The KJVO Myth Has NO Scriptural support!

Status
Not open for further replies.

kiwimac

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian
Supporter
May 14, 2002
14,985
1,519
63
New Zealand
Visit site
✟590,115.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Utrecht
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Didn't you notice the definition you provide for "perfect"?
It is "perfect".
The versions of the bible that substitute weakness for strength don't interest me a bit.

You did note that 'Complete' is the first option?
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
regarding following the masoretic text:
"the Septuagint; Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion; the Vulgate; the Syriac Peshitta; the Targums; and for the Psalms the Juxta Hebraica of Jerome. Readings from these versions were occasionally followed where the Masoretic Text seemed doubtful "

from the NIV preface.

so even if the masorites say it was a corrupted text, one could easily compare to those six sources and weed out any errors.

but that is simply from websites that say that the masorites claimed to recieve a corrupted text, I have not seen any pictures of authentic masorite scrolls that say such things. So it is not proven.

And you chose to ignore what the Rabbi says.

Hum...

as far as sinaiticus forgery just because someone says a lie once, does not make them a proven liar. Or you would be a proven liar, and none of your posts should be read because you are a proven liar (I assume you have said a lie once or twice).

Ok, since you have labled me a liar, have you lived your entire life and not told one single lie? Be careful slinging lables around.

Such reasoning is fallacious because just because we do something or struggle with a sin, does not make us a habitual sinner in that area. Grace and mercy of God show that our sin is forgiven, just not to practice it.

And yet, that "forger" did it the rest of his life.

And to say he practiced sinning by lying, one should quote several instances where he lied to prove that point. And that was not done. What needs to be understood is his original writings, which I referenced earlier. I will post an eye witness that confirmed Simonides confession that he wrote the sinaiticus. I personally believed he copied large portions of text from existing biblical manuscripts then added text. What was added we don't know, but we do know at least the books of barnabus were added. And this would make it a counterfeit. Due to the fact he was compiling books and claiming they were authentic.

Here again, that is "off topic" for this discussion. I have already provided the area, where that "topic" has been debated. Go there.

The Codex Sinaiticus is a Fake!

------------
the ones that are alleged frauds are the Sinaiticus manuscripts (the one's the NIV, ESV, NASB use). The fact that there are whitened leaves, and the ones that are not whitened are not as old as they should be for the 4th century. It looks like there was tampering to say the least, and one guy actually confessed to tampering it: Simonides. Here is an interesting tidbit from another thread on this topic: Before the Codex Sinaiticus, the first five letters of Barnabas were not known to us, but with the "discovery" of the Codex Sinaiticus we were able to know what was in them. The Codex Sinaiticus was found by Constantin von Tischendorf in 1845. The only problem that we have is that in 1843, a good 2 years before the discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus, Constantine Simonides had published a book called the "The Letters of Barnabas" which he even had the first 4 letters that were first found in the Codex Sinaiticus. They were exactly the same, word for word. So the question lies, doesn't it naturally follow that only two sources at that relative time claimed to have the books, and one source claims to forge the second source? Doesn't that add validity to his claim? There is a second source that claims He forged it:
In Oct 15, 1862, Kallinikos Hieromachos, wrote a letter, were it stated that

...I do myself declare to all men by this letter, that the Codex of the Old and New Testaments, together with the Epistle of Barnabas and of the Shepherd Hermas, which was abstracted by Dr. Tischendorf from the Greek monastery of Mount Sinai, is a work of the hands of the unwearied Simonides himself. Inasmuch as I myself saw him in 1843 ... in the month of February writing it in Athos...Dr. Tischendorf, coming to the Greek monastery of Sinai in 1844, in the month of May (if my memory does not deceive me), and remaining there several days, and getting into his hands, by permission of the librarian, the codex we are speaking of, and perusing and re-perusing it frequently, abstracted secretly a small portion of it, but left the largest portion in the place where it was, and departed undisturbed...And I know yet further, that the codex also was cleaned with lemon-juice, professedly for the purpose of cleaning its parchments, but in reality in order to weaken the freshness of the letters, as was actually the case."


this adds validity to the fact that 10% of the manuscript is whiter than the rest of it. It would naturally follow that that was the part that was cleaned with lemon juice.

