Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
As far as the Apostolic Church is concerned, it makes very little difference which version. We use Gosple readings that tell us how Christ lived, and how we should live. To me there is very little value in being a Christinan when it comes to alleged God-ordered slaughter of Canaanites. But what chirst taught us is of utmost importance in our daily life and how we act in similar situations (hopefully by imitating Christ).
The exact version only becomes important when cherry-pciking verses for one's own agenda, as is the the case and the cause of endless fragmentation of Christainity. The Bible is inherently corurpted by human hand, error, deletions and additions, and is as such untrustworthy because we don't have a single originaldocument to comapre it to.
Sinaiticus is a mid 4th century Bible. What proof do you have that it is a "forgery?"
The Vaticanus and Sinaitcus disagree with each other over 3,000 in the Gospels alone, while all manuscripts of the Textus Receptus agree with each other over 95%!
The KJV had hundreds of erros in its first edition, what singificane are the 3,000 variants in the two Codices you mention? The more polished a version simply means it is more altered. It doesn't mean is ti more God-breathed!
LOLOL --
So then the Greek "Chaldaios" means "Chaldean", and you are saying that the Greek "Hebraisti" also means "Chaldean"??? At first you claimed that the Greek "Hebraisti" meant "Aramaic", and then "Chaldean".
And now we find out that the Greek has two words for "Chaldean", and not one word at all for "Hebrew"????? Does anyone living in the real world outside of the land of Greek mythology believe that???
Perhaps we should heed that ancient advice: Beware of Greeks bearing their own dictionaries.
Alexandria, where this text-type came from, was the heart and soul of Gnosticism, which is found throughout this Alexandrian text. Your admission is quite telling --
Just because the Greeks called the language "Hebrew" (because Hebraios spoke it) doesn't mean it was OT Greek. Even the Jewish sources certify that the spoken language was Chaldean (Aramaic). What the Greeks called it did not change the language from Chaldean into OT Hebrew.
You just can't grasp that, can you?
Well -- in Rome there is an exception to every rule.
A Protestant scholar allowed into the Vatican archives was such an anomaly that they had to take a picture of it for posterity.
Did they make him stand for the entire 15 minute examination????
Your clock is not working. By the 4th century, the issue of Gnosticism and any threat to the Church of Alexandria (St. Athanasius) is rather a moot point. At least try to keep the comments in context.
lol. I'd like to see some substantiation by something other than the single word "original" carefully inserted into some website which gives evidence that Metzger actually handled the originals and not just copies which has been the Vatican's policy since it "discovered" these pages.
You need to pay more attention. The Greek word for Old Testament is Ioudaisti. I have posted this half a dozen times. Maybe it's the medication, or who knows...but you don't seem to register it.
OT Greek=OT Hebrew. My bad.
And I thought we read on some thread last year that no pens, papers, pencils, copiers or cameras are allowed to be taken into the “examining room” of the Vatican.
I can show you half a dozen sites with equal number of schoalrs attesting that Textus Receptus is flawed and that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, despite their lack of polish, represent copies closest to the original scriptures (which were not polished by all accounts).
What "medication" would that be, Kosta?
Or is that just you "making it personal?"
Take your pick.
What a bizarre claim. Scripture says the bodies of Christian believers are temples of the Holy Spirit. How much more is that true of the mystical Body of Christ?
Besides which, the Church is the Temple of the Living God. It as much the Temple of the Holy Spirit as it is the Temple of the other Persons of the Blessed Trinity.
Are you into rejecting the Trinity now?
The RCC has the sacraments being the means of Christ revealing Himself to us and paying for our sins
That isn't what the catechism said, is it? No, it certainly isn't. That's your spin on what the catechism said.
when Scripture tells us that the Holy Spirit gives all believers the knowledge of what is good and true regarding Christ's one-time, accomplished sacrifice for all this sins of His flock.
The catechism passages you quoted didn't discuss how believers acquire knowledge, but how they acquire grace.
Well, on another thread, we're assured that "Romanist doctrine" says that we can only seek God through our intellect. That isn't any "Romanist doctrine" I know. Maybe you guys think "knowledge" and "grace" are two ways of saying the same thing.
First you said that scholars couldn't even see the originals. That having been disproven, now you demand proof that they can "handle" the originals. Next you'll want proof that Martin Luther was raised from the dead and permitted to eat at least one page from Romans or Galatians.
You know very well that if they let people handle those manuscripts on a regular basis that they would be dust after 50 years.
A personal question, yes. Are you the official "overseer?" Well, in that case, I was asking UC how come he didn't register the same answer at least half a dozen times when I posted it. I mean, under normal circumstances one would notice it at leats once. But when he seems to have never seen it, I wondered and honestly aske dhim. He is of course under no obligation to respond.
In your dreams.
It's called Gnosticism, and it seems to be alive and well in the Reformed world.
Nor obviously chairs to sit on --
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.