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!
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!
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.