The KJVO myth...

[solid_core]

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.

Why do you think that some textual family is always right and another is always wrong?

And how can you prove it?

 

[solid_core]

Codex Vaticanus- has 7579 changes from the textus receptus

Textus receptus is much younger, so its better to say that Textus receptus has 7579 changes from Vaticanus.

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.

Textus receptus is much younger, so its better to say that Textus receptus has 9000 changes from Sinaiticus.
Missing leaves are normal in old codexes.
Barnabas and Shepard were used by the first church, so there is nothing wrong with having them in old codex.

using all three would be morally wrong.

How did you come to this absurd idea?

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...

The verse says nothing about preservation. Also, the existence of Textus receptus is a proof that the text must be compiled from various manuscripts. I think you realize that Textus receptus is not a manuscript, but a compilation from various manuscripts, right?

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.

How did you come to this absurd idea? Textus receptus was based on very few manuscripts, estimates are 5-10, at best. Erasmus did not even have any Greek text for last chapters of Revelation, so he translated it from Latin to Greek and so created some readings that do not exist in any other Greek manuscript.

We have 6,000 Greek manuscripts today, most of them discoverd in last centuries. How did you come to idea that TR edition from the 16th century was complete or based on majority of manuscripts or even somewhere near to it?

 

[createdtoworship]

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".

Well how do you explain why the two differ over 3000 times with each other, God did it?

no man did it. And it's proven already in this thread, I provide images that show that one page after another was 25% darker, revealing it has a different age as the page before it. The only way this makes sense is a forgery.

 

[createdtoworship]

Why do you think that some textual family is always right and another is always wrong?

And how can you prove it?

again sinaiticus and vaticanus differ 3000 times with each other. To say God ordained those manuscripts is to say God created 3000 errors. Receptus also differs from them over 7000, and 10000 times respectively. And seeing the papyrus manuscripts and church fathers both support the receptus over the vaticanus and sinaiticus. IF there was an error it must be on the sinaiticus and vaticanus. To say the receptus is in error rather is to say all of church history we used fake Bibles, all the way to Christ. And then we have literally no evidence to support the christian faith or legacy. Our faith would at that point be totally blind. So I know you can't attack my bible, but I certainly can question yours. So again if we create a translation based on all three. Then you have between 3000 and 10000 errors that God allowed to happen in our texts. Now I don't think even the greek texts are inspired, I believe the original manuscript is inspired. So when we see contradiction between manuscripts we must rely on external factors to prove which manuscript has been used through history, and that would be the receptus, hands down.

 

[createdtoworship]

Textus receptus is much younger, so its better to say that Textus receptus has 7579 changes from Vaticanus.


Textus receptus is much younger, so its better to say that Textus receptus has 9000 changes from Sinaiticus.
Missing leaves are normal in old codexes.
Barnabas and Shepard were used by the first church, so there is nothing wrong with having them in old codex.


How did you come to this absurd idea?


The verse says nothing about preservation. Also, the existence of Textus receptus is a proof that the text must be compiled from various manuscripts. I think you realize that Textus receptus is not a manuscript, but a compilation from various manuscripts, right?



How did you come to this absurd idea? Textus receptus was based on very few manuscripts, estimates are 5-10, at best. Erasmus did not even have any Greek text for last chapters of Revelation, so he translated it from Latin to Greek and so created some readings that do not exist in any other Greek manuscript.

We have 6,000 Greek manuscripts today, most of them discoverd in last centuries. How did you come to idea that TR edition from the 16th century was complete or based on majority of manuscripts or even somewhere near to it?

again I have evidence a non extant version of the receptus was used in patristic times, in the few hundred years after Christ. So that is why I say they differ from the receptus. Not the other way around, the rest of your post I addressed in the last two posts. I know this is hard for you. I get it. Someone calling our favorite Bible a fraud does not set well. But we must look at the evidence wherever it lies. What would you rather have, someone who believes in the Bible telling you there was 3000 contradictions between sinaiticus and vaticanus, or some atheist philosophy teacher telling you the Bible contradicted? At that point you could lose your faith outright. Because what he won't tell you, is what I am saying. That God's word is already preserved through the vast majority of texts, the majority text and the textus receptus.

 

[Strong in Him]

Unsubscribing from thread.

It's interesting reading the facts about the various manuscripts etc. But my question, how does this affect my Christian life, has not been answered. If I hear the Gospel, receive the Spirit, become a child of God and am daily blessed through a translation which someone else regards as "faulty"; what does that mean for my Christian life and salvation? I'm guessing that this can't be answered; much as KJV onlyists would love to be able to say "the Lord won't save anyone who doesn't read the KJV", they can't; because the Lord was doing just that long before the KJV was even thought of.

