King James Bible ONLY? Or NOT?
- Thread starter Dai3234
- 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.
And when your HCSB lies to you, what do you think? Is you HCSB the word of truth?
2 Samuel 21:19 Once again there was a battle with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite. The shaft of his spear was like a weaver’s beam. I thought David killed Goliath.
Matthew 5:22 But I tell you, everyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Fool!’ will be subject to the Sanhedrin. But whoever says, ‘You moron!’ will be subject to hellfire. I guess Jesus is subject to judgment.
Psalm 8:5 You made him little less than God and crowned him with glory and honor. A little less than God? No, angels.
Isaiah 53:5 But He was pierced because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; punishment for our peace was on Him, and we are healed by His wounds. Crushed? Nope, bruised. Not a bone of His body was broken.
Just to name a few of many...
2 Samuel 21:19 Once again there was a battle with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite. The shaft of his spear was like a weaver’s beam. I thought David killed Goliath.
Matthew 5:22 But I tell you, everyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Fool!’ will be subject to the Sanhedrin. But whoever says, ‘You moron!’ will be subject to hellfire. I guess Jesus is subject to judgment.
Psalm 8:5 You made him little less than God and crowned him with glory and honor. A little less than God? No, angels.
Isaiah 53:5 But He was pierced because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; punishment for our peace was on Him, and we are healed by His wounds. Crushed? Nope, bruised. Not a bone of His body was broken.
Just to name a few of many...
Manuscripts have variants. Can't call them "Scripture" either.
There are variants of the KJV. Can't call it Scripture, either.
It's all bologna.
NIV, KJV, NAS, NLB...and so on...all honest attempts to translate original Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic manuscripts into English so we have a way of reading/understanding the original Scripture.
There are variants of the KJV. Can't call it Scripture, either.
It's all bologna.
NIV, KJV, NAS, NLB...and so on...all honest attempts to translate original Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic manuscripts into English so we have a way of reading/understanding the original Scripture.
W
New-Age Bibles, the Alexandrian Text and the great controversy....Part 1
I would like to establish that I am not a King Jams only subscriber. The 16[SUP]th[/SUP] century bibles Tyndale, Geneva, Bishops etc. are excellent bibles, all translated for the Majority Greek Text. However they were not quite as purified in the language punctuation to the degree of the KJB. Mainly because the language was still developing to its height at the end of the `16[SUP]th[/SUP] century. Williams Tyndale’s bible is most excellent translation, as it was he who developed many words in the English language by combing old Middle English with Koine Greek verbiage as well as the Hebrew, forming such beautiful prose and words as (mercy seat, showbread, atonement, passover, scapegoat, and Jehovah taken form the Hebrew YHWH,) along with a multitude of others. He is actually the father of modern fluent English, he would become the most influential – though unrecognized – translator of English in history. Truly, for Tyndale and for us, “a word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver” (Proverbs 25:11). William Tyndale: The Father of English Prose
Majority Text, Antioch Text, Byzantine Text are all from the same families of manuscripts which though a traceable chain of evidence agree with each other 95%. These names are interchangeable when referencing them as the Textus Receptus, or the majority received text, consisting of about 5400 Greek manuscripts. Most of these were compiled between 1505-1641...Many of the manuscripts came to western Europe from Constantinople in the middle to later part of the 15th century because of the invasions by the Ottoman Empire. They are the manuscripts that Erasmus gathered for 20 years around the known libraries of the world for the purpose of putting into print the first Greek/Latin 16h century bible, (1515) shortly after the discovery of the printing press.
The Textus Receptus (TR) belongs to the stream of early apostolic manuscripts from Antioch. This set of manuscripts was the bible of early Christian faith. The opposing Dr. Hort even admits this when he says, "It is no wonder that the traditional Constantinopolitan text, whether formally official or not, was the Antiochian text of the fourth century. It was equally natural that the text recognized at Constantinople should eventually become in practice the standard New Testament of the East." (Revision Revised, John Burgon, p. 134.) Regardless of where you stand on the "textual debate," this is the fact; the foundational text of all English bible New Testament translations beginning with William Tyndale in 1525 up unto 1880 was from the Antioch, Byzantine, or Majority Text group which consists of about 5400 manuscripts. The only exception to this was the RCC Douay Rheims NT of 1582. Hence, all of the bibles from Tyndale to King James were taken from the harmonious majority text (the Textus Receptus).
The majority text manuscripts have in agreement within them by far the vast majority of copies of the original text. So vast, is this majority that even the enemies of the TR admit that 95% of all Greek manuscripts are of this nature. Actually, in number, 99% of all the manuscripts that exist in the world are of the Byzantine text family or Traditional text family. They also agree with the earliest versions of the Pershitta bible (150 AD) ....Hence, only 45 of the 5400 manuscripts followed the minority or Alexandrian type text group, also known as the Critical Text, which amounts to less than 1%, yet are esteemed by scholars in all the new-age bibles since West-Cott & Hort. Thus establishing "the oldest and most reliable" myth. In any case, the "oldest" argument is a red herring because "oldest" is not necessarily equivalent to "best." And now that more truith has been revealed we find out that they are not the oldest either. These few manuscripts supposedly disappeared from use from the fourth century until the late nineteenth century leaving no chain of evidence to their validity. Therefore, today, what passes for 'the original Greek' is indeed both modern and corrupted and must be approved under final authority of the Vatican through Nestle Aland.
The church throughout history never used these Alexandrian manuscripts (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus). They always knew that these manuscripts were corrupt. Therefore, Erasmus, having access to all libraries in Europe, including the Vatican, discarded them when sent to him for review by Cardinal Paulus Bombasius in 1521 who was in regular correspondence with Erasmus during the time of the great 1 John 5-7 controversy. The Vaticanus, Codex 1209, appears to be written around 1475 AD, at least 1100 years after what they claim it to be... A number of unpublished letters of Paulus Bombasius are housed in the Vatican Library. He informed Erasmus that the Vatican Library held an old copy of the Scriptures (i.e. the Codex Vaticanus, codex b, 1209; or 03 Gregory Aland ,) written on 759 leaves of vellum in Uncials, (capital letters minus punctuation), extremely poor and sloppy work, and not that of qualified scribes. "It was written by three scribes" according to the Encyclopedia Britannica which goes on to state that then much later changes were made by two other scribes (Encyclopedia Britannica - 11th Edition; vol.3; p879). The claim is that went dormant and unnoticed in the Vatican Library for many years until it became known to textual scholars in 1475. There is now proof that it originated in the latter part of the 15[SUP]th[/SUP] century. It could never gain favour among scholars until Tishendorph magical produced the Sinaticus in the middle 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century. It has no chain of evidence. Fenton Hort who was seeking to undermine the text from Antioch needed a second witness to the Vaticanus, and said he was sure that Tishendorph would provide him with rich new material before the committee at Oxford began in 1871. Note: there was no blood shed or persecution in defense of these corrupted text.
The Vaticanus was used by the RCC. "Pope Sixtus V made it the basis of an edition of the Greek Old Testament in 1580" (The New Archeological Discoveries and Their Bearing Upon the New Testament by Camden M. Cobern; published by Funk and Wagnalls 1922; p.136). There are some paleographers that believe that the principal scribe who prepared this codex could not even read Greek, because spaces sometimes appear in the middle of a word. It is to be believed it was a continuation of writers and quite possibly begging with Origin’s Hexapla. The Septuagint LXX contains only about a third of the OT. This LXX proved to be very inaccurate therefore they still use the Hebrew Text for the OT in the post 1880 bibles. See What is the Septuagint?
Note: the LXX (Septuagent) began being written around 250 AD. It is not a BC era translation that it is hyped to be. But that is another subject all together.
