E-newsletter  |  RSS
Начало    |   История    |   Връзки    |   Контакти    |   е-вестник
Българско издание  |  English edition
Вторник, 23.01.2018 г.
Търсене:

За Библията
Християнска мозайка
Събития
Интервю
Християнство и изкуство
Жената и вярата
Взаимоотношения
Някой каза: Да!
Написано от вас
История на българското протестантство
Преводите на българската Библия
Религия и право

Инсталирайте нашия toolbar!


Текстус Рецептус: Пасажи с догматична важност Част 1


Д-р теол. Доний К. Донев, 26.07.2009

<font color=red>Текстус Рецептус:  Пасажи с догматична важност  Част 1</font>

Почти всички преводи на Библията от времето на Йеронимовата Вулгата до днес съдържат пасажи, в които има промени на текста в полза на дадена църковна доктрина или против нея. В това отношение Текстус Рецептус не е само пример, но и прототип на много от догматичните спорове, които през вековете поставят гръцкия текст в полето на битката между истината на Словото и практиките на църквата. Това е така, защото самият Текстус Рецептус е формиран на базата на около 5000 гръцки ръкописа, които се равняват на почти 80% от запазените до наши дни частични или цели текстове на Новия завет. Над 86 000 библейски цитата в трудовете на църковните отци са взети от ръкописите, съставили Текстус Рецептус. Но това изобилие на източници съвсем не прави Текстус Рецептус безгрешен. Дори обратното.

Въпросите, които тази статия разглежда, възникват много преди Тишендорф да открие Синайския кодекс, преди Ватиканът да позволи пълен достъп до Ватиканския кодекс и преди учени като Уескот и Хорт да поставят основите на библейския текстов критицизъм. Първите съмнения в това, че Текстус Рецептус приема поправки на текста на базата на съществуващите по време на издаването му църковни доктрини, са поставени от Самуил Трегелис в изследване, което той прави върху трудовете на ранните отци на църквата. Книгата му излиза през 1854 г. в Лондон под заглавие „Обяснение по печатния текст на гръцкия Нов завет с бележки по неговите ревизии на базата на критични принципи“. Някои от изводите, които Трегелис прави, заслужат специално внимание.



Тримата свидетели (І Йоан 5:7)

Примерът, разглеждан в този пасаж относно „свидетелстващите в небето“, е известен на всеки, който сериозно се е занимавал с текста на Новия завет. Буквалният превод от гръцки чете, както следва: (7) Защото три са свидетелстващите: (8) Духът и водата, и кръвта, и трите в едно са. (НОВ 2007/NA 27)

В българския текст проблематиката е най-точно предадена от цариградския превод, който в унисон с Текстус Рецептус чете: (7) Защото трима са, които свидетелствуват [на небеса, Отец, Слово и Дух Светий; и тия тримата са едно. (8) И три са, които свидетелствуват на земята], Духът, и водата, и кръвта; и тия трите са съгласни в едно.



Догматичната насоченост, която Еразъм цели несъмнено, е доктрината за Троицата, която присъства в разширения и най-вероятно по-късен вариант на текста. Трегелис открито се противопоставя на сериозната непретенциозност, с която текстът в скоби е приет като част от оригиналните автографи на базата на минималните текстови доказателства. Според него, а и според мнозинството съвременни изследователи на библейския текст, такова либерално приемане дава право на всяка новооткрита добавка, промяна или вариант към текста на Новия завет също да бъде приета като част от оригинала. За съжаление Текстус Рецептус допуска именно тази грешка.



Бог/Който (І Тимотей 3:16)

Проблемът в този пасаж е явен дори в българския текст, както следва:

Цариградски/СИ 1925/Верен: Бог се яви в плът (следвайки варианта на Тесктус Рецептус).


