• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The 4 gospels was signed and dated. All before 62 AD!

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Actually the verses was not added, but the Aleph and B removed the verses!
Evidence for that is that in Aleph the space where the verses should have been, was just left open.
In the Vaticanus, the letters of the previous verses were streached out to make up longer sentences to fill this gap.
Where the normal columns throughout the whole manuscript was almost 15 letters per row, in the chapter where the verses were removed, it went down between 10, the lowest and 12 the highest. Then suddenly were spaced normal to 15 again.
Nothing was added.
I am of opinion that the scribe had a damaged coppy, through aeging, or bersecution, and did not know what to do when he came there.
Aha thank you my friend ...
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Actually the verses was not added, but the Aleph and B removed the verses!
Evidence for that is that in Aleph the space where the verses should have been, was just left open.
In the Vaticanus, the letters of the previous verses were streached out to make up longer sentences to fill this gap.
Where the normal columns throughout the whole manuscript was almost 15 letters per row, in the chapter where the verses were removed, it went down between 10, the lowest and 12 the highest. Then suddenly were spaced normal to 15 again.
Nothing was added.
I am of opinion that the scribe had a damaged coppy, through aeging, or bersecution, and did not know what to do when he came there.
Anything else about the book of Mark?

I was just wondering about this book recently, and do you believe the 'entire ' book is presented in Bibles, [any Bible?
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
Anything else about the book of Mark?

I was just wondering about this book recently, and do you believe the 'entire ' book is presented in Bibles, [any Bible?
I can not find any reason why Mark should not be part and parcell a gospel equal to the other 3.
But, I am amaised that the Colophon on Mark is dated as 10 After ascencion, but Matthew 8 after.
This means the chronological sequence is Matthew, mark, Luke, John, and not mar=k as the first publication as Gesenius wanted it to be.
perhaps you have another concern I dont know off.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I see Floyd Nolan Jones also supports the discovery of the Colophon's.
Well, now we have 2 phd's

I am still waiting for a reply from other sources.

But just tell me.
I am curious.
What do you expect of a peer review?
Who should conduct this peer review?
I don't think nobody is denying what they are. If it's from Medieval ages and it's there, well it's there. It would still be a interesting find.

What can be denied is its authenticity for proving authorship. That would require far older artifacts in order to do that and as far as I know none of that exists when you look at older material.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Flippettttt
Who said anything about jesus writing the gospels.
The only thing jesus wrote was on sand when the priests accused a women of adultery.
And he wiped it out,
Who cares what was written in the anonymous gospel documents, if it has nothing to do with Jesus and his teachings?

Regards
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
I don't think nobody is denying what they are. If it's from Medieval ages and it's there, well it's there. It would still be a interesting find.

What can be denied is its authenticity for proving authorship. That would require far older artifacts in order to do that and as far as I know none of that exists when you look at older material.
I agree, but I will obviously investigate further into these colophon's
What do you say about the Magdalene manuscript that was dated to less than 30 years after the ascention of Christ?
Whats more, it also supports the TR and actually proves more evidence that the Sinaiticus and Faticanys was changed and the Texus Receptus was the oldest version of the NT.
Taken the Colophons that is the same as the TR, I think there are more evidence to discard the Aleph and Beta.
In my opinion the TR, or as we commonly know it in English, the KJV has more authenticity than the NIV and its' family.
Thats' if I take these 2 discoveries into consideration.
If the Magdalene provides a sure date prior to the Aleph and B, and the colophons on the TR provides authorship, even if still in question, there is no reason to accept the Aleph and B in the place of the KJV.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Not only is the KJV translated from later manuscripts, but it is also translated from the Vulgate -- iow it is a translation of a translation, which is always deeply inferior. It is perhaps the worst translation out there.

I personally don't understand why christians don't start teaching greek and hebrew to their children from preschool. There is no substitute for reading from the original manuscripts. You don't have to worry about someone interpreting the text in order to translate it. Jews understand this. Indeed our very rite of passage into adulthood is reading the Torah scroll in Hebrew.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Incredible information.

Over the past 30 years or so, I studied religions, and was always, even last week, confronted with textual Criticism proving the manuscripts of the NT as unreliable.

