next »

[brandplucked]

Is Matthew 23:14 Inspired Scripture or not?

The Lord Jesus Christ clearly stated “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but MY WORDS shall not pass away.”  This is either a true statement or He was lying to us.

Matthew 23:14 records in full the words of the Lord Jesus Christ that are found no where else in the entire Bible. There are a couple of similar passages (See Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47) but nothing that is exactly like Matthew 23:14 where He says: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. “

The evidence for the authenticity of this entire verse is simply overwhelming, and we can even see the stumbling uncertainty of the modern versions by the way they handle this particular verse.

This whole verse has been omitted from many modern versions (but not all of them as we shall soon see) that follow the ever changing Westcott-Hort Critical text theories.   Versions that entirely omit this verse first began with the Darby version in1870.  John Darby basically made up his own peculiar text for the New Testament, following neither the Westcott-Hort revised Greek text, nor the Majority nor the Textus Receptus.  Darby’s was followed by the liberal RSV in 1946 and then by the NRSV 1989, the ESV 2001 and the NIV 1982.

Daniel Wallace’s NET version (an ongoing train wreck) tells us that the verse is “not in the most important manuscripts...it is almost certainly not original... The present translation follows NA27 in omitting the verse number as well, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.”

And what might these “best manuscripts” be?  Well, they are primarily  Siniaticus, Vaticanus and D, all of which wildly differ not only from the Majority of all Greek texts but even from each other.  See my article on “the oldest and the best manuscripts?” here: http://brandplucked.webs.com/oldestandbestmss.htm

Isn’t it odd that by simply skipping from verse 13 to 15  neither the Nestle-Aland 27 people nor some modern versions appear to be able  even count right?  “And now let’s count class ... ten...eleven... twelve... thirteen...fifteen... sixteen...Ooops. Looks like something is missing, Huh?”  Why don’t they just be honest and change the verse numbers? Because in spite of themselves, they are bearing reluctant witness to the fact that God has an absolute Standard for His Bible and it’s not their own watered down, bogus versions.

Versions such as the Revised Version of 1881, the ASV of 1901 and the NASBs from 1960 to 1995 have the whole verse in [brackets] indicating doubt as to whether this verse is true Scripture or not.  The Holman Standard of 2003 [does the same].  This means that even they did not have complete confidence in their own every changing Critical Greek texts as to whether this verse should be omitted or not.  It’s a real faith destroyer to have versions like the NASB or Holman Standard that [bracket] anywhere from 17 to 45 entire verses in the New Testament alone.  Guess who wants you to ask yourself “Yea, hath God said...?” (Genesis 3:1)

There are some versions that primarily follow the Critical Greek text theories and omit thousands of words from the true New Testament who still leave this verse intact.  This includes Rotherham’s 1902 Emphasized bible and the brand new ISV (International Standard Version) which has gone back to including the entire verse in the text.

The evidence for the inclusion of Matthew 23:14 in the pages of the Holy Scriptures is ancient, massive and widespread.  ALL English Bibles before the 1611 King James Bible included this verse.  These are the Wycliffe Bible of 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Bishops’ Bible of 1568 and the Geneva Bibles from 1557 to 1602, and even the 1582 Catholic Douay-Rheims version, though the more recent Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible 1969 and the 1985 New Jerusalem have now omitted the verse.   Of course, it is firmly in place in the King James Holy Bible.

It was also in Mace’s N.T. 1729, Wesley’s N.T. 1755, Webster’s 1833, the Douay version 1950, Youngs, and is included in the NKJV 1982, Green’s literal, the 21st Century KJV and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.

Matthew 23:14 is found in the vast Majority of all Greek texts, including many uncial copies like E, F, G, H, K, M, O, S, U, V, W, Y Gamma, Delta, Pi, Sigma and Omega.  It is found in the Old Latin copies b, c, f, ff2, h, 1, r1, 2.  The Old Latin copies bear witness to a N.T. text that existed long before anything we have in the existing Greek copies.  It is included in such ancient Bible translations as the Syriac Peshitta, Curetonian, Harkelian, Palestinian, as well as some Coptic Boharic copies, the Armenian and the Ethiopic versions. The Gothic bible is missing the entire chapter, so it is not much help in determing the text at all.  The Latin Vulgate texts as well as the Catholic versions that come from them are all mixed up.  The 425 A.D. Vulgate omitted  it, but the later Clementine Vulgate included it.