РИ 1940/ББД: Тоя, Който биде явен в плът…


WBTC 2000: Христос се яви в човешки образ…

Вариантът с присъствието на Бог е подкрепен от курсивните ръкописи и унциалите J, K и D (в редакцията на третия му коректор), но не се среща в никоя друга версия преди Арабския полиглот и славянските преводи, датиращи от 7. век. Пасажът намира подкрепа от по-ранните църковни отци Дидимий, Дионисий Александрийски и Теодорет, както и от по-късните Йоан Дамаскин, Теофилакт и Екумений.

Другият вариант чете Кой-то [гр. C] и е потвърден от ръкописите A, C, F, G, 17. D съдържа само определителен член, който се превежда с причастието явилият се заедно с по-късните поправки от трима коректори. Подобни поправки са налични и в ръкописите А (в по-късен период) и С (в относително ранен период), като думата Кой-то [гр. C] е променена на гръцката абревиатура за Бог [гр. C], като средната черта на гръцката буква тета е нанесена горе, а не в средата.

Този вариант е подкрепен от старолатинските преводи, Вулгата, Пешита, готически, армениански и етиопски версии, т.е. всички по-ранни версии на Новия завет, както и от църковните отци Теодор, Кирил Александрийски и Епифаний. Историята разказва, че през 506 г. патриархът на Константинопол Македоний бил заточен от император Атанасий заради това, че „опорочил Евангелието“ ,като поправил само една буква, променяйки C на C. Текстус Рецептус приема именно вариантното четене Бог C с това, променяйки по-стария текстов оригинал, подобно на Македоний. Този пример е само интродукция към дългогодишната дискусия по премахването на думата Бог от различни части на библейския текст, в случая подкрепен от по-ранните варианти на гръцкия текст на Новия завет.

« назад

Сподели във Facebook Bookmark and Share



М н е н и я

от: Д-р Димитрова
публикувано: 31.07.2009 07:12:18 часа

Абе защо ги допускат тези анономковци по форума на Евангелски вестник? Д-р Донев е не само добър преводач, който работи по новия български превод на Библията, високоуважаван учен по целия свят, и най-вече помазан проповедник. Наскоро имах удоволствието на до слушам отново. А вие сте едни най-обикновени драскачи които дори се страхувате да си напишете истинските имена като плюете човека.


от: Etien
публикувано: 30.07.2009 06:02:58 часа

Че какво му е копирано? Авторът сам си е дал препратка към източниците. Редакцията пък най-накрая да се погрижи за тези обидни коментари. Все пак те са обидни не само за автора и за нас, но и за самия вестник. Очистете вече този дух на завист помежду си.


от: Зара
публикувано: 29.07.2009 16:33:01 часа

ех завистта завистта момчета - до къде ще ви докара тя? човека ви написал статия, преработил я за да я разберете с тъпите си ум-чета написал ви е източниците които е ползвал - няма как да го обвините в копиране - единствената му вина е че се опитва да просветли тъпите ви селски съзнания - много щяхте да знаете Самуил Трегелис, ако д-р Доний Донев не ви го бе посочил в текста


от: john dowe
публикувано: 27.07.2009 13:10:01 часа

Абе, този д-р Дони е доста добър преводач! Ама поне да слага бележки под черта и библиография!


