Pravoslavno trojstvo

[mire000]

Ma kako da ne,
Tebe boli istina,jer se time rusi tvoja i Konstantinova bogohulna nauka o trojstvu.
U najstarijim zapisima kao sto je Sinajski kodeks itd...se jasno vidi da su tvoji demonski mentori ubacili ovaj bogohulni stih u bibliju ,jer ga u najstarijim pisanim dokumentima nema.
Prvo skoci pa reci hop.

Naravno ti o manuskriptima nemas pojma na zalost.
Sinajski kodeks je Euzebijev falsifikat(konstantinova biblija).
Za sve ovo napisano sam postavio dokaze, a ti si naravno ignorant, koji jedino zeli da dodje i ''poseje seme lazi''.
E pa ne dam Hristove ovce da budu zavedene i boricu se protiv tvojih satanskih lazi do poslednjeg daha!

Evo nesto o falsifikovanim manuskriptima koje Zaokret ovde seje po forumu(ko zna engleski) :



''The Minority Texts were rejected by the early Christians and also by all the Protestant Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries. The Reformers, who were well aware of the existence of the Minority Texts, considered them unfit for translation purposes. These are very important points to bear in mind. Why did the early Christians and the Protestant Reformers reject the Minority Texts?

The answer is:

• The Minority Texts were the work of unbelieving Egyptian scribes who did not accept the Bible as the Word of God or JESUS as the SON of GOD!
• The Minority Texts abound with alterations, often a single manuscript being amended by several different scribes over a period of many years: something the Aaronic priests and Masorites would never have tolerated when making copies of the Scriptures.
• The Minority Texts omit approximately 200 verses from the Scriptures. This is equivalent to 1st and 2nd Peter.
• The Minority Texts contradict themselves in hundreds of places.
• The Minority Texts are doctrinally weak and often dangerously incorrect.

Proof of these astonishing allegations will follow in Part Two where we will take a close look at some 80+ Bible verses corrupted by the Minority Text.

Yet, startling as it may sound, every modern English Bible relies on the Minority Text as its underlying New Testament text in preference to Textus Receptus! Isn't that an amazing revelation? What brought about this almost incredible switch from the reliable Textus Receptus, beloved by the early Christian church and the Protestant Reformers, to the corrupt minority text favoured by the Roman Catholic Church? It is important that you find out soon: because the modern "Bible" you may be faithfully studying every day is really nothing more than a counterfeit posing as the Word of God! If it is any consolation to you, do remember that I was equally in the dark and totally devastated by my findings.

Misleading Footnotes

Modern translations abound with misleading footnotes, which do little else but cast doubt on the King James Version. Examples are:

• The Hebrew of this line is obscure.
• The meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain - or unknown.
• Other ancient mss add …
• Other ancient mss omit…
• Other ancient mss read …
• Other ancient mss insert…
• Some early mss read…
• The most ancient authorities omit John 7:53 - 8:11
• The best manuscripts omit this verse. (e.g. Matt.17:21, 18:11, 23:14, Mark 7:16, John 5:4)
• Some of the most ancient authorities bring the book (Mark) to a close at the end of Mark 16:8
• Many mss do not contain the remainder of this verse. (e.g. Acts 8:37)
• Many ancient authorities read…
• Not found in most of the old mss.(e.g. John 7:53-8:11)

In this article we will not analyse these footnotes, simply because there are scores of them scattered throughout the modern translations and each has a slightly different slant. However, one thing they all have in common: and that is, they ALL cast doubt on the accuracy of the Authorised King James Bible! By implication they all claim to be more accurate and reliable than the King James Version. In the preface of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) we read this misleading statement. "Yet the King James Version has grave defects." Oh how subtle is Satan, how evil and how sinister! The stunning fact is: the very opposite is true. The King James Version is infinitely more accurate and reliable than ANY modern English translation on the market today. And that is why for the past 386 years it has had - and continues to have - the blessing of the Almighty God upon it: something no modern version or translation can come anywhere near. Most, after a decade or two, disappear from the book shops, only to re-appear some years later with a few alterations under a new name.

How did it happen that the Minority Text supplanted the trustworthy and respected Textus Receptus which triggered the great Protestant Reformation during which tens of thousands of true believers perished by flame, famine and torture? Who is behind this dangerous deception that has engulfed the Christian Church? Do you know? Do you care? Is it important? Does it really matter?

I most certainly didn't know. But I do believe that it is vitally important that every believer know that Satan is behind it: not any particular Church, its leaders or its members - but the great enemy of souls! He is behind every deception ever aimed at the human race: and millions, in and out of the church, believe his lies. I for one had been living in blissful ignorance of the danger for many years: till a massive heart attack laid me flat on my back and I was moved - yea inwardly compelled - to make a deep study of the History of God's Word and how He has providentially preserved it till today.

Now let us turn our attention to the Minority Text's two most prominent manuscripts on which most modern translations of the Bible heavily rely. They are called Codex Sinaiticus (ALEPH ) and Codex Vaticanus (B). The word 'codex,' incidentally,means that the manuscript is in book form, with pages, as opposed to being a scroll. But first a little about the man whom God raised up over 150 years ago to expose the errors of the Minority Texts. His name is John Burgon.



John William Burgon
John Burgon was undoubtedly one of the greatest defenders of the Greek text of the New Testament. He exposed the hundreds of amendments, deletions and additions in the Minority Text and defended the reliability of Textus Receptus till the day of his death. Unlike most Bible students, Burgon was a Greek scholar of the highest rank who spent much of his life browsing through the museums and libraries of Europe examining the ancient Greek manuscripts. He had first hand experience examining the Vatican texts whilst he ministered to a congregation in Rome. His findings are of utmost value in these days of wilful, spiritual ignorance and sin. I will quote a few extracts about this magnificent warrior from David O Fuller's book Which Bible?


Quote: "John William Burgon was born August 21, 1813. He matriculated at Oxford in 1841, taking several high honours there, and his B.A. 1845. He took his M.A. there in 1848…the thing about Burgon, however, which lifts him out of the nineteenth century English setting and endears him to the hearts of earnest Christians of other lands and other ages is his steadfast defence of the Scriptures as the infallible Word of God. He strove with all his power to arrest the modernistic currents which during his lifetime had begun to flow within the Church of England, continuing his efforts with unabated zeal up to the very day of his death. With this purpose in mind he laboured mightily in the field of New Testament textual criticism.
In 1860, while temporary chaplain of the English congregation at Rome, he made a personal examination of Codex B (Vaticanus), and in 1862 he inspected the treasures of St. Catherine's Convent on Mt. Sinai. Later he made several tours of European libraries, examining and collating New Testament manuscripts wherever he went…Of all the critics of the nineteenth century Burgon alone was consistently Christian in his vindication of the Divine inspiration and providential preservation of the text of Holy Scripture…
Burgon regarded the good state of preservation of B (Codex Vaticanus) and ALEPH (Codex Sinaiticus) in spite of their exceptional age as proof not of their goodness but of their badness. If they had been good manuscripts, they would have been read to pieces long ago. We suspect that these two manuscripts are indebted for their preservation, solely to their ascertained evil character; which has occasioned that the one eventually found its way, four centuries ago, to a forgotten shelf in the Vatican Library; while the other, after exercising the ingenuity of several generations of critical Correctors, eventually (viz. in A.D.1844) got deposited in the wastepaper basket of the Convent at the foot of Mount Sinai.
Had B (Vaticanus) and ALEPH (Sinaiticus) been copies of average purity, they must long since have shared the inevitable fate of books which are freely used and highly prized; namely, they would have fallen into decadence and disappeared from sight. Thus the fact that B and ALEPH are so old is a point against them, not something in their favour. It shows that the Church rejected them and did not read them. Otherwise they would have worn out and disappeared through much reading.
For an orthodox Christian Burgon's view is the only reasonable one. If we believe that God gave the Church guidance in regard to the New Testament books, then surely it is logical to believe that God gave the church similar guidance in regard to the text which these books contained…
Who but those with Roman Catholic sympathies could ever be pleased with the notion that God preserved the true New Testament text in secret for almost one thousand years and then finally handed it over to the Roman pontiff for safekeeping? Surely every orthodox Protestant will prefer to think with Burgon that God preserved the true text of the Greek New Testament in the usage of the Greek-speaking Church down through the centuries and then delivered it up intact to the Protestant reformers." (Ref:F11)
CODEX SINAITICUS (ALEPH)
This codex was produced in the 4th century. In his book Let's Weigh the Evidence, Barry Burton writes of Codex Sinaiticus:



Quote: "The Sinaiticus is a manuscript that was found in 1844 in a trash pile in St.Catherine's Monastery near Mt. Sinai, by a man named Mr Tischendorf. It contains nearly all of the New Testament plus it adds the 'Shepherd of Hermes' and the 'Epistle of Barnabas' to the New Testament. The Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable, proven by examining the manuscript itself. John Burgon spent years examining every available manuscript of the New Testament. He writes about Sinaiticus...
'On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters, words or even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament.
THAT'S NOT ALL!
On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people. Some of these corrections were made about the same time that it was copied, but most of them were made in the 6th and 7th century. … Phillip Mauro, a brilliant lawyer who was admitted to the bar of the US Supreme Court in April 1892, wrote a book called "Which Version " in the early 1900s. He writes concerning the Sinaiticus… 'From these facts, therefore, we declare: first that the impurity of the Codex Sinaiticus, in every part of it, was fully recognized by those who were best acquainted with it, and that from the very beginning until the time when it was finally cast aside as worthless for any practical purpose.' " (Ref:C1)
In his excellent book An Understandable History Of The Bible, Rev. Samuel Gipp writes of

Codex Sinaiticus: "One of the MSS is called Sinaiticus and is represented by the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, Aleph. This MS from all outward appearances looks very beautiful. It is written in book form (codex) on vellum. It contains 147 1/2 leaves. The pages are 15" by 13 1/2" with four columns of 48 lines per page. It contains many spurious books such as the 'Shepherd of Hermes,' the 'Epistle of Barnabas' and even the Didache.
The great Greek scholar, Dr Scrivener, points this out in his historic work A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus. He speaks of correctional alterations made to the MS: 'The Codex is covered with such alterations... brought in by at least ten different revisers, some of them systematically spread over every page, others occasional or limited to separated portions of the MS, many of these being contemporaneous with the first writer, but the greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh century.' " (Ref:B5)
CODEX VATICANUS (B)
The second major manuscript of the Minority Textis known as Codex Vaticanus, often referred to as 'B'. This codex was also produced in the 4th century. It was found over a thousand years later in 1481 in the Vatican library in Rome, where it is currently held. It is written on expensive vellum, a fine parchment originally from the skin of calf or antelope. Some authorities claim that it was one of a batch of 50 Bibles ordered from Egypt by the Roman Emperor Constantine: hence its beautiful appearance and the expensive skins which were used for its pages. But alas! this manuscript, like its corrupt Egyptian partner Sinaiticus (Aleph) is also riddled with omissions, insertions and amendments.

