Revisions | The Great Awakening - Where We Go Qne, We Go All!

Reason: None provided.

I apologize in advance for the post length. This post might not make me any friends, but this is what I would want someone to tell me. I am a non-denominational Christian who has been saved for over twenty years. I read the bible in Greek and Hebrew and have studied the bible version issue for several years. First of all, you are on GreatAwakening, so you should understand the concept of the Deep State. Archbishop Carlo Vigano mentioned in his letters to Donald Trump that there is also a Deep Church. The New Testament says to watch out for false prophets and false teachers who will be in the church.

What does this have to do with bible versions? Well the New Testament was written in Koine ("common") Greek. We have around 5,000 copies of it in Greek manuscripts that are older than a few hundred years. About 99% of them are basically identical except for very small spelling mistakes and occasional transpositions of words, etc. However there are a few copies that are radically different from the rest. Specifically two of them are worth knowing about. They are the "Sinai" and the "Vatican" codexes (Codex basically means book).

They are both dated to around 350 AD, and because of this date they are often referred to as the "oldest and best manuscripts". However, we should not judge things by their appearance, but do our own research. Here are some quick items of note:

These two codexes ( "codices" for the pedantic ) omit a disturbing amount of verses in the New Testament, not to mention tons of omissions of individual words.
There is a pattern to these omissions. They focus on the divinity of Christ, references to the blood of Jesus, references to fasting, detecting demons, and other topics such as faith before baptism.
There are tons of evidence of editing of these codexes. One of them had two additional authors go over sections of the manuscript and edit it. When quoting these parts, you have to specify which editor you are quoting.
These codexes constantly contradict each other. They often have divergent changes in the same verse.
One of my favorite facts, that I verified myself, is in the Vatican codex. This codex has 3 columns per page. In every book in the New Testament, when that book ends on one column, the next book starts on the next column. Except, that is, for one transition. The book of Mark ends on one column, and then there is AN ENTIRE BLANK COLUMN and then the book of Luke starts after the blank column. Why is this worthy of note? Many people now teach that Mark chapter 16 verses 9-20 are not in the original manuscripts because Vatican and Sinai codexes omit them. However the scribe who wrote the Vatican codex left a big fat piece of evidence that something was missing. This is even more interesting when it is claimed that Mark was the first gospel. Without verses 9-20 there is no real evidence of resurrection, and you can imagine how atheists have a field day with that fact. Modern scholarship unironically believes that the gospel of Mark literally ends with the words "and they were afraid".
Other important sections changed or left out of these two codexes are "the woman caught in adultery", someone being told that they should only be baptized if "they believe with all their heart", a verse that says "God was manifest in the flesh", and teaching that some demons only come out "through prayer AND FASTING".

Why would oldest not be the best? Well, I have a couple of bibles that I don't like and some that I love. Guess which books are in better shape? The ones I don't like stay preserved perfectly on the shelf. The good copies get used until they break. The same thing happened throughout history. The sketchy copies stayed on shelves and the good copies were used until they wore out.

More importantly, we should look at the fruit. The traditional manuscripts, often called "the received text", were the bibles of the Protestant reformation that caused peoples hearts to burn for the word of God. Also Catholics ended up having to go back to the word to fortify their beliefs. Ever since the teaching that "the oldest manuscript is the most accurate", which really caught on in the early 1900s, we have had dozens of new bibles in English, and the church has arguably become more and more watered down and lost its power and influence. The average christian that I know almost never reads the bible on their own because their bibles are not empowering them.

This is a very deep rabbit hole and the information overload can be overwhelming, so feel free to dm me for further conversation.

Also, for Catholic and Orthodox frens (God bless you!), the Orthodox new testament is very close the protestant received text. The older catholic bibles such as Douay Rheims also used the received text. Church fathers who wrote before 350 AD often quote verses that are omitted in the Vatican and Sinai codexes.

I haven't even mentioned Wescott and Hort, who led the push to abandon the received text, and their membership in a seance club and association with Madame Blavatsky, the occult theosophist. That is a worthy dig for any Christian anon who is curious.

In summary, this knowledge took me years to research on my own, and I feel that the Greek received text is the purest form of the word of God. It has done a very good job sustaining me in several horrible life events. The Old Testament manuscripts are way more uniform, and that debate, in my opinion, is nowhere near as serious as the New Testament issues.

Available bibles based on the received text are the old and new king james bibles. I am not "King James Only". I can point out places where I disagree with the translation, but it is as good as things currently get.

Final fun note, the Sinai codex was discovered by a guy who saw monks using it to start fires because they thought it was a corrupted copy. The Vatican codex appeared MYSTERIOUSLY with no history in the vatican library. Gotta love that.

Here is a list of changes in Vatican and Sinai: ( Warning, this site IS kjv only )

http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html

http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/various.html

2 years ago

3 score

Reason: None provided.

I apologize in advance for the post length. This post might not make me any friends, but this is what I would want someone to tell me. I am a non-denominational Christian who has been saved for over twenty years. I reads the bible in Greek and Hebrew and have studied the bible version issue for several years. First of all, you are on GreatAwakening, so you should understand the concept of the Deep State. Archbishop Carlo Vigano mentioned in his letters to Donald Trump that there is also a Deep Church. The New Testament says to watch out for false prophets and false teachers who will be in the church.

What does this have to do with bible versions? Well the New Testament was written in Koine ("common") Greek. We have around 5,000 copies of it in Greek manuscripts that are older than a few hundred years. About 99% of them are basically identical except for very small spelling mistakes and occasional transpositions of words, etc. However there are a few copies that are radically different from the rest. Specifically two of them are worth knowing about. They are the "Sinai" and the "Vatican" codexes (Codex basically means book).

They are both dated to around 350 AD, and because of this date they are often referred to as the "oldest and best manuscripts". However, we should not judge things by their appearance, but do our own research. Here are some quick items of note:

These two codexes ( "codices" for the pedantic ) omit a disturbing amount of verses in the New Testament, not to mention tons of omissions of individual words.
There is a pattern to these omissions. They focus on the divinity of Christ, references to the blood of Jesus, references to fasting, detecting demons, and other topics such as faith before baptism.
There are tons of evidence of editing of these codexes. One of them had two additional authors go over sections of the manuscript and edit it. When quoting these parts, you have to specify which editor you are quoting.
These codexes constantly contradict each other. They often have divergent changes in the same verse.
One of my favorite facts, that I verified myself, is in the Vatican codex. This codex has 3 columns per page. In every book in the New Testament, when that book ends on one column, the next book starts on the next column. Except, that is, for one transition. The book of Mark ends on one column, and then there is AN ENTIRE BLANK COLUMN and then the book of Luke starts after the blank column. Why is this worthy of note? Many people now teach that Mark chapter 16 verses 9-20 are not in the original manuscripts because Vatican and Sinai codexes omit them. However the scribe who wrote the Vatican codex left a big fat piece of evidence that something was missing. This is even more interesting when it is claimed that Mark was the first gospel. Without verses 9-20 there is no real evidence of resurrection, and you can imagine how atheists have a field day with that fact. Modern scholarship unironically believes that the gospel of Mark literally ends with the words "and they were afraid".
Other important sections changed or left out of these two codexes are "the woman caught in adultery", someone being told that they should only be baptized if "they believe with all their heart", a verse that says "God was manifest in the flesh", and teaching that some demons only come out "through prayer AND FASTING".