Oldest Bible Manuscript now Digitally available

http://www.codexsinaiticus.org

GrandNational wrote:

http://www.codexsinaiticus.org

Interesting..... How does it compare to the other manuscripts in exsistance?

thejokeriv wrote:

GrandNational wrote:

http://www.codexsinaiticus.org

Interesting..... How does it compare to the other manuscripts in exsistance?

I'm no historian, but I compared some verses last night against my RSV translation and it was basically right on. I think this manuscript is the oldest one that has the complete NT plus Shepard of Hermas and Barnabas attached at the end of the NT (which I have in another book) and some unidentified fragments, which seems interesting. I guess we'll have to wait until those fragments are translated to see what they contain.

GrandNational wrote:

thejokeriv wrote:

GrandNational wrote:

http://www.codexsinaiticus.org

Interesting..... How does it compare to the other manuscripts in exsistance?

I'm no historian, but I compared some verses last night against my RSV translation and it was basically right on. I think this manuscript is the oldest one that has the complete NT plus Shepard of Hermas and Barnabas attached at the end of the NT (which I have in another book) and some unidentified fragments, which seems interesting. I guess we'll have to wait until those fragments are translated to see what they contain.

Interesting - well, no two single manuscripts are the same which brings up the old infallable or inerrant (both, infallable or neither) discussion.

thejokeriv wrote:

Interesting - well, no two single manuscripts are the same which brings up the old infallable or inerrant (both, infallable or neither) discussion.

If you mean that many of the manuscripts have additional books or differing orders, that's mainly true (my Church accepts 75 books vs. the 66 in the Protestant canon), but the texts themselves are spot on when compared with one another.

I always think of this saying from my priest when I hear people getting into debates about the infallible/inerrant argument of the Bible: "God gave us something better than a book, He gave us His Son Jesus, Love Incarnate."

GrandNational wrote:

thejokeriv wrote:

Interesting - well, no two single manuscripts are the same which brings up the old infallable or inerrant (both, infallable or neither) discussion.

If you mean that many of the manuscripts have additional books or differing orders, that's mainly true (my Church accepts 75 books vs. the 66 in the Protestant canon), but the texts themselves are spot on when compared with one another.

I always think of this saying from my priest when I hear people getting into debates about the infallible/inerrant argument of the Bible: "God gave us something better than a book, He gave us His Son Jesus, Love Incarnate."

No, more the possibility of error what was initially written not being the same - obviously it is not, as we have english translations. But many believe in the inerrancy of the Bible (The catholic and Orthodox churchs believe in the infallability of scripture on matters of faith). Innerancy is a doctirine believed by most evangelical denoms and churches.

Interesting idea, that what was consider the Word of God by the Jews was the Ten Commandments (as that was directly given by God).

Food for thought....

thejokeriv wrote:

No, more the possibility of error what was initially written not being the same - obviously it is not, as we have english translations.

Obviously huh?

GrandNational wrote:

thejokeriv wrote:

No, more the possibility of error what was initially written not being the same - obviously it is not, as we have english translations.

Obviously huh?

Yep - we are not reading the exact words written and handed down through oral tradition centuries ago (old and new testament) - we are reading the best "guess" translated into English.

thejokeriv wrote:

GrandNational wrote:

thejokeriv wrote:

No, more the possibility of error what was initially written not being the same - obviously it is not, as we have english translations.

Obviously huh?

Yep - we are not reading the exact words written and handed down through oral tradition centuries ago (old and new testament) - we are reading the best "guess" translated into English.

..........Sorry, it's just that there is no such "oral tradition" in the Bible, specially not the NT, as most of it after the Gospels are composed of letters sent to particular churches by St.Paul. Read
1 Corinthians, 2 Peter, 1 John, and you'll see the authors saying "I am writing to you"......no oral transmission here.

Anyway, the last statement I'll make on this thread is this: ""It is the task of the Church of God to
judge and argue with those outside on the basis of true facts without reference to the Holy
Scriptures and those inside, the seeming believers, by reference to the Holy Book." - Saint Yeznik of Kolb

GrandNational wrote:

thejokeriv wrote:

GrandNational wrote:

thejokeriv wrote:

No, more the possibility of error what was initially written not being the same - obviously it is not, as we have english translations.

Obviously huh?

Yep - we are not reading the exact words written and handed down through oral tradition centuries ago (old and new testament) - we are reading the best "guess" translated into English.

..........Sorry, it's just that there is no such "oral tradition" in the Bible, specially not the NT, as most of it after the Gospels are composed of letters sent to particular churches by St.Paul. Read
1 Corinthians, 2 Peter, 1 John, and you'll see the authors saying "I am writing to you"......no oral transmission here.

Anyway, the last statement I'll make on this thread is this: ""It is the task of the Church of God to
judge and argue with those outside on the basis of true facts without reference to the Holy
Scriptures and those inside, the seeming believers, by reference to the Holy Book." - Saint Yeznik of Kolb

I was speaking of the old testament - the earliest books were handed down through oral tridition until they were written

thejokeriv wrote:

GrandNational wrote:

thejokeriv wrote:

GrandNational wrote:

thejokeriv wrote:

No, more the possibility of error what was initially written not being the same - obviously it is not, as we have english translations.

Obviously huh?

Yep - we are not reading the exact words written and handed down through oral tradition centuries ago (old and new testament) - we are reading the best "guess" translated into English.

..........Sorry, it's just that there is no such "oral tradition" in the Bible, specially not the NT, as most of it after the Gospels are composed of letters sent to particular churches by St.Paul. Read
1 Corinthians, 2 Peter, 1 John, and you'll see the authors saying "I am writing to you"......no oral transmission here.

Anyway, the last statement I'll make on this thread is this: ""It is the task of the Church of God to
judge and argue with those outside on the basis of true facts without reference to the Holy
Scriptures and those inside, the seeming believers, by reference to the Holy Book." - Saint Yeznik of Kolb

I was speaking of the old testament - the earliest books were handed down through oral tridition until they were written

Read your original post, you put both old and new testament in there.