In fact, the Vatican kept Vaticanus manuscript sequestered and took great pains to be sure it was not readily available to outsiders for about another 400 years, when the time was right for new-age propaganda (the critical text movement) questioning the validity of the Received Text from Antioch (TR) along with a massive attack on the KJV. It was not published to scholars until it was issued in five different volumes between 1828 - 1838. From 1843-1866, leading scholars Constantine von Tischendorf and S.P. Tregelles were allowed to look at it for a few hours, but not allowed to copy the manuscript. So it was not really a new discovery by Tischendorf in the 19th century, as the false Pundits proclaim, although the Sinaiticus codex Aleph (A) was a new discovery, but "The entire manuscript has had the text mutilated, every letter has been run over with a pen, making exact identification of many of the characters impossible." (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus - ww.waynejackson. freeserve. co.uk/kjv /v2.htm).
Eugene Scott, collector of manuscripts notes"the manuscript is faded in places; scholars think it was overwritten letter by letter in the 10th or 11th century, with accents and breathing [marks] added along with corrections from the 8th, 10th and 15th centuries. All this activity makes precise paleographic analysis impossible. Missing portions were supplied in the 15th century by copying other Greek manuscripts." (Codex Vaticanus by Dr. W. Eugene Scott, 1996).
The Uncials or Majuscules ; Uncial comes from the Latin word uncialis, which means inch-high. It is used to delineate a type of Greek and Latin writing which features capital letters. There are few, if any, divisions between words in uncial manuscripts and no punctuation to speak of. The word majuscule, meaning large or capital letter, is a synonym for uncial. There are some 267 uncials. Three of the most famous uncial New Testament manuscripts are the fourth century manuscripts Sinaiticus and Vatican-us and the fifth century Codex Alexandrius. Pastor David L. Brown, Ph.D. The Dean Burgon Society's 2000 Annual Meeting, The Great Uncials?
Willie
I would like to establish that I am not a King Jams only subscriber. The 16[SUP]th[/SUP] century bibles Tyndale, Geneva, Bishops etc. are excellent bibles, all translated for the Majority Greek Text. However they were not quite as purified in the language punctuation to the degree of the KJB. Mainly because the language was still developing to its height at the end of the `16[SUP]th[/SUP] century. Williams Tyndale’s bible is most excellent translation, as it was he who developed many words in the English language by combing old Middle English with Koine Greek verbiage as well as the Hebrew, forming such beautiful prose and words as (mercy seat, showbread, atonement, passover, scapegoat, and Jehovah taken form the Hebrew YHWH,) along with a multitude of others. He is actually the father of modern fluent English, he would become the most influential – though unrecognized – translator of English in history. Truly, for Tyndale and for us, “a word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver” (Proverbs 25:11). William Tyndale: The Father of English Prose
Majority Text, Antioch Text, Byzantine Text are all from the same families of manuscripts which though a traceable chain of evidence agree with each other 95%. These names are interchangeable when referencing them as the Textus Receptus, or the majority received text, consisting of about 5400 Greek manuscripts. Most of these were compiled between 1505-1641...Many of the manuscripts came to western Europe from Constantinople in the middle to later part of the 15th century because of the invasions by the Ottoman Empire. They are the manuscripts that Erasmus gathered for 20 years around the known libraries of the world for the purpose of putting into print the first Greek/Latin 16h century bible, (1515) shortly after the discovery of the printing press.
The Textus Receptus (TR) belongs to the stream of early apostolic manuscripts from Antioch. This set of manuscripts was the bible of early Christian faith. The opposing Dr. Hort even admits this when he says, "It is no wonder that the traditional Constantinopolitan text, whether formally official or not, was the Antiochian text of the fourth century. It was equally natural that the text recognized at Constantinople should eventually become in practice the standard New Testament of the East." (Revision Revised, John Burgon, p. 134.) Regardless of where you stand on the "textual debate," this is the fact; the foundational text of all English bible New Testament translations beginning with William Tyndale in 1525 up unto 1880 was from the Antioch, Byzantine, or Majority Text group which consists of about 5400 manuscripts. The only exception to this was the RCC Douay Rheims NT of 1582. Hence, all of the bibles from Tyndale to King James were taken from the harmonious majority text (the Textus Receptus).
The majority text manuscripts have in agreement within them by far the vast majority of copies of the original text. So vast, is this majority that even the enemies of the TR admit that 95% of all Greek manuscripts are of this nature. Actually, in number, 99% of all the manuscripts that exist in the world are of the Byzantine text family or Traditional text family. They also agree with the earliest versions of the Pershitta bible (150 AD) ....Hence, only 45 of the 5400 manuscripts followed the minority or Alexandrian type text group, also known as the Critical Text, which amounts to less than 1%, yet are esteemed by scholars in all the new-age bibles since West-Cott & Hort. Thus establishing "the oldest and most reliable" myth. In any case, the "oldest" argument is a red herring because "oldest" is not necessarily equivalent to "best." And now that more truith has been revealed we find out that they are not the oldest either. These few manuscripts supposedly disappeared from use from the fourth century until the late nineteenth century leaving no chain of evidence to their validity. Therefore, today, what passes for 'the original Greek' is indeed both modern and corrupted and must be approved under final authority of the Vatican through Nestle Aland.
The church throughout history never used these Alexandrian manuscripts (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus). They always knew that these manuscripts were corrupt. Therefore, Erasmus, having access to all libraries in Europe, including the Vatican, discarded them when sent to him for review by Cardinal Paulus Bombasius in 1521 who was in regular correspondence with Erasmus during the time of the great 1 John 5-7 controversy. The Vaticanus, Codex 1209, appears to be written around 1475 AD, at least 1100 years after what they claim it to be... A number of unpublished letters of Paulus Bombasius are housed in the Vatican Library. He informed Erasmus that the Vatican Library held an old copy of the Scriptures (i.e. the Codex Vaticanus, codex b, 1209; or 03 Gregory Aland ,) written on 759 leaves of vellum in Uncials, (capital letters minus punctuation), extremely poor and sloppy work, and not that of qualified scribes. "It was written by three scribes" according to the Encyclopedia Britannica which goes on to state that then much later changes were made by two other scribes (Encyclopedia Britannica - 11th Edition; vol.3; p879). The claim is that went dormant and unnoticed in the Vatican Library for many years until it became known to textual scholars in 1475. There is now proof that it originated in the latter part of the 15[SUP]th[/SUP] century. It could never gain favour among scholars until Tishendorph magical produced the Sinaticus in the middle 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century. It has no chain of evidence. Fenton Hort who was seeking to undermine the text from Antioch needed a second witness to the Vaticanus, and said he was sure that Tishendorph would provide him with rich new material before the committee at Oxford began in 1871. Note: there was no blood shed or persecution in defense of these corrupted text.
The Vaticanus was used by the RCC. "Pope Sixtus V made it the basis of an edition of the Greek Old Testament in 1580" (The New Archeological Discoveries and Their Bearing Upon the New Testament by Camden M. Cobern; published by Funk and Wagnalls 1922; p.136). There are some paleographers that believe that the principal scribe who prepared this codex could not even read Greek, because spaces sometimes appear in the middle of a word. It is to be believed it was a continuation of writers and quite possibly begging with Origin’s Hexapla. The Septuagint LXX contains only about a third of the OT. This LXX proved to be very inaccurate therefore they still use the Hebrew Text for the OT in the post 1880 bibles. See What is the Septuagint?
Note: the LXX (Septuagent) began being written around 250 AD. It is not a BC era translation that it is hyped to be. But that is another subject all together.