Matthew 23:14 is included in the Modern Greek New Testaments used by the Greek Orthodox churches all over the world today.  It is also found in all these foreign language Bibles: THE MODERN HEBREW N.T., the Arabic Life Application bible 1998, the Africaans Bible, Armenian, Basque, Bulgarian, Chinese bibles, Check, Dutch Staten Vertaling, Danish, Estonian, Finnish, French Louis Segond 1910, Martin 1744 and French Ostervald 1996; the German Luther 1545 and the more modern Elberfelder, the Modern Greek N.T.; the Hungarin Karoli, Quiché Bible 1997, Italian Diodati 1649, the Riveduta 1927 and the New Diodati 1991, Icelandic, Japenese bibles, Latvian, Lithuanian, Manx Gaelic, Norwegian Det Norsk Bibelselskap, Portuguese Almeida, Russian Synodal, Victor Zhuromski and the 2000 Russian Slovo Zhizny bible, the Spanish Reina Valeras from 1909, 1960 and 1995; the Swahili bible, Thai, Tagalog, Turkish, Ukranian and the Vietnamese bibles.


Also to be noted is that the International Bible Society, who puts out the NIV which completely omits Matthew 23:14, is not always consistent when it comes to the foreign language bibles the IBS publishes.  Among the modern foreign langugage versions the IBS publishes that DO contain this verse in their translations are The Arabic Life Application bible 1998, the French La Bible du Semeur 1999, the Italian La Parola e Vita 1997, the Portuguese O Livro 2000, the modern Romanian bible, and the Russian Slovo Zhizny of 2000.

As we enter the early 21st century, the ever growing unbelief in the inspiration, inerrancy and infallibility of any Bible in any language is in full swing.  The King James Bible believers are the only ones who will not budge on this most vital doctrine.  We fully believe that God has indeed preserved His precious and perfect words in “the book of the LORD” (Isaiah 34:16) and that this Book is the Authorized King James Holy Bible - the Standard by which all others are to be measured.

“In God will I praise his word: in the LORD will I praise his word.”  Psalm 56:10

Will Kinney
 

[jchthys]

You say, “Why don’t they just be honest and change the verse numbers?” Simply for convenience’ sake. If they changed the numbers, how could one compare translations in the following verses?

The KJV changed the verse numbering in certain places, particularly the Psalms. This has caused me confusion when I try to compare Psalms in the English against the Hebrew, because KJV ‘title’ is Hebrew ‘verse 1’, and the numbering is not consistent.

The numbering of the Bible sometimes is illogical, but modern versions leave it the way it is because it is a standard.

[andiclare]

That is very interesting. I checked all the bibles I have...The verse is omitted in the NAB (but included as a *footnote) and the RSV, but included in the KJB, the NKJV and the Douay-Rheims.

I get that some of the newer translations trust different Hebrew or Greek texts, I guess...but I don't understand why they'd omit this verse.

[AndysDad]

The evidence for the inclusion of Matthew 23:14 in the pages of the Holy Scriptures is ancient, massive and widespread.  Matthew 23:14 is found in the vast Majority of all Greek texts, including many uncial copies like E, F, G, H, K, M, O, S, U, V, W, Y Gamma, Delta, Pi, Sigma and Omega.

And every one of these, as well as all but a dozen or so of the 1500+ Greek copies of Matthew 23,  "skip" from verse thirteen to verse fifteen. Where is verse fourteen? It's after verse twelve. “And now let’s count class ... ten... eleven... twelve... fourteen... thirteen... fifteen... sixteen... Oops.”

It is found in the Old Latin copies b, c, f, ff2, h, 1, r1, 2.  The Old Latin copies bear witness to a N.T. text that existed long before anything we have in the existing Greek copies.  The Latin Vulgate texts as well as the Catholic versions that come from them are all mixed up.  The 425 A.D. Vulgate omitted  it, but the later Clementine Vulgate included it.

Yes, and then there are those Old Latin copies that don't have verse fourteen on either side of verse thirteen: a, aur, d, e, ff1, g1. The N.T. text is mixed up as far back as we can trace it in any language.

