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.
Two things come to mind off the hop... the translation of "yam suph" as "Red Sea", whereas the correct translation is "sea of reeds" or "reed sea", and Titus 2:13, where the KJV makes it look like Jesus will appear along with God instead of rightly identifying Jesus as God. There are other issues, but I'm away from my notes presently.
The King James Version (KJV), also known as the King James Bible (KJB) or simply the Authorized Version (AV), is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England begun in 1604 and completed in 1611.[SUP][a][/SUP] The books of the King James Version include the 39 books of the Old Testament, an intertestamental section containing 14 books of the Apocrypha (most of which correspond to books in the Vulgate Deuterocanon adhered to by Roman Catholics), and the 27 books of the New Testament.
It was first printed by the King's Printer Robert Barker and was the third translation into English approved by the English Church authorities. The first had been the Great Bible, commissioned in the reign of King Henry VIII (1535), and the second had been the Bishops' Bible of 1568.[SUP][3][/SUP] In January 1604, James VI and I convened the Hampton Court Conference, where a new English version was conceived in response to the problems of the earlier translations perceived by the Puritans,[SUP][4][/SUP] a faction of the Church of England.[SUP][5][/SUP] The translation is noted for its "majesty of style", and has been described as one of the most important books in English culture.[SUP][6]
[/SUP]
James gave the translators instructions intended to ensure that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.[SUP][7][/SUP] The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England.[SUP][8][/SUP] In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from Greek, the Old Testament from Hebrew and Aramaic, and the Apocrypha from Greek and Latin. In the Book of Common Prayer (1662), the text of the Authorized Version replaced the text of the Great Bible for Epistle and Gospel readings (but not for the Psalter, which substantially retained Coverdale's Great Bible version) and as such was authorised by Act of Parliament.[SUP][9]
[/SUP]
By the first half of the 18th century, the Authorized Version had become effectively unchallenged as the English translation used in Anglican and English Protestant churches, except for the Psalms and some short passages in the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England. Over the course of the 18th century, the Authorized Version supplanted the Latin Vulgate as the standard version of scripture for English-speaking scholars. With the development of stereotypeprinting at the beginning of the 19th century, this version of the Bible became the most widely printed book in history, almost all such printings presenting the standard text of 1769 extensively re-edited by Benjamin Blayney at Oxford, and nearly always omitting the books of the Apocrypha. Today the unqualified title "King James Version" usually indicates that this Oxford standard text is meant.
Which of the Versions of the KJV inclusions is the only one perfect Bible? 1535? 1604? the completed version in 1611? 1622? the Authorized version or the Great Bible version? Or the 1769 version with standard text? And that doesn't even begin the NKJV which starts in the 1900's half way thru...etc etc....
Last edited:
No disrespect taken. I understand that you may infer the translation to be correct in its masculine translation, based on what you believe the verse to be in reference to. All I’m saying is that (from my limited understanding), “ALL” Hebrew nouns have a masculine or feminine attribute associated with them. To me it appears that the feminine suffix is being used.
This is why I asked if any Hebrew speakers could confirm or deny the masculine, rather than feminine, rendering of Exodus 25:31 as it appears In the KJV. I do not have enough knowledge in Hebrew to try and state such to you as fact. This is why I stated it to you as it “appears” to me and asked for verification or dismissal from a Hebrew speaker.
Who knows though, maybe someone who is fluent in Hebrew will be reading this and be able to confirm or deny the masculine noun translation found in Exodus 25:31 of the KJV.
This is why I asked if any Hebrew speakers could confirm or deny the masculine, rather than feminine, rendering of Exodus 25:31 as it appears In the KJV. I do not have enough knowledge in Hebrew to try and state such to you as fact. This is why I stated it to you as it “appears” to me and asked for verification or dismissal from a Hebrew speaker.
Who knows though, maybe someone who is fluent in Hebrew will be reading this and be able to confirm or deny the masculine noun translation found in Exodus 25:31 of the KJV.
