/lit/ - Literature

>>20911909
>I never said that we don't have the originals
So, if you do believe they exist, then where, and what do they say according to you? And if you don't believe this, or doubt it, why not say so? Why stay so ambiguous on this point? I say this because according to the Bible, God would keep the words to every generation. So that would necessarily exclude things like Tischendorf's 19th century discoveries from a trash bin, or things only published then. It makes no sense that the inspired word of God was hidden from all mankind until one guy conveniently found it about 150 years ago. That makes absolutely no sense, for a believer in the Bible to claim this is what happened. However, it does make perfect sense for someone who wants to undermine Christianity to propose such a theory. Maybe they just want to profit by making up their own version, as most modern translations aren't even based on a single source or coherent text tradition. They are based on composites, like Nestle-Aland, which are partially received and partially from Alexandrian uncials. Each modern translation has a custom-selected mix of "eclectic" readings that it likes, which when combined with things like gender-neutral language and the relativist, globohomo redefining of words into new English words, creates a neverending pool of copyrightable works. This seems to be quite a degenerate motivation, and that's not even to factor in satan's influence, and the effects of the spirit of antichrist that wants to deny Christ - but of course the "scholars" don't claim to believe in any of that stuff.

They have a bias though, that is for sure.

>As another anon said there are verses included that don't appear in Greek manuscripts until over a millennium later.
How do you know that? Do you have every copy of every manuscript that ever existed? If not then how do you know this?

Your statement seems to claim knowledge of things you can't possibly know without claiming omniscience. There have always been manuscripts representing every verse, and after we got the TR, that has carried us forward to today. The editors themselves say that they got everything they wrote from manuscipts, some of which, like the autographs, may not be with us anymore: or you're just not aware of them. Regardless, since the textus receptus has existed since then, that matters because we've always had the New Testament unchanged since it was written, and no part of it has once been forgotten. To this end I don't appreciate people who don't even believe in inspiration, who therefore say it's been lost and that, therefore, need to constantly "correct" our manuscripts with new things all the time.

>I just don't find the evidence shown of the receptus being the original very convincing.
So seem to have avoided (outwardly) denying the existence of the inspired word, so then where is it I ask. You seem not to want to say that it doesn't exist, but that must mean you think it does exist somewhere, but where then.