It Is satanic Heresy to Deny Eternal Security
- Thread starter Atwood
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
"What manuscript before AD 300 has the John 8 story in it? I don't recall a one." Atwood
Pictures of Papyrus 66 - near complete gospel of John
Papyrus 66 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia -200 AD
Historical situation of the Gospel of John
Papyrus P52 - Earliest known manuscript
of the Gospel of John. Date: around 125 AD
from the Papyrus P66. Date: around 200 AD
Pictures of Papyrus 66 - near complete gospel of John
Papyrus 66 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia -200 AD
Historical situation of the Gospel of John
Papyrus P52 - Earliest known manuscript
of the Gospel of John. Date: around 125 AD
John 8, 12-16 -
Greek text of the Gospelfrom the Papyrus P66. Date: around 200 AD
Last edited:
Proof:
Axiom 2: The Bible is the Word of God.
Observation: The God of the Bible cannot lie.
Observation: God's word says, and IT IS WRITTEN:
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself.
Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.
But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.
In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, weresealed with the promised Holy Spirit,
For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life,and I will raise him up on the last day.”
For by a single offering he has perfected for all timethose who are being sanctified.
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
But whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
QED
Axiom 2: The Bible is the Word of God.
Observation: The God of the Bible cannot lie.
Observation: God's word says, and IT IS WRITTEN:
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself.
Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.
But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.
In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, weresealed with the promised Holy Spirit,
For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life,and I will raise him up on the last day.”
For by a single offering he has perfected for all timethose who are being sanctified.
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
But whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
QED
P66 omits the apocryphal story.
11 7.53–8.11 {A} omit 7.53–8.11 P66, 75
UBS textual apparatus.
John 8:12 is Again therefore Jesus spake unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life.
John 8:12-16 is after the apocryphal insertion. P66 does not have it.
Comfort's commentary on the text:
This passage is included in NA27 and UBS4 but enclosed in double square brackets [meaning the editors's reject it]
In WH, it appears after John’s gospel. It is included in TR as 7:53–8:11.
omit 7:53–8:11 P39vid P66 P75
Mezger's Commentary on the text:
"The evidence for the non–Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming.
It is absent from such early and diverse manuscripts as P66, 75 ℵ B L N T W X Y Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193 al.
"Codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it is highly probable that neither contained the pericope, for careful measurement discloses that there would not have been space enough on the missing leaves to include the section along with the rest of the text.
"In the East the passage is absent from the oldest form of the Syriac version (syrc, s and the best manuscripts of syrp), as well as from the Sahidic and the [p. 188] sub–Achmimic versions and the older Bohairic manuscripts. Some Armenian manuscripts8 and the Old Georgian version9 omit it.
"In the West the passage is absent from the Gothic version and from several Old Latin manuscripts (ita, l*, q).
"No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it.
"When one adds to this impressive and diversified list of external evidence the consideration that the style and vocabulary of the pericope differ noticeably from the rest of the Fourth Gospel (see any critical commentary), and that it interrupts the sequence of 7.52 and 8.12ff., the case against its being of Johannine authorship appears to be conclusive.
. . .
"Although the Committee was unanimous that the pericope was originally no part of the Fourth Gospel, in deference to the evident antiquity of the passage a majority decided to print it, enclosed within double square brackets, at its traditional place following Jn 7.52".
11 7.53–8.11 {A} omit 7.53–8.11 P66, 75
UBS textual apparatus.
John 8:12 is Again therefore Jesus spake unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life.
John 8:12-16 is after the apocryphal insertion. P66 does not have it.
Comfort's commentary on the text:
This passage is included in NA27 and UBS4 but enclosed in double square brackets [meaning the editors's reject it]
In WH, it appears after John’s gospel. It is included in TR as 7:53–8:11.
omit 7:53–8:11 P39vid P66 P75
Mezger's Commentary on the text:
"The evidence for the non–Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming.
It is absent from such early and diverse manuscripts as P66, 75 ℵ B L N T W X Y Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193 al.
"Codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it is highly probable that neither contained the pericope, for careful measurement discloses that there would not have been space enough on the missing leaves to include the section along with the rest of the text.
"In the East the passage is absent from the oldest form of the Syriac version (syrc, s and the best manuscripts of syrp), as well as from the Sahidic and the [p. 188] sub–Achmimic versions and the older Bohairic manuscripts. Some Armenian manuscripts8 and the Old Georgian version9 omit it.
"In the West the passage is absent from the Gothic version and from several Old Latin manuscripts (ita, l*, q).
"No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it.
"When one adds to this impressive and diversified list of external evidence the consideration that the style and vocabulary of the pericope differ noticeably from the rest of the Fourth Gospel (see any critical commentary), and that it interrupts the sequence of 7.52 and 8.12ff., the case against its being of Johannine authorship appears to be conclusive.
. . .
"Although the Committee was unanimous that the pericope was originally no part of the Fourth Gospel, in deference to the evident antiquity of the passage a majority decided to print it, enclosed within double square brackets, at its traditional place following Jn 7.52".
I though I should look at your photo more carefully, Dead.
Here is the photo of p66 on the page where the apocryphal story would be:
http://www.earlybible.com/images/p66joh48.jpg
It jumps from the end of the verse we call 7:52 to what we call 8:12, right past where that story would be. The last word in 7:52 is egeiretai. ἐγείρεται. Out of Galilee no prophet is raised (egeiretai). The next word in the manuscript is Πάλιν palin = again. Again therefore Jesus spoke.
On the photo, these 2 words (egeiretai and palin) are the last 2 words on the 2nd line, separated by a raised dot, which is our standard punctuation for a semicolon in Greek. (Nowadays used not even as a period, but as a weak period.) If you look closely you should see this "Greek semicolon, raised dot." It comes between the iota (a straight vertical slightly curved undotted line at the end of egeiretai) and the first letter of palin (you will recognize the Greek letter used in math, π , the Greek p.
Clearly p66 does not have this passage and runs on like it never happened. Indeed another argument for omission is that the apocryphal story interrupts the context.
Here is the photo of p66 on the page where the apocryphal story would be:
http://www.earlybible.com/images/p66joh48.jpg
It jumps from the end of the verse we call 7:52 to what we call 8:12, right past where that story would be. The last word in 7:52 is egeiretai. ἐγείρεται. Out of Galilee no prophet is raised (egeiretai). The next word in the manuscript is Πάλιν palin = again. Again therefore Jesus spoke.
On the photo, these 2 words (egeiretai and palin) are the last 2 words on the 2nd line, separated by a raised dot, which is our standard punctuation for a semicolon in Greek. (Nowadays used not even as a period, but as a weak period.) If you look closely you should see this "Greek semicolon, raised dot." It comes between the iota (a straight vertical slightly curved undotted line at the end of egeiretai) and the first letter of palin (you will recognize the Greek letter used in math, π , the Greek p.
Clearly p66 does not have this passage and runs on like it never happened. Indeed another argument for omission is that the apocryphal story interrupts the context.
The texts are the proof of the assertion. It is written. Thus saith the Lord. It is written is the end of the line.
Have some more, Cassian:
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
And who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.
For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.
For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.
But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.
Perhaps you want to look at all of John, Romans, and Galatians.
Have some more, Cassian:
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
And who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.
For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.
For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.
But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.
Perhaps you want to look at all of John, Romans, and Galatians.
IN DEFENSE OF MARK16: 9-20 AND JOHN 7:53-8:11
these same Bible scholars that want to omit the above verses from Scripture, do not go on to tell you what else they know about Mark 16: 9-20. Dr. C. I. Scofield in the Scofield Bible does tell us, "The passage is quoted by Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the second or third century." Hippolytus in the years from 170-236 A.D. had these passages in his works. (3) Also Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in 180 A.D., had these verses in his writings. He was a student of Polycarp (Bishop of Smyrna, Revelation 2). Polycarp was martyred in 156 A.D., he had been a Christian for 86 years, and was a disciple of John the Apostle.
