Someone is in Big Trouble

Paul warned about people corrupting the true text when he wrote in 2 Tessalonians 2:1-2, "Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come."

Gaius (or Caius), writing between 175-200 called out several heretics by name who corrupted the scriptures. See Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, p. 16 or J. W. Burgon, The Revision Revised. Ultimately Eusebius.

All this is long before Hort's supposed additions to the scriptures between 250 and 350.

There is no such thing as "Hort's supposed additions". Westcott & Hort made an idol out of the two oldest and most corrupt manuscripts, and rejected the testimony of all the others (which were not corrupted). And there are more omissions than additions in those two.

Irenaeus, writing c.180 says: "Wherefore also Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all; and, curtailing the Gospel according to Luke and the Epistles of Paul, they assert that these are alone authentic, which they have themselves thus shortened." Against Heresies, Vol. 3, Ch. 12, Par. 12.

I’m glad you understand this.

The new age religion bibles have all been written, changed and published since the 1960's...what does that tell you?

The .....left out.... is a salutation to the MOST HIGH and I doubt He appreciates being eliminated anywhere in His word.
Yes it is a foul.
That is a perfect example of the ...new age religion group....distracting from God's word and His intent.

You claim that John was likely illiterate, and you think it is sustained by the Bible? Please, show us the evidence.

The problem really started in 1881 with the publication of the English Revised Version. In the image below, note what it says:

"Translated out of the Greek: Being the Version Set Forth A.D. 1611, Compared with the Most Ancient Authorities and Revised, A.D. 1881.

This is when Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament (based on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, the "Ancient Authorities") started seeping in. It came in slowly and easily, just the way they wanted it; then eventually took over everything.

W & H duped the Christian world (with the exception of a few who were wise to their craftiness). They failed to mention (1) that "the most ancient authorities" were the two most corrupt Greek manuscripts in existence, (2) that the age of a manuscript was NOT the only criterion for determining its value, and (3) that the Church of England had NOT given the Revision Committee carte blanche to simply replace the Textus Receptus with a corrupt critical text. In other words, they violated their trust and craftily changed the Bible.

In response Dean John Willian Burgon exposed their deceit and their reliance on primarily two manuscripts which had been corrupted by Gnostics. Actually they relied on the five corrupt uncials -- Aleph, A, B, C, and D, and rejected everything else. And F.H.A. Scrivener -- who was also on the Revision Committee -- opposed their tactics, but in the end they managed to produce a new critical Greek text.

Here is what Scrivener had to say about "the earliest" manuscripts: It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed; that Irenaeus [A.D. 150], and the African Fathers, and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens, thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus Receptus (Plain Introduction Vol 2. pp. 264-265).

Burgon added: And what else are codices Aleph B C D but specimens – in vastly different degrees – of the class thus characterized by Prebendary Scrivener? Nay, who will venture to deny that those codices are indebted for their preservation solely to the circumstance that they were long since recognized as the depositories of readings which rendered them utterly worthless... B and Aleph having been demonstrably ‘executed from one and the same common original’ are not to be reckoned as two independent witnesses to the text of the New Testament, but as little more than one... The one eventually found its way, four centuries ago, to a forgotten shelf in the Vatican library; while the other [Aleph] after exercising the ingenuity of several generations of critical correctors, eventually... got deposited in the wastepaper basket of the convent at the foot of Mt. Sinai... The task of laboriously collating the five ‘old uncials’ throughout the Gospels, occupied me for five-and-a-half-years, and taxed me severely. But I was rewarded. I rose from the investigation profoundly convinced that however important they may be as instruments of Criticism, codices Aleph B C D are among the most corrupt documents extant. (The Revision Revised, pp. 30, 255, 319, 376).

Show us the evidence Immanuel had an apostle named John. And that "John" wrote Revelation or any other of that namesake in the new testament.

Evidence for this claim, please?

That's not how a discussion works. You made a claim, you support the claim with evidence. I have no obligation to provide you anything when you sidestep my prior request for evidence.

I've become aware of your discussion style.

The evidence is on the first page of the gospel books themselves.

The Gospel according to....

Ecclesiastical History, Eseubius quoting Dionysius of Alexandria and commenting on the Book of Revelation, “That this book is the work of one John, I do not deny. And I agree also that it is the work of a holy and inspired man. But I cannot readily admit that he was the apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, by whom the Gospel of John and the Catholic Epistle were written. For I judge from the character of both, and the forms of expression, and the entire execution of the book, that it is not his . . . I do not deny that the other writer saw a revelation and received knowledge and prophecy. I perceive, however, that his dialect and language are not accurate Greek, but that he uses barbarous idioms, and, in some places, solecisms.”

No..study the Bible...1611 edition is suggested.

Once again you avoid giving evidence for your claim... and "Dislike" my request for that evidence.

Blowing me off only reflects poorly on you.

I would read the explanations presented by manuscript experts on the verse in Rev 1 if I really wanted to find the best answers.

Even the manuscripts that the KJV scholars used did not say "candlesticks" in Revelation but they added it anyway. So according to your logic they took away the word that means oil fed lamps and lampstands that John wrote and added candlestick a completely different object and technology that was not used in 1st Century but was used in the medieval days of the KJV scholars.

So if you are intellectually honest, and I assume that you want to be, then you must admit that according to your logic the KJV have violated this verse and added a word that John never intended. Are they in "big trouble?"

You've been on this Forum long enough to know it is polite to quote the person you are addressing, otherwise, we don't know who 'you/your' is being addressed.

Ah... unless you are replying to the original post.

I would read the explanations presented by manuscript experts on the verse in Rev 1 if I really wanted to find the best answers.

Even the manuscripts that the KJV scholars used did not say "candlesticks" in Revelation but they added it anyway. So according to your logic they took away the word that means oil fed lamps and lampstands that John wrote and added candlestick a completely different object and technology that was not used in 1st Century but was used in the medieval days of the KJV scholars.

So if you are intellectually honest, and I assume that you want to be, then you must admit that according to your logic the KJV have violated this verse and added a word that John never intended. Are they in "big trouble?"

I believe in the OP, I indicated one or the other is in Big Trouble. (Please reread the OP.).