The KJVO myth...

[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
(I posted this again because the quotes from the book were not addressed)

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)

 

[createdtoworship]

" 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

yes we would have to see wallaces work on it, to verify. Wikipedia in general is publically edited and not a reputible source. Sorry I didn't see this post last time. Lets try to get original source material. CARM is ok, but is biased like everything else. I typically use carm for apologetics. But again source material is what we are looking for.

 

[createdtoworship]

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.

again that is not my job to find sources for your material. You are making a lot of statements without quoting anyone but yourself. So again Wallace is a good source, so you just have to find the quote from his work. Wikipedia on the other hand is not a good source, it's publicly edited by unprofessionals. Wallace to me is a reputable scholar.

 

[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?

(I updated this post) 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. But you did say wallace and that is good enough for now. 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. saying things like anything under 3000 discrepancies is ok, that is the stuff that needs citations. 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. Thank you for providing evidence the majority text and textus differ in only 1000 places. That is good. Seeing that your are ten times that. So hands down this proves my case for the majority text over your case for the alexandrian texts.

 

[Strong in Him]

@Strong in Him @JSRG
(I posted this again because the quotes from the book were not addressed)

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.

Look, sorry, it's kind of you to do that, but that's not what I asked.
I'm not interested in this book, nor in any evidence against the Siniaticus. My question was, how does this affect those of us who don't read, use or maybe even like, the KJV? Are we saved? Children of God? Second class Christians; what?

My belief is that it makes no difference - that we are all believers no matter which translation we prefer to use. The Gospel is the same; the Lord is the same.

 

[createdtoworship]

Look, sorry, it's kind of you to do that, but that's not what I asked.
I'm not interested in this book, nor in any evidence against the Siniaticus. My question was, how does this affect those of us who don't read, use or maybe even like, the KJV? Are we saved? Children of God? Second class Christians; what?

My belief is that it makes no difference - that we are all believers no matter which translation we prefer to use. The Gospel is the same; the Lord is the same.

Sir no one says that. I have not met any KJVers saying that. Unless you feel that is really an issue, if it is please quote a post that says so.

 

[createdtoworship]

I'm not interested in this book, nor in any evidence against the Siniaticus.

@Strong in Him

ok, so this sort of reveals your hand. You are genuinely concerned that some hyper KJV onlyists are saying people who use modern translations are not saved, but it's easy to refute them. you simply have to show errors in the KJV that are corrected in the NKJV. That should refute the majority of them. Does that help. I hope that was the only thing that was hindering you from this debate. If it's not then I fear that you were just using what is called a red herring to avoid the critical debate, and just saying "kjv only is evil." Yes it is evil. But that does not mean that the modern translations are based on a good valid manuscript. So again don't say "I am not interested" in learning the truth, but being only interested in proving a point. This thread should not be about winning an argument, but about self reflection, and repenting of old ways and turning to what God is doing now.

 

[JSRG]

@Strong in Him @JSRG
(I posted this again because the quotes from the book were not addressed)

They're all addressed in the critique of that book that's been posted multiple times, here it is again:
A Review of 'The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus' by Dr W.R. Cooper against detailed background of the discovery of the Codex

 

[createdtoworship]

They're all addressed in the critique of that book that's been posted multiple times, here it is again:
A Review of 'The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus' by Dr W.R. Cooper against detailed background of the discovery of the Codex

Yes I have read several of those sites, and refuted them already on here. So you'll have to summarize it, or bring three of your biggest refutals, or do something that involves more than simply posting a link. In conclusion, internet sources are many. In a day and age of internet searching there is vast amounts of fake news, and overall misinformation. So posting who authored it, and their credentials is also preferred. But again I don't read links so to me this is not a refutal. When I was debating this on another thread I read a lot of others links to no avail, and formulated arguments against them in a matter of minutes. There really is no rebuttal that I can logically fathom, in any of the material that I read that would answer how or why there was different color pages one after another, square worm holes, worm holes through only one page, water stains on one page not multiple. One page 25% darker in age than another page. It's just highly suspicious to the point I couldn't be honest with myself accepting it as anything but a forgery. I ask you too to be honest with yourself as well. Follow the trail of evidence, and not your emotions or superstitions. I actually prayed to God if He even wanted me to read the book at all. And He said yes. I had debated this before but without evidence, simply from reading blogs on it, but they were few and far between. After reading the book and taking college courses on authenticity of the bible I present a much more factual case.

