KJV discussion

Obviously one of them is corrupt, so if you don't believe that the Textus Receptus is corrupt then by default you believe that the Alexandrain text is corrupt, and vice versa.

But no one even needs to prove that the Alexandrian text is corrupt because it proves itself to be so in that it was not in use from the 4th century to the 1840s. The only times at which it was used were some undeterminable amount of time during the 4th century and the 1840s to present - there's a gap of about 1440 years where it was virtually unkown and unused. The Textus Receptus was in continual use from the 4th century to present (I would dare say from the point at which the last word of Scripture was written to the present but the great proponents of the Alexandrian text, Westcott and Hort, only agree that it goes back to the 4th century so I'll just keep going with their date so that I'll be using a non-partisan date).

Ruckman is not a source, the fact is that the myth and down right lies told about the Codex Sinaiticus is beyond belief.
Jeff the Finn

I've never read anything written by Ruckman. My information about the Alexandrian text actually comes from those who favor it, from Westcott and Hort themselves and from tracts alleging that the Alexandrian text is superior to the TR, etc.

Where did your mythology of the Great Codex Sinaiticus come from, clearly it was not from objective history?
Jeff the Finn

Eusebius shows in his Church History that corrupt copies of Scripture were made by Arian/Arian-like heretics with the express purpose of supporting their heresy that Christ is not God.

Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History - Chapter XXVIII. Those Who First Advanced the Heresy of Artemon; Their Manner of Life, and How They Dared to Corrupt the Sacred Scriptures. http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-0...#P3435_1602605 (The below is quoted from the above):

1. In a laborious work by one of thesewriters against the heresy of Artemon, which Paul of Samosata attempted to revive again in our day, there is an account appropriate to the history which we are now examining.
2. For he criticises, as a late innovation, the above-mentioned heresy which teaches that the Saviour was a mere man, because they were attempting to magnify it as ancient Having given in his work many other arguments in refutation of their blasphemous falsehood, he adds the following words:
3. "For they say that all the early teachers and the apostles received and taught what they now declare, and that the truth of the Gospel was preserved until the times of Victor, who was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter, but that from his successor, Zephyrinus, the truth had been corrupted.
4. And what they say might be plausible, if first of all the Divine Scriptures did not contradict them. And there are writings of certain brethren older than the times of Victor, which they wrote in behalf of the truth against the heathen, and against the heresies which existed in their day. I refer to Justin and Miltiades and Tatian and Clement and many others, in all of whose 5 works Christ is spoken of as God.
5. For who does not know the works of Irenaeus and of Melito and of others which teach that Christ is God and man? And how many psalms and hymns, written by the faithful brethren from the beginning, celebrate Christ the Word of God, speaking of him as Divine.
6. How then since the opinion held by the Church has been preached for so many years, can its preaching have been delayed as they affirm, until the times of Victor? And how is it that they are not ashamed to speak thus falsely of Victor, knowing well that he cut off from communion Theodotus, the cobbler, the leader and father of this God-denying apostasy, and the first to declare that Christ is mere man? For if Victor agreed with their opinions, as their slander affirms, how came he to cast out Theodotus, the inventor of this heresy?"
7. So much in regard to Victor. His bishopric lasted ten years, and Zephyrinus was appointed his successor about the ninth year of the reign of Severus. The author of the above-mentioned book, concerning the founder of this heresy, narrates another event which occurred in the time of Zephyrinus, using these words:
8. "I will remind many of the brethren of a fact which took place in our time, which, had it happened in Sodom, might, I think, have proved a warning to them. There was a certain confessor, Natalius, not long ago, but in our own day.
9. This man was deceived at one time by Asclepiodotus and another Theodotus, a money-changer. Both of them were disciples of Theodotus, the cobbler, who, as I have said, was the first person excommunicated by Victor, bishop at that time, on account of this sentiment, or rather senselessness.
10. Natalius was persuaded by them to allow himself to be chosen bishop of this heresy with a salary, to be paid by them, of one hundred and fifty denarii a month. When 11 he had thus connected himself with them, he was warned oftentimes by the Lord through visions.
11. For the compassionate God and our Lord Jesus Christ was not willing that a witness of his own sufferings, being cast out of the Church, should perish. But as he paid little regard to the visions, because he was ensnared by the first position among them and by that shameful covetousness which destroys a great many, he was scourged by holy angels, and punished severely through the entire night. Thereupon having risen in the morning, he put on sackcloth and covered himself with ashes, and with great haste and tears he fell down before Zephyrinus, the bishop, rolling at the feet not only of the clergy, but also of the laity; and he moved with his tears the compassionate Church of the merciful Christ. And though he used much supplication, and showed the welts of the stripes which he had received, yet scarcely was he taken back into communion."
12. We will add from the same writer some other extracts concerning them, which run as follows: "They have treated the Divine Scriptures recklessly and without fear. They have set aside the rule of ancient faith; and Christ they have not known. They do not endeavor to learn what the Divine Scriptures declare, but strive laboriously after any form of syllogism which may be devised to sustain their impiety. And if any one brings before them a passage of Divine Scripture, they see whether a conjunctive or disjunctive form of syllogism can be made from it.
13. And as being of the earth and speaking of the earth, and as ignorant of him who cometh from above, they forsake the holy writings of God to devote themselves to geometry. Euclid is laboriously measured by some of them; and Aristotle and Theophrastus are admired; and Galen, perhaps, by some is even worshiped.
14. But that those who use the arts of unbelievers for their heretical opinions and adulterate the simple faith of the Divine Scriptures by the craft of the godless, are far from the faith, what need is there to say? Therefore they have laid their hands boldly upon the Divine Scriptures, alleging that they have corrected them.
15. That I am not speaking falsely of them in this matter, whoever wishes may learn. For if any one will collect their respective copies, and compare them one with another, he will find that they differ greatly.
16. Those of Asclepiades, for example, do not agree with those of Theodotus. And many of these can be obtained, because their disciples have assiduously written the corrections, as they call them, that is the corruptions, of each of them. Again, those of Hermophilus do not agree with these, and those of Apollonides are not consistent with themselves. For you can compare those prepared by them at an earlier date with those which they corrupted later, and you will find them widely different.
17. But how daring this offense is, it is not likely that they themselves are ignorant. For either they do not believe that the Divine Scriptures were spoken by the Holy Spirit, and thus are unbelievers, or else they think themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and in that case what else are they than demoniacs? For they cannot deny the commission of the crime, since the copies have been written by their own hands. For they did not receive such Scriptures from their instructors, nor can they produce any copies from which they were transcribed.
18. But some of them have not thought it worth while to corrupt them, but simply deny the law and the prophets, and thus through their lawless and impious teaching under pretense of grace, have sunk to the lowest depths of perdition."
    Let this suffice for these things.

