The KJVO myth...

[solid_core]

I will look at this later, thanks try some more of them,

I checked the last one - Mk 12:16 and I did not find such word on the P45.

P45 is in such a bad shape that its frequently about our fantasy and to decide if its eipan or eipon is quite impossible. Also, whats the difference? Its still "said" in English.

 

[createdtoworship]

Why do you think such work is meaningful? Westcott-Hort is not used today, its a work of the 19th century.

You should study Nestlé-Aland.

Actually modern translations should be studied yes, but for this they don't answer the questions posed by the missing words and phrases. For example it is my oppinion that Westcott and Hort added those words. And put a footnote or whatever. So they used alexandrian texts for their base, 99% but then used 1% variant readings from byzantine. Same with nestle a land. But you can double check if you want. The point is that very early paprus fragments are matching up with textus receptus, the text behind the KJV and other majority texts. In fact not only early paprus but the majority of fragments in general also concur with the additional versing. So basically the only thing going for the alexandrian texts is that it's old, and with the allegations of forgery looking over it, it may not even be old.

 

[solid_core]

Actually modern translations should be studied yes, but for this they don't answer the questions posed by the missing words and phrases. For example it is my oppinion that Westcott and Hort added those words. And put a footnote or whatever. So they used alexandrian texts for their base, 99% but then used 1% variant readings from byzantine. Same with nestle a land. But you can double check if you want. The point is that very early paprus fragments are matching up with textus receptus, the text behind the KJV and other majority texts. In fact not only early paprus but the majority of fragments in general also concur with the additional versing. So basically the only thing going for the alexandrian texts is that it's old, and with the allegations of forgery looking over it, it may not even be old.

German Bible Society, the creator of Nestlé-Aland, is now working on Editio Critica Maior - Greek text edition that will take into consideration all known papyri, manuscripts and church fathers quotations.

Its something that has never been done before. It will be a great help in New Testament studies.

It will be completed in 2030.

Editio Critica Maior - Wikipedia

 

[createdtoworship]

German Bible Society, the creator of Nestlé-Aland, is now working on Editio Critica Maior - Greek text edition that will take into consideration all known papyri, manuscripts and church fathers quotations.

Its something that has never been done before. It will be a great help in New Testament studies.

It will be completed in 2030.

Editio Critica Maior - Wikipedia

Well why not just use greek editions that already have it instead of using a piece meal method of patching two manuscript families together? The manuscripts are very different (alexandrian versus byzantine). So using them to add variant verses is just a band aid on a forged manuscript. What they should do for accuracy is use the textus receptus as the base, since there are not forgery allegations. It has all missing verses, church fathers and early paprus concur both that this manuscript was used during the few hundred years after Christ. That is all I would need to convince me that textus receptus should be the base for any Bible, and if they want to consort other texts, that is fine. But use the receptus as the base.

Here is a PDF copy of harry sturz works on the patristic quotes, that I couldn't find earlier...

HARRY A. STURZ, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism, Nashville, Camden, New York: Thomas Nelson, 1984, 305 pp in: Novum Testamentum Volume 28 Issue 3 (1986)

 

[solid_core]

Well why not just use greek editions that already have it instead of using a piece meal method of patching two manuscript families together? The manuscripts are very different. So using them to add variant verses is just a band aid on a forged manuscript.

There are no Greek editions that can compare to Editio Critica Maior. Such a huge work was never done before.

 

[createdtoworship]

There are no Greek editions that can compare to Editio Critica Maior. Such a huge work was never done before.

see my last post, the majority texts already exist, to redo it would be redundant. It's only using alexandrian text as a base, not byzantine. To basically patch modern translations to an accurate translation. The problem is not with the greek texts, the problem goes back to sinaiticus and vaticanus. The vatican had control over vatincanus for centuries. It was my view that this was when the johannian comma was removed but I cannot prove that, it's just an opinion. But there is a book out, that I haven't read yet but it's called " A history of the defence of 1 John 5:7-9" parts of it are quoted below on a site where all through history people are quoting the comma in documents leading back all the way to Christ, so it would be a critical verse I would want to see in any new majority text work, because it's in the majority of texts.

