The KJVO myth...

[ViaCrucis]

Oh the Jesuits again! or maybe it is Obama, or George Soros, or the Illuminati, or the Elders of Zion, or the Masons or the Pharisees. Can't we just give these long discredited conspiracy theories a rest?

Meanwhile at the Legion of Doom...

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Strong in Him]

I believe that people can be genuinely be saved or have a real faith in Christ but have some theological error about him.

Well I read the NIV and I don't believe I have any theological error about Jesus.

For example a Jehovah's witness does not believe in the trinity, but if they repent and believe in Jesus are they still saved? yes they would be. If they are truly believing in the same Christ. If for some reason they believe Jesus is an angel a created being and don't understand the atonement fully, then it would not be the full gospel, but if they are not that indoctrinated in it, they can still be saved.

The JWs use the NWT, a NT that was translated by their founder from the Greek. Yet in a court of law, he had to admit that he didn't know any Greek. IOW, he produced a version of the NT and then told his followers they had to obey it.

Same with a catholic that believes in the seven sacraments of the catholic catechism. Can they be saved, even though salvation by grace and faith is much different than commanding, seven sacraments upon a church to be saved? Yes they can be saved, it just depends on each situation.

Salvation is through Christ alone, he is the only Way to the Father, john 14:6.
There is only one Gospel, and it is the same, no matter what translation of Scripture a person prefers.

So my point is this....God can use christian heresy for His glory.

My point is that you haven't proved that there is Christian heresy in the newer translations of the Bible, nor that they are corrupt.

But that does not mean that as a church we should not fight error. So to answer your question, yes God can and does use any translation in any language of any manuscripts simply because those words by and large contain the word of God even if diluted.

How, and where, is the word of God "diluted"?

So yes God can be glorified in newer translations.

Great - so no reason not to use them then.

I use the living Bible and the message. It's good stuff for children.

It's pretty good stuff for adults too.

But ultimately I desire all my children to know the manuscript history behind their Bible. I won't talk about the fraud yet. As it would damage their innocence. But as they graduate high school I think I will give them all the information I have for the logical case that the sinaiticus and vaticanus were forged.

That's up to you.

Here is the wonderful book again followed by it's most helpful positive review:

Sorry, but I'm not interested in you plugging a "wonderful book".
If I looked hard enough I might be able to find a book which says the opposite to whatever this author is claiming.
So, who should I believe? Who is the person who reviewed this book? A serious scholar, who has the backing of other scholars and language experts? A liberal theologian? A non Christian who doesn't understand, or want to? Why would I take the word of one person who has a book to plug, when there may be other people out there who would say differently?

There are photos of the Codex in question to back up the author's claims (and the Codex is now available on the internet for the whole world to see, so the reader can check the author for himself). There is much, much more. Any Christian who believes that the NIV, ESV, NASB, New World or almost all of the other modern versions is a honest, true, trustworthy Bible - think again.

Anyone who doesn't understand that the New World Translation is a Bible used by a cult who don't believe that Jesus was divine and mistranslate John 1:1, is suspect. It is not an accepted Christian translation, and shouldn't be listed alongside Christian Bibles.

Read this book and get yourself a real Bible - the Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text or get yourself a really good translation - the King James Authorized Bible which is based on these good Greek and Hebrews texts.

I've got a really good Bible, thanks.
I've used many translations over the years; the New English Bible at school, the Good News Bible when I became a Christian and in Bible studies, the NIV, the amplified, the NRSV and an interlinear Greek NT.
The Gospel is the same in each; we were far from God and lost in our sins, Romans 3:23, God in his mercy sent his Son to lay down his life for our sins, John 10:11, and reconcile him with himself, Romans 5:11, 2 Corinthians 5:18. Jesus, both God and man who taught, and showed, what God is like, died for us, Matthew 26:28, was raised again, ascended to be with the Father, 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, and sends his Holy Spirit to all who have been born again, John 3:3, and ask to be filled, Luke 11:13. The Spirit testifies that we are God's children, Romans 8:16-17 and have every spiritual blessing in Christ, Ephesians 1:3. He is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance, 2 Corinthians 1:22, 2 Corinthians 5:5.