Like I said, Constantine Simonides was brought into question on several excuses. He barely know Greek. Let alone be able to write in three completely different handwriting styles. He could not have written the Codex in the time allowed, its simply impossible. At the "alledged" time he was there, the Abbot of the Monestary even said that the Codex was in a secure location and he had no access to it.

the textus receptus (text behind NKJV) has no such allegations as to corruptness. They have been trusted for centuries.

In the first place, "textus receptus' was never used to describe Erasmus' work. It was an "advertising" blerb by:

"The brothers Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir. "Textum ergo habes nunc AB OMNIBUS RECEPTUM in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus." The term "Textus Receptus" is, in itself, untruthful. It was put forth simply as a clever advertisement of an enterprising publisher. The edition which bore this pretentious announcement varied somewhat from that of 1624 in the correction of some of the worst misprints, though it retained others equally bad, and added a few of its own."

Marvin Vincent, A History of Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 1899, Chapter VII.

And again, if the KJV is the only versioin a person should use, which "revision" is the one? 1611, 1613, 1629, 1638, 1762, or 1769?

The KJV, of which we are talking about, not the NKJV, used as a basis only 54 at best sources. And the Codex Sinaiticus was not one of them.

As a matter of fact, when the KJ translators were given the task of writing their version, they were given very specific instructions NOT to deviate from the previous versions unless absolutely necessary.

Fact is, the KJVO stance is a myth with absolutely no scriptural support.

Please produce one verse, just one, that says God said use the King James bible only.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
And you chose to ignore what the Rabbi says.

Hum...



Ok, since you have labled me a liar, have you lived your entire life and not told one single lie? Be careful slinging lables around.
I agree with what the rabbi says, but I don't trust any man 100%. Thats why I asked for proof.



And yet, that "forger" did it the rest of his life.
can you prove he lied consistently the rest of his life? Maybe he forged it and told the truth?



Here again, that is "off topic" for this discussion. I have already provided the area, where that "topic" has been debated. Go there.

The Codex Sinaiticus is a Fake!
please link to the post where you talk about this.

Like I said, Constantine Simonides was brought into question on several excuses. He barely know Greek. Let alone be able to write in three completely different handwriting styles. He could not have written the Codex in the time allowed, its simply impossible. At the "alledged" time he was there, the Abbot of the Monestary even said that the Codex was in a secure location and he had no access to it.
again when copying a manuscript that has three different writing styles, one need not know much greek. And if it is copying, and forging, it would make sense that it went relatively quickly as opposed to writing it out of thin air. as far as being behind locked doors, I assume they locked it up after they realized the value of it. Besides there are whitened leaves, and it happens to be right where the epistle to barnabas was added. It does not take much to realize it as a forgery. Textus receptus however does not have this type of scandal.



Like I said, Constantine Simonides was brought into question on several excuses. He barely know Greek. Let alone be able to write in three completely different handwriting styles. He could not have written the Codex in the time allowed, its simply impossible. At the "alledged" time he was there, the Abbot of the Monestary even said that the Codex was in a secure location and he had no access to it.
I use the NKJV, which is literally heretical to a KJV only. So I won't respond to that section. But what I will respond to is the above:
 
Upvote 0

kiwimac

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian
Supporter
May 14, 2002
14,985
1,519
63
New Zealand
Visit site
✟590,115.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Utrecht
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
"Complete" is "an" option, but not one that promotes actual perfection.
Perfection is what is commanded in Matt 5:48.

The Greek word used for perfect in that verse is τέλειος which means ;
having reached its end, i.e. complete, by ext. perfect
Original Word: τέλειος, α, ον
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: teleios
Phonetic Spelling: (tel'-i-os)
Definition: having reached its end, complete, perfect
Usage: perfect, (a) complete in all its parts, (b) full grown, of full age, (c) specially of the completeness of Christian character.

