JSRG
Well-Known Member
- Apr 14, 2019
- 1,463
- 842
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
You mean the "correctores" that were mentioned in a quote that appears fake? I pointed out the reasons to believe that this quote wasn't authentic. If you're going to continue to base your argument on its supposed quote of Nestle, why don't you provide evidence that Nestle actually gave that quote, such as demonstrating exactly where in his works this quote can be found?No. Not irrelevant at all.
The Bible that we have has an obvious Damnationist bias. Who did that? The folks that "gave" us a Bible, obviously. Which doctrinal view of the final judgement did they hold?
1) Damnationism
2) Annihilationism
3) Universal Restorationism
The scriptures that we use to defend UR are the ones that slipped past the editors. (correctores)
Then again, even if that quote is real and is correct, it still doesn't support your argument. Here is, again, the (most likely fake) quote you produced:
So what were the views which the church had just sanctioned in Nicaea? What was sanctioned at Nicaea was that the Father and the Son were of the same substance, in refutation to Arianism (there were other canons made, but they were largely of the ecclesiastical variety rather than actual theological considerations). So even if this quote was real and was accurate, the changes in question would have been done to promote Nicaean Christology, not anything regarding punishment.One of the most common biblical manuscripts used to make our modern English translations is known today as the Nestle Text. Yet it was Prof. Eberhard Nestle himself who warned us in his Einfhrung in die Textkritik des griechischen Testaments: "Learned men, so called Correctores were, following the church meeting at Nicea 325 AD, selected by the church authorities to scrutinize the sacred texts and rewrite them in order to correct their meaning in accordance with the views which the church had just sanctioned."
Upvote
0