What's missing from your Bible?

[Andrewn]

Lucian of Antioch - Wikipedia. I agree there's not that much difference in the Bible versions except paraphrases like the NLT and The Message. I like to have footnotes that tell me when something has been excluded and why.

I like the example you gave in message #2. St Paul was clearly talking about a father, not a fiancé.

 

[Insureman23]

I wonder what the OP thinks about certain portions of scripture that Erasmus said were added by himself and mistakeningly incorporated into the Textus Receptus such as the longer version of Romans 8:1 KJV “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” This is only one such bit of scripture that Erasmus was recorded as saying was only a note he scribbled down as he was compiling the TR and it was added into the text.

The Comma Johanneum is a blatant addition that Erasmus admitted was only added due to pressure he faced from the church at the time to include more references to the Trinity.

So while it’s good to discuss issues facing biblical manuscripts, I think it’s only fair if we examine them all, not just the one side. Especially if we are going to say the newer versions “remove verses”. Because the real question is: were the removals ever part of the original in the first place?

So, what is the original reading in Romans 8:1 that we can be certain of?

 

[BPPLEE]

So, what is the original reading in Romans 8:1 that we can be certain of?

King James Onlyism and Romans 8:1

 

[Insureman23]

King James Onlyism and Romans 8:1

I would go with the longer ending being it lines up with the context of the first 27 verses in Romans 8:1-27. That article failed to mention the context of Scripture even one time.

 

[BPPLEE]

I would go with the longer ending being it lines up with the context of the first 27 verses in Romans 8:1-27. That article failed to mention the context of Scripture even one time.

The other side of the argument
https://www.bibleleaguetrust.org/romans-81-and-its-disputed-ending/

 

[Insureman23]

The other side of the argument
https://www.bibleleaguetrust.org/romans-81-and-its-disputed-ending/

Dittos. Here is another one...
Scholars Weather Report - Romans 8:1 (kjvdebate.com)
Blessings.....

 

[BPPLEE]

Dittos. Here is another one...
Scholars Weather Report - Romans 8:1 (kjvdebate.com)
Blessings.....[/QUOTE
Thanks!

This specifically addresses the CARM article I posted earlier. Thanks

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Dittos. Here is another one...
Scholars Weather Report - Romans 8:1 (kjvdebate.com)
Blessings.....

The other side of the argument
https://www.bibleleaguetrust.org/romans-81-and-its-disputed-ending/

A lot of these arguments really don't do a whole lot to change scripture. Take this verse, Romans 8:1... is it the longer version or the shorter? Ultimately it only matters from the end of preserving the Word of God. For if you take away the last bit, the phrase still exists in Romans 8:4.

Romans 8:1 KJV There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Romans 8:4 KJV That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Even in the case of other more disputed passages, if you remove them for lack of support or whatever, you're really not taking away from anything the rest of scripture teaches. Say the ending of Mark. It ultimately says those who believe will be saved and signs will follow them. That's basically all of the book of Acts in a nutshell, so again it doesn't remove anything.

It's an interesting topic to explore, but one that we should ultimately not allow to divide us. I don't think

 

[BPPLEE]

A lot of these arguments really don't do a whole lot to change scripture. Take this verse, Romans 8:1... is it the longer version or the shorter? Ultimately it only matters from the end of preserving the Word of God. For if you take away the last bit, the phrase still exists in Romans 8:4.

Romans 8:1 KJV There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Romans 8:4 KJV That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Even in the case of other more disputed passages, if you remove them for lack of support or whatever, you're really not taking away from anything the rest of scripture teaches. Say the ending of Mark. It ultimately says those who believe will be saved and signs will follow them. That's basically all of the book of Acts in a nutshell, so again it doesn't remove anything.

It's an interesting topic to explore, but one that we should ultimately not allow to divide us. I don't think

Someone said they could take the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation and still show the plan of salvation. I think God has ensured that his word has been preserved. I just don't agree with all the decisions scholars made. Like John 5:4
Jhn 5:1

¶
After this there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
Jhn 5:2

Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.
Jhn 5:3

In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.
Jhn 5:4

For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
Jhn 5:5

And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years.
Jhn 5:6

When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole?
Jhn 5:7

¶
The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.
Jhn 5:8

¶
Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk.
Jhn 5:9

And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked: and on the same day was the sabbath.