Source

Further the equivalent verse in Luke 6:36 asks us to be merciful / compassionate as God is merciful / compassionate. Perfection for Jesus was not the emptiness of the English word but was rooted in the Hebrew idea of the compassion of the womb.
 
Upvote 0

Phil W

Well-Known Member
Apr 15, 2019
3,187
675
69
Mesa, Az
✟67,340.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The Greek word used for perfect in that verse is τέλειος which means ;
having reached its end, i.e. complete, by ext. perfect
Original Word: τέλειος, α, ον
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: teleios
Phonetic Spelling: (tel'-i-os)
Definition: having reached its end, complete, perfect
Usage: perfect, (a) complete in all its parts, (b) full grown, of full age, (c) specially of the completeness of Christian character.

Source

Further the equivalent verse in Luke 6:36 asks us to be merciful / compassionate as God is merciful / compassionate. Perfection for Jesus was not the emptiness of the English word but was rooted in the Hebrew idea of the compassion of the womb.
Thanks for the back-up.
The word "perfect" isn't empty to those who live their new lives in accord with God's will.
 
Upvote 0

kiwimac

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian
Supporter
May 14, 2002
14,985
1,519
63
New Zealand
Visit site
✟590,115.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Utrecht
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Thanks for the back-up.
The word "perfect" isn't empty to those who live their new lives in accord with God's will.
Ah, the old misquote bit, that is NOT what I wrote. 'Perfection' in English does not mean what Telios means in Greek nor does it mean what Jesus was talking about. He was talking about completeness, of being truly human, truly compassionate as God is compassionate.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
can you prove he lied consistently the rest of his life? Maybe he forged it and told the truth?

"Simonides’ mastery of written Greek came much later than would appear to be indicated by his newspaper smear campaign articles, for he was still incapable of writing these articles in the 1840s entirely from his own resources. Tracing this back, we find that the monks at the Panteleimon monastery judged that when he arrived there in November 1839,


"He was a poor boy, who could, of course, write Greek, but not much more.(1)

"But Simonides ‘on account of his behaviour…was soon denied further hospitality’ at that monastery,(2) and being ‘dismissed in consequence of his disorderly and scandalous conduct’ (3) had to be moved elsewhere. The Panteleimon monastery, who arranged for Simonides to study in Odessa, advise that he did not last long there either:

"Simonides was accepted under the patronage of Mr Sturdza, and in his dependency placed in the Odessa Richelieu Lyceum to learn to read and write…But…was soon expelled from the Lyceum with dishonor." (4)

So here, in November 1841, we find that Simonides had only elementary reading and writing skills, and yet, according to his own incredible account, had already finished the transcription of a complete Bible in uncials within a matter of months. No one acquainted with Simonides during that time would believe such nonsense. At the Odessa school Simonides became acquainted with Amphilochius during 1841-2, who confirms that he had:

"a slight knowledge of the rudiments of our ancient Greek language…[but] having attended...for some few months only the lessons at Odessa, he was expelled from the school in consequence of his disorderly conduct." (5)

(1)Православное Обозрение, 1863, Х, p.362ff. The term for ‘boy’ could not be used for a youth older than 15. To suggest as Simonides does that three months later he was engaged in writing out the whole Bible in uncials on parchment in the style of the fourth century is thus utterly ridiculous.

(2) These are the words of the Panteleimon monastery itself, see Православное Обозрение, 1863, Х, p.362ff.

