The Shepherd of Hermas in Siniaticus proves that Siniaticus is corrupt

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

Should the Shepherd of Hermas be in the Holy Bible?
Is there any heresy in the Shepherd of Hermas?

Are the following quotes, from JB Lightfoot's translation of the Shepherd of Hermas, sound doctrine and therefore should be in the bible?

“Whosoever beareth the Name of the Son of God, ought to bear the names of these also; for even the Son Himself beareth the names of these virgins.”

“I see a huge beast like some sea-monster”
“I took courage and gave myself up to the beast”

“Did I not always regard thee as a goddess?”

“The Son of God is older than all His creation, so that He became the Father's adviser in His creation. Therefore also He is ancient”

""Declare to me, Sir," say I, "the names of the virgins, and of the women that are clothed in the black garments." "Hear," saith he, "the names of the more powerful virgins, those that are stationed at the corners."
“The first is Faith, and the second, Continence, and the third, Power, and the fourth, Long-suffering. But the others stationed between them have these names--Simplicity, Guilelessness, Purity, Cheerfulness, Truth, Understanding, Concord, Love. He that beareth these names and the name of the Son of God shall be able to enter into the kingdom of God.”

"After I had written down the commandments and parables of the shepherd, the angel of repentance, he came to me and saith to me; "I wish to show thee all things that the Holy Spirit, which spake with thee in the form of the Church, showed unto thee. For that Spirit is the Son of God."

Sinaiticus also contains the old Adoptionist heresy. This heresy denies that Jesus Christ is God who was made flesh.

That is probably why Sinaitiucs has many errors which obscure the deity of Jesus Christ and the gospel of Jesus Christ.

BTW, The Shepherd of Hermas is contained in the Greek manuscript Siniaticus. Unfortunately, almost all new versions have made the mistake of basing some changes from the King James Bible on that manuscript. No intent on the part of anyone is implied.

 

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

Should the Shepherd of Hermas be in the Holy Bible?
Is there any heresy in the Shepherd of Hermas?

Are the following quotes, from JB Lightfoot's translation of the Shepherd of Hermas, sound doctrine and therefore should be in the bible?

“Whosoever beareth the Name of the Son of God, ought to bear the names of these also; for even the Son Himself beareth the names of these virgins.”

“I see a huge beast like some sea-monster”
“I took courage and gave myself up to the beast”

“Did I not always regard thee as a goddess?”

“The Son of God is older than all His creation, so that He became the Father's adviser in His creation. Therefore also He is ancient”

""Declare to me, Sir," say I, "the names of the virgins, and of the women that are clothed in the black garments." "Hear," saith he, "the names of the more powerful virgins, those that are stationed at the corners."
“The first is Faith, and the second, Continence, and the third, Power, and the fourth, Long-suffering. But the others stationed between them have these names--Simplicity, Guilelessness, Purity, Cheerfulness, Truth, Understanding, Concord, Love. He that beareth these names and the name of the Son of God shall be able to enter into the kingdom of God.”

"After I had written down the commandments and parables of the shepherd, the angel of repentance, he came to me and saith to me; "I wish to show thee all things that the Holy Spirit, which spake with thee in the form of the Church, showed unto thee. For that Spirit is the Son of God."

Sinaiticus also contains the old Adoptionist heresy. This heresy denies that Jesus Christ is God who was made flesh.

That is probably why Sinaitiucs has many errors which obscure the deity of Jesus Christ and the gospel of Jesus Christ.

BTW, The Shepherd of Hermas is contained in the Greek manuscript Siniaticus. Unfortunately, almost all new versions have made the mistake of basing some changes from the King James Bible on that manuscript. No intent on the part of anyone is implied.

I say the Shepherd of Hermas should not be in the Holy Bible.

And that makes Sinaitcius corrupted. There are other things which also show that it is corrupt.

 

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

Should the Shepherd of Hermas be in the Holy Bible?
Is there any heresy in the Shepherd of Hermas?