The so called “Facts” is that we do not have the original manuscripts, and what we have, only date from 300 years after Christ. Actually, we do have partial manuscripts that dates from 100 year upward after Christ’s ascension, but there is no way one can convince the Bible criticizer that these copies are the true re written replacements on the original Gospels by the hands of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Furthermore, there are constructed accusations against the Gospels where it is said that there was a “Q” source for the writings of Matthew and Luke, and that Mark was written first where Matthew and Luke actually critique Mark. Even if there isnot a single manuscript discovered to give credence to this claim.

The above "Textual critisizm" claim concludes that the Christians do not have any authenticated manuscripts, and that a lot of changing and assumptions were introduced into the Gospels by Christians to deify Jesus, making the NT questionable.

In this regard, the Christian religion is just as questionable as the scriptures they adhere too. Compare this with the Quran and the Gospels are not in a better situation such as an Allah who "Protected" his revelations,

Bible criticizers creates the imagery that the Christian New Testament is one huge concoction where its Authors are unknown, the writers of the Gospels are confused, and many changes was introduced into the Gospels resulting in so many variants, or “Versions” in the New Testament.

Sad to say, I have to agree on the current evidence, it is partially true!

Lets see what I learned.
Today we have only 2 different New Testaments. (We have numerous NT translations, versions and many more personalised Bibles each carrying their own copurights as if God's Word can be copyrighted by some translator of the NT.

One set of Manuscripts is known through the King James version, the Texus Receptus which is named the Byzantium family (F35), the other is known as the New International translation and al the other “New” translations we see today belonging to the Alexandrian family of manuscripts known as the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. (There are actually 4 families of NT manuscripts, but we will stay with the Byzantium and Alexandrean families, for the others are very small or even represented by the 2 bigger ones.)

This weekend I bought myself a KJVER sword bible, and I found an article that stunned me to my soul!

“In 2008, Dr. Wilbur N. Pickering (Th.M. Dallas Theological Seminary in Greek Exegesis, Ph.D. University of Toronto in Linguistics) discovered colophons in numerous ancient manuscripts that contained the Gospels.”

Here is the article link:

http://www.standardbearers.net/uplo...ptic_Problem_Dr_Floyd_Nolen_Jones_ThD_PhD.pdf

Guess what is a Colophon?

It is the Author’s name, and the date when he “published” his book. This is found at the end of the Book, and not as we have it today at the beginning. Sort of the signature of the author!

And, just take a moment to comprehend what they found!

John was published 32 Years after the ascension. = Making this book published and signed off in 62AD

Luke 15 Years after the ascension =45AD

So a colophon isn't necessarily a signature, fist of all. Second of all, it may indicate the date and publisher of the particular copy of a manuscript, not necessarily the author of the original. And there is no way to know if any manuscripts available are originals.

Mark 10 Years = 40AD and

Matthew 8 years = 38 AD.

Guys, this is something incredible if true. The Apostles SIGNED THEIR WORK OFF AND WROTE A DATE ON THE YEAR OF PUBLICATION!
Then I realised something I suspected throughout all my studies.

These Colophon’s were all found in the Texus Receptus manuscripts (Byzantium), which is the ones we know as the King James Version!

Now, why I never learned about the above is a worrying factor. Does our Christian apologists know about this?

Anyway, I now have evidence that the Authors of the Gospels are the ones it is named as such.

And the dates of the NT was between 8 years to 32 Years after Jesus ascended into heaven.

And that the King James version is the true Word of God.

And lastly, the Authors of the Gospels signed their work off in person.

All the other manuscripts with all those terrible errors are mere secondary copies of what the Christians today have in their hands.
I forwarded this post to the Dalas seminar through a close friend to RD Wallace, who collects digital photos of all the Greek manuscripts to confirm what I learned is not just some bit of fake news. If there is anyone here that can elaborate, please do so.
Haleluja!
Incredible information.

Over the past 30 years or so, I studied religions, and was always, even last week, confronted with textual Criticism proving the manuscripts of the NT as unreliable.

The so called “Facts” is that we do not have the original manuscripts, and what we have, only date from 300 years after Christ. Actually, we do have partial manuscripts that dates from 100 year upward after Christ’s ascension, but there is no way one can convince the Bible criticizer that these copies are the true re written replacements on the original Gospels by the hands of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Furthermore, there are constructed accusations against the Gospels where it is said that there was a “Q” source for the writings of Matthew and Luke, and that Mark was written first where Matthew and Luke actually critique Mark. Even if there isnot a single manuscript discovered to give credence to this claim.

