/lit/ - Literature

>>21065907
It's fine to just know the acrostics are there, isn't it? Seems like it would be forced to try to change the words to make it work in the target language while sacrificing accuracy.

By the way, the acrostics that I know of are as follows:
–Psalm 25: Twenty letters occur: 5th/6th letters [he/vau] are combined in one word, 19th letter [koph] missing, 20th letter [resh] is repeated twice, one extra verse appears at the end of the acrostic
–Psalm 34: Twenty-one letters: 5th/6th [he/vau] combined (like in Psalm 25); extra verse at end not part of acrostic (also like Psalm 25)
–Psalm 37: Twenty-one letters, but each letter consists of two verses: the 16th letter [ain] is missing, and the 4th, 11th, 19th letters only consist of one verse each instead of two, and 15th letter consists of three verses
–Psalm 111: All 22 letters present and in order, two letters per verse; but three letters in verses 9 & 10
–Psalm 112: Same as 111
–Psalm 119: All letters represented, with each letter occurring eight times in a row - the first eight lines/verses all start with aleph, the next eight all start with beth, etc.
–Psalm 145: Twenty-one letters acrostic, one per verse - 14th letter [nun] omitted

–Lamentations 1, 2, & 4 are each a complete acrostic of 22 verses
–Lamentations chapter 3 is a threefold acrostic, with the first three lines all starting with Aleph, etc.
–Proverbs 31:10-31, the end of the book, is a complete acrostic of 22 verses
–Psalm 9 contains what appears to be an acrostic, but only of the first 11 letters
–Nahum 1:3-8 seems to contain an acrostic of the first 11 letters, with several letters featuring repetitions, but the 4th letter [Daleth] is skipped. It still seems too much to be a coincidence.

>>20907471
>So out of the thousands of Greek manuscripts we have
Stephanus and the others had excellent Greek manuscripts based on the autographs and the apographia. Just as the early church copyists did, we rely on them to bring the received text to us, and the word of God lives on now in the Textus Receptus. People who don't like this just neverendingly goalpost-set and strangely act like they are entitled to have their every whim met, they're not going to win in the end.

>The entire Greek Church, millions of Christians, were missing this Trinitarian doctrinal statement in their Bible for dozens of generations?
Of course not, have you been reading what I've been saying? The manuscripts made it to the 16th century when they were copied down into the Textus Receptus.

>What's more likely: that, or it's an interpolation that got smuggled into the received text at some point in the Latin textual tradition?
This presents a false dichotomy; and we're not dealing with "likelihoods" either, so it's a false premise. When talking about God's word, I know for a fact that it has been preserved to every generation. This is a sure knowledge, that comes from a saving knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

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

That's why it says in Psalm 12, "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." (Ps. 12:6-7).

>>20838645
So long as we have the words, we have what's important.

"Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away."
(Mark 13:31)