Even though Irenaeus did not leave us a complete manuscript of the Bible, he does quote much of it in his own commentary, which does include the Mark 16: 9-20 passage. It would seem strange for him to quote this part along with other Scripture unless he knew it was truly part of Scripture. Also, being a disciple of John the Beloved, he must have known what was considered Scripture and what was not!
the book of Mark is not complete at verse 8. No doubt, as today, some people did not like these two passages, and so in their translations omitted them. Also everything that is mentioned in Mark 16: 9-20 agrees with the rest of Scripture.
Let's also talk about the John 7: 53-8:11 passage, since it too has been left out of some manuscripts. Let me quote Dr. H. A. Ironside, Litt. D. and his research here: "We should recognize at the very beginning that in the minds of many people, many Bible critics, many Christian scholars, this entire passage is considered questionable because in some of the older manuscripts you will not find these eleven verses. On the other hand, it is rather an interesting fact that in a number of very ancient manuscripts, while these verses are omitted, there is a blank space left on the page, showing evidently the scribe meant to indicate that in some other manuscripts that something came in between verse 52 of chapter seven and verse 12 of Chapter eight. In other manuscripts this section is omitted altogether. Others again give us the passage, but do not place it here. They put it at the end of John's Gospel as a kind of postscript.
"On the other hand, we have very good authority for regarding it as genuine, for it is found in many old Greek manuscripts, and it seems very evident that it is part of this Gospel. The reason that it is omitted in many instances, I take it, is because some of the early Christians apparently felt that a story such as this, which seemed to suggest a lenient attitude toward immoral behavior, might be misunderstood, and particularly by a people just emerging from heathenism, with all its vile and impure practices, which were often connected even
with the worship of their gods." (4)
I'll leave it as this. I know the voice of my God, and John 8 is true. Believe what you want. Thousands of manuscripts agree and your "oldest manuscripts" do not.
these same Bible scholars that want to omit the above verses from Scripture, do not go on to tell you what else they know about Mark 16: 9-20. Dr. C. I. Scofield in the Scofield Bible does tell us, "The passage is quoted by Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the second or third century." Hippolytus in the years from 170-236 A.D. had these passages in his works. (3) Also Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in 180 A.D., had these verses in his writings. He was a student of Polycarp (Bishop of Smyrna, Revelation 2). Polycarp was martyred in 156 A.D., he had been a Christian for 86 years, and was a disciple of John the Apostle.
Even though Irenaeus did not leave us a complete manuscript of the Bible, he does quote much of it in his own commentary, which does include the Mark 16: 9-20 passage. It would seem strange for him to quote this part along with other Scripture unless he knew it was truly part of Scripture. Also, being a disciple of John the Beloved, he must have known what was considered Scripture and what was not!
the book of Mark is not complete at verse 8. No doubt, as today, some people did not like these two passages, and so in their translations omitted them. Also everything that is mentioned in Mark 16: 9-20 agrees with the rest of Scripture.
Let's also talk about the John 7: 53-8:11 passage, since it too has been left out of some manuscripts. Let me quote Dr. H. A. Ironside, Litt. D. and his research here: "We should recognize at the very beginning that in the minds of many people, many Bible critics, many Christian scholars, this entire passage is considered questionable because in some of the older manuscripts you will not find these eleven verses. On the other hand, it is rather an interesting fact that in a number of very ancient manuscripts, while these verses are omitted, there is a blank space left on the page, showing evidently the scribe meant to indicate that in some other manuscripts that something came in between verse 52 of chapter seven and verse 12 of Chapter eight. In other manuscripts this section is omitted altogether. Others again give us the passage, but do not place it here. They put it at the end of John's Gospel as a kind of postscript.
"On the other hand, we have very good authority for regarding it as genuine, for it is found in many old Greek manuscripts, and it seems very evident that it is part of this Gospel. The reason that it is omitted in many instances, I take it, is because some of the early Christians apparently felt that a story such as this, which seemed to suggest a lenient attitude toward immoral behavior, might be misunderstood, and particularly by a people just emerging from heathenism, with all its vile and impure practices, which were often connected even
with the worship of their gods." (4)
I'll leave it as this. I know the voice of my God, and John 8 is true. Believe what you want. Thousands of manuscripts agree and your "oldest manuscripts" do not.