(3) Letter of Amphilochius, Bishop of Pelusium, Alexandria, October 5, 1863, to Edwin J. Davies H.B.M. Consular Chaplain, Alexandria. Amphilochius entered the Panteleimon monastery in 1843 and having known Simonides in Odessa Enquired about him and ‘was informed that [Simonides] had indeed lived there, but had been dismissed in consequence of his disorderly and scandalous conduct, and that he had no relationship with the Reverend Benedict’. The Panteleimon monastery subsequently made it a matter of public knowledge: ‘Benedict, who died in 1841, was neither Simonides’ uncle, nor a relative, but only a compatriot. This kind old man, whose example he should have followed, really interceded here for his fellow countryman, so that he could stay here for some time for his spiritual good. But on account of his behaviour the young man did not justify the care of the elder Benedict, and therefore the future glorious adventurer was soon denied further hospitality here.’ Православное Обозрение, 1863, Х, p.362ff.

(4) Православное Обозрение, 1863, Х, p.362ff.

(5) Letter of Amphilochius, October 5, 1863, to Edwin J. Davies.

Source: A REVIEW OF THE FORGING OF CODEX SINAITICUS, BY DR W. R. COOPER, AGAINST DETAILED BACKGROUND OF THE DISCOVERY OF THE CODEX. BY KEVIN MCGRANE, pp. 56-57

Seems we've been over this ground before. You didn't accept my proof then, is there any reason to believe you'd accept it now.

Suffice to say, I ask for definitive proof, scripture that says the KJV is the only version people should use, and/or God's word is "perfectly preserved' in the KJV.

Until then...

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Kate30
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Now, to borrow an old phrase: "here is where the rubber hits the road".

As I stated previously, Sinaiticus was not a souce used or even considered when the "Authorized Version" was being written. In fact, Codex Sinaiticus wasn't "discovered" until sometime around 1843. Some 232 years later.

However, it is well documented what materials and what instructions were given to the KJ translators.

Here I cite:

"Instructions were given to the translators that were intended to limit the Puritan influence on this new translation. And "the King gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology of the Church of England.

In addition:

"James' instructions included several requirements that kept the new translation familiar to its listeners and readers. The text of the Bishops' Bible would serve as the primary guide for the translators, and the familiar proper names of the biblical characters would all be retained. If the Bishops' Bible was deemed problematic in any situation, the translators were permitted to consult other translations from a pre-approved list: the Tyndale Bible, the Coverdale Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible. In addition, later scholars have detected an influence on the Authorized Version from the translations of Taverner's Bible and the New Testament of the Douay–Rheims Bible.


For their New Testament, the translators chiefly used the 1598 and 1588/89 Greek editions of Theodore Beza, which also present Beza's Latin version of the Greek and Stephanus's edition of the Latin Vulgate. Both of these versions were extensively referred to, as the translators conducted all discussions amongst themselves in Latin. F.H.A. Scrivener identifies 190 readings where the Authorized Version translators depart from Beza's Greek text, generally in maintaining the wording of the Bishop's Bible and other earlier English translations. In about half of these instances, the Authorized Version translators appear to follow the earlier 1550 Greek Textus Receptus of Stephanus. For the other half, Scrivener was usually able to find corresponding Greek readings in the editions of Erasmus, or in the Complutensian Polyglot. However, in several dozen readings he notes that no printed Greek text corresponds to the English of the Authorized Version, which in these places derives directly from the Vulgate. For example, at John 10:16, the Authorized Version reads "one fold" (as did the Bishops' Bible, and the 16th century vernacular versions produced in Geneva), following the Latin Vulgate "unum ovile", whereas Tyndale had agreed more closely with the Greek, "one flocke" (μία ποίμνη). The Authorized Version New Testament owes much more to the Vulgate than does the Old Testament; still, at least 80% of the text is unaltered from Tyndale's translation.

The translators appear to have otherwise made no first-hand study of ancient manuscript sources, even those that – like the Codex Bezae – would have been readily available to them. In addition to all previous English versions (including, and contrary to their instructions, the Rheimish New Testament[ which in their preface they criticized); they made wide and eclectic use of all printed editions in the original languages then available, including the ancient Syriac New Testament printed with an interlinear Latin gloss in the Antwerp Polyglot of 1573. In the preface the translators acknowledge consulting translations and commentaries in Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, Latin, Spanish, French, Italian, and German.

