbers don’t guarantee the truth; you’d want to compare their story to an earlier source. That’s why older manuscripts like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are so valuable—they were copied closer to the time of the apostles, so they preserve details that might have been smoothed out or lost in later copies.
Doubts About the Canon
It’s super important to remember that it wasn’t the Catholic Church that first tried to remove books from the Bible—it was Martin Luther. Luther didn’t like James, Hebrews, Jude, or Revelation because they didn’t fit neatly with his theology (he famously called James an “epistle of straw”). He even moved those books to a separate section called the “Disputed Books.” Other reformers had doubts about books too. This kind of proves the Vatican’s concerns—they had warned that if people started translating the Bible on their own, they might try to change it, and Luther kind of proved their point.
The Catholic Church had already finalized the canon by the 4th century, at councils like Hippo and Carthage, and they’d worked hard to protect it. The Reformers challenging books of the Bible centuries later shows that the Church’s concern about unauthorized changes wasn’t baseless.
Alexandria and Antioch
I see where you’re coming from about Alexandria being tied to Gnosticism and philosophy. But Alexandria wasn’t just a hub for weird ideas—it was also home to some of the greatest defenders of the Christian faith. People like Athanasius and Clement of Alexandria were based there, and they played huge roles in fighting heresies and shaping Christian doctrine.
Manuscripts like Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus aren’t "corrupt" just because they came from that region. In fact, their differences from later Byzantine manuscripts often show that they’re closer to the original texts. The differences between text families are just part of how hand-copied manuscripts worked. Copyists weren’t perfect, but having different traditions actually helps scholars figure out what’s most likely original.
Suppression of the Textus Receptus
I understand why it seems like the Catholic Church was suppressing the TR or translations based on it, especially during the Reformation. But it’s important to look at the context. The Church wasn’t trying to stop people from having the Bible—they were trying to prevent heretical teachings and bad translations from spreading. At the time, there were groups creating their own Bibles with altered texts, so the Church took steps to protect what they believed was the true faith.
Even before the Reformation, the Church encouraged translations, like Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, to make Scripture accessible. They weren’t against the Bible being read—they were worried about people misinterpreting it or spreading errors. And let’s be real: Luther moving books to the “Disputed” section probably didn’t help calm their concerns!
Modern Bible Translations
I get why you’re skeptical of modern translations like the NIV or ESV, but they aren’t based on just a single text type like Alexandrian manuscripts. Scholars today use thousands of manuscripts from all over—Byzantine, Alexandrian, Western, and more. They don’t just go with the oldest or the majority; they compare everything to figure out the most accurate readings. It’s not a perfect science, but it’s a lot more thorough than just relying on one tradition.
God’s Hand in Preserving Scripture
One thing I think we can totally agree on is that God has preserved His Word through history. Whether it’s through the Catholic Church, the Reformers, or modern scholarship, God’s hand has been there to ensure His message reaches us. Even when people like Luther or others tried to change things, the Bible as a whole remained intact. That’s something we can both celebrate.
The truth is, the Bible has always been a team effort—from the early Church councils to translators like Erasmus and the scholars working on modern versions today. It’s not about which group is better; it’s about how God has worked through all of them to give us His Word. I think the world would be a better place if everyone consistently read and followed the teachings of any of the Bible, any translation!
So while I see where you’re coming from, I think history shows that the Catholic Church, the Reformers, and modern scholars have all played roles in preserving Scripture. Instead of focusing on who got it wrong, maybe we can just be thankful that the Bible has survived everything it’s been through and is still changing lives today. What do you think?
Yes, ZH is quoting a la-la source with clickbait head and text on a mid-2023 subject already discussed here.
This is not a "new chapter" but one version of an already extant chapter containing one variant clause in Matt. 12:1, "rub them in their hands", already found in Luke 6:1. No new text at all.
I think the idea was that this is now the oldest copying of the Luke clause into Matthew and IIRC the shakeup is that it makes Syriac manuscripts more likely to have been united in the third century, earlier than expected. No surprise for those who gave high priority to Syriac all along.
It is absolutely not in our interests to hoo-haw this as if new Bible chapters drop all the time. It's probable a manuscript or palimpsest will be found that contains an entirely new variant, I daresay it happens regularly, but in every case the variant has little bearing on the faithful but nonverbatim transmission made by myriads of extant texts.
Unfortunately this chain doesn't speak much to the attempt to unseat the Textus Receptus, just to the general malaise desirous to unseat the whole of holy writ. But be on your guard regardless.
PS: As an example, here's one of my favorites, a long-known appendage to Matt. 20:28 found in codices Bezae and Beratinus, published by the usual suspects Metzger and Ehrman. Has this "new verse" (expanded from Luke 14:8-10) ever changed anything in Christendom? You've probably never heard of it, but there it is in 5th- and 6th-century uncials that read better than the "Vatican-Sin" manuscripts! If it has never caused the slightest ripple in the average Christian's life, it's unlikely that a palimpsest with no new text in it will mean anything:
'But seek to increase from that which is small, and to become less from that which is greater. When you enter into a house and are summoned to dine, do not sit down at the prominent places, lest perchance a man more honorable than you come in afterwards, and he who invited you come and say to you, "Go down lower"; and you shall be ashamed. But if you sit down in the inferior place, and one inferior to you come in, then he that invited you will say to you, "Go up higher"; and this will be advantageous for you.'