The above "Textual critisizm" claim concludes that the Christians do not have any authenticated manuscripts, and that a lot of changing and assumptions were introduced into the Gospels by Christians to deify Jesus, making the NT questionable.

In this regard, the Christian religion is just as questionable as the scriptures they adhere too. Compare this with the Quran and the Gospels are not in a better situation such as an Allah who "Protected" his revelations,

Bible criticizers creates the imagery that the Christian New Testament is one huge concoction where its Authors are unknown, the writers of the Gospels are confused, and many changes was introduced into the Gospels resulting in so many variants, or “Versions” in the New Testament.

Sad to say, I have to agree on the current evidence, it is partially true!

Lets see what I learned.
Today we have only 2 different New Testaments. (We have numerous NT translations, versions and many more personalised Bibles each carrying their own copurights as if God's Word can be copyrighted by some translator of the NT.

One set of Manuscripts is known through the King James version, the Texus Receptus which is named the Byzantium family (F35), the other is known as the New International translation and al the other “New” translations we see today belonging to the Alexandrian family of manuscripts known as the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. (There are actually 4 families of NT manuscripts, but we will stay with the Byzantium and Alexandrean families, for the others are very small or even represented by the 2 bigger ones.)

This weekend I bought myself a KJVER sword bible, and I found an article that stunned me to my soul!

“In 2008, Dr. Wilbur N. Pickering (Th.M. Dallas Theological Seminary in Greek Exegesis, Ph.D. University of Toronto in Linguistics) discovered colophons in numerous ancient manuscripts that contained the Gospels.”

Here is the article link:

http://www.standardbearers.net/uplo...ptic_Problem_Dr_Floyd_Nolen_Jones_ThD_PhD.pdf

Guess what is a Colophon?

It is the Author’s name, and the date when he “published” his book. This is found at the end of the Book, and not as we have it today at the beginning. Sort of the signature of the author!

And, just take a moment to comprehend what they found!

John was published 32 Years after the ascension. = Making this book published and signed off in 62AD

Luke 15 Years after the ascension =45AD

Mark 10 Years = 40AD and

Matthew 8 years = 38 AD.

Guys, this is something incredible if true. The Apostles SIGNED THEIR WORK OFF AND WROTE A DATE ON THE YEAR OF PUBLICATION!
Then I realised something I suspected throughout all my studies.

These Colophon’s were all found in the Texus Receptus manuscripts (Byzantium), which is the ones we know as the King James Version!

Now, why I never learned about the above is a worrying factor. Does our Christian apologists know about this?

Anyway, I now have evidence that the Authors of the Gospels are the ones it is named as such.

And the dates of the NT was between 8 years to 32 Years after Jesus ascended into heaven.

And that the King James version is the true Word of God.

And lastly, the Authors of the Gospels signed their work off in person.

All the other manuscripts with all those terrible errors are mere secondary copies of what the Christians today have in their hands.
I forwarded this post to the Dalas seminar through a close friend to RD Wallace, who collects digital photos of all the Greek manuscripts to confirm what I learned is not just some bit of fake news. If there is anyone here that can elaborate, please do so.
Haleluja!
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
Not only is the KJV translated from later manuscripts, but it is also translated from the Vulgate -- iow it is a translation of a translation, which is always deeply inferior. It is perhaps the worst translation out there.

I personally don't understand why christians don't start teaching greek and hebrew to their children from preschool. There is no substitute for reading from the original manuscripts. You don't have to worry about someone interpreting the text in order to translate it. Jews understand this. Indeed our very rite of passage into adulthood is reading the Torah scroll in Hebrew.
Interesting remark you made here.
I thought about what you advise, then I thought about what Christians regard scripture and compared it with what I assume Jewish persons regard their scripture.
I think the difference is that the Jewish Hebrew scripture is more included in the Jewish culture, therefore reading Hebrew is advantageous in knowing the Tanahkh better as part of the Jewish herritage.
The Jews also have a huge admiration for the Jewish scriptures.
Well, if it was not for those admirable traits of the Jew, we would not have the Dead sea scrolls and the masoretic, samaritan pentatuch and targums all coppied with great care, in our hands today.
Blessed are the jews in protecting the above.