The translators took the Bishop's Bible as their source text, and where they departed from that in favour of another translation, this was most commonly the Geneva Bible. However, the degree to which readings from the Bishop's Bible survived into final text of the King James Bible varies greatly from company to company, as did the propensity of the King James translators to coin phrases of their own. John Bois's notes of the General Committee of Review show that they discussed readings derived from a wide variety of versions and patristic sources; including explicitly both Henry Savile's 1610 edition of the works of John Chrysostom and the Rheims New Testament, which was the primary source for many of the literal alternative readings provided for the marginal notes.

Sources:

a b c d e f Daniell 2003, p. 439. (Daniell, David (2003). The Bible in English: its history and influence. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press.)
a b Daniell 2003, p. 436. Ibid
a b Daniell 2003, p. 434. Ibid
Bobrick 2001, p. 328. (Daniell, David (2003). The Bible in English: its history and influence. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press
Norton 2005, p. 10. (Norton, David (2005). A Textual History of the King James Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.)
a b Bobrick 2001, p. 223. Ibid
Daniell 2003, p. 442. Ibid
Daniell 2003, p. 444. Ibid
Scrivener 1884, p. 60. (Scrivener, Frederick Henry Ambrose (1884). The Authorized Edition of the English Bible, 1611, its subsequent reprints and modern representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.)
Scrivener 1884, pp. 243–63. Ibid
Scrivener 1884, p. 262. Ibid
Daniell 2003, p. 448. Ibid
Scrivener 1884, p. 59. Ibid
a b Daniell 2003, p. 440. Ibid
Bois, Allen & Walker 1969, p. xxv. (Bois, John; Allen, Ward; Walker, Anthony (1969). Translating for King James; being a true copy of the only notes made by a translator of King James's Bible, the Authorized Version, as the Final Committee of Review revised the translation of Romans through Revelation at Stationers' Hall in London in 1610–1611. Taken by John Bois ... these notes were for three centuries lost, and only now are come to light, through a copy made by the hand of William Fulman. Here translated and edited by Ward Allen. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.)
Bobrick 2001, p. 246. Ibid
KJV Translators to the Reader 1611. Ibid
Bois, Allen & Walker 1969, p. 118. Ibid

Main Source

So as it turns out, the KJ Translators were not as diligent as thought.

Whatever a certain passage read, say like that of Tyndale or Wycliffe, it remained.

Bottom line, the KJ Translators were never "inspired" as the KJVO crowd wants us to believe.

And, just one last point. Since it has been shown that the Codex Sinaiticus played no part in the writing of the "Authorized Version", any further references to it, shall be considered as "Off Topic".

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟107,962.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Please notice that NO KJVO will try to deal with the fact that the KJVO myth has no Scriptural support, as they know, same as we Freedom Readers do, that, without Scriptural support, it cannot be true.

Seems they'd rather cling to a false doctrine than admit the TRUTH. Now, no Freedom Reader is asking the KJVO to toss his KJV. We're asking that they cease believing and spreading the false doctrine that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible version, & to cease badmouthing other English Bible versions, especially the modern ones.

The KJVO myth is a tool of Satan's that he invented to spread strife & dissent among Christians & to attempt to stifle newer versions in current language. Its man-made origin is easily seen.

**THE KJVO MYTH - PHONY AS A FORD CORVETTE !**
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
"Simonides’ mastery of written Greek came much later than would appear to be indicated by his newspaper smear campaign articles, for he was still incapable of writing these articles in the 1840s entirely from his own resources. Tracing this back, we find that the monks at the Panteleimon monastery judged that when he arrived there in November 1839,


"He was a poor boy, who could, of course, write Greek, but not much more.(1)

"But Simonides ‘on account of his behaviour…was soon denied further hospitality’ at that monastery,(2) and being ‘dismissed in consequence of his disorderly and scandalous conduct’ (3) had to be moved elsewhere. The Panteleimon monastery, who arranged for Simonides to study in Odessa, advise that he did not last long there either:

