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 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 it most certainly does with the bloody Jesuits' in both speech and in the deeds which are 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 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. He caused the words to be read to the people (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 the Jesuits 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. 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 it most certainly does with the bloody Jesuits' in both speech and in the deeds which are 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 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. He caused the words to be read to the people (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!

...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!