от: john dowe
публикувано: 27.07.2009 03:22:27 часа

Notes on Some Passages of Dogmatic Importance Samuel P. Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament with Remarks on its Revision upon Critical Principles (London, 1854), pages 226-236. Amongst the passages to the reading of which discussion has been directed on theological grounds, the more prominent are 1 John 5:7 1 Tim 3:16 and Acts 20:28. 1 John 5:7 To enter into a formal discussion of the genuineness of the \"testimony of the heavenly witnesses,\" 1 John 5:7, is really superfluous for it would only be doing over again what has been done so repeatedly that there cannot be two opinions in the minds of those who now know the evidence, and are capable of appreciating its force. The passage stands thus (the words not known by the ancient authorities being enclosed within brackets): Verse 7, ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. I only add, that if the marked words be considered genuine, then any addition of any kind, found in any MS. (however recent), and supported by the later copies of any one version in opposition to the more ancient, possesses as good a claim to be received and used as a portion of Holy Scripture. 1 Timothy 3:16 In 1 Tim 3:16, there are three readings, θεος εφανερωθη εν σαρκι, as in the common text ος εφαν. κτλ. and ο εφαν. κτλ. Now, to state the evidence for these readings respectively, it is necessary (as I had occasion long ago to point out), to divide the authorities at first into those which support the substantive θεος, and those which have in its stead a relative pronoun: what relative is the better supported by evidence is for after consideration. In favour of the substantive. θεος is supported by the uncial MSS. J K (also D from a third corrector), and the cursive MSS. in general. 1 But it is upheld by no version whatever, prior to the Arabic of the Polyglot and the Sclavonic, both of which are more recent than the seventh century, and possess no value as critical witnesses. Some of the Greek fathers, who, as edited, have been cited as authorities for the reading θεος, ought to be omitted from the list because it is certain, from other parts of their writings, that they did read ος in this passage, or because more exact collations of the MSS. of their works show that θεος is an unauthorized addition so that in this case copyists have amplified by introducing this reading just as in the former case they substituted it, as being that to which they were accustomed, for ος, which was then become peculiar. 2 The fathers, then, who support θεος are, Didymus, Dionysius of Alexandria, and Theodoret, the two former possibly, the later not improbably and in more recent times John Damascenus, Theophylact, and Ecumenius. Cyril Alex. and Chrysostom do not belong to this list. In favour of a relative. ος is the reading of A C* F G, 17, and two other cursive MSS. ο is the reading of D*. It has, indeed, been said, that the true reading of A C F G is doubtful and indeed, some have sited them all for θεος and it has been asserted also that G originally read ο. Both A and C have suffered correction in this word A in modern times, and C at a remote period. Such a change was effected by altering OC into ΘC [with a line drawn above] by introducing two little strokes, and then there was the contraction commonly found for θεος. The ink in which this has been done in A is sufficiently modern and black to declare its recent application, but it has been said that the trace of an original transverse line may be seen besides the modern black dot in the middle, decisive that the first letter is not O but Θ. Wetstein attributed this stroke, which in some lights is visible at one side of the O, to a part of the transverse line of the letter Ε on the back of the leaf. He says that it was only visible when he held it in such a position that he could see some light through the leaf. This was denied by Woide, who said (trusting to the eyes of others rather than his own) that the Ε was so placed that no part of it could be seen directly opposite to the O. Now I can state positively that Wetstein was right and Woide was wrong: for I have repeatedly looked at the place, sometimes alone, sometimes with others sometimes with the unassisted eye, sometimes with the aid of a powerful lens: and as to the position of these two letters, by holding the leaf up to the light, it is seen that the Ε does slightly intersect the O, so that part of the transverse line may be seen on one side of that letter. As to the reading of the palimpsest C, before the writing had been chemically restored, it was shown by Griesbach and others that the line denoting the contraction was not like the writing of the original copyist and since the ancient letters have been revivified, it is abundantly manifest that both this stroke and the transverse