Now on the Christians and theur regard on the NT scriptures.
We just do not care about what the greek say, neither what the Hebrew says.
That is for deeper education.
The Christian religion is not based on each and every word, how it is translated, where it came from etc, in the NT at all.
No, the Christian has a much more personal relationship with God.
To the Christian it is enough to know that YHWH had a Spirit that leads the person in life, and YHWH had a Word, or mind, that entered into creation to reveal YHWH to us.

I know might mean that the Christian do not adore the Bible, as does the Jew with the Torah, but every Christian will find the arguments by their apologists as interesting, and even a strengthening factor in their religion, but that is secondary to being one with God.

I thank you for your question, it made me think about very nice things and clarified some personal throughts too.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
John was published 32 Years after the ascension. = Making this book published and signed off in 62AD

Luke 15 Years after the ascension =45AD

Mark 10 Years = 40AD and

Matthew 8 years = 38 AD.

Brother. It is quite commonly known that a Colophon named the archetype, not the scribe in many instances. And it is evident in some minuscules. If you study a New Testament scholar like Kirsop Lake says very clearly about some of the John manuscripts. Now lets take the document you shared by Nolen Jones. The minuscule 676 thats printed on it is dated 13th century. Some argue that it could be 12th and palaeographers were just being "conservative". Nevertheless, he is quoting a 13th century or 12th century manuscript to show a Colophon dating it to the 1st century. Let me tell you directly that it is purely and simply absurd to think like this.

Also there are many manuscripts that has the name John. These names are so common. A minuscule dated to 12th century has the colophon that has the name Luke which was later discovered due to another manuscript palaeographers concluded was written by the same scribe that it was another Luke.

Your document by Nolen Jones says "the Synoptic Problem is slain" due to some early dates he assesses due to Colophons. Thats not a scholarly statement Im sorry to say. It seems like he was all out to destroy the synoptic problem taught in universities and this was his new found argument.

By the way brother by your post I get to inherit that you have a negative idea about textual criticism. As if textual criticism is a tool to argue against the Bible. No. It is a tool to argue for the Bible. Without textual criticism how in the worl would you come to a bible? The latest critical text by Aland let's take as an example is purely based on textual criticism. If not there won't be a critical text and how will any human being try to go to Jesus himself? I believe you are completely mistaken.

I understand that this is your faith and in no way mean any disrespect.
 

night912

Well-Known Member
Well let me put it in this context.
I collect Bibles, and have about 250 dating back to 1786 on to recent times.
If I were to buy a KJV with a date 1611, and it was printed in 1953, I will know it is a KJV 1611 edition printed in 1953.
Nothing more and nothing less is expected.
If there are manuscripts with a date of 38 AD, 40 AD, 45 AD and 62 AD, and the paper and Ink dates from 225 AD, I will know I have a 38AD and...copy written in 225 AD.
Why on earth would any scribe write a manuscript in 225 AD, and willfully enter a date of 38AD?
That's one of the most unreasonable way to determine a true date. Haven't you ever heard of the word, "forgery?" If going by your reasoning, then we should take everything that's dated, to be the true date. If i was to present a kjv bible with the date 1611, a reasonable person would want to examine its authenticity.
 

expert tech

New Member
Incredible information.

Over the past 30 years or so, I studied religions, and was always, even last week, confronted with textual Criticism proving the manuscripts of the NT as unreliable.

The so called “Facts” is that we do not have the original manuscripts, and what we have, only date from 300 years after Christ. Actually, we do have partial manuscripts that dates from 100 year upward after Christ’s ascension, but there is no way one can convince the Bible criticizer that these copies are the true re written replacements on the original Gospels by the hands of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Furthermore, there are constructed accusations against the Gospels where it is said that there was a “Q” source for the writings of Matthew and Luke, and that Mark was written first where Matthew and Luke actually critique Mark. Even if there isnot a single manuscript discovered to give credence to this claim.

The above "Textual critisizm" claim concludes that the Christians do not have any authenticated manuscripts, and that a lot of changing and assumptions were introduced into the Gospels by Christians to deify Jesus, making the NT questionable.

In this regard, the Christian religion is just as questionable as the scriptures they adhere too. Compare this with the Quran and the Gospels are not in a better situation such as an Allah who "Protected" his revelations,

Bible criticizers creates the imagery that the Christian New Testament is one huge concoction where its Authors are unknown, the writers of the Gospels are confused, and many changes was introduced into the Gospels resulting in so many variants, or “Versions” in the New Testament.