Naw.. this is a crazy take, anon fren.. yeah I trust the Catholics more than an anon with a potty mouth and emotion fueled fren talking about God in the same sentence. Love you fren.
I was about to note to winn privately that while he has well researched points, as does young patriot, he might want to tone things down, though his heart be in the right place.
This is your mistake, and where I hope that rather than a private note, it may be beneficial to us to look at this all together:
I trust the Catholics
Unlike winn, I do not have anything against Catholicism, though I have some great issues with many church leaders and very strongly disagree with a great deal of their dogma, and emphatically against several top church leaders. However, I also greatly admire the zeal of several branches. Consider it my effort to try and identify that which is redemptive in Catholicism, and I firmly do believe there are things that are done right (and many done wrong) within it.
Yet the mistake is, trust no man. Test everything, and hold fast to that which is good.
2 Corinthians 1:9 - Yes, we ourselves have had the sentence of death within ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead
1 Timothy 4:10 - For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we have set our trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 - Test all things, and hold firmly that which is good.
1 John 4:1 - Beloved, don't believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
As winn noted, he gets excited. It’s quite hard not to when you see the depths of The Lie. Yet, don’t trust him. Don’t trust me. Don’t trust the Catholic Church. It’s all information. Test, test, test, and humbly search The Word in prayer, that the Holy Spirit might show you the way.
John 5:18-44
“Which translation? Which claim?”
That’s the catch, isn’t it?
And feel free to call me out on any of this if you catch me screaming at a gnostic.
Was more trying to explain we aren’t even to trust our own selves, as our hearts are deceitful, but let it be as you say. Tongue in cheek can be tricky via text!
😂 look, bro, this all might be bullshit, but the idea you just posited—that the Bible couldn’t have been altered cause somehow God would have prevented it, is perhaps the most childish perspective I have ever heard. Ever.
As best I can tell. It’s not a completely ‘New’ Chapter.
But rather an extremely early writing of an existing chapter. That has some context and words that were missing/omitted from later translations that we are more familiar with.
No, but the narrative seed has been planted, and it will run its course. All we can do is respond to what it fosters and, of course, have the accurate reality on hand to nerf its promulgation.
My discernment says not so. Gal 1:9
Galatians 1:9 KJV
As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. https://tbibles.com/pWjg
"What’s particularly striking is the role of early scribes. Far from being passive transcribers, they actively engaged with the material, reinterpreting and preserving it in ways that reflected their own spiritual and societal realities. "
Scribes reinterpreting it like a revisionist history, and we all know who likes to do that....
ZH is about as trustworthy as the paper they're written on. Oh wait....
"Fake News
A scientist said he found a chapter of the Bible hidden for more than 1,500 years.
These misleading articles have been circulating for the last few months as clickbait sensational articles, by misrepresenting facts. They claim that the manuscript reveals a hidden chapter or never before seen text, which imply that some unique textual variant or a textual reading has been discovered. However, in reality the writing within this manuscript was hidden beneath an overwritten text, something which is not rare in ancient manuscripts, where due to scarcity of manuscripts, they had to recycle the existing books; the reading (content) itself is not unknown. The Syrian text is identical with the existing Syrian (Peshitta) Curetonian Gospels, as mentioned in the linked Cambridge article.
Collation of the Gospel text based on the UV images produced by the Vatican library, enables us to establish that the extant text is identical to the Curetonianus (British Library, Add. 14451). Although in a number of instances the Curetonianus and the Sinaiticus agree against the Peshitta (Matt 12.5, 12.6, 12.7a, 12.7b, 12.8, 12.10a, 12.11b, 12.12, 12.13, 12.19a, 12.24b), there is significant evidence to demonstrate the absolute agreement of the Vatican fragment with the Curetonianus as against the Sinaiticus (Matt 12.1b, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.9, 12.10b, 12.11a, 12.16, 12.17, 12.19b, 12.21, 12.22, 12.23, 12.24a, 12.25).
The variants are so minute to be useful only for the textual critics. The old Syrian translation (Peshitta) is known to be from the third century, and this copy in question dates to under the sixth century. Aina reports:
A medievalist from the Austrian Academy of Sciences (OeAW) has now been able to make legible the lost words on this layered manuscript, a so-called palimpsest: Grigory Kessel discovered one of the earliest translations of the Gospels, made in the 3rd century and copied in the 6th century, on individual surviving pages of this manuscript. The findings are published in the journal New Testament Studies. One of the oldest fragments that testifies ancient Syrian version
"The tradition of Syriac Christianity knows several translations of the Old and New Testaments," says medievalist Grigory Kessel. "Until recently, only two manuscripts were known to contain the Old Syriac translation of the gospels." While one of these is now kept in the British Library in London, another was discovered as a palimpsest in St. Catherine's Monastery at Mount Sinai. The fragments from the third manuscript were recently identified in the course of the "Sinai Palimpsests Project."
The small manuscript fragment, which can now be considered as the fourth textual witness, was identified by Grigory Kessel using ultraviolet photography as the third layer of text, i.e., double palimpsest, in the Vatican Library manuscript. The fragment is so far the only known remnant of the fourth manuscript that attests to the Old Syriac version--and offers a unique gateway to the very early phase in the history of the textual transmission of the Gospels
For example, while the original Greek of Matthew chapter 12, verse 1 says, "At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath; and his disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat," the Syriac translation says, "[...] began to pick the heads of grain, rub them in their hands, and eat them."