 

[createdtoworship]

Let me post this again, as I think this thread is dwindling down due to lack of citations and using various blogs of questionable authenticity.

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)

 

[Strong in Him]

Sir no one says that. I have not met any KJVers saying that. Unless you feel that is really an issue, if it is please quote a post that says so.

You may not have said this. But you seem to be insisting that the NIV, and other modern translations, are erroneous, or false, having been translated from something that was a forgery.
So it seems logical to ask: if someone says they have become a Christian through reading a certain translation of Scripture, if they grow closer to God as they continue to read it and use it regularly in their Christian life, yet you say that it is unreliable/false/corrupt; what does that mean for that Christian?
Maybe your answer is 'nothing; they are still saved, filled with the Spirit and a child of God'. In which case - what's the problem?

I like and use the NIV, you believe it to be false or incorrect; that's your opinion and does not affect the reality of my experience of God and Christian life.

And as I said before; I'm female.

 

[Strong in Him]

@Strong in Him

ok, so this sort of reveals your hand. You are genuinely concerned that some hyper KJV onlyists are saying people who use modern translations are not saved, but it's easy to refute them. you simply have to show errors in the KJV that are corrected in the NKJV. That should refute the majority of them. Does that help. I hope that was the only thing that was hindering you from this debate. If it's not then I fear that you were just using what is called a red herring to avoid the critical debate, and just saying "kjv only is evil." Yes it is evil. But that does not mean that the modern translations are based on a good valid manuscript. So again don't say "I am not interested" in learning the truth, but being only interested in proving a point.

I said that I am not interested in a book which you are plugging, seem to be utterly convinced by and which has received a good review on Amazon, or wherever. Especially as this book appears to have been refuted by another author.

My position is;
1) I do not believe there are false/corrupt translations of God's word. There may be differences in some of the translations, and some may contain words that don't appear in others. This does not make them false - any more than the KJV, which on one occasion uses the word Easter instead of Pascha, or which somewhere writes 'Jesus' where the context clearly shows they should have written 'Joshua' - is false.
2) The Gospel is the same in all Bibles; it's not like the NIV has suddenly come up with another way of salvation.
3) A Christian can use any translation of the Bible they please; the important thing is that they are reading Scripture, finding God in it, growing closer to him through it and then allowing him to speak through it and affect and influence their lives.

If I ever have the time and inclination to look into all of this, I will be reading a wide variety of documents, which may, or may not, include the book you are so in favour of.

 

[createdtoworship]

You may not have said this. But you seem to be insisting that the NIV, and other modern translations, are erroneous, or false, having been translated from something that was a forgery.
So it seems logical to ask: if someone says they have become a Christian through reading a certain translation of Scripture, if they grow closer to God as they continue to read it and use it regularly in their Christian life, yet you say that it is unreliable/false/corrupt; what does that mean for that Christian?
Maybe your answer is 'nothing; they are still saved, filled with the Spirit and a child of God'. In which case - what's the problem?

I like and use the NIV, you believe it to be false or incorrect; that's your opinion and does not affect the reality of my experience of God and Christian life.

And as I said before; I'm female.

I am reminded of a man comming from Ethiopia ithink he is called the Ethiopian eunich. He had a copy of Isaiah and that is all he had, it was enough for him to spark faith in God and start a walk with God. So according to your theory of "if it works why change it..." He should just keep reading isaiah and never understand the truths of the gospels and the new testament. Another illustration: say a church ministry is very succesful thousands getting saved, they hold regular concerts and mission trips, booming youth groups. And then one youth leader molests a little girl in the Sunday school class. Well the right action is to get rid of the cancer so more growth can happen. You don't let the cancer still attend the church, in other words you don't send the guy to counseling, then get him back in the class with kids. No, you get rid of him. He is a liability to the safety of the church. Yes peopLe are still getting saved, yes there are still mission trips, all of that still exists but is you see fraud in some way you get rid of it.