Of Codex Vaticanus Samuel Gipp writes on

page 72: "This codex omits many portions of Scripture vital to Christian doctrine. Vaticanus omits Genesis 1.1 through Genesis 46:28; Psalms 106 through 138; Matthew 16:2,3; Romans 16:24; the Pauline Pastoral Epistles; Revelation; and everything in Hebrews after 9:14.
It seems suspicious indeed that a MS possessed by the Roman Catholic church omits the portion of the book of Hebrews which exposes the 'mass' as totally useless (Please read Hebrews 10:10-12). The 'mass' in conjunction with the false doctrine of purgatory go hand-in-hand to form a perpetual money making machine for Rome. Without one or the other, the Roman Catholic Church would go broke! It also omits portions of the Scripture telling of the creation (Genesis), the prophetic details of the crucifixion (Psalm 22), and, of course, the portion which prophesies of the destruction of Babylon (Rome), the great whore of Revelation chapter 17.
Vaticanus , though intact physically, is found to be in poor literary quality. Dr Martin declares, 'B' exhibits numerous places where the scribe has written the same word or phrase twice in succession. Dr J Smythe states, 'From one end to the other, the whole manuscript has been travelled over by the pen of some… scribe of about the tenth century.' If Vaticanus was considered a trustworthy text originally, the mass of corrections and scribal changes obviously render its testimony highly suspicious and questionable."
Rev. Gipp continues on page 73:

Quote: "The corrupt and unreliable nature of these two MSS (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) is best summed up by one who has thoroughly examined them, John W Burgon: 'The impurity of the text exhibited by these codices is not a question of opinion but fact...In the Gospels alone, Codex B(Vatican) leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of careless transcriptions on every page…
If we are to be thorough and discriminatory in our evaluation of the true New Testament text, then we must not -- we cannot -- overlook these facts.' How did these MSS come into being? How did it happen that they should be beautiful to the eye, yet within contain such vile and devastating corruption? It seems that these uncial MSS along with the papyrus MSS included in this category all resulted from a revision of the true, or Universal Text. This revision was enacted in Egypt by Egyptian scribes! " (Ref:B6)
Rev. Gipp

continues: "So we see that once a pure copy of the Universal Text (Textus Receptus) had been carried down into Egypt, it was recopied. During the process of this recopying, it was revised by men who did not revere it as truly the Word of God. This text was examined by the critical eye of Greek philosophy and Egyptian morals. These men saw nothing wrong with putting the Book in subjection to their opinion instead of their opinion being in subjection to the book. This process produced a text which was local to the educational centre of Alexandria, Egypt. This text went no further than southern Italy where the Roman Catholic Church found its unstable character perfect for overthrowing the true Word of God which was being used universally by the true Christians." (Ref:B7)
The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible has this to say about Codex Vaticanus on page 624 under the article Versions.

Quote: " It should be noted, however, that there is no prominent Biblical MS. in which there occur such gross cases of misspelling, faulty grammar, and omission, as in B." (Ref:H2)
Barry Burton comments further:

Quote: "For one thing…Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree with each other over 3000 times in the gospels alone… Facts about the Vaticanus.
"It was written on fine vellum (tanned animal skins) and remains in excellent condition. It was found in the Vatican Library in 1481 AD. In spite of being in excellent condition, it omits Genesis 1:1-Gen.46:28, Psalm 106-138, Matt.16:2-3, the Pauline pastoral Epistles, Hebrews 9:14-13:25, and all of Revelation. These parts were probably left out on purpose."
"Besides all that - in the gospels alone it leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses and 748 whole sentences, which hundreds of later copies agree together as having the same words in the same places, the same clauses in the same places and the same sentences in the same places... The Vaticanus was available to the translators of the King James Bible, but they did not use it because they knew it is unreliable." (Ref:C2)
Dean Burgon comments on Codices Sinaiticus (Aleph)and Vaticanus (B).



Quote: "Compromise of any sort between the two conflicting parties, is impossible; for they simply contradict one another. Codd.B and Aleph are either amongst the purist of manuscripts,- or else they are among the very foulest. The Text of Drs.Westcott and Hort is either the very best which has ever appeared,- or else it is the very worst; the nearest to the sacred Autographs,- or furthest from them."… "There is no room for both opinions; and there cannot exist any middle view." (Ref: P3)
Oldest and Best
Bible students are often told that Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are older and better than other manuscripts: the implication being that they must, therefore, be more accurate. But this conclusion is wrong. We have already seen how Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are corrupt beyond measure. To be sure they are 'better' in appearance, but certainly not in their content. Remember they are written on expensive vellum; so they ought to be in good shape. They are older, but older than what? They are older than other Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. But they are not older than the earliest versions of the Bible: the Peshitta, Italic, Waldensian and the Old Latin Vulgate: versions which agree with the Majority text. These ancient versions are some 200 years older than A and B. Yes A and B are older than other Greek mss, but for anyone to suggest that they are more accurate is absurd. It is like someone saying 'You will find the greatest TRUTH being preached in the oldest and most beautiful cathedrals of the world,' or, 'the most beautiful women have the best characters.'

In his masterful book Revision Revised Dean Burgon wrote, over a hundred years ago, concerning the ages of Codices Vatican (B) and Sinai (Aleph):



Quote: "Lastly, - We suspect that these two Manuscripts are indebted for their preservation, solely to their ascertained evil character, which has occasioned that the one eventually found its way, four centuries ago, to a forgotten shelf in the Vatican library; while the other, after exercising the ingenuity of several generations of critical Correctors, eventually (viz. in A.D. 1844) got deposited in the waste-paper basket of the Convent at the foot of mount Sinai. Had B and Aleph been copies of average purity, they must long since have shared the inevitable fate of books which are freely used and highly prized; namely, they would have fallen into decadence and disappeared from sight." (Ref: P1)
In short these two codices are old simply because:

• First: They were written on extremely expensive and durable antelope skins.
• Second: They were so full of errors, alterations, additions and deletions, that they were never used by true believers and seldom even by their own custodians. Thus they had little chance of wearing away.

Can any true believer imagine JEHOVAH, the Holy One of Israel, hiding Codex Vaticanus away for over 1000 years in the Vatican Library till 1481? Or prompting the deeply religious monks of St Catherine's Monastery to dump Sinaiticus into a waste basket? The very idea is ridiculous.

A vital fact to remember is that though codices Aleph and B (produced in the 4th century) are older than other Greek manuscript copies of the Scriptures, they are not older than the Peshitta, Italic, the Old Latin Vulgate and the Waldensian versions which were produced 200 years earlier in the 2nd century. All these versions, copies of which are still in existence, agree with Textus Receptus, the underlying text of the King James Bible. I repeat: these ancient versions are some 200 years older than Vaticanus and Sinaiticus: so the 'oldest is best' argument should not be used. All Bibles fall, basically, into one of two categories.

• Those based on the Majority Text.
• Those based on the Minority Text.

Which Bible you select for study each day is going to have an enormous effect on your spiritual growth and well being. Bear this vital fact in mind.''

izvor: http: // www . angelfire. com/la2/prophet1/mintext1.html

 

[Adrian BG]

Не би они престали са сејањем своје пропаганде ни да им апостоли лично овде испишу, тј. гурали би и даље оно што им вође потурају да шире. Никаква расправа са њима није могућа. Тако да највећи непријатељи хришћанства нису друге религије, већ квази-хришћани. Они сеју саблазни по народима, баш као што је апостол најавио да ће од нас изаћи и прикупљати са собом следбенике. Зато многи у народу и понављају да је Библија погрешно преведена, мењана и сл. Сејачи саблазни...

 

[Zaokret]

Naravno ti o manuskriptima nemas pojma na zalost.
Sinajski kodeks je Euzebijev falsifikat(konstantinova biblija).
Za sve ovo napisano sam postavio dokaze, a ti si naravno ignorant, koji jedino zeli da dodje i ''poseje seme lazi''.
E pa ne dam Hristove ovce da budu zavedene i boricu se protiv tvojih satanskih lazi do poslednjeg daha!

Evo nesto o falsifikovanim manuskriptima koje Zaokret ovde seje po forumu(ko zna engleski) :



''The Minority Texts were rejected by the early Christians and also by all the Protestant Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries. The Reformers, who were well aware of the existence of the Minority Texts, considered them unfit for translation purposes. These are very important points to bear in mind. Why did the early Christians and the Protestant Reformers reject the Minority Texts?

The answer is:

• 
  The Minority Texts were the work of unbelieving Egyptian scribes who did not accept the Bible as the Word of God or JESUS as the SON of GOD!
  The Minority Texts abound with alterations, often a single manuscript being amended by several different scribes over a period of many years: something the Aaronic priests and Masorites would never have tolerated when making copies of the Scriptures.
  The Minority Texts omit approximately 200 verses from the Scriptures. This is equivalent to 1st and 2nd Peter.
  The Minority Texts contradict themselves in hundreds of places.
  The Minority Texts are doctrinally weak and often dangerously incorrect.

Proof of these astonishing allegations will follow in Part Two where we will take a close look at some 80+ Bible verses corrupted by the Minority Text.

Yet, startling as it may sound, every modern English Bible relies on the Minority Text as its underlying New Testament text in preference to Textus Receptus! Isn't that an amazing revelation? What brought about this almost incredible switch from the reliable Textus Receptus, beloved by the early Christian church and the Protestant Reformers, to the corrupt minority text favoured by the Roman Catholic Church? It is important that you find out soon: because the modern "Bible" you may be faithfully studying every day is really nothing more than a counterfeit posing as the Word of God! If it is any consolation to you, do remember that I was equally in the dark and totally devastated by my findings.