Yes, Matthew 23:14 is found in hundreds of manuscripts--but in at least three different locations (including being penned into the margin of one manuscript), and in several different versions. It's not even found in the same place in the two main editions of the Textus Receptus.

Andy'sDad

[Gabriel Anast]

As to the numbering issue... it does not seem particularly central to the issue at hand... but... maybe it is?

jchthys, maybe you could take some time to engage here, and summarize for us the main reasons that this verse is not included in the modern versions?

--gabe

[jchthys]

I apologize for the uncharitable comment in my previous post.

Anyway, here is the external evidence:

• The very oldest manuscripts do not have the verse.
• Some relatively old uncials do include the verse, but before verse 13.
• The following ancient versions exclude the verse: the Armenian and Georgian, as well as most Coptic and some Italic, Vulgate and Syriac.
• The following ancient versions include the verse before 13: some Italic, some Syriac, some Coptic and the Ethiopic.
• The following ancient verisons include the verse in its numbered place: some Italic, Vulgate, Syriac, and Coptic.
• Almost all the manuscripts that include the verse, including thhe late ones, include it before verse 13.

AndysDad gave a good summary of the internal evidence: The fact that it occurs in the margin makes it natural to assume it was worked into the text from there. Also note the parallel passages Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47, which would have made such an interpolation more likely.

[jchthys]

The Lord Jesus Christ clearly stated “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but MY WORDS shall not pass away.”  This is either a true statement or He was lying to us.

This statement is irrelevant to the question at hand—even given that Christ was referring to the Scriptures in that statement.

Just as the apocryphal books do not negate the fact that the true text of the Bible survives, so the exclusion of this apocryphal verse does not change the fact that we have God’s words. If these are not God’s words (and I believe they are not), then why should excluding them have any bearing on the fact that God’s true words have not passed away?

[Gabriel Anast]

OK, thanks. This is a start... sort of a superficial one... but I'll take anything at the moment. Do you have any links to good discussions on this from either side of the argument? What you have presented is just the nature of old manuscripts and doesn't present any reason to side with one over the other. I often footnote my OWN posts... sometimes long after they are made... so... maybe you could hand hold us through the arguments or point to articles that actually discus them.

and, "This statement is irrelevant to the question at hand" uh... ok... ignore it (like I do) and focus on that which is relevant.

--gabe

[brandplucked]

I will assume that you do know (and are hiding) the arguments against the inclusion of this verse, and so I will only answer one small statement that you made. You say, “Why don’t they just be honest and change the verse numbers?” Simply for convenience’ sake. If they changed the numbers, how could one compare translations in the following verses?

The KJV changed the verse numbering in certain places, particularly the Psalms. This has caused me confusion when I try to compare Psalms in the English against the Hebrew, because KJV ‘title’ is Hebrew ‘verse 1’, and the numbering is not consistent.

The numbering of the Bible sometimes is illogical, but modern versions leave it the way it is because it is a standard.

Hi jc.  Yes, they don't change the numbers because whether they like it or not, the King James Bible is the Standard.  Tyndale did not have chapters and numbers.  The Geneva bible started the chapter and verse number divisions, but the KJB does not always follow the "put on the shelf" Geneva bible. The KJB started its own chapter and verse numbers and ever since, this has been the Standard.

By the way, IF your Nestle-Aland 27 edition Greek text WERE (it's not, at all) the only pure and 100% words of God as you previously stated, then this means that there NEVER was a perfect N.T. until just a few years ago, and in just a couple more the 27th will give place to the 28th.  Very short shelf life for your alleged "pure and 100% inerrant" words of God, wouldn't you say.

The Critical text, of which your NA27 is a prime example, is NOT a fixed text at all and it omits literally thousands of true God inspired words that should be in the true Bible.

Will K

[jchthys]

By the way, IF your Nestle-Aland 27 edition Greek text WERE (it's not, at all) the only pure and 100% words of God as you previously stated, then this means that there NEVER was a perfect N.T. until just a few years ago, and in just a couple more the 27th will give place to the 28th.  Very short shelf life for your alleged "pure and 100% inerrant" words of God, wouldn't you say.

That’s not exactly what I said. I said that pure and inerrant words of God are in that book, just as they were in the manuscripts for thousands of years. On the other hand, you say that no one had any of the pure and inerrant words of God until Tyndale’s time, and not all of them until 1611.