One translation I have not read since I was handed a NT by the Gideons at school, is the KJV. I've nothing against it and, as I said before, if anyone who loves it/finds it helpful, great.
But I have come to faith, been filled with the Spirit, memorised Scriptures, been helped and grown in my faith without reading the KJV.
So to imply that I don't have a "proper Bible" is incorrect - in fact, that is tantamount to saying that I am not a "proper Christian", which is also incorrect.

 

[Strong in Him]

I'm just baffled by this whole "KJV only" claim.
Logic alone should tell people that Jesus quoted often from OT Scriptures which he, and other Jews, all believed to be inspired. The early church also only had the OT, plus knowledge of Jesus' teachings and parables, and knowledge of his saving death on the cross. Jesus, Paul, Peter and the other apostles did not have the KJ Bible - did they not have the word of God? Jesus IS the Word of God.
There were Christians all over the world long before the KJV was even thought of; were they converted by "corrupt/heretical" Bibles? Did God have to make do with second best until the middle of the 17th century when King James came along? The KJV wasn't the first Bible to be translated into English, and the 1611 edition isn't even the only KJV; I understand it was revised.

So how is it that some say that only the KJV, though I'm not sure which one, is the only true/inspired Bible there is? It all sounds dangerously close to Bible worship to me.

 

[Albion]

Is it that they believe the KJV to be the only one among the many translations currently available that is true?

If so, that seems reasonable enough, although I'm not KJVO myself.

 

[robycop3]

not trying to hijack the thread I started, but the jabroney False Witnesses believe the word was "A" god, from their NET, which isn't a translation at all, but a revision of the Revised version of 1881, making it fit JW doctrine. It was made by Freddie Franz(who later became bik kahoona of the watchtower) & his buddy George Gangas, a Greek Cypriot, who didn't know KOINE Greek, the language of the Scriptural New Testament mss.

And, like their parent cult, the Seven-Day Ad-Libbers, they believe Jesus is the archangel Michael.

 

[JackRT]

not trying to hijack the thread I started, but the jabroney False Witnesses believe the word was "A" god, from their NET, which isn't a translation at all, but a revision of the Revised version of 1881, making it fit JW doctrine. It was made by Freddie Franz(who later became bik kahoona of the watchtower) & his buddy George Gangas, a Greek Cypriot, who didn't know KOINE Greek, the language of the Scriptural New Testament mss.

And, like their parent cult, the Seven-Day Ad-Libbers, they believe Jesus is the archangel Michael.

You could have stated all that without the mockery and you would have come across as quite a bit more thoughtful.

 

[Daniel C]

I think you are conflating the difference between copies and the original inspired manuscripts. Only the original manuscripts are truely inspired, as they were penned by those God inspired to originally write the word of God. Im not saying God doesn't preserve his world. Im beginning to wonder if you are applying the correct meaning of the word "inspired" (God breathed) as used in the bible, not the modern defintion. God breathed is referring to the divine inspiration (inbreathing) of Scripture (used only in 2 Tim 3:16). It's to be written on the tablet of our hearts.

Well you think in error and i'm reasonable confident you didn't read my OP before you posted that. This post stemmed from my reply to the OP and nothing to do about original manuscripts. He claimed all Bible translations were the product of Gods perfect word and I merely posed the same question to him where is the scriptural support for that. You misunderstood and frankly I'm beginning to think you enter these threads to make yourself look good but you actually come short here because you didn't even bother to read the full dialogue.

Between our exchanges you haven't told me anything I didn't already know apart from perhaps how a corrupt heathen law works which to my mind is backward but hey,I'm here to learn about the Bible. Tell me something I don't already know about that and I might thank you for it.

Very difficult to fix situations like this unless the person pays attention and actually listens the speaking partner.

 

[createdtoworship]

Meanwhile at the Legion of Doom...

-CryptoLutheran

cognitive dissonance ends up in being in denial. I get it.

however if you are done mocking for the day, and wish to debate logically...start on this post:
The KJVO myth...

so far I have got no hits on it (at all)

 

[createdtoworship]

Well I read the NIV and I don't believe I have any theological error about Jesus.



The JWs use the NWT, a NT that was translated by their founder from the Greek. Yet in a court of law, he had to admit that he didn't know any Greek. IOW, he produced a version of the NT and then told his followers they had to obey it.



Salvation is through Christ alone, he is the only Way to the Father, john 14:6.
There is only one Gospel, and it is the same, no matter what translation of Scripture a person prefers.