Dead, I thought your claim that the SRB defends John 8 apocryphal woman story, was a strange claim. But I didn't bother to check it because Scofield's opinion is irrelevant. But you go on about the longer ending of Mark, which Scofield defends. And so do I. It is a red herring here. Yes, Mark's resurrection ending is genuine as only 2 significant mss omit it, Vaticanus has a special blank there, omitting it makes Mark end with gar, which is extremely unlikely a final word in a Greek ms. And there is a mechanical explanation, last page of a codex wore off.
I know the voice of the Lord, and I do not hear it in the apocryphal story of John 8. It makes inconsistent theology, and it is not well supported by the manuscript data.
But if you think you can lose salvation, you need to trust Christ as Savior and become a sheep who knows the voice.
I know the voice of the Lord, and I do not hear it in the apocryphal story of John 8. It makes inconsistent theology, and it is not well supported by the manuscript data.
But if you think you can lose salvation, you need to trust Christ as Savior and become a sheep who knows the voice.
Last edited:
I can't remember if I "replied with quote" or not. But I believe I intended it as a general statement. Because several people have called me a heretic because there was a disagreement.
1 - Don't really know. But I believe in God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. And I know that Jesus is my Savior. I do realize that the bible says that there is only One God. I also know that the bible references (Us) multiple Beings, as in Genesis 1. I don't think this is a reason to call someone a heretic. If you accept God, you must accept Jesus. And if you accept Jesus, you have already accepted God. It really isn't possible to accept One and not the Other.
2 - Agree (But refer to one)
3 - Never heard of it, but it sounds like I probably agree, but again, never heard of that phrase
4 - Absolutely
5 - I believe that Jesus paid it all. But that I must accept Him and that I should live a faithful life. I do not believe that all will be saved. I believe that truly accepting Jesus involves a life change and not just rambling off a few words. I want to clarify here - I believe you are saved before you "work", but I do believe that you must listen to the Holy Spirit and allow the Holy Spirit to guide you.
1 - Don't really know. But I believe in God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. And I know that Jesus is my Savior. I do realize that the bible says that there is only One God. I also know that the bible references (Us) multiple Beings, as in Genesis 1. I don't think this is a reason to call someone a heretic. If you accept God, you must accept Jesus. And if you accept Jesus, you have already accepted God. It really isn't possible to accept One and not the Other.
2 - Agree (But refer to one)
3 - Never heard of it, but it sounds like I probably agree, but again, never heard of that phrase
4 - Absolutely
5 - I believe that Jesus paid it all. But that I must accept Him and that I should live a faithful life. I do not believe that all will be saved. I believe that truly accepting Jesus involves a life change and not just rambling off a few words. I want to clarify here - I believe you are saved before you "work", but I do believe that you must listen to the Holy Spirit and allow the Holy Spirit to guide you.
New Testament Manuscripts
[FONT=COMIC SANS MS,ARIAL,HELVETICA] [h=1]New Testament Manuscripts[/h]Richard Anthony
[HR][/HR][/FONT]
[FONT=ARIAL,HELVETICA,SANS-SERIF]
[FONT=COMIC SANS MS,ARIAL,HELVETICA] [h=1]New Testament Manuscripts[/h]Richard Anthony
[HR][/HR][/FONT]
[FONT=ARIAL,HELVETICA,SANS-SERIF]
The various books of the New Testament were written individually and copied to be circulated amongst the churches of the ancient world. In time God moved men to combine these books into a single volume, the New Testament. This volume and its parts were copied and recopied by hand for centuries. By the time of the development of the printing press in the mid-15th century, there were many handwritten manuscripts available. Over the next centuries, numerous men set about collecting, combining and comparing the manuscripts in order to have one complete Greek New Testament text to print. One of the earliest of these is the text we know of as the Textus Receptus or Received Text.