Misleading Footnotes

Modern translations abound with misleading footnotes, which do little else but cast doubt on the King James Version. Examples are:

• 
  The Hebrew of this line is obscure.
  The meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain - or unknown.
  Other ancient mss add …
  Other ancient mss omit…
  Other ancient mss read …
  Other ancient mss insert…
  Some early mss read…
  The most ancient authorities omit John 7:53 - 8:11
  The best manuscripts omit this verse. (e.g. Matt.17:21, 18:11, 23:14, Mark 7:16, John 5:4)
  Some of the most ancient authorities bring the book (Mark) to a close at the end of Mark 16:8
  Many mss do not contain the remainder of this verse. (e.g. Acts 8:37)
  Many ancient authorities read…
  Not found in most of the old mss.(e.g. John 7:53-8:11)

In this article we will not analyse these footnotes, simply because there are scores of them scattered throughout the modern translations and each has a slightly different slant. However, one thing they all have in common: and that is, they ALL cast doubt on the accuracy of the Authorised King James Bible! By implication they all claim to be more accurate and reliable than the King James Version. In the preface of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) we read this misleading statement. "Yet the King James Version has grave defects." Oh how subtle is Satan, how evil and how sinister! The stunning fact is: the very opposite is true. The King James Version is infinitely more accurate and reliable than ANY modern English translation on the market today. And that is why for the past 386 years it has had - and continues to have - the blessing of the Almighty God upon it: something no modern version or translation can come anywhere near. Most, after a decade or two, disappear from the book shops, only to re-appear some years later with a few alterations under a new name.

How did it happen that the Minority Text supplanted the trustworthy and respected Textus Receptus which triggered the great Protestant Reformation during which tens of thousands of true believers perished by flame, famine and torture? Who is behind this dangerous deception that has engulfed the Christian Church? Do you know? Do you care? Is it important? Does it really matter?

I most certainly didn't know. But I do believe that it is vitally important that every believer know that Satan is behind it: not any particular Church, its leaders or its members - but the great enemy of souls! He is behind every deception ever aimed at the human race: and millions, in and out of the church, believe his lies. I for one had been living in blissful ignorance of the danger for many years: till a massive heart attack laid me flat on my back and I was moved - yea inwardly compelled - to make a deep study of the History of God's Word and how He has providentially preserved it till today.

Now let us turn our attention to the Minority Text's two most prominent manuscripts on which most modern translations of the Bible heavily rely. They are called Codex Sinaiticus (ALEPH ) and Codex Vaticanus (B). The word 'codex,' incidentally,means that the manuscript is in book form, with pages, as opposed to being a scroll. But first a little about the man whom God raised up over 150 years ago to expose the errors of the Minority Texts. His name is John Burgon.



John William Burgon
John Burgon was undoubtedly one of the greatest defenders of the Greek text of the New Testament. He exposed the hundreds of amendments, deletions and additions in the Minority Text and defended the reliability of Textus Receptus till the day of his death. Unlike most Bible students, Burgon was a Greek scholar of the highest rank who spent much of his life browsing through the museums and libraries of Europe examining the ancient Greek manuscripts. He had first hand experience examining the Vatican texts whilst he ministered to a congregation in Rome. His findings are of utmost value in these days of wilful, spiritual ignorance and sin. I will quote a few extracts about this magnificent warrior from David O Fuller's book Which Bible?


Quote: "John William Burgon was born August 21, 1813. He matriculated at Oxford in 1841, taking several high honours there, and his B.A. 1845. He took his M.A. there in 1848…the thing about Burgon, however, which lifts him out of the nineteenth century English setting and endears him to the hearts of earnest Christians of other lands and other ages is his steadfast defence of the Scriptures as the infallible Word of God. He strove with all his power to arrest the modernistic currents which during his lifetime had begun to flow within the Church of England, continuing his efforts with unabated zeal up to the very day of his death. With this purpose in mind he laboured mightily in the field of New Testament textual criticism.
In 1860, while temporary chaplain of the English congregation at Rome, he made a personal examination of Codex B (Vaticanus), and in 1862 he inspected the treasures of St. Catherine's Convent on Mt. Sinai. Later he made several tours of European libraries, examining and collating New Testament manuscripts wherever he went…Of all the critics of the nineteenth century Burgon alone was consistently Christian in his vindication of the Divine inspiration and providential preservation of the text of Holy Scripture…
Burgon regarded the good state of preservation of B (Codex Vaticanus) and ALEPH (Codex Sinaiticus) in spite of their exceptional age as proof not of their goodness but of their badness. If they had been good manuscripts, they would have been read to pieces long ago. We suspect that these two manuscripts are indebted for their preservation, solely to their ascertained evil character; which has occasioned that the one eventually found its way, four centuries ago, to a forgotten shelf in the Vatican Library; while the other, after exercising the ingenuity of several generations of critical Correctors, eventually (viz. in A.D.1844) got deposited in the wastepaper basket of the Convent at the foot of Mount Sinai.
Had B (Vaticanus) and ALEPH (Sinaiticus) been copies of average purity, they must long since have shared the inevitable fate of books which are freely used and highly prized; namely, they would have fallen into decadence and disappeared from sight. Thus the fact that B and ALEPH are so old is a point against them, not something in their favour. It shows that the Church rejected them and did not read them. Otherwise they would have worn out and disappeared through much reading.
For an orthodox Christian Burgon's view is the only reasonable one. If we believe that God gave the Church guidance in regard to the New Testament books, then surely it is logical to believe that God gave the church similar guidance in regard to the text which these books contained…
Who but those with Roman Catholic sympathies could ever be pleased with the notion that God preserved the true New Testament text in secret for almost one thousand years and then finally handed it over to the Roman pontiff for safekeeping? Surely every orthodox Protestant will prefer to think with Burgon that God preserved the true text of the Greek New Testament in the usage of the Greek-speaking Church down through the centuries and then delivered it up intact to the Protestant reformers." (Ref:F11)
CODEX SINAITICUS (ALEPH)
This codex was produced in the 4th century. In his book Let's Weigh the Evidence, Barry Burton writes of Codex Sinaiticus:



Quote: "The Sinaiticus is a manuscript that was found in 1844 in a trash pile in St.Catherine's Monastery near Mt. Sinai, by a man named Mr Tischendorf. It contains nearly all of the New Testament plus it adds the 'Shepherd of Hermes' and the 'Epistle of Barnabas' to the New Testament. The Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable, proven by examining the manuscript itself. John Burgon spent years examining every available manuscript of the New Testament. He writes about Sinaiticus...
'On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters, words or even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament.
THAT'S NOT ALL!
On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people. Some of these corrections were made about the same time that it was copied, but most of them were made in the 6th and 7th century. … Phillip Mauro, a brilliant lawyer who was admitted to the bar of the US Supreme Court in April 1892, wrote a book called "Which Version " in the early 1900s. He writes concerning the Sinaiticus… 'From these facts, therefore, we declare: first that the impurity of the Codex Sinaiticus, in every part of it, was fully recognized by those who were best acquainted with it, and that from the very beginning until the time when it was finally cast aside as worthless for any practical purpose.' " (Ref:C1)
In his excellent book An Understandable History Of The Bible, Rev. Samuel Gipp writes of

Codex Sinaiticus: "One of the MSS is called Sinaiticus and is represented by the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, Aleph. This MS from all outward appearances looks very beautiful. It is written in book form (codex) on vellum. It contains 147 1/2 leaves. The pages are 15" by 13 1/2" with four columns of 48 lines per page. It contains many spurious books such as the 'Shepherd of Hermes,' the 'Epistle of Barnabas' and even the Didache.
The great Greek scholar, Dr Scrivener, points this out in his historic work A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus. He speaks of correctional alterations made to the MS: 'The Codex is covered with such alterations... brought in by at least ten different revisers, some of them systematically spread over every page, others occasional or limited to separated portions of the MS, many of these being contemporaneous with the first writer, but the greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh century.' " (Ref:B5)
CODEX VATICANUS (B)
The second major manuscript of the Minority Textis known as Codex Vaticanus, often referred to as 'B'. This codex was also produced in the 4th century. It was found over a thousand years later in 1481 in the Vatican library in Rome, where it is currently held. It is written on expensive vellum, a fine parchment originally from the skin of calf or antelope. Some authorities claim that it was one of a batch of 50 Bibles ordered from Egypt by the Roman Emperor Constantine: hence its beautiful appearance and the expensive skins which were used for its pages. But alas! this manuscript, like its corrupt Egyptian partner Sinaiticus (Aleph) is also riddled with omissions, insertions and amendments.

Of Codex Vaticanus Samuel Gipp writes on

page 72: "This codex omits many portions of Scripture vital to Christian doctrine. Vaticanus omits Genesis 1.1 through Genesis 46:28; Psalms 106 through 138; Matthew 16:2,3; Romans 16:24; the Pauline Pastoral Epistles; Revelation; and everything in Hebrews after 9:14.
It seems suspicious indeed that a MS possessed by the Roman Catholic church omits the portion of the book of Hebrews which exposes the 'mass' as totally useless (Please read Hebrews 10:10-12). The 'mass' in conjunction with the false doctrine of purgatory go hand-in-hand to form a perpetual money making machine for Rome. Without one or the other, the Roman Catholic Church would go broke! It also omits portions of the Scripture telling of the creation (Genesis), the prophetic details of the crucifixion (Psalm 22), and, of course, the portion which prophesies of the destruction of Babylon (Rome), the great whore of Revelation chapter 17.
Vaticanus , though intact physically, is found to be in poor literary quality. Dr Martin declares, 'B' exhibits numerous places where the scribe has written the same word or phrase twice in succession. Dr J Smythe states, 'From one end to the other, the whole manuscript has been travelled over by the pen of some… scribe of about the tenth century.' If Vaticanus was considered a trustworthy text originally, the mass of corrections and scribal changes obviously render its testimony highly suspicious and questionable."
Rev. Gipp continues on page 73:

Quote: "The corrupt and unreliable nature of these two MSS (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) is best summed up by one who has thoroughly examined them, John W Burgon: 'The impurity of the text exhibited by these codices is not a question of opinion but fact...In the Gospels alone, Codex B(Vatican) leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of careless transcriptions on every page…
If we are to be thorough and discriminatory in our evaluation of the true New Testament text, then we must not -- we cannot -- overlook these facts.' How did these MSS come into being? How did it happen that they should be beautiful to the eye, yet within contain such vile and devastating corruption? It seems that these uncial MSS along with the papyrus MSS included in this category all resulted from a revision of the true, or Universal Text. This revision was enacted in Egypt by Egyptian scribes! " (Ref:B6)
Rev. Gipp

continues: "So we see that once a pure copy of the Universal Text (Textus Receptus) had been carried down into Egypt, it was recopied. During the process of this recopying, it was revised by men who did not revere it as truly the Word of God. This text was examined by the critical eye of Greek philosophy and Egyptian morals. These men saw nothing wrong with putting the Book in subjection to their opinion instead of their opinion being in subjection to the book. This process produced a text which was local to the educational centre of Alexandria, Egypt. This text went no further than southern Italy where the Roman Catholic Church found its unstable character perfect for overthrowing the true Word of God which was being used universally by the true Christians." (Ref:B7)
The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible has this to say about Codex Vaticanus on page 624 under the article Versions.