In fact, the Vatican kept Vaticanus manuscript sequestered and took great pains to be sure it was not readily available to outsiders for about another 400 years, when the time was right for new-age propaganda (the critical text movement) questioning the validity of the Received Text from Antioch (TR) along with a massive attack on the KJV. It was not published to scholars until it was issued in five different volumes between 1828 - 1838. From 1843-1866, leading scholars Constantine von Tischendorf and S.P. Tregelles were allowed to look at it for a few hours, but not allowed to copy the manuscript. So it was not really a new discovery by Tischendorf in the 19th century, as the false Pundits proclaim, although the Sinaiticus codex Aleph (A) was a new discovery, but "The entire manuscript has had the text mutilated, every letter has been run over with a pen, making exact identification of many of the characters impossible." (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus - ww.waynejackson. freeserve. co.uk/kjv /v2.htm).
Eugene Scott, collector of manuscripts notes"the manuscript is faded in places; scholars think it was overwritten letter by letter in the 10th or 11th century, with accents and breathing [marks] added along with corrections from the 8th, 10th and 15th centuries. All this activity makes precise paleographic analysis impossible. Missing portions were supplied in the 15th century by copying other Greek manuscripts." (Codex Vaticanus by Dr. W. Eugene Scott, 1996).
The Uncials or Majuscules ; Uncial comes from the Latin word uncialis, which means inch-high. It is used to delineate a type of Greek and Latin writing which features capital letters. There are few, if any, divisions between words in uncial manuscripts and no punctuation to speak of. The word majuscule, meaning large or capital letter, is a synonym for uncial. There are some 267 uncials. Three of the most famous uncial New Testament manuscripts are the fourth century manuscripts Sinaiticus and Vatican-us and the fifth century Codex Alexandrius. Pastor David L. Brown, Ph.D. The Dean Burgon Society's 2000 Annual Meeting, The Great Uncials?
Willie
W
Part 2
Other support for the Majority Text. There also exists a large support and chain of evidence for the Majority Text found in the Armenian, Ethiopic, Gothic, Latin, and Syriac translations, some of these were even written before the earliest Greek manuscripts that have been compiled. But despite this fact, and the many chains of evidence confirming the TR, suspicious activities came in the 19th century placing doubt upon the validity of these received manuscripts. Hence, through a movement to find new text and to follow the manuscripts of the highly suspect Codex Vaticanus/ Sinaiticus, results today in many passages of the NT being altered or having been left out altogether.
http://thedivinelyinspiredscripture...ipture-in-the-faulty-alexandrian-text-docx-2/
Mischeivus scholars claimed that much of the first 14 chapters of the gospel of John were corrupted by scribes in the later Byzantine Era, thus seeking to bring about a query of doubt to justify the tainted Alexandrian manuscripts, Vaticanus & Sinaiticus, or Critical Text. However, with the discovery of the Papyrus, Bodmer II (Papyrus 66) from 175 AD, a nearly a complete codex of the gospel of John. John 1:1-6:11, 6:35b-14:26, 29-30; 15:2-26; 16:2-4, 6-7; 16:10-20:20, 22-23; 20:25-21:9, 12, 17.
The Greeks started to use papyrus around 900 BC, and then later the Romans adopted it also. Its fragments confirm many of the disputed passages not found in the Critical Text. These writings verified many passages attributed to late Byzantine manuscripts omitted in the Critical Text, and proved they were present in the very early manuscripts which also line up with the writings of the early church fathers.
. It is housed in John Rylands Library, Manchester, England. The fragment is believed to have been written some time between 98 and 138 AD. (The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts; Philip W. Comfort& David P. Barrett; 1999 Baker Books; p.17-18).
There are six papyri that I am aware of, which record large portions of the New Testament. P45, dated around 200 AD, contains portions of all four Gospels and Acts. P46, from the second century, has almost all the Paul's epistles and Hebrews. P47, also from the second century, contains . These are from what is called the Beatty Papyri housed in Dublin Castle in Dublin Ireland. Then there are three lengthy papyri from the Bodmer Papyri. P66 is a second century papyrus that contains almost all of John. P72, a third or fourth century papyrus, contains all of 1 and 2 Peter and Jude. Finally, P75, dated between 175-200 AD, contains the most of . David L. Brown,
The great 18th century quest to replace the KJB.
After Hort made the claim that Tischendorf would find him new material to rewrite the scriptures, Konstantin Von Tischendorf came up with Codex Vaticanus #1209, and Codex Vaticanus # 2061, (Codex B) (supposedly more new found copies from the Vaticanus Library in Rome). Along with the never before discovered Codex Sinaiticus, (Codex A, or Aleph) at Mt Sinai (St Catherin's Cathedral) which also included the unknown "Shepard of Hermes" of which he later claimed to be forged. This codex Aleph, also supposedly from mid-4th century, was magically discovered by Tischendorf at St. Catharine's Monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai in 1859. He counted 14,800 corrections grafted into the Sinaiticus manuscripts. Even these two Codex's, A and B, do not agree with each other in thousands of places. "There are 3036 differences between the readings in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in the Gospels alone" (Codex B and Its Allies by Herman Hoskier; volume 2, p.1).
Sinaiticus Codex A, 346 leaves, written in Uncial characters, (All CAPS) are in the National British Library today, and another 43 leaves at the University Library at Leipzig . "The original provenance of the codex is debatable, but the two likeliest contenders seem to be Egypt and Caesarea. It was certainly present in the library at Caesarea sometime between the fifth and seventh centuries, where it was corrected at one point against a manuscript that had been corrected against the original Hexapla of Origen by the martyr Pamphilius. Although it has frequently been suggested, it is unlikely that Sinaiticus (or Codex Vaticanus, a very similar manuscript) was one of the fifty parchment books ordered by the Emperor Constantine. The text of the OT reflects the Old Greek (where it has been determined), though it is inferior to Vaticanus in most books. In the NT, Sinaiticus is frequently cited as an Alexandrian witness. However, in , at least, it contains a text more closely related to the Western tradition." (Codex Sinaiticus by James R. Adair, Jr. - Expanded by the author from his article in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible).... Tischendorf "He recognized seven correctors of the text" (The Catholic Encyclopedia On-line; Codex Sinaiticus).
"On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people." (Which Is The Right Version of the Bible; www.waynejackson. freeserve.co.uk/kjv/v2.htm). He continues in saying, "the New Testamentis extremely unreliableon many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40, words are droppedletters, words even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same word as the clause preceding occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament."
"This codes was compared with a very ancient exemplar which had been corrected by the hand of the holy martyr Pamphilus [died 309 AD]; which exemplar contained at the end of the subscription in his own hand: 'Taken and corrected according to the Hexapla of Origen: Antonius compared it: I, Pamphilus, corrected it.'" The problem is that Origen was a Bible corrupter, who said that “God did not mean what He said and did not say what He meant" he was moving away from the pure text of Scripture which had come from the Apostles hands." (Rome and The Bible; by David Cloud; published by Way of Life Literature, 1996; p. 22). There is good reason to come to this conclusion. Origin "cited the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, on the former part of the Canon, he appealed to the authority of Valentinus and Heracleon on the latter. While he thus raised the credit of those revisals, which had been made by heretics, he detracted from the authority of that text which had been received by the orthodox. Some of the difficulties which he found himself unable to solve in the Evangelsits, he undertook to remove" (Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate by Frederick Nolan; published 1815; p.432).
