Why did they remove “Jesus” in Matthew but left it in Mark and Luke?


Why did they change it in Matthew but left it unchanged in Mark?


Why are these words included in the supposedly “gnostic” codices Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus and Vaticanus?


Why did they remove it from Luke’s record, but left it in Matthew’s record?


Why are they included in the “gnostic” codices Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus and Vaticanus?


Why so many other texts which affirm these weren’t “altered”?


How can the title “Son of Man” be more acceptable to gnosticism???


Then why weren’t John 6:44, John 6:65 and Romans 3:11 also altered?


Then why weren’t passages like 2 Tim 2:8 and Rom 1:3 also altered?


Then why weren’t passages like John 8:12 and John 12:35, 36 also altered?


Then why weren’t texts like Mark 16:19, Acts 1:21, Acts 4:33, 1 Cor 11:23, 2 Cor 4:14, 1 Thess 2:15, in which the earthly Jesus is called “Lord,” not altered, too?


Then why wasn’t this piece of information also removed from John 1:3, Heb 1:2, Col. 1:15, 16?


If this is true, why didn’t they also change John 1:14?

If there really had been gnostic influences, it would make no sense at all to modify just some texts and leave many other similar ones without being altered.

I have one answer, which may shed light on it. The Sinaiticus was written by three different scribes and was corrected later by several others. Tischendorf counted 14,800 corrections in this manuscript and there was great amount of carelessness exhibited in the copying and correction. The same with the Codex Vaticanus. It was corrected by revisers in the 8th, 10th, and 15th centuries, the entire manuscript was gone over. So it seems some altered it and others may have tried to put it back or fix but its hard to be sure, all we know is many hands worked on it and for some purpose.

First of all, the statements that I quoted from Mrs. White were not proving anything so much as disproving something. The fact is, Mrs. White never, in published writings at least, spoke critically of Benjamin Wilkinson, his works, or his ideas. She is silent on the matter. As for your statements of having seen some actual letters, that is all fine and good, but I have not seen you say what the letters said. Nor have I had the privilege of reading them for myself.

Let's get one thing absolutely clear here: Ellen White could not possibly have addressed B. G. Wilkinson's book "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated." How do I know? The book was published 15 years after Mrs. White passed away. I know that Mrs. White wrote some letters about future events, but I have not heard of any that were received over a decade beyond her death.

In that amount of time, many people find their ideas have evolved, matured, broadened, or balanced out. Even if Dr. Wilkinson had been criticized earlier, this would prove nothing in regard to his later views. In fact, it might serve to show that God deemed him teachable enough to send him such messages of correction.

Regarding being a scholar of Biblical languages--I don't see how this has much bearing upon the topic. Dr. Wilkinson need not know anything about how the text was translated in order to understand the character of such men as Westcott and Hort who were behind the manuscript revisions.

You see, the real problem of the Bible versions is not their translations. It is the revisions which took place in their "original" manuscripts prior to the translation.

Anyone who studies sufficiently into the matter is qualified to report on it. To my understanding, in light of Ezekiel 3 & 33, Dr. Wilkinson may have been morally obligated to sound the alarm once he had himself seen the danger of the specious versions.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Rosangela,

Regarding the gnostic influences, I see where you are coming from. But consider this: if the changes were all made at once to the text, people would have the more clearly seen their agenda. Leaving some of it the same helps the whole to gain better acceptance, and the changes made still have an effect of undermining the truth.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I did not say that Mrs. White criticized his book. I said that W.W. Prescott and WILIE White critized his book based on what his mom taught him about the newer versions. I ponted out that there were a group of people, one was Elder Washburn, I believe there was a Elder Watson, and there was Dr. Wilkinson, the members of this group had letters that sound very similar to each other where their beliefs were very similar to each other. Mrs. White wrote letters of counsel and criticizism to Elder Washburn and I seem to remember an Elder Watson too, and Willie wrote very similar letters with similar criticisms for similar views to Dr. Wilkinson. I said that I don't remember if Mrs. White wrote to him specifically, but that the corrispondence with Willie are incredibily similar to the writings between Mrs. White and Elder Washburn (and Watson) with Willie trying to pass on some of the same information to Wilkinson that Mrs. White tried to pass on to these other gentlemen. And also despite their dissagreements, the White's still respected these men for the work they have done for the church.

There are volumes of Mrs. White's writings that are not published. Also, even as close friends, Mrs. White and some of the others could have some very intense discussions. Mrs. White was a very close friend of Stephen Haskell, however they had very different views of how inspiration worked and they both tried very hard to convince the other to accept their view and neither succeeded. So even though she was close to people did not mean that they did not receive some strong letters from her.

Should I or anyone else be trying to figure out why
K (9th c.)
(and a bunch of other letters and numbers set apart by themselves)
should be useful, studied, or otherwise spent time on?

Let's see an example. One example. And not a lengthy one.
Or pick one verse and others can look at it.

So to your understanding, newer is better, right?

Why don't we set about to make a new one every year?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This is also the same tatic Wescott and Hort used bringing in the text from the Alexandrian codices with the revison commitee, just a small change asked for, one word here one word there, a ommission or a different one inserted. But fearing a backlash they dared not come out openly with their changes. So it was death by a thousand small cuts and alterations....

Now I brought this study here so that each one of us could see and understand the difference between the Textus Receptus line verses the two Alexandrian Codices. I ask you to carefully read your Bibles and then ask yourself, do the changes make any difference, can I accept the alterations understanding the purpose behind them, can I rely even with the differnces on the version I have.

Whether you say yes or no, I have done what I feel is my Christian duty, in letting my brothers and sisters know. You now have the resposibility to prayerfully decide how to use the information for yourself for your own spiritual welfare. I just follow what I feel in my heart I must do, in this case present the facts and let God send His Holy Spirit to guide each and everyone who reads the history of Gods word that we have here.

God Bless and Happy Sabbath everyone..