W
The Sinaiticus is not the oldest
Most of the world believes the myth that the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Codex B 1209 are the oldest complete New Testaments in the world. Well for starters, a fair amount of people do already know that the Sinaiticus is not complete, and has the additions of the uninspired books of Barnabas, and the Shepard of Hermas. Of which portions of the Shepard of Hermas are missing. How long has it been in this fashion?
I will attempted to bring forth the evidence that explodes this myth. Therefore not only is it full of errors, and not by any means the best, it is also not the oldest, and most certainly not the most reliable. Even Tishendorf claimed there were some 14,000 errors, and today it is thought to have around 20,000 scribe-errors. Whole sentences scratched out, and written over, making changes..etc.. I think in one place it says “stop changing this”.. However, true scribes were extremely careful, not sloppy, and took pain staking patience not to make any writing errors, if so, they would throw away the whole velum and start the page over again.
More proof of invalidity consists in that it has no chain of evidence, and how it mysteriously pops up out of nowhere in the occult hands of Constantine Tishendorf, in the mid 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century. And of course the Vaticanus from the basement of Vatican of all places. What could be wrong with this picture? Nothing suspicious about that fact, hey? So the ignorant and unstudied move forward embracing all the other Jesuit lies surrounding this great textual hoax..
Westcott and Hort knew they couldn't change all that they wanted to in their NEW 1881 Greek text and the 1881 Revised Version. What they couldn't get away with in the RV text, they put into footnotes, until enough doubt and then memory of the KJB faded. Ryrie and others followed spreading the seeds of doubt in footnotes. Footnotes are the footprints of Satan, who said, Yea hath God said? The serpent no longer walks on his feet but slithers on the ground just as these faith destroyers sllither on their bellies in the grass, with their true agenda hidden. Now, many modern Bibles, repeat, Yea hath God said. And so many follow along with Hort, Westcott, Ryrie, Nestle, Aland, and hate the true Word of God, the KJB, and those who believe it.... Sharon Henry....In 1844 Tishendorf made His first mission to St. Catherin’s Catholic Monastery. 15 years later in 1859 when he spoke about it all he said he saw was some portions of the OT, and he took (stold) 1/3 of what he was able to see consisting of some 43 leaves. These were sent to his patron, Fredrick of Saxon. However in the following year in 1845, the Russian State religious official, Porfiry Umpensky arrived at St. Catherin’s. Both in 1845 and in 1850 he saw the Sinaiticus and wrote about it by describing that he actually saw all that Tishendorf wrote about 14 years later. How could this be if Tishendorf had extracted 1/3 of the leaves? Not possible.
Umpensky wrote in Slavic; now translated into English, of which I itaazied in blue for clarity “the best Greek manuscripts are stored in the priors cells (the leading monks rooms). There are only four of these cells. But they are very precious for their antiquity, rarity, and handwriting features, for their content and elegance of the faces of the saints along with the entertaining drawings and paintings. The first manuscript containing the Old Testament was incomplete (this was the post 200 AD fraud thats called the Septuagint, or Catholic LXX) along with the entire New Testament, (once again; how could this be possible if Tishendorf had already stolen 1/3 of the leaves within the manuscript like he said he did?) including the epistle of Barnabas and the book of Hermas, and all of it was written on the finest white parchment. (Tishendorf’s copies were yellowish, thought by some to be stained from lemon juice that he rubbed on it to make the claim of how old it was). Keep in mind, Umpensky said the OT was incomplete, but then wrote of the ENTIRE NT inclusive of the epistle of Barnabas and the Shepard of Hermas. (Therefore, according to his testimony, in 1845 & 1850 it can be perceived that the Shepard of Hermas was therefore complete when he viewed it.) Continued: all the sacred texts were written in four and two columns, and all the words connected without spaces (no spaces, no punctuations, with wide gapping columns) so with one long utterance stretches from end to end. (This is quite lacking, and not typical of any scholarly textual writings having a solid chain of evidence revealed down through history). Such a formulation of letters, the way of writing of the sacred texts formed by the Alexandrian deacon Euthalius about 446 AD but soon abandoned do to the many gaps between the columns on the expensive parchment, prove that this manuscript was published in the 5h century. (This same style of writing is seen in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, but it was only done for a brief period, and this change of formatting didn’t begin until at least 446 AD).
