Johnny Skeptic

Revelation 22:18-19 say "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." If tampering with the texts were not possible, there would have been no need for the warnings. So much for Biblical inerrancy.

According to Protestants, Roman Catholics have added to the texts. From a Protestant viewpoint, does that mean that all Roman Catholics with go to hell?

Rhaedas

Does God group inaccurate translations in with editing text? If so, then he basically screwed us over at the Babel incident.

Was there a copyright date after that verse? Maybe up until that point editing was okay, you just can't change it once it went to final print.

Orthodox_Freethinker

You should know better than this, Mr. Skeptic. Is John referring to the Bible as a whole or only Revelation? Remember, Revelation was written before the New Testament canon was finally compiled and therefore, before the Christian Bible even existed. Furthermore, it is the Protestants who have removed books from the Bible so perhaps Protestantism is 'going to hell'.

Peace.

judge

Here is an example the sidenote reads "Fool and knave, can't you leave the old reading alone and not alter it!" from codex Vatinicus hebrews 1:3

SaintCog

I find it amusing that this very passage was tampered with. Granted, the textual variants are mere transpositions, adding a kai, adding a toutwn, and removing an ek. But still, scribes just couldn't leave things alone even when they were explicitly told to.

Johnny Skeptic

Regardless of who added to or subtracted from the original texts, it was done. Is the book of Revelation any less holy than the rest of the Bible? Thomas Jefferson tore pages out of his Bible that he didn't like. Martin Luther said that the book of Revelation did not belong in the Bible. It would be a simple matter for some skeptics to revise the Bible and deceive some of the people who are living in remote jungle regions. This would have been much more the case centuries ago.

Steven Avery

Zwingli I think had a view like that. And Luther of course is well known for his "right strawy epistle" view of James, do you have a direct support for the quote above ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery

Thanks. A little more on this at..

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/V.../note1512.html
Codex Vaticanus Graece 1209, B/03 - A textcritical complaint

The abject corruptness of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus is well-known, with this being a sad and humorous pictorial example.

That is one reason why the theories that essentially base the NT text on the two manuscripts, against hundreds of quite homogeneous manuscripts of much higher scribal integrity, is one of many absurd aspects of modern textual theory.

It is good for the skeptics and errantists of course, since it gives them the corrupt duckshoot text. Therefore they will defend those strange textual theories, often more fervently than the part of the textual crew that is nominally Christian, believing the Bible is the Word of God.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Diogenes the Cynic

Merged redundant threads

DtC, moderator, BC&H

RUmike

Yes, it would much better to base a translation ultimately on an extremely small handful of 12th century manuscripts which Erasmus just happened to be able to get his hands on or borrow from a friend, and with no reason whatsoever to consider them particularly reliable (which it turns out, they are are not).