Vaticanus, Codex B "It contains the Epistle of Barnabas which teaches that water baptism saves the soul." (Which Version is The Bible? by Floyd Jones; published by Global Evangelism of Goodyear Arizona; p. 68). ...."Erasmus knew about Vaticanus B and its variant readings in 1515 AD while preparing the New Testament the New Testament Greek text. Because they read so differently from the fast majority of mss which he had seen, Erasmus considered such readings spurious." (Which Version is The Bible? by Floyd Jones; published by Global Evangelism of Goodyear Arizona; p. 68
It’s rather amazing that one man, Tischendorf, commissioned by Hort, would be able to come up with so much manuscript material regarding extant Alexandrian writings. Constantine Simonides was said to be the greatest forger in the 19th century, and admitted that he was the one who forged them. "Tischendorf was only the senior of Simonides by 5 years, and in the science of Paleography had neither his knowledge nor his experience."--Farrar, 1907 Forgeries Tischendorf was responsible for presenting 3 of the top 4 Alexandrian manuscripts 01, 03, 04 (Codex B). I find the odds of this actually happening quite remarkable and extremely doubtful..
kjvonly2: Sinaiticus may really be a forgery after all...
(03), The Codex Vaticanus, which by the way, is not a specific name for any specific manuscript, but just a generic label since there are hundreds of Codex Vaticanus. It is merely a library identification, meaning it is a Codex belonging to the Vatican Library. Its real name is a number, "1209". This (03 manuscript) was twice written over, and has this note in the margin of page 1512, next to Hebrews 1:3, "Fool and knave, leave the old reading alone, and do not change it". It is said of its description that, "This re-inking had several side effects, all of them (from our standpoint) bad. First, it defaced the appearance of the letters, making it much harder to do paleographic work. Second, it rendered some of the readings of the original text impossible to reconstruct." Yet they hail this manuscript as a critical-text which is full of punctual and spelling errors. Every place you search it was Tischendorf's and Hort's name that shows up in Textual Criticism. Then furthered along with the names of Bruce Metzger and Aland of the 20th century.
These make up the critical text that prevails over the TR if an inquiry should come about within the new-age copy-write bibles in any given portion of the text, or specific verses. Therefore, only Alexandrian texts would be deemed proper and acceptable for final authority. I believe the main purpose, among other things, was to completely remove the Deity of Christ, His worship, and the Triune Godhead, of which is slowly being done over time. The new Message Bible has almost accomplished this, having only 2 verses that attest to it...I dare to think what the bibles will be like in another 30 years or so.
(04) The Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus was another of Tischendorf's discoveries/creations> possible forgery. The following are the words of Tischendorf's from a tract from the American Tract Society 1866. (04) of which was unable to have been read by anyone for centuries. Then after using the best scientific measures known possible in the mid-19th century it was still unreadable. Then Tischendorf came along and was able to read it completely, and translate it? We have only Tischendorf's word of what was in codex (04).
"The work I advert to was this. There lay in one of the libraries of Paris one of the most important manuscripts then known of the Greek text. This parchment manuscript, the writing of which, of the date of the fifth century, had been retouched and renewed in the seventh, and again in the ninth century, had, in the twelfth century, been submitted to a twofold process. It had been washed and pumiced, to write on it the treatises of an old father of the Church of the name of Ephrem. Five centuries later, a Swiss theologian of the name of Wetstein (Arian beliefs) had attempted to decipher a few traces of the original manuscript: and, later still, another theologian, Griesbach of Jena, came to try his skill on it, although the librarian assured him that it was impossible for mortal eye to decipher a writing which had disappeared for six centuries. In spite of these unsuccessful attempts, the French Government had recourse to powerful chemical reagents, to bring out the effaced characters. But a Leipzig theologian who was then a Paris, was so unsuccessful in this new attempt, that he asserted that it was impossible to produce an edition of this text, as the manuscript was quite illegible. It was after all these attempts that I began, in 1841-2, to try my skill at the manuscript, and had the good fortune to decipher it completely, and even to distinguish between the dates of the different writers who had been engaged on the manuscript."
Willie
Other support for the Majority Text. There also exists a large support and chain of evidence for the Majority Text found in the Armenian, Ethiopic, Gothic, Latin, and Syriac translations, some of these were even written before the earliest Greek manuscripts that have been compiled. But despite this fact, and the many chains of evidence confirming the TR, suspicious activities came in the 19th century placing doubt upon the validity of these received manuscripts. Hence, through a movement to find new text and to follow the manuscripts of the highly suspect Codex Vaticanus/ Sinaiticus, results today in many passages of the NT being altered or having been left out altogether.
http://thedivinelyinspiredscripture...ipture-in-the-faulty-alexandrian-text-docx-2/
Mischeivus scholars claimed that much of the first 14 chapters of the gospel of John were corrupted by scribes in the later Byzantine Era, thus seeking to bring about a query of doubt to justify the tainted Alexandrian manuscripts, Vaticanus & Sinaiticus, or Critical Text. However, with the discovery of the Papyrus, Bodmer II (Papyrus 66) from 175 AD, a nearly a complete codex of the gospel of John. John 1:1-6:11, 6:35b-14:26, 29-30; 15:2-26; 16:2-4, 6-7; 16:10-20:20, 22-23; 20:25-21:9, 12, 17.
The Greeks started to use papyrus around 900 BC, and then later the Romans adopted it also. Its fragments confirm many of the disputed passages not found in the Critical Text. These writings verified many passages attributed to late Byzantine manuscripts omitted in the Critical Text, and proved they were present in the very early manuscripts which also line up with the writings of the early church fathers.
. It is housed in John Rylands Library, Manchester, England. The fragment is believed to have been written some time between 98 and 138 AD. (The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts; Philip W. Comfort& David P. Barrett; 1999 Baker Books; p.17-18).
There are six papyri that I am aware of, which record large portions of the New Testament. P45, dated around 200 AD, contains portions of all four Gospels and Acts. P46, from the second century, has almost all the Paul's epistles and Hebrews. P47, also from the second century, contains . These are from what is called the Beatty Papyri housed in Dublin Castle in Dublin Ireland. Then there are three lengthy papyri from the Bodmer Papyri. P66 is a second century papyrus that contains almost all of John. P72, a third or fourth century papyrus, contains all of 1 and 2 Peter and Jude. Finally, P75, dated between 175-200 AD, contains the most of . David L. Brown,
The great 18th century quest to replace the KJB.
After Hort made the claim that Tischendorf would find him new material to rewrite the scriptures, Konstantin Von Tischendorf came up with Codex Vaticanus #1209, and Codex Vaticanus # 2061, (Codex B) (supposedly more new found copies from the Vaticanus Library in Rome). Along with the never before discovered Codex Sinaiticus, (Codex A, or Aleph) at Mt Sinai (St Catherin's Cathedral) which also included the unknown "Shepard of Hermes" of which he later claimed to be forged. This codex Aleph, also supposedly from mid-4th century, was magically discovered by Tischendorf at St. Catharine's Monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai in 1859. He counted 14,800 corrections grafted into the Sinaiticus manuscripts. Even these two Codex's, A and B, do not agree with each other in thousands of places. "There are 3036 differences between the readings in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in the Gospels alone" (Codex B and Its Allies by Herman Hoskier; volume 2, p.1).
Sinaiticus Codex A, 346 leaves, written in Uncial characters, (All CAPS) are in the National British Library today, and another 43 leaves at the University Library at Leipzig . "The original provenance of the codex is debatable, but the two likeliest contenders seem to be Egypt and Caesarea. It was certainly present in the library at Caesarea sometime between the fifth and seventh centuries, where it was corrected at one point against a manuscript that had been corrected against the original Hexapla of Origen by the martyr Pamphilius. Although it has frequently been suggested, it is unlikely that Sinaiticus (or Codex Vaticanus, a very similar manuscript) was one of the fifty parchment books ordered by the Emperor Constantine. The text of the OT reflects the Old Greek (where it has been determined), though it is inferior to Vaticanus in most books. In the NT, Sinaiticus is frequently cited as an Alexandrian witness. However, in , at least, it contains a text more closely related to the Western tradition." (Codex Sinaiticus by James R. Adair, Jr. - Expanded by the author from his article in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible).... Tischendorf "He recognized seven correctors of the text" (The Catholic Encyclopedia On-line; Codex Sinaiticus).
