New Testament original texts, where are they?

a reply to: areyousirius360

In all the Gospel accounts, Jesus specifically quoted the LXX version of OT. That much we know to be true. Its very likely that Jesus was bilingual, as Juda was a Jewish nation under gentile control at the time. I'm from Miami, 80% of Miami speaks both Spanish and English.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriestIm certain he could speak any language he chose. How hard would it be to believe Jesus sounds like he's quoting the Greek because the translation was based on Greek. And if they are the same book it wouldn't be possible to tell what version he quotes. He has it memorized by atleast 12 y.o. possibly since birth so he is not quoting from anything he is reciting from memory. If we had the originals we would know a lot more.

a reply to: areyousirius360

The most important text in the history of mankind, a set of instructions on how to live and ensure your eternal salvation and avoid torment in a lake of fire blah blah blah.....

Yeah you'd think the apparent author would use its powers to ensure this original and autographed text is preserved unaltered, to avoid any kind of misunderstandings....

What originals? It is likely that the documents we have are the oldest extant copies... as has been stated papyrus is not easily preserved...even if you expect for god himself to do it...he has made it clear that he himself will do nothing without the help of his servants. So not only would it have been on our shoulders to preserve the earliest works...it's unlikely that we ever even thought it a matter of importance as the traditions and stories surrounding the biblical tales were passed on as generational oral traditions. Word of mouth was what kept the traditions and tales alive long before writing ever could....

A2D

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
...he has made it clear that he himself will do nothing without the help of his servants

So what would be the point of 'him'?

a reply to: Prezbo369We have actual records of kings atleast back to 2000 b.c. but no mention of the King of kings until 300 years after he was said to have lived.
All I have to say is the Sumerians made damn sure their legends survived enough so that even though no one writes cuneiform it was translatable by language experts(not just Sitchin) and they couldn't find a way, thousands of years later with God's assistance, to preserve the first record of the Messiah?

originally posted by: errorcode
a reply to: DISRAELI

Are the dead sea scrolls not original new testament documents
(Thats a genuine question)

The Dead Sea Scrolls are the works of a pre-Christian Jewish community called the Essenes. If anything, they are entirely "Old Testament".

a reply to: Agree2DisagreeWho wants to know about papyrus? Where the Dead Sea Scrolls written on papyrus? I do not believe that Jews, Greeks, and Romans in that era were restricted to writing on papyrus. The Scrolls suggest they were not t. I'm not a paper historian but I think they had more than papyrus long before Jesus.

a reply to: Agree2DisagreeNo. You don't meet God and not write it down. That's unbelievable as spending 400 years in Egypt and never mentioning the pyramids once. But every detail of the ark, the other ark and Solomon's temple.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest

originally posted by: areyousirius360
a reply to: BELIEVERpriestOriginal God preserved documents. From the very hand that wrote them. If that is too much to ask for from the creator of the universe then one must question the foundation of today's Christian churches. If it can't be proven then why should anyone believe it without asking important questions. Why treat it as a fact if it can't even be verified by our methods of determining history. It's relegated to myth without proof.

For all we know, the Vatican is hiding the original documents, because they don't want us to know it's metered. The syllable metering anchors the prophecies ti history.

Well that's interesting, have you more thoughts on this? You have peaked my interest.

Regarding Oldest TEXTS, Jews in Jesus' time recited the bible. Isiah in the the Dead sea scrolls and the next version of Isiah some 800 years later appear word for word, exact, such was the accuracy of their oral tradition.
That said, the earliest NT scriptures have some minor variances to todays KJV (notably the ending of Mark). So I don't think there was the same ritual of recitation with the earliest of Christians as their Jewish forebears had.

I do think a slightly older version will show up eventually, likely in Egypt or Ethiopia. I suspect it will be more like the Gospel of St Thomas simply his sayings, or another version by an unkown author of Mark.

a reply to: areyousirius360

TextWe have written works from times long before the common era, A.D., long before. So, what gives?

Your question is a very difficult one to answer in total understanding. There are many variables to consider with the persecution of the first century Christians as being foremost. There were not one but two major revolts of Jews against the Romans to consider first. Much of the history of the first century church was destroyed by both revolutions and this last effort of Hadrian in 135 CE to totally eradicate the Jews was the most complete.

Before those revolutions of 70 CE and 135 CE, the synagogue of James in Jerusalem flourished for well over three decades and was the main focal point of Christianity. You must remember that this first century Christianity was entirely Hebrew and Aramaic and that Greek nor any other languages were allowed in the liturgy. James the brother of Jesus was the high priest or Nasi while Apostle John was the chief officer of the Christian Sanhedrin known as the AB Beth -Din. Apostle Simon Peter was the Sagan or deputy to the Christian high priest (James the Just, brother of Jesus).

For this reason the Gospel letters are strongly believed to have been penned in Hebrew and not Greek texts as most suppose. The Christian bibles today are all translated from Greek texts with not one presented in Hebrew or Aramaic. So your question is where are the Hebrew original signatures? More than likely they were destroyed by the Romans by Hadrian in 135 CE.

