If I can't see the original manuscripts to confirm what was originally written, then I won't believe.

If I can't see the original manuscripts to confirm what was originally written, then I won't believe.

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Do you say that because people have attacked the current Bible saying it's not the original?

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209
    https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/
    https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA_02

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      There are papyri (and also non-manuscript writings which quote the Bible) which are significantly older than those. They disagree with these, just as these disagree with each other. Where these agree, they also have gnostic stuff like the interpolation at Matthew 27:49 which modern translators/translations so far are simply too scared to include.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Where these agree, they also have gnostic stuff like the interpolation at Matthew 27:49 which modern translators/translations so far are simply too scared to include.
        That interpolation isn't in Alexandrinus

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Those aren't the original manuscripts. Those are copies of copies of copies made hundreds of years later.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Nope

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Codex Vaticanus 4th century
          Codex Sinaiticus 4th century
          Codex Alexandrinus 5th century

          The originals were written in the 1st century. Show them to me.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The KJV and its Greek-language sources in the TR are the originals. There is absolutely zero that has been added or missing. What would you like now, anon?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Show me the originals that were used.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I do not have the same exact physical copies that were used in 1611, but I do have scans of the same editions. Sorry I couldn't be of more help.

            If you want to see what they said, and what the originals are, you can look up the "textus receptus" though, which is the usual name for what the original "received" Scriptures are. This can be found many places on the internet with a simple search if that is what you are interested in.

            "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."
            - Psalm 119:160

            "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
            - Matthew 24:35

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Textus Receptus is a compilation made from late manuscript copies. It's not the original.

            >"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

            Except the originals did pass away.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It is. It's the God-inspired original prophecy. It's your choice whether or not to accept what the Lord said in His word or not.

            Here's a copy if you want to read it sometime, as it is available to all. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Hē_Kainē_Diathēkē/sXZZAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=john+mill+1707 You can also go to pretty much anywhere that the Bible can be found online and look up either Textus Receptus or KJV depending on language choice.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The words were preserved you just refuse to believe it because you have a sin nature

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Oral traditional moron

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Show me the original Gospels that the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John penned. The very first ones written, not copies.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            what's wrong with copies

  3. 2 months ago
    Radiochan

    do you say that about everything, since we don't have the original manuscripts of the galllic wars or the kojiki either

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      If you apply that consistently you are liable to have a psychotic break or you'll grow fond of mushrooms.

      If I can't see the original manuscripts, then I won't believe.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I actually wish you luck, Neo. Avoid the psychotic break and you might be able to do some sort of Alan Watts Buddhism thing.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >I want to see the original to confirm
          >NOOOOOOO THE ORIGINAL IS NO GOOD YOU DON'T NEED IT! YOU ARE ONLY MENTALLY SANE IF YOU READ ONLY THE COPIES! ONLY MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE READ THE ORIGINAL! STOP!! WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU ARE DOING THINKING THOUGHTS LIKE THAT, YOU COULD COLLAPSE MY ENTIRE FAIRY TALE FANTASY WORLD I LIVE IN!!!!'

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Okay scratch the cool zen thing you already have one foot in the schizo door.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Acatalepsy

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    If you apply that consistently you are liable to have a psychotic break or you'll grow fond of mushrooms.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's the salafi poster again, isn't it?

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Worshipping the text is protestant idolatry
    That's why we have the Orthodox church

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I would like to confirm your traditions match the original writings of your book.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Okay but just don't pretend this is an objective or rational approach when it's really an intuitive one. If all we had was the Vulgate, there is no logical reason to just assume that is not a completely valid method of God preserving the Scriptures. That is instead, merely your assumption, one no less valid than my own.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    If you're going to take this attitude towards literary history, you may as well deny the existence of the universe before your birth, since there's no empirical evidence that anything existed prior to my own conscious being.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >ANON! Mom says IQfy time is over
    >Did she? Show me the original audio
    >ANON WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST LISTEN TO YOUR SISTER AND COME DOWN STAIRS
    >Did I? Show me the original audio of me saying that.
    Two weeks later he was put into a hospital for the insane

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The sad thing is many people have been driven to this because of higher criticism which started with Johann Semler. Higher criticism is a method of applying radical skepticism to Biblical history and basically assuming in advance that the Bible itself must be false, and then working backwards from that presupposition, which the higher critics just never think to question.

      Thus, they have tried to make reading the Bible seem like a bad thing by raising demands of the same sort as what OP has made, since he probably heard it from somewhere else and unconsciously bought into it.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        At least science is infallible and there's no such thing as a replication crisis.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      lmfao

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *