Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

If I’m not mistaken, that particular quote of yours from “Against Preaxeus” is thought to be a latter addition by an over Zealous Priest.

That particular quote is eerily similar to Nicene Creed langauge and is absent from most of the ancient surviving copies.

That quote is also at odds with the remainder of the book.

And i believe that that is why some 7th Century Pope excommunicated Tertullian.

Who knows ... it was probably that Pope’s scribe that made the edits. Kind of makes you wonder how much of the Bible they edited to reflect the Nicene Creed as well, huh?


50 posted on 03/24/2013 11:07:15 PM PDT by teppe (... for my God ... for my Family ... for my Country ....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]


To: teppe

“If I’m not mistaken, that particular quote of yours from “Against Preaxeus” is thought to be a latter addition by an over Zealous Priest.”


Evidence? Not that it matters, actually. The issue here is what scripture teaches, not Tertullian, who fell into Montanism later in life.

“Who knows ... it was probably that Pope’s scribe that made the edits. Kind of makes you wonder how much of the Bible they edited to reflect the Nicene Creed as well, huh?”


That would have to mean it was done sometime before the end of the first century, as Ignatius holds to none of your views, but to all of mine, as an example.

When your religion depends on a conspiracy theory to explain why none of it makes sense with the Bible, and why Indians don’t have Hebrew DNA, or why the Book of Abraham Papyri is translated as standard Egyptian burial works by Egyptologists, you should probably start rethinking it.


52 posted on 03/24/2013 11:11:55 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

To: teppe
teppe: And i believe that that is why some 7th Century Pope excommunicated Tertullian

Sorry, wrong doubly: Tertullian wasn't excommunicated, he left the main stream to team up with the Montanists. He strongly believed in the Trinity in the Father-Son-Holy Spirit as pre-existent and in Christ begotten not made.

102 posted on 03/25/2013 9:20:11 AM PDT by Cronos (Latin presbuteros->Late Latin presbyter->Old English pruos->Middle Engl prest->priest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

To: teppe
Who knows ... it was probably that Pope’s scribe that made the edits. Kind of makes you wonder how much of the Bible they edited to reflect the Nicene Creed as well, huh?

There is so much of the rest of your reply here (not quoted above) that is so twisted beyond words...it's difficult to know where to begin.

But consider this:
From a great number of writings, expositions, treatises, personal letters of correspondance and the like, from just the first few centuries (getting even better if we include all of the first five centuries!) along with fragments of NT texts themselves, (some fairly large, and altogether containing 45% of the NT by themselves) that the greater majority of the New Testament could be pieced together using the various and scattered sources, even if there were no fairly early extant copies such as we have...

It is important to note that the sources of extra-biblical writings quoting the bible, be from scattered sources...for since such is very true...how then does one entity (was it the Catholic Church? Latin branch? Eastern Orthodox? Greek Orthodox? which one?) facilitate the nefarious removals of just certain words (which hero Joey "restored" ta-DA!) or that they removed entire books (all of the various churches ganging up to synchronize their watches, I mean their nefarious removals, synching all of that with those pesky Jews, too(!) in regards to Old Testament texts...and coordinating also with that lost community of Essennes at Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) so that most everyone had the same precise changes (which Joey "restored" ta-dA!).

Just wow. Those apostates were pretty slick about their removals! They removed stuff from letters and notes scattered very widely around the world, leaving not ONE SINGLE TRACE of the crime! I'm impressed such ancient people could be so exacting, even as so much else was evidentially hit and miss. Except for...the Masoretic text (not much hit & miss there!), assembled around 100 AD, with the oldest known extant copy from around 1000 AD...it just happens to dovetail *almost* exactly with the Qumran Isaiah scroll, word for word for word. Now since those texts were long hidden...what did those pesky Jews do? Did they run out to the desert and make sure the break-away sect there, got the news to change or delete certain portions of scripture? That would be impossible, for the community at Qumran was destroyed in 68 AD by those even peskier Romans, before the Legion did the big "pesky" at Jerusalem, throwing the stones of the Temple down, leaving nothing standing, as Christ foretold.

The Hebrew religious sect at Qumran wasn't Christian, nor is there any sign of them converting. So if it was some sort of "apostate conspiracy" to remove only certain books which Joey later found (with the help of the angel Moroni, as is claimed), then the "conspiracy" reached all the way to those desert caves.

But do you know what's even more worse, yet? Joey claimed to be translating his book of Mormon from some language he called "reformed egyptian". Now not only is there no trace of such a thing found ANYWHERE in the world, but his alleged translation (and insertion of significant portions of the book of Isaiah into BoM) read as King James translation.

Now how oh, how, does some "Egyptian" dialect just happen to translate & coincide exactly (other than J. Smith textual tweaks) with a Revised Standard Version King James of the 1700's, which itself had English roots from the year 1611 publishing date? Such is an impossibility.

How could the portions of Isaiah he inserted into BoM come from "reforemed egyptian" yet end up just as KJV which consulted the Hebrew? With all the [cited by Erhman] 400,000 variations among all these manuscripts (from the 2nd to 15th century) how does [ahem] "reformed egyptian" end up just like KJV???

There are texts in existence which the King James was translated from. From those it can be seen where PRECISELY the KJV translators diverged from exact word-for-word translation in places where there were no words to convey an idea, or words were chosen that they thought would best convey an idea without straying too far from word-for word...which again leaves it an impossibility that among all other variables...things sourced from some other language, would match the peculiarities inherent to KJV. Here's a sample comparison of Psalms with KJV, RKJV, DSS and Masoretic text to help provide hint of certain [slight] signature "peculiarities" I'm talking about http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/31_psalm138.html

No don't be replying before checking the links, examining the info, and thinking it over...

I'd like to see Mormonic scholars try their hand at explaining the BoM, in light of the sort of information found among the DSS (and elsewhere, too) using textual & form criticism, some place other than BYU, and see if anyone takes them seriously, or simply so utterly dismantles their arguments that if unedited details of such got out, it would drive Mormon wives to triple their zanax scrips, and end up with more than a few so-called Mormon scholars and others, swallowing their pistols. BOOM.

Then again... there's the usual denial machine defense mechanisms that will "protect" many Mormons from the truth of such aspects of their religion (most Mormons born into it?). I feel sorry for 'em. So close, but yet so far...

But wait, there's more! hehheh...

can be found information concerning most of the oldest NT fragments. More bad news for Joey, it appears.

One of the fragments, the "Bodmer Papyrus" dating from approx. 200 AD, comports well enough with KJV and others for John 1:1-6, which just happens to be one section of the NT Joey fiddled around with in his alleged "restoration". (Joey added some words The Joseph Smith Translation in Light of the New Testament; An Examination of Key Passages in the Gospel of John
Which would mean that, for Mormon claims to be true, the actual text was corrupted before 200 AD, but Joey fixed it(?) In the year 1830. In upstate New York. When he was 25 yrs. old. By consulting peep stones hid in his hat...And it sounds just like 17th-18th century "Kings English", too. BwaahAAAhAA! pull the other leg, pull the other leg...you guys are killing me!

Did the angel Moroni speak in 17th century "Kings English", too?



131 posted on 03/26/2013 12:21:34 AM PDT by BlueDragon (the beatings will continue until morale improves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson