Help with biblical history

[rayne89]

Doing a little apologetics and through a discussion I asked this person where the bible came from. This person gave me this 1611kingjamesbible.com/constantine.html/ I know this is all inaccurate but I’m a little rusty does anyone have some solid sources I can go to to refute this?

 

[pablope]

Doing a little apologetics and through a discussion I asked this person where the bible came from. This person gave me this 1611kingjamesbible.com/constantine.html/ I know this is all inaccurate but I’m a little rusty does anyone have some solid sources I can go to to refute this?

Your link did not work for me…but here is a start:

jloughnan.tripod.com/howbible.htm

Ask the person to also read your link, since you read his. And ask him to back up the claims in the link with actual evidence/sources.

 

[rayne89]

Your link did not work for me…but here is a start:

jloughnan.tripod.com/howbible.htm

Ask the person to also read your link, since you read his. And ask him to back up the claims in the link with actual evidence/sources.

Thank you!
This is what the link says

Constantine became emperor of Rome in 312 A.D. A little later he supposedly embraced the Christian faith for himself and for his empire, in an attempt to bring about the amalgamation of PAGANISM and CHRISTIANITY.

In 331 AD, Emperor Contantine ordered that an “ecumenical Bible” be written. Constantine wanted a Bible which would be acceptable to pagans as well as Christians, and Eusebius (the Bishop of Caesaria and a follower of Origen) was assigned to direct this task. Eusebius rejected the deity of Christ and claimed that Christ was a created being. This error, called the Arian heresy, is taught by the Roman Catholic Church. (Want proof? The pope has declared the Vulgate as the “infallilble Bible” and the Vulgate is Arian, since it removes the diety of Christ.) In any event, Eusebius, being a devout student of Origen’s work, gladly obliged Emperor Constantine’s request, and sent him manuscripts filled with Alexandrian corruption.

There were about 50 copies of this bible made by Eusebius, and they ended up in Rome and Alexandria, where there was a very large occult presence. Since the attacks on the word of God had originated in Alexandria (with the deceitful work of such pagan Greek “scholars” as Origen and Clement of Alexandria), it was only fitting for some of Constantine’s bibles to end up there.

Both admirers and enemies of codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus readily admit that these two codices are remarkably similar, so similar as to compel one to believe that they were of common origin. Dr. Gregory, a recent scholar in the field of manuscripts, believes that the Vatican and Sinai manuscripts are 2 of Constantine’s 50 bibles. He states, “This Manuscript (Vaticanus) is supposed, as we have seen, to have come from the same place as the Sinaitic Manuscript. I have said that these two show connections with each other, and that they would suit very well as a pair of the fifty manuscripts written at Caesarea for Constantine the Great” (Dr. Gregory, The Canon and Text of the NT, p. 345). Also, in his Introduction to Textual Criticism of the NT, Dr. A.T. Robertson states, “Constantine himself ordered fifty Greek Bibles from Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, for the churches of Constantinople. It is quite possible that Aleph (Sinai) and B (Vatican) are two of these fifty.”

But please remember – the early Christians REJECTED these manuscripts. So, they went into secret libaries…and there they lay…until they were later dug up as “ancient manuscripts.”

So here’s what likely happened: the corrupt Alexandrian text (also called the “Egyptian” or “Hesychian” type text) found it’s way into Constantine’s bible (via Origen and Eusebius), one of which was the Vatican manuscript and another of which was the Sinai manuscript, but they were rejected and “thrown in the closet” by Christians of that day. However, after hundreds of years, they eventually were revived via the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, and finally crept into the new “Bible” versions in your local “Christian” bookstore.

The Devil is sneaky, isn’t he??

Therefore, when you hear or read of someone “correcting” the King James Bible with “older” or “more authoritative” manuscripts, you are simply hearing someone trying to use a corrupted, pagan, gnostic, ecumenical, Roman Catholic text to overthrow the God-honored text of the Protestant Reformation and the great revivals.

 

[pablope]

Thank you!
This is what the link says

Ask him to substantiate the claims.