Two Categories of New Testament Manuscripts There are basically one of either two categories of New Testament manuscripts which all bibles are based upon.
The Minority Text There are only a few bibles that are based on the Majority Text, such as the King James Bible and the Gideon's Bible. But almost all modern English bibles translated since 1898 are based on the Minority Text (this includes the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, the Living Bible, the New Revised Standard Version, the New World Translation, the New Century Version, the Good News Bible, etc.). These bible versions are only supported by about five of the over 5,000 manuscripts in existence, or about .1% of all manuscripts, which is why it's also known as the "Minority text.".
The two most prominent manuscripts of the Minority Texts are the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. Since the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are said to be older than the 5000 manuscripts that support the Majority Text, they were called "better" than the Majority Text. This is not so. These Minority Texts frequently disagreed with each other as well as with the Majority Text, and also contained many obvious and flagrant mistakes. Up until the late 1800s, the Minority Texts were utterly rejected by Christians.
The fact that these two manuscripts may have been older does not prove they are better. More likely it indicates that they were set aside because of their numerous errors. Thus they would naturally last longer than the good manuscripts which were being used regularly. The reader is reminded that the Apostle Paul testified to the corruption of the Word in his day (2 Corinthians 11:4, Galatians 1:6). Hence "oldest" is not necessarily the best.
The Vaticanus, which is the sole property of the Roman Catholic Church, and the Sinaiticus, are both known to be overwhelmed with errors. Words and whole phrases are repeated twice in succession or completely omitted, while the entire manuscript has had the text mutilated by some person or persons who ran over every letter with a pen making exact identification of many of the characters impossible.
Proof that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are Corrupted
Now lets take a look at some facts about the Minority Text from which most modern translations are derived. One of the manuscripts that make up the Minority Text is the Vaticanus. The Vaticanus was found in 1481 in the Vatican library. The other manuscript is the Sinaiticus. The Sinaiticus was found in 1844 in a trash pile at Saint Catherine's monastery, and rescued from a long (and well-deserved) obscurity. It has a great number of omissions and has many words and phrases marked out and re-written. Both of these manuscripts are from Roman Catholic origin.
The Vaticanus (B): The use of recent technology, such as the vidicon camera, reveals that the Vaticanus has been altered by at least two hands, one being as late as the 12th century. The Vaticanus agrees with the Textus Receptus only about 50% of the time. It differs from the Majority Greek in nearly 8,000 places, amounting to about one change per verse. It omits several thousand key words from the Gospels, nearly 1000 complete sentences, and 500 clauses. It adds approximately 500 words, substitutes or modifies nearly 2000 and transposes word order in about 2000 places. It has nearly 600 readings that do not occur in any other manuscript. These affect almost 1000 words.
Linguistic scholars have observed that the Vaticanus is classical and Platonic Greek, not the Koine Greek of the New Testament. Codicologists note that the Vaticanus was written on vellum scrolls (skin obtained from animals not yet born), and not papyrus codices, as were used among "the early Christians." The Vaticanus omits crucial parts of Mark and Luke. Theologians question its lack of use by anyone for 1300 years, then its "sudden" discovery in the Vatican in 1481. Protestant researches have never been permitted to examine the actual manuscript and work only from copies provided by the Vatican.
The Sinaiticus (Aleph): The Sinaiticus, was so poorly executed that seven different hands of "textual critics" can be discerned as they tried to impose their views on this already corrupt manuscript. They twisted it like a nose of wax to meet their purposes at the time. It is no wonder that it was discarded, finally found in a wastebasket fourteen centuries after it was executed. Because of its blatant omissions and alterations, it lapsed into a wastebasket in a monastery, where it was "discovered" by Constantine von Tischendorf in the mid 1800's. It was kept by the Russian government from 1859-1933. Eastern Germany and Russia still retain parts of it. The fact that some pages were written on sheepskin and some on goatskin is a telling sign of its part Christian, part Heathen character.