In his simple analyses, Umpensky gave us evidence that Sinaiticus is no earlier than the middle 5[SUP]th[/SUP] century, which is contrary to the claim that it goes back to the time of Constantine and is one of his 50 bibles in 330 AD that were decreed by the state. At 450 AD it falls in line with the date of the Alexandrius Codex. Therefore at this point of the investigation we can be certain that it is no older than 446 AD, thus dismissing the idea of being prior to 330 AD.
Now let’s examines the infamous Vaticanus, Codex B 1209. It also has the very same large gapping columns, all caps, and having no punctuation. The large gapping columns is the most obvious evidence, and give away to its falsified age. Therefore, at this point of examination, neither the Sinaiticus nor Vaticanus are as old as the textual critics claim them to be. Nor can they be older than the likewise structured Codex Alexandrinus which is said to be dated in the middle 5[SUP]th[/SUP] century.
Now let us continue further on opening up more evidence. By returning to the Shepard of Hermas, it is surmised by many scholars that the original Shepard of Hermas was written around 130-160 AD, and was written in Greek. But all that has been available for the longest time have only been Latin copies from the late 14[SUP]th[/SUP] century found in the Vaticanus Codex 3848 dated in the late 1300s. Also the Dresden Codex from the early 1400s, having similar Latin text between these two Codex’s. However there is one that is quite outstanding from the others called Codex Palatinus found in the Vatican library dated from 150 AD. This codex clearly made some changes in the Latin terms so that it was different than the other translations of Hermas. No one saw Hermas in the Greek other than small quotes from it by protocol-Catholic Church fathers like Origen up until 1855.
In 1855 a man claimed to be from northern Greece from Mt. Athos containing some 20 Eastern Orthodox Monasteries. He announced that he had found a rare Greek copy of the Shepard of Hermas and sold it. In 1856 it was published at Leipsig, and named Codex Lipsiensis. When Tishendorf was shown this he had his doubts about the authenticity of the text. He stated that it was not possible that it could be from an original form the Greek, therefore calming it back translated the Latin into the Greek by giving a number of examples, thus changing the date of Lipsiensis forward to the 1300s, and placed at the date of the Palatine Codex. This is because the Greek words were based of certain Latin words that were only found in the Palatine Codex version of Hermas and not the others. Then an associate of the man that sold the manuscript came forward announcing that he is a con man, and forger, and had been supposedly selling ancient Greek manuscripts found on Mt Athos from 1843 to 1846 all throughout Europe. That man being Constantine Simonides. Which is another link in the cog that would take another essay to describe him. Other than he has been falsely accused of many things, and this can also be clearly proven.
Anyway three years later Tishendorf reversed his statement. Why did he do this? Because he had just come from St. Catherin’s having numerous Greek bible parchments in his possession, and within those parchments was none other than the Shepard of Hermas. So according to Tishendorfs’ story it was only part of Hermas, and more importantly he said Codex Lipiensis wasn’t in error after all, but actually was a 1000 years older than he had previously thought it to be. Why? Because the parts of the Shepard of Hermas that were in Sinaiticus were nearly identical to Codex Lipiensis that Simonides had sold. Once again the people believed Tishendorf ; after all, why would he lie? beings that he was becoming famous, having the majority of media support, one of the mighty men of renown in his day, thought to be a real giant in the earth. And it appeared as humility to admit that he was once mistaken, so no harm no foul. So in doing so, they thanked him and announced that at least we know that this one manuscript is genuine, thus partially restoring Simonides reputation among scholars. So one might ask; why is this story even important? Well let’s find out why. Thanks to Steve Avery, David Daniels, and others much of this evidence is now coming to life.