Modern versions omit part of verse 3 and all of verse 4. If you omit that verse 7 makes no sense. "The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me."
What troubled the water? Why was he trying to get in the pool? This is just one of the places I disagree with the exclusion of these verses.

 

[Insureman23]

A lot of these arguments really don't do a whole lot to change scripture. Take this verse, Romans 8:1... is it the longer version or the shorter? Ultimately it only matters from the end of preserving the Word of God. For if you take away the last bit, the phrase still exists in Romans 8:4.

Romans 8:1 KJV There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Romans 8:4 KJV That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Even in the case of other more disputed passages, if you remove them for lack of support or whatever, you're really not taking away from anything the rest of scripture teaches. Say the ending of Mark. It ultimately says those who believe will be saved and signs will follow them. That's basically all of the book of Acts in a nutshell, so again it doesn't remove anything.

It's an interesting topic to explore, but one that we should ultimately not allow to divide us. I don't think

'For if you take away the last bit, the phrase still exists in Romans 8:4.'

How is that not like telling a wounded veteran with one arm that he still has one arm left and his situation has not changed a 'bit'?

'Say the ending of Mark. It ultimately says those who believe will be saved and signs will follow them. That's basically all of the book of Acts in a nutshell, so again it doesn't remove anything.'

There is a lot more to the ending of Mark than just those who believe will be saved and signs will follow them. The resurrection and ascension of Christ and Christ sitting on the right hand of God is in Mark's ending.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

There is a lot more to the ending of Mark than just those who believe will be saved and signs will follow them. The resurrection and ascension of Christ and Christ sitting on the right hand of God is in Mark's ending.

Your strawman argument aside, thank you for proving my point.

"The resurrection and ascension of Christ and Christ sitting on the right hand of God is in Mark's ending."

Those teachings and thoughts are not exclusive to the ending of Mark, if you remove that section because it lacks textual support (and it does), the ascension of Christ and His sitting on the right hand of God would still be valid scriptural teachings because a host of other scriptures support them.

 

[BPPLEE]

Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot

Note: The following is from a study I did and not taken from the above link. The linked article is very long but very informative.

So how did we end up with changes and verses being deleted out of the Bible? Let’s review quickly:

At the end of the 3rd century, Lucian of Antioch compiled a Greek text that achieved considerable popularity and became the dominant text throughout Christendom. It was produced prior to the Diocletain persecution (~303), during which many copies of the New Testament were confiscated and destroyed. (This was not the first persecution and the earliest copies of the New Testament were rounded up and destroyed going all the way back to around 70 AD.)


After Constantine came to power, the Lucian text was propagated by bishops going out from the Antiochan School throughout the eastern world, and it soon became the standard text of the Eastern Church, forming the basis of the Byzantine text. (Today the majority of surviving copies of the New Testament in Greek are Byzantine text type.)


From the 6th to the 14th century, the great majority of New Testament manuscripts were produced in Byzantium, in Greek. It was in 1525 that Erasmus, using five or six Byzantine manuscripts dating from the 10th to the 13th centuries, compiled the first Greek text to be produced on a printing press, subsequently known as Textus Receptus ("Received Text").


The translators of the King James Version had over 5,000 manuscripts available to them, but they leaned most heavily on the major Byzantine manuscripts, particularly Textus Receptus because it agreed with the majority of manuscripts. The King James Version was published in 1611 and for 270 years was the accepted Bible of record.

Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort were Anglican churchmen who had contempt for the Textus Receptus and began a work in 1853 that resulted, after 28 years, in a Greek New Testament based on the earlier Alexandrian manuscripts, particularly two documents; The Codex Vaticanus and The Codex Sinaiticus.

They had some rules for their method of translation, foremost was that the oldest manuscripts are closest to the originals. This seems reasonable until you investigate what the oldest manuscripts are.


They said that shorter is better. If you’re looking at manuscripts and one has less words than the other, they preferred the shorter version because they said it was more likely that something was added than that something was omitted. That’s pure speculation, but that’s how they did it.


They said that the more difficult a reading was, the closer it was to the original, because they said copyists had tried to make the scriptures easier to read over the years.


They said if there was a mistake, the mistake was closer to the original because it was probably corrected in later texts. That’s how you get mistakes like Mark 1:2.