There are 9000 changes from the Majority Text, amounting to one difference in every verse. It omits 4000 words from the Gospels, adds 1000, reposits 2000 and alters another 1000. It has approximately 1500 readings that appear in no other manuscript, this affects nearly 3000 words.
Not only do the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts disagree with the Majority of manuscripts, but they do not agree with each other! The 8000 changes in Vaticanus and the 9000 changes in Sinaiticus are not the same changes. When their changes are added together, they alter the Majority Text in 13,000 places. This is two changes for every verse. Together they omit 4000 words, add 2000, transpose 3500, and modify 2000.
The Majority text It is true that several thousand manuscripts have been discovered since 1611, some of which were dated between 350-380 A.D. whereas the Received Text's five manuscripts were from the 10th to 15th centuries. However, of the several thousand manuscripts discovered since 1611, the great majority (90-95%) agree with the Received Text.
The Majority Text is also known as the Received Text, Textus Receptus, Traditional Text, Universal Text, Byzantine Text, and other names. The Majority Text has passed down through time copied by people who fear God and believe the ultimate authority of His word. History shows that the Majority Text has the strongest claim of being the authentic representation of the original manuscripts.
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
We can have the confident assurance that the Word of God as it is found in the Majority Text New Testament is a trustworthy representation of the text as originally given. For the most part, the Majority Text follows the Greek manuscripts which were in widespread use for centuries. God continued to preserve His New Testament by guiding His people to use a text which, although in a printed form, nevertheless is God's Holy Word from eternity. May Christians reject the modern Greek texts and the versions which follow them, and use the Majority Text Greek New Testament which God has blessed for many centuries!
Where can you find the most accurate rendition of the Majority Text?
The Answer As far as the New Testament books are concerned, we should use the Interlinear Greek English New Testament, because it is a transcription, not a translation.
There's a big difference between a transcription and a translation. A transcription is done word for word as close to the original as possible. But as soon as you start translating to a bible, you are interjection your own knowledge and your own opinions. That's why there's so much confusion when people start talking about, "Well what bible translation do I get?" Well, really you don't want any of them, what you really want is a transcription. A word for word transcription into the English language.
[/FONT]Two Categories of New Testament Manuscripts There are basically one of either two categories of New Testament manuscripts which all bibles are based upon.
1) Majority Text (Textus Receptus) - originally known as the Received Text, which was compiled between 1514 and 1641. The Majority Text has, since then, been made up of thousands of other Greek manuscripts. These later manuscript discoveries have confirmed the reliability of the Received Text. 2) Minority Text (Alexandrian Text) - is based mainly on just two manuscripts, the Vaticanus (also known as "B") and the Sinaiticus (also known as "Aleph"). These manuscripts not only disagree with the Majority Text, but they disagree with each other!
The Minority Text There are only a few bibles that are based on the Majority Text, such as the King James Bible and the Gideon's Bible. But almost all modern English bibles translated since 1898 are based on the Minority Text (this includes the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, the Living Bible, the New Revised Standard Version, the New World Translation, the New Century Version, the Good News Bible, etc.). These bible versions are only supported by about five of the over 5,000 manuscripts in existence, or about .1% of all manuscripts, which is why it's also known as the "Minority text.".
The two most prominent manuscripts of the Minority Texts are the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. Since the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are said to be older than the 5000 manuscripts that support the Majority Text, they were called "better" than the Majority Text. This is not so. These Minority Texts frequently disagreed with each other as well as with the Majority Text, and also contained many obvious and flagrant mistakes. Up until the late 1800s, the Minority Texts were utterly rejected by Christians.
The fact that these two manuscripts may have been older does not prove they are better. More likely it indicates that they were set aside because of their numerous errors. Thus they would naturally last longer than the good manuscripts which were being used regularly. The reader is reminded that the Apostle Paul testified to the corruption of the Word in his day (2 Corinthians 11:4, Galatians 1:6). Hence "oldest" is not necessarily the best.