Claudia Rapp, director of the Institute for Medieval Research at the OeAW, says, "Grigory Kessel has made a great discovery thanks to his profound knowledge of old Syriac texts and script characteristics." The Syriac translation was written at least a century before the oldest Greek manuscripts that have survived, including the Codex Sinaiticus. The earliest surviving manuscripts with this Syriac translation date from the 6th century and are preserved in the erased layers, so-called palimpsests, of newly written parchment leaves.
The additional gloss of "rubbing them in hands" in Matt 12:1 is simply harmonization with Luke 6:1. Maybe such variant exists in some Greek mss as well.
We can observe how misleadingly the source Claudia Rapp exaggerates the value of the Syrian translation by saying the original translation which began in the 3rd century is older than the oldest (full copies of original) Greek, like the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus. These oldest full copies are often misrepresented as the oldest surviving Greek text, as if there are no surviving mss before them."
Harari's AI-written "new Bible" he has been writing is probably going to be a new bible found in a Vatican archive or some BS. Every lie and every secret is intentionally hidden under the Vatican. Sickening really.
The newly unveiled chapter offers an expanded version of Matthew 12, a passage where Jesus and his disciples are criticized for picking grain on the Sabbath. In this version, subtle textual variations bring fresh theological nuances to light, emphasizing compassion and mercy over rigid observance of religious laws. While the core message aligns with established teachings, these differences hint at the dynamic and adaptive nature of early Christian scripture.
I dont believe them anymore anything.
old and new testaments are compromised and we dont know nothing !
Except if we learn ancient Aramaic or Ethiopian !
This will sound bad to many, but I figure current scripture has been changed greatly from the original writing. Much like our textbooks. Hopefully not though.
I cant see how it could n[t having in mind that complete buying off of European printing houses and publishing houses was complete in late 1800s by juice tribes
Actually, no it hasn’t. Many biblical scholars (over decades) have confirmed with ancient manuscripts that the original writings are very close to our modern version of the bible.
10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
Around the fourth translation of the Bible the text “ Father forgive them, for they not know what they do,” was found, then the fifth translation had , “ He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone.” In other words scribes were adding their own set of translations.
I'm calling BULLSHIT
Yeah, the Vatican and its anti-christ would absolutely love for us to be open to reinterpreting the prophecies about them and the doctrines which demolish their unscriptural dogmas and practices.
Ohhhh here we go. Whole new chapters and books incoming. God wasn't able to preserve His words to everyone between 31AD and 2024AD. THIS IS COMPLETE BULLSHIT. Not the first time the harlot church has faked documents either. "Donation to Constantine"? KEK.
Then there's this papal asset https://files.catbox.moe/25bnly.png who "discovered" this fraudulent manuscript https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alne4vUu5po which conveniently throws doubt upon the Textus Receptus and bolsters the Latin Vulgate.
and we can't forget its bastard cousin the "Codex Vaticanus" - https://www.preservedword.com/content/the-unreliablitity-of-the-alexandrian-manuscripts/
edit- Follow-up comment: https://greatawakening.win/p/19A0oqWWyh/x/c/4ZHjfR1BIWG
Mad props to everyone who actually replied with their disagreement
You're kind of ignorant about history. Okay, so back in the 300s and 400s, popes like Damasus I, Innocent I, and Leo the Great were super important for figuring out which books belong in the Bible. Without them, it would’ve been chaos. There were literally hundreds of writings floating around the churches, many of them claiming to have been written by apostles.
Pope Damasus made a list of the books at a meeting in 382 and got St. Jerome to translate the Bible into Latin (the Vulgate). If he didn’t do that, people might’ve been using all sorts of random books. Then Pope Innocent I made sure everyone stuck to the list by writing letters about it. And Pope Leo the Great kept everything organized and made sure the Church stayed on track.
Without these guys, the Bible we know might not even exist. People would’ve been arguing over what counts as Scripture, and the Church would’ve been a total mess.
So it makes no sense that the church would hide scripture as scripture as we know it as today is whatever the Vatican declared to be scripture.
Nowhere does the book of Luke claim to be written by Luke but church tradition claims it was and later the church officially recognized it and declared it in the canon.
The Textus Receptus > Latin Vulgate in terms of accuracy to the original languages. The Catholic church didn't like when Textus Receptus, a superior work, was released.
The true churches knew what was real scripture and what wasn't. The Law and the Prophets were kept it in the Temple for centuries and the true churches would have known what that canon was, because they were all started by born-again Israelites.
Believers in Antioch, Syria collected the holy Scriptures, which formed the New Testament. Antioch is where followers of Messiah were first called Christians. They made many copies of the scriptures and shared them with other churches, and many believed in Messiah through their witness. (Satan countered by having philosophers in Alexandria, Egypt change the Syrian texts to fit their beliefs. Unbelieving philosophers in Alexandria Egypt, such as Origen, amended, added to and deleted many portions of the true text and then palmed off their work as the Word of God. The two most prominent of the corrupt Alexandrian codices are called the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus). These letters would obviously not have been known in full by the false Roman church usurpers, as they came in late to the game. Ears to hear? Anyways,
The Vaudois translated Scriptures into Latin centuries before Jerome butchered them. Their translation became known as the vulgate (literally the word 'common' in Latin) Bible, and it spread all the way to England before 200 AD. The harlot church and her daughters sure have a way of trademarking definitions, don't they? ('Catholic' literally means 'universal'. It's an adjective 😂 Could say the same for 'Pentecostal', 'Baptist', etc.)