And they said that the majority means nothing. So if you have over 5,000 documents and they are in agreement 90% of the time and you have 2 documents that are older than all the rest, where there is a difference you ignore the majority and use the 2 oldest documents as your source. That’s what they did. They preferred the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus over the majority. Let’s look at these documents.


The Codex Vaticanus gets its name from the place where it is stored the Vatican library. It is regarded as the oldest and rarest existing Greek copy of the Bible. It has been dated to around 350 AD. It’s over 90% intact which is incredible for a manuscript its age. The reason it’s rare is because it wasn’t copied. People realized there was a problem with it and they didn’t copy it. That’s also why it’s in good shape. It wasn’t handled and worn by people copying it.

It’s one of four uncial manuscripts dating before the year 1,000 and it is considered the most significant. It’s curious that it’s given the position of most important when the actual quality of the manuscript leaves much to be desired.


Dean Burgon describes the quality of Vaticanus as follows:

“Codex Vaticanus comes to us without a history, without recommendation of any kind except that of antiquity. It bears traces of careless transcription on every page. The mistakes which the original transcriber made are of perpetual recurrence.”


The New Westminister Dictionary of the Bible concurs:

“It should be noted however that there is no prominent Biblical manuscript in which there occur such gross cases of misspelling, faulty grammer and omission as in Vaticanus.”


So the Vaticanus scribe wasn’t top tier. Some scholars would say he wasn’t even middle of the pack. In the 10th or 11th century at least 2 scribes made corrections to Vaticanus so that means it’s not entirely a 4th century version, some of it is from the 10th or 11th century. One of the correctors even left a note for the other corrector.


Someone corrected Hebrews 1:3 but the other corrector objected and wrote “Fool and knave, can’t you leave the old reading alone and not alter it!” Apparently the note writer regarded the document as a museum piece to be protected and preserved and not as a copy of scripture to be used as such.

The Codex Vaticanus is a mediocre document at best. It’s held in such high regard simply because it is old.

Codex Sinaiticus takes its name from where it was found, St. Catherine’s monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai. It was found by a man named Lobegott Friedrich Constantin Tischendorf. He was going through documents that were going to be burned when he found Sinaiticus. So it was found in the trash.



Even those who love the manuscript will admit it has serious quality problems. The Codex Sinaiticus website says the following;

No other early manuscript of the Christian Bible has been so extensively corrected. A glance at the transcription will show just how common these corrections are. They are especially frequent in the Septuagint portion. They range in date from those made by the original scribes in the fourth century to ones made in the twelfth century. They range from the alteration of a single letter to the insertion of whole sentences.


They aren’t the only ones to say this either. The manuscript’s finder Tischendorf – who reckoned it as the greatest find of his life – said the following:On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people.


Tischendorf also that said he: “counted 14,800 alterations and corrections in Sinaiticus.” He goes on to say:

The New Testament…is extremely unreliable…on many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40, words are dropped…letters, words, even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled. That gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same word as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament.



By any conceivable metric (except age), Codex Sinaiticus is one of the worst manuscripts ever found. You probably couldn’t find a scholar who would praise the scribal work in Sinaiticus, and it’s easy to find those who deride it as the worst scribal work among the manuscripts that have been found.


Yet Westcott and Hort preferred these 2 manuscripts and the critical text used for today’s versions of the Bible are based on the Alexandrian manuscripts and mostly agree with Westcott and Hort’s work.


Both men were strongly influenced by Origen and others who denied the deity of Jesus Christ and embraced the prevalent Gnostic heresies of the period. There are over 3,000 contradictions in the four gospels alone between these manuscripts. They deviated from the traditional Greek text in 8,413 places.

They conspired to influence the committee that produced The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881 revision), and, thus, their work has been a major influence in most modern translations, dethroning the Textus Receptus.

Detractors of the traditional King James Version regard the Westcott and Hort as a more academically acceptable literary source for guidance than the venerated Textus Receptus. They argue that the disputed passages were added later as scribal errors or amendments.

Defenders of the Textus Receptus attack Westcott and Hort (and the Alexandrian manuscripts) as having removed these many passages, noting that these disputed passages underscore the deity of Christ, His atonement, His resurrection, and other key doctrines. They note that Alexandria was a major headquarters for the Gnostics, heretical sects that had begun to emerge even while John was still alive.