this site is KJV only but it proves the point, basically the quotes through history of the comma. I don't recommend KJV only sites, as they can be hate filled etc. I just use them for tidbits of information, and since I don't have a digital copy of michael maynards book I will just quote the quotations from this site:

https://brandplucked.webs.com/1john57.htm

 

[solid_core]

see my last post, the majority texts already exist, to redo it would be redundant. It's only using alexandrian text as a base, not byzantine. To basically patch modern translations to an accurate translation. The problem is not with the greek texts, the problem goes back to sinaiticus and vaticanus. The vatican had control over vatincanus for centuries. It was my view that this was when the johannian comma was removed.

Editio Critica Maior is not only about "majority" text or only about vaticanus, but about all known texts discovered till today. Thats what makes it exceptional. It will not be a selection.

Neither Westcott-Hort nor any other edition is comparable to such work.

 

[createdtoworship]

Editio Critica Maior is not only about "majority" text or only about vaticanus, but about all known texts discovered till today. Thats what makes it exceptional. It will not be a selection.

Neither Westcott-Hort nor any other edition is comparable to such work.

so it's ok to use forged text? If thats the case, I am sure I can find some blank aged paprus, and write me some bible for some serious cash.

 

[createdtoworship]

Editio Critica Maior is not only about "majority" text or only about vaticanus, but about all known texts discovered till today. Thats what makes it exceptional. It will not be a selection.

Neither Westcott-Hort nor any other edition is comparable to such work.

So you admit modern translations are faulty? That is a step in the right direction. But again you must ask yourself, why did God allow contradicting Bible texts exist for a thousand years? Why would He allow it? The same reason He allows mormons and jehovah's witnesses to sift the wheat of weak christiandom. Again one family is right, one is wrong. It's the only choice, they contradict in thousands of places. So again it's just the scholarly worlds last attempt to resurrect a faulty manuscript family. But anyway, I don't think it's all bad. I do have a modern translation I use. It's the ESV. But if they create another literal translation, I would be curious if they keep the comma of 1 john 5:7, or if they exclude it. That is sort of my litmus test for a good bible, it's the only verse in the Bible that proves the whole trinity in one verse. And every modern translation excudes it. That to me proves it's bad fruit. It's taking essential doctrine out. So if they include it, I may use the text more, but if they exclude it, I will keep it as a backup. But point being not this new project, but the point is the the NIV, ESV, NASB are missing over 200 verses. And we need to address why God would allow that? If those Bible's are the word of God?

 

[solid_core]

so it's ok to use forged text? If thats the case, I am sure I can find some blank aged paprus, and write me some bible for some serious cash.

Not sure what you mean. But you can try.

 

[solid_core]

So you admit modern translations are faulty? That is a step in the right direction. But again you must ask yourself, why did God allow contradicting Bible texts exist for a thousand years? Why would He allow it? The same reason He allows mormons and jehovah's witnesses to sift the wheat of weak christiandom. Again one family is right, one is wrong. It's the only choice, they contradict in thousands of places. So again it's just the scholarly worlds last attempt to resurrect a faulty manuscript family. But anyway, I don't think it's all bad. I do have a modern translation I use. It's the ESV. But if they create another literal translation, I would be curious if they keep the comma of 1 john 5:7, or if they exclude it. That is sort of my litmus test for a good bible, it's the only verse in the Bible that proves the whole trinity in one verse. And every modern translation excudes it. That to me proves it's bad fruit. It's taking essential doctrine out. So if they include it, I may use the text more, but if they exclude it, I will keep it as a backup. But point being not this new project, but the point is the the NIV, ESV, NASB are missing over 200 verses. And we need to address why God would allow that? If those Bible's are the word of God?

Not sure what you mean or how it relates to Editio Critica Maior.

I do not know why you think that "one family is right, one family is wrong" - why to see it so black and white?

 

[createdtoworship]

Not sure what you mean. But you can try.