My point is that you haven't proved that there is Christian heresy in the newer translations of the Bible, nor that they are corrupt.



How, and where, is the word of God "diluted"?



Great - so no reason not to use them then.



It's pretty good stuff for adults too.



That's up to you.



Sorry, but I'm not interested in you plugging a "wonderful book".
If I looked hard enough I might be able to find a book which says the opposite to whatever this author is claiming.
So, who should I believe? Who is the person who reviewed this book? A serious scholar, who has the backing of other scholars and language experts? A liberal theologian? A non Christian who doesn't understand, or want to? Why would I take the word of one person who has a book to plug, when there may be other people out there who would say differently?



Anyone who doesn't understand that the New World Translation is a Bible used by a cult who don't believe that Jesus was divine and mistranslate John 1:1, is suspect. It is not an accepted Christian translation, and shouldn't be listed alongside Christian Bibles.



I've got a really good Bible, thanks.
I've used many translations over the years; the New English Bible at school, the Good News Bible when I became a Christian and in Bible studies, the NIV, the amplified, the NRSV and an interlinear Greek NT.
The Gospel is the same in each; we were far from God and lost in our sins, Romans 3:23, God in his mercy sent his Son to lay down his life for our sins, John 10:11, and reconcile him with himself, Romans 5:11, 2 Corinthians 5:18. Jesus, both God and man who taught, and showed, what God is like, died for us, Matthew 26:28, was raised again, ascended to be with the Father, 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, and sends his Holy Spirit to all who have been born again, John 3:3, and ask to be filled, Luke 11:13. The Spirit testifies that we are God's children, Romans 8:16-17 and have every spiritual blessing in Christ, Ephesians 1:3. He is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance, 2 Corinthians 1:22, 2 Corinthians 5:5.

One translation I have not read since I was handed a NT by the Gideons at school, is the KJV. I've nothing against it and, as I said before, if anyone who loves it/finds it helpful, great.
But I have come to faith, been filled with the Spirit, memorised Scriptures, been helped and grown in my faith without reading the KJV.
So to imply that I don't have a "proper Bible" is incorrect - in fact, that is tantamount to saying that I am not a "proper Christian", which is also incorrect.

so you could not disprove any of the allegations that I posted in this post:
The KJVO myth...

again cognitive dissonance increases in time, and it almost always leads to living in denial.

Some day you will see, and that little angel will say....he remember that guy over there....on that cloud 9....he was right all along, and you didn't even try to logically break down his bullets of evidence against the sinaiticus.

 

[createdtoworship]

Well I read the NIV and I don't believe I have any theological error about Jesus.



The JWs use the NWT, a NT that was translated by their founder from the Greek. Yet in a court of law, he had to admit that he didn't know any Greek. IOW, he produced a version of the NT and then told his followers they had to obey it.



Salvation is through Christ alone, he is the only Way to the Father, john 14:6.
There is only one Gospel, and it is the same, no matter what translation of Scripture a person prefers.



My point is that you haven't proved that there is Christian heresy in the newer translations of the Bible, nor that they are corrupt.



How, and where, is the word of God "diluted"?



Great - so no reason not to use them then.



It's pretty good stuff for adults too.



That's up to you.



Sorry, but I'm not interested in you plugging a "wonderful book".
If I looked hard enough I might be able to find a book which says the opposite to whatever this author is claiming.
So, who should I believe? Who is the person who reviewed this book? A serious scholar, who has the backing of other scholars and language experts? A liberal theologian? A non Christian who doesn't understand, or want to? Why would I take the word of one person who has a book to plug, when there may be other people out there who would say differently?



Anyone who doesn't understand that the New World Translation is a Bible used by a cult who don't believe that Jesus was divine and mistranslate John 1:1, is suspect. It is not an accepted Christian translation, and shouldn't be listed alongside Christian Bibles.



I've got a really good Bible, thanks.
I've used many translations over the years; the New English Bible at school, the Good News Bible when I became a Christian and in Bible studies, the NIV, the amplified, the NRSV and an interlinear Greek NT.
The Gospel is the same in each; we were far from God and lost in our sins, Romans 3:23, God in his mercy sent his Son to lay down his life for our sins, John 10:11, and reconcile him with himself, Romans 5:11, 2 Corinthians 5:18. Jesus, both God and man who taught, and showed, what God is like, died for us, Matthew 26:28, was raised again, ascended to be with the Father, 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, and sends his Holy Spirit to all who have been born again, John 3:3, and ask to be filled, Luke 11:13. The Spirit testifies that we are God's children, Romans 8:16-17 and have every spiritual blessing in Christ, Ephesians 1:3. He is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance, 2 Corinthians 1:22, 2 Corinthians 5:5.