(It is also evident that Westcott and Hort were not believers and opposed taking the Bible literally concerning the Atonement & Salvation, they didn’t believe in Hell and the most damning evidence against them is their own words. If you read their personal writings you wouldn't dream of letting them lead your Sunday School class!)


Most modern versions of the Bible are based on the Alexandrian manuscripts because they are the oldest. The experts say the Majority Text (the Byzantine type) are corrupted and these verses missing from the Alexandrian texts were added later to the Byzantine texts (the Majority). They say the Byzantine texts should not even be considered. But the evidence is that the Alexandrian texts are corrupt.

There remains a persistent bias against the Byzantine Text type in Critical Text advocates. Here’s Dan Wallace – arguably the most respected New Testament textual critic alive today – talking about one of our oldest manuscripts, the Codex Alexandrius.

“Codex Alexandrius is a very interesting manuscript in that in the Gospels, it’s a Byzantine text largely, which means it agrees with the majority of manuscripts most of the time. While as, in the rest of the New Testament, it is largely Alexandrian. These are the two most competing textual forms, textual families, text types if you want to call them that, that we have for our New Testament manuscripts. So when you get outside the Gospels, Alexandrius becomes very important manuscript.” – Dan Wallace

Source: YouTube. (Only 1:35 long, starting at about 0:53)



Please notice the casual dismissal of the Byzantine text type by one of the most respected textual critics of our age. I’m honestly not sure why it’s dismissed so easily. Codex Alexandrius is the third oldest (nearly) complete manuscript, dating from the early 400s. Why dismiss the Gospels just because they are a different text type?


We have 5000+ manuscripts of the New Testament, though many are smaller fragments. In the last ~140 years since the Westcott & Hort 1881 Critical Text, we’ve discovered Papyri from the 300s, 200s, and even a few from the 100s. Despite this, the Critical Text of the New Testament remains virtually unchanged from ~140 years ago. Because they prefer the Alexandrian text types.

The following is regarding the Alexandrian text type manuscripts.

However, the antiquity of these manuscripts is no indication of reliability because a prominent church father in Alexandria testified that manuscripts were already corrupt by the third century. Origen, the Alexandrian church father in the early third century, said:

“…the differences among the manuscripts [of the Gospels] have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they lengthen or shorten, as they please.”

( From Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3rd ed. (1991), pp. 151-152). (Bruce Metzger was one of the editors of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament that is the basis for modern translations.)


Origen is of course speaking of the manuscripts of his location, Alexandria, Egypt. By an Alexandrian Church father’s own admission, manuscripts in Alexandria by 200 AD were already corrupt. Irenaeus in the 2nd century, though not in Alexandria, made a similar admission on the state of corruption among New Testament manuscripts. Daniel B. Wallace says, “Revelation was copied less often than any other book of the NT, and yet Irenaeus admits that it was already corrupted — within just a few decades of the writing of the Apocalypse.

There’s an argument to be made that the Alexandrian Text type was corrupted very early.

So the same argument they use against The Majority Text can be used against the Alexandrian Texts. Alexandria was the center for Gnosticism. Isn’t it more likely that scriptures were removed to align with their Gnostic heresy than that they were added later and copied to a majority of the texts? Does the majority mean anything?

I have found the NASB95 to be a very good translation especially John 1:18 in that version and I have ordered the NET Bible because of the detailed notes. I will post more about the NET after I study it

 

[Andrewn]

I have found the NASB95 to be a very good translation especially John 1:18 in that version and I have ordered the NET Bible because of the detailed notes. I will post more about the NET after I study it

NASB95: No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

NASB20: No one has seen God at any time; God the only Son, who is in the arms of the Father, He has explained Him.

NET: No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.

MEV: No one has seen God at any time. The only Son, who is at the Father’s side, has made Him known.

NRSVUE: No one has ever seen God. It is the only Son, himself God, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.

CSB: No one has ever seen God. The one and only Son, who is himself God and is at the Father’s side—he has revealed him.


MEV follows the Textus Receptus. Other translations follow the Alexandrian Text or the Critical Text.

 

[BPPLEE]

NASB95: No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

NASB20: No one has seen God at any time; God the only Son, who is in the arms of the Father, He has explained Him.

NET: No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.

MEV: No one has seen God at any time. The only Son, who is at the Father’s side, has made Him known.

NRSVUE: No one has ever seen God. It is the only Son, himself God, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.

CSB: No one has ever seen God. The one and only Son, who is himself God and is at the Father’s side—he has revealed him.