How can we find out if Tishendorfs’ claims are true, and at which time? Scholar James Donaldson wrote in 1874, making the claim that Tishendorf was right the first time. This will help us to understand that Sinaiticus is even more recent than 450 AD. The most efficient way to prove a lawed fmanuscript is to derive from where it came, and to see who repeats the same mistakes. In other words, if you have a text that makes the same changes in numerous places as that of another text, then it’s no out-price that the two are most likely related. Knowing this first, there are only so many known copies of the Shepard of Hermas, however out of all of them only one makes the same mistakes that were found in Simonides’ Hermas. The question is; could those same mistakes also be found in the Sinaiticus?
Let’s examine: Donaldson’s first objection, which was, he said many of the words in Simonides Lipensis are in reality more modern Greek words, and not the old Greek words that are found in the abundance of ancient Greek manuscripts. These include a great number of words unknown to the classical period, but common in Modern Greek. This can be examined on line, and one came compare the Modern Greek letters with those of the Sinaiticus, see>codexsinaiticus.org for comparison.
Another proof that Donaldson gave is that he observed Greek words in Latin form instead of a Greek words in Greek form. Buy looking at this, one can find out they were from the same verse, Hermas visions 3 verse 1. This can be seen on the website, and is listed as Hermas 9-4 (might be listed as Hermas 7-4 on line). The words “sympselion, kerbikarion, lention, karpasinon, are all right within the same verse. And by looking below it says “kai e”. Strangely enough, scribe B2 began to write “kai e” on the previous line, but began all over again on the following line “kai epano”. Remember, all but one of the Latin translations of the Shepard of the Hermas are similitudes except for Palatine Codex 150 found in the Vatican Library. And one example above all that is so convincing is Simonides Lipensis, and the Sinaiticus Hermes, are both back translated from the Vatican’s Palatine Codex at visions ii 3. So as Donaldson revealed it is supposed to read, “but say thou behold great tribulation cometh”. In Latin great is “magna” where we get the word magnified. In Greek its “magale”, and “thlipsis magale” is the same exact term “great tribulation” used by Jesus in the NT. However, the Palatine Vatican Codex changed “magna” to “maximo”. Equivalent to changing “great” to greatest. So Simonides Lipensis transliterated the word “Maximo” in Greek. Now let’s see what the Codex Sinaiticus did here with the Greek. It transliterated it “Maximo”. Donaldson says “Now we can find the text of the Pastor of Hermas, found in the Codex Sinaiticus is substantially the same as that which is given in the Athos manuscript” (meaning Codex Lipensis’ Shepard of Hermas that was sold to them by Simonides). Donaldson also wrote “then there is a considerable number passages preserved to us in Greek by Origin and other writers. The Sinaitic Greek differs often from this Greek and agree with the Roman Catholic Latin translation, especially the Palatine”.
In conclusion: knowing this first, there wasn’t anything else they could have copied, therefore Tishendorfs’ Codex Sinaiticus is a counterfeit, no being derived from 350 AD, not from 450 AD, and not possible older than 1350 AD. Most certainly not the best of text, beings riddled with contradiction when placed against Vaticanus b 1209. It greatly fails in comparison to the 5400 Majority manuscripts that agree over 98% of the time...And neither is Sinaiticus the oldest. So we can put that fable to rest placing a head stone over it’s without any chain of evidence of verification down through the centuries. Knowing the history of false documents coming out of the Vatican for centuries, I perceive it more than likely suggests a work of the Jesuit’s shortly before 1840.Tishendorf, like Westcot & Hort, was a scorpion, a stooge-agent of the Vatican and Cardinal Mi. Receiving much flatteries, opportunities for fame and wealth by selling himself out to them.. And as usual, the serpents go unnoticed in their den of hiding. This is the nature of greedy scorpions, and their overseers, the subtle serpents. On the largest layer, the serpents are the prideful, and the scorpions being greedy do their dirty work, thus being not afraid to expose themselves because of their geed. Scorpions desire to be serpents but they are too greedy to graduate to that level, so they continue to suck up to the serpents by doing their bidding….. Jesus said He gives us power to tread upon these serpents and scorpions, and over all the powers of darkness, and nothing shall by any means hurt you. (Meaning, no spiritual hurt can come upon your soul). However, He said not to rejoice in such things, but rather rejoice that your names are written in the book of life..Luke 10:18-20
Credits from Steve Avery, Mark Mitchy, and David Daniels..albeit I don’t agree with their KJV only stance, and some other doctrinal issues. But I do credit them with having done a most excellent work in uncovering the evidence that proves the new-age critical text is a fraud, having put forth a great multitude of hours in this project.
