God didn't preserve his word

You may point to the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament and tell me that is God's preserved word, but it's on its 28th revision, and soon there will be a 29th and 30th with thousands of changes made. Not so "preserved" after all, is it?

You may point to the King James Version and the Textus Receptus, but the same textual criticism revisions applies to that. Erausmus made 30 different editions, which include fake verses such as the Johannine Comma and the Pericope Adulterae. Not so "preserved" after all, is it?

The original Greek manuscripts no longer exist. If I ask for the "preserved word of God", Christians cannot give it to me.

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >If I ask for the "preserved word of God", Christians cannot give it to me.
    Go to a Catholic Mass. Christ has been present at every one of them(in the eucharist) for nearly 2000 years.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      I am not intrested in a pegan papist mass, I am christian.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        You're not.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >traditions exist, therefore God
      No.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        OP asked about preservation of the Word. Not my fault you’re illiterate.

  2. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >fake verses such as the Johannine Comma and the Pericope Adulterae
    >implying

  3. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >God didn't preserve his word
    Qur'an exists, anon

    • 7 months ago
      Worker

      >the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament and tell me that is God's preserved word, but it's on its 28th revision, and soon there will be a 29th and 30th with thousands of changes made. Not so "preserved" after all, is it?
      Yes, it is preserved. The "changes" that are being made now are not meaningful – they are incredibly minor changes that have NO IMPACT on doctrine. Even Bart Ehrman stated that textual critics are only "tinkering" with the Bible. We have a complete understanding of what was originally taught and there is no doubt from anyone that the Bible has been preserved.

      Wait until you find out what Uthman did...

      The Bible was never controlled by a central authority, which means we have many different lines of texts (from the Bibles being secretly copied by various Christian groups while under persecution), which means that we are able to know the original by the comparison of these texts. However, Islam does not have this, because Uthman destroyed all the other qurans. You have to hope that Uthman got it completely right (and there's no proof that he did).

      Compare that to the Bible, where we have piles of evidence that show that we have the same Bible that we've had since the beginning.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >All headcanon
        >No proof

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >The "changes" that are being made now are not meaningful

        So you admit that there are changes being made and God's word was not preserved. Got it.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Worst tripgay

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      We are talking about the word of God not some Arabian desert spirit.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >My sand religion is better than yours
        >Four gospels are made by literal whos
        >Constant changes to the Bible to fit whatever empire's narrative
        >Paul is literally anti-Christian deceiver yet nuchristcucks take his ramblings as "word of god"
        Time for you to open a book, and it's not the bible

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >>Paul is literally anti-Christian deceiver yet nuchristcucks take his ramblings as "word of god"

          And somehow none of the apostles, which reached places as far as India, caused an uproar over it, or developed a non-pauline theology, despite sometimes being on the other side of the Old World.

          The Paul stuff is the biggest cope i've ever seen.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          All of this but the third point could be applied to the Qur'an though

          But considering how much dependant is Islam on Sunnah, the third point applies too

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      If you believe the Quran is true, you believe the Bible is true.
      https://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Bible/index.html

  4. 7 months ago
    Anonymous
  5. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nobody tell them about The Council of Nicaea.

  6. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    He did preserve his word through the Orthodox Church

  7. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Erausmus made 30 different editions
    Nobody is using Erasmus' editions though, and there weren't nearly that many anyway. Have you ever heard of Stephanus and Beza before?

    >The original Greek manuscripts no longer exist.
    True, but the words which they had we still have since they were preserved.
    >If I ask for the "preserved word of God", Christians cannot give it to me.
    Which language do you want it in? I have the original Greek and Hebrew with a bit of Syriac-aramaic, and I have English and a few other translations of that.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Which language do you want it in?

      Give it to me in the Greek, word-for-word identical to the originals written in the first century.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        For Greek New Testament, see the Textus Receptus. www.e-rara.ch/gep_g/content/titleinfo/1752610

        If you want a critical edition, see Mill's 1707 edition with footnotes. https://www.google.com/books/edition/H%C4%93_Kain%C4%93_Diath%C4%93k%C4%93/sXZZAAAAYAAJ?hl=en

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          The Textus Receptus is not the original. It is rejected by all scholars.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Who cares?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            To be fair there are scholars who hold it to be the authentic text but do so for purely presuppositional reasons.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Anon, that's the thing though. Everyone holds presuppositions. There is no "neutral, values-free" metaphysical view.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's true but it's not really relevant to the issue, at least not when we're talking about believing scholars

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            How is it not relevant to the issue?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because the Christian scholars who are doing the same work that Erasmus or Stephanus were doing are doing it from the Christian worldview.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Stephanus and the others were continuing what was always used, which is different from a(n imperfect) reconstruction.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Stephanus and the others were continuing what was always used
            How were they doing that? What "was always used" was the Latin Vulgate and Rome used the same arguments against them you would to defend the TR. Is that not true?
            >which is different from a(n imperfect) reconstruction
            An imperfect reconstruction is exactly what Stephanus would tell you his work was

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >What "was always used" was the Latin Vulgate and Rome used the same arguments against them you would to defend the TR.
            It's not in the original language(s).

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Neither is the KJV.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Which is why I said here

            >Erausmus made 30 different editions
            Nobody is using Erasmus' editions though, and there weren't nearly that many anyway. Have you ever heard of Stephanus and Beza before?

            >The original Greek manuscripts no longer exist.
            True, but the words which they had we still have since they were preserved.
            >If I ask for the "preserved word of God", Christians cannot give it to me.
            Which language do you want it in? I have the original Greek and Hebrew with a bit of Syriac-aramaic, and I have English and a few other translations of that.

            that the original Greek and Hebrew with a bit of Syriac-aramaic are the original languages, and that I have English and a few other translations of that.

  8. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    The differences between Bible translations and manuscripts are utterly insignificant compared to any other text. I speak both German and English, and have read the Poetic Edda in translations of both languages, and many passages are completely unrecognisable and say opposite things in different translations. The conclusion I came away with is that I must learn Norse if I want to figure out what it actually says. It causes me an amount to anxiety to realise that other historical sources are subject to the same margin of error. To this day, video game and anime translations yield veritable catastrophes that are argued about constantly.

  9. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    The variants don't matter moron
    https://kjvparallelbible.org/

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Daniel Wallace
      Did he ever answer the questions raised here regarding his claims?

      https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2017/06/dan-wallaces-credo-course-few-problems.html

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        No he's a hack that gets tripped up by nonsense readings like 616

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          You mean the ending of Revelation 13? Yeah, I can't recommend anyone get their information from Wallace or his mentor where his information comes from, Metzger.

  10. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why didnt Christ just write a fricking book himself

  11. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >pericope adulterae
    Emphasis on the COPE

  12. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Lets assume that all the contested letters of Paul are fradulent and must be thrown out
    Does that affect any Christian theology?

  13. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Someone tell me about Paul.
    Did he subvert christianity?
    I've heard stuff like this before.
    What's his deal?
    Did he subvert the bible or something?

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      No, all the anti-Paul stuff derives from a Muslim conspiracy theory from the 19th century

  14. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    OP here

    I want to see the original Greek word of God as it was written in the original autographs.

    The "changes don't affect the doctrine" argument is your own subjective opinion cope and isn't going to cut it. The word of God should have 0 changes or errors.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Already answered in this thread.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Why is the Textus Receptus the preserved word? It was compiled from only 7 manuscripts of the Majority Text's 5,000 manuscripts (which diverges from the Textus Receptus).

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          You're thinking of Erasmus' first edition, not the later ones. The idea that everyone used Erasmus' first edition is either a lie or a purposeful misunderstanding.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            So no one had God's complete preserved perfected word for 1,500 years until Erasmus compiled it? What a bunch of shit. Scholars reject that pile of shit, that's why they started the Nestle-Aland with older manuscripts, and they still can't get it 100%. Frick off you pathetic KJV Christhomosexual.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >So no one had God's complete preserved perfected word for 1,500 years until Erasmus compiled it?
            Why do you believe that, anon?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            You just said the Textus Receptus is God's preserved word. Show me his preserved word before the Textus Receptus existed.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            It came from many manuscripts before that. Have you studied this subject before, anon? Do you think they got their text from thin air or something? Or do you seriously think (not just an aggressive misunderstanding) that I'm saying that?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            So it was all mixed together with manuscripts full of copy errors. That's why they had to do textual criticism to weed out the errors. There's never been a 100% correct copy of the original autographs. No, Erasmus was not able to do it with the Textus Receptus, that's why scholars reject it and all modern Bible's are not based on it. Sorry, God's word was not preserved. I know more about this than you.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            The vast majority of those manuscripts were discovered after the Textus Receptus, and they show that the Textus Receptus is not accurate in many places to the earliest form of those documents.