One translation I have not read since I was handed a NT by the Gideons at school, is the KJV. I've nothing against it and, as I said before, if anyone who loves it/finds it helpful, great.
But I have come to faith, been filled with the Spirit, memorised Scriptures, been helped and grown in my faith without reading the KJV.
So to imply that I don't have a "proper Bible" is incorrect - in fact, that is tantamount to saying that I am not a "proper Christian", which is also incorrect.

by the way I can show a bunch of heresy the NIV teaches, that was probably a bad oversight to pick the worst one of the modern translations. I litterally have dozens of cartoons of comparisons of the KJV to NIV and some others. But I won't post them here, last time someone got so mad they reported me, and it worked. So I will just say....trust me the NIV is not the worst one, but the worst, semi literal one. Paraphrases are way worse and teach a bunch more heresy, but the NIV has a fair amount of heresy. Not about salvation and the diety of Christ. A lot of KJV only guys say it takes away the diety, and it may in one or two, but diety is there enough that it does not matter. I don't think essentials are in error in the NIV, but you can still be into heresy and be denying non essentials. I believe. For me for instance replacement theology is a heresy. they are still saved, and believe in Jesus, they just teach the Bible wrong. It's all heresy. It's just some heresy can lead you estray on salvation issues. And I think the NIV is ok in that arena.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I believe that people can be genuinely be saved or have a real faith in Christ but have some theological error about him. For example a Jehovah's witness does not believe in the trinity, but if they repent and believe in Jesus are they still saved? yes they would be. If they are truly believing in the same Christ. If for some reason they believe Jesus is an angel a created being and don't understand the atonement fully, then it would not be the full gospel, but if they are not that indoctrinated in it, they can still be saved. Same with a catholic that believes in the seven sacraments of the catholic catechism. Can they be saved, even though salvation by grace and faith is much different than commanding, seven sacraments upon a church to be saved? Yes they can be saved, it just depends on each situation. What they believe about Jesus and the atonement. So my point is this....God can use christian heresy for His glory. But that does not mean that as a church we should not fight error. So to answer your question, yes God can and does use any translation in any language of any manuscripts simply because those words by and large contain the word of God even if diluted. So yes God can be glorified in newer translations. In fact I used to be so against the NIV that I would cringe when anyone read from it. But I have lightened up over the years. I even read a paraphrase to my son during our family bible study. I use the living Bible and the message. It's good stuff for children. As they get older you can move to the new living translation which is a bit more accurate. Or the action Bible. But ultimately I desire all my children to know the manuscript history behind their Bible. I won't talk about the fraud yet. As it would damage their innocence. But as they graduate high school I think I will give them all the information I have for the logical case that the sinaiticus and vaticanus were forged.

Here is the wonderful book again followed by it's most helpful positive review:

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

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

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

Since we're quoting Amazon reviews,

"There is essentially nothing in this entire book that is based on serious research. It promotes an impossible conspiracy theory. Ken McCrane has refuted this nonsense in his online essay "A Review of The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus by D W Cooper." The basic theory proposed by Cooper is also addressed online by me, in a series of blog-posts. It is just plain ludicrous. However pious the author may be, not one bit of theory promoted in this book should be taken seriously."

And the review of the book from Ken McCrane? I don't know who Ken McCrane is or what his credentials are, but I found it, in case anyone is curious, and no haven't read it myself.: A Review of 'The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus' by Dr W.R. Cooper against detailed background of the discovery of the Codex

In fact trying to find any information about this book, let alone a critique of it, has been met by a kind of deafening silence--in fact I continue to get results back to Christian Forums discussion threads. There's like nothing out there.

Which is odd. Almost like this isn't something being taken seriously in any academic circles anywhere or by anyone. Almost as though the idea that Sinaiticus is a hoax is a dumb conspiracy theory.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

so you could not disprove

Have you ever heard of the burden of proof?