Anyways, Jerome followed Origen’s teachings, so the same corruptions occurred in this Bible. It was completed in 405 AD. During the Dark Ages 500-1500 AD, the Catholic church killed millions of Christians for using translations they didn't like, and they burned the texts. They taught from their corrupt Jerome Latin Vulgate bible and forbid people to read others, even as Latin was being replaced by other languages leaving only them with its understanding. Quite convenient to have the priests be the only ones who can read the Scriptures, eh?
As copies of NT manuscripts have been collected over the years, they have formed two groups:
True Path – The ‘Majority Text’, which makes up 95% of 5,300+ existing manuscripts that are in agreement and form the basis for the Textus Receptus which is also called the ‘Received Text’ or ‘Byzantine Text’.
Corrupt Path – The ‘Minority Text’ which consists of only 5% of existing manuscripts. The main texts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, contradict each other over 3,000 times in the gospels alone, and they disagree with the ‘Majority Text’ in 13,000 places.
Amazingly, modern Bible versions like the NIV and ESV are based on these ‘Minority Text’ manuscripts.
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were written from 300-400 A.D., so because they’re ‘ancient’, modern Bible translators mistakenly think that they must be 'better'; but the Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD 150), the Vetus Latina (AD 157), the Italic Bible (AD 157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
Top. Kek.
Yeah, the false church would have been, without the light of Christ they would need to scramble quickly before they lost grasp on what the true Church put together in the midst of the whirlwind of error they spawned by trying to fit the Gospel into the Babylonian mystery schools. Johnny-come-latelies! Twisters and grifters, thieves deceiving and being deceived!
Alright, so here's the deal: that post makes a ton of claims that don’t really hold up when you look at the facts. Let’s break it down:
Textus Receptus vs. Latin Vulgate
The Textus Receptus (TR) was put together by Erasmus in the 1500s. He only had a few late Greek manuscripts, some from like the 12th century. The Latin Vulgate, made by Jerome way earlier in 405 AD, used much older Greek and Hebrew texts that were closer to the originals. Also, Erasmus made mistakes, like in Revelation where he didn’t have the full Greek text, so he translated it backwards from Latin to Greek. So yeah, not perfect.
The Catholic Church Didn't Hide the TR
The TR didn’t even exist until way after the Catholic Church had already figured out what books belonged in the Bible (this happened at councils in the 300s and 400s). By the time the TR showed up, the Church wasn’t suppressing it—they were just sticking with what had worked for over 1,000 years.
Antioch vs. Alexandria
The post makes Antioch sound like it was perfect and Alexandria like it was evil. That’s not how it worked. Both cities were big Christian hubs. Alexandria is where some of the oldest and best manuscripts come from, like Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. These are closer to the originals than a lot of the Byzantine manuscripts the TR uses, which are from way later.
The Vaudois and Latin Bibles
This idea that the Vaudois had some super-early Latin Bible that was better than Jerome’s Vulgate? Yeah, there’s no real proof of that. There were Old Latin translations before Jerome, but they were all over the place—messy and inconsistent. That’s why Jerome made the Vulgate: to clean it up and make one solid version.
Majority Text vs. Minority Text
The post says the Majority Text (Byzantine) is better because it’s 95% of manuscripts, but that’s like saying the most popular story is always the truest. A lot of Byzantine manuscripts were copied way later and had mistakes smoothed out over time. The Minority Text (like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) is smaller in number but older and closer to the originals. Sure, they have differences, but that’s just how ancient manuscripts work—they were all copied by hand.
The Catholic Church and Access to the Bible
The claim that the Catholic Church "hid" the Bible? Not true. They made rules about translations because they didn’t want random people twisting Scripture to spread fake teachings. It wasn’t about hiding God’s Word; it was about keeping it accurate. And no, they didn’t kill “millions” of people for reading the Bible. That’s a huge exaggeration with no evidence.
Modern Translations Aren’t Based on “Corrupt” Texts
Modern translations like the NIV and ESV aren’t just based on Alexandrian manuscripts. They use all the evidence—Byzantine, Alexandrian, and more—to figure out what’s most accurate. Scholars don’t just blindly pick the oldest texts; they carefully compare everything.
The Catholic Church Preserved Scripture
Without the Catholic Church, we wouldn’t even have the Bible as we know it. They were the ones copying and protecting it during chaotic times in history. The canon we use today was settled by the Church long before the Reformation even happened. The idea that the Catholic Church "came late to the game"? Nah, they were the ones who made the game.
Bottom Line: This whole post is trying to make it sound like the Catholic Church ruined the Bible and the TR is the only good version, but that’s not true. The Church worked hard to preserve Scripture, and modern translations aren’t based on “corrupt” texts—they’re based on the best evidence we have. History is way more complicated than this post makes it seem.
Thanks for the reply. I do have a habit of stating my understanding of things as matter-of-fact. You're reminding me not to do that on matters with murky details. That said, from my understanding:
The fact that Erasmus only had a handful of manuscripts when preparing the 1516 edition is irrelevant in regards to the reliability of the texts underlying it and no scholar should dispute the fact that he studied variant readings of the NT throughout his life prior to publishing it. The truth was there, in the underlying texts, waiting to be compiled and to take its rightful place of prominence!
When it comes to matters like this it isn't so much to say that "what's popular = what's true", but rather to say "where the majority of non-collaborating witnesses all testify to the same things = historical fact". I believe this is a key framework to verifying ancient texts. That said, I agree that the number of manuscripts does not matter as long as God providentially provides the manuscripts for a time of spiritual revival. Josiah saw the hand of God in preserving a single copy of the OT canon and never doubted its authenticity or integrity. (2 Kings 23:2).
The difference here is that we've had manuscripts all the way back to the first churches, and 95% agree with one another while 5% differ greatly and had dubious discoveries (at best). It's very fishy that the Vatican produces an almost completely in tact copy of the NT, and Tischendorf's story is even fishier. I'm talking pope hat fishy!
The Vatican is notorious for forgeries. Donation of Constantine, Renaissance art forgeries, book forgeries, I would also argue manuscript forgeries as I am in this thread; I would also argue that the Jesuits in fact penned the 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of Scion' just as they likely did 'The Secrets of the Elders of Bourg-Fontaine', which was used to discredit the followers of Jansenism, who, at the time, via prominent Jansenist Blaise Pascal, who in his 'Provincial Letters' was highly critical of the Jesuits, were a subject of papal ire.
I would also like to posit that the Jesuits were the authors of Martin Luther's 'On The Jews And Their Lies', with a similar tarnishing agenda. No first edition copies of that book exist and it was attributed to Luther after he died. How very convenient. The language used also doesn't really vibe with Luther's other works, but, as with both the Protocols of Scion and the Secrets of Bourg-Fontaine, it most certainly does vibe with the bloody, perfidious Jesuit Order, in both speech and in the deeds which are so sugguested... moving on,
The differences pale when compared to the number of differences (many of which are substantial, so being copied by hand is hardly a good reasoning for them) between the Alexandrian and the TR. Also, many errors in the first edition TR were corrected by Erasmus in later editions.
Despite the back-translation (Latin to Greek) issues in the final 6 chapters of Revelation, Erasmus included a reading in 22:20 that exists in the Greek and not in any edition of the Vulgate: "αμην ναι ερχου” is used instead of “amen veni", which omits the phrase 'Even so'. This means that he couldn't have been limited to the few texts set before him during his editing of the 1516 edition, as you said, those chapters were missing.
At the very least, he consulted notes such as the annotations of Laurentius Valla.
The Catholic church most certainly has a history of suppressing and persecuting those who used the TR, especially after the Protestant Reformation. They even put their Bibles on the "Forbidden Books" list! How can this not be considered suppressing the TR itself, if they were forbidding the Bibles based on it?? Those Bibles were opening the eyes of a multitude of different nations and tongues. Why limit the spread of God's words?
Alexandria was a gnostic hub full of pompous Platonic philosophers, afaik... Much of what we know today of the secret societies' beliefs can be traced back to it. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are not "oldest and best" either, as my earlier posts addressed already, and idk where you're gettting that they are closer to the Byzantine manuscripts the TR uses?
(super low end) Estimated 50million martyrs total at the Catholic church's hand, not to mention all the non-lethal yet horrendous torture, for more than merely owning a Bible, yes, but owning a Bible was for sure a reason. To deny this is absurd. Imagine Jesus telling His desciples "and one day you will design what we call the Iron Maiden, a metal box full of spikes which you will stick people who don't agree with you in!" 😱 A quote from ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER KILLED BY THE PAPACY IN THE MIDDLE AGES AND LATER::
"....This is especially true because of many millions, perhaps 45 million, killed in Europe in the Counter-Reformation after 1517 and before 1700. Therefore the population figures permit, and even invite, the conclusion that the death toll due to persecution in the Middle Ages is astronomical, and many times larger than 50 million."
Add to that the "excommunications", public shaming (had real consequences), restriction of commerce, theft of property even to your next of kin, on and on we can go with this...
You speak as if you don't think scholars can be compromised and working ulterior motives. I'll have to agree to disagree with this whole quote..
Even if this is true, which I doubt, God used ancient Babylon to fulfill His purposes, so why couldn't He use modern Mystery Babylon? I see no reason to argue it.
Yes, it was settled before the Catholic church existed; before the Roman government married Christianity and turned into Phase II beast.
Yes, some 3 centuries late. They made the game of false, works-based faith and idolatry as we know it today. The Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles made the real faith, and won that game before these anti-christs even started playing it!
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I really appreciate how passionate you are about this topic, and I think it’s awesome that we’re both digging into the history of the Bible. I’ll do my best to respond to your points one by one and explain where I’m coming from.
You’re absolutely right that Erasmus was a smart and hardworking guy who devoted himself to the study of Scripture. But the fact that he only had access to a handful of Greek manuscripts from later periods does matter. It’s like trying to solve a puzzle with only a few pieces—especially when the manuscripts you’re working with are from the 12th century or later, as his were. That’s why modern textual scholars rely on thousands of manuscripts, including ones much older than those Erasmus had, to get a fuller picture of what the original texts might have said.