Eusebius Church History Chapter XXIX. The Heresy of Tatian http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-0...#P2690_1285526

"But their original founder, Tatian, formed a certain combination and collection of the Gospels, I know not how, to which he gave the title Diatessaron, and which is still in the l hands of some. But they say that he ventured to paraphrase certain words of the apostle, in order to improve their style."

Tertullian Against Marcion, Book Four, Chapter V.-By the Rule of Antiquity, the Catholic Gospels are Found to Be True, Including the Real St. Luke's. Marcion's Only a Mutilated Edition. The Heretic's Weakness and Inconsistency in Ignoring the Other Gospels. http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/...#P5350_1660377

"For if the (Gospels) of the apostles have come down to us in their integrity, whilst Luke’s, which is received amongst us, so far accords with their rule as to be on a par with them in permanency of reception in the churches, it clearly follows that Luke’s Gospel also has come down to us in like integrity until the sacrilegious treatment of Marcion. In short, when Marcion laid hands on it, it then became diverse and hostile to the Gospels of the apostles. I will therefore advise his followers, that they either change these Gospels, however late to do so, into a conformity with their own, whereby they may seem to be in agreement with the apostolic writings (for they are daily retouching their work, as daily they are convicted by us); or else that they blush for their master, who stands self-condemned either way -- when once he hands on the truth of the gospel conscience smitten, or again subverts it by shameless tampering. Such are the summary arguments which we use, when we take up arms against heretics for the faith of the gospel, maintaining both that order of periods, which rules that a late date is the mark of forgers, and that authority of churches which lends support to the tradition of the apostles; because truth must needs precede the forgery, and proceed straight from those by whom it has been handed on."

Luke 11:2-4
2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. 3 Give us day by day our daily bread.
4 And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.
(KJV)

Why does the Alexandrian text remove the underlined phrases? Because they are missing in Marcion's perversion. Of the four Gospels, the Alexandrian text changes Luke's the most, that is, it is based on Marcion's perversion. See below.

Luke 11:2-4
2 And He said to them, When you pray, say: Father, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come
3 Give us each day our daily bread.
4 And forgive us our sins, For we ourselves also forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation.
(NASB)

One more thing. In John 1:18 the Alexandrian, that is the most up to date Nestle-Aland text, says monogenes theos but the Textus Receptus says monogenes huios . Literally, the Textus Receptus says "only-begotten Son" and the Alexandrian "only-begotten God." Now some might say "Great! the Alexandrian text makes Christ's deity more apparent thus showing that it is not an Arian perversion" but think again! Observe the NASB which is the only Alexandrian translation to actually translate what the Alexandrian text says in this verse, except the New World Translation:

(John 1:18 NNAS) "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."

(John 1:18 NWT) "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotton god who is in the bosom (position) with the Father, is the one that has explained him."

The NASB, NWT, and the Alexandrian text that they are based on are clearly teaching that there are two Gods, one invisible, and one visible. Why? Well, Arianism NEVER said that Jesus was not A God; Arianism said Jesus is not THE God. This is a case of Arian perversion in the Alexandrian text. Arius believed Christ was a lower deity, a lesser-god, as modern day Jehovah's Witnesses do, which is exactly why the Alexandrian texts says "the only begotten God" and is exactly why the JW's use the Alexandrian text. To Arius, the Father is the unbegotten God and Christ is the begotten God, hence lower than the Father and a completely different God and God in a completely different way. In orthodoxy, however, the Father and Son are both God in exactly the same way and the Father is the unbegotten person whereas Christ is the begotten person, but they are the same God. Please view the following article: http://www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet.../kjv08.html#02

Now one has to wonder why the oldest ORTHODOX monastery would preserve, PRESERVE a corrupted text? Of course it was not a corrupted text, it is only in the minds of the true believers in the KJV only religion.
Jeff the Finn

First, it was in their trash. Second, just because you own a book don't mean you agree with it. Third, they could have been polytheistic Arians masquerading as Orthodox. It's not like you would know. BUT the text itself is proof enough - it shows polytheistic Arian corruption in John 1:18, Marcionite corruption in Luke, Tatianite paraphrase througout the gospels, and Theodotus-ic readings as well.