codex of vaticanus a forgery?
- Thread starter Apostol2013
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Here is a good article that shows several of the corruptions that are in the Vaticanus manuscript.
Codex Vaticanus
This very manuscript is responsible for over 36,000 changes that appear in the modern versions today.
Codex Vaticanus
This very manuscript is responsible for over 36,000 changes that appear in the modern versions today.
E
Interesting is the fact this text is almost the oldest greek manuscript known. much older than the textus receptus. which is mostly a greek text translated from a latin text..
so how could this have been written to discredit a kjv text. when it is much older than the text which the kjv was translated from?
so how could this have been written to discredit a kjv text. when it is much older than the text which the kjv was translated from?
M
Incorrect. The KJV was written and published in opposition to the Catholic Church. And it's not "codex of vaticanus," but codex Vaticanus.
Also incorrect. King James was an "enemy" of the Catholic Church, and the feeling was mutual. Neither king nor pope--or their fanatical followers--demonstrated any Christian love (John 5:37-42).
Also incorrect. King James was an "enemy" of the Catholic Church, and the feeling was mutual. Neither king nor pope--or their fanatical followers--demonstrated any Christian love (John 5:37-42).
There are some 5,366 Greek hand-transcribed manuscripts (mss) of the New Testament; the original Bible was hand-copied onto sheep-skin and papyrus (in Egypt), and, in turn, copied, as the copies (manuscripts) wore out. 95% of them say exactly the same thing, word-for-word by hand-copiers, with only tiny mistakes regarding individual letters, words, etc., that were corrected back to the original, afterwards, in the next copies made. Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, two of the oldest, differ from the rest of the 5,366, in almost every verse. They are extremely faulty, leaving out entire verses, being contradicting by the rest so often, as to be unworthy of very use! They cross out and attempt to correct mistakes, add the copier's own comments, change words and sentences to suit the copiers' wishes, etc. The two manuscripts even contradict each other so often as to almost say opposite things! It was for the perverse and inaccurate nature of these manuscripts that they were very early recognized as unworthy for use in church, and especially unworthy of being copied! In fact, when Count von Tischendorff discovered Sinaiticus in the Monastery on Mount Sinai in the 1800s, he found it being burnt by the monks there! He pulled some of the leaves out of the fireplace, and the rest out of the garbage bin! It was because of their perverse nature that these mss were placed on back shelves in the monastery, and at the Vatican (one, - in ancient times - did NOT destroy copies of the Bible, especially since it took so long to make them!) This had the ironic result of PRESERVING the two MOST CORRUPT hand-written copies of the Bible ever made! But, because these two mss (which often contradict each other) are as a result some of the oldest surviving, these two corrupt mss are the primary sources of most modern translations of the Bible! The other approximately 5,000 manuscripts, which all say the same thing, are ignored by these translations because they are more recent copies, their predecessors having been worn-out by much use!
Westcott and Hort, the two men who started the practice of using Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in modern translations, in the late 1800's, were fans of Charles Darwin, and of the anti-God, 'new thought,' that he brought into late 19th century thinking. And as a result of their saying that we can't be sure what the original manuscripts said (because of the gross inaccuracies of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), people who didn't want to obey Scripture were given a new excuse: they could now claim that, 'the original manuscripts didn't say that!' or, 'the Bible wasn't translated accurately in this place or that.'
But God, Who put the effort into making His Bible pure: Psalm 12:6 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tested in a furnace of earth, purified seven times," also ensured that they would be PRESERVED pure! One would be useless without the other! While Westcott and Hort attempted to place maximum doubt on the Bible, God, and His preservation of the Scripture in more than 5,000 identical hand-copies of the New Testament over 2,000 years, has ensured maximum CONFIDENCE in His pure Words!
For this reason, The King James Version of the Bible is the most accurate (COMPLETELY accurate) version of the Bible. The King James Version, as did every translation before it, uses the, 'Textus Receptus (Received Text),' those 5,000 hand-copies of the Greek New Testament, which all say exactly the same thing. Modern translations work from Westcott and Hort's attempts at Bible translation, and, as a result, differ vastly from each other, and create maximum doubt in the reader. The informed believer's confidence in the King James Version isn't merely an affection for the traditional; it's a confidence in what God has given the church throughout the centuries... and is based upon an informed understanding of the nature of the 5,366 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, which preserve for us a rock-solid and complete understanding of what God gave us in His Word.
Westcott and Hort, the two men who started the practice of using Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in modern translations, in the late 1800's, were fans of Charles Darwin, and of the anti-God, 'new thought,' that he brought into late 19th century thinking. And as a result of their saying that we can't be sure what the original manuscripts said (because of the gross inaccuracies of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), people who didn't want to obey Scripture were given a new excuse: they could now claim that, 'the original manuscripts didn't say that!' or, 'the Bible wasn't translated accurately in this place or that.'
But God, Who put the effort into making His Bible pure: Psalm 12:6 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tested in a furnace of earth, purified seven times," also ensured that they would be PRESERVED pure! One would be useless without the other! While Westcott and Hort attempted to place maximum doubt on the Bible, God, and His preservation of the Scripture in more than 5,000 identical hand-copies of the New Testament over 2,000 years, has ensured maximum CONFIDENCE in His pure Words!