Yes, Erasmus added to his notes and made corrections in later editions, but his work was still limited by the resources available to him at the time. This doesn’t make the Textus Receptus bad or unimportant—it was groundbreaking for its time—but it’s also not the final word on the New Testament text. We now have access to earlier manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, which help us go back even closer to the originals.
I hear what you’re saying about the Majority Text—that 95% of manuscripts agreeing should count for something. But here’s the thing: it’s not just about numbers. A lot of those Byzantine manuscripts come from a later period when scribes had already made corrections and adjustments over time. That’s why they tend to agree more—they’re part of a shared tradition. But that doesn’t automatically make them more accurate.
Imagine you had 95 friends telling you the same story, but they all heard it from a single person who made a mistake. The numbers don’t guarantee the truth; you’d want to compare their story to an earlier source. That’s why older manuscripts like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are so valuable—they were copied closer to the time of the apostles, so they preserve details that might have been smoothed out or lost in later copies.
It’s super important to remember that it wasn’t the Catholic Church that first tried to remove books from the Bible—it was Martin Luther. Luther didn’t like James, Hebrews, Jude, or Revelation because they didn’t fit neatly with his theology (he famously called James an “epistle of straw”). He even moved those books to a separate section called the “Disputed Books.” Other reformers had doubts about books too. This kind of proves the Vatican’s concerns—they had warned that if people started translating the Bible on their own, they might try to change it, and Luther kind of proved their point.
The Catholic Church had already finalized the canon by the 4th century, at councils like Hippo and Carthage, and they’d worked hard to protect it. The Reformers challenging books of the Bible centuries later shows that the Church’s concern about unauthorized changes wasn’t baseless.
I see where you’re coming from about Alexandria being tied to Gnosticism and philosophy. But Alexandria wasn’t just a hub for weird ideas—it was also home to some of the greatest defenders of the Christian faith. People like Athanasius and Clement of Alexandria were based there, and they played huge roles in fighting heresies and shaping Christian doctrine.
Manuscripts like Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus aren’t "corrupt" just because they came from that region. In fact, their differences from later Byzantine manuscripts often show that they’re closer to the original texts. The differences between text families are just part of how hand-copied manuscripts worked. Copyists weren’t perfect, but having different traditions actually helps scholars figure out what’s most likely original.
I understand why it seems like the Catholic Church was suppressing the TR or translations based on it, especially during the Reformation. But it’s important to look at the context. The Church wasn’t trying to stop people from having the Bible—they were trying to prevent heretical teachings and bad translations from spreading. At the time, there were groups creating their own Bibles with altered texts, so the Church took steps to protect what they believed was the true faith.
Even before the Reformation, the Church encouraged translations, like Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, to make Scripture accessible. They weren’t against the Bible being read—they were worried about people misinterpreting it or spreading errors. And let’s be real: Luther moving books to the “Disputed” section probably didn’t help calm their concerns!
Modern Bible Translations
I get why you’re skeptical of modern translations like the NIV or ESV, but they aren’t based on just a single text type like Alexandrian manuscripts. Scholars today use thousands of manuscripts from all over—Byzantine, Alexandrian, Western, and more. They don’t just go with the oldest or the majority; they compare everything to figure out the most accurate readings. It’s not a perfect science, but it’s a lot more thorough than just relying on one tradition.
God’s Hand in Preserving Scripture
One thing I think we can totally agree on is that God has preserved His Word through history. Whether it’s through the Catholic Church, the Reformers, or modern scholarship, God’s hand has been there to ensure His message reaches us. Even when people like Luther or others tried to change things, the Bible as a whole remained intact. That’s something we can both celebrate.
The truth is, the Bible has always been a team effort—from the early Church councils to translators like Erasmus and the scholars working on modern versions today. It’s not about which group is better; it’s about how God has worked through all of them to give us His Word. I think the world would be a better place if everyone consistently read and followed the teachings of any of the Bible, any translation!
So while I see where you’re coming from, I think history shows that the Catholic Church, the Reformers, and modern scholars have all played roles in preserving Scripture. Instead of focusing on who got it wrong, maybe we can just be thankful that the Bible has survived everything it’s been through and is still changing lives today. What do you think?
the council of nicea. Jerome turned the greek texts to latin way later. New testament is made up of letter who were dead long before 400ad
The Bible is a Catholic book.
See -> https://greatawakening.win/p/19A0oqWWyh/x/c/4ZHjfR1BIWG
Ok I will read up.
Yes, ZH is quoting a la-la source with clickbait head and text on a mid-2023 subject already discussed here.
This is not a "new chapter" but one version of an already extant chapter containing one variant clause in Matt. 12:1, "rub them in their hands", already found in Luke 6:1. No new text at all.
I think the idea was that this is now the oldest copying of the Luke clause into Matthew and IIRC the shakeup is that it makes Syriac manuscripts more likely to have been united in the third century, earlier than expected. No surprise for those who gave high priority to Syriac all along.
It is absolutely not in our interests to hoo-haw this as if new Bible chapters drop all the time. It's probable a manuscript or palimpsest will be found that contains an entirely new variant, I daresay it happens regularly, but in every case the variant has little bearing on the faithful but nonverbatim transmission made by myriads of extant texts.