"On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people." (Which Is The Right Version of the Bible; www.waynejackson. freeserve.co.uk/kjv/v2.htm). He continues in saying, "the New Testamentis extremely unreliableon many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40, words are droppedletters, words even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same word as the clause preceding occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament."
"This codes was compared with a very ancient exemplar which had been corrected by the hand of the holy martyr Pamphilus [died 309 AD]; which exemplar contained at the end of the subscription in his own hand: 'Taken and corrected according to the Hexapla of Origen: Antonius compared it: I, Pamphilus, corrected it.'" The problem is that Origen was a Bible corrupter, who said that “God did not mean what He said and did not say what He meant" he was moving away from the pure text of Scripture which had come from the Apostles hands." (Rome and The Bible; by David Cloud; published by Way of Life Literature, 1996; p. 22). There is good reason to come to this conclusion. Origin "cited the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, on the former part of the Canon, he appealed to the authority of Valentinus and Heracleon on the latter. While he thus raised the credit of those revisals, which had been made by heretics, he detracted from the authority of that text which had been received by the orthodox. Some of the difficulties which he found himself unable to solve in the Evangelsits, he undertook to remove" (Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate by Frederick Nolan; published 1815; p.432).
Vaticanus, Codex B "It contains the Epistle of Barnabas which teaches that water baptism saves the soul." (Which Version is The Bible? by Floyd Jones; published by Global Evangelism of Goodyear Arizona; p. 68). ...."Erasmus knew about Vaticanus B and its variant readings in 1515 AD while preparing the New Testament the New Testament Greek text. Because they read so differently from the fast majority of mss which he had seen, Erasmus considered such readings spurious." (Which Version is The Bible? by Floyd Jones; published by Global Evangelism of Goodyear Arizona; p. 68
It’s rather amazing that one man, Tischendorf, commissioned by Hort, would be able to come up with so much manuscript material regarding extant Alexandrian writings. Constantine Simonides was said to be the greatest forger in the 19th century, and admitted that he was the one who forged them. "Tischendorf was only the senior of Simonides by 5 years, and in the science of Paleography had neither his knowledge nor his experience."--Farrar, 1907 Forgeries Tischendorf was responsible for presenting 3 of the top 4 Alexandrian manuscripts 01, 03, 04 (Codex B). I find the odds of this actually happening quite remarkable and extremely doubtful..
kjvonly2: Sinaiticus may really be a forgery after all...
(03), The Codex Vaticanus, which by the way, is not a specific name for any specific manuscript, but just a generic label since there are hundreds of Codex Vaticanus. It is merely a library identification, meaning it is a Codex belonging to the Vatican Library. Its real name is a number, "1209". This (03 manuscript) was twice written over, and has this note in the margin of page 1512, next to Hebrews 1:3, "Fool and knave, leave the old reading alone, and do not change it". It is said of its description that, "This re-inking had several side effects, all of them (from our standpoint) bad. First, it defaced the appearance of the letters, making it much harder to do paleographic work. Second, it rendered some of the readings of the original text impossible to reconstruct." Yet they hail this manuscript as a critical-text which is full of punctual and spelling errors. Every place you search it was Tischendorf's and Hort's name that shows up in Textual Criticism. Then furthered along with the names of Bruce Metzger and Aland of the 20th century.
These make up the critical text that prevails over the TR if an inquiry should come about within the new-age copy-write bibles in any given portion of the text, or specific verses. Therefore, only Alexandrian texts would be deemed proper and acceptable for final authority. I believe the main purpose, among other things, was to completely remove the Deity of Christ, His worship, and the Triune Godhead, of which is slowly being done over time. The new Message Bible has almost accomplished this, having only 2 verses that attest to it...I dare to think what the bibles will be like in another 30 years or so.
(04) The Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus was another of Tischendorf's discoveries/creations> possible forgery. The following are the words of Tischendorf's from a tract from the American Tract Society 1866. (04) of which was unable to have been read by anyone for centuries. Then after using the best scientific measures known possible in the mid-19th century it was still unreadable. Then Tischendorf came along and was able to read it completely, and translate it? We have only Tischendorf's word of what was in codex (04).
"The work I advert to was this. There lay in one of the libraries of Paris one of the most important manuscripts then known of the Greek text. This parchment manuscript, the writing of which, of the date of the fifth century, had been retouched and renewed in the seventh, and again in the ninth century, had, in the twelfth century, been submitted to a twofold process. It had been washed and pumiced, to write on it the treatises of an old father of the Church of the name of Ephrem. Five centuries later, a Swiss theologian of the name of Wetstein (Arian beliefs) had attempted to decipher a few traces of the original manuscript: and, later still, another theologian, Griesbach of Jena, came to try his skill on it, although the librarian assured him that it was impossible for mortal eye to decipher a writing which had disappeared for six centuries. In spite of these unsuccessful attempts, the French Government had recourse to powerful chemical reagents, to bring out the effaced characters. But a Leipzig theologian who was then a Paris, was so unsuccessful in this new attempt, that he asserted that it was impossible to produce an edition of this text, as the manuscript was quite illegible. It was after all these attempts that I began, in 1841-2, to try my skill at the manuscript, and had the good fortune to decipher it completely, and even to distinguish between the dates of the different writers who had been engaged on the manuscript."
Willie
W
Part 3
I believe it is very difficult for the Vatican to gather all the religions without the complete deminishment of the Deity of Christ. This was the main goal of the Oxford committee in which were all Unitarians. Having many false beliefs, Unitarians are known for rejecting the Deity of Christ, thus making Him a CREATED BEING and not worthy of worship. This being their ax to grind and hatred for the KJB of which lifts the Deity of Christ to the Highest Level of any known book in the English language....Secondly, they despised the Triune Godhead. Thus, removing the term Godhead from the bible. Hort said the Trinity was a hindrance to the church and that the Protestants would guard it jealousy. He had a strong bias against 1 John 5:7 because of his dislike of the 3 persons of the Godhead. Fenton Hort himself did not feel he had a strong enough case to remove 1 John 5:7, that is why he needed new material from Tischendorf.
Hort prayed for the destruction of the American Union in a letter to John Ellerton, Sept 25, 1862. Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort. Volume 1 pages 458-459.....Hort praised Charles Darwin and believed in evolution, therefore placing blacks on a lower level in the evolutionary time-table. Also claiming that Genesis chapter 1 was a fairy tale. Bruce Metzger, (1914-2007), served on the board of the American Bible Society and United Bible Societies. Metzger is widely considered one of the most influential New Testament scholars of the 20th century. He sat at the head of Nestles-Aland Critical Text advisory board, (Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Carlo Maria Martini, Bruce Metzger) He believed that 19 of the NT books were not valid, also thought that early Genesis was added to the text and not reliable. Bart Erham, an agnostic, was Metzger's star pupil. This is all in Metzger's own book co-authored with Bart Erhman, textual criticism. (these men believed that the majority of the NT was a myth).. .He felt it was alright to produce a bible with 40% of the text missing, (the Readers Digest Bible) and of course he omitted Rev 22-19 in doing so..........This is the opposite of the Holy Ghost inspiration..........