"Simonides was accepted under the patronage of Mr Sturdza, and in his dependency placed in the Odessa Richelieu Lyceum to learn to read and write…But…was soon expelled from the Lyceum with dishonor." (4)

So here, in November 1841, we find that Simonides had only elementary reading and writing skills, and yet, according to his own incredible account, had already finished the transcription of a complete Bible in uncials within a matter of months. No one acquainted with Simonides during that time would believe such nonsense. At the Odessa school Simonides became acquainted with Amphilochius during 1841-2, who confirms that he had:

"a slight knowledge of the rudiments of our ancient Greek language…[but] having attended...for some few months only the lessons at Odessa, he was expelled from the school in consequence of his disorderly conduct." (5)

(1)Православное Обозрение, 1863, Х, p.362ff. The term for ‘boy’ could not be used for a youth older than 15. To suggest as Simonides does that three months later he was engaged in writing out the whole Bible in uncials on parchment in the style of the fourth century is thus utterly ridiculous.

(2) These are the words of the Panteleimon monastery itself, see Православное Обозрение, 1863, Х, p.362ff.

(3) Letter of Amphilochius, Bishop of Pelusium, Alexandria, October 5, 1863, to Edwin J. Davies H.B.M. Consular Chaplain, Alexandria. Amphilochius entered the Panteleimon monastery in 1843 and having known Simonides in Odessa Enquired about him and ‘was informed that [Simonides] had indeed lived there, but had been dismissed in consequence of his disorderly and scandalous conduct, and that he had no relationship with the Reverend Benedict’. The Panteleimon monastery subsequently made it a matter of public knowledge: ‘Benedict, who died in 1841, was neither Simonides’ uncle, nor a relative, but only a compatriot. This kind old man, whose example he should have followed, really interceded here for his fellow countryman, so that he could stay here for some time for his spiritual good. But on account of his behaviour the young man did not justify the care of the elder Benedict, and therefore the future glorious adventurer was soon denied further hospitality here.’ Православное Обозрение, 1863, Х, p.362ff.

(4) Православное Обозрение, 1863, Х, p.362ff.

(5) Letter of Amphilochius, October 5, 1863, to Edwin J. Davies.

Source: A REVIEW OF THE FORGING OF CODEX SINAITICUS, BY DR W. R. COOPER, AGAINST DETAILED BACKGROUND OF THE DISCOVERY OF THE CODEX. BY KEVIN MCGRANE, pp. 56-57

Seems we've been over this ground before. You didn't accept my proof then, is there any reason to believe you'd accept it now.

Suffice to say, I ask for definitive proof, scripture that says the KJV is the only version people should use, and/or God's word is "perfectly preserved' in the KJV.

Until then...

God Bless

Till all are one.
yes your quoting sources that have already noted that they disbelieve the account. How is this not biased? Also I looked up and downloaded your source document, the author gives no credentials, in fact he completely leaves himself out of the project all together. All we know is his name KEVIN MCGRANE, and we don't even know if that is his real name. So we know nothing about the author of that work. We don't know if it is honest, legitimate, or true. To help with this problem. I recommend you must quote from original sources. In the link I posted, there were photographs of original documents.

in conclusion I wanted to post a review of the book that was wrote about in your paper:

Codex Sinaiticus is a Greek version of parts of the Old Testament (basically the Septuagint, which is corrupt in and by itself), parts of the New Testament (again corrupted), and parts of the Apocrypha (clearly not Scripture). Dr. Cooper does a marvelous job proving that the Codex Sinaiticus was artificially aged to make it look like it originated in the 4th century A.D. and that it really originated in the 19th century. There is much to this story, so I'll just highlight a few points here.
1. The book shows why Constantin Tischendorf (the man who "discovered" the Codex) was not trustworthy (the author explains many reasons why).
2. It explains how Roman Catholic Pope Gregory XVI left his fingerprints on the fraud and how untrustworthy Gregory was.
3. It digs into how the Roman Catholic Jesuits had their fingerprints ALL OVER this forgery/fraud and that they (and the Vatican) have a long history of being in the fraud business.
4. Cooper shows that two of the books within the Codex were written in modern Greek, while the rest of the books were in Koine Greek and yet one version of Greek follows the other version of Greek ON THE SAME PAGE inside the Codex.
5. He explains with meticulous detail how the parchment could not POSSIBLY be as old as claimed.
6. He demonstrates beyond doubt how one or more persons attempted to artificially age the Codex.
7. Cooper shows how it is impossible for several "wormholes" to be square (though it is claimed that they are wormholes) and how "wormholes" appear in single pages over and over again without going into adjacent pages.
8. He demonstrates how stains are inconsistent on pages, never having leaked over or through to another page
9. He brings forth the testimony of the man who claimed to have written the entire Codex in the 1800s and the proofs the man himself offered up that he had written it, including codes that he left on certain pages of the Codex.
10. He shows how Fenton Hort was involved in trying to cover up the deceit (or maybe he really believed it)

There are photos of the Codex in question to back up the author's claims (and the Codex is now available on the internet for the whole world to see, so the reader can check the author for himself). There is much, much more. Any Christian who believes that the NIV, ESV, NASB, New World or almost all of the other modern versions is a honest, true, trustworthy Bible - think again. Read this book and get yourself a real Bible - the Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text or get yourself a really good translation - the King James Authorized Bible which is based on these good Greek and Hebrews texts.

https://www.amazon.com/Forging-Codex-Sinaiticus-Bill-Cooper-ebook/dp/B01E1SUPRO#customerReviews
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Phil W

Well-Known Member
Apr 15, 2019
3,187
675
69
Mesa, Az
✟67,340.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Ah, the old misquote bit, that is NOT what I wrote. 'Perfection' in English does not mean what Telios means in Greek nor does it mean what Jesus was talking about. He was talking about completeness, of being truly human, truly compassionate as God is compassionate.
I don't understand why you don't agree with your own quote? {post 365)
As for "truly human", are you referring to the old man who was killed at his regeneration, or the new man raised with Christ to walk in newness of life?
As the new man is born of God's seed, I can't grasp how it can ever be judged imperfect.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
yes your quoting sources that have already noted that they disbelieve the account. How is this not biased? Also I looked up and downloaded your source document, the author gives no credentials, in fact he completely leaves himself out of the project all together. All we know is his name KEVIN MCGRANE, and we don't even know if that is his real name. So we know nothing about the author of that work. We don't know if it is honest, legitimate, or true. To help with this problem. I recommend you must quote from original sources. In the link I posted, there were photographs of original documents.

in conclusion I wanted to post a review of the book that was wrote about in your paper:

Codex Sinaiticus is a Greek version of parts of the Old Testament (basically the Septuagint, which is corrupt in and by itself), parts of the New Testament (again corrupted), and parts of the Apocrypha (clearly not Scripture). Dr. Cooper does a marvelous job proving that the Codex Sinaiticus was artificially aged to make it look like it originated in the 4th century A.D. and that it really originated in the 19th century. There is much to this story, so I'll just highlight a few points here.
1. The book shows why Constantin Tischendorf (the man who "discovered" the Codex) was not trustworthy (the author explains many reasons why).
2. It explains how Roman Catholic Pope Gregory XVI left his fingerprints on the fraud and how untrustworthy Gregory was.
3. It digs into how the Roman Catholic Jesuits had their fingerprints ALL OVER this forgery/fraud and that they (and the Vatican) have a long history of being in the fraud business.
4. Cooper shows that two of the books within the Codex were written in modern Greek, while the rest of the books were in Koine Greek and yet one version of Greek follows the other version of Greek ON THE SAME PAGE inside the Codex.
5. He explains with meticulous detail how the parchment could not POSSIBLY be as old as claimed.
6. He demonstrates beyond doubt how one or more persons attempted to artificially age the Codex.
7. Cooper shows how it is impossible for several "wormholes" to be square (though it is claimed that they are wormholes) and how "wormholes" appear in single pages over and over again without going into adjacent pages.
8. He demonstrates how stains are inconsistent on pages, never having leaked over or through to another page
9. He brings forth the testimony of the man who claimed to have written the entire Codex in the 1800s and the proofs the man himself offered up that he had written it, including codes that he left on certain pages of the Codex.
10. He shows how Fenton Hort was involved in trying to cover up the deceit (or maybe he really believed it)