If so how could they be so abundant in Greek? That question has much to do with two divisions of Christianity which flourished till the revolution took place in 135 CE. There was the main synagogue of Christianity which was Under James in the Hebrew liturgy and there were numerous other Christian Greek synagogues also in Jerusalem. The Greek speaking synagogues were under James the high priest but because of the unlearned populace of Hellenists they were allowed to flourish in the Greek language with the effort to reeducate them back to Hebrew. Eventually this came to be but not before thousands of Greek texts escaped the Roman fires.

Meanwhile the Romans were concentrating on the Hebrews and not the Greeks. Why? Because most all of Roman Empire spoke Greek including the military. The concentrated effort was to exterminate Hebrew Jews and not the Hellenists. This and much more was the failed effort of Rome to exterminate Christianity. Now couple this with the effort of the national Jewish state of which the house of Annas and son in law Caiaphus (high priest) were also willing to help destroy Christianity.

originally posted by: zazzafrazz

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest

originally posted by: areyousirius360
a reply to: BELIEVERpriestOriginal God preserved documents. From the very hand that wrote them. If that is too much to ask for from the creator of the universe then one must question the foundation of today's Christian churches. If it can't be proven then why should anyone believe it without asking important questions. Why treat it as a fact if it can't even be verified by our methods of determining history. It's relegated to myth without proof.

For all we know, the Vatican is hiding the original documents, because they don't want us to know it's metered. The syllable metering anchors the prophecies ti history.

Well that's interesting, have you more thoughts on this? You have peaked my interest.

Regarding Oldest TEXTS, Jews in Jesus' time recited the bible. Isiah in the the Dead sea scrolls and the next version of Isiah some 800 years later appear word for word, exact, such was the accuracy of their oral tradition.
That said, the earliest NT scriptures have some minor variances to todays KJV (notably the ending of Mark). So I don't think there was the same ritual of recitation with the earliest of Christians as their Jewish forebears had.

I do think a slightly older version will show up eventually, likely in Egypt or Ethiopia. I suspect it will be more like the Gospel of St Thomas simply his sayings, or another version by an unkown author of Mark.

Im personally convinced that the Vatican is hiding the original texts. Whoever designed the Gregorian calendar knew information that would only be reflected in the metered text. Unfortunately, I can't prove it, all I have is a strange set of circumstances to back my theory.

See my thread: The 12/21/2012 Red Herring, for more info.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The same syllable metering that is found in the OT exists ALL OVER the NT. I've seen it myself. I don't know if the early Church practiced the same kind of oral tradition as the Jews, but the meter has prophetic mapping qualities beyond recitation.


For example, the first paragraph of Matt 24 is 40+44=84 syllables long (divisible by 7). It took place in 30 AD as Jesus was leaving the Temple. He was asked about the end of the Age, and responded by first describing the destruction of the Temple. Just as it was described, 40 syllables/years later (in 70 AD), the Temple was destroyed. That's what I remember off the top of my head, but I don't have my notes with me.


Why did the Temple stand 40 years after the Cross? Because the Jews were 40 years late in entering the land (40 years of roaming the wilderness in Exodus).

a reply to: Seede
That's the best answer I have heard so far. But IF it is true then somewhere out there are texts well nevercsee or hear about. And IF it's true somewhere out there are Hebrew or Aramaic texts that would prove it. I have no doubt they would keep the most valuable information to themselves. Like the Septuagint, they got the Mosaic books but they kept the rest in Hebrew. Later o the rest would be translated but always with subtle flagrant erroneous small but important changes.

originally posted by: areyousirius360
Where are the originals. This is Gods word. Divine. Yet the first edition doesn't exist and no attempt was made to preserve it. Cite every scholar and statistic, and mention quotes of people who say they are in abundance, there is nothing from before roughly 300 AD and the Vatican would not even say that there is. They are the ones saying it.

There are 51 registered canonical New Testament manuscripts dated prior to 300 AD.

We don't have the original texts for any of the Greek Classics or the Vedic Scriptures either.

Perhaps human history never happened!!!!

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
The importance of the number 40 is that it is how long it took to embalm someone in Egypt, specifically Jacob/Israel. I figured that out today reading Genesis AGAIN. Always catching something new.

a reply to: chr0naut
I never asked about anything but the new testament. Are you a fundamental?

a reply to: chr0naut N
Not according to the Vatican. Registered by who? Where are they? Who wrote them?

a reply to: chr0naut

You threw out the claim where is the evidence that supports it?

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Im personally convinced that the Vatican is hiding the original texts.

Yet another thing we agree on.... we're on a roll lately

The question is, why would they hide such texts when they could prove so much... or disprove?

originally posted by: areyousirius360
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
The importance of the number 40 is that it is how long it took to embalm someone in Egypt, specifically Jacob/Israel. I figured that out today reading Genesis AGAIN. Always catching something new.

I've understood 40 to be a testing/preparatory period. As far as embalming/mummification...preparation of the corpse. Makes sense. But I don't think the significance of 40 originated from funerary rites.