line (previously invisible) forming the Θ are additions of a later corrector: Tischendorf states this explicitly in the Prolegomena to his edition of the text of this MS. and I can abundantly confirm, from my own repeated inspection of the passage, and from comparing these strokes with the other corrections, that this is the fact. With regard to F and G it is a mistake,3 that either or both of them read ΘC they read ος, and G has no correction in the place, as if it had ever read ο. It must be remembered that F and G are both of them copies of some one more ancient MS. , and thus they are but one witness. The versions which support a relative, are 1 the Old Latin, 2 the Vulgate, 3 Peshito and 4 Harclean Syriac, 5 Memphitic, 6 Thebaic, 7 Gothic, 8 Armenian, 9 Ethiopic: that is, all the versions older than the seventh century. (Also a MS. Arabic version in the Vatican. ) This united testimony that θεος did not belong to the passages in the days when those versions were made, is peculiarly strong and when it is remembered that no version of similar antiquity can be brought forward to counterbalance these witnesses of every region of Christendom, the preponderance of testimony is overwhelming. It may now be stated that some of these versions cannot show whether they support ος or ο, from the want of genders in the relative while others (such as the Vulgate), which mark the neuter, have given, not improbably, what was considered to be a constructio ad sensum, by taking μυστηριον as a personal designation for the antecedent. The two Syriac versions (the Harclean as to the text at least), the Armenian and the Ethiopic, are wholly doubtful as to this point: the Old Latin and the Vulgate have the neuter quod: the Gothic has the masculine relative, and so to the Memphitic and Thebaic but, in the case of these two latter versions, it is said that the word by which μυστηριον is translated is also masculine, and so the masculine relative in itself proves nothing. Theodorus of Mopsuestia, Cyril Alex. , Epiphanius, read ος, while the Latin fathers in general (e. g. Hillary, Augustine, etc. ) have quod. The silence of the fathers as to this passage in the fourth century, when, if they had known the reading θεος, it would have maintained an important part in arguments, must not be forgotten, for such silence expresses much. In addition to the evidence of the MSS. , versions, and early citations, there is a narrative which relates to this passage. According to this narrative, Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople, was deprived by the Emperor Anastasius, anno 506, forcorrupted the Scriptures (called in the account \"evangelia,\" as a general term), especially in this passage, by changing one letter so as to make OC into ΘC. \"Hoc tempore Macedonius Constantinopolitanus episcopus ab imperatore Anastatio dicitur expulsus, tamquam evangelia falsasset, et maxime illud apostoli dictum, qui apparuit in carne, justficatus est in Spiritu. Hunc enim immutasse, obi habet ΟΣ, id est, QUI, monosyllabum Graecum litera mutata O in Θ vertisse, et fecisse ΘΣ, id est, ut esset, DEUS apparuit per carnem. Tamquam Nestorianus ergo culpatus expellitur per Servum Monachum. \" Such is the testimony of Liberatus Diaconus, 4 rather less than fifty years after the event took place. It has, indeed, been thought that the reading θεος could not have been introduced by one who was imbued with Nestorianism for it has been said that this reading would contradict the distinction which that form of doctrine made between the natures of Christ, as though they were not joined in unity of person. But it must be remembered that Cyril was the orthodox authority then with the strong anti-Nestorian party, and he read ος εφανερωθη: also the reading θεος decidedly favoured the conception then formed of the doctrine of Nestorius as if it had taught that God was manifest in or by the flesh of him who was born of Mary, whereas the reading ος strongly asserts unity of person. This narration shows that in the early part of the sixth century the readings ος and θεος were both known even if it be doubted whether this was the origin (as it may have been) of the latter. If it did so spring up,5 and if it was thus propagated, the versions made previously are witnesses against the addition: \"cum multarum gentium linguis scriptura ante translata doceat falsa esse quae addita sunt,\" says Jerome (ad Damasum) of similar cases. It is thus seen that for reading a relative pronoun in this place, there are MSS. A C D F G, 17, and two others, nine ancient versions, and some fathers certainly. For reading the substantive θεος, there are J K (two of the later uncial MSS. ), and the cursive copies in general no version prior to the seventh century and of the fathers of the earlier centuries there are only some doubtfully. Codex B does not contain this epistle. Thus the evidence in favour of a relative preponderates greatly: for it is not to be supposed that the independent more ancient versions could agree fortuitously in ignoring the substantive God, if they had it in their copies and if none of them had it, then the Greek copies must have agreed in reading a relative. The advocates for θεος, as being the reading supported by the numerical array of copies, are accustomed to divide the evidence into three heads, 1 θεος, 2 ος, 3 ο: and then, by giving the ancient versions in general to ο, they seem to make ος rest on weak grounds: but upon such a question the testimony of versions must not be separated thus minutely for the primary question between the substantive and the relative must first be settled, just as in all preliminary inquiries, cognate readings must be taken as presenting united evidence, when contrasted with something wholly opposite. A relative is then by far the best attested reading. The next inquiry is, what relative, ος or ο. This must be decided by Greek authorities, for most of the versions are doubtful. ος then has in its favour A C F G, 17, and two others, with Cyril and other Greek fathers, while ο is only supported by D a prima manu. Thus ος is by far the best supported reading. It is also the reading from which the others might most easily have sprung from supposed correction while the change from ο or θεος into ος would in such a sentence be most unlikely. And further, ος is the more difficult reading for the inquiry immediately arises as to the structure and translation of the sentence: Does ος go back to θεου ζωντος for an antecedent? or are we to take μυστηριον ος for a constuctio ad sensum? or is the antecedent understood, that being the nominative to the verb of the next clause εδικαιωθη, \"he who was manifested in the flesh, was justified,\" etc. ? I do not think that either of these solutions is precisely the true one: ος appears to me to relate to the person indicated, with something of the same kind of indefinite emphasis (if I may use the term) as is found in the mode in which αυτος occurs in 1 John. \"Confessedly great is the mystery of godliness: HE WHO was manifested in flesh, (he who) was justified in spirit, (he who) was seen by angels, (he who) was preached among Gentiles, (he who) was believed on in the world, (he who) was received up in glory. \" The passage thus sets before us the whole dignity of Christ\'s person and it has been well asked, if He were not essentially superhuman, how could the Apostle have emphatically declared that he was manifested in flesh? Acts 20:28 I now pass on to Acts 20:28, ποιμαινειν την εκκλησιαν . . . ην περιεποιησατο δια του αιματος του ιδιου. After εκκλησιαν there are three readings which are entitled to be considered as to their claims to fill up the place which I have left blank. 1. Την εκκλησιαν του θεου, the church of God. 2. Την εκκλησιαν του κυριου, the church of the Lord. 3. Την εκκλησιαν του κυριου και θεου, the church of the Lord and God. There are also three readings which have to be mentioned simply with the evidence for them none of which has a claim requiring much attention: (i) τ. εκκ. του κυριου θεου in one or two later MSS. , and the Arabic of the Polyglot, a version of no critical importance (ii) τ. εκκ. του θεου και κυριου, in one cursive copy (iii) τ. εκκ. του χριστου as found in the Peshito Syriac (and of course in the Erpenian Arabic made from it) Origen so reads once and this lection is found in three copies of Athanasius, and in Theodoret twice. It has no manuscript authority, and it might easily have sprung from the connection, in which the Church is mentioned as being his who redeeemed it with his own blood. To revert, then, to the readings with regard to which there is some amount of evidence. 1. Του θεου. This is found in B, and about twenty cursive copies:6 and in the following versions (1) the Vulgate in the most ancient MSS. , as well as in the common Clementine (but not, however, in the Complutensian edition). (2) the Harclean Syriac (text. ), and a Syriac lectionary in the Vatican of the eleventh century. Epiphanius and some later Greek writers have this reading, as also have Ambrose and other Latins. Athanasius in some MSS. has this reading, and Chrysostom has been cited for it however, he certainly himself has κυριου, and the reading θεου has been taken from the Homilies on the Acts which bear his name but even there the reading is doubtful. 7 Cyril of Alexandria reads θεου twice, in a treatise on the name θεοτοκος, as applied to the Virgin Mary, edited by Cardinal Mai (Scriptorum Collectio Vaticana, viij. part 2, pp. 125, 126). It is necessary to notice this explicitly, because it has been remarked that this reading is not found in Cyril, and the supposed silence of this anti-Nestorian writer has been made the basis of argument. The genuineness of this treatise is supported by its being cited in the Emperor Justinian\'s epistle to the Alexandrian monks (p. 306), edited by Mai in vol. vii. of the same collection. This treatise is likewise thoroughly Cyrillian in tone and style. 8 2. Του κυριου is the reading of A C D E, 13 (with thirteen other cursive MSS. ), of (1) the Old Latin, as found in D and E, (2) the Memphitic, (3) the Thebaic, (4) the Armenian, and (5) the margin of the later Syriac. Irenaeus (or his contemporary Latin interpreter), Eusebius, the Apostolic Constitutions, Didymus, Ammonius, Athanasius in one MS. , Chrysostom (on Eph. 4:12), and at a later date Theophylact (three times), have this reading as also, among the Latins, Lucifer, Jerome, Augustine, and others. 3. Του κυριου και θεου: this is the common reading of MSS. , being found in G H, (also C a tertia manu) and in more than a hundred cursive copies, also in six lectionaries. As to versions, it is found in the Sclavonic alone, 9 which is of the ninth century, and has no voice in criticism. Theophylact has this reading once, so that when he has του κυριου simply, he may probably abbreviate the reading to which he was accustomed. This reading is found in the Complutensian edition, and as it is that supported by numbers, it would of course have been defended by many if it had been in the common text. The Latin in the Complutensian differs from other copies of the Vulgate in\"dni (i. e. Domini) et Dei. \" In this conspectus of authorities, the Ethiopic version has not been cited for any of the readings: it is doubtful whether the Roman text of this version should be quoted for θεου or κυριου, and the edition of Mr. Platt has χριστου. All that can be said is, that, like the Peshito Syrac, it opposes the compound reading του κυριου και θεου. The whole question must lie between του κυριου and του θεου for the reading that combines both fails as to ancient MS. authority (showing plainly that the mass of copies must not be valued on the ground of numbers), as to versions, and as to early citations: if this had not been sufficient, it might be added that it is the longer reading, and as such would require preponderating evidence before it could be received. Του θεου has good witnesses in B (the other MSS. are unimportant) and the Vulgate but του κυριου has preponderating testimony for B alone could not on such a point outweigh A C D E and as to versions and fathers, του κυριου stands on stronger ground and therefore it should be accepted, even while all that can be said in favour of του θεου is fully admitted. Either of these readings might easily have sprung from the other, as the change is but one letter (ΚΥ and ΘΥ [with a stroke above to indicate abbreviation]) and while θεου might claim the preference as being, in connection with \"blood,\" the more difficult reading, η εκκλησια του κυριου is a reading found nowhere else in the New Testament so that a copyist would naturally alter it to εκκ. του θεου, as is found in 1 Cor. 1:2, 10:32, 11:22, 15:9 2 Cor. 1:1 Gal. 1:13 1 Tim. 3:5, 15. This whole passage may also be compared with 1 Pet 5:2, ποιμανατε το εν υμιν ποιμνιον του θεου επισκοπουντες, which might aid in suggesting του θεου in Acts 20:28, προσεχετε . . . τω ποιμνιω εν ω υμας το πνα το αγιον εθετο επισκοπους ποιμαινειν την εκκλησιαν του κυριου. Thus the introduction of θεου instead of κυριου would be natural, though the contrary would not be so and even if the evidence for εκκ. του κυριου had not been so strong, it would have been confirmed by its peculiarity, and by the immense probability of the familiar phrase being substituted for it. But although this passage with the reading κυριου gives no direct testimony to the Godhead of the Lord Jesus Christ, it is of very great doctrinal value for it brings out in full view the true sacrificial character of his death on the cross: \"Feed the church of the Lord, which He hath purchased with his own blood. \" Thus, even if the dignity of his person were not here stated, the preciousness of his blood is emphatically declared, as being that which was adequate to meet the infinite holiness of God and his wrath against sin, and to secure the church unto Christ as his own, as that which he has appropriated at so costly a price. If this work of propitiation is rightly considered, and its value as thus declared as applied in result, how much does it show that the dignity of this Redeemer exceeds that of a mere man. His blood was so unspeakably precious that it was capable of outweighing, even before God, the sins of all his people and this it is that shows how exalted must be the person of whom such things could be spoken. If this passage, as rightly read, does not declare our Lord\'s Godhead, it still states, in clearest words, his redemption and Lordship. John dowe, Doctor po kopirane!