 

[createdtoworship]

Duplicate

 

[createdtoworship]

I said that I am not interested in a book which you are plugging, seem to be utterly convinced by and which has received a good review on Amazon, or wherever. Especially as this book appears to have been refuted by another author.

My position is;
1) I do not believe there are false/corrupt translations of God's word. There may be differences in some of the translations, and some may contain words that don't appear in others. This does not make them false - any more than the KJV, which on one occasion uses the word Easter instead of Pascha, or which somewhere writes 'Jesus' where the context clearly shows they should have written 'Joshua' - is false.
2) The Gospel is the same in all Bibles; it's not like the NIV has suddenly come up with another way of salvation.
3) A Christian can use any translation of the Bible they please; the important thing is that they are reading Scripture, finding God in it, growing closer to him through it and then allowing him to speak through it and affect and influence their lives.

If I ever have the time and inclination to look into all of this, I will be reading a wide variety of documents, which may, or may not, include the book you are so in favour of.

I updated this post.
Well it sounds like you don't have time for this debate. So let me know when you do. But please don't make conclusions on things you have not yet studied yourself, don't rely in anonymous blogs by public editors, but have official sources. This can be a variety of things, but quoting a quote that quotes a quote of something we have never actually seen is not proof. That is what blogs tend to do. Official sources meaning the person that actually studied the material, not someone like us interpreting and making conclusions that were not infered by the study. That makes all the difference (using soutce material) and that is what I have provided. So again you owe it to yourself to approach this with an open mind later when you have time and not conclude one way or the other without actually researching it. I try not to do that, but we all fall prey to it. Also this is a highly sensitive issue and I have not been sensitive to your feelings as much, so for that I am sorry.

 

[createdtoworship]

@Strong in Him @JSRG In the spirit of debate however and to keep this thread going I will back out of my request for original source material and accept any and all blogs papers etc. But please pick your favorite one as I won't have time to read dozens of pages. Simply pick one link that you feel I have not adressed and i will adress it.

 

[solid_core]

(I updated this post) 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. But you did say wallace and that is good enough for now. 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. saying things like anything under 3000 discrepancies is ok, that is the stuff that needs citations. 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. Thank you for providing evidence the majority text and textus differ in only 1000 places. That is good. Seeing that your are ten times that. So hands down this proves my case for the majority text over your case for the alexandrian texts.

again that is not my job to find sources for your material. You are making a lot of statements without quoting anyone but yourself. So again Wallace is a good source, so you just have to find the quote from his work. Wikipedia on the other hand is not a good source, it's publicly edited by unprofessionals. Wallace to me is a reputable scholar.

yes we would have to see wallaces work on it, to verify. Wikipedia in general is publically edited and not a reputible source. Sorry I didn't see this post last time. Lets try to get original source material. CARM is ok, but is biased like everything else. I typically use carm for apologetics. But again source material is what we are looking for.

1. All the external evidence suggests that there is no proof that the Byzantine text was in existence in the first three centuries. It is not found in the extant Greek manuscripts, nor in the early versions, nor in the early church fathers.
The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? | Bible.org

2. Textus receptus differs from the Majority text in about 1,800 places, 1,000 of these differences are translatable:
* Daniel B. Wallace, Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text. Bibliotheca Sacra 146 (1989): 270-290.

3. Textus Receptus edition contains readings that exist in NO GREEK MANUSCRIPT, so it can be hardly considered a good representant of the Majority text, for example the end of Revelation.
There is also no 1J 5 Comma Johanneum in the Majority text. Nestlé Aland agrees with Majority text here and Textus receptus is wrong. So your "black and white" or "one textual family is always right and one is always wrong" is thrown out of the window.
Differences Between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus | CARM.org

4. New testament manuscripts are carefully examined by the best scholars in the world.
Nestle Aland comittee:
Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, Matthew Black, Bruce M. Metzger, Alan Wikgren, Arthur Vööbus, Carlo Martini, Johannes Karavidopoulos. If you do not know who they are, google them.

