Codex Sinaiticus Puns

Doing research on it it appears many parts of the Bible were originally missing. Why would the author leave out the resurrection? What does this imply for Divine Inspiration?

I know that there is one for Codex Bezae, but what about the other major texts? Is there an English translation of them alone somewhere?

Are these Bibles reliable, while being the oldest confirmed? I’ve just started the research because of a discussion I had with a cousin. He does not believe in the trinity because the Codex does not include the many important passages that confirm it. As I research both Bibles, many claim that both or one was altered or corrupted due to revisions or just general markups and misplacements. Some say as well that the general script of the documents are sloppy and filled with grammatical errors that would not be accepted if they were in fact 2 of the ancient Bibles of the Constantine generation. What are your opinions on the reliability of these documents? Are they true to what they were nearly 1,000 years ago, or have the religious scholars that study the texts or find them alter and mangle them. Are they forged? Where can I find more information about this topic to share with my cousin?

Thanks for any advice on any relevant and historic places or things to see there.

The earliest secular document recording the existence of Chrestians has this to say....

"...Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Chrestians by the populace. Chrestus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus,..."

(Tacitus, Annals, 116 AD, book 15, chapter 44)

Christian apologists like to believe that "Chrestians" and "Chrestus" in the above text are just insignificant mispellings. But the earliest copy of the Bible in existence, the Codex Sinaiticus, also refers to the followers of Jesus as "Chrestians".

"As to the ancient manuscripts, they all have the word in all three places and their testimony is identical – with one critical exception. The best and earliest codex of all, Sinaiticus, has instead of Christianoi (Xristianoi/), Chrestianoi (Xrhstianoi/) – and it has this reading in all three places where the word occurs. Therefore it is impossible, in spite of the Nestle-Aland tentative suggestion for Acts 26:28, for it to be an itacism (i.e., a popular misspelling based on third/fourth century shifts in pronunciation, something of which this manuscript is, it is true, replete). For one thing, I find no parallel for changing a long "i" (iota) to a long "e" (eta) in this manuscript (and the unusual spelling would not have happened three times by mistake). Equally interesting is the fact that in all three cases, the right vertical stroke and the horizontal stroke of the ETA have been erased to produce an IOTA (yielding the traditional spelling). This is very unusual. Sinaiticus was corrected many times, and each generation of correctors had their own discernible "tics". But simple erasure without further comment seems to be unprecedented. Moreover, the empty space left by the erasure is, in all three cases, not filled up. This shows that without any question the scribe of Sinaiticus deliberately meant to write "Chrestian" in all three instances; it was not a mistake. The plot thickens when we consider that two of the earliest secular references to Christianity, Tacitus, Annales 15.4, where Tacitus talks about the Christians being persecuted by Nero as "Chrestians", and Suetonius, Claudius 25, referring to Claudius' expulsion of the Jews mentions a certain "Chrestus" as responsible, we find precisely the spellings one would predict if these authors (or their sou

I saw the documentary "Tares Among the Wheat" recently, and I was very disturbed about the allegations of these manuscripts. What modern-day translations rely on these manuscripts, and if so, to what extent?

So I'm trying to understand this. To me it seems like a group finally putting together the oldest and purest chapters of the bible free of the additions and alterations people have done over time. Is this really the "true" bible, or as close to it as we have so far?

Hi all - I’ve started learning Ancient Greek but am still very much a beginner. I’m planning on getting a Bible verse tattoo but want to make sure I’m being as accurate as possible.

I have two questions:

• Is the translation correct?
• In order to be as accurate as possible - it’s my understanding that early versions of the Bible would have been in all capitals with no spaces or punctuation - is that correct? If so, how are line breaks handled?

English:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Greek:

ΜΗ ΝΟΜΙΣΗΤΕ ΟΤΙ ΗΛΘΟΝ ΒΑΛΕΙΝ ΕΙΡΗΝΗΝ ΕΠΙ ΤΗΝ ΓΗΝ ΟΥΚ ΗΛΘΟΝ ΒΑΛΕΙΝ ΕΙΡΗΝΗΝ ΑΛΛΑ ΜΑΧΑΙΡΑΝ

Anyone else have trouble with the sin of “The blasphemy against the spirit” or the unforgiveable sin when you were a believer?

I recently made a post on a christian subreddit explaining my confusion on this topic. To sum things up the Bible clearly states that it is a verbal act of blasphemy and not really just as simple as “rejecting Jesus” as some people might claim. And the modern translations say it’s something like an ongoing thing that you have to stop in order to receive forgiveness for any sin but the ancient texts (codex Sinaiticus) for reference state that this is a one time thing you can never come back from. Anyone have insight?

Here is the post I made it goes more in depth:

One thing I struggled with when I was a believer was this one particular sin. The verses I’m speaking on are as follows.

Luke 12:10 And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven

Matthew 12:31-32 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Now mind you these are supposedly Jesus’s own words.

And as far as I can tell it’s talking about verbal blasphemy given the context of the situation since the Pharisees were apparently accusing Jesus of being demon possessed and they were saying that he was doing miracles by the power of demons.

If we look at the verse in Luke I posted at the top it clearly states that this sin is a verbal act of blasphemy given the context of the verse. It basically says “you can be forgiven for SPEAKING against Jesus but not against the Holy Spirit.”

I understand the word blasphemy can be many different things especially back then but given the context of the verse I think the best interpretation is that this sin is a verbal act of blasphemy.

It also very clearly states this sin will never be forgiven in the verse from Matthew “not in this age or the age to come”

Now here’s my issue

Colossians 2:13-14 states that Jesus died for all trespasses

Colossians 2:13-14 “And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal deman