Unfortunately this chain doesn't speak much to the attempt to unseat the Textus Receptus, just to the general malaise desirous to unseat the whole of holy writ. But be on your guard regardless.
PS: As an example, here's one of my favorites, a long-known appendage to Matt. 20:28 found in codices Bezae and Beratinus, published by the usual suspects Metzger and Ehrman. Has this "new verse" (expanded from Luke 14:8-10) ever changed anything in Christendom? You've probably never heard of it, but there it is in 5th- and 6th-century uncials that read better than the "Vatican-Sin" manuscripts! If it has never caused the slightest ripple in the average Christian's life, it's unlikely that a palimpsest with no new text in it will mean anything:
'But seek to increase from that which is small, and to become less from that which is greater. When you enter into a house and are summoned to dine, do not sit down at the prominent places, lest perchance a man more honorable than you come in afterwards, and he who invited you come and say to you, "Go down lower"; and you shall be ashamed. But if you sit down in the inferior place, and one inferior to you come in, then he that invited you will say to you, "Go up higher"; and this will be advantageous for you.'
u/Raritan
Naw.. this is a crazy take, anon fren.. yeah I trust the Catholics more than an anon with a potty mouth and emotion fueled fren talking about God in the same sentence. Love you fren.
I get excited https://greatawakening.win/p/19A0oqWWyh/x/c/4ZHjfR1BIWG
I was about to note to winn privately that while he has well researched points, as does young patriot, he might want to tone things down, though his heart be in the right place.
This is your mistake, and where I hope that rather than a private note, it may be beneficial to us to look at this all together:
Unlike winn, I do not have anything against Catholicism, though I have some great issues with many church leaders and very strongly disagree with a great deal of their dogma, and emphatically against several top church leaders. However, I also greatly admire the zeal of several branches. Consider it my effort to try and identify that which is redemptive in Catholicism, and I firmly do believe there are things that are done right (and many done wrong) within it.
Yet the mistake is, trust no man. Test everything, and hold fast to that which is good.
2 Corinthians 1:9 - Yes, we ourselves have had the sentence of death within ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead
1 Timothy 4:10 - For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we have set our trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 - Test all things, and hold firmly that which is good.
1 John 4:1 - Beloved, don't believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
As winn noted, he gets excited. It’s quite hard not to when you see the depths of The Lie. Yet, don’t trust him. Don’t trust me. Don’t trust the Catholic Church. It’s all information. Test, test, test, and humbly search The Word in prayer, that the Holy Spirit might show you the way.
John 5:18-44
“Which translation? Which claim?”
That’s the catch, isn’t it?
And feel free to call me out on any of this if you catch me screaming at a gnostic.
I don’t actually trust them on par with God, anon fren. It was a tongue in cheek response, not meant to be taken so literally, fren.
Was more trying to explain we aren’t even to trust our own selves, as our hearts are deceitful, but let it be as you say. Tongue in cheek can be tricky via text!
😂 look, bro, this all might be bullshit, but the idea you just posited—that the Bible couldn’t have been altered cause somehow God would have prevented it, is perhaps the most childish perspective I have ever heard. Ever.
Just jumping ahead of the door they seem to be opening. I've seen enough of this narrative war to know how seeding works!
My reply https://greatawakening.win/p/19A0oqWWyh/x/c/4ZHjfR1BIWG
constantine tischendorf
ANCESTRY BREAKDOWN COMPOSITION
British & Irish 42.4%
French & German 23.6%
Ashkenazi Jewish 7.8%
Gee, I think I know what I'm betting on...🙄🙄
?
As best I can tell. It’s not a completely ‘New’ Chapter.
But rather an extremely early writing of an existing chapter. That has some context and words that were missing/omitted from later translations that we are more familiar with.
Yes that is correct - the title is misleading.
If the title is misleading, should we trust what we're being asked to believe after the title?
No, but the narrative seed has been planted, and it will run its course. All we can do is respond to what it fosters and, of course, have the accurate reality on hand to nerf its promulgation.
I got my bible already, but thanks.
My discernment says not so. Gal 1:9 Galatians 1:9 KJV As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. https://tbibles.com/pWjg
"What’s particularly striking is the role of early scribes. Far from being passive transcribers, they actively engaged with the material, reinterpreting and preserving it in ways that reflected their own spiritual and societal realities. "
Scribes reinterpreting it like a revisionist history, and we all know who likes to do that.... ZH is about as trustworthy as the paper they're written on. Oh wait....
Seems this was reported on by this site - a year and a half ago.
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/84714/what-are-the-implications-of-the-recent-finding-in-vatican-library-in-relation-t
Also - within that article we find this:
"Fake News A scientist said he found a chapter of the Bible hidden for more than 1,500 years.
These misleading articles have been circulating for the last few months as clickbait sensational articles, by misrepresenting facts. They claim that the manuscript reveals a hidden chapter or never before seen text, which imply that some unique textual variant or a textual reading has been discovered. However, in reality the writing within this manuscript was hidden beneath an overwritten text, something which is not rare in ancient manuscripts, where due to scarcity of manuscripts, they had to recycle the existing books; the reading (content) itself is not unknown. The Syrian text is identical with the existing Syrian (Peshitta) Curetonian Gospels, as mentioned in the linked Cambridge article.
