But it matched the MT, not the critical text version.
No, the TR is totally accurate and dependable and has been received by the church for 2000 years You live in denial.
No, I live by the evidence.
See Pickering and the Identity of the New Testament Text.
Based on a correct copy of a copy etc You have no proof that any copy is a "correct" copy. We are talking even fragments dating decades, even centuries after the supposed 'originals.' The oldest complete Bible is mid 4th century and its Gospel of mark ends on verse 9:8 (the critical verses 9-20 were added at a later date).
No, we have the church Fathers who cite scriptures throughout their works that support the manuscript evidence.
As for the ending of Mark, that flawed few of an addition was disproved by Dean Burgon in the 19th century.
The ending of Mark ends with verse 20.
Do you think that a Gospel is going to end with 'they were afraid'?
Nonsense, the local churches had long accepted the books long before the 'father's' got around to 'officially' recognizing them. Dream on. The local churches, even Rome, were reading all sorts of things that are not in the Bible today. And many local churches were not reading what is in the Bible today. For one, the oldest complete Bible (C. Sinaiticus) has two books that have been discarded since then. Constantinople did not use the revelation of John until the 9th century!
Well, I cited a source from the Orthodox Church that stated that the scriptures were being read long before they were officially 'recognized' and FF Bruce states likewise. (also posted)
Saved souls and changed lives. Sorry to burst your bubble, but other religions make the same claim and show the same "fruit." Get real!
Other religions can make any claims they want, but they do not worship a risen saviour-which is what makes Christianity different and our fruit different as well.
No, we have the perfect words of Christ, passed down and preserved, much of it by the Byzantine church Another sweeping myth without a shred of evidence. Nice way to "discuss," isn't it? Just make up the answer.
No, that is the historical fact, the West received many of the manuscripts used by Erasmus when they came to the West to preserve them after the Byzantine empire fell.
No, 'faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God' Then don't read! Just listen! You may hear something.
Yes, I have the Bible on tapes as well.
No, I accept what is true based on what the Bible says to be true and the evidence that it has indeed been preserved by God led men You seem to accept what you want to be true, since you are not willing to admit what are glaring examples of inconsistencies in the biblical texts and other facts.
Don't you mean 'alleged' inconsistencies?
You have no facts, just a clear hatred for the Bible and its truth.
You will probably tell me that cavemen and dinosaur bones are a lie, and Genesis is not a myth but 'just the way it happened.'
And you are going to tell me you believe in evolution?
Now, why am not surprised.
So I guess according to you, we can't trust any ancient work, since we do not have the originals of them either. Trust is one thing. Believe with all your heart in them as absolute, immutable truth is a differ requirement. I trust that many people wrote the Bible. I trust that even more people copied them, added and deleated and altered them.
No, according to your reasoning, any ancient document you read cannot be held to be true due to the fact that we do not have the originals to check with the copies.
The headings are part of the Greek text No one mentions any of the authors of Gospels by name for over a century. All references to what we find in Gospels are made as "the Lord Jesus Christ said..." until Irenaeus actually (c. 200 AD) began using presumed author's names.
The names of the authors of scripture are stated very clearly in the textual headings.
The way the church knew to accept or reject a work was by it being written by an Apostle or Prophet or someone close to an Apostle.
Ancient books, including those in the Bible, were titled by the first sentence and not by the author. Thus the Hebrew name for Genesis is Bereishyit (lit. "in the beginning"). In Exodus, in Hebrew called Shemut, it;'s the second word because the first one means 'now.' Leviticus, Vayikra in Hebrew, again, is the first word, etc.
First, we are not talking about the Hebrew Books, we are talking about the Greek Books, which do have titles on them.
Second, regarding the Hebrew Books, Christ said very clearly who the author of them.
The Gospels are anonymous. If the original Greek text had "kata" (according to ... and the name of the author) they wouldn't be anonymous, genius, would they?
The Gospels aren't anonymous, the title of each is given in the heading of the text.
My Greek NT does have Kata and the name of the author.
Various churches read various books, some of which were later rejected. As long as something was read in a church it was considered "scripture."
Other religions can make any claims they want, but they do not worship a risen saviour-which is what makes Christianity different and our fruit different as well
That is a flawed argument. Difference doesn't change the essence. We are all different, yet essentially human. All religions claim 'changed lives' and those that are apocalyptic claim also salvation.
Don't you mean 'alleged' inconsistencies? You have no facts, just a clear hatred for the Bible and its truth
No, I mean inconsistencies. There is no hatred of the Bible or its truth. Nonetheless, human hands and minds have changed it over and over again.
And you are going to tell me you believe in evolution?
The Vatican told Galileo that the craters on the Moon they could see with his telescope were an 'optical illusion' created by the devil who wants us to believe that celestial bodies are not perfect, as all things in heaven [!] are.
Well, there are craters on the moon, and the 'heaven' is not the sky above and 'celestial spheres' are not perfect. If you want to wager on a myth, that's fine with me. God did create this world, but not as we imagine.
No, according to your reasoning, any ancient document you read cannot be held to be true due to the fact that we do not have the originals to check with the copies
Ancient documents usually have other corroborating evidence. If they don't, no one is expected to accept them on faith.
My Greek NT does have Kata and the name of the author.
Show me the original, or even the oldest copy of the original, and then quote one author who before 150 AD credits anything quoted from the gospels to any of the authros we claim.
Take, for instance 1 Clement 13 (c 96 AD), "let us remember what the Lord Jesus Christ said..." and proceeds with quotes found in Matthew 5, 6, and 7 without mentioning the author.
+Ignatius, likewise, in his First Letter to the Smyrnians (about 110 AD) quotes from Mat 3:15 without giving the author.
The first to make vague (namless) refrences to Apostolic authors was +Justin the Martyr (c. 150 AD), mentioning their "memoirs."
It was +Irenaeus (c. end of 2nd century) who for the first time mentiones authors by name, SS. Luke, Mark, John, and Matthew in that order in his , 10.1, 10.5, 11.1, and 16.2). After +Irenaeus it becomes common to reference Gospel authors.
Greek Books, which do have titles on them
+Irenaeus referrs to the books by quoting the first sentence in them. That was the standard method in the ancient world, Hebrew or Greek.