Bottom line; you love the KJV and it really helps you in your faith? Fantastic. Read, learn, inwardly digest it and then pass it on.
But don't imply that those of us who don't read it are 2nd class Christians, or worse; not Christians at all.

 

[JSRG]

Unsubscribing from thread.

It's interesting reading the facts about the various manuscripts etc. But my question, how does this affect my Christian life, has not been answered. If I hear the Gospel, receive the Spirit, become a child of God and am daily blessed through a translation which someone else regards as "faulty"; what does that mean for my Christian life and salvation? I'm guessing that this can't be answered; much as KJV onlyists would love to be able to say "the Lord won't save anyone who doesn't read the KJV", they can't; because the Lord was doing just that long before the KJV was even thought of.

Bottom line; you love the KJV and it really helps you in your faith? Fantastic. Read, learn, inwardly digest it and then pass it on.
But don't imply that those of us who don't read it are 2nd class Christians, or worse; not Christians at all.

Yeah, not really sure if it's worth going through this song and dance for much longer either. This is what we've been through on the alleged color difference in the last few pages:
createdtoworship: The colors are different in different pages in the Sinaiticus! That proves it's a fake!
Me: Here is the explanation as to why the colors appear different.
createdtoworship (soon afterwards, after ignoring me entirely): The colors are different in different pages! That proves it's a fake!
Me: Uh, as I said, here is the explanation.
createdtoworship (while quoting the message in which I gave the explanation): Why are the colors different?

It's actually rather surreal for someone to directly reply to and quote a post in which I give an explanation, and then demand an explanation ("so please then since you have all the resources, please tell us why various pages of sinaiticus are different color shades"--that's literally what I just did). And this is unfortunately fair typical behavior, in which he'll make an argument, people will point out the major flaws in it, and then he'll either complain people haven't responded or unabashedly re-post the argument as if no one pointed out the errors in it. I documented another case of this here, and there are still other examples throughout this topic for anyone who bothers to read through the whole thing.

Why bother trying to argue with someone who will flagrantly ignore points made like this? I suppose it could be beneficial to anyone reading the topic, but given all they have to do is read my previous posts to gain the necessary information (and any response would be to simply re-state those points again, because createdtoworship is not actually responding to them), the benefit seems rather low to continue at this point. So I'll just one more time post this link for the benefit of said readers:
A Review of 'The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus' by Dr W.R. Cooper against detailed background of the discovery of the Codex

This is a response to "The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus" (the book that createdtoworship keeps posting arguments from). It goes through, in quite some detail, all of the arguments he has been trying to bring up (which makes sense, given that he's just taking his arguments from "The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus").

And while a rebuttal to a different book, this is also worth reading as it goes into more depth than the above regarding the alleged color problems:
Is David W. Daniels' "Codex Sinaiticus Evidence" a Fake?

 

[createdtoworship]

Sorry guys these posts frustrated me, so I am bowing out of this conversation. If someone wants to post all the alleged evidence from numerous posts that I didn't read, igored and overlooked, then someone who is polite and nicer can do so. This is why you guys were blocked not because of your content, but because you are rude. So aga in if someone else wishes to quote these arguments go ahead, but the way I look at it is they have not been refuted. I mentioned my arguments numerous times in my last posts. I will continue to post my notes on the book as I get to it and invite any and all polite debaters to the party to examine the evidence.

 

[createdtoworship]

Unsubscribing from thread.

It's interesting reading the facts about the various manuscripts etc. But my question, how does this affect my Christian life, has not been answered. If I hear the Gospel, receive the Spirit, become a child of God and am daily blessed through a translation which someone else regards as "faulty"; what does that mean for my Christian life and salvation? I'm guessing that this can't be answered; much as KJV onlyists would love to be able to say "the Lord won't save anyone who doesn't read the KJV", they can't; because the Lord was doing just that long before the KJV was even thought of.

Bottom line; you love the KJV and it really helps you in your faith? Fantastic. Read, learn, inwardly digest it and then pass it on.
But don't imply that those of us who don't read it are 2nd class Christians, or worse; not Christians at all.

What matters is what Bible was quoted by those closest to Jesus. Hands down in was the majority text accross the board. Even if there was no forgery allegation I still would not use the sinaiticus and Vaticanus because they differ 3000 times with each other.

 

[createdtoworship]

Unsubscribing from thread.

