There were manuscripts but there was no Bible. Does several fragments constitute a complete Bible? Besides, the Bible version that Wycliffe and his buddies wrote was vastly different than what had been floating around.

There were supposedly Korans in existence before Uthman's committee wrote its version as well. But Uthman's is the one in use today (the one in Arabic).

We don't use the BS written in the Bronze Age. We use the BS that the English wrote. Therefore Wycliffe and his buddies wrote the Bible.

They are saying the Codex Sinaiticus has a complete copy of the New Testament. Have you seen otherwise from that link you posted? Genesis is not part of the New Testament.

(June 29, 2014 at 6:00 am)Irrational Wrote: They are saying the Codex Sinaiticus has a complete copy of the New Testament. Have you seen otherwise from that link you posted? Genesis is not part of the New Testament.

It includes both the Old and New Testaments.

Codex Sinaticus Content

(June 29, 2014 at 4:36 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: There were manuscripts but there was no Bible. Does several fragments constitute a complete Bible? Besides, the Bible version that Wycliffe and his buddies wrote was vastly different than what had been floating around.

Wycliffe's Bible Versions

Quote:There are two distinct versions of Wycliffe's Bible that have been written. The earlier was translated during the life of Wycliffe, while the later version is regarded as the work of John Purvey. Since the printing press was not invented yet, there exist only a very few copies of Wycliffe's earlier Bible. The earlier Bible is a rigid and literal translation of the Latin Vulgate Bible, and Wycliffe's view of theology is closer to realism than to the spiritual. This version was translated word for word, which often led to confusion or meaninglessness

Surviving copies of the Wycliffite Bible fall into two broad textual families, an "early" version and a later version. Both versions are flawed by a slavish regard to the word order and syntax of the Latin originals; the later versions give some indication of being revised in the direction of idiomatic English.

(June 29, 2014 at 4:36 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: We don't use the BS written in the Bronze Age. We use the BS that the English wrote. Therefore Wycliffe and his buddies wrote the Bible.

Nobody uses Wycliffe's Bible today although it's available to read as a curiosity.

King James Version

Quote:The King James Version (KJV), commonly known as the Authorized Version (AV) or King James Bible (KJB), is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England begun in 1604 and completed in 1611.

In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from Greek, the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew and Aramaic text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek and Latin.

Even though it was a later translation by English people, it wasn't derived from Wycliffe's translation. Meanwhile, Coptic Christians have never bothered with English translations of the Bible.

Coptic Versions Of The Bible

Quote:There have been many Coptic versions of the Bible, including some of the earliest translations into any language. Several different versions were made in the ancient world, with different editions of the Old and New Testament in all four of the major dialects of Coptic: Bohairic (northern), Fayyumic, Sahidic (southern), Akhmimic, and Mesokemic. Biblical books were translated from the Alexandrian Greek version.

Wycliffe's Bible does have an appeal all of it's own. I'll quote the bit from the Gospel of Matheu which has the name Emanuel in it.

Matheu Chapter 1

Quote:18 But the generacioun of Crist was thus. Whanne Marie, the modir of Jhesu, was spousid to Joseph, bifore thei camen togidere, she was foundun hauynge of the Hooli Goost in the wombe.

19 And Joseph, hir hosebonde, for he was riytful, and wolde not puplische hir, he wolde priueli haue left hir.

20 But while he thouyte thes thingis, lo! the aungel of the Lord apperide `in sleep to hym, and seide, Joseph, the sone of Dauid, nyle thou drede to take Marie, thi wijf; for that thing that is borun in hir is of the Hooli Goost.

21 And she shal bere a sone, and thou shalt clepe his name Jhesus; for he schal make his puple saaf fro her synnes.

22 For al this thing was don, that it schulde be fulfillid, that was seid of the Lord bi a prophete, seiynge, Lo!

23 a virgyn shal haue in wombe, and she schal bere a sone, and thei schulen clepe his name Emanuel, that is to seie, God with vs.

24 And Joseph roos fro sleepe, and dide as the aungel of the Lord comaundide hym, and took Marie, his wijf;

25 and he knew her not, til she hadde borun her firste bigete sone, and clepide his name Jhesus.

(June 29, 2014 at 6:43 am)Confused Ape Wrote:

(June 29, 2014 at 6:00 am)Irrational Wrote: They are saying the Codex Sinaiticus has a complete copy of the New Testament. Have you seen otherwise from that link you posted? Genesis is not part of the New Testament.

It includes both the Old and New Testaments.