In 2011 the Global Board of the United Bible Societies appointed a new editorial committee that will prepare future editions of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece as well as of the Greek New Testament. The committee consists of Christos Karakolis (University of Athens, Greece), David Parker (University of Birmingham, United Kingdom), Stephen Pisano (Pontifical Biblical Institute, Italy), Holger Strutwolf (University Münster, Germany), David Trobisch (Museum of the Bible/Green Collection Oklahoma City, USA) and Klaus Wachtel (University Münster, Germany).[SUP][10[/SUP][SUP]][/SUP]
Wikipedia
Many people have opinions about these new-age bibles but know nothing of what is behind them. Completely clueless, saying "whatever edifies you"...Bart Erhman was actually a born again believer in his youth, and then he got drawn into textual criticism and he went from questioning the scriptures, to no longer believing Christ was Resurrected. This all came about during his graduate work under Metzger. Isn't a conservative textual critic an oxymoron? Where does it say we are to be critical of God's word? Yet the whole of Christianity believes this hoax. Textual Criticism a corrupt vocation. The men in the forefront were for the most part Arian's, Universalists, Neologians, Socinians, Unitarians, and Evolutionists gathered under the wing of the Vatican conspirators.
Many people do not even stop to consider that these glorified Alexandrian manuscripts have an OT, although only 30% is in existence (the Septuagint, LXX). And the original LXX cannot be viewed anywhere, but only a copy from the 1850's. Therefore they chose to stay with the original Hebrew OT. Although many scholars will reference the Septuagint in their commentaries which further adds to the confusion. However, all of the attention of Bible Critics has placed the focus on the NT, and yet no one stops to ask "why?". Because the OT for the most part does not matter in this case concerning the Trinity and the Deity of Christ and true Christian doctrine, of which the NT is the final authority.
Henry Bradshaw was a close personal friend of Hort's. Found in the "Undergraduate life of Henry Bradshaw; the British Librarian" the relating of how Bradshaw and Hort put down a revolt against the Pope at Cambridge. The Vatican started their movement in the 1840s to eventually lay hold of Oxford University by which they sought as the spawning ground for the 10 year committee under West-Cott & Hort. (1871-81)
The following is an excerpt from Hort to the John Ellerton, April 1853-----" He and I are going to edit a Greek text of the N. T. some two or three years hence, if possible. Lachmann and Tischendorf will supply rich materials, but not nearly enough ; and we hope to do a good deal with the Oriental versions."
Tischendorf, who gave us (01) Codex Sinaiticus, (03) Codex Vaticanus, and (04) Codex Epraemi Rescriptus,
Let’s examine this mysterious fine. Tischendorf collated Codex Vaticanus 1209 while the Vatican Library would not allow anyone else to see it. Why then Tischendorf? He was part of the conspiracy and a chief tool implemented and handled by the Jesuits. He in a biography in 1866 concerning the Codex Sinaiticus said that he had an audience with Pope Gregory XVI in May 1843, and then an intercourse with Cardinal Mezzofanti, and the following year he found 43 sheets of the Old Testament from the Codex Sinaiticus in a waste paper basket in Mt Sinai. Amazing, no!!! Then in 1853, just nine years after finding these OT scriptures, in the very same year Hort said Tischendorf would find him rich material, Even more amazing!!!. Tischendorf went back to Sinai looking for more biblical manuscripts, and he found a fragment of Genesis of that same manuscript for which he found 43 leaves nine years earlier. And then 6 years later in 1859 we find Tischendorf back in Mt. Sinai again where he magically finds yet more of the Old Testament, and all of the New Testament without a fragmented page. You will also find in this same biography that Tischendorf was able to completely decipher (04) Codex Ephrem even though it had been undecipherable for 6 Centuries. Yet the world has bought into the whole propaganda concerning these supposed older manuscripts?
In the year 1850 we can find Westcott and Hort along with Henry Bradshaw defending the Pope at Cambridge. The following is an extract from "Undergraduate life of Henry Bradshaw"--http://www.archive.org/stream/henrybradshaw00prothuoft/henrybradshaw00prothuoft_djvu.txt--
Starting in just above paragraph 36.
"In connection with this phase of feeling, I may mention an anecdote communicated to me by Sir A Gordon. Towards the end of 1850 great excitement was caused by the so-called "Papal aggression." The Pope, influenced by the sporadic conversions to Rome, and considering the time ripe for a great stroke, had set up a new Roman Catholic hierarchy in England, conferring on Cardinal Wiseman the title of Archbishop of Westminster. All England was in arms at once. The University of Cambridge, like other public bodies, addressed the queen of the subject. Some of the hotter heads among the undergraduates, anxious not to be behind their seniors, determined to get up a meeting of those in statu pupillari to denounce the Pope and the Puseyites. Sir William Harcourt and Mr. Llewellyn Davies, then a scholar of Trinity, were the chief promoters of this movement. Some of the unpopular High Church party were not unwilling to face the storm, and to figure as martyrs; but the cooler members, perceiving the mischief and resolved to put a stop to it. A deputation accordingly waited on the Vice-Chancellor, Dr. Corrie of Jesus, and requested him to forbid the meeting. Bradshaw, along with his friends Hort and Wescott, was among those most active in organizing this opposition, which was successful, and the meeting was stopped."
Then, in the same year, we have another Unitarian, James Strong, and the beginning of his quest to correct the errors in the KJB. He was later welcomed into the committee at Oxford to supposedly represent Americas interest. http://www.avpublications.com/avnew...pter_7_Strong_Delusion-James_Strongs_Dang.pdf......
Willie
I believe it is very difficult for the Vatican to gather all the religions without the complete deminishment of the Deity of Christ. This was the main goal of the Oxford committee in which were all Unitarians. Having many false beliefs, Unitarians are known for rejecting the Deity of Christ, thus making Him a CREATED BEING and not worthy of worship. This being their ax to grind and hatred for the KJB of which lifts the Deity of Christ to the Highest Level of any known book in the English language....Secondly, they despised the Triune Godhead. Thus, removing the term Godhead from the bible. Hort said the Trinity was a hindrance to the church and that the Protestants would guard it jealousy. He had a strong bias against 1 John 5:7 because of his dislike of the 3 persons of the Godhead. Fenton Hort himself did not feel he had a strong enough case to remove 1 John 5:7, that is why he needed new material from Tischendorf.
Hort prayed for the destruction of the American Union in a letter to John Ellerton, Sept 25, 1862. Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort. Volume 1 pages 458-459.....Hort praised Charles Darwin and believed in evolution, therefore placing blacks on a lower level in the evolutionary time-table. Also claiming that Genesis chapter 1 was a fairy tale. Bruce Metzger, (1914-2007), served on the board of the American Bible Society and United Bible Societies. Metzger is widely considered one of the most influential New Testament scholars of the 20th century. He sat at the head of Nestles-Aland Critical Text advisory board, (Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Carlo Maria Martini, Bruce Metzger) He believed that 19 of the NT books were not valid, also thought that early Genesis was added to the text and not reliable. Bart Erham, an agnostic, was Metzger's star pupil. This is all in Metzger's own book co-authored with Bart Erhman, textual criticism. (these men believed that the majority of the NT was a myth).. .He felt it was alright to produce a bible with 40% of the text missing, (the Readers Digest Bible) and of course he omitted Rev 22-19 in doing so..........This is the opposite of the Holy Ghost inspiration..........