-CryptoLUtheran

 

[Strong in Him]

by the way I can show a bunch of heresy the NIV teaches, that was probably a bad oversight to pick the worst one of the modern translations.

I picked the translation that I use every day, which is still teaching me, helping me in my faith and through which the Lord is speaking and inspiring me.

I litterally have dozens of cartoons of comparisons of the KJV to NIV and some others.

Cartoons?
Ooooh, serious stuff.

I've said before that comparing something to the KJV is futile - because where there are differences, the person always say, "there; prooof that ....... is wrong" and never "there is a difference between them, I wonder if the KJV could be wrong?"
In other words, if your starting point is that the KJV is perfect and all other translations heretical, you're never going to see any different - ANYTHING compared to the "perfect" KJV is going to come up short.
So post your cartoons if you wish; proves nothing. Compare the KJV and NIV with the Greek, and you may have something; on it's own, no.

But I won't post them here, last time someone got so mad they reported me, and it worked.

For it to have "worked" - i.e resulted in a ban or closure of the thread - you must have been found to have broken the rules in some way. No one gets suspended or whatever because of a difference of opinion; otherwise there'd be no one left here.

So I will just say....trust me the NIV is not the worst one, but the worst, semi literal one.

Say what you like; I am growing in faith, love and closer to the Lord through it.

Paraphrases are way worse and teach a bunch more heresy, but the NIV has a fair amount of heresy.

In your opinion. I use it and do not find that is the case.

I don't think essentials are in error in the NIV,

I don't believe they are in any Bible.
You make it sound like the Bible is translated by non Christians and heretics with the intention of destroying the faith. Not true.

but you can still be into heresy and be denying non essentials. I believe. For me for instance replacement theology is a heresy. they are still saved, and believe in Jesus, they just teach the Bible wrong.

Heresy is a serious word.
You can believe something is very wrong without it actually being heresy. And if it's not about the Gospel and doesn't affect salvation; does it matter?

 

[faroukfarouk]

I picked the translation that I use every day, which is still teaching me, helping me in my faith and through which the Lord is speaking and inspiring me.



Cartoons?
Ooooh, serious stuff.

I've said before that comparing something to the KJV is futile - because where there are differences, the person always say, "there; prooof that ....... is wrong" and never "there is a difference between them, I wonder if the KJV could be wrong?"
In other words, if your starting point is that the KJV is perfect and all other translations heretical, you're never going to see any different - ANYTHING compared to the "perfect" KJV is going to come up short.
So post your cartoons if you wish; proves nothing. Compare the KJV and NIV with the Greek, and you may have something; on it's own, no.



For it to have "worked" - i.e resulted in a ban or closure of the thread - you must have been found to have broken the rules in some way. No one gets suspended or whatever because of a difference of opinion; otherwise there'd be no one left here.



Say what you like; I am growing in faith, love and closer to the Lord through it.



In your opinion. I use it and do not find that is the case.



I don't believe they are in any Bible.
You make it sound like the Bible is translated by non Christians and heretics with the intention of destroying the faith. Not true.



Heresy is a serious word.
You can believe something is very wrong without it actually being heresy. And if it's not about the Gospel and doesn't affect salvation; does it matter?

@Strong in Him Hi; I do like and appreciate the KJV. Although I'm not KJVO...

 

[robycop3]

You could have stated all that without the mockery and you would have come across as quite a bit more thoughtful.

I COULD do a lotta things, but I did it MY way.

I have nothing but disdain for those pseudo/quasi-Christian cults, which are more-dangerous in leading people to hell than many non-Christian religions are, because these cults cause its members to believe they're already saved by their storefront jesuses, & we mere men cannot undo the brainwashings they impart. I found it easier to de-program a moonie than to convert a JW, SDA, or LDS. Only the HOLY SPIRIT can do that !

And the JW used to use the KJV, but they knew it was an established version among many other denominations, & they couldn't get away with altering it to fit the JW garbage, so they used the little-known (in the US) revised version of 1881 to alter. And the SDA mostly uses the KJV, & the LDS uses the "Joseph Smith KJV". (This is not the KJV's fault that cults misuse it.)

 

[JackRT]

In fact trying to find any information about this book, let alone a critique of it, has been met by a kind of deafening silence--in fact I continue to get results back to Christian Forums discussion threads. There's like nothing out there.