Willie
Most of the world believes the myth that the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Codex B 1209 are the oldest complete New Testaments in the world. Well for starters, a fair amount of people do already know that the Sinaiticus is not complete, and has the additions of the uninspired books of Barnabas, and the Shepard of Hermas. Of which portions of the Shepard of Hermas are missing. How long has it been in this fashion?
I will attempted to bring forth the evidence that explodes this myth. Therefore not only is it full of errors, and not by any means the best, it is also not the oldest, and most certainly not the most reliable. Even Tishendorf claimed there were some 14,000 errors, and today it is thought to have around 20,000 scribe-errors. Whole sentences scratched out, and written over, making changes..etc.. I think in one place it says “stop changing this”.. However, true scribes were extremely careful, not sloppy, and took pain staking patience not to make any writing errors, if so, they would throw away the whole velum and start the page over again.
More proof of invalidity consists in that it has no chain of evidence, and how it mysteriously pops up out of nowhere in the occult hands of Constantine Tishendorf, in the mid 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century. And of course the Vaticanus from the basement of Vatican of all places. What could be wrong with this picture? Nothing suspicious about that fact, hey? So the ignorant and unstudied move forward embracing all the other Jesuit lies surrounding this great textual hoax..
Westcott and Hort knew they couldn't change all that they wanted to in their NEW 1881 Greek text and the 1881 Revised Version. What they couldn't get away with in the RV text, they put into footnotes, until enough doubt and then memory of the KJB faded. Ryrie and others followed spreading the seeds of doubt in footnotes. Footnotes are the footprints of Satan, who said, Yea hath God said? The serpent no longer walks on his feet but slithers on the ground just as these faith destroyers sllither on their bellies in the grass, with their true agenda hidden. Now, many modern Bibles, repeat, Yea hath God said. And so many follow along with Hort, Westcott, Ryrie, Nestle, Aland, and hate the true Word of God, the KJB, and those who believe it.... Sharon Henry....In 1844 Tishendorf made His first mission to St. Catherin’s Catholic Monastery. 15 years later in 1859 when he spoke about it all he said he saw was some portions of the OT, and he took (stold) 1/3 of what he was able to see consisting of some 43 leaves. These were sent to his patron, Fredrick of Saxon. However in the following year in 1845, the Russian State religious official, Porfiry Umpensky arrived at St. Catherin’s. Both in 1845 and in 1850 he saw the Sinaiticus and wrote about it by describing that he actually saw all that Tishendorf wrote about 14 years later. How could this be if Tishendorf had extracted 1/3 of the leaves? Not possible.
Umpensky wrote in Slavic; now translated into English, of which I itaazied in blue for clarity “the best Greek manuscripts are stored in the priors cells (the leading monks rooms). There are only four of these cells. But they are very precious for their antiquity, rarity, and handwriting features, for their content and elegance of the faces of the saints along with the entertaining drawings and paintings. The first manuscript containing the Old Testament was incomplete (this was the post 200 AD fraud thats called the Septuagint, or Catholic LXX) along with the entire New Testament, (once again; how could this be possible if Tishendorf had already stolen 1/3 of the leaves within the manuscript like he said he did?) including the epistle of Barnabas and the book of Hermas, and all of it was written on the finest white parchment. (Tishendorf’s copies were yellowish, thought by some to be stained from lemon juice that he rubbed on it to make the claim of how old it was). Keep in mind, Umpensky said the OT was incomplete, but then wrote of the ENTIRE NT inclusive of the epistle of Barnabas and the Shepard of Hermas. (Therefore, according to his testimony, in 1845 & 1850 it can be perceived that the Shepard of Hermas was therefore complete when he viewed it.) Continued: all the sacred texts were written in four and two columns, and all the words connected without spaces (no spaces, no punctuations, with wide gapping columns) so with one long utterance stretches from end to end. (This is quite lacking, and not typical of any scholarly textual writings having a solid chain of evidence revealed down through history). Such a formulation of letters, the way of writing of the sacred texts formed by the Alexandrian deacon Euthalius about 446 AD but soon abandoned do to the many gaps between the columns on the expensive parchment, prove that this manuscript was published in the 5h century. (This same style of writing is seen in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, but it was only done for a brief period, and this change of formatting didn’t begin until at least 446 AD).