Are the following quotes, from JB Lightfoot's translation of the Shepherd of Hermas, sound doctrine and therefore should be in the bible?

“Whosoever beareth the Name of the Son of God, ought to bear the names of these also; for even the Son Himself beareth the names of these virgins.”

“I see a huge beast like some sea-monster”
“I took courage and gave myself up to the beast”

“Did I not always regard thee as a goddess?”

“The Son of God is older than all His creation, so that He became the Father's adviser in His creation. Therefore also He is ancient”

""Declare to me, Sir," say I, "the names of the virgins, and of the women that are clothed in the black garments." "Hear," saith he, "the names of the more powerful virgins, those that are stationed at the corners."
“The first is Faith, and the second, Continence, and the third, Power, and the fourth, Long-suffering. But the others stationed between them have these names--Simplicity, Guilelessness, Purity, Cheerfulness, Truth, Understanding, Concord, Love. He that beareth these names and the name of the Son of God shall be able to enter into the kingdom of God.”

"After I had written down the commandments and parables of the shepherd, the angel of repentance, he came to me and saith to me; "I wish to show thee all things that the Holy Spirit, which spake with thee in the form of the Church, showed unto thee. For that Spirit is the Son of God."

Sinaiticus also contains the old Adoptionist heresy. This heresy denies that Jesus Christ is God who was made flesh.

That is probably why Sinaitiucs has many errors which obscure the deity of Jesus Christ and the gospel of Jesus Christ.

BTW, The Shepherd of Hermas is contained in the Greek manuscript Siniaticus. Unfortunately, almost all new versions have made the mistake of basing some changes from the King James Bible on that manuscript. No intent on the part of anyone is implied.

Sinaiticus is also missing the the resurrected odd Jesus Christ in MArk 16:9-20 as these verses are missing from that manuscript.

 

[Radagast]

The Shepherd of Hermas in Siniaticus proves that Siniaticus is corrupt

If so, then the presence of the Apocrypha in the early editions of the KJV proves that the KJV is corrupt.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The Epistle Dedicatory in the KJV goes much further to "prove" that the KJV is corrupt than the inclusion of ancient stories in the Sinaiticus manuscript.

 

[PaladinValer]

Since the Canon was not established by the time that Sinaiticus (note spelling) was authored (it would be, if we go by the latest possible date of 360 ce, a good 22 or so years before an actual synod or council decided on a set canon), then the argument is invalid based on actual history.

Councils and synods, not individuals in and by themselves, established and pronounced doctrine and dogma.

 

[Radagast]

Sinaiticus (note spelling)

The name comes from Mount Sinai. The manuscript was preserved at Saint Catherine's Monastery, which lies at the foot of Mount Sinai.

 

[rockytopva]

1. There are no perfect versions of the bible.
2. Over 6 billion copies sold makes the KJV a winner.
3. There is always room to debate the translation of a word.
4. I had no interest in the KJV until the Holy Spirit came inside.
5. The KJV covers the weightier matters of God well...
.... Faith, hope, charity along with other spiritual things.
... The life of Jesus
... The writings of Paul, whom Jesus himself appointed to carry the gospel to the gentiles.


All other matters really don't matter.

 

[Radagast]

5. The KJV covers the weightier matters of God well...
.... Faith, hope, charity along with other spiritual things.
... The life of Jesus
... The writings of Paul, whom Jesus himself appointed to carry the gospel to the gentiles.

Modern Christian translations of the Bible also cover the weightier matters of God well. And probably more readably.

 

[rockytopva]

Modern Christian translations of the Bible also cover the weightier matters of God well. And probably more readably.

I will stick with my KJV. I have no interest in any other version. I tried looking into books that were left out of the KJV and find no spiritual value in them. I have read volumes of other material at the VA Tech library so I do read outside the KJV. My favorite author outside the KJV is John Bunyan, in which his complete works in three volumes is a real treat.