It's interesting reading the facts about the various manuscripts etc. But my question, how does this affect my Christian life, has not been answered. If I hear the Gospel, receive the Spirit, become a child of God and am daily blessed through a translation which someone else regards as "faulty"; what does that mean for my Christian life and salvation? I'm guessing that this can't be answered; much as KJV onlyists would love to be able to say "the Lord won't save anyone who doesn't read the KJV", they can't; because the Lord was doing just that long before the KJV was even thought of.

Bottom line; you love the KJV and it really helps you in your faith? Fantastic. Read, learn, inwardly digest it and then pass it on.
But don't imply that those of us who don't read it are 2nd class Christians, or worse; not Christians at all.

Yeah, not really sure if it's worth going through this song and dance for much longer either. This is what we've been through on the alleged color difference in the last few pages:
createdtoworship: The colors are different in different pages in the Sinaiticus! That proves it's a fake!
Me: Here is the explanation as to why the colors appear different.
createdtoworship (soon afterwards, after ignoring me entirely): The colors are different in different pages! That proves it's a fake!
Me: Uh, as I said, here is the explanation.
createdtoworship (while quoting the message in which I gave the explanation): Why are the colors different?

It's actually rather surreal for someone to directly reply to and quote a post in which I give an explanation, and then demand an explanation ("so please then since you have all the resources, please tell us why various pages of sinaiticus are different color shades"--that's literally what I just did). And this is unfortunately fair typical behavior, in which he'll make an argument, people will point out the major flaws in it, and then he'll either complain people haven't responded or unabashedly re-post the argument as if no one pointed out the errors in it. I documented another case of this here, and there are still other examples throughout this topic for anyone who bothers to read through the whole thing.

Why bother trying to argue with someone who will flagrantly ignore points made like this? I suppose it could be beneficial to anyone reading the topic, but given all they have to do is read my previous posts to gain the necessary information (and any response would be to simply re-state those points again, because createdtoworship is not actually responding to them), the benefit seems rather low to continue at this point. So I'll just one more time post this link for the benefit of said readers:
A Review of 'The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus' by Dr W.R. Cooper against detailed background of the discovery of the Codex

This is a response to "The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus" (the book that createdtoworship keeps posting arguments from). It goes through, in quite some detail, all of the arguments he has been trying to bring up (which makes sense, given that he's just taking his arguments from "The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus").

And while a rebuttal to a different book, this is also worth reading as it goes into more depth than the above regarding the alleged color problems:
Is David W. Daniels' "Codex Sinaiticus Evidence" a Fake?

@Strong in Him @JSRG

while I won't address links, I figured I would post the conclusion of the Book, just so you can see the authors intent, and see for yourself that this is objective solid evidence against vaticanus and sinaiticus. I am not going to tell you to sell your NIV, I use an ESV myself for cross references, but my primary Bible is NKJV due to the fact it has a clean manuscript history.

I will tag you guys so you see this post, @Strong in Him @JSRG (but this will be my last post to JSRG, I will reply to any and all evidence posted regarding his posts but not his posts directly, as he tend not to debate, but to smash people down. Not in a loving way but a rude and arrogant way. So again this is to refute much of what was written in reply to my posts, but you can at any time, anyone who wishes cut and paste sections of JSRG's posts if you feel I have not refuted them fairly enough. as I have said before I do not honestly see a logical reason to accept any manuscript including my own if pages have discrepancies between them. It simply reveals it was pieced together after the fact, and is the very first sign of forgery people would look for. Unfortunately because the scholar was reputible who found it, no one doubted the legitimacy, but now through technology we can see a forgery for what it is.

here is the post, feel free to read it:

Chapter Twelve: Conclusion - in book "the forging of the codex sinaiticus"
We began our enquiry with the observation that every forger carries within him the source of his own betrayal, and we have seen that principle in action here. Very briefly, if we consider just some of the many signs that Codex Sinaiticus is a forgery, as well as the claims so stridently made for its alleged antiquity, then we will think upon these seven points:

1) The entire manuscript is written on parchment that is unoxidised, supple and certainly not as ancient as is claimed, and whose collagen is virtually undecayed.

2) Almost every page of the manuscript bears telltale signs of forgery, mostly involving fading the text and discolouring the page in a most amateurish attempt to make it look much older than it truly is.

3) Certain pages are unnaturally and inexplicably mutilated.

4) Some pages display square wormholes. Others display ‘normal’ wormholes aplenty, yet there are no lines of ingress that a real worm would have made to reach the tastiest portions. There are also no matching wormholes in the immediately adjacent pages to account for them.