If they are consulting sinaiticus and vaticanus fragments as part of the papyrus that they are going to use, then they are using a forgery. And if so, if I make a forgery today, it may be included, so I could make some money. If one forgery is ok, why can't two be okay? I am just being silly. But you know someone would be thinking of that.

 

[createdtoworship]

Not sure what you mean or how it relates to Editio Critica Maior.

I do not know why you think that "one family is right, one family is wrong" - why to see it so black and white?

because they contradict each other. You have to pick a side. to say God authorized contradicting texts is to say God created an error. I don't know how more simply to put it. To prove the contradictions. I have the exact number of variants I will provide later. But I want to say 10,000 times the manuscripts contradict with the receptus. That is to say that God stuttered or errored 10,000 times. So to include all the above, is simply a product of higher criticism, which is what I call liberal scholarship. It's a scary movement designed to remove God's authoritative spirit from the Bible and just call them history or myth.

 

[createdtoworship]

Not sure what you mean or how it relates to Editio Critica Maior.

I do not know why you think that "one family is right, one family is wrong" - why to see it so black and white?

Codex Vaticanus- has 7579 changes from the textus receptus
Codex Sinaiticus- over half of leaves are missing, containes epistle of barnabus, and shepard of hermes (non canonical), contains 9000 changes from the textus receptus.

using all three would be morally wrong.

The Bible says in 2 Tim 3:16-
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,"

that means that if 200 verses are missing, that are found in early papyrus, that those Bibles that are missing those passages are wrong. Especially if quoted from early church fathers.

so the textus receptus is a complete project already based on the majority of manuscripts, leaving out the fraudulent ones. And that is what you want.

 

[JSRG]

to summarize the codex sinaiticus forgery allegations.... vellum or other manuscript papyrus etc, will not be bleach white after 1400 years, especially with not vacuum sealing. So there is NO WAY the sinaiticus is a 4th century document. It's not possible. And the fact that one page will be stark white while the next behind it is dark, like hundreds of years darker. Is suspicious. It's like they hand picked the best blank, old leaves they could find and pieced it together to see if someone would buy it for a lot of money. And that is exactly what happened, the vatican used it's political prowess to get this copy sanctified, and the rest is history. I have loads, i mean dozens of photographs and notes and you name it, just waiting for a single soul to take me up on this debate, so I am not talking to myself. I await your reply.

This was already responded to back here:

And all of these things that are "mentioned in excrutiating detail in the book" is rebutted in excrutiating detail in the rebuttal to that book that has been posted.

But for the benefit of those readers who perhaps do not wish to read through a lengthy essay, I'll simply post the relevant portions that answer the claims you made here for demonstration. Note that more is stated on these topics in the above document--I'm merely posting the most relevant quotes:

A shortened portion from page 107 will do as a summary (footnote 240):

"Dr Cooper, David Daniels and many bloggers have led thousands astray by claiming that the 43 leaves in Leipzig are (or were until little more than a hundred years ago) ‘white’. That is not the case: they are merely a shade lighter than the most common colour of the leaves in the British Library. On the Codex Sinaiticus Project website, which these writers have used to make comparisons, only the photographs from the British Library are close to true colour, as the blue/cyan/green/yellow/red/magenta colour strips in each photograph reveal. The photographs of the Leipzig leaves are colour profiled (colour strips show blue as indigo, green too dark, yellow too light, magenta as pinkish) making their yellow leaves look a greyish white, and the photographs from St Petersburg and St Catherine’s are profiled differently again (magenta has become red, and red has become orange) making their leaves look browner. It is thus completely invalid to compare colours between locations without attempting to correct for this. Daniels on his front cover of his book Is the “World’s Oldest Bible” a Fake? shows a collage of all pages from the Codex to demonstrate differences in colour. However, the differences in the colour reproduction between locations is far greater than the real variation in colour of the parchment leaves between locations, so the result is impressive visually, but thoroughly unrepresentative. When corrected towards true colour the contrast effectively disappears and the ‘colour difference’ argument collapses."

As noted, this is essentially a summary--more detail is provided in the actual document. Indeed, this is covered in even more detail in a separate writing by the same author here. Note particularly page 9 where it compares the color strip from London and Leipzig and shows how they are visually different--this demonstrates the different color balancing, which has the effect of making the pages look different.