 

[Standing Up]

I will stick with my KJV. I have no interest in any other version. I tried looking into books that were left out of the KJV and find no spiritual value in them. I have read volumes of other material at the VA Tech library so I do read outside the KJV. My favorite author outside the KJV is John Bunyan, in which his complete works in three volumes is a real treat.

People like to search and search and search ...

 

[PaladinValer]

1. There are no perfect versions of the bible.

And then mentions 4 (really, 7) more points which at times nigh contradict the first.

2. Over 6 billion copies sold makes the KJV a winner.

Fallacy of Appealing to the Masses. Plus I'd like to see proof that 6 billion were sold.

3. There is always room to debate the translation of a word.

The issue is the translation into what is actually read and spoken, which the KJV fails at today. Even in its own day, the English it uses was already a bit archaic; today, linguists put it in the category of early modern English, which is essentially its own separate language.

In short, how about a Bible in the English of the people? Every single KJV-Onlyist I've ever met had no clue how to actually read it!

4. I had no interest in the KJV until the Holy Spirit came inside.

Personal experience here is a play on emotion, not sound logic.

5. The KJV covers the weightier matters of God well...

Personal opinion, not fact.

.... Faith, hope, charity along with other spiritual things.

Those aren't spiritual things; those are linguistical things. And no one calls it "charity" anymore, so insisting upon it is to suggest we should all still use astrolabes to navigate. No thanks; I'll stick with the technology of 2014

... The life of Jesus

Every Bible translation does that.

... The writings of Paul, whom Jesus himself appointed to carry the gospel to the gentiles.

Every Bible translation does that too.

All other matters really don't matter.

Oh there are many matters that weren't included in the list that are of actual vital importance when compared to what was offered.

 

[rockytopva]

Personal experience here is a play on emotion, not sound logic.

.

The preaching of old was not logical

1. John the Baptist was a basic wild man.
2. Peter was a fisherman.
3. Paul even said in 1 Corinthians 2:4 "And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:"

 

[Radagast]

1. John the Baptist was a basic wild man.
2. Peter was a fisherman.
3. Paul even said in 1 Corinthians 2:4 "And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:"

You're not any of those guys.

And Paul, whose writings we have, certainly gave rational arguments for what he said.

 

[Radagast]

I will stick with my KJV. I have no interest in any other version. I tried looking into books that were left out of the KJV and find no spiritual value in them. I have read volumes of other material at the VA Tech library so I do read outside the KJV. My favorite author outside the KJV is John Bunyan, in which his complete works in three volumes is a real treat.

You don't get out much. That's fine.

But if you don't know anything about other translations of the Bible, you're hardly qualified to criticise them.

 

[football5680]

If so, then the presence of the Apocrypha in the early editions of the KJV proves that the KJV is corrupt.

 

[rockytopva]

You don't get out much. That's fine.

But if you don't know anything about other translations of the Bible, you're hardly qualified to criticise them.

Acts 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

2 Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

The Spirit is what makes the man of God.

 

[Rhamiel]

I never read the book The Shepherd of Hermas

what did you find problematic?

but as far as I know, no one counts that book as being scripture... or am I mistaken?

also, an ancient monastery having a copy of a book is not the same as that monastery saying that the book is equal to scripture

 

[Radagast]

but as far as I know, no one counts that book as being scripture

Correct.

also, an ancient monastery having a copy of a book

We're talking about this.

 

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

If so, then the presence of the Apocrypha in the early editions of the KJV proves that the KJV is corrupt.

Your comparison is false. This is used as a talking point attack against the KJB but it has zero merit.

But each and every page of the Apocrypha is marked Apocrypha, I have a facsimile of the 1611 KJB and that is the case. In so doing, the KJB declares that these books are of "dubious origin" and not part of the word of God.

But the Shepherd of Hermas is NOT marked as heretical at all in Sinaiticus. So the comparison is false. And Sinaiticus is a corrupted manuscript. And the entire Alexandrian line of manuscripts must be discarded from consideration forever.

So the KJB stands as the word of God and the new versions have errors from the mistake of relying on the Greek in some way that came from these corrupt manuscripts.