Quote: " It should be noted, however, that there is no prominent Biblical MS. in which there occur such gross cases of misspelling, faulty grammar, and omission, as in B." (Ref:H2)
Barry Burton comments further:

Quote: "For one thing…Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree with each other over 3000 times in the gospels alone… Facts about the Vaticanus.
"It was written on fine vellum (tanned animal skins) and remains in excellent condition. It was found in the Vatican Library in 1481 AD. In spite of being in excellent condition, it omits Genesis 1:1-Gen.46:28, Psalm 106-138, Matt.16:2-3, the Pauline pastoral Epistles, Hebrews 9:14-13:25, and all of Revelation. These parts were probably left out on purpose."
"Besides all that - in the gospels alone it leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses and 748 whole sentences, which hundreds of later copies agree together as having the same words in the same places, the same clauses in the same places and the same sentences in the same places... The Vaticanus was available to the translators of the King James Bible, but they did not use it because they knew it is unreliable." (Ref:C2)
Dean Burgon comments on Codices Sinaiticus (Aleph)and Vaticanus (B).



Quote: "Compromise of any sort between the two conflicting parties, is impossible; for they simply contradict one another. Codd.B and Aleph are either amongst the purist of manuscripts,- or else they are among the very foulest. The Text of Drs.Westcott and Hort is either the very best which has ever appeared,- or else it is the very worst; the nearest to the sacred Autographs,- or furthest from them."… "There is no room for both opinions; and there cannot exist any middle view." (Ref: P3)
Oldest and Best
Bible students are often told that Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are older and better than other manuscripts: the implication being that they must, therefore, be more accurate. But this conclusion is wrong. We have already seen how Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are corrupt beyond measure. To be sure they are 'better' in appearance, but certainly not in their content. Remember they are written on expensive vellum; so they ought to be in good shape. They are older, but older than what? They are older than other Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. But they are not older than the earliest versions of the Bible: the Peshitta, Italic, Waldensian and the Old Latin Vulgate: versions which agree with the Majority text. These ancient versions are some 200 years older than A and B. Yes A and B are older than other Greek mss, but for anyone to suggest that they are more accurate is absurd. It is like someone saying 'You will find the greatest TRUTH being preached in the oldest and most beautiful cathedrals of the world,' or, 'the most beautiful women have the best characters.'

In his masterful book Revision Revised Dean Burgon wrote, over a hundred years ago, concerning the ages of Codices Vatican (B) and Sinai (Aleph):



Quote: "Lastly, - We suspect that these two Manuscripts are indebted for their preservation, solely to their ascertained evil character, which has occasioned that the one eventually found its way, four centuries ago, to a forgotten shelf in the Vatican library; while the other, after exercising the ingenuity of several generations of critical Correctors, eventually (viz. in A.D. 1844) got deposited in the waste-paper basket of the Convent at the foot of mount Sinai. Had B and Aleph been copies of average purity, they must long since have shared the inevitable fate of books which are freely used and highly prized; namely, they would have fallen into decadence and disappeared from sight." (Ref: P1)
In short these two codices are old simply because:

• 
  First: They were written on extremely expensive and durable antelope skins.
  Second: They were so full of errors, alterations, additions and deletions, that they were never used by true believers and seldom even by their own custodians. Thus they had little chance of wearing away.

Can any true believer imagine JEHOVAH, the Holy One of Israel, hiding Codex Vaticanus away for over 1000 years in the Vatican Library till 1481? Or prompting the deeply religious monks of St Catherine's Monastery to dump Sinaiticus into a waste basket? The very idea is ridiculous.

A vital fact to remember is that though codices Aleph and B (produced in the 4th century) are older than other Greek manuscript copies of the Scriptures, they are not older than the Peshitta, Italic, the Old Latin Vulgate and the Waldensian versions which were produced 200 years earlier in the 2nd century. All these versions, copies of which are still in existence, agree with Textus Receptus, the underlying text of the King James Bible. I repeat: these ancient versions are some 200 years older than Vaticanus and Sinaiticus: so the 'oldest is best' argument should not be used. All Bibles fall, basically, into one of two categories.

• 
  Those based on the Majority Text.
  Those based on the Minority Text.

Which Bible you select for study each day is going to have an enormous effect on your spiritual growth and well being. Bear this vital fact in mind.''

izvor: http: // www . angelfire. com/la2/prophet1/mintext1.html

Пиши више на српском и пиши својим речима ,а не копи-налепи.
Смешно је твоје нападање оних који су се борили за истину и разоткривање лажљивих наука твоје Константинске секте .Твоји докази су нетачни и недовољни јер се заснивају на мржњи и зависти.
Ти желиш да скврнавиш оно што је истина,додавањем лажи твојих ментора.
Знаш ли ти уопште да препричаш на српском историју синајског кодекса и зашто су га све релевантне стране прихватиле као поуздан и најстарији извор?
Овакви својим начином писања ти пљујеш по свима који су вредно и научно радили на утврђивању доказа по коме се нешто сврстава у исправно или пак неисправно.
Ево свима да прочитају историју Синајског кодекса на српском језику.

„Јасно светло“ из најстарије руске библиотеке

ДВА изучаваоца трагају за древним библијским манускриптима. Засебно путују кроз пустиње и истражују пећине, манастире и стара насеља на планинским литицама. Годинама касније, њихови путеви се укрштају у најстаријој руској библиотеци, у којој ће се наћи библијски текстови који су међу најупечатљивијим открићима за које је свет икада чуо. Ко су били ти људи? Како је благо које су пронашли доспело у Русију?

Древни манускрипти — браниоци Божје Речи

Да бисмо упознали једног од ових изучавалаца, морамо се вратити на почетак XIX века када су Европом дували ветрови интелектуалне револуције. То је било доба научног напретка и културних достигнућа, када се заступао скептицизам према традиционалним веровањима. Виши критицизам је настојао да поткопа ауторитет Библије. У ствари, изучаваоци су изразили сумње у аутентичност самог библијског текста.

Неки искрени поборници Библије схватили су да би нови браниоци — до тада још увек неоткривени древни библијски манускрипти — несумњиво подржали беспрекорност Божје Речи. Ако би се пронашли манускрипти старији од већ постојећих, они би били неми сведоци чистоће библијског текста, иако се упорно настојало да се уништи или искриви библијска порука. Уз помоћ таквих манускрипата могла би се открити нека места где су се погрешна тумачења увукла у текст.

Најжучније расправе о аутентичности Библије вођене су у Немачкој. Тамо је један млади професор напустио удобан академски живот да би започео путовање које ће га одвести до једног од највећих библијских открића свих времена. Његово име је Константин фон Тишендорф, изучавалац Библије који је, након што је одбацио виши критицизам, постигао значајан успех у одбрани аутентичности библијског текста. Његово прво путовање у синајску пустош 1844. године имало је невероватан успех. Летимичан поглед на манастирску корпу за отпатке водио је до открића једне древне копије Септуагинте, то јест грчког превода Хебрејских списа — најстаријег који је икада пронађен!

Пун усхићења, Тишендорф је успео да понесе са собом 43 свитка. Иако је био убеђен да их има још, приликом друге посете 1853. године нашао је само један фрагмент. Где су били остали свици? Пошто је остао без новца, тражио је финансијску помоћ неког богатог покровитеља и одлучио је да поново напусти своју родну земљу и крене у потрагу за древним манускриптима. Ипак, пре него што је започео ту мисију, обратио се руском цару.

Руски цар показује занимање

Тишендорф се вероватно питао како ће он, као протестантски изучавалац, бити прихваћен у Русији, великој земљи која је усвојила руску православну веру. На срећу, Русија је закорачила у повољно доба промена и реформи. Будући да се придавао велики значај образовању, царица Катарина II (позната и као Катарина Велика) 1795. године основала је Царску библиотеку у Санкт Петербургу. Као прва руска јавна библиотека, ова установа је поседовала ризницу штампаних информација које су свима биле доступне.

Иако је сматрана једном од најбољих библиотека у Европи, Царска библиотека је имала једну ману. Педесет година после оснивања, библиотека је имала само шест хебрејских манускрипата. То није било довољно с обзиром на све већи интерес за проучавање библијских језика и превођење у Русији. Катарина II је послала изучаваоце на европске универзитете да студирају хебрејски језик. По њиховом повратку, основани су бројни курсеви хебрејског језика у главним Руским православним богословијама, и први пут су руски изучаваоци радили на тачном преводу Библије са древног хебрејског на руски језик. Али, суочили су се са финансијским проблемима и противљењем конзервативних црквених вођа. Права просвећеност за оне који су трагали за библијским спознањем тек ће дођи.