In 2011 the Global Board of the United Bible Societies appointed a new editorial committee that will prepare future editions of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece as well as of the Greek New Testament. The committee consists of Christos Karakolis (University of Athens, Greece), David Parker (University of Birmingham, United Kingdom), Stephen Pisano (Pontifical Biblical Institute, Italy), Holger Strutwolf (University Münster, Germany), David Trobisch (Museum of the Bible/Green Collection Oklahoma City, USA) and Klaus Wachtel (University Münster, Germany).[SUP][10[/SUP][SUP]][/SUP]
Wikipedia
Many people have opinions about these new-age bibles but know nothing of what is behind them. Completely clueless, saying "whatever edifies you"...Bart Erhman was actually a born again believer in his youth, and then he got drawn into textual criticism and he went from questioning the scriptures, to no longer believing Christ was Resurrected. This all came about during his graduate work under Metzger. Isn't a conservative textual critic an oxymoron? Where does it say we are to be critical of God's word? Yet the whole of Christianity believes this hoax. Textual Criticism a corrupt vocation. The men in the forefront were for the most part Arian's, Universalists, Neologians, Socinians, Unitarians, and Evolutionists gathered under the wing of the Vatican conspirators.
Many people do not even stop to consider that these glorified Alexandrian manuscripts have an OT, although only 30% is in existence (the Septuagint, LXX). And the original LXX cannot be viewed anywhere, but only a copy from the 1850's. Therefore they chose to stay with the original Hebrew OT. Although many scholars will reference the Septuagint in their commentaries which further adds to the confusion. However, all of the attention of Bible Critics has placed the focus on the NT, and yet no one stops to ask "why?". Because the OT for the most part does not matter in this case concerning the Trinity and the Deity of Christ and true Christian doctrine, of which the NT is the final authority.
Henry Bradshaw was a close personal friend of Hort's. Found in the "Undergraduate life of Henry Bradshaw; the British Librarian" the relating of how Bradshaw and Hort put down a revolt against the Pope at Cambridge. The Vatican started their movement in the 1840s to eventually lay hold of Oxford University by which they sought as the spawning ground for the 10 year committee under West-Cott & Hort. (1871-81)
The following is an excerpt from Hort to the John Ellerton, April 1853-----" He and I are going to edit a Greek text of the N. T. some two or three years hence, if possible. Lachmann and Tischendorf will supply rich materials, but not nearly enough ; and we hope to do a good deal with the Oriental versions."
Tischendorf, who gave us (01) Codex Sinaiticus, (03) Codex Vaticanus, and (04) Codex Epraemi Rescriptus,
Let’s examine this mysterious fine. Tischendorf collated Codex Vaticanus 1209 while the Vatican Library would not allow anyone else to see it. Why then Tischendorf? He was part of the conspiracy and a chief tool implemented and handled by the Jesuits. He in a biography in 1866 concerning the Codex Sinaiticus said that he had an audience with Pope Gregory XVI in May 1843, and then an intercourse with Cardinal Mezzofanti, and the following year he found 43 sheets of the Old Testament from the Codex Sinaiticus in a waste paper basket in Mt Sinai. Amazing, no!!! Then in 1853, just nine years after finding these OT scriptures, in the very same year Hort said Tischendorf would find him rich material, Even more amazing!!!. Tischendorf went back to Sinai looking for more biblical manuscripts, and he found a fragment of Genesis of that same manuscript for which he found 43 leaves nine years earlier. And then 6 years later in 1859 we find Tischendorf back in Mt. Sinai again where he magically finds yet more of the Old Testament, and all of the New Testament without a fragmented page. You will also find in this same biography that Tischendorf was able to completely decipher (04) Codex Ephrem even though it had been undecipherable for 6 Centuries. Yet the world has bought into the whole propaganda concerning these supposed older manuscripts?
In the year 1850 we can find Westcott and Hort along with Henry Bradshaw defending the Pope at Cambridge. The following is an extract from "Undergraduate life of Henry Bradshaw"--http://www.archive.org/stream/henrybradshaw00prothuoft/henrybradshaw00prothuoft_djvu.txt--
Starting in just above paragraph 36.
"In connection with this phase of feeling, I may mention an anecdote communicated to me by Sir A Gordon. Towards the end of 1850 great excitement was caused by the so-called "Papal aggression." The Pope, influenced by the sporadic conversions to Rome, and considering the time ripe for a great stroke, had set up a new Roman Catholic hierarchy in England, conferring on Cardinal Wiseman the title of Archbishop of Westminster. All England was in arms at once. The University of Cambridge, like other public bodies, addressed the queen of the subject. Some of the hotter heads among the undergraduates, anxious not to be behind their seniors, determined to get up a meeting of those in statu pupillari to denounce the Pope and the Puseyites. Sir William Harcourt and Mr. Llewellyn Davies, then a scholar of Trinity, were the chief promoters of this movement. Some of the unpopular High Church party were not unwilling to face the storm, and to figure as martyrs; but the cooler members, perceiving the mischief and resolved to put a stop to it. A deputation accordingly waited on the Vice-Chancellor, Dr. Corrie of Jesus, and requested him to forbid the meeting. Bradshaw, along with his friends Hort and Wescott, was among those most active in organizing this opposition, which was successful, and the meeting was stopped."
Then, in the same year, we have another Unitarian, James Strong, and the beginning of his quest to correct the errors in the KJB. He was later welcomed into the committee at Oxford to supposedly represent Americas interest. http://www.avpublications.com/avnew...pter_7_Strong_Delusion-James_Strongs_Dang.pdf......
Willie
What I am saying is that KJV is almost the same with the newer version base on the available readability test. And I said "I'll take my observation of people's reaction to the reading/hearing of the KJV over online/published/so-called scientific tests".
With that in mind, the argument of “easy reading” is no longer true against KJV. Only to the deluded KJVO-ists.
easy reading argument” is in response on the accusation of Critics of the KJV telling us KJV is outdated, hard to read when the fact is it’s not, using the 8 readability test online as I did and you can do it by yourself if you may proves KJV though age old still readable. The argument is that we don't speak English the same now as we did 400 years ago. English of 400 years ago is harder to follow and understand than modern day English.
Critics of the KJV I am not a critic of the KJV. I do not object to people using the KJV. I own several KJ Bibles. I also own many other translations that I enjoy more. I am a critic of KJVO-ism.
We need to X-out the delusion argument that the KJV is easier to read than the modern translations.
Don't be lazy. Armageddon isn't going to strike if you look at a verse online in another version than the KJV. Biblegateway.com has many translations.
With that in mind, the argument of “easy reading” is no longer true against KJV. Only to the deluded KJVO-ists.
easy reading argument” is in response on the accusation of Critics of the KJV telling us KJV is outdated, hard to read when the fact is it’s not, using the 8 readability test online as I did and you can do it by yourself if you may proves KJV though age old still readable. The argument is that we don't speak English the same now as we did 400 years ago. English of 400 years ago is harder to follow and understand than modern day English.
Critics of the KJV I am not a critic of the KJV. I do not object to people using the KJV. I own several KJ Bibles. I also own many other translations that I enjoy more. I am a critic of KJVO-ism.
We need to X-out the delusion argument that the KJV is easier to read than the modern translations.
Don't be lazy. Armageddon isn't going to strike if you look at a verse online in another version than the KJV. Biblegateway.com has many translations.
W
Part 4
Dr. George Vance Smith--Committee member was to remove the Deity and Worship of Christ.
"The only instance in the N.T. in which the religious worship or adoration of Christ was apparently implied, has been altered by the Revision: `At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow,' [Philippians 2:10] is now to be read `in the name.' Moreover, no alteration of text or of translation will be found anywhere to make up for this loss; as indeed it is well understood that the N.T. contains neither precept nor example which really sanctions the religious worship of Jesus Christ" (Smith, Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly Reviewed, p. 47).