The Critical text, of which your NA27 is a prime example, is NOT a fixed text at all and it omits literally thousands of true God inspired words that should be in the true Bible.

The words of God have been preserved and can be found within any (or at least almost any) Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek edition of the Bible. There are small differences between successive editions of NA/UBS text (just as there are slight differences between editions of the KJV). These are minor variations that put the text in the footnote and vice versa—it does not amount to actually removing any of the words of God. They are still preserved.

God may have promised to preserve His words, but not that no one would ever doubt exactly which ones they were. If He had promised that, the promise would not have been kept, as we are arguing about it today.

[jchthys]

I did find a PDF on textual criticism that gives a brief overview of the evidence, but I can’t find a more extended discussion. I assume that this is because the verse is in parallel passages in other gospels, and no point of theology seems to hinge upon it.

[brandplucked]

Hi AndysDad.  The interesting point I get from your post here is that you do not really believe that even your Geneva Bible IS the complete and inerrant words of God like you say you do.  You are perfectly willing to cast doubt on it's infallibility too by the very things you post here.

If what you are saying is true about verse 14 should really come before verse 13, then why did your "infallible Geneva bible" as well as Wycliffe 1380, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Cranmer 1539, the Douay -Rheims 1582 and the NKJV to say nothing of all Spanish Reina Valera, the Italian Diodati, Martin Luther's German, and the Modern Greek N.T. used by the Greek Orthodox churhes all get it wrong?  Do you have an answer for this?

Thanks,


Will K

The evidence for the inclusion of Matthew 23:14 in the pages of the Holy Scriptures is ancient, massive and widespread.  Matthew 23:14 is found in the vast Majority of all Greek texts, including many uncial copies like E, F, G, H, K, M, O, S, U, V, W, Y Gamma, Delta, Pi, Sigma and Omega.

And every one of these, as well as all but a dozen or so of the 1500+ Greek copies of Matthew 23,  "skip" from verse thirteen to verse fifteen. Where is verse fourteen? It's after verse twelve. “And now let’s count class ... ten... eleven... twelve... fourteen... thirteen... fifteen... sixteen... Oops.”

It is found in the Old Latin copies b, c, f, ff2, h, 1, r1, 2.  The Old Latin copies bear witness to a N.T. text that existed long before anything we have in the existing Greek copies.  The Latin Vulgate texts as well as the Catholic versions that come from them are all mixed up.  The 425 A.D. Vulgate omitted  it, but the later Clementine Vulgate included it.

Yes, and then there are those Old Latin copies that don't have verse fourteen on either side of verse thirteen: a, aur, d, e, ff1, g1. The N.T. text is mixed up as far back as we can trace it in any language.

Yes, Matthew 23:14 is found in hundreds of manuscripts--but in at least three different locations (including being penned into the margin of one manuscript), and in several different versions. It's not even found in the same place in the two main editions of the Textus Receptus.

Andy'sDad

[brandplucked]

I apologize for the uncharitable comment in my previous post.

Anyway, here is the external evidence:

• The very oldest manuscripts do not have the verse.

Hi jc.  Your side of the Bible version issue always brings up this trite saying about "the oldest and best manuscripts read...."  Are you aware at all of what these so called oldest and best mss. are upon which most modern versions are based? 

Here are some facts about what these "oldest and best manuscripts" really say.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/oldbest.html

I could have posted the whole study but it is only a very incomplete and long study - there are SO MANY examples showing how these so called "oldest and best" not only disagree with the Majority of texts, but with each other, and that in radical ways.

So I just gave the link. Hopefully you will take the time to at least look at some of the blatant examples of how corrupt and confused these manuscripts really are. Somebody is pulling a very real Deception Job on a lot of people with this stuff.  The results?  Fewer and fewer professing Christians believe that nay Bible is the inerrant and infallible words of God and they read their modern versions even less and less. By their fruit ye shall know them.

Will K[/list]

[jchthys]

In short these two codices are old simply because, first,they were written on extremely expensive and durable antelope skins, and secondly, they were so full of errors, alterations, additions and deletions, that they were never used by true believers and seldom even by their own custodians. Thus they had little chance of wearing away.