Sad to say, I have to agree on the current evidence, it is partially true!

Lets see what I learned.
Today we have only 2 different New Testaments. (We have numerous NT translations, versions and many more personalised Bibles each carrying their own copurights as if God's Word can be copyrighted by some translator of the NT.

One set of Manuscripts is known through the King James version, the Texus Receptus which is named the Byzantium family (F35), the other is known as the New International translation and al the other “New” translations we see today belonging to the Alexandrian family of manuscripts known as the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. (There are actually 4 families of NT manuscripts, but we will stay with the Byzantium and Alexandrean families, for the others are very small or even represented by the 2 bigger ones.)

This weekend I bought myself a KJVER sword bible, and I found an article that stunned me to my soul!

“In 2008, Dr. Wilbur N. Pickering (Th.M. Dallas Theological Seminary in Greek Exegesis, Ph.D. University of Toronto in Linguistics) discovered colophons in numerous ancient manuscripts that contained the Gospels.”

Here is the article link:

http://www.standardbearers.net/uplo...ptic_Problem_Dr_Floyd_Nolen_Jones_ThD_PhD.pdf

Guess what is a Colophon?

It is the Author’s name, and the date when he “published” his book. This is found at the end of the Book, and not as we have it today at the beginning. Sort of the signature of the author!

And, just take a moment to comprehend what they found!

John was published 32 Years after the ascension. = Making this book published and signed off in 62AD

Luke 15 Years after the ascension =45AD

Mark 10 Years = 40AD and

Matthew 8 years = 38 AD.

Guys, this is something incredible if true. The Apostles SIGNED THEIR WORK OFF AND WROTE A DATE ON THE YEAR OF PUBLICATION!
Then I realised something I suspected throughout all my studies.

These Colophon’s were all found in the Texus Receptus manuscripts (Byzantium), which is the ones we know as the King James Version!

Now, why I never learned about the above is a worrying factor. Does our Christian apologists know about this?

Anyway, I now have evidence that the Authors of the Gospels are the ones it is named as such.

And the dates of the NT was between 8 years to 32 Years after Jesus ascended into heaven.

And that the King James version is the true Word of God.

And lastly, the Authors of the Gospels signed their work off in person.

All the other manuscripts with all those terrible errors are mere secondary copies of what the Christians today have in their hands.
I forwarded this post to the Dalas seminar through a close friend to RD Wallace, who collects digital photos of all the Greek manuscripts to confirm what I learned is not just some bit of fake news. If there is anyone here that can elaborate, please do so.
Haleluja!
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Incredible information.

Over the past 30 years or so, I studied religions, and was always, even last week, confronted with textual Criticism proving the manuscripts of the NT as unreliable.

The so called “Facts” is that we do not have the original manuscripts, and what we have, only date from 300 years after Christ. Actually, we do have partial manuscripts that dates from 100 year upward after Christ’s ascension, but there is no way one can convince the Bible criticizer that these copies are the true re written replacements on the original Gospels by the hands of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Furthermore, there are constructed accusations against the Gospels where it is said that there was a “Q” source for the writings of Matthew and Luke, and that Mark was written first where Matthew and Luke actually critique Mark. Even if there isnot a single manuscript discovered to give credence to this claim.

The above "Textual critisizm" claim concludes that the Christians do not have any authenticated manuscripts, and that a lot of changing and assumptions were introduced into the Gospels by Christians to deify Jesus, making the NT questionable.

In this regard, the Christian religion is just as questionable as the scriptures they adhere too. Compare this with the Quran and the Gospels are not in a better situation such as an Allah who "Protected" his revelations,

Bible criticizers creates the imagery that the Christian New Testament is one huge concoction where its Authors are unknown, the writers of the Gospels are confused, and many changes was introduced into the Gospels resulting in so many variants, or “Versions” in the New Testament.

Sad to say, I have to agree on the current evidence, it is partially true!

Lets see what I learned.
Today we have only 2 different New Testaments. (We have numerous NT translations, versions and many more personalised Bibles each carrying their own copurights as if God's Word can be copyrighted by some translator of the NT.

One set of Manuscripts is known through the King James version, the Texus Receptus which is named the Byzantium family (F35), the other is known as the New International translation and al the other “New” translations we see today belonging to the Alexandrian family of manuscripts known as the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. (There are actually 4 families of NT manuscripts, but we will stay with the Byzantium and Alexandrean families, for the others are very small or even represented by the 2 bigger ones.)

This weekend I bought myself a KJVER sword bible, and I found an article that stunned me to my soul!

“In 2008, Dr. Wilbur N. Pickering (Th.M. Dallas Theological Seminary in Greek Exegesis, Ph.D. University of Toronto in Linguistics) discovered colophons in numerous ancient manuscripts that contained the Gospels.”

Here is the article link:

http://www.standardbearers.net/uplo...ptic_Problem_Dr_Floyd_Nolen_Jones_ThD_PhD.pdf

Guess what is a Colophon?

It is the Author’s name, and the date when he “published” his book. This is found at the end of the Book, and not as we have it today at the beginning. Sort of the signature of the author!

And, just take a moment to comprehend what they found!

John was published 32 Years after the ascension. = Making this book published and signed off in 62AD

Luke 15 Years after the ascension =45AD

Mark 10 Years = 40AD and

Matthew 8 years = 38 AD.

Guys, this is something incredible if true. The Apostles SIGNED THEIR WORK OFF AND WROTE A DATE ON THE YEAR OF PUBLICATION!
Then I realised something I suspected throughout all my studies.

These Colophon’s were all found in the Texus Receptus manuscripts (Byzantium), which is the ones we know as the King James Version!

Now, why I never learned about the above is a worrying factor. Does our Christian apologists know about this?

Anyway, I now have evidence that the Authors of the Gospels are the ones it is named as such.

And the dates of the NT was between 8 years to 32 Years after Jesus ascended into heaven.

And that the King James version is the true Word of God.

And lastly, the Authors of the Gospels signed their work off in person.

All the other manuscripts with all those terrible errors are mere secondary copies of what the Christians today have in their hands.
I forwarded this post to the Dalas seminar through a close friend to RD Wallace, who collects digital photos of all the Greek manuscripts to confirm what I learned is not just some bit of fake news. If there is anyone here that can elaborate, please do so.
Haleluja!
Dogs flew spaceships, men and women are the same sex, and the South won the Civil War. Your brain is not the boss. You’ve been listening to too much Gas Music from Jupiter. Ben Franklin is the only President of the United States, who was never President of the United States. Everything you know is wrong!
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
Brother. It is quite commonly known that a Colophon named the archetype, not the scribe in many instances. And it is evident in some minuscules. If you study a New Testament scholar like Kirsop Lake says very clearly about some of the John manuscripts. Now lets take the document you shared by Nolen Jones. The minuscule 676 thats printed on it is dated 13th century. Some argue that it could be 12th and palaeographers were just being "conservative". Nevertheless, he is quoting a 13th century or 12th century manuscript to show a Colophon dating it to the 1st century. Let me tell you directly that it is purely and simply absurd to think like this.

Also there are many manuscripts that has the name John. These names are so common. A minuscule dated to 12th century has the colophon that has the name Luke which was later discovered due to another manuscript palaeographers concluded was written by the same scribe that it was another Luke.

Your document by Nolen Jones says "the Synoptic Problem is slain" due to some early dates he assesses due to Colophons. Thats not a scholarly statement Im sorry to say. It seems like he was all out to destroy the synoptic problem taught in universities and this was his new found argument.

By the way brother by your post I get to inherit that you have a negative idea about textual criticism. As if textual criticism is a tool to argue against the Bible. No. It is a tool to argue for the Bible. Without textual criticism how in the worl would you come to a bible? The latest critical text by Aland let's take as an example is purely based on textual criticism. If not there won't be a critical text and how will any human being try to go to Jesus himself? I believe you are completely mistaken.

I understand that this is your faith and in no way mean any disrespect.
Thank you for your input.
I do however have a thinking that due to the Bysantium manuscripts having these colophoms, the history of the manuscripts might be authentic.
I am however not a Biblical scholar, and simply fount this very interesting.
I also learned from Daniel Wallace that even though the colophons does existon this family, it is just more information, but not conclusive to date the manuscripts at all.
Sort of having a coppy of a manuscript with a scribe putting a date on the end telling it is a coppy from a manuscript that was first written in 40AD, but there is no evidence to substantiate it.
And by the way, I love Biblical Textual critisizm, but it is used in many instances to discredit the Christian scriptures, by so called Biblical scholars and Bible critisizers.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
If there are manuscripts with a date of 38 AD, 40 AD, 45 AD and 62 AD, and the paper and Ink dates from 225 AD, I will know I have a 38AD and...copy written in 225 AD.
Are you really unaware that these manuscripts are not dated, and that it takes historical scholarship to determine their original written dates? (Which are no wheres near 38, 40, 45, and 62 AD).
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
That's one of the most unreasonable way to determine a true date. Haven't you ever heard of the word, "forgery?" If going by your reasoning, then we should take everything that's dated, to be the true date. If i was to present a kjv bible with the date 1611, a reasonable person would want to examine its authenticity.
If one take into account that Aleph and "B" both are considereed to be the oldest manuscripts and therefore the "Best", But:
Both had the Mark 16 verses removed, But the space where it should have been written in, was still left open.
This means that the Alexandrian manuscripts are in fact in support to the Byzantium.
Which leaves us with an educated choice.
The TR are the more correct, and the Colophons in this regard can also be trusted due to the correct coppy by the copyist.
Therefore, if one were to present this evidence in its totality, the KJV is the correct rendering of the original texts, and not the families of the NIV, ESV ect.
"Forgeries".
No, I do not see forgeries here, I see a mountain of manuscripts that survived over 1400 years during persecutions where writings of Christians were destroyed.
The only forgeries I do see is where the translators of the NT tells us that the KJV, or TR is somehow an inferior translation, and they received coppyrights on the Word of God to make money.
And this is where we find that the Biblical Critisizm got twisted into Critisizing the Bible.
 

night912

Well-Known Member
If one take into account that Aleph and "B" both are considereed to be the oldest manuscripts and therefore the "Best", But:
Both had the Mark 16 verses removed, But the space where it should have been written in, was still left open.
This means that the Alexandrian manuscripts are in fact in support to the Byzantium.
Which leaves us with an educated choice.
The TR are the more correct, and the Colophons in this regard can also be trusted due to the correct coppy by the copyist.
Therefore, if one were to present this evidence in its totality, the KJV is the correct rendering of the original texts, and not the families of the NIV, ESV ect.
"Forgeries".
No, I do not see forgeries here, I see a mountain of manuscripts that survived over 1400 years during persecutions where writings of Christians were destroyed.
The only forgeries I do see is where the translators of the NT tells us that the KJV, or TR is somehow an inferior translation, and they received coppyrights on the Word of God to make money.
And this is where we find that the Biblical Critisizm got twisted into Critisizing the Bible.
I don't see how translators saying, "the kjv is inferior," is considered as forgeries.
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
I don't see how translators saying, "the kjv is inferior," is considered as forgeries.
True, But why claim the Sianiticus and Vaticanus is more superior than the TR?
I only replied to a notion that the Scribes of the colophons were making a forgery by their inserts.
I dont know when last you opened a NIV where the intro attempts to describe the inferriority of the TR etc.
But it actually borders on telling the Reader that the KJV is a poor translation due to inferior manuscripts.
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
Are you really unaware that these manuscripts are not dated, and that it takes historical scholarship to determine their original written dates? (Which are no wheres near 38, 40, 45, and 62 AD).
Agreed.
There are, what I know about, 2 bits of manuscripts from the first century. (Scientifically dated)
Much more from the second century, and a lot from the 3rd.
The question will always remain, who says that the NT manuscripts were not simply coppies, of coppies from the Original.
Who says the originals were not written by the Disciples of Christ.
The so called scholars who would like to use everything to prove that it is not so, and the scruptures itself claiming to be the original writings.
Now, If the Apostles and Disciples wrote what they saw, and published it throughout the Christian community, and the Church fathers quoted what they wrote in 108AD to 185 AD, why claim a 3rd century composition of the NT?

As much as it might be true that the Oldest NT dates from the 4th century, it does not mean that the NT was compiled long after the ascention of Jesus.
No mention is made about the destruction of the temple, the persecution by Nero, paul's death etc.
Therefore to make a claim that the NT was written after the deaths of the apostles is also not true.
I just like the fact that there are manuscripts with Colophons which can actually attest to a date close to the ascention.
 
Top