There are photos of the Codex in question to back up the author's claims (and the Codex is now available on the internet for the whole world to see, so the reader can check the author for himself). There is much, much more. Any Christian who believes that the NIV, ESV, NASB, New World or almost all of the other modern versions is a honest, true, trustworthy Bible - think again. Read this book and get yourself a real Bible - the Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text or get yourself a really good translation - the King James Authorized Bible which is based on these good Greek and Hebrews texts.

https://www.amazon.com/Forging-Codex-Sinaiticus-Bill-Cooper-ebook/dp/B01E1SUPRO#customerReviews

Once again, that is "Off topic" for this discussion.

The Codex Sinaiticus was never under consideration when the "Authorized Version" was coming into being.

So, once again, I ask that you deal with the discussion at hand.

Any more posts about the Codex Sinaiticus will be considered as "Off-Topic".

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Once again, that is "Off topic" for this discussion.

The Codex Sinaiticus was never under consideration when the "Authorized Version" was coming into being.

So, once again, I ask that you deal with the discussion at hand.

Any more posts about the Codex Sinaiticus will be considered as "Off-Topic".

God Bless

Till all are one.

I don't think off topic posts are really a major thing, when the thread is basically dead at the moment. It is meant to keep the topic streamlined to the OP, but when no one is posting, you basically do anything to keep the thread alive. But nevertheless, I won't post on this anymore. But I would like to continue this debate in this thread:
Are modern Bible translations as good as the old ones? KJV versus ESV versus NKJV
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟107,962.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Still, no KJVO responses for awhile on the fact that the KJVO myth has no Scriptural support. They try to avoid that fact as if it were a dose of ebola. The CHRISTIAN thing to do is accept that truth & ADMIT it. if one wishes to use only the KJV (or any other one Bible version), fine, but proclaiming that the KJV (or any other one version) is the ONLY valid English Bible translation out there is just plain FALSE.
 
Upvote 0

Phil W

Well-Known Member
Apr 15, 2019
3,187
675
69
Mesa, Az
✟67,340.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Still, no KJVO responses for awhile on the fact that the KJVO myth has no Scriptural support. They try to avoid that fact as if it were a dose of ebola. The CHRISTIAN thing to do is accept that truth & ADMIT it. if one wishes to use only the KJV (or any other one Bible version), fine, but proclaiming that the KJV (or any other one version) is the ONLY valid English Bible translation out there is just plain FALSE.
It seems to me that the newer versions of the bible have taken the fervor out of adherence to God's word.
They soften things meant to be hard, and are aimed at pleasing the reader instead of the Author.
 
Upvote 0

kiwimac

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian
Supporter
May 14, 2002
14,985
1,519
63
New Zealand
Visit site
✟590,115.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Utrecht
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
It seems to me that the newer versions of the bible have taken the fervor out of adherence to God's word.
They soften things meant to be hard, and are aimed at pleasing the reader instead of the Author.

Nope.
 
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟107,962.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
It seems to me that the newer versions of the bible have taken the fervor out of adherence to God's word.
They soften things meant to be hard, and are aimed at pleasing the reader instead of the Author.

The KJV was meant to please the reader, in the language of 400 years ago. Still, nothing to do with the FACT that the KJVO myth has NO Scriptural support & is therefore false.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeaconDean
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.