Цар Александар II је разумео вредност Тишендорфове мисије и понудио му је финансијску помоћ. Упркос „љубоморном и фанатичном противљењу“ неких, са свог путовања до Синаја Тишендорф се вратио са остатком рукописаСептуагинте.* Касније назван Codex Sinaiticus (Синајски кодекс), овај рукопис је још увек један од најстаријих који данас постоје. По повратку у Санкт Петербург, Тишендорф је пожурио у царску резиденцију, Зимски дворац. Он је дао предлог да цар подржи „једно од највећих подухвата у аналитичком и библијском проучавању“ — објављивање новопронађеног манускрипта, који је касније смештен у Царску библиотеку. Цар је спремно прихватио предлог, а одушевљени Тишендорф је касније написао: „Божје вођство је дато у наше време... Синајска Библија, која ће нам бити пуно и јасно светло с обзиром на тачност Божје писане Речи и која ће нам помоћи да одбранимо истину доказивањем њене аутентичности.“

Библијско благо са Крима

На почетку чланка споменут је још један изучавалац који је трагао за библијским благом. Ко је то био? Неколико година пре него што се Тишендорф вратио у Русију, Царској библиотеци је понуђена невероватна колекција која је заинтересовала цара и довела у Русију изучаваоце из целе Европе. Једва су могли да верују својим очима. Пред њима је била огромна колекција манускрипата и других рукописа. Обухватала је невероватних 2 412 делова, укључујући и 975 манускрипата и свитака. Међу њима је било 45 библијских манускрипата који су датирали из времена пре десетог века. Иако је изгледало невероватно, све ове манускрипте сакупио је скоро без ичије помоћи један човек по имену Аврахам Фиркович, караитски изучавалац који је тада имао преко 70 година! Али, ко су били караити?*

Ово питање је веома занимало цара. Русија је проширила своје границе обухватајући тако територију која је раније припадала другим државама. На тај начин су царству припале и нове етничке групе. Живописну кримску област на обали Црног мора, насељавали су људи који су по свему судећи били Јевреји, али су усвојили турске обичаје и говорили су језик сличан татарском. Ти караити су водили порекло од Јевреја који су прогнани у Вавилон након уништења Јерусалима 607. пре н. е. Међутим, за разлику од рабинских Јевреја, они нису прихватили Талмуд већ су истицали важност читања Светог писма. Караити са Крима су желели да цару пруже доказ да се разликују од рабинских Јевреја, и тако засигурају посебан статус. Ако би показали древне манускрипте које су поседовали, надали су се да ће доказати да они воде порекло од Јевреја који су имигрирали на Крим након вавилонског изгнанства.

Када је Фиркович кренуо у потрагу за древним записима и манускриптима, он је почео од Чуфут-Калеа, насеља на планинским литицама Крима. Генерације караита су живеле и обожавале Бога у тим малим кућама које су биле саграђене од камена исклесаног из стена. Караити нису уништили похабане преписе Писма где се појављивало Божје име Јехова, јер су сматрали да би то било богохуљење. Ти манускрипти су били пажљиво смештени у малој остави званој гениза, што на хебрејском значи „скровиште“. Пошто су караити дубоко поштовали Божје име, такви пергаменти су се ретко кад користили.

Не марећи за прашину која се вековима таложила, Фиркович је пажљиво претраживао генизе. У једној је пронашао чувени манускрипт из 916. године н. е. Познат као Петербуршки кодекс последњих пророка, то је један од најстаријих преписа Хебрејских списа који постоји.

Фиркович је успео да сакупи велики број манускрипата, и 1859. године одлучио је да понуди своју богату колекцију Царској библиотеци. Александар II је 1862. године помогао да се купи та колекција за библиотеку за тада огромну суму новцаод 125 000 рубаља. Укупан приход библиотеке у то време није износио више од 10 000 рубаља годишње! Међу списима које су набавили био је и чувени Лењинградски кодекс (B 19⁠A). Он датира из 1008. године и то је најстарији комплетан рукопис Хебрејских списа у свету. Један изучавалац је рекао да је то „вероватно најважнији манускрипт Библије, јер се на њему заснивају пресудни најсавременији текстови Хебрејских списа.“ (Види пропратни оквир.) Те исте године, 1862, објављен је и Тишендорфов Синајски кодекс, што је био догађај који је цео свет поздравио.

Духовно просвећење у новије доба

Библиотека која је данас позната као Народна библиотека Русије поседује једну од највећих светских колекција древних манускрипата.* Пратећи промене у руској историји, назив ове библиотеке променио се седам пута у периоду од два века. Један добро познат назив био је Државна Салтиков-Шчедринова библиотека. Иако немири XX века нису поштедели библиотеку, њени манускрипти су остали нетакнути у оба светска рата и током опсаде Лењинграда. Како нам користе ови манускрипти?

Древни манускрипти су поуздана основа за многе савремене преводе Библије. Захваљујући њима особе које искрено трагају за истином имају јасан превод Светог писма. И Синајски и Лењинградски кодекс значајно су допринели преводу Светог писма Нови свет, који су издали Јеховини сведоци и објавили у комплетном издању 1961. године. На пример, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia и Кителова Biblia Hebraica, које је користио Одбор за превод Библије Нови свет, темеље се на Лењинградском кодексу и користе тетраграм, то јест Божје име 6 828 пута у оригиналном тексту.

Релативно мало читалаца Библије је свесно колику захвалност дугују неупадљивој библиотеци у Санкт Петербургу и њеним манускриптима, од којих неки носе бивше име града, Лењинград. Ипак, највише дугујемо Аутору Библије, Јехови, који даје духовно светло. Зато га је псалмиста молио: „Пуштај светлост своју и истину своју, нек ме оне воде“ (Псалам 43:3).

[Фусноте]

Такође је донео и комплетну копију Хришћанских грчких списа која датира из четвртог века н. е.

Какв би био закључак?
Постоје добри и научно доказани начини на основу којих се са огромном сигурношћу може рећи колко је стар један манускрипт,а колко је стар други.
Један од њих је и стил слова и писање карактеристично за неки век...,тако да се огромна већина изучавалаца манускрипата слаже да је синајски кодекс најстарији и да потиче из 4века н.е.
Све остало је бацање прашине у очи,као тврдње за дотични стих из 1.Јованове 5:7
1 John 5:7 Ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσὶν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, (1Jo 5:7 BYZ) CRO 1 John 5:7 Jer troje je što svjedoči: (1Jo 5:7 CRO)
BYZ 1 John 5:8 τὸ πνεῦμα, καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ, καὶ τὸ αἷμα· καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. (1Jo 5:8 BYZ)
CRO 1 John 5:8 Duh, voda i krv; i to je troje jedno. (1Jo 5:8 CRO)
Дакле злобно је уметнуто у ДК превод текст који подупире тројство да су то отац син и свети дух.....

 

[Adrian BG]

Дакле злобно је уметнуто

Дакле, злобно сечеш два стиха и састављаш као један.

7. Јер је троје што сведочи на небу: Отац, Реч, и Свети Дух; и ово је троје једно.
8. И троје је што сведочи на земљи: дух, и вода, и крв; и троје је заједно.

Мизерно је шта сте у стању да радите по налогу секте.

 

[mire000]

Ti meni pricas "da ja ne znam svojim recima da objasnim"???

Svojim recima sam i objasnio prethodno pa si popljuvao po tome..

Jako si bezobrazan "decko"!

Cinjenica je da ti nista ne znas i kopiras non stop, kao sto to vidimo iz gornjeg bezvrednog posta Kule Strazare...


EVO PRAVE ISTORIJE(kad vec hoces srpski):

Savremeni prevodi Novog zaveta pozivaju se na najbolje i najstarije manuskripte kao na svoj autoritet za mnoštvo izmena i izostavljanja. Ovaj članak istražuje istinitost pretpostavke da su "najstariji manuskripti najbolji".

Savremeni prevodi su sledili u velikoj meri grčki tekst koji su priredili Vestkot (Westcott) i Hort 1881. godine. Na tekst Revidiranog prevoda (Revised Version) iz 1881. uveliko su uticali ovi stručnjaci, a Nestleov tekst je uporedni tekst triju tekstova, Vestkota i Horta, Tišendorfa (Tischendorf) i Bernarda Vajsa (Bernhard Weiss). Vestkot i Hort su prihvatili kao svoj vrhovni autoritet samo dva manuskripta, Alef i B, a oni su među pet drevnih manuskripta na koje se oslanjaju savremeni prevodi.

Istorija ovog teksta
Godine 323. posle Hrista, Konstantin je postao rimski car i proglasio je hrišćanstvo državnom religijom. Pre tog vremena, tokom perioda progonstva, hrišćani su prepisivali i čuvali Bibliju izlažući pri tom opasnosti svoj život. Neznabošci su spaljivali Biblije kad god su bili u hrišćanskom svetu.

Najstariji rukopisi Novog zaveta na grčkom načinjeni na pergamentu verovatno su napisani tokom Konstantinove vladavine u četvrtom veku. Ima onih koji kažu da je kodeks B bio jedan od 50 kopija koje je Konstantin sačinio da bi stvorio zajedničku Bibliju, zadovoljavajući na taj način sve grupacije u hrišćanstvu. U sedmom veku, egipatske, sirijske i severnoafričke crkve bile su uglavnom zbrisane u muhamedanskoj najezdi.

U Rimu, latinski je vrlo rano postao sveti jezik i zamenio je grčki u prepisima svetih spisa. Ovaj uticaj se proširio na severnoafričke provincije Rimskog carstva. Krajem četvrtog veka, Jerom je tvrdio da ima "onoliko latinskih tekstova koliko ima i manuskripta". Zato je papa Damas (382. posle Hrista) zatražio od Jeroma da sastavi autoritativni latinski prevod, koji je postao poznat kao latinska Vulgata.

Vizantijsko carstvo u kome se govorio grčki jezik, pošteđeno od muhamedanske najezde, trajalo je do 15. veka (do pojave štamparije). Upravo je ovde, gde se izvorni novozavetni jezik govorio, Bog za nas sačuvao većinu grčkih manuskripta.

Baš kao što je hebrejski tekst Staroga zaveta bio sačuvan među Jevrejima koji su govorili hebrejski, tako je grčki tekst Novoga zaveta bio sačuvan u Vizantijskom carstvu gde se govorio grčki. Prema tome, Vizantijski tekst, Tradicionalni tekst, Grčka Vulgata i Primljeni tekst jesu sinonimi, gde svaki termin ponaosob opisuje Pravi tekst koji je vladao u srcima hrišćana od najranijih vremena. To je zapravo "većinski tekst", tj. tekst koji je sačuvan u većini manuskripta.

Godine 1516. posle Hrista, prvo štampano izdanje grčkog Novog zaveta objavio je briljantni naučnik Erazmo. Bio je to očigledni dokaz superiornog proviđenja Božjeg da se njegov tekst u suštini slaže sa 90 % do 95 % od 5.000 ili više manuskripta dostupnih danas, iako je on koristio svega nekoliko grčkih manuskripta! Manuskripti koje je on koristio predstavljali su, dakle, tekst koji je bio opšteprihvaćen.

Iako je Erazmo imao prepisku sa trima papama (Julijom II, Leom X i Adrijanom VI) i proveo neko vreme u Rimu, vredno je zapaziti da nije koristio kodeks Vatikanus (B) kada je sastavljao prvi štampani tekst. (kodeks B bio je vrhovni autoritet koji su koristili Vestkot i Hort, čiji je tekst osnova za većinu savremenih prevoda.)

Godine 1533, Sepulveda je snabdeo Erazma sa 365 čitanja kodeksa B da bi pokazao njihovo slaganje sa latinskim prevodom nasuprot standardnom grčkom tekstu. Stoga je jasno da je Erazmo odbacio čitanja kodeksa B kao nepouzdana, a verovatno je bio bolje upoznat s njima nego Tregeles u 19. veku.

Između 1516. i 1526, Erazmo je sačinio još četiri izdanja grčkog teksta, a 1550. godine, Stivens (Stephens) je objavio sličan tekst, koji je sadržao dragocenu podelu na stihove, kakvu nalazimo u Autorizovanom prevodu (Authorized Version, A.V.). Deset izdanja Teodora Beze (1565–1611) razlikovala su se tek neznatno, i njegov tekst je bio ponovo štampan kasnije od strane Elzevira sa veoma malim izmenama.

Elzevirova dva izdanja objavljena su 1624. i 1633. Ovo drugo izdanje bio je prvi tekst koji će biti nazvan Textus Receptus ili Primljeni tekst. Ovaj naslov je nastao iz Elzevirove izjave u predgovoru izdanju iz 1633: "Sada imate tekst koji su primili svi." Međutim, izraz Textus Receptus može se podjednako primeniti na tekstove Erazma, Stivensa, Beze i Elzevira. Dr G. R. Beri (Berry), u svom uvodu interlinearnom grčko-engleskom Novom zavetu u izdanju Zondervana, upućuje na izdanja Stivensa i Elzevira, i izjavljuje: "U suštini, oni su jedno te isto, i na oba se možemo pozvati kao na Textus Receptus." Dr Edvard F. Hils (Edward F. Hills) izjavljuje: "U svim suštinskim stvarima, novozavetni tekst koji je prvi štampao Erazmo, a kasnije Stivens (1550) i Elzevir (1633), u punoj je saglasnosti sa tradicionalnim tekstom (Vizantijskim tekstom) koji je po Božjem proviđenju sačuvan u ogromnoj većini grčkih novozavetnih manuskripta. …Upravo je iz ovog Textusa Receptusa načinjen prevod kralja Džejmsa" (Believing Bible Study, str. 37).

Tokom 19. veka, tekstualni kritičari, kao što su Lahman (Lachmann), Tišendorf, Vestkot i Hort izložili su sledeću teoriju: pošto je ogromna većina rukopisa skorašnja, tj., potiču kasnije od 9. veka (svega su 500 do 1.000 godina stari), oni su bili izloženi većim greškama zbog omaški prepisivača. Pretpostavljalo se da je svaki prepisivač ponavljao greške prethodnih prepisivača i da je, naravno, dodavao poneku svoju. Neki su takođe pretpostavljali da su prepisivači menjali svete spise, gotovo svojevoljno, ako su se njihova teološka uverenja razlikovala od prepisa pre njih. Ovo jednostavno nije istina. Takva pretpostavka zanemaruje činjenice tekstualnog kriticizma i Božjeg proviđenja u očuvanju svoje Reči. Na primer, najstarija postojeća kopija starozavetnog hebrejskog teksta datira iz 900. godine posle Hrista. Pa ipak, isti hebrejski tekst je pronađen među svicima kod Mrtvog mora koji datiraju sto godina pre Hrista – što je jaz od 1.000 godina bez promene! Isto božansko proviđenje i briga mogu se primeniti na Novi zavet kao što se mogu primeniti i na Stari zavet.

Vestkot i Hort nisu mogli da razumeju zašto aleksandrijski manuskripti nisu bili prepisani u ogromnom broju kao vizantijski manuskripti. Oni su izneli teoriju da je neko verovatno sačinio vizantijski tekst oko četvrtog veka. Vestkot i Hort su ga nazvali "sirijski tekst". Ova teorija nema apsolutno nikakvog istorijskog osnova. To je tvorevina njihove mašte kako bi našli sebi izgovor za odbacivanje ogromne većine rukopisa. Svakako, takva obimna recenzija teksta, ako se desila, bila bi dokumentovana u crkvenoj istoriji, kao što su važna doktrinarna pitanja tog perioda zabeležena veoma detaljno, npr., istorijski zapis o Nikejskom saboru (325. posle Hrista) i o nastanku arijanske jeresi. Istorija ćuti o bilo kakvoj reviziji Teksta u Siriji, Antiohiji ili Konstantinopolju!

Dok su Vestkot i Hort predstavljali svoj takozvani "neutralni tekst" odboru Revidiranog prevoda godine 1881, pravi tekst su snažno branili stručnjaci poput Dina Burgona (Dean Burgon) i dr Skrivenera (Scrivener).

Din Burgon, koji je lično dodao oko četiristo rukopisa ovom spisku, bio je čovek izuzetne akademske sposobnosti i lično i blisko upoznat sa dostupnim manuskriptima. Njegova knjiga Revidirana Revizija (The Revision Revised) smatra se remek-delom, a napisana je u odbranu Primljenog teksta.

Dr Skrivener je proveo četrdeset godina u proučavanju rukopisa i, u njegovo vreme (krajem 19. veka), lično je proučio više rukopisa nego bilo koji drugi stručnjak. Kada je Revidirani prevod iz 1881. bio gotov, dr Skrivener, koji je bio u odboru, vodio je neprestanu bitku s Vestkotom i Hortom deset godina. Vestkot i Hort, koji su takođe bili u odboru, uložili su veliki trud da uključe prevode nekoliko starih rukopisa, dok je Skrivener procenjivao svedočanstvo svih rukopisa. Nažalost, Vestkot i Hort imali su naklonjenu većinu i odluke su donete glasanjem odbora.

Da li su najstariji manuskripti najbolji?
Sledeći očigledni dokazi pokazaće:

1. Da najstariji manuskripti nisu najpažljivije pisani.
2. Da najstariji postojeći manuskripti nisu nužno prepisivani od najstarijih originalnih manuskripta.
3. Da su najstariji manuskripti bili izloženi najvećim nepravilnostima.
4. Da su najstariji manuskripti u konstantnom neslaganju jedni s drugima.

1. Najstariji manuskripti nisu najpažljivije pisani
Oni koji su pažljivo izučavali drevne manuskripte ukazuju na to da su neki od najstarijih rukopisa najnemarnije napisani.

Grčki novozavetni rukopisi su podeljeni u dve grupe, na uncijale i kurzive. Uncijali su pisani velikim slovima, dok su kurzivi pisani malim slovima. Uncijalni manuskripti se obično smatraju za starije od kurzivnih manuskripta, premda su kurzivni spisi bili poznati u prehrišćanskom periodu. Uncijalni manuskripti obično su označavani velikim slovima našeg alfabeta, i na njih se upućuje kao na kodeks A, kodeks B, itd.

Pet od najstarijih kodeksa jesu Alef, A, B, C i D. Upravo se na dokaznu građu ovih kodeksa, uz njihovu malu grupu saveznika, oslanja grčki tekst Lahmana 1842–50, Tišendorfa 1865–72, Tregelesa 1857–72, Vestkota i Horta 1881. U stvari, Vestkot i Hort, koji su dominirali odborom Revidiranog prevoda iz 1881, prihvatili su ono što su zvali neutralnim tekstom. Samo su kodeks Alef i kodeks B, po njihovom mišljenju, očuvali ovaj tekst u svom najčistijem obilku. Od ova dva, kad se uporede, prvenstvo se daje kodeksu B u odnosu na Alef, u kome je "prepisivačev odvažan i nezgrapan način pisanja pretrpeo sve uobičajene propuste usled brzog i nemarnog prepisivanja, brojnije nego u B" (Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Vol. II, str. 289).

Ipak, koliko pažljivo su ovi važni uncijalni tekstovi pisani, na kojima se zasnivaju savremeni prevodi? Pogledajmo Alef, B i D.

kodeks Sinaitikus (Alef) (4. vek). "Zbog broja grešaka, ne može se reći da je veoma pažljivo pisan. Celokupan manuskript je izobličen prepravkama, od kojih je nekoliko uneo originalni prepisivač, veoma mnogo njih unela je drevna i otmena ruka iz 6. veka čije su ispravke od velike važnosti, neke su opet unete rukom nešto kasnije, najveći broj uneo je stručnjak iz 7. veka koji je često poništavao izmene prepravljača iz 6. veka, druge su unosili ni manje ni više nego osam različitih potonjih pisaca" (Scrivener, Introduction, Vol. I, str. 93).

kodeks Vatikanus (B) (4. vek). "Jedna uočljiva karakteristika je veliki broj izostavljanja, što je navelo dr Dobina (Dobbin) da govori o njemu kao o skraćenom tekstu Novoga zaveta. On je izračunao da su cele reči ili delovi rečenica izostavljeni ni manje ni više nego 2.556 puta" (Scrivener, Introduction, Vol. I, str. 120).