5) The Codex contains a text of the Epistle of Barnabas which is written in essentially modern Greek and contains many grammatical and vocabularic evidences of having been translated into Greek from a late Latin recension. It is written, moreover, in the same hand – ‘Scribe A’ - as most of the New Testament. It also complies with many of the scholarly emendations of that Latin text that had been suggested and recommended by scholars who lived and worked during the 18th and 19th centuries; and its text, moreover, is identical to that printed by Simonides in 1843, sixteen years before Tischendorf found it nestling inside Sinaiticus.

6) The Codex also contains a text of the Shepherd of Hermas which is again in modern Greek and contains many grammatical and vocabularic evidences of having been translated into Greek from a late Latin recension, most likely the Palatine. Its text is also identical to that printed by Simonides (through Leipzig University) in 1856, some three years before Tischendorf found it nestling within the pages of Sinaiticus.

7) And finally, there is an act of sheer fraud in the removal from Sinaiticus’ pages of the ending of Mark’s Gospel and its substitution with a fake ending, carried out by the same scribe who removed the ending of Mark’s Gospel from Codex Vaticanus and substituted it with a fake but identical ending to that in Sinaiticus. Scholars and modern editions of the Bible which claim that the best and most ancient manuscripts omit Mark 16:9-20 are merely perpetuating a lie based upon an act of sheer fraud.

Any one of these points would be damning enough proof on its own, but when all the points are brought together then they are damning evidence indeed. Codex Sinaiticus is a fake, and is no fit authority by which to judge or assess the Scriptures, the immutable Word of God.

That Word has been preserved pure and entire in the Textus Receptus – the Received Text - of which all the Reformation Bibles of Europe are translations. The Textus Receptus is attested and verified by more than 5000 early manuscript witnesses, against the one or two demonstrably forged manuscripts which support Sinaiticus and Vaticanus which are themselves forgeries. The Received Text, translated into English in the King James Bible, therefore has no rival. It was first translated into English by William Tyndale, then by Miles Coverdale, then by Matthew (John Rogers), then by Richard Taverner, then by the Geneva Bible translators, and then by the Bishops Bible of 1568. The King James Bible was merely the latest improvement."
- if you like this book, click this link to order: (click here)

 

[solid_core]

again I have evidence a non extant version of the receptus was used in patristic times, in the few hundred years after Christ.

Textus receptus is a medieval compilation from few Greek manuscripts. It was not used before it was made. You are mistaken to think that some greek texts similar to textus receptus ARE textus receptus. They are not.

God's word is already preserved through the vast majority of texts, the majority text and the textus receptus.

So you are surely glad that Germans are woking on the complete check of all accessible papyri, manuscripts and quotations to make as best base text as possible. There are 6,000 discovered Greek manuscripts today. Not reflected in textus receptus.

 

[solid_core]

again sinaiticus and vaticanus differ 3000 times with each other.

Thats perfectly normal. They are written by hand, they had thousands of pages. Handwriting produces errors in text.

Receptus also differs from them over 7000, and 10000 times respectively.

Textus receptus also differs from Majority text in 1000 places. Its not a best representant of majority textual family.

And seeing the papyrus manuscripts and church fathers both support the receptus over the vaticanus and sinaiticus. IF there was an error it must be on the sinaiticus and vaticanus.

Some church fathers quotations support sinaticus, some vaticanus, some majority text, some textus receptus and some are not found in any Greek textual family. Situation is complicated so its a whole science to reconstruct the original text.

To say the receptus is in error rather is to say all of church history we used fake Bibles, all the way to Christ.

Errors made by handwriting are not "fakes". If you make a typo in your post, does it mean that your post is "fake"? Your logic is absurd.

And then we have literally no evidence to support the christian faith or legacy. Our faith would at that point be totally blind.

Again absurd ideas. Most differences are not even translatable to English, just typos or writing differences. Some errors are simply repeated words or other obvious mistakes. All Greek editions present the same faith, the same Christ and the same God. You are being hysterical and mistaking form for content.

 

[solid_core]

Well how do you explain why the two differ over 3000 times with each other,

Handmade copies produces mistakes. Actually, to have just 3,000 differences between such huges codeces is a very good status.

God did it?

No, copyists did it. There we mere men and made mistakes.

 

[createdtoworship]

Textus receptus is a medieval compilation from few Greek manuscripts. It was not used before it was made. You are mistaken to think that some greek texts similar to textus receptus ARE textus receptus. They are not.