The Vaticanus, which is the sole property of the Roman Catholic Church, and the Sinaiticus, are both known to be overwhelmed with errors. Words and whole phrases are repeated twice in succession or completely omitted, while the entire manuscript has had the text mutilated by some person or persons who ran over every letter with a pen making exact identification of many of the characters impossible.
Proof that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are Corrupted
Now lets take a look at some facts about the Minority Text from which most modern translations are derived. One of the manuscripts that make up the Minority Text is the Vaticanus. The Vaticanus was found in 1481 in the Vatican library. The other manuscript is the Sinaiticus. The Sinaiticus was found in 1844 in a trash pile at Saint Catherine's monastery, and rescued from a long (and well-deserved) obscurity. It has a great number of omissions and has many words and phrases marked out and re-written. Both of these manuscripts are from Roman Catholic origin.
The Vaticanus (B): The use of recent technology, such as the vidicon camera, reveals that the Vaticanus has been altered by at least two hands, one being as late as the 12th century. The Vaticanus agrees with the Textus Receptus only about 50% of the time. It differs from the Majority Greek in nearly 8,000 places, amounting to about one change per verse. It omits several thousand key words from the Gospels, nearly 1000 complete sentences, and 500 clauses. It adds approximately 500 words, substitutes or modifies nearly 2000 and transposes word order in about 2000 places. It has nearly 600 readings that do not occur in any other manuscript. These affect almost 1000 words.
Linguistic scholars have observed that the Vaticanus is classical and Platonic Greek, not the Koine Greek of the New Testament. Codicologists note that the Vaticanus was written on vellum scrolls (skin obtained from animals not yet born), and not papyrus codices, as were used among "the early Christians." The Vaticanus omits crucial parts of Mark and Luke. Theologians question its lack of use by anyone for 1300 years, then its "sudden" discovery in the Vatican in 1481. Protestant researches have never been permitted to examine the actual manuscript and work only from copies provided by the Vatican.
The Sinaiticus (Aleph): The Sinaiticus, was so poorly executed that seven different hands of "textual critics" can be discerned as they tried to impose their views on this already corrupt manuscript. They twisted it like a nose of wax to meet their purposes at the time. It is no wonder that it was discarded, finally found in a wastebasket fourteen centuries after it was executed. Because of its blatant omissions and alterations, it lapsed into a wastebasket in a monastery, where it was "discovered" by Constantine von Tischendorf in the mid 1800's. It was kept by the Russian government from 1859-1933. Eastern Germany and Russia still retain parts of it. The fact that some pages were written on sheepskin and some on goatskin is a telling sign of its part Christian, part Heathen character.
There are 9000 changes from the Majority Text, amounting to one difference in every verse. It omits 4000 words from the Gospels, adds 1000, reposits 2000 and alters another 1000. It has approximately 1500 readings that appear in no other manuscript, this affects nearly 3000 words.
Not only do the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts disagree with the Majority of manuscripts, but they do not agree with each other! The 8000 changes in Vaticanus and the 9000 changes in Sinaiticus are not the same changes. When their changes are added together, they alter the Majority Text in 13,000 places. This is two changes for every verse. Together they omit 4000 words, add 2000, transpose 3500, and modify 2000.
The Majority text It is true that several thousand manuscripts have been discovered since 1611, some of which were dated between 350-380 A.D. whereas the Received Text's five manuscripts were from the 10th to 15th centuries. However, of the several thousand manuscripts discovered since 1611, the great majority (90-95%) agree with the Received Text.
The Majority Text is also known as the Received Text, Textus Receptus, Traditional Text, Universal Text, Byzantine Text, and other names. The Majority Text has passed down through time copied by people who fear God and believe the ultimate authority of His word. History shows that the Majority Text has the strongest claim of being the authentic representation of the original manuscripts.
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]
-
[*]The Majority Text is based on the vast majority (90-95%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.
[*]The Majority Text is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text.
[*]The Majority Text agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the minority Egyptian codices favored by the Roman Church.
[*]The Majority Text agrees with the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers.
[*]The Majority Text is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and unbelief.