As to the first statement: Fragile papyrus manuscripts dating to even before the parchments most often corroborate the old uncials.

As to the second statement: These documents have many marginal notes. They were thus actually extensively used by the church.

Mr. Burgon states on page 11; "Singular to relate Vaticanus and Aleph have within the last 20 years established a tyrannical ascendance over the imagination of the Critics, which can only be fitly spoken of as a blind superstition. It matters nothing that they are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant MSS. besides, but even from one another. In the gospels alone B (Vaticanus) is found to omit at least 2877 words: to add 536, to substitute, 935; to transpose, 2098: to modify 1132 (in all 7578): - the corresponding figures for Aleph being 3455 omitted, 839 added, 1114 substitued, 2299 transposed, 1265 modified (in all 8972). And be it remembered that the omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, are by no means the same in both. It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two mss. differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree."

If you and I were both asked to hand-copy a document THATWASWRITTENLIKETHIS, there would be mistakes in both copies (assuming that we’re both human). Many of these mistakes would be different. Now a mistake in an old copy is still a mistake, so of course the correct readings cannot be based on age alone (though in general older copies, other things being equal, are superior to later copies). If a mistake is copied, and a hundred copies are made from that copy, it is still a mistake, and the minority reading (albeit the older one) is still correct. The later manuscripts may agree with each other, but they may all have been copied from the same corrupt source.

[brandplucked]

Hi jc.  It looks like you at least started to read the link I gave you about what these so called "oldest and best manuscripts" actually say.  Did you finish it?  From the comments you made, it seems like you missed the obvious gross differences, omissions and really bad readings found in these two false witnesses who can't even agree with each other, let alone with the Majority of witnesses.

It looks to me like your refuse to admit the very bad character of these two false witnesses that are mainly responsible for omitting literally thousands of words from the Traditional New Testament text, and that your "pure and 100% infallible words of God" are getting more and more elusive, ill defined and unknown.

Are you still sticking to your story that the NA 27th edition is the complete, pure and 100% infallible words of God?

Just wondering,

Will K

[jchthys]

Hi jc.  It looks like you at least started to read the link I gave you about what these so called "oldest and best manuscripts" actually say.  Did you finish it?  From the comments you made, it seems like you missed the obvious gross differences, omissions and really bad readings found in these two false witnesses who can't even agree with each other, let alone with the Majority of witnesses.

It looks to me like your refuse to admit the very bad character of these two false witnesses that are mainly responsible for omitting literally thousands of words from the Traditional New Testament text, and that your "pure and 100% infallible words of God" are getting more and more elusive, ill defined and unknown.

If you read my comments, you should understand that I believe that the corruptions are on the other side. You talk about “the obvious gross differences, omissions and really bad readings,” but who is to say that it is not the other way around? Of most of the textual differences I have seen (which do not alter any fundamental point of doctrine—the differences are often overstated), I find good reasons to believe that the Byzantine text has altered the original rather than a text such as NA27.

Are you still sticking to your story that the NA 27th edition is the complete, pure and 100% infallible words of God?

Please stop misinterpreting what I am saying. One can indeed have all God’s words (New Testament) in NA27. That does not place it above any other edition that contains them all.

[brandplucked]

If you read my comments, you should understand that I believe that the corruptions are on the other side. You talk about “the obvious gross differences, omissions and really bad readings,” but who is to say that it is not the other way around? Of most of the textual differences I have seen (which do not alter any fundamental point of doctrine—the differences are often overstated), I find good reasons to believe that the Byzantine text has altered the original rather than a text such as NA27.

Hi folks. In these discussions I have often found that you reach a point where, from my point of view at least, no matter what clear evidence is presented, the other side is simply unwilling or unable to listen to reason.  Here are just a few of the selected portions showing how utterly corrupt these so called "oldest and best manuscripts" really are.  Instead of admitting the obvious, the other side sticks its head in the sand and says in effect "darkness is light, and light is darkness". 

The following are just a few of the facts about these "best manuscripts"

SINAITICUS (Aleph) completely omits the following verses while they are found in Vaticanus. Matthew 24:35 - "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away"; Luke 10:32 - "And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side."; 17:35 - "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."; John 9:38 - "And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him."; 16:15 - "All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you."; 21:25 - "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."; and I Corinthians 2:15- "But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." and 13:1b -2 - "I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not- (charity, I am nothing)."

VATICANUS (B) omits Matthew 12:47 - "Then one said unto him, Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee." and Luke 23:17 while Sinaiticus retains them. Luke 23:17, "For of necessity he must release one onto them at the feast", is omitted in B, the NASB, and NIV, yet it is in Sinaticus and the majority of all Greek texts. Yet B omits Luke 23:34, "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do", while it is retained in Sinaticus and this time kept in the NASB and NIV. Go figure.



I Corinthians 13:3 - Instead of reading, "and though I give my body to BE BURNED, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing", both Aleph and B read: "and though I give my body THAT I MAY BOAST". The NRSV actually adopted this reading, but the RSV, and the new ESV went back to "to be burned".

I Corinthians 13:5- ". . .charity seeketh not HER OWN". Vaticanus alone reads "love does not seek that which IS NOT HERS" - the opposite meaning.

I Corinthians 15:51- "We shall NOT all sleep, but we shall all be changed" in Sinaticus reads: "we shall sleep but we shall NOT ALL be changed" - the exact opposite.

1 Corinthians 15:54-55- "Death is swallowed up in VICTORY. O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your VICTORY." In Vaticanus this verse reads, "Death is swallowed up in CONTROVERSY. O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your CONTROVERSY."

1 Thessalonians 2:7- "But we were GENTLE among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children". "But we were BABIES among you." according to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The older Nestle-Aland text read "gentle among you" but the newer Nestle-Aland, UBS texts have now adopted the reading of "we were infants among you".

2 Peter 3:10- . . ."the earth also and the works that are therein SHALL BE BURNED UP", reads in both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, "the works that are therein SHALL BE FOUND". The old RSV stayed with the reading of "shall be burned up" and does the NASB, but the NIV, ESV say the works "shall be exposed" or "shall be discovered".

Revelation- The Vaticanus manuscript is missing ALL of the book of Revelation as well as I and II Timothy, Titus, and from Hebrews 9 to the end of the book. However Sinaiticus give us some really strange readings in the book of Revelation.

Revelation 4:8 - "HOLY, HOLY, HOLY, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come." But Sinaiticus says: " Holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty..."

Revelation 7:4 and 14:3- Both verses mention the number of 144,000. However Sinaiticus has 140,000 in 7:4 and 141,000 in 14:3.

Revelation 10:1   - "And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and A RAINBOW was upon his head..." Sinaiticus says: "clothed with a cloud with HAIR on his head."

Revelation 21:4- "For THE FORMER THINGS are passed away". Sinaiticus reads: "For THE SHEEP are passed away."

Revelation 21:5-    "Behold, I make all things NEW", while Sinaiticus says: "Behold, I make all things EMPTY."

These are just a few samples from these two "oldest and best" manuscripts which so many modern versions are based on. It is my firm conviction that God has preserved His inspired, pure, and perfect words as He promised and they are found today in English only in the Authorized King James Bible.

"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls." Jeremiah 6:16

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matthew 11:15

Will Kinney

[jchthys]

Nowhere on the Internet can I find corroboration for your claims that Sinaticus has “Holy holy holy holy holy holy holy” and “hair” instead of “rainbow”—except what you have written elsewhere on the Web. Please provide legitimate sources for these statements.

If you and I were both asked to hand-copy a document THATWASWRITTENLIKETHIS, there would be mistakes in both copies (assuming that we’re both human). Many of these mistakes would be different. Now a mistake in an old copy is still a mistake, so of course the correct readings cannot be based on age alone (though in general older copies, other things being equal, are superior to later copies). If a mistake is copied, and a hundred copies are made from that copy, it is still a mistake, and the minority reading (albeit the older one) is still correct. The later manuscripts may agree with each other, but they may all have been copied from the same corrupt source.

I would like you to address this, especially the last sentence.

[brandplucked]

Nowhere on the Internet can I find corroboration for your claims that Sinaticus has “Holy holy holy holy holy holy holy” and “hair” instead of “rainbow”—except what you have written elsewhere on the Web. Please provide legitimate sources for these statements.

Not a problem. If you can read the Greek, which you tout as your final authority, then get yourself a book that is out there and readily available.  It is put out by doctors Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad.  It is called The Greek New