И з п р а т и   м н е н и е

Име:

E-mail:
Мнение:
Въведи числото в дясно: verification image, type it in the box






ОЩЕ ОТ:   ЗА БИБЛИЯТА
Нов дословен превод на Новия завет
Обещаната земя
„И Словото стана плът”
Берия
Църквата в Коринт
Църквата в Рим
Църквата в Солун
Галатия
Човешкият пример за съзнание Христово
За портите
Кеносис – примерът на Христос
Човешкото управление
За благовестието
Времето на съвестта
Основаване на църквата във Филипи


05 Март 2012 г.
Съдът в Ню Йорк удължи правото на църквите да наемат училищни сгради за своите богослужения
Федералният апелативен съд отхвърли опита на Ню Йорк да забрани на църквите да провеждат своите богослужения в сградите на...
05 Март 2012 г.
Църковно служение осигурява помощ за сухите райони на Кения
Лодвар, Кения – Тревата отново е зелена заради дъждовете наскоро. Камили и огромни костенурки празнуват зеленото изобилие....
05 Март 2012 г.
Хората са по-слабо чувствителни към проблемите на християнството в сравнение с другите религии, смята директорът на Би Би Си
Марк Томпсън – генерален директор на Би Би Си, твърди, че хората проявяват много по-малка чувствителност по теми, свързани...
05 Март 2012 г.
Евангелско сдружение в Канада публикува доклад за въздействието на религиозното преследване върху децата
Евангелското дружество към Комисията за религиозна свобода в Канада публикува доклад с подробна информация за характера и ...
03 Март 2012 г.
Какви са религиозните и социални нагласи на британските християни през 2011 г.
Социологическо проучване на фондация „Ричард Докинс” (Великобритания) показва, че британските християни са с преобладаващо...
02 Март 2012 г.
Сирийските християни са поставени натясно, алармират правозащитници
Тъй като Сирия все повече се доближава до етапа, в който ще бъде обявена мащабна гражданска война, очертаващите се перспек...
02 Март 2012 г.
Открит е фрагмент от Новия завет, датиращ от 1. век
След откриването на фрагмент от Евангелието на Марк в Близкия изток, датиращ от 1. век, се появиха още две нови писмени на...
02 Март 2012 г.
Хавайска двойка използва изкуството като възможност да занесе духовна надежда в Япония
Десет месеца след като чудовищното земетресение от 9 степен по скалата по Рихтер и последвалото цунами опустошиха част от ...
01 Март 2012 г.
Проектът за Ноев ковчег в реални размери се сдоби със земя
Последното парче земя, необходимо за построяването на Ноев ковчег в реални размери, бе закупено наскоро в Уилямстаун, Кент...
01 Март 2012 г.
Фондация в защита на семейството започва петиция в защита на традиционния брак
След като правителството на Великобритания насрочи публични консултации за еднополовите бракове, през март 2012 г. Коалици...
01 Март 2012 г.
78-годишна християнка арестувана в Иран
Тайните служби в Иран вземат мерки срещу растежа на християнството и движението на домашните църкви в Иран и арестуват мно...
29 Февруари 2012 г.
Норвегия планира ролята на семейството да бъде поета от държавата
Норвежкото Министерство на семейството, децата и социалните въпроси предложи на правителството да въведе нови критерии за ...
29 Февруари 2012 г.
Изправен пред смъртта, известен пастор преосмисля значението на думата християнин
Вашингтон – Ед Добсън не се бои от смъртта, притеснява се как ще стигне до нея. Добсън е пастор с опит, политически актив...
28 Февруари 2012 г.
Учени твърдят, че постенето ни пази от алцхаймер и паркинсон
Според американски учени редовното постене може да предпази мозъка от дегенеративни болести. Изследователи от Националния ...
eXTReMe Tracker
 

www.evangelskivestnik.net © 2018 Студио 865. Всички права запазени.
дизайн и програмиране: УебДизайн ООД Професионалистите се отличават