[*]The Majority Text strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the Saviour's miracles, his bodily resurrection, and the cleansing power of his blood! The Minority Text denies all these things.
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
We can have the confident assurance that the Word of God as it is found in the Majority Text New Testament is a trustworthy representation of the text as originally given. For the most part, the Majority Text follows the Greek manuscripts which were in widespread use for centuries. God continued to preserve His New Testament by guiding His people to use a text which, although in a printed form, nevertheless is God's Holy Word from eternity. May Christians reject the modern Greek texts and the versions which follow them, and use the Majority Text Greek New Testament which God has blessed for many centuries!
Where can you find the most accurate rendition of the Majority Text?
The Answer As far as the New Testament books are concerned, we should use the Interlinear Greek English New Testament, because it is a transcription, not a translation.
There's a big difference between a transcription and a translation. A transcription is done word for word as close to the original as possible. But as soon as you start translating to a bible, you are interjection your own knowledge and your own opinions. That's why there's so much confusion when people start talking about, "Well what bible translation do I get?" Well, really you don't want any of them, what you really want is a transcription. A word for word transcription into the English language.
13 Enter all of you in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leads to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leads unto life, and few there be that find it.
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 All of you shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree brings forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that brings not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits all of you shall know them.
21 Not every one that says unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name? and in your name have cast out devils? and in your name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, all of you that work iniquity.
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leads unto life, and few there be that find it.
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 All of you shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree brings forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that brings not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits all of you shall know them.
21 Not every one that says unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name? and in your name have cast out devils? and in your name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, all of you that work iniquity.
Well, Timeline -- it is late at night where I am. Time to hit the sack.
To be saved, all a man need do is trust the Lord Jesus as Savior.
However, "Jesus" must be adequately defined, as trusting an imaginary Jesus doesn't save. Trusting Jesús the Mexican car mechanic doesn't save, nor does Michael the Archangel. The real Savior is 2nd person of the Trinity, God Who became Man.
So far as I know, the Bible never advises "accepting Jesus." Receive (John 1:12) is pretty close and opening the door when He knocks is in Rev 3. And I don't want to quibble. But the main Bible word is pisteuo (trust, believe in, have faith in). So that is the term I would major on. In OT times men just trusted YHWH, as the Trinity was not clearly revealed then. But now that more revelation has come there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved, other than Jesus (Iēsous if we use the Greek form).
Mere disagreement is not grounds for calling out heresy.
Hezekiah 9:6 "Thou shalt not fire cannon balls at canary birds."
Isaiah has the clearest verse on the Trinity that I know of:
48:16:
Come near to
[2] me, hear this; from the beginning
[2] I have not spoken in secret; from the time that it was, there [2] I am: and now
[1] the Lord YHWH has sent
[2] Me, and
[3] His Spirit.
Do you see a similarity with the start of John?
In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
To be saved, all a man need do is trust the Lord Jesus as Savior.
However, "Jesus" must be adequately defined, as trusting an imaginary Jesus doesn't save. Trusting Jesús the Mexican car mechanic doesn't save, nor does Michael the Archangel. The real Savior is 2nd person of the Trinity, God Who became Man.
So far as I know, the Bible never advises "accepting Jesus." Receive (John 1:12) is pretty close and opening the door when He knocks is in Rev 3. And I don't want to quibble. But the main Bible word is pisteuo (trust, believe in, have faith in). So that is the term I would major on. In OT times men just trusted YHWH, as the Trinity was not clearly revealed then. But now that more revelation has come there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved, other than Jesus (Iēsous if we use the Greek form).
Mere disagreement is not grounds for calling out heresy.
Hezekiah 9:6 "Thou shalt not fire cannon balls at canary birds."
Isaiah has the clearest verse on the Trinity that I know of:
48:16:
Come near to
[2] me, hear this; from the beginning
[2] I have not spoken in secret; from the time that it was, there [2] I am: and now
[1] the Lord YHWH has sent
[2] Me, and
[3] His Spirit.
Do you see a similarity with the start of John?
In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.