For this reason, The King James Version of the Bible is the most accurate (COMPLETELY accurate) version of the Bible. The King James Version, as did every translation before it, uses the, 'Textus Receptus (Received Text),' those 5,000 hand-copies of the Greek New Testament, which all say exactly the same thing. Modern translations work from Westcott and Hort's attempts at Bible translation, and, as a result, differ vastly from each other, and create maximum doubt in the reader. The informed believer's confidence in the King James Version isn't merely an affection for the traditional; it's a confidence in what God has given the church throughout the centuries... and is based upon an informed understanding of the nature of the 5,366 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, which preserve for us a rock-solid and complete understanding of what God gave us in His Word.
G
Vaticanus is not "the mother of all modern translations," this is absolutely wrong. There are actually a host of witnesses that comprise the underlying Greek text of the NIV, and other modern translations. The evidence from those witnesses may sway in such a way that agrees with Vaticanus, but that does not mean that Vaticanus is "the mother of all modern translations," and is the sole mss utilized, and to suggest this is completely dishonest. The method textual critics use is by a comparison of all textual variants from the Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine traditions, looking for the readings which have the earliest attestation, and broadest geographic distribution throughout the world. Also, the reading that can best explain the other variants is generally considered to be the original. Thus, we have Greek apparatuses such as the Nestle-Aland 28.
I can show places throughout the Nestle-Aland 28 where it agrees with Vaticanus (and subsequently, other mss prior to the time of Vaticanus), and I can show places where Nestle-Aland 28 also disagrees with Vaticanus by utilizing the same methods.
The underlying Greek text used in the NWT (Jehovah's Witness) is the Westcott-Hort (1881) text which only utilizes a limited number of mss. Westcott-Hort did not have all the mss we have today, many have been found in the past 70 years, such as p46, p66, p72, p75, all of which are some of our oldest NT documents.
I can show places throughout the Nestle-Aland 28 where it agrees with Vaticanus (and subsequently, other mss prior to the time of Vaticanus), and I can show places where Nestle-Aland 28 also disagrees with Vaticanus by utilizing the same methods.
The underlying Greek text used in the NWT (Jehovah's Witness) is the Westcott-Hort (1881) text which only utilizes a limited number of mss. Westcott-Hort did not have all the mss we have today, many have been found in the past 70 years, such as p46, p66, p72, p75, all of which are some of our oldest NT documents.
G
Uh, no. The actual count of mss is just over 5,800, and no two mss ever agree with each other 100%. We can take any two of the 5,800 mss, and no two will ever agree exactly (the same is true with the TR which actually has unique readings not found in any other mss in the world), so this entire argument is just riddled with errors. This is why textual critics observe all variants, one passage at a time.
Last edited:
G
There's no contradictions, or anything of the sort. You assume that the KJV is the standard, and compare all other translations to it. If one were to assume that the Nestle-Aland 28 is the standard, then the KJV has many additions.
You are free to use whatever translation you like, but do not falsify the evidence. KJV-Onlyists are ill-equipped to take on forms of Unitarianism. Translations such as the ESV, NET, NASB are much better equipped to defend the Deity of Christ than the traditional KJV. This can be shown in passages such as 2 Peter 1.1 ("our God and Savior Jesus Christ" vs. "our God and our Savior Jesus Christ"), Titus 2.13 ("the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ" vs. "the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ"), Jude 5 ("that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe" vs. "the Lord, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe"), John 1.18 ("No one has seen God at any time; the one and only, [who is Himself] God, the one who is in the bosom of the Father" vs. "No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father"), John 14.14 ("If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it" vs. "If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it").
In fact, many sectarian groups will attempt to utilize the KJV to reinforce their position on passages such as John 14.14 (is Christ permitting prayer to Himself, or to the Father?), 2 Peter 1.1 (Is Christ called "our God and Savior," or is this distinguishing between two people?), and John 1.18 (Is Christ given the Divine title, or is He referred to as the Son?). According to the TR, Christ is not directing prayer to Himself at John 14.14; Christ is distinguished from God at 2 Peter 1.1; and Christ is not given the Divine title at John 1.18. However, just the opposite is true when we utilize Nestle-Aland 28.
You are free to use whatever translation you like, but do not falsify the evidence. KJV-Onlyists are ill-equipped to take on forms of Unitarianism. Translations such as the ESV, NET, NASB are much better equipped to defend the Deity of Christ than the traditional KJV. This can be shown in passages such as 2 Peter 1.1 ("our God and Savior Jesus Christ" vs. "our God and our Savior Jesus Christ"), Titus 2.13 ("the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ" vs. "the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ"), Jude 5 ("that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe" vs. "the Lord, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe"), John 1.18 ("No one has seen God at any time; the one and only, [who is Himself] God, the one who is in the bosom of the Father" vs. "No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father"), John 14.14 ("If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it" vs. "If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it").
In fact, many sectarian groups will attempt to utilize the KJV to reinforce their position on passages such as John 14.14 (is Christ permitting prayer to Himself, or to the Father?), 2 Peter 1.1 (Is Christ called "our God and Savior," or is this distinguishing between two people?), and John 1.18 (Is Christ given the Divine title, or is He referred to as the Son?). According to the TR, Christ is not directing prayer to Himself at John 14.14; Christ is distinguished from God at 2 Peter 1.1; and Christ is not given the Divine title at John 1.18. However, just the opposite is true when we utilize Nestle-Aland 28.
Last edited: