Talk:Codex Vaticanus

Deleting dissenting sources

To the people who continue to remove the dissenting opinion by Robert Dabney, the truth doesn't mind being questioned... only a lie does. You take the choice of discernment away from the reader by declaring you are somehow more intelligent that anyone else. Mr. Dabney is a respected and published historian. It is up to the reader to determine to accept the Romish explanation for their dating of this document or Mr. Dabney (and others).

When you deny a published historically accepted view on this matter you make your view propaganda!!! 3Gchromed (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Robert Lewis Dabney (born 1820) was in no way an expert on Biblical textual studies. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

You obviously believe you have the right to decide for others people in this matter. All I did was provide food for thought based on legitimate dissenting opinions but you feel the need to decide for others what is fact, though you provide no evidence as to you scholarship in the matter that supersedes Mr Dabney. You have made yourself a god on this matter. You have raised your opinion as fact and are arrogant and prideful. Repent of tour arrogance and let people decide for themselves 3Gchromed (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The article is full of modern, specialist sources. It also makes it clear in the first para that "The codex has been dated palaeographically to the 4th century." which is really all that Dabney is saying. Does he propose a different date? If so, has anybody credible supported that in the last century? Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Once again I state... there are dissenting opinions to your argument and mine. I have never tried to delete or modify your argument as I believe there may be relevance to it. I choose not to be the judge and jury on this matter. You have made yourself an authority on who should be believed after stating you are not an expert. Let the published authors "duke it out" and God will lead the readers to the truth. Or are you so arrogant you believe the Lord NEEDS your opinion to steer people to the truth? 3Gchromed (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't have an "argument". All I have done is defend the existing well-referenced articles from your inappropriate additions. As for all your rhetoric - try looking in a mirror. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

You are censoring information on potential dissention from a referenced, published biblical scholar... I am not. I believe both views should be presented, you are deciding from. Your opinion that one view should not be viewed. Your censorship is propaganda. It is clear you think you are an authority where as I allow the for the published opinions of both view points for the individual reader to decide.

You are a censor and a propagandist! You make yourself out to be a god in this matter, nor I.

I don't agree at all with the Koran but I don't call for the censorship of it. People can read it and decide by the leading of God which path to follow, or decide neither. I allow God to make those leadings for people, you make that choice by sensorship, thus making yourself out as a god. As if you decide truth...

3Gchromed (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

R.L. Dabney was the most conspicuous figure and the leading theological guide of the Southern Presbyterian Church, the most prolific theological writer that Church has as yet produced, and for a period of over forty years one of the most distinguished and probably the most impressive teacher of its candidates for the ministry. As a preacher, as a teacher and as a writer equally he achieved greatness, and in the counsels of the State and of the Church alike he was a factor of importance. In the wider theological history of the country and of the epoch he finds a worthy place as one of the younger members of a remarkable company of theologians to whose lot it fell to reassert and reorganize the historical faith of the Reformed Churches in the face of the theological ferment which marked the earlier years of the Nineteenth Century.’ — B.B. WARFIELD 3Gchromed (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

You also seem very caught up in the date of the manuscript being of most importance where as I believe the content is the most important aspect by far. Let go your non-expert OPINIOn about the time period it was made in... it makes it no more or less authentic. Focus on the message of the Gospel contained in the codex! 3Gchromed (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

All your edits have entirely concerned the dating! This conversation really isn't productive, & should stop. Johnbod (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The ONE edit you keep deleting, as if you know everything? You make no valid point in deleting it, other than you know best who is valid in the discussion. The only point you have made is that Dabney is dead... as if that makes him irrelevant...

I guess with you nobody can fix ignorance... you seem to wallow in it like a pig in mud 3Gchromed (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

And if you want to stop this conversation don't keep spouting of nonsense and let others have a thought in this matter. You don't own Wikipedia or this article. This is a free contribution encyclopedia not your property

3Gchromed (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Verse links not working

In the Non-included verses section, many links are not working correctly. Examples:

• John 5:4
• Acts 8:37
• Acts 15:34

Oddly, others do work but that is for verse ranges and not single verses as this example shows:

• John 7:53–8:12

Does anyone know how to correct this? Thank you, 71.31.180.50 (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I took the liberty of swapping this one link for an internal link but I do not know if that fits with the desired schema. 71.31.180.50 (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

After some digging, I can see the problem from the template documentation. When no specific bible version is indicated, it defaults to displaying New Revised Standard Version verses. The template in this article is making calls to the oremus server and that is the only version of bible they host. You can see the version in the url ending "version=nrsv".

That bible does not have some of the verses cited which explains the errors on so many of the links in that section. The answer probably involves re-linking the non-existent external link calls to internal links on Wikipedia if they exist. I'm going to leave an asterisk or some other indicator on the failed links so they can be redone. 71.31.180.50 (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I've left * by the faulty links for the time being. 71.31.180.50 (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I've redone those links to a format that compares between different bible versions. I don't know how to do that with the existing template. 71.31.180.50 (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort in trying to correct this. I've turned the links into internal wikisource ones which reference the World English Bible, which doesn't break the links and shows the verses. This works a lot better than the external linking to Biblegateway. :) (Stephen Walch (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC))