Bble History

[IM4given]

This is a interesting thread - I am enjoying it immensely! I wanted to share that I found a website that has the Latin Vulgate side by side with the KJV for comparison. It is interesting to see how they are so similar, and yet so different.

It never ceases to amaze me how RCCs reached such an opposite conclusion regarding God's Plan of Salvation! http://www.latinvulgate.com/

[Hanna]

Ancient Egyptian has been a dead language for a long time, as well as ancient Babylonian, yet these languages are still able to be translated, it is just a time consuming process. Though with Egyptian they hit the jackpot when they found the Rosetta stone, the same text written in several languages, one of them Egyptian, the other 2 already known.

-Alen

What is the Rosetta stone? And while we are on the what is subject, what is the Septuigant and the Dead Sea Scrolls?

I found a website that has Tyndale's Bible on it. It is pretty interesting...man the words, barely recognizeable as English.

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/ ... yndale.pdf

[Alen]

Here is some Wikipedia articles, since it's free for all in the editing process it can't be completely trusted, so check out the reference links as well:

Rosetta Stone

Dead Sea Scrolls

Septuagint

-Alen

[Hanna]

Here is some Wikipedia articles, since it's free for all in the editing process it can't be completely trusted, so check out the reference links as well:

Rosetta Stone

-Alen

That thing says this:

English translation of the text

[Alen]

lol, that has nothing to do with the Bible. I was just showing an example of how 'dead' languages are translated. I believed the stone was written by the Ancient Greeks, and was a treatise of some sort; It was written in several different languages, of the areas in their control.

-Alen

[IM4given]

What is the Rosetta stone? And while we are on the what is subject, what is the Septuigant and the Dead Sea Scrolls?

I found a website that has Tyndale's Bible on it. It is pretty interesting...man the words, barely recognizeable as English.

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/ ... yndale.pdf

You have to remember Tyndale was the first to translate the Bible into something recognizable as English - and he gave his whole entire life, quite literally, to the task of bringing the Word of God to the English speaking people! I consider him to be a great Biblical "hero" even though the RCC had him burned as a heretic!

[Hanna]

lol, that has nothing to do with the Bible. I was just showing an example of how 'dead' languages are translated. I believed the stone was written by the Ancient Greeks, and was a treatise of some sort; It was written in several different languages, of the areas in their control.

-Alen

Oh :oops:

[Hanna]

You have to remember Tyndale was the first to translate the Bible into something recognizable as English - and he gave his whole entire life, quite literally, to the task of bringing the Word of God to the English speaking people! I consider him to be a great Biblical "hero" even though the RCC had him burned as a heretic!

Our KJV and the Tyndale Bible were both taken from the TR, correct? In fact if I understand correctly the KJV relied heavily on the Tyndale Bible, yes, no?

Man those people back then were a mean bunch of characters weren't they? Burning people at the stake, chopping off heads. YIKES :cry:

[IM4given]

Back in those days the Pope and the RCC hierarchy wanted to keep the Holy Bible a "big secret" - then they could tell the common people anything that they wanted to, and the people had to take their word for it. They and they alone held the keys to Heaven and Hell, so to speak. Of course that is how most of the lies and deceptions were implemented into the RCC religion.

Tyndale was a BIG troublemaker, because he threatened to bring down the whole Papal Scam by letting the common people see God's words for themselves. Martin Luther was another troublemaker who threatened to expose their scams.

In some places in the world it is STILL illegal to possess a Holy Bible like China, Iraq, Iran, etc. Christians there have to keep their worship secret or risk imprisionment or even death!

[bibletotingunslinger]

:coffee Right on, IM4given, Amen :coffee

[John81]

I have a friend who decided the Orthodox Church is the "one true church." The Orthodox are encouraged to have their own Bibles, but they are not encouraged to really study them. Orthodoxy teaches that only those God chooses to lead the Orthodox Church are truly capable of understanding the Scriptures, and even then God sometimes doesn't reveal it all to them either.

The Orthodox Church teaches they are the First, and one true church. In their view, the Catholics split from them and are in error, though they believe the Catholics are closer to God than "Protestants" (anyone professing to be Christian who isn't Orthodox or Catholic they view as a Protestant).

Orthodox claim that "Protestants" are like a bunch of little Popes, each claiming to be able to rightly interpret Scripture themselves. Of course, the Orthodox believe that only their leadership is capable, by some divine gift of God, to rightly interpret Scripture.

The Orthodox also claim that their "Traditions" are those mentioned in the New Testament where it is written we are to follow the traditions the apostles set forth.

