A glaring omission in World’s oldest Bible

[zorgon]

So in searching for the Oldest known version of the Bible I found this

According to the VATICAN...



A glaring omission in World's oldest Bible

It is a fact of Christian history that the earliest Gospels did not record a resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that claim is supported in the oldest known complete Bible available to mankind today. Called the Codex Sinaiticus, or Sinai Bible, it was named after Mt. Sinai, the location of St. Catherine's Monastery where it was discovered in 1859 by Dr. Constantine Von Tischendorf (1815-1874). The discovery of the Sinai Bible provided biblical scholars with irrefutable evidence of wilful falsifications in all modern-day Gospels, and a comparison identified a staggering 14,800 later editorial alterations in modern Bibles.

Vast dating discrepancies

With the Sinai Bible, Christian history is traced back as far as it can conceivably go, but it was still written, at best, more than 350 years after the time the Vatican says Jesus Christ walked the sands of Palestine. The 'Catholic Encyclopedia' agrees to this extraordinary late composition of the world's oldest Bible:

'The earliest of the extant manuscripts [relating to Christianity], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD'.

('Catholic Encyclopedia', 1909, 'Gospels')

Hand-written on animal skins in a dead Greek language, the Sinai Bible was purchased by the British Museum from the Soviet Government in 1933 and is now displayed in the British Library in London. Sometime after its purchase, English-language translations were published (Manuscript No. 43725 in the British Library) and extraordinary new information about the earliest story of Jesus Christ became available to the world. The great comparative value of the Sinai Bible as the world's oldest available Bible is today universally accepted, and its discovery provided great embarrassment for the Church's modern-day presentation of Jesus Christ, for it revealed that newer Gospels are the depositories of large amounts of fabricated narratives and intentional perversions of the truth.

Beyond belief

The Vatican concedes that Mark was the first Gospel written ('Catholic Encyclopedia', Farley Ed., Vol. vi, p. 657), and that it later became the prototype of the gospels of Matthew and Luke. In the Sinai Bible's version of the Gospel of Mark, we see dramatic variations from its modern-day counterpart with an extraordinary omission that later became the central doctrine of the Christian faith ... the resurrection appearances of the Gospel Jesus Christ and his subsequent ascension into heaven.

False Gospel passages written by priests

The Sinai Bible's version of the Gospel of Mark starts its story of Jesus Christ when he was 'at about the age of thirty'. No reference is made to Mary, a virgin birth, Joseph of Arimathea, a Star of Bethlehem, or the 51 now-called Old Testament 'messianic prophecies'. Words describing Christ as 'the son of God' do not appear in the opening narrative of the Gospel of Mark (Mark 1:1) as they do in today's Bibles, and the modern-day family tree tracing a 'messianic bloodline' back to King David is non-existent in the Sinai Bible.

No 'resurrection', no Christianity

The Sinai Bible's version of the Gospel of Mark ends its story with Mary Magdalene arriving at the tomb and finding it empty. Yet, in modern-day versions of the Gospel of Mark, resurrection narratives now appear (16: 9-20), and the Vatican universally acknowledges that they are forgeries;

'The conclusion of Mark is admittedly not genuine ... almost the entire section is a later compilation'.

('Catholic Encyclopedia', Vol., iii, p. 274, published under the Imprimatur of Archbishop Farley; also, 'Encyclopedia Biblica', ii, 1880; 1767, n. 3; 1781, and n. 1, on 'The Evidence of its Spuriousness')

The Vatican claims that 'the resurrection is the fundamental argument for our Christian belief' ('Catholic Encyclopedia', Farley Ed., Vol., xii, p. 792), adding that a resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ is the 'sine qua non' of Christianity, 'without which, nothing' ('Catholic Encyclopedia', Farley Ed., Vol., xii, p. 792). St. Paul agreed, saying; 'If Christ has not been raised, your faith is in vain' (1 Cor. 15:17). Yet no appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in the oldest Gospel in the oldest Bible in the world. Nor are there resurrection narratives in any other old Bibles, for a comparison shows they are non-existent in the Alexandrian Bible, the Vatican Bible, the Bezae Bible and an ancient Latin manuscript of Mark code-named 'K' by analysts. Some manuscripts of the 15th and 16th centuries have the fictitious verses written in asterisks, a mark used by ancient scribes to indicate spurious passages in a literary document. Resurrection narratives are also absent in the oldest Armenian version of the New Testament, and a number of Sixth Century manuscripts of the Ethiopic version. That is because the resurrection narratives in today's Gospels of Mark are later priesthood forgeries.