Ovo objašnjava zašto su savremeni prevodi izostavili toliko mnogo od Pisma – što je činjenica koja nije uvek uočljiva usled prakse grupisanja stihova. To takođe objašnjava optužbe nekih kritičara da je Primljeni tekst proizvod spajanja (tj., tekst proširen dodavanjem delova tekstova iz različitih izvora). Jednom kada se kodeks B usvoji kao konačni autoritet, bilo koji tekst koji ne sadrži izostavljanja koja nalazimo u B mora biti proizvod spajanja, ali samo kad se uporedi sa B!

kodeks Beza greko-latinus (D) (5. ili 6. vek). "Ovaj manuskript je prepravljen, najpre od strane originalnog pisara a kasnije od strane osam ili devet različitih revizora. … Nijedan manuskript ne sadrži toliko mnogo smelih i opsežnih umetaka (600 samo u Delima) koji su odobreni, gde nisu u potpunosti bez podrške, pre svega od strane starolatinskog i Kuretonijevog sirijskog prevoda" (Scrivener, Introduction, Vol. I, str. 128, 130).

Kuretonijev prevod je poznat kao iskvareni sirijski prevod, dok je Pešita iz drugog veka, zvana Kraljicom prevoda, bila opšteprihvaćeni sirijski prevod. Pešita je u saglasnosti s kasnijim grčkim manuskriptima, i pruža bitnu sponu između teksta koji su koristili rani crkveni oci i Primljenog teksta.

Dr Rendel Haris (Rendel Harris) je izneo pretpostavku da je kodeks D možda čak bio ponovo preveden na grčki sa latinskog prevoda.

2. Najstariji postojeći manuskripti nisu nužno prepisivani sa najstarijih originalnih manuskripta
Manuskripti su bili pisani rukom na različitim materijalima sve do 15. veka. (Štampanje je izumljeno 1450 god. posle Hrista.) Mnogi manuskripti su pisani na pergamentu. To je bila glatka koža koze, teleta ili antilope i bila je izuzetno trajna. Kopije u sasvim pristojnom stanju dostupne su i danas, a datiraju sve do 350. godine posle Hrista, tj., stare su 1.600 godina! Pošto je štampanje zamenilo ručno prepisivanje u 15. veku, možemo pretpostaviti da su čak i najskoriji manuskripti stari najmanje 500 godina, dok su mnogi iz perioda oko 900 godina posle Hrista stari približno 1.100 godina! Očekivani životni vek manuskripta bio je daleko veći od naših papirnih knjiga. Mnoge knjige stare 70 godina danas su izobličene do takvog stanja da se ne mogu čitati a da se ne oštete. Ako je prosečan životni vek pergamenta bio 350 godina (ako uzmemo u obzir i habanje), bilo bi potrebno najviše četiri kopije od dana apostola do pojave štamparije. Prema tome, ne može se po automatizmu zaključiti da je manuskript napisan 350 godina posle Hrista bio prepisan sa starijeg manuskripta od onog koji je prepisan 500 godina posle Hrista.

Nadalje, razlika od 200 godina u starosti manuskripta nije značajna kada shvatimo da se utvrđivanje starosti zasniva samo na procenama stručnjaka, među kojima ponekad postoji veliko neslaganje. Stil pisanja je glavni kriterijum za starost: "Stil pisanja usvojen u manuskriptima … predstavlja najjednostavniji i najsigurniji kriterijum za određivanje približne starosti dokumenata" (Scrivener, Introduction, Vol. I, str. 29). Moramo imati na umu da je praksa datiranja dokumenata počela tek u 10. veku, tako da se procena starosti svih rukopisa pre tog vremena zasniva, uglavnom, na promenama u stilu.

Poteškoće s kojima se stručnjaci suočavaju u određivanju tačnog datuma drevnih manuskripta slikovito su prikazane u sledećem zapažanju: "Herkulaneumski papirusi, zakopani od 79. posle Hrista pa nadalje, mogli bi biti još jedan vek stariji. … Prema tome, moralo je proći od tri do četiri stotine godina između nastanka herkulaneumskih svitaka i naših najranijih biblijskih (N.Z.) manuskripta. Pa ipak, način pisanja se promenio, ali ne mnogo tokom tog intervala!" (Scrivener, Introduction, Vol. I, str. 33). Vreme nastanka Isaije A ilustruje poteškoće u datiranju. Dok neki stručnjaci procenjuju da Isaija A – svici pronađeni kod Mrtvog mora – datiraju iz prvog ili drugog veka pre Hrista, G. R. Drajver (Driver) tvrdi da oni datiraju oko 73. godine posle Hrista, što je razlika od 248 godina. I pored činjenice da su pisari imali različite stilove, ipak se moramo složiti da je datiranje ranih manuskripta izuzetno teško. Može se reći da je razumno tolerisati dodatnih 100 godina u mnogim slučajevima.

3. Najstariji manuskripti su bili izloženi najvećoj korupciji
Razlike u manuskriptima klasifikovane su u dobro definisanim kategorijama. Većina od njih su pisareve omaške koje po svojoj prirodi nisu velike, kao što su ispušteno slovo, znaci interpunkcije, izostavljanje jednog reda ili reči, zapisivanje reči koja zvuči kao ispravna reč, ponavljanje, transpozicija, itd. Samo se za mali broj od oko 5.000 rukopisa može reći da su menjani namernim kvarenjem teksta. Nakon što je klasifikovao 18 od 20 načina na koji se manuskripti razlikuju, dr Skrivener iznosi sledeće zapažanje:

Veliki broj različitih čitanja koja smo dosad pokušali da klasifikujemo očigledno su nastala usled običnog previda ili ljudske slabosti, i svakako se ne mogu pripisati bilo kakvoj voljnoj nameri prepisivača da preinačuje i kvari tekst Svetog pisma.

Aleksandrijska škola, međutim, važi za jedan od najvećih izvora korupcije teksta, i upravo je aleksandrijski uticaj taj koji prožima neke od najstarijih manuskripta (naročito Vatikanus B, Sinaitikus Alef), na kojima se zasnivaju savremeni prevodi. Skrivener izjavljuje:

Nije nimalo manje istinita nego što je paradoksalna činjenica da su najgore korupcije teksta kojima je Novi zavet ikada bio izložen nastala sto godina nakon što je sačinjen, i da su Irinej i afrički Oci, i čitav Zapad, s delom sirijske crkve, koristili manuskripte daleko lošijeg kvaliteta od onih koje su upotrebljavali Stunika, Erazmo ili Stivens, trinaest vekova kasnije kada su oblikovali Textus Receptus.

Prema nauci tekstualnog kriticizma, moguće je identifikovati gde je prepisivač načinio omašku. To se radi upoređivanjem raspoloživih dokumenata. Verovatnoća da svi pisari napišu iste reči neispravno, da izostave isti red, reč ili stih – izuzetno je mala. Naročito kada shvatimo da su se manuskripti razlikovali po veličini i po broju korišćenih stubaca. Tako je završetak jednog reda drugačiji, i iste vizuelne greške ne mogu se primeniti na svakog pisara. Takođe, mnoge omaške su mogli da otkriju kasniji pisari i da ih isprave nakon poređenja s drugim manuskriptima.

Prema tome, jedini bezbedan pristup tekstualnom kriticizmu jeste koristiti sve manuskripte bez obzira na starost, a ne ograničiti se na nekoliko drevnih manuskripta.

4. Najstariji rukopisi su u stalnom neslaganju jedni s drugima
Ako bismo verovali da su manuskripti bivali sve iskvareniji svaki put kada su prepisivani, tada bismo očekivali da oni najstariji budu najbolji, i takođe, da među njima postoji najveća saglasnost.

Činjenica je da to nije istina – kao što Burgon primećuje: "Ne bi li trebalo, pita Din Burgon, osetno da se umanji naše mišljenje o vrednosti njihovog dokaza (kodeksa B i kodeksa Alef) kada otkrijemo da je lakše naći dva uzastopna stiha u kojima se ova dva manuskripta razlikuju jedan od drugog nego dva uzastopna stiha u kojima su u potpunosti saglasni? … U svakoj takvoj situaciji moguće je da samo jedan od njih govori istinu. Hoće li neko misliti da sam nerazuman ako priznam da ove neprestane nedoslednosti, između B i Alefa – jako ozbiljne nedoslednosti, a povremeno čak i skaredne – sasvim urušavaju moje pouzdanje njih?"

Ili kao što Skrivener piše:

Stanovište koje naglašavamo ukratko je ovo: da je dokaz drevnih autoriteta sve samo ne jednoglasan, da su neprestano u suprotnosti jedan s drugim, čak i ako stavimo termin drevan u najuže okvire. Recimo da uključuje, među manuskriptima evanđelja, nijedne druge sem pet najstarijih prepisa kodeksa, Alef, A, B, C i D. Sve što čitalac treba uraditi jeste da otvori prvo skorašnje kritičko delo sa kojim se susretne da bi video kako gotovo nikad nisu u skladnosti, da su stalno podeljeni dva naspram tri, ili možda četiri naspram jednog.

Sledeće brojke, do kojih je došao Kirsop Lejk (Kirsopp Lake) sa svojim saradnicima (1928), pokazuju da su kodeksi Alef, B i D u većem neslaganju među sobom nego sa Primljenim tekstom!

U Evanđelju po Marku, samo u drugom poglavlju – Alef, B i D razlikuju se od Primljenog teksta 69, 71, odnosno 95 puta. kodeks B razlikuje se od Alefa 34 puta, B se razlikuje od D 102 puta, D se razlikuje od Alefa 100 puta.

Hoskijer (Hoskier), koji je proučavao razlike između tekstova Alefa i B, daje spisak sledećih razlika u četiri evanđelja: Matej 656 razlika, Marko 567 razlika, Luka 791 razlika, Jovan 1.022 razlike. Ukupno u četiri evanđelja: 3.036 razlika.

U svetlu ovih pomenutih činjenica, jasno je da ne možemo imati poverenje u bilo koji savremeni prevod ili grčki tekst koji odbacuje složno svedočanstvo velike većine manuskripta, u korist male grupe drevnih ali neusaglašenih svedoka.

Dva izvora manuskripta su uvek postojala
Prethodni argumenti služe tome da pokažu kako se pozivanje nekih prevoda i parafraza na najstarije i najbolje manuskripte zasniva u potpunosti na pogrešnom temelju.

Dr D. Otis Fuler (D. Otis Fuller), u svojoj antologiji Koja Biblija (Which Bible), pokazao je da su hrišćani svih vekova smatrali da su uvek postojala dva izvora manuskripta.