So you are surely glad that Germans are woking on the complete check of all accessible papyri, manuscripts and quotations to make as best base text as possible. There are 6,000 discovered Greek manuscripts today. Not reflected in textus receptus.

sir again this is a red herring, we all know the information you are posting. This is just to distract from the solid evidence of what I am saying. The textus receptus has come down from non extant manuscripts. They no longer exist because they deteriorated. However the church fathers quote all of the missing verses that are in the NIV and NASB and ESV. Almost all of them. So it proves that they were not using pre version of sinaiticus and vaticanus. You'll have to pardon my laymans terms and my equivocation of modern and ancient manuscripts, I post this so new readers can follow along. To get too detailed is to reduce your audience, and I think that everyone should know this.

 

[createdtoworship]

Thats perfectly normal. They are written by hand, they had thousands of pages. Handwriting produces errors in text.


Textus receptus also differs from Majority text in 1000 places. Its not a best representant of majority textual family.


Some church fathers quotations support sinaticus, some vaticanus, some majority text, some textus receptus and some are not found in any Greek textual family. Situation is complicated so its a whole science to reconstruct the original text.


Errors made by handwriting are not "fakes". If you make a typo in your post, does it mean that your post is "fake"? Your logic is absurd.


Again absurd ideas. Most differences are not even translatable to English, just typos or writing differences. Some errors are simply repeated words or other obvious mistakes. All Greek editions present the same faith, the same Christ and the same God. You are being hysterical and mistaking form for content.

please provide souces for all of this, the discrepancy of majority text and textus receptus, as well as church fathers quoting sinaiticus and vaticanus. I don't think you have sources. I think you read it on some blog somewhere and it was passed down from unofficial sources, but I could be wrong. I have provided evidence ad nauseum for my view, so if you don't want this post scratched from the debate, you'll have to do more than just state so with your opinion.

 

[createdtoworship]

Handmade copies produces mistakes. Actually, to have just 3,000 differences between such huges codeces is a very good status.

No, copyists did it. There we mere men and made mistakes.

again you would have to source this with official sources, you are just pulling figures out of your hat. I have used sources for all of my statements.

 

[solid_core]

The textus receptus has come down from non extant manuscripts. They no longer exist because they deteriorated.

Majority text manuscripts still exist. And Textus receptus differs on 1000 places from them.

However the church fathers quote all of the missing verses that are in the NIV and NASB and ESV. Almost all of them.

So "all" or "almost all"?
Not early church fathers.

So it proves that they were not using pre version of sinaiticus and vaticanus.

It does not prove anything. You would need to do an extant work to study works of every individual church father, collect his qutations and then make statistics to see in how many cases he quotes "like medieval textus receptus" or "like early greek manuscripts". If you will arrive at 100% vs 0% results, that would be a proof.
Do you have such works?

 

[solid_core]

please provide souces for all of this, the discrepancy of majority text and textus receptus, as well as church fathers quoting sinaiticus and vaticanus. I don't think you have sources. I think you read it on some blog somewhere and it was passed down from unofficial sources, but I could be wrong. I have provided evidence ad nauseum for my view, so if you don't want this post scratched from the debate, you'll have to do more than just state so with your opinion.

" Daniel B. Wallace enumerated that in 1,838 places (1005 are translatable) Textus Receptus differs from the Byzantine text-type"

Textus Receptus - Wikipedia
Differences Between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus | CARM.org
The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? | Bible.org

 

[solid_core]

again you would have to source this with official sources, you are just pulling figures out of your hat. I have used sources for all of my statements.

What "official" sources except of Institute for Biblical studies in Germany you can have? Nobody is doing such work. In English speaking countries, maybe Daniel Wallace can be considered scholar in this area.

And you can read many articles by Daniel Wallace online, explaning the issue.

 

[createdtoworship]

Majority text manuscripts still exist. And Textus receptus differs on 1000 places from them.


So "all" or "almost all"?
Not early church fathers.

It does not prove anything. You would need to do an extant work to study works of every individual church father, collect his qutations and then make statistics to see in how many cases he quotes "like medieval textus receptus" or "like early greek manuscripts". If you will arrive at 100% vs 0% results, that would be a proof.
Do you have such works?

If you cannot give citations then I am done here. There is no way for you yourself to know if there is 1000 discrepancies for example. Also provide sources for your next statement...."not early church fathers" as well as statements of a previous post, stating sinaiticus and vaticanus were supported by church fathers. All this stuff you cannot possibly know outside of sources, so we must examine them. IF you cannot provide a source, we can assume it was an assumption or you simply do not know and read it on some average joe blog.