In his simple analyses, Umpensky gave us evidence that Sinaiticus is no earlier than the middle 5[SUP]th[/SUP] century, which is contrary to the claim that it goes back to the time of Constantine and is one of his 50 bibles in 330 AD that were decreed by the state. At 450 AD it falls in line with the date of the Alexandrius Codex. Therefore at this point of the investigation we can be certain that it is no older than 446 AD, thus dismissing the idea of being prior to 330 AD.
Now let’s examines the infamous Vaticanus, Codex B 1209. It also has the very same large gapping columns, all caps, and having no punctuation. The large gapping columns is the most obvious evidence, and give away to its falsified age. Therefore, at this point of examination, neither the Sinaiticus nor Vaticanus are as old as the textual critics claim them to be. Nor can they be older than the likewise structured Codex Alexandrinus which is said to be dated in the middle 5[SUP]th[/SUP] century.
Now let us continue further on opening up more evidence. By returning to the Shepard of Hermas, it is surmised by many scholars that the original Shepard of Hermas was written around 130-160 AD, and was written in Greek. But all that has been available for the longest time have only been Latin copies from the late 14[SUP]th[/SUP] century found in the Vaticanus Codex 3848 dated in the late 1300s. Also the Dresden Codex from the early 1400s, having similar Latin text between these two Codex’s. However there is one that is quite outstanding from the others called Codex Palatinus found in the Vatican library dated from 150 AD. This codex clearly made some changes in the Latin terms so that it was different than the other translations of Hermas. No one saw Hermas in the Greek other than small quotes from it by protocol-Catholic Church fathers like Origen up until 1855.
In 1855 a man claimed to be from northern Greece from Mt. Athos containing some 20 Eastern Orthodox Monasteries. He announced that he had found a rare Greek copy of the Shepard of Hermas and sold it. In 1856 it was published at Leipsig, and named Codex Lipsiensis. When Tishendorf was shown this he had his doubts about the authenticity of the text. He stated that it was not possible that it could be from an original form the Greek, therefore calming it back translated the Latin into the Greek by giving a number of examples, thus changing the date of Lipsiensis forward to the 1300s, and placed at the date of the Palatine Codex. This is because the Greek words were based of certain Latin words that were only found in the Palatine Codex version of Hermas and not the others. Then an associate of the man that sold the manuscript came forward announcing that he is a con man, and forger, and had been supposedly selling ancient Greek manuscripts found on Mt Athos from 1843 to 1846 all throughout Europe. That man being Constantine Simonides. Which is another link in the cog that would take another essay to describe him. Other than he has been falsely accused of many things, and this can also be clearly proven.
Anyway three years later Tishendorf reversed his statement. Why did he do this? Because he had just come from St. Catherin’s having numerous Greek bible parchments in his possession, and within those parchments was none other than the Shepard of Hermas. So according to Tishendorfs’ story it was only part of Hermas, and more importantly he said Codex Lipiensis wasn’t in error after all, but actually was a 1000 years older than he had previously thought it to be. Why? Because the parts of the Shepard of Hermas that were in Sinaiticus were nearly identical to Codex Lipiensis that Simonides had sold. Once again the people believed Tishendorf ; after all, why would he lie? beings that he was becoming famous, having the majority of media support, one of the mighty men of renown in his day, thought to be a real giant in the earth. And it appeared as humility to admit that he was once mistaken, so no harm no foul. So in doing so, they thanked him and announced that at least we know that this one manuscript is genuine, thus partially restoring Simonides reputation among scholars. So one might ask; why is this story even important? Well let’s find out why. Thanks to Steve Avery, David Daniels, and others much of this evidence is now coming to life.
How can we find out if Tishendorfs’ claims are true, and at which time? Scholar James Donaldson wrote in 1874, making the claim that Tishendorf was right the first time. This will help us to understand that Sinaiticus is even more recent than 450 AD. The most efficient way to prove a lawed fmanuscript is to derive from where it came, and to see who repeats the same mistakes. In other words, if you have a text that makes the same changes in numerous places as that of another text, then it’s no out-price that the two are most likely related. Knowing this first, there are only so many known copies of the Shepard of Hermas, however out of all of them only one makes the same mistakes that were found in Simonides’ Hermas. The question is; could those same mistakes also be found in the Sinaiticus?
Let’s examine: Donaldson’s first objection, which was, he said many of the words in Simonides Lipensis are in reality more modern Greek words, and not the old Greek words that are found in the abundance of ancient Greek manuscripts. These include a great number of words unknown to the classical period, but common in Modern Greek. This can be examined on line, and one came compare the Modern Greek letters with those of the Sinaiticus, see>codexsinaiticus.org for comparison.
Another proof that Donaldson gave is that he observed Greek words in Latin form instead of a Greek words in Greek form. Buy looking at this, one can find out they were from the same verse, Hermas visions 3 verse 1. This can be seen on the website, and is listed as Hermas 9-4 (might be listed as Hermas 7-4 on line). The words “sympselion, kerbikarion, lention, karpasinon, are all right within the same verse. And by looking below it says “kai e”. Strangely enough, scribe B2 began to write “kai e” on the previous line, but began all over again on the following line “kai epano”. Remember, all but one of the Latin translations of the Shepard of the Hermas are similitudes except for Palatine Codex 150 found in the Vatican Library. And one example above all that is so convincing is Simonides Lipensis, and the Sinaiticus Hermes, are both back translated from the Vatican’s Palatine Codex at visions ii 3. So as Donaldson revealed it is supposed to read, “but say thou behold great tribulation cometh”. In Latin great is “magna” where we get the word magnified. In Greek its “magale”, and “thlipsis magale” is the same exact term “great tribulation” used by Jesus in the NT. However, the Palatine Vatican Codex changed “magna” to “maximo”. Equivalent to changing “great” to greatest. So Simonides Lipensis transliterated the word “Maximo” in Greek. Now let’s see what the Codex Sinaiticus did here with the Greek. It transliterated it “Maximo”. Donaldson says “Now we can find the text of the Pastor of Hermas, found in the Codex Sinaiticus is substantially the same as that which is given in the Athos manuscript” (meaning Codex Lipensis’ Shepard of Hermas that was sold to them by Simonides). Donaldson also wrote “then there is a considerable number passages preserved to us in Greek by Origin and other writers. The Sinaitic Greek differs often from this Greek and agree with the Roman Catholic Latin translation, especially the Palatine”.
In conclusion: knowing this first, there wasn’t anything else they could have copied, therefore Tishendorfs’ Codex Sinaiticus is a counterfeit, no being derived from 350 AD, not from 450 AD, and not possible older than 1350 AD. Most certainly not the best of text, beings riddled with contradiction when placed against Vaticanus b 1209. It greatly fails in comparison to the 5400 Majority manuscripts that agree over 98% of the time...And neither is Sinaiticus the oldest. So we can put that fable to rest placing a head stone over it’s without any chain of evidence of verification down through the centuries. Knowing the history of false documents coming out of the Vatican for centuries, I perceive it more than likely suggests a work of the Jesuit’s shortly before 1840.Tishendorf, like Westcot & Hort, was a scorpion, a stooge-agent of the Vatican and Cardinal Mi. Receiving much flatteries, opportunities for fame and wealth by selling himself out to them.. And as usual, the serpents go unnoticed in their den of hiding. This is the nature of greedy scorpions, and their overseers, the subtle serpents. On the largest layer, the serpents are the prideful, and the scorpions being greedy do their dirty work, thus being not afraid to expose themselves because of their geed. Scorpions desire to be serpents but they are too greedy to graduate to that level, so they continue to suck up to the serpents by doing their bidding….. Jesus said He gives us power to tread upon these serpents and scorpions, and over all the powers of darkness, and nothing shall by any means hurt you. (Meaning, no spiritual hurt can come upon your soul). However, He said not to rejoice in such things, but rather rejoice that your names are written in the book of life..Luke 10:18-20
Credits from Steve Avery, Mark Mitchy, and David Daniels..albeit I don’t agree with their KJV only stance, and some other doctrinal issues. But I do credit them with having done a most excellent work in uncovering the evidence that proves the new-age critical text is a fraud, having put forth a great multitude of hours in this project.