Collation of the Gospel text based on the UV images produced by the Vatican library, enables us to establish that the extant text is identical to the Curetonianus (British Library, Add. 14451). Although in a number of instances the Curetonianus and the Sinaiticus agree against the Peshitta (Matt 12.5, 12.6, 12.7a, 12.7b, 12.8, 12.10a, 12.11b, 12.12, 12.13, 12.19a, 12.24b), there is significant evidence to demonstrate the absolute agreement of the Vatican fragment with the Curetonianus as against the Sinaiticus (Matt 12.1b, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.9, 12.10b, 12.11a, 12.16, 12.17, 12.19b, 12.21, 12.22, 12.23, 12.24a, 12.25).
The variants are so minute to be useful only for the textual critics. The old Syrian translation (Peshitta) is known to be from the third century, and this copy in question dates to under the sixth century. Aina reports:
A medievalist from the Austrian Academy of Sciences (OeAW) has now been able to make legible the lost words on this layered manuscript, a so-called palimpsest: Grigory Kessel discovered one of the earliest translations of the Gospels, made in the 3rd century and copied in the 6th century, on individual surviving pages of this manuscript. The findings are published in the journal New Testament Studies. One of the oldest fragments that testifies ancient Syrian version
"The tradition of Syriac Christianity knows several translations of the Old and New Testaments," says medievalist Grigory Kessel. "Until recently, only two manuscripts were known to contain the Old Syriac translation of the gospels." While one of these is now kept in the British Library in London, another was discovered as a palimpsest in St. Catherine's Monastery at Mount Sinai. The fragments from the third manuscript were recently identified in the course of the "Sinai Palimpsests Project."
The small manuscript fragment, which can now be considered as the fourth textual witness, was identified by Grigory Kessel using ultraviolet photography as the third layer of text, i.e., double palimpsest, in the Vatican Library manuscript. The fragment is so far the only known remnant of the fourth manuscript that attests to the Old Syriac version--and offers a unique gateway to the very early phase in the history of the textual transmission of the Gospels
For example, while the original Greek of Matthew chapter 12, verse 1 says, "At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath; and his disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat," the Syriac translation says, "[...] began to pick the heads of grain, rub them in their hands, and eat them."
Claudia Rapp, director of the Institute for Medieval Research at the OeAW, says, "Grigory Kessel has made a great discovery thanks to his profound knowledge of old Syriac texts and script characteristics." The Syriac translation was written at least a century before the oldest Greek manuscripts that have survived, including the Codex Sinaiticus. The earliest surviving manuscripts with this Syriac translation date from the 6th century and are preserved in the erased layers, so-called palimpsests, of newly written parchment leaves.
The additional gloss of "rubbing them in hands" in Matt 12:1 is simply harmonization with Luke 6:1. Maybe such variant exists in some Greek mss as well.
We can observe how misleadingly the source Claudia Rapp exaggerates the value of the Syrian translation by saying the original translation which began in the 3rd century is older than the oldest (full copies of original) Greek, like the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus. These oldest full copies are often misrepresented as the oldest surviving Greek text, as if there are no surviving mss before them."
Thank you.
Yeah here we go wit dis shit again. They just really trying to set the stage for fake jesus aint they. Fags.
Misleading.
I'll stick with what I have. Just maybe this chapter was overwritten because it was in error! Don't be deceived was Jesus' warning!
Harari's AI-written "new Bible" he has been writing is probably going to be a new bible found in a Vatican archive or some BS. Every lie and every secret is intentionally hidden under the Vatican. Sickening really.
I love a good Bible debate. Look at y'all....
Everyone sure does get whipped up about it.
The newly unveiled chapter offers an expanded version of Matthew 12, a passage where Jesus and his disciples are criticized for picking grain on the Sabbath. In this version, subtle textual variations bring fresh theological nuances to light, emphasizing compassion and mercy over rigid observance of religious laws. While the core message aligns with established teachings, these differences hint at the dynamic and adaptive nature of early Christian scripture.
Why was it written in a different language than the original book of Matthew?
Wait a minute! You mean at one time Jesus himself was picking grain on Sunday?
All these years I've been feeling guilty about working on Sunday for nothing.
Stickied for interesting religious research for Anons, as more things come to light hidden in/by the Vatican.
I dont believe them anymore anything. old and new testaments are compromised and we dont know nothing ! Except if we learn ancient Aramaic or Ethiopian !
This will sound bad to many, but I figure current scripture has been changed greatly from the original writing. Much like our textbooks. Hopefully not though.
I cant see how it could n[t having in mind that complete buying off of European printing houses and publishing houses was complete in late 1800s by juice tribes
“…changed greatly from the original writing…”
Actually, no it hasn’t. Many biblical scholars (over decades) have confirmed with ancient manuscripts that the original writings are very close to our modern version of the bible.
1 Corinthians 1:10-13
10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
There are plenty of Christian text being knowingly witheld from you.
https://archive.sacred-texts.com/bib/index.htm
Bible code or gtfo
suspect
Around the fourth translation of the Bible the text “ Father forgive them, for they not know what they do,” was found, then the fifth translation had , “ He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone.” In other words scribes were adding their own set of translations.