Another Vatican forgery exposed

Adding to the Church's on-going fraud of its presentation of the story of Jesus Christ, we learn how the Vatican accepted the fictitious resurrection narratives in the Gospel of Mark into its dogma and made it the basis of Christianity. Let the 'Catholic Encyclopedia' bear the clerical witness:

'When we turn to the internal evidence, the number, and still more the character, of the peculiarities is certainly striking [citing many instances from the Greek text]. But, even when this is said, the cumulative force of the evidence against the Mark origin of the passage is considerable. The combination of so many peculiar features, not only of vocabulary, but of matter and construction, leaves room for doubt as to Mark's authorship of the verses. Whatever the fact be, it is not at all certain that Mark wrote the disputed verses. It may be that they are from the pen of some other inspired writer [!], and were appended to the Gospel in later times. Catholics are not bound to hold that the verses were written by St. Mark. But they are canonical scripture, for the Council of Trent [Session IV], in defining that all later parts of the New Testament are to be received as sacred and canonical, had especially in view the disputed parts of the Gospels, of which this conclusion of Mark is one. Hence, whoever wrote the verses, we say that they are inspired, and must be received as such by every Catholic'.

('Catholic Encyclopedia', Farley Ed. Vol. ix, pp. 677, 678, 679)

Thus another Vatican forgery is exposed and confessed, and it was forced onto Catholics as genuine. Here we see incontrovertible documentary evidence that the earliest Christian Gospels fail to narrate a resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ, and it must be said that the pertinacity with which the work of suppression, misrepresentation and concealment of real Christian history was conducted makes the guilt of the successors of the founding presbyters as great as that of those who established the system.

http://www.vatileaks.com/vati-leaks/a-glaring-omission-in-world-s-oldest-bible

[zorgon]

Oldest Koran predates 'prophet' Mohammed: Islam was plagiarized for political agenda


The pages were carbon dated by experts at the University of Oxford, which showed it could be the oldest Koran in the world.

Entire history of Islam may have to be rewritten as fragments of the world's oldest Koran (found in Birmingham) may be older than the prophet Mohammed himself

Fragments of the oldest Koran were discovered last month in Birmingham
Carbon dating found the pages were produced between 568AD and 654AD
But several historians now say that the parchment may predate Muhammad
They believe that this discovery could rewrite the early history of Islam 
By Jennifer Newton for MailOnline

Published: 04:02, 31 August 2015 |

Fragments of the world's oldest Koran, found in Birmingham last month, may predate the Prophet Muhammad and could even rewrite the early history of Islam, according to scholars.

The pages, thought to be between 1,448 and 1,371 years old, were discovered bound within the pages of another Koran from the late seventh century at the library of the University of Birmingham.

Written in ink in an early form of Arabic script on parchment made from animal skin, the pages contain parts of the Suras, or chapters, 18 to 20, which may have been written by someone who actually knew the Prophet Muhammad – founder of the Islamic faith.

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/08/31/oldest-koran-predates-prophet-mohammed-islam-plagiarized-from-other-texts-for-political-agenda/

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/09/01/carbon-dating-suggests-fragments-world-oldest-korean-may-predate-muhammad/

[rdunk]

Relative to the "Oldest Bible", you well know that this sort of thing has been going on for most of the 2000 years since the New Covenant times. Quite frankly, I do not worry too much about all of the back and forth detail, but I do know that there have always been significant differences in what some writings presented, especially with some of those that originated in Egypt. In looking at some of the history of this Codex, there is even disagreement on where this might have been written - Some say Rome, some say Caesarea, and several say Egypt. 

For me, the finding of other very old manuscripts of the written words of the Bible, is simply further confirmation of the very foundations of our Faith in the living God. As a mater of interest, I did look at a few other sites on this. One of those sites is:

The British Library:

Codex Sinaiticus

Despite its rather austere appearance, the Codex Sinaiticus is a treasure beyond price. Produced in the middle of the fourth century, the Codex is one of the two earliest Christian Bibles. (The other is the Codex Vaticanus in Rome.) Within its beautifully handwritten Greek text are the earliest surviving copy of the complete New Testament and the earliest and best copies of some of the Jewish scriptures, in the form that they were adopted by the Christian Church. As one of the earliest luxury codices to survive in large part, the Codex forms one of the most important landmarks in the history of the book.