Editio Critica Maior universities:
Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung at the University of Münster, Westphalia, Germany
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
Institute for Textual Scholarship and Electronic Editing (ITSEE) in Birmingham

The International Greek New Testament Project:
Dr Hans Förster, The University of Vienna
Dr Georg Gäbel INTF, Münster
Prof. Dr. Martin Karrer, Kirchliche Hochschule, Wuppertal
Prof. J.K. Elliott
And many others.

Sinaiticus was also carefuly examined by Tischendorf who was a textual scholar himself (and made his edition of Greek new testament) and Russian specialists in Russian museums. Also examined by Brittish museums that decided to buy it for huge money from Russia.

Do you think all these people would not see a forgery?

==========

But, for you, actually this guy is your authority:

His achievement is... uhm: "a Vice President of the Creation Science Movement in England"

A man, who actually believes that his KJV tells him everything about science and is against today's science. And surprise suprise, he does not like that his Bible could not be perfectly preserved, because his life role would be endangered. So he made a book that sinaiticus is a forgery you quote so often. This book was immediately refused by other scholars who actually work in the textual area:
A Review of 'The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus' by Dr W.R. Cooper against detailed background of the discovery of the Codex

============

Sources:
Nestle Aland Novum Testamentum Graece :: History
The International Greek New Testament Project
Profile (continued)
About us :: academic-bible.com
Official Page for Dr Bill Cooper from the Creation Science Movement and Genesis Expo.

 

[Strong in Him]

Well.it sounds like you don't have time for this debate. So let me know when you do.

It depends what we're debating.

If it's the authenticity of various ancient documents; I have nothing to offer because I haven't studied them.
But in your first post in this thread, you posted an image which you said was proof of the inspiration and truth of the KJV. That was not proof, as I said in my first post, and I think that later even you disproved it; your own "evidence".
So that image which you said was proof of your argument; wasn't.

Then you seemed to be very keen on promoting a book which you had found to be convincing. I don't know, but I would guess that all your further arguments an quotes are taken from this book.
I don't have time to read that book, and as I don't know anything about the subject I would have no idea if the author was correct in his conclusions. Unfortunately I also don't have time to do research/get a degree in this subject, comparing various manuscripts and authors' writings. But another forummer who does seem to know about these things has posted to say that another author has found the claims of the author of your book to be erroneous.

Furthermore, my posts in this thread have never been on the reliability, or otherwise of the various manuscripts - obviously, since I have said that I do not know about them.
My posts have been saying:
1) The image that you first posted as "proof" that the KJV is inspired and preserved by God, is not proof at all.
2) Comparing the KJV with the NIV, for example, noting that there are differences between the two and concluding that this proves that the KJV is correct is, again, not proof at all.
3) I do not believe that any, never mind ALL, modern translations of the Bible are fraudulent. I do not believe that God would allow this to happen, and if he DID, it would surely have some bearing on a person's eternal salvation. I do not see any significant differences between the translations.

 

[createdtoworship]

1. All the external evidence suggests that there is no proof that the Byzantine text was in existence in the first three centuries. It is not found in the extant Greek manuscripts, nor in the early versions, nor in the early church fathers.
The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? | Bible.org

2. Textus receptus differs from the Majority text in about 1,800 places, 1,000 of these differences are translatable:
* Daniel B. Wallace, Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text. Bibliotheca Sacra 146 (1989): 270-290.