Yet again you make an argument, a response is posted, and then you simply make the same argument later without any apparent acknowledgment of the problems in it that were pointed out.

 

[JSRG]

Wow, thank you! This will be an interesting study. I would study it, but I am already convinced having read the book, so some external eyes on this will be helpful. Unfortunately
I am short on time this morning, I could have a few hours ago. But my time is up on the computer till tomorrow I will book mark this and get some more info for you. I can get pictures. but you have to remember, this is going against the consensus. The majority of scholars will not be open minded toward a fraud because they are under the impression the sinaiticus is all they have. Why shoot themselves in the foot. I will look but no guarantees on them. But again I can take a look.

here however is a quote from the book "the sinaiticus forgery" by bill cooper.

"The fact that the Leipzig leaves and the writing upon them were in such pristine condition at the time of their ‘discovery’ should never be underappreciated. The parchment was described by one contemporary observer as “white” (“... the thinnest white parchment”);1 and by another even as, “The wonderfully fine snow-white parchment of the Sinaitic MS...”2 Yet a third witness testifies in 1913 that it – the Codex – “is written on snow-white vellum.”3"

here are his foot notes for the quotes:
1. “....писана на тончайшем белом пергамене.” – Uspensky, Porphyry. The First Trip to the Sinai Monastery in 1845. 1856. Petersburg. p. 226. This title is translated from the Russian (Первое путешествие в Синайский монастырь B 1845). Uspensky’s book was never translated into English.

2. Hastings Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics. 1910. New York. Vol. 2. p. 583. An early observer of the Leipzig leaves who described them as “snow-white” was one Ernst von Dobschutz, the author of the above article. He got the idea that they were of antelope skin from Tischendorf himself who was otherwise unable to account for their whiteness.

3. M’Clymont, J A. New Testament Criticism: Its History and Results. 1913. Hodder & Stoughton. London. p. 44.

4. “When seeking those animals whose skins might be most suitable for making parchment, it can hardly be doubted that before all others, the species of antelope which is even now most common in the deserts of Libya, Egypt and Arabia supplied the parchment from which the Frederick-Augustus Codex was made.” See C. Tischendorf, Codex Friderico-Augustanus sive fragmenta Veteris Testamenti e codice Graeco omnium qui in Europa supersunt facile antiquissimo in Oriente detexit in patriam attulit ad modum codicis edidit Constantinus Tischendorf...., Leipzig, 1846. cit: Codex Sinaiticus - Parchment

Now granted this was in there first discovery, that snow whiteness only lasts a few years then they start oxidizing if not in a vacuum. So the allegation was that when they were discovered, they were newly forged.

Well, this one is at least sort of new insofar as I don't think you explicitly posted it before. But it again is from that book by Bill Cooper you keep pointing to, and links to the critique of it have been posted, though here it is again for convenience. Here is the a portion of it that responds to the specific claims made:

"Even more unfortunately, Dr Cooper calls the wrong witnesses to the condition of the Leipzig leaves. He cites Uspensky as a witness, for he says (p.78) that the Leipzig parchment ‘was described by [Uspensky] as “white” (“...the thinnest white parchment”)’; (p.82) ‘the Leipzig leaves were so pristine when first seen by Uspensky’; (p.86) ‘the Leipzig leaves...[were] “white” according to Uspensky’. But Uspensky never visited Leipzig all his life, and he arrived at St Catherine’s in 1845 some months after the 43 ‘Leipzig leaves’ had been carried away by Tischendorf. As we have seen, Uspensky was not describing the ‘Leipzig leaves’ but the leaves remaining at St Catherine’s monastery in 1845.