            I'm not sure why you would use them to support it lol.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The vast majority of those manuscripts were discovered after the Textus Receptus, and they show that the Textus Receptus is not accurate in many places to the earliest form of those documents.
            The vast majority of manuscripts are Byzantine text-type. Any newly discovered manuscripts are largely considered to be in this category.

            Also, there is a minority stream of Alexandrian manuscripts, but they already had some of those already in the 16th century (i.e. Codex Bezae) and rejected them and their readings as corrupt, despite being aware of them. The existence of Vaticanus or Sinaiticus would actually not substantially change that fact.

            In the end, the modern scholars' naturalistic and materialist attacks against the Bible by trying to subvert and corrupt it, and undermine confidence in it, is nothing more than a collection of deliberate and purposeful misunderstandings spread by charlatans.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the modern scholars' naturalistic and materialist attacks against the Bible by trying to subvert and corrupt it

            Conspiracy theory garbage. Next.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's not a very convincing response.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >>/x/

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Looks like the fedoras are back on the menu, boys.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Here's the KJV I would recommend for you.

  15. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >bible preserved or not preserved it was edited it was changed blah blah
    Christ is King, He's coming SOON
    Get your act together

  16. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Shame God didn't preserve the originals. What a fricking idiot.

  17. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Majority Text is preserved unlike your Quran who is missing the Surat of Stoning and Breastfeeding.

    >Nestle-Aland
    That's a fake text made up by atheists.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      No, that's made up conspiracy theory garbage. But you are a low IQ Christian, that's why you buy into conspiracy theories. Not me, though.

      I'm an Atheist, not a Muslim.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        It is a well known fact that the Nestle-Aland NT is made up of cherry picked readings from various manuscripts.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          So is the Textus Receptus. Erasmus didn't even have the last pages of the book of revelation, so he made up the Greek. That ended up in the KJV.

  18. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    No cap the based morons in the kjv cult are more spiritually coherent than the protties who trust secular academia and sheer chance of to tell them what does and doesn't belong in the Bible.

  19. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    As I stated in the OP. I will not accept the Nestle-Aland or the Textus Receptus, as they have both been proven not to be the preserved word of God.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      The first post already gave you the right answer.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Eating a cracker and sipping grape juice is not the same as a preserved Greek manuscript.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          John 1:1-5 refers to Jesus Christ as the Word.
          Also from John 6:43-58
          The Eucharist = Jesus Christ
          >Jesus answered them, “Do not complain among yourselves.
          >No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me; and I will raise that person up on the last day.
          >It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.
          >Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father.
          >Very truly, I tell you, whoever believes has eternal life.
          >I am the bread of life.
          >Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
          >This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.
          >I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
          >The israelites then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
          >So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
          >Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day;
          >for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.
          >Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.
          >Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me.
          >This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever.”

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            So Jesus is a first century manuscript? Where can I read him?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life

            israeli blood magic cult

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            There is no physical bread or wine in John chapter 6. They are not at a dinner in John 6. It isn't referring to the Lord's supper. You may be confusing this passage with the Lord's supper, which occurs much later, after the Triumphal entry. In the passage John chapter 6, what is being referred to throughout is God's word. See for instance the explanation of our Lord in John 6:63.

            "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."
            (John 6:63)

            So you see this is all referring to the words that He speaks to us. He says "the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." The passage where Christ says, "this is my body" is a separate event found later in the Gospels. Every person should be careful about the context of every passage of Scripture, and not quote things out of context, implying they are related to things that they are not, such as implying that John 6 has something to do with communion or the Lord's supper.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Every person should be careful about the context of every passage of Scripture

            Give me God's preserved scripture first

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Every person should be careful about the context of every passage of Scripture
            Yeah guys be very careful to strap on your symbolism goggles before reading the very words of Jesus Christ or you might read yourself into the one true Church founded by him 2000 years ago.
            How hard do you have to contort your brain to turn "the words that I speak" of John 6:63 into anything but what Jesus has been saying in John 6 prior to that verse?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >How hard do you have to contort your brain to turn "the words that I speak" of John 6:63 into anything but what Jesus has been saying in John 6 prior to that verse?
            What makes you think that, anon?

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      The received text is preserved though, see

      It came from many manuscripts before that. Have you studied this subject before, anon? Do you think they got their text from thin air or something? Or do you seriously think (not just an aggressive misunderstanding) that I'm saying that?

      and also

      You're thinking of Erasmus' first edition, not the later ones. The idea that everyone used Erasmus' first edition is either a lie or a purposeful misunderstanding.