Of course, they play semantics and use word games to deny they worship Mary or idols; which they call "icons" and they thus claim this means they are not idols! They also have in their traditions the praying to the dead, burying the body, or part of the body of a "saint" under each pulpit of their churches, etc.

[Hanna]

Bible History is really interesting when you get into it, but it is confusing. I think I am finally putting it together.

Do ya all think this is true:

manuscripts from the Byzantine text-type, all of which dated from the twelfth century or later. This text came to be known as the Textus Receptus or received text.

That is to say that the Textus Receptus is a group of copies of the original taken from the Byzantine texts.

[justalex]

My goodness how could anyone just let them sit there? Doesn't their curiosity kill them??

LOL They aren't in one place. Churches and monasteries as well as individuals with private collections own them. One of the problems with cataloging them is that folks aren't going to lend them out or allow just anybody handle them. When a scholar has access to one he will take notes of differences between the text he is viewing and one he brings along. Recording the differences in a text is a lot quicker then copying the whole text.

So there is the Byzantine family and the Alexandrian family of manuscripts. Both are in the original language, and both are copies of copies. There are more manuscripts in the Byzantine family, over 5000 and there are about 240 in the Alexandrian family. Thus the distinction "majority text" and "minority text". The Byzantine family of manuscripts agree with each other 99% of the time, whereas the Alexandrian family of manuscripts do not agree with each other.

Yes that is correct.

Are there those that would disagree with that last statement?

Probably But it is because they've never read the research. As I've said the method used to identify differences in a text is to compare the text to one you brought and record differences. The base text they use for comparison will be a Byzantine text. After all they are the easiest to come by. Most modern scholars believe that all texts have been corrupted so they see differences found in an old text as authoritative over the volumes of witnesses to the contrary. If two old texts disagree they hypothesize which might be the original. If one of the old texts agree with the Byzantine family they will disregard it as an early corruption and favor the other old reading. Since they see every manuscript as corrupt and their job to guess at what was the original they refuse to disregard manuscripts that have been proven to be willfully corrupted in certain passages.

That is so interesting. How in the world could they read that stuff?? mannnnnnnnnnnn

I suppose because to begin with greek was the language of the christian churches and the Greek Orthodox Churches has copied and continually read the Uncial text the division of the words have always just been know. Someone on here also pointed out that the beginning letter of words were written slightly different the rest to help.

Fascinating. So all ms would have presented in this Uncial font?

Up to the 9th century the ms were written in Unicals. You might find some Unicals that date into the 10th or 11th century but quickly the minuscles took over as the preferred font.

Where did the Byzantine ms come from? I mean who held the originals, who made the copies?

By Byzantine we mean Greek. Other than in Greece these manuscripts were copied in countries the had
Greek Orthodox churches and monasteries such as some of eastern Europe. The Catholics would have kept and copied some Greek ms but were more focused on their Latin ms. If you read of the western family of ms it is referring to Catholic manuscripts basically. These support the Byzantine text generally. They definitely don't offer support to the Alexandrian text.

Weren't the Sinaticus, Vaticanus found in the Pope's library?

The Vaticanus was. The Sinaticus I believe was found in a monastery at the foot of mount Sinai. I don't remember if it was a Catholic or Greek Orthodox monastery.

Why would we want to compare to the Latin Vulgate? Isn't that a Catholic Bible?

If we just had their Bible itself we wouldn't but, Jerome(the author) left his notes on why he choose certain readings when he found an apparent conflict between two ms. He would point to quotations from the church Fathers(so called) or other ms that convinced him that a certain reading was correct.
This information was deemed useful.

[Hanna]

So there is the Byzantine family and the Alexandrian family of manuscripts. Both are in the original language, and both are copies of copies. There are more manuscripts in the Byzantine family, over 5000 and there are about 240 in the Alexandrian family. Thus the distinction "majority text" and "minority text". The Byzantine family of manuscripts agree with each other 99% of the time, whereas the Alexandrian family of manuscripts do not agree with each other.

Yes that is correct.

To clarify, the New Testement was originally authored in Greek, correct?

If you read of the western family of ms it is referring to Catholic manuscripts basically. These support the Byzantine text generally. They definitely don't offer support to the Alexandrian text.

This western family is different than the Byzantine or the Alexandrian? If so then there are 3 lines rather than 2?

[Hanna]

The way this whole thing started was trying to determine exactly what the TR was. Was it an original, a copy, a translation...what.

We found web sites that lead you to believe it came straight from the mouth of God, to it was a total fabrication on the part of some lunatic, to it was an attempt to translate the Latin the copies of the originals were written in, into Greek, and that it was the first English translation of the scriptures. So we decided to start from the beginning...we got more confusion:)