Dr Cooper also cites James Alexander M’Clymont as a witness of the ‘Leipzig leaves’, whom he says ‘came a little later when in 1913 they were still white as snow’: this ‘witness testifies in 1913 that it – the Codex [Friderico-Augustinus] – “is written on snow-white vellum.”’ (p.78). But M’Clymont was writing secondary literature and not claiming to be testifying as an observer. Moreover, he was not even commenting on the Leipzig leaves, which the reader could have seen for himself had not Dr Cooper pared away the author’s context: ‘Codex Sinaiticus...was rescued from oblivion nearly fifty years ago246...and now lies in the Library of St. Petersburg. It is written on snow-white vellum, supposed to have been made from the skins of antelopes.’ Similar reservations attach to a third claimed ‘contemporary observer’, Ernst von Dobschutz, who in an encyclopaedia article published in 1909 stated in extremely similar wording to M’Clymont that ‘The wonderfully fine snow-white parchment of the Sinaitic MS seems to be of antelope skin.’ Tischendorf had proposed that the parchment was made of antelope or gazelle skin, but microscopic examination has shown that the parchment is mostly calf with some sheepskin, neither of which is naturally ‘snow white’. M’Clymont and Dobschutz were simply repeating Tischendorf’s opinions in their secondary and tertiary literature. Dr Cooper provides no evidence that Dobschutz was referring to the Leipzig leaves, nor that he had ever himself seen them.

Accordingly, Dr Cooper is left with not a single genuine witness who even saw the Leipzig leaves in the nineteenth century, never mind one who described its apparent colour as ‘white’ or having an appearance inconsistent with being produced in antiquity. He wrongly quotes sources who certainly did not see the Leipzig leaves, but quotes none of the scores of people who certainly did. And yet Dr Cooper (whom, we recall, is not himself a witness) assures his readers that the Leipzig leaves in the nineteenth century had ‘astonishing whiteness’ (p.79) and had the appearance of being ‘of relatively recent manufacture’ (p.79) as they were ‘so clean and new and undecayed in their appearance’ (p.78).247 This is all the pure invention of the conspiracy theorists and entirely contrary to the facts."

(footnotes can be viewed in the document. This quotation is from pages 109-110)

I'll cut it off there for brevity, but it does go on to talk about people who did personally see the leaves back in the 19th century, then goes into a deeper analysis of what I noted in my last post concerning the color balancing issue.

 

[JSRG]

The main killer of the KJVO myth is the fact that it has NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT. While one may not be completely sola scriptura, Christians don't believe doctrines not found in Scripture at all. sw

I don't think the question of whether Sola Scriptura is right or not is particularly relevant here, because KJV Onlyists are so overwhelmingly believers in Sola Scriptura. Somewhat ironically, the main guy who originated the belief of KJV Onlyism (Benjmain Wilkinson), did not believe in Sola Scriptura--at least as the term is normally understood--as he apparently asserted that Ellen G. White's writings were inerrant.

 

[createdtoworship]

This was already responded to back here:

Yet again you make an argument, a response is posted, and then you simply make the same argument later without any apparent acknowledgment of the problems in it that were pointed out.

so please then since you have all the resources, please tell us why various pages of sinaiticus are different color shades, again a normal book form manuscript will have consistent moisture stains through several pages, not just one, worm holes will go through many pages, and discoloring of pages due to age will be uniform, you will not see, in the case of the photo I provided, one page, then another page right behind it 25% darker or lighter. This singularly proves that it was assembled by pages of different ages, which makes no sense unless it was a forgery and they could not find enough blank papyri that matched in color. It appear to be an OBVIOUS forgery. It's unmistakable. Again if I was forging a manuscript I would find old papyri blank sheets and write on them, then further age it with lemon juice. If I did so, the pages would all be different from one page to the next, EXACTLY like it is with the sinaiticus. Again I cannot fathom of a logical rebuttal to this, I really cannot even remotely think of a possible alternate explanation, so you will have to read your own links and provide quotes.