That is exactly my experience as well. The attack on the Codex Sinaiticus seems to be well confined to a small circle of KJVO conspiracy theorists. And that is as it should be.

 

[createdtoworship]

Since we're quoting Amazon reviews,

"There is essentially nothing in this entire book that is based on serious research. It promotes an impossible conspiracy theory. Ken McCrane has refuted this nonsense in his online essay "A Review of The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus by D W Cooper." The basic theory proposed by Cooper is also addressed online by me, in a series of blog-posts. It is just plain ludicrous. However pious the author may be, not one bit of theory promoted in this book should be taken seriously."

And the review of the book from Ken McCrane? I don't know who Ken McCrane is or what his credentials are, but I found it, in case anyone is curious, and no haven't read it myself.: A Review of 'The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus' by Dr W.R. Cooper against detailed background of the discovery of the Codex

In fact trying to find any information about this book, let alone a critique of it, has been met by a kind of deafening silence--in fact I continue to get results back to Christian Forums discussion threads. There's like nothing out there.

Which is odd. Almost like this isn't something being taken seriously in any academic circles anywhere or by anyone. Almost as though the idea that Sinaiticus is a hoax is a dumb conspiracy theory.

-CryptoLutheran

Sir again it's denial. Imagine me telling you that the Bible you got from your great granmother before she died, (the family Bible which was in NIV), was based off forged manusripts. It's hits a little different. When I first started debating skeptics here, I had a crisis of faith almost instantly. I grew very angry against the skeptics for causing this.....doubt. But as I grew I learned to sift through my doubt and realize that mocking something does not mean that they are right, mocking usually is a cover for a lack of true evidence against something. But anyway, I have downloaded and read the peer review article that you mention above, I believe I fully cover it in the thread link I provided. It's off topic for here. Mainly the objections are that there are three different writing styles in the new testament, and that the forger could not have had enough time to complete such a volumous task. But I suggested that He was forging, or copying an existing manuscript. If he did so, he would have retained the styles of the original authors. If the manuscript was not a high quality, that would explain why leaves were missing from it and verses left out. But again there was a debate about it where these points were brought up and the debater did not mention the fact he could have copied from an existing manuscript, or collection of manuscripts. Who knows I know one thing....if someone forged a bible manuscript they would not do it off memory, they would quote vast sections as to make it authentic. But anyway, that takes care of most of the criticisms of it that I have seen, feel free to find more. But I do recommend if you are open minded to simply read the book. The reviews do not do it justice, even the review I quoted leaves out the photographs and the actual evidence that needs to be weighed.

 

[robycop3]

Every Christian SHOULD see the HAND OF GOD at work in the preservations of both Sinaiticus & Vaticanus.

 

[createdtoworship]

Every Christian SHOULD see the HAND OF GOD at work in the preservations of both Sinaiticus & Vaticanus.

not when they are missing much of God's words. 251 verses to be exact are completely missing from modern translations. The bible says in revelation if you take words from the Bible God will take away from your life out of the book of life, and if you add words to the Bible God will add curses to your life.... This is such a well known fact that bart ehrman criticizes inspiration saying some of the most well known bible verses were not in the original text. And he was right partly, the existing manuscripts that we have that are older, were forged by vatican and these are missing over 200 verses. But from other posters many quotes of the verses from founding church fathers showed byzantine style not alexandrian styles. So apparently the founding fathers had access to an early KJV that is destroyed now. I would venture to say destroyed in alexandria due to fire.

List of Omitted Bible Verses - Textus Receptus

 

[robycop3]

not when they are missing much of God's words. 251 verses to be exact are completely missing from modern translations. The bible says in revelation if you take words from the Bible God will take away from your life out of the book of life, and if you add words to the Bible God will add curses to your life.... This is such a well known fact that bart ehrman criticizes inspiration saying some of the most well known bible verses were not in the original text. And he was right partly, the existing manuscripts that we have that are older, were forged by vatican. But from other posters many quotes of the verses from founding church fathers showed byzantine style not alexandrian styles. So apparently the founding fathers had access to an early KJV that is destroyed now. I would venture to say destroyed in alexandria due to fire.

List of Omitted Bible Verses - Textus Receptus

The "forgeries" stuff is a forgery itself.

And, do you **KNOW** the "better" mss. didn't ADD words?