MEV follows the Textus Receptus. Other translations follow the Alexandrian Text or the Critical Text.

Thanks

 

[Andrewn]

MEV follows the Textus Receptus. Other translations follow the Alexandrian Text or the Critical Text.

I read through this very informative analysis regarding textual variants of Joh 1:18:

The Text of the Gospels: John 1:18 - Some Patristic Evidence

Frankly, the reading "the only begotten God" does not feel right to me. It seems Arian. The straight-forward reading of the Textus Receptus and the Majority text just feels right:

NKJV: No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

WEB: No one has seen God at any time. The one and only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has declared him.

MEV: No one has seen God at any time. The only Son, who is at the Father’s side, has made Him known.

 

[BPPLEE]

I read through this very informative analysis regarding textual variants of Joh 1:18:

The Text of the Gospels: John 1:18 - Some Patristic Evidence

Frankly, the reading "the only begotten God" does not feel right to me. It seems Arian. The straight-forward reading of the Textus Receptus and the Majority text just feels right:

NKJV: No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

WEB: No one has seen God at any time. The one and only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has declared him.

MEV: No one has seen God at any time. The only Son, who is at the Father’s side, has made Him known.

Interesting article. This verse came up in discussions with Unitarians. Here is another one they don't like and there is some variance with it too
Act 20:28

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. And 2 Peter 1:1

 

[The Liturgist]

While I agree that the Alexandrian text type is overrated (and conversely, the Western text type and the Peshitta are underrated), your polemic against it does contain some errors. So while I agree with much of what you have to say, these factual errors are a real problem for me.

Both men were strongly influenced by Origen and others who denied the deity of Jesus Christ and embraced the prevalent Gnostic heresies of the period.

Origen did not deny the deity of our Lord, nor was he a Gnostic. Indeed, he actively opposed Gnostics. His writings predate the Council of Nicaea by several decades and do not reflect a fully developed Christology.

Lucian of Antioch on the other hand was believed by St. Epiphanius, the leading heresiologist of the 4th century, and many subsequent theologians, of being the tutor of Arius, who started the Arian heresy that actually did deny the deity of our Lord, and that Lucian may have been a disciple of Paul of Samosata, a 3rd century bishop deposed for corruption after he used the church treasury to build himself a lavish mansion, who taught what amounted to Unitarianism.

They note that Alexandria was a major headquarters for the Gnostics, heretical sects that had begun to emerge even while John was still alive.

It was also the headquarters for the Church of Alexandria, home to the largest number of martyrs during the Diocletian persecution, and also St. Athanasius, who prosecuted Arius at the Council of Nicaea and was later exiled for decades to Trier in Germany after the sinister Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia got to Emperor Constantine’s heir Constantius, who reversed the Council of Nicaea and made Arianism the state religion of the Roman Empire, and began persecuting Christians. This would continue into the 380s, although the worst of it ended during the reign of Emperor Valens, and it mostly stopped after St. Theodosius, the first Christian Emperor since St. Constantine, took the purple around 380 AD.

Also, it is highly likely the Alexandrian text type manuscripts were produced somewhere else, such as Caesarea, since only one of them has a geographical connection with Alexandria, and the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria has always used manuscripts based on the Byzantine text type. Indeed the oldest Sahidic Coptic manuscripts follow the Byzantine text type.

Furthermore, the Monastery of St. Catharine of Sinai, from which the Codex Sinaiticus was stolen by Tischendorf, who literally conned the monks out of it by asking their permission to borrow it, and then selling it at high prices to both the Russians and the British, making a huge profit, is not part of, and was never part of, either the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria or the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. Rather, it is the headquarters of the tiny Church of Sinai, an autonomous part of the Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem.

 

[The Liturgist]

So the same argument they use against The Majority Text can be used against the Alexandrian Texts. Alexandria was the center for Gnosticism. Isn’t it more likely that scriptures were removed to align with their Gnostic heresy than that they were added later and copied to a majority of the texts? Does the majority mean anything?