 

[createdtoworship]

Well, this one is at least sort of new insofar as I don't think you explicitly posted it before. But it again is from that book by Bill Cooper you keep pointing to, and links to the critique of it have been posted, though here it is again for convenience. Here is the a portion of it that responds to the specific claims made:

"Even more unfortunately, Dr Cooper calls the wrong witnesses to the condition of the Leipzig leaves. He cites Uspensky as a witness, for he says (p.78) that the Leipzig parchment ‘was described by [Uspensky] as “white” (“...the thinnest white parchment”)’; (p.82) ‘the Leipzig leaves were so pristine when first seen by Uspensky’; (p.86) ‘the Leipzig leaves...[were] “white” according to Uspensky’. But Uspensky never visited Leipzig all his life, and he arrived at St Catherine’s in 1845 some months after the 43 ‘Leipzig leaves’ had been carried away by Tischendorf. As we have seen, Uspensky was not describing the ‘Leipzig leaves’ but the leaves remaining at St Catherine’s monastery in 1845.

Dr Cooper also cites James Alexander M’Clymont as a witness of the ‘Leipzig leaves’, whom he says ‘came a little later when in 1913 they were still white as snow’: this ‘witness testifies in 1913 that it – the Codex [Friderico-Augustinus] – “is written on snow-white vellum.”’ (p.78). But M’Clymont was writing secondary literature and not claiming to be testifying as an observer. Moreover, he was not even commenting on the Leipzig leaves, which the reader could have seen for himself had not Dr Cooper pared away the author’s context: ‘Codex Sinaiticus...was rescued from oblivion nearly fifty years ago246...and now lies in the Library of St. Petersburg. It is written on snow-white vellum, supposed to have been made from the skins of antelopes.’ Similar reservations attach to a third claimed ‘contemporary observer’, Ernst von Dobschutz, who in an encyclopaedia article published in 1909 stated in extremely similar wording to M’Clymont that ‘The wonderfully fine snow-white parchment of the Sinaitic MS seems to be of antelope skin.’ Tischendorf had proposed that the parchment was made of antelope or gazelle skin, but microscopic examination has shown that the parchment is mostly calf with some sheepskin, neither of which is naturally ‘snow white’. M’Clymont and Dobschutz were simply repeating Tischendorf’s opinions in their secondary and tertiary literature. Dr Cooper provides no evidence that Dobschutz was referring to the Leipzig leaves, nor that he had ever himself seen them.

Accordingly, Dr Cooper is left with not a single genuine witness who even saw the Leipzig leaves in the nineteenth century, never mind one who described its apparent colour as ‘white’ or having an appearance inconsistent with being produced in antiquity. He wrongly quotes sources who certainly did not see the Leipzig leaves, but quotes none of the scores of people who certainly did. And yet Dr Cooper (whom, we recall, is not himself a witness) assures his readers that the Leipzig leaves in the nineteenth century had ‘astonishing whiteness’ (p.79) and had the appearance of being ‘of relatively recent manufacture’ (p.79) as they were ‘so clean and new and undecayed in their appearance’ (p.78).247 This is all the pure invention of the conspiracy theorists and entirely contrary to the facts."

(footnotes can be viewed in the document. This quotation is from pages 109-110)

I'll cut it off there for brevity, but it does go on to talk about people who did personally see the leaves back in the 19th century, then goes into a deeper analysis of what I noted in my last post concerning the color balancing issue.

Well even if this was a very hard thing to prove: "But Uspensky never visited Leipzig all his life" without actually asking him if He did so, which it doesnt sound like the author of the critique did. It appears that he is just nit picking on anything he can find that may possibly be an error, and people like yourself are taking one questionable evidence as a proof that the entire book is false. This is a fallacy of poisoning the well. The fallacy is as follows....because someone is wrong in 1 out of 99 cases, he is wrong in the other 99 cases. Which is logically fallacious. The only thing that will cause me to rethink this debate with you, is not posting links at random, but taking each comment bullet by bullet and refuting it. There is quite a large volume of evidence against the sinaiticus.

 

[solid_core]

If they are consulting sinaiticus and vaticanus fragments as part of the papyrus that they are going to use, then they are using a forgery. And if so, if I make a forgery today, it may be included, so I could make some money. If one forgery is ok, why can't two be okay? I am just being silly. But you know someone would be thinking of that.

They are consulting every known manuscript, papyri and church fathers' quotation. Thats what is so huge about this work.

Neither sinaiticus nor vaticanus are "forgery".