I know, but it doesn't seem like it's a complete copy of the OT. Wyrd of Gawd posted the link to a page with a fragmented piece of Genesis, so I was trying to point out that, regardless, the NT had existed as a complete copy long before what he is suggesting.

(June 29, 2014 at 6:46 am)Irrational Wrote:

(June 29, 2014 at 6:43 am)Confused Ape Wrote: It includes both the Old and New Testaments.

I know, but it doesn't seem like it's a complete copy of the OT. Wyrd of Gawd posted the link to a page with a fragmented piece of Genesis, so I was trying to point out that, regardless, the NT had existed as a complete copy long before what he is suggesting.

He keeps ignoring the Vulgate Bible even though Wycliffe's Bible is a translation of it. The Vulgate Bible dates from the late 4th century and was the work of Saint Jerome who wasn't English.

His definition of write seems to be translating or binding existing texts together to make a bigger book.

I've already stated countless times that assorted manuscripts were floating all over the place. After all, the con men had been flapping their jaws about the stories for centuries. The argument seems to be that that some enterprising soul wrote them all into the Vulgate centuries before Wycliffe and that Wycliffe merely got his paws on the pristine original and translated. Sorry, but I'm not buying it. Even if the Vulgate existed there would be no way that the Pope would allow it to go all the way to dreary England so that some unknown character could play with it. It's simply not human nature.

What Wycliffe and his buddies might have done was to use some of the available manuscripts and their recollections of the stories and write their book. It would be in everyone's vested interest to then claim that the Bible existed before Wycliffe wrote it because otherwise people would lose faith in their religion.

The Vulgate could then have been made as a cover to keep the lie going. As previously mentioned, when a later Pope wrote his version the dummy made thousands of errors. So how did someone know that they were errors? They compared it to Wycliffe's. And if the Vulgate had existed in the Vatican the Pope would have had ready access to it to write his own fairy tale. The fact that he screwed his edition up so badly indicates that it didn't exist.

(June 29, 2014 at 3:12 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: What Wycliffe and his buddies might have done was to use some of the available manuscripts and their recollections of the stories and write their book. It would be in everyone's vested interest to then claim that the Bible existed before Wycliffe wrote it because otherwise people would lose faith in their religion.

The Vulgate could then have been made as a cover to keep the lie going. As previously mentioned, when a later Pope wrote his version the dummy made thousands of errors. So how did someone know that they were errors? They compared it to Wycliffe's. And if the Vulgate had existed in the Vatican the Pope would have had ready access to it to write his own fairy tale. The fact that he screwed his edition up so badly indicates that it didn't exist.

If you paid attention and actually learned something instead of believing BS propaganda you would know that the Vulgate is BS. And how should you know that if you could actually think for yourself? Because it uses the letter "J" in its stories. Why is that important? It's important because the letter "J" wasn't used as a letter in words until the Middle Ages. It was always used with certain Roman numbers. So it couldn't have been used as a letter in words in the 4th Century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J

http://vulgate.org/nt/gospel/matthew_1.htm

(June 29, 2014 at 3:12 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

---

I've already stated countless times that assorted manuscripts were floating all over the place. After all, the con men had been flapping their jaws about the stories for centuries. The argument seems to be that that some enterprising soul wrote them all into the Vulgate centuries before Wycliffe and that Wycliffe merely got his paws on the pristine original and translated. Sorry, but I'm not buying it. Even if the Vulgate existed there would be no way that the Pope would allow it to go all the way to dreary England so that some unknown character could play with it. It's simply not human nature.

What Wycliffe and his buddies might have done was to use some of the available manuscripts and their recollections of the stories and write their book. It would be in everyone's vested interest to then claim that the Bible existed before Wycliffe wrote it because otherwise people would lose faith in their religion.

The Vulgate could then have been made as a cover to keep the lie going. As previously mentioned, when a later Pope wrote his version the dummy made thousands of errors. So how did someone know that they were errors? They compared it to Wycliffe's. And if the Vulgate had existed in the Vatican the Pope would have had ready access to it to write his own fairy tale. The fact that he screwed his edition up so badly indicates that it didn't exist.

---

Sorry, but I just don't believe that. Pope Damasus I commissioned Saint Jerome to write the Vulgate for a specific purpose. It was to hide the awkward fact that Jesus was really a Buddhist monk who survived the crucifixion and spent the rest of his life in Kashmir. This has to be true because the BBC made a documentary about it.

No no no.... Jesus was a vegan Pastafarian. Oh, and he shot the Kennedys.