      So is the Textus Receptus. Erasmus didn't even have the last pages of the book of revelation, so he made up the Greek. That ended up in the KJV.

      See

      You're thinking of Erasmus' first edition, not the later ones. The idea that everyone used Erasmus' first edition is either a lie or a purposeful misunderstanding.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        No, it's not. That's why scholars reject it all modern Bibles are no longer based on it.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >all modern Bibles are no longer based on it.
          Not true as well. The Trinitarian Bible Society is still actively working on translations, and revisions to translations, in other languages based on the received text. Example: https://youtu.be/U_wSREdA95U

          There are also people revising and reprinting past TR translations in other languages, not to mention the KJV. For instance here: https://pekingcommitteebible.com/

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            No one cares about that

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        By the way, I linked a more complete Textus Receptus here

        For Greek New Testament, see the Textus Receptus. www.e-rara.ch/gep_g/content/titleinfo/1752610

        If you want a critical edition, see Mill's 1707 edition with footnotes. https://www.google.com/books/edition/H%C4%93_Kain%C4%93_Diath%C4%93k%C4%93/sXZZAAAAYAAJ?hl=en

        already.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          No, Textus Receptus is filled with fake verses. It's been confirmed by the discovery of older manuscripts.

          >B-b-b-but muh conspiracy theories
          >Satan made those manuscripts just like he planted the dinosaur bones in the dirt

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        The received text is not supported by textual criticism, i.e. the analysis by scholars of those manuscripts you keep waving around.

        When that was pointed out to you, you went on a long tirade about how these scholars are materialists who want to corrupt the Bible.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >The received text is not supported by textual criticism
          It was produced by textual criticism based on a continuation of manuscripts. Now however, "higher criticism" and naturalistic philosophy has spread, which led to things like the Nestle-Aland and NIV text.

          The main difference in quality between the two is that the received text is a continuation, while the Alexandrian or critical text is merely a reconstruction. The latter cannot be a preserved text, since it's not to all generations, but the former is. It's a big difference in both methodology as well as world view, and the shift occurred with the spread of higher criticism in the 18th century, beginning around the time of Johann Semler. All of this information is widely available, I'm not a conspiracy or a conspiracist.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The main difference in quality between the two is that the received text is a continuation, while the Alexandrian or critical text is merely a reconstruction
            Yes, the first is the result of a textual tradition which accrues changes overtime, sometimes for theological reasons, but mostly scribal errors.
            The second is a reconstruction of the earliest version of the text that we can reasonably make.

            If you a priori assume your traditional text is the correct one because I dunno, because it just is, the first is for you.
            If you want to know what the original text most likely looked like, the second is for you.

            Personally I care a lot more about what the original text looked like.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If you want to know what the original text most likely looked like
            The actual original text is the received, as mentioned before.

            >most likely looked like
            That is all naturalists will ever have, because they presuppose that God failed to preserve His word as their a priori assumption, then work their way backwards from there. They will find what they are looking for, which is something that's changeable and sufficiently doubtworthy to their liking, because that's what they want. They will reject God's actual word due to their presuppositions and dislike for the things of God. They don't want to believe that the Lord preserved His word, but for some reason they still want to pretend to be Christian, to pretend to be a believer in God, for some unknown reason. And that is where all of the sodomite rainbow flag types come from. They aren't real Christians, as if that weren't obvious enough. And that is also the source of the people who hate Christ, they have presuppositions against God, but want to pretend to be earnestly looking for God's word (even though they hate God), simply in order to mislead and gaslight others. I'm glad to provide information for other people browsing this thread regardless. I will let them come to their own conclusions.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Here are some good Bible verses on this:

            "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."
            (Psalm 119:160)

            "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
            6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."
            (Proverbs 30:5-6)

            "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."
            (Isaiah 40:8)

            "Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge,
            21 That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?"
            (Proverbs 22:20-21)

            "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
            (Matthew 4:4)

            "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
            (Matthew 24:35)

            Amen.

  20. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    THE BIBLE IS NOT THE WORD OF GOD

    THE BIBLE IS MAN MADE

    Put that through you fricking skull.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Wrong

  21. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    You are talking about COPYRIGHTS
    NOT 'Preserving His Word' as in 'Gods Word'

    It was written in GREEK, Hebrew & Aramaic, these are translations.

    Don't you own a dictionary?

  22. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    what exactly could be shown to you to make you happy?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *