Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by TF49


Nope, as I have explained before, there is an abundance and evidence and a surety of proof...... but you don’t see it .....

Further, this guy is commenting on the Bible and presumably offering comment about biblical interpretation.

He is ignorant of the basics but comments anyway.....,simply does not know what he is talking about.....

The “basics” here is not the “reality” of God, nor even the evidence for God. He commenting on what the Bible says and how it is interpreted. As I said, he does not have an understanding..... simple.



That's not an argument. You are offering your opinion. A poorly informed opinion at that.

The fact is, the earliest form of bible, the Codex, is not the same as the current version/s. Nor is this the only problem with the bible.

For example;

Compare differences between the King James Version and Codex Sinaiticus


''The text of Codex Sinaiticus differs in numerous instances from that of the authorized version of the Bible in use during Tischendorf’s time. For example, the resurrection narrative at the end of Mark (16:9–20) is absent from the Codex Sinaiticus. So is the conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer: “For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen” (Matthew 6:13). The woman caught in adultery from John 8 is omitted in Codex Sinaiticus. According to James Bentley, Tischendorf was not troubled by the omission of the resurrection in Mark because he believed that Matthew was written first and that Mark’s gospel was an abridged version of Matthew’s gospel. If this were true, the absence of resurrection in Mark would not be a problem because it appears in the older Matthean gospel. Modern scholarship generally holds that Mark is in fact the oldest of the Synoptic Gospels, which could cause theological concerns over the omitted resurrection.''

''One other omission in Codex Sinaiticus with theological implications is the reference to Jesus’ ascension in Luke 24:51. Additionally, Mark 1:1 in the original hand omits reference to Jesus as the Son of God.''


If you think the Sinaiticus is the most authoritative text of the Bible why have you been repeatedly using the phrase, "Let he that is without sin among you cast the first stone?"
The whole account of the "pericope de adultera" is not in Sinaiticus at all! This is another example of where you hop-scotch through documents and compose your tic-tack-toe syllogisms and then contradict yourself by using a phrase to make a point that is not even in the text that you consider the most authoritative.

Before you get too wound up over Sinaiticus you ought to know that the Old Latin Bible and the Latin Vulgate were based on texts that were even earlier and they have the account of the pericope de adultera in them just like it is in the AV.

So what premise are you giving up?
1. one of your pet phrases--he that is without sin among let him cast the first stone?
2. or that Sinaiticus is the most authoritative text?
3. or that your propositions are logical?


Last edited by Thunderstick; 07/16/19.