Like this…
Constantine became emperor of Rome in 312 A.D. A little later he supposedly embraced the Christian faith for himself and for his empire, in an attempt to bring about the amalgamation of PAGANISM and CHRISTIANITY.

Have him supply you the Edict of Milan and have him cite in the document where Constantine aims for the above statement.

And have him produce the actual page from a supposed Dr. Gregory…you would not be surprised to find it says something different, when placed in context.

 

[edwest2]

Hope this helps:

amazon.com/Why-Catholic-Bibles-are-Bigger/dp/1581880103

Ed

 

[PJM]

=rayne89;13322459]Doing a little apologetics and through a discussion I asked this person where the bible came from. This person gave me this 1611kingjamesbible.com/constantine.html/ I know this is all inaccurate but I’m a little rusty does anyone have some solid sources I can go to to refute this?

Sure,

But first a question you should consider asking your friend:

Does he know and recognize that it is the CC that “Birthed the Bible?”

It was the early Fathers of the Catholic Church that, guided by the Holy Spirit culled and selected which OT books would be included. They choose 47 of them.

Then is was men, known today to have been among the first Catholics a term introduced in in AD , who actually authored the entire New Testament.

It was the young CC that set the Canon of the bible at 73 books: 47 OT & 27 NT books.

And it is today’s RCC that existed as the only [omitting here heretical attempts to override the RCC] “Christian” Faith to exist anywhere in the world until 1054 and the Graet Eastern Schism.

So Christianity would not and could not exist without the RCC. All historically provable.

catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/1l.htm

Is a site you can check out

God Bless you,

patrick

 

[rayne89]

Sure,

But first a question you should consider asking your friend:

Does he know and recognize that it is the CC that “Birthed the Bible?”

It was the early Fathers of the Catholic Church that, guided by the Holy Spirit culled and selected which OT books would be included. They choose 47 of them.

Well…I was trying to get her to do the research and see that for herself. I responded to her link by saying I was a bit confused, from the link she gave me it seemed to say there was no legitimate Bible until at least the 1600’s. If the early Christians only authority was the Bible what did they do before there was a legitimate copy of the Bible available? I also used some writings of Clement of Alexandria whom the link called a “pagan Greek scholar” where he quotes scripture. I asked her where was he getting the scripture from if there was no Bible yet? She kind of “took her toys and went home.” Deleting her comments and the link on FB. I was trying to be as gentle as possible kind of getting her to see the errors of what she was saying but I don’t think she was ready to hear it yet. I’ve bookmarked this thread though in case I need it for future reference.

 

[PJM]

=rayne89;13327441]Well…I was trying to get her to do the research and see that for herself. I responded to her link by saying I was a bit confused, from the link she gave me it seemed to say there was no legitimate Bible until at least the 1600’s. If the early Christians only authority was the Bible what did they do before there was a legitimate copy of the Bible available? I also used some writings of Clement of Alexandria whom the link called a “pagan Greek scholar” where he quotes scripture. I asked her where was he getting the scripture from if there was no Bible yet? She kind of “took her toys and went home.” Deleting her comments and the link on FB. I was trying to be as gentle as possible kind of getting her to see the errors of what she was saying but I don’t think she was ready to hear it yet. I’ve bookmarked this thread though in case I need it for future reference.

Your approach was very Christian!

However, Jesus Himself was on occasion a bit more pragmatic, and sometimes truth is BEST not sugar-coated.

It seems TO ME,

That when affronted with such obvious ignorance [way beyond the pale of logic], that kindly sharing God truth and some logic may have been called for. YOUR call, not mine.

But The Protestant Reformation was some nearly 1,600 YEARS after Christ founded His One God, with One Faith in and through One Church Eph 4:1-7 affirms quite nicely this Doctrine.

God being Good and Perfect could not have waited for Wycliffe, Knox, Luther Calvin or anyone else to found His Church

Logic ought to supply at least a bit of right understanding of the Bible.

If you asked the above point as a question, it seems to me not to be unkind; but a nice form of charity.

Your kindness was very much God Like and appreciated; but might I suggest that you try to marry kindness with the Truth:thumbsup:

God Bless you my friend!

Patrick