"The old reading [God in 1 Timothy. 3:16] is pronounced untenable by the Revisers, as it has long been known to be by all careful students of the New Testament. ... It is in truth another example of the facility with which ancient copiers could introduce the word God into their manuscripts,--a reading which was the natural result of the growing tendency in early Christian times ... to look upon the humble Teacher as the incarnate Word, and therefore as `God manifested in the flesh'" (Smith, Texts and Margins, p. 39)....
This Dr. George Vance Smith was the Unitarian that Hort worked hard to get and keep on the translation committee of the ERV and ASV. They didn't believe in the Deity of Christ. Smith worked on the committee to remove any vestige of worship of Jesus. Hort worked to remove Jesus from the Trinity, thus removing the Godhead which is three times in the NT, ( Acts 17-29, Romans 1-20, colosians 2-9). It becomes obvious from the above excerpt that Wescott and Hort were on the side of the Vatican. The Vatican still considered the Authorized Version as vile and we hear those same words from Hort.
When you consider that Tischendorf had a meeting with the Pope and was the one, of a few men that have ever been allowed to examine the Codex Vaticanus, then you begin to understand what their intent was. Tischendorf considered the Authorized Version vile also.
In connection with this phase of feeling an anecdote communicated to me by Sir A. Gordon.
Towards the end of 1850 great excitement was caused by
the so-called " Papal aggression." The pope, influenced by
the sporadic conversions to Rome, and considering the time
ripe for a great stroke, had set up a new Roman Catholic
hierarchy in England, conferring on Cardinal Wiseman
the title of Archbishop of Westminster. All England was
36 UNDERGRADUATE LIFE. Henry Bradshaw British Librarian
in arms at once. The University of Cambridge, like other
public bodies, addressed the queen on the subject. Some
of the hotter heads among the undergraduates, anxious not
to be behind their seniors, determined to get up a meeting
of those in statu pupillari to denounce the pope and the
Puseyites. Sir William Harcourt and Mr Llewellyn
Davies, then a scholar of Trinity, were the chief promoters
of this movement. Some of the unpopular High Church
party were not unwilling to face the storm, and to figure
as martyrs ; but the cooler members, perceiving the mischief
and bitterness likely to be engendered by such a meeting
as was proposed, resolved to put a stop to it. A deputa-
tion accordingly waited on the Vice-Chancellor, Dr Corrie
of Jesus, and requested him to forbid the meeting. Brad-
shaw, along with his friends Hort and Westcott, was
among those most active in organizing this opposition,
which was successful, and the meeting was stopped.
Dr. George Vance Smith--Committee member was to remove the Deity and Worship of Christ.
"The only instance in the N.T. in which the religious worship or adoration of Christ was apparently implied, has been altered by the Revision: `At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow,' [Philippians 2:10] is now to be read `in the name.' Moreover, no alteration of text or of translation will be found anywhere to make up for this loss; as indeed it is well understood that the N.T. contains neither precept nor example which really sanctions the religious worship of Jesus Christ" (Smith, Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly Reviewed, p. 47).
"The old reading [God in 1 Timothy. 3:16] is pronounced untenable by the Revisers, as it has long been known to be by all careful students of the New Testament. ... It is in truth another example of the facility with which ancient copiers could introduce the word God into their manuscripts,--a reading which was the natural result of the growing tendency in early Christian times ... to look upon the humble Teacher as the incarnate Word, and therefore as `God manifested in the flesh'" (Smith, Texts and Margins, p. 39)....
This Dr. George Vance Smith was the Unitarian that Hort worked hard to get and keep on the translation committee of the ERV and ASV. They didn't believe in the Deity of Christ. Smith worked on the committee to remove any vestige of worship of Jesus. Hort worked to remove Jesus from the Trinity, thus removing the Godhead which is three times in the NT, ( Acts 17-29, Romans 1-20, colosians 2-9). It becomes obvious from the above excerpt that Wescott and Hort were on the side of the Vatican. The Vatican still considered the Authorized Version as vile and we hear those same words from Hort.
When you consider that Tischendorf had a meeting with the Pope and was the one, of a few men that have ever been allowed to examine the Codex Vaticanus, then you begin to understand what their intent was. Tischendorf considered the Authorized Version vile also.
In connection with this phase of feeling an anecdote communicated to me by Sir A. Gordon.
Towards the end of 1850 great excitement was caused by
the so-called " Papal aggression." The pope, influenced by
the sporadic conversions to Rome, and considering the time
ripe for a great stroke, had set up a new Roman Catholic
hierarchy in England, conferring on Cardinal Wiseman
the title of Archbishop of Westminster. All England was
36 UNDERGRADUATE LIFE. Henry Bradshaw British Librarian
in arms at once. The University of Cambridge, like other
public bodies, addressed the queen on the subject. Some
of the hotter heads among the undergraduates, anxious not
to be behind their seniors, determined to get up a meeting
of those in statu pupillari to denounce the pope and the
Puseyites. Sir William Harcourt and Mr Llewellyn
Davies, then a scholar of Trinity, were the chief promoters
of this movement. Some of the unpopular High Church
party were not unwilling to face the storm, and to figure
as martyrs ; but the cooler members, perceiving the mischief
and bitterness likely to be engendered by such a meeting
as was proposed, resolved to put a stop to it. A deputa-
tion accordingly waited on the Vice-Chancellor, Dr Corrie
of Jesus, and requested him to forbid the meeting. Brad-
shaw, along with his friends Hort and Westcott, was
among those most active in organizing this opposition,
which was successful, and the meeting was stopped.
The Textus Receptus actually differs from the majority text in many places, there is not a single New Testament manuscript that reads exactly like the Textus Receptus does. The majority of NT manuscripts we have are of the Byzantine text-type, yes, but most of them are dated AFTER 1000 AD, well into the Medieval period. What is the majority text-type before that period? The Alexandrian text-type. Had the Muslim conquests not happened, there's a good chance there'd be a plethora of ancient manuscripts much closer to the first century than what we have now.
I agree that the word of God is spritual and is not confined to any language and I don't understand why some people say the inerrant word of God only exists in the original languages. The word of God has always been hidden in the symbolic language of whatever language the plain text is written in... only a born again believer can understand that language because it's not learned, it's revealed.
LXX is does not match Luke either. Luke says "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, " LXX says "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God".
So we have either an Old Testament that is totally inaccurate or Luke wasn't quoting the Old Testament, he was paraphrasing or summarizing a statement made in the Old Testament.
Ex. For it is written, there are many mansions in my Fathers house. I didn't quote John 14:2 I paraphrased it... paraphrase or not, according John 14:2 there are many mansions in the Fathers house - this is a true statement.
So we have either an Old Testament that is totally inaccurate or Luke wasn't quoting the Old Testament, he was paraphrasing or summarizing a statement made in the Old Testament.
Ex. For it is written, there are many mansions in my Fathers house. I didn't quote John 14:2 I paraphrased it... paraphrase or not, according John 14:2 there are many mansions in the Fathers house - this is a true statement.
Mark says "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." One teaching - the commandments of men as doctrine.
LXX Isaiah says "teaching the commandments and doctrines of men." Two teachings - 1) the commandments of men and 2) the doctrines of men.
KVJ Isaiah says "and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of man". One teaching - fear toward God (set of beliefs aka doctrine) taught by the precept (rule of conduct) of man.
Can you see how the LXX is completely wrong as compared to Mark?
LXX Isaiah says "teaching the commandments and doctrines of men." Two teachings - 1) the commandments of men and 2) the doctrines of men.
KVJ Isaiah says "and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of man". One teaching - fear toward God (set of beliefs aka doctrine) taught by the precept (rule of conduct) of man.
Can you see how the LXX is completely wrong as compared to Mark?