3. Textus Receptus edition contains readings that exist in NO GREEK MANUSCRIPT, so it can be hardly considered a good representant of the Majority text, for example the end of Revelation.
There is also no 1J 5 Comma Johanneum in the Majority text. Nestlé Aland agrees with Majority text here and Textus receptus is wrong. So your "black and white" or "one textual family is always right and one is always wrong" is thrown out of the window.
Differences Between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus | CARM.org

4. New testament manuscripts are carefully examined by the best scholars in the world.
Nestle Aland comittee:
Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, Matthew Black, Bruce M. Metzger, Alan Wikgren, Arthur Vööbus, Carlo Martini, Johannes Karavidopoulos. If you do not know who they are, google them.

Editio Critica Maior universities:
Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung at the University of Münster, Westphalia, Germany
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
Institute for Textual Scholarship and Electronic Editing (ITSEE) in Birmingham

The International Greek New Testament Project:
Dr Hans Förster, The University of Vienna
Dr Georg Gäbel INTF, Münster
Prof. Dr. Martin Karrer, Kirchliche Hochschule, Wuppertal
Prof. J.K. Elliott
And many others.

Sinaiticus was also carefuly examined by Tischendorf who was a textual scholar himself (and made his edition of Greek new testament) and Russian specialists in Russian museums. Also examined by Brittish museums that decided to buy it for huge money from Russia.

Do you think all these people would not see a forgery?

==========

But, for you, actually this guy is your authority:

His achievement is... uhm: "a Vice President of the Creation Science Movement in England"

A man, who actually believes that his KJV tells him everything about science and is against today's science. And surprise suprise, he does not like that his Bible could not be perfectly preserved, because his life role would be endangered. So he made a book that sinaiticus is a forgery you quote so often. This book was immediately refused by other scholars who actually work in the textual area:
A Review of 'The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus' by Dr W.R. Cooper against detailed background of the discovery of the Codex

============

Sources:
Nestle Aland Novum Testamentum Graece :: History
The International Greek New Testament Project
Profile (continued)
About us :: academic-bible.com
Official Page for Dr Bill Cooper from the Creation Science Movement and Genesis Expo.

Ok so like I said, pick one link that I have NOT adressed, pick your favorite. Then when that is done we can move to #2. my sources are original sources for one. Meaning this person actually looked at the manuscripts in question. So other than Wallace I don't think anyone you quoted actually looked at them. But be it as it may, I said I would look at any blog or article. So pick your favorite and give it to me.

 

[createdtoworship]

It depends what we're debating.

If it's the authenticity of various ancient documents; I have nothing to offer because I haven't studied them.
But in your first post in this thread, you posted an image which you said was proof of the inspiration and truth of the KJV. That was not proof, as I said in my first post, and I think that later even you disproved it; your own "evidence".
So that image which you said was proof of your argument; wasn't.

Then you seemed to be very keen on promoting a book which you had found to be convincing. I don't know, but I would guess that all your further arguments an quotes are taken from this book.
I don't have time to read that book, and as I don't know anything about the subject I would have no idea if the author was correct in his conclusions. Unfortunately I also don't have time to do research/get a degree in this subject, comparing various manuscripts and authors' writings. But another forummer who does seem to know about these things has posted to say that another author has found the claims of the author of your book to be erroneous.

Furthermore, my posts in this thread have never been on the reliability, or otherwise of the various manuscripts - obviously, since I have said that I do not know about them.
My posts have been saying:
1) The image that you first posted as "proof" that the KJV is inspired and preserved by God, is not proof at all.
2) Comparing the KJV with the NIV, for example, noting that there are differences between the two and concluding that this proves that the KJV is correct is, again, not proof at all.
3) I do not believe that any, never mind ALL, modern translations of the Bible are fraudulent. I do not believe that God would allow this to happen, and if he DID, it would surely have some bearing on a person's eternal salvation. I do not see any significant differences between the translations.

Yes the image was wrong, and I corrected it so that is proof that I am open minded. And will change my mind based on evidence. So far saying "other posters" have refuted you, does nothing for this conversation here. It's okay if you don't have time, I get it. Read the other posters, read their links I am open right now to any blog or article, even Wikipedia which is publicly edited. I just don't like quotes of quotes of quotes from material no one has actually seen in person. They could be lying, repeated a misinformation, or a host of other things.