That argument is deeply flawed. While there is a possibility, which I have contemplated and even spoken about, that the Alexandrian text type was influenced by Arianism, it is clearly not influenced by Gnosticism. The Gnostics composed their own fake or corrupted gospels and other scriptures, for example, the Gospel of Truth, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Philip, the Tripartite Tractate, the Pistis Sophia, the Acts of Thomas, and other works. In the 4th century, the predominant Gnostic sect was the Manichaean religion founded by a Persian painter named Mani, who declared himself an Apostle of Jesus Christ to the Christians, and of Hermes to the Pagans, and of Buddha to the Buddhists, and produced illustrated religious literature and a Gospel of Mani, which is lost, although much information about Manichaean dogma remains, and there is also a Manichaean church in China disguised as a Buddhist temple, although it has not been used as such for many years. The last surviving Christian Gnostics were the Paulicans of Armenia, who converted to Orthodoxy in the 19th century, and the last surviving Gnostics are the Mandaeans and possibly the Druze. There are of course neo-Gnostic Christians like the Ecclesia Gnostica.

Some Gnostics probably used canonical New Testament scriptures, perhaps in corrupted form (the Gospel of Thomas consists of sayings, most of which are in the Synoptics but some of which are clear Gnostic interpolations), but the thing to remember about Gnosticism is that it is the opposite of Arianism or Unitarianism, in that Gnostics are Docetic, believing matter to be evil and regarding Jesus Christ as entirely divine and in no respect human.

 

[The Liturgist]

Years ago I did some in-depth research into Bible translations. This was during a time when we had the market being flooded with new versions of the Bible. Here are a couple of things that I discovered during that time.

In the New Testament at that time the two most common themes that were altered or removed from new translations were...
1- References to Jesus as the Son of God and the Son of Man, and references to his deity in general. A lot of these were completely removed, the result being it was easier to question Jesus's true deity in these particular versions.
2- Greed. The need for bishop's, pastors, servants of God not to be greedy. Now isn't that ironic.

I also learned from my research into Bible translations and from obtaining my own copyrights for my own books over the years that with each Bible translation, in order to obtain a copyright the content must be altered by 20% of any other existing publication. Do you realize over time how much change to the Scriptures would be required after so many different translations in order to obtain that copyright. That's something to think about!

If you could go into specifics I would appreciate it.

 

[BPPLEE]

While I agree that the Alexandrian text type is overrated (and conversely, the Western text type and the Peshitta are underrated), your polemic against it does contain some errors. So while I agree with much of what you have to say, these factual errors are a real problem for me.



Origen did not deny the deity of our Lord, nor was he a Gnostic. Indeed, he actively opposed Gnostics. His writings predate the Council of Nicaea by several decades and do not reflect a fully developed Christology.

Lucian of Antioch on the other hand was believed by St. Epiphanius, the leading heresiologist of the 4th century, and many subsequent theologians, of being the tutor of Arius, who started the Arian heresy that actually did deny the deity of our Lord, and that Lucian may have been a disciple of Paul of Samosata, a 3rd century bishop deposed for corruption after he used the church treasury to build himself a lavish mansion, who taught what amounted to Unitarianism.



It was also the headquarters for the Church of Alexandria, home to the largest number of martyrs during the Diocletian persecution, and also St. Athanasius, who prosecuted Arius at the Council of Nicaea and was later exiled for decades to Trier in Germany after the sinister Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia got to Emperor Constantine’s heir Constantius, who reversed the Council of Nicaea and made Arianism the state religion of the Roman Empire, and began persecuting Christians. This would continue into the 380s, although the worst of it ended during the reign of Emperor Valens, and it mostly stopped after St. Theodosius, the first Christian Emperor since St. Constantine, took the purple around 380 AD.

Also, it is highly likely the Alexandrian text type manuscripts were produced somewhere else, such as Caesarea, since only one of them has a geographical connection with Alexandria, and the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria has always used manuscripts based on the Byzantine text type. Indeed the oldest Sahidic Coptic manuscripts follow the Byzantine text type.

Furthermore, the Monastery of St. Catharine of Sinai, from which the Codex Sinaiticus was stolen by Tischendorf, who literally conned the monks out of it by asking their permission to borrow it, and then selling it at high prices to both the Russians and the British, making a huge profit, is not part of, and was never part of, either the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria or the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. Rather, it is the headquarters of the tiny Church of Sinai, an autonomous part of the Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem.

I have learned more about Origen and the material I had read about him is not true. It said he was responsible for the word was a god translation of John 1 and this is not true. I need to amend my post. And I didn't know the information about Lucian. Thanks for the correction. I removed that reference to Origen