Willie
J
I disagree with this,because king james had many scribes and scholars translate the bible in multiple languages,as accurately as possible,because he was "inspired" to do so for God,as to the question of is the king james version bible the only bible or not,for the most part my church believes so,because many have been modernized,censored,or changed dramatically,so I feel it is certainly the # 1 bible that can be read to learn God's word accurately,though I realize that some bibles are equally similar,so yeah I'd say depending on the bible,others are good as well to learn God's word,just always keep in mind what is written by mankind,isn't always true,and don't get carried away with what language or culture is best used for learning the bible,because teaching the bible is the holy spirit's job,just read the bible alongside the holy spirit thus you can learn plenty!
I bet, I have to disagree with these findings, the knowledge, tools and sources which are available today are not far better. The KJ translators used first hand sources of various original languages, of different readings and translations. They used “scriptures” not a mere ‘treatise of men’ or lexicons that may come from unbelieving critics of the Bible. KJ translators have the readings of both the Byzantine Text/Received Text and the critical text of Vaticanus and Sinaticus along with a few. What many contending is around 3% variant readings with overall 97% that supports the KJV reading. Accordingly, what the KJ translators dealt with are the ‘words of God’, being diligently compared. ‘More numerous than those available in 1611’ yet these numbers game of Greek extant is a far more witnesses to the KJV readings more than the critical readings.
Here link below is the history of candles:
The History of Candles | NCA
Candles facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com articles about Candles
"One of the earliest forms of portable illumination, candles have served vital functions for humankind throughout history, a fact chronicled through the discovery of candles or candle-like objects in virtually every society. Historians believe the original candle may have been invented by primitive men who dipped dried branches in animal fat, thus producing a slow-burning and reliable source of light. Reliefs belonging to the ancient Egyptians depict the use of candles by writers and philosophers who worked well after sundown. These early candles were most likely developed from tapers that were made of fibrous materials mixed with wax or tallow (the white, nearly tasteless fat of cattle or sheep that was also used to make soap, margarine, and lubricants). As far back as 3000 b.c., dish-shaped candles were used on the island of Crete."
Yet the contention is not about the "candles" but "candlestick". For the record many Bible versions has translated it as ”candlestick” so it is not a mistake of the KJV, I think but still figuring this candle stick is all about. Thanks.
The History of Candles | NCA
Candles facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com articles about Candles
"One of the earliest forms of portable illumination, candles have served vital functions for humankind throughout history, a fact chronicled through the discovery of candles or candle-like objects in virtually every society. Historians believe the original candle may have been invented by primitive men who dipped dried branches in animal fat, thus producing a slow-burning and reliable source of light. Reliefs belonging to the ancient Egyptians depict the use of candles by writers and philosophers who worked well after sundown. These early candles were most likely developed from tapers that were made of fibrous materials mixed with wax or tallow (the white, nearly tasteless fat of cattle or sheep that was also used to make soap, margarine, and lubricants). As far back as 3000 b.c., dish-shaped candles were used on the island of Crete."
Yet the contention is not about the "candles" but "candlestick". For the record many Bible versions has translated it as ”candlestick” so it is not a mistake of the KJV, I think but still figuring this candle stick is all about. Thanks.