Zamućeni izvor iskvarenog teksta, uključujući Zapadnu porodicu (koju karakterišu umeci) i aleksandrijsku porodicu (koju karakterišu izostavljanja), potekao je kroz kanale Origena (arijaniste), Euzebija (arijaniste), Jeroma (koji je sačinio latinsku Vulgatu), a u poslednjem veku, preko Lahmana, Tišendorfa, Tregelesa, Vestkota i Horta.

Čisti izvor Novoga zaveta potekao nam je kroz Primljeni tekst, koji je "imao dovoljni autoritet da postane, ili sam po sebi ili po svojim prevodima, Biblija velike Sirijske crkve, Valdenzijanske crkve severne Italije, Galičke crkve južne Francuske, i Keltske crkve u Škotskoj i Irskoj, kao i zvanična Biblija Grčke crkve (Vizantijski tekst)" (Dr D. Otis Fuler, Koja Biblija). Reformatori su čvrsto stajali uz Primljeni tekst; Luterov nemački prevod i Tindejlov veličanstveni engleski prevod potekli su od njega. Kada su 47 stručnjaka preveli Autorizovani prevod 1611. godine, upravo je Primljeni tekst korišćen po Božjem proviđenju.

Manuskripti koji su otkriveni posle 1611. nisu izmenili ovu sliku. Njihov broj se popeo na 3.791 godine 1881, a otada na oko 5.000, ali ipak se njih 90 % slaže sa Primljenim tekstom!

izvor: https: // www . rana-crkva . net/biblija/manuskripti.html

 

[Zaokret]

Za sve troicare
Decice moja mala,na pogresnom ste putu.
Sve lazi i krivotvorno sotonsko dodavanje i oduzimanje biblijskih stihova je odavno utvrdjeno.
Za vas krivotvoreno dodati stih u DK prevod iz 1.Jovanove 5:7,8 je utvrdjeno i dokazano da je jedan vas mentor pisao sam fusnote u jedan latinski prevod Biblije koji je trebalo da dokaze trojstvo,a kasnije su njegovi sledbenici prepisali tj dodali u svoj sledeci prevod latinske Biblije,a odatle je otisao u tri kasnija grcka prepisa.
To je lepo i naucno dokazano jos u 19 veku,a delic toga mozete naci u knjizi na engleskom.
A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament Kembridz 1883,IIIedition ,page654.
"Ne treba da se ustrucavamo da izrazimo uverenje da sporne reci nije napisao Jovan;da su one prvovitno unete u latinske prepise u AFRICI s margina gde su se nalazila kao religiozna i ortodoksna beleska kod 8 stiha;da su iz latinskog presle u dva ili tri kasnija grcka kodeksa i otuda u stampani grcki tekst,na mesto na kome nemaju parvo da budu" !!!

 

[Zaokret]

Дакле, злобно сечеш два стиха и састављаш као један.

7. Јер је троје што сведочи на небу: Отац, Реч, и Свети Дух; и ово је троје једно.
8. И троје је што сведочи на земљи: дух, и вода, и крв; и троје је заједно.

Мизерно је шта сте у стању да радите по налогу секте.

Pile moje malo,
pogledaj i ostale biblijske tekstove ,a ne da se drzis DK prevoda ko pijan plota
Ogromna vecina biblijskih kriticara je dokazala da su namerno i zlobno ubaceni u neke Biblije.
Poenta je da je Sinajski kodeks najstariji postojeci dokaz i da u njemu nema spornih reci koje se pokazuju tek dosta kasnije.

1.Jovanova 5:7 vise prevoda

Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus
oti treiV eisin oi marturounteV en tw ouranw o pathr ologos kai to agion pneuma kai outoi oi treis en eisin

Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus
oti treiV eisin oi marturounteV en tw ouranw o pathr ologos kai to agion pneuma kai outoi oi treis en eisin


Byzantine Majority
oti treiV eisin oi marturounteV


Alexandrian
oti treiV eisin oi marturounteV


Hort and Westcott
oti treiV eisin oi marturounteV


Latin Vulgate
5:7 quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant


King James Version
5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.


American Standard Version
5:7 And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.


Bible in Basic English
5:7 And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is true.


Darby's English Translation
5:7 For they that bear witness are three:


Douay Rheims
5:7 And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.


Noah Webster Bible
5:7 For there are three that bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.


Weymouth New Testament
5:7 For there are three that give testimony-- the Spirit, the water, and the blood;


World English Bible
5:7 It is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth.


Young's Literal Translation
5:7 because three are who are testifying in the heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these -- the three -- are one;

8
Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus
kai treis eisin oi marturountes en th gh to pneuma kai to udwr kai to aima kai oi treiV eiV to en eisin

Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus
kai treis eisin oi marturountes en th gh to pneuma kai to udwr kai to aima kai oi treiV eiV to en eisin


Byzantine Majority
to pneuma kai to udwr kai to aima kai oi treiV eiV to en eisin


Alexandrian
to pneuma kai to udwr kai to aima kai oi treiV eiV to en eisin


Hort and Westcott
to pneuma kai to udwr kai to aima kai oi treiV eiV to en eisin


Latin Vulgate
5:8 Spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt


King James Version
5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.


American Standard Version
5:8 For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.


Bible in Basic English
5:8 There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood: and all three are in agreement.


Darby's English Translation
5:8 the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and the three agree in one.


Douay Rheims
5:8 And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one.


Noah Webster Bible
5:8 And there are three that bear testimony on earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.


Weymouth New Testament
5:8 and there is complete agreement between these three.


World English Bible
5:8 For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and the three agree as one.


Young's Literal Translation
5:8 and three are who are testifying in the earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are into the one.

 

[Takticar]

Dat je dokaz

Gde je dat dokaz, jel mozes da me podsetis!

Rekao sam da me tvoja mudrost i ono sto Vi ucite i govorite ne zanima ni pet sitnih para, vec iskljucivo ono sto apostoli uce!!!

Zato sam te i zamolio da mi citiras APOSTOLSKE RECI, GDE ONI OBOZAVAJU ISUSA HRISTA PREMA PRVOJ I NAJVECOJ ZAPOVESTI!!!

Znam da ti je tesko da mi pokazes to mesto jel ga nema, zato uporno nudis svoju mudrost a mene ona taramanice ne interesuje.

Rekoh već da nemam sliku gde kleče pred Isusom...izvini ali klečanje možeš videti pred teletom u pustinji pa ako ti je to mera za veru onda znaš ko je tvoj bog.
Molim lepo.

Hajde da probamo jos jednom pa mozda konacno ukapiras da mi nonstop nudis nesto sto ti nisam ni trazio.

Ne treba meni slika na kojoj se vidi klecanje... VEC MI TREBAJU APOSTOLSKE RECI KOJIMA POZIVAJU SAV VERUJUCI SVET DA OBOZAVAMO ISUSA HRISTA PREMA NAJVECOJ ZAPOVESTI!!!

ILI...

Daj samo jedno mesto gde u Bibliji 'PISE' (ne gde je naslikano kako klece, vec mesto gde pise) KAKO JE BILO KO OD DVANAESTORICE OBOZAVAO ISUSA HRISTA PREMA PRVOJ I NAJVECOJ ZAPOVESTI!!!

 

[Taramana]

Gde je dat dokaz, jel mozes da me podsetis!

Rekao sam da me tvoja mudrost i ono sto Vi ucite i govorite ne zanima ni pet sitnih para, vec iskljucivo ono sto apostoli uce!!!

Zato sam te i zamolio da mi citiras APOSTOLSKE RECI, GDE ONI OBOZAVAJU ISUSA HRISTA PREMA PRVOJ I NAJVECOJ ZAPOVESTI!!!

Znam da ti je tesko da mi pokazes to mesto jel ga nema, zato uporno nudis svoju mudrost a mene ona taramanice ne interesuje.
Hajde da probamo jos jednom pa mozda konacno ukapiras da mi nonstop nudis nesto sto ti nisam ni trazio.

Ne treba meni slika na kojoj se vidi klecanje... VEC MI TREBAJU APOSTOLSKE RECI KOJIMA POZIVAJU SAV VERUJUCI SVET DA OBOZAVAMO ISUSA HRISTA PREMA NAJVECOJ ZAPOVESTI!!!

ILI...

Daj samo jedno mesto gde u Bibliji 'PISE' (ne gde je naslikano kako klece, vec mesto gde pise) KAKO JE BILO KO OD DVANAESTORICE OBOZAVAO ISUSA HRISTA PREMA PRVOJ I NAJVECOJ ZAPOVESTI!!!

Riki nema toga lažu te,kako može Bogda se javi u telu pa ti znaš dato ne može zato imaš pravo što ne veruješ onom Pavlu i Jovanu kao ni Isaiji znaš kako ipak su to Jevreji a njima nesmeš verovati.
Riki,nedaj da te neko prevari te uzmeš hleb i vino ni po živu glavu nemoj.
Što se tiče onih datuma nije to Rasel rekao to su drugi izmislili i još su u fotošopu odradili uniformu,ma sve je to montaža zato drži čvrsto tvoju istinu i ne pustaj šta mi goje znamo jel tako...

 

[Takticar]

Riki nema toga lažu te,kako može Bogda se javi u telu pa ti znaš dato ne može zato imaš pravo što ne veruješ onom Pavlu i Jovanu kao ni Isaiji znaš kako ipak su to Jevreji a njima nesmeš verovati.
Riki,nedaj da te neko prevari te uzmeš hleb i vino ni po živu glavu nemoj.
Što se tiče onih datuma nije to Rasel rekao to su drugi izmislili i još su u fotošopu odradili uniformu,ma sve je to montaža zato drži čvrsto tvoju istinu i ne pustaj šta mi goje znamo jel tako...

Dobro lazu me.

Ali opet te kao brata molim hajde me ti prosvetli....

Ali opet molim: Ne cini to svojim recima vec tako sto ces citirati apostole!!!!

Gde apostoli uce da treba Isusa Hrista OBOZAVATI PREMA PRVOJ I NAJVECOJ ZAPOVESTI!?

Nije ti valjda tesko da iskopiras to mesto!?