More: http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/sacredtexts/codexsinai.html


Another is Wiki, which has considerable detail on the Codex Sianaiticus:

Codex Sinaiticus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia   ........(the smiley-type faces below simply mean our system doesn't recognize Greek and Hebrew alphas -   )

Sinaiticus (Greek: ? ?, Hebrew: ?? ??; Shelfmarks and references: London, Brit. Libr., Additional Manuscripts 43725; Gregory-Aland nº ? [Aleph] or 01, [Soden ? 2]) or "Sinai Bible" is one of the four great uncial codices, an ancient, handwritten copy of the Greek Bible.[1] The codex is a celebrated historical treasure.[2]

The codex is an Alexandrian text-type manuscript written in the 4th century in uncial letters on parchment. Current scholarship considers the Codex Sinaiticus to be one of the best Greek texts of the New Testament,[3] along with that of the Codex Vaticanus. Until the discovery by Constantin von Tischendorf of the Sinaiticus text, the Codex Vaticanus was unrivaled.[4]

The Codex Sinaiticus came to the attention of scholars in the 19th century at the Saint Catherine's Monastery, with further material discovered in the 20th and 21st centuries. Although parts of the Codex are scattered across four libraries around the world, most of the manuscript is today vested in the British Library London, where it is on public display.[3][5] Since its discovery, study of the Codex Sinaiticus has proven to be extremely useful to scholars for critical studies of biblical text.

Originally, the Codex contained the whole of both Testaments. Approximately half of the Greek Old Testament (or Septuagint) survived, along with a complete New Testament, plus the Epistle of Barnabas, and portions of The Shepherd of Hermas.[3]

More:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus

Notice, at the bottom of the page at the Wiki link, there are numerous other articles noted on this subject, that are direct links to seeing those articles!

[rdunk]

Z, is the posting of this subject on the General Discussion board an indication that we are no longer using the Religion and
Spirituality forum board?? It doesn't get any more religious/spiritual than this subject, so I just wanted to make sure!!

[zorgon]

Z, is the posting of this subject on the General Discussion board an indication that we are no longer using the Religion and
Spirituality forum board?? It doesn't get any more religious/spiritual than this subject, so I just wanted to make sure!!

Oh that   yeah I been thinking just open all the private rooms. No one is using them anyway...

That plan didn't work out so well

[zorgon]

Meet AMEN-RA





Truth and the American Way

[ArMaP]

Oldest Koran predates 'prophet' Mohammed: Islam was plagiarized for political agenda

Nothing like a sensational title for those that do not read the articles.

Reminds me of Mike Singh's threads.

[Dyna]

Many similar words to Amen seem to exist. Someday we may find the sun was not worshiped but people actually came from/or through the sun 

Egypt's most ancient god is called Amun/Amen/Ammun. He is a god residing under the earth and his name implies 'Hidden inside the bowels of Earth'. According to Martin Bernal[15] the word Amen is derived from imn which is pronounced Amana. These two words have Igbo origins. Igbo equivalent of imn (Egyptian words are usually not written with vowels) is ime ana, and means 'inside the earth', while amana is equally an Igbo word referring to the Earth religion, further supporting an originally Igbo-based Egyptian religion and civilization.

Sanskrit Om/Aum is said to be the first word intoned by god to bring about created life. Its Biblical equivalent is 'I Am'. Its Igbo equivalent is Oom ('I am/I am it/It is I'); Igbo Aum/Awu m equally means 'I am'. Both are derived from Orlu/Okigwe dialect of the autochthons, indicating that Sanskrit, the so called Oldest language of humanity is equally owes some of its vocabulary to Igbo.

          Indra is the name of the solar deity of India. His name appears to have derived from Afa word Ndu Ora ('Life of the Sun') or perhaps it is a collective name for solar deities – Ndi Ora – 'People of the Sun'.

http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/igbo/westafricanorigin.htm

[zorgon]

Reminds me of Mike Singh's threads.

I MISS Mike Singh  His headlines got posts

[zorgon]

Many similar words to Amen seem to exist. Someday we may find the sun was not worshiped but people actually came from/or through the sun 

Dan Tanna (from ATS years ago) says the Hindu Blue guy lives in the hollow sun... he astral traveled to meet with him Ats didn't want to hear that so gave him the not so royal boot

[zorgon]

[Sinny]

Many similar words to Amen seem to exist. Someday we may find the sun was not worshiped but people actually came from/or through the sun 

Hmm.....

[Gigas]

Lets us prey,  mumble some dark soothing verse and end with, ahhhh men.

Calling down the predators from the heavens to feast upon man, is what it is.

The heavenly predatory gods say in the gathering of themselves, go, and let us prey, and the terrestrial little people over heard their gods and mimicked the voices thinking this was good, let us pray with an amen. When the monsters from heaven finished their serving of man, they all patted their bloated bellies with smiles, and went, aaaahhh men.

The world ain't what it appears to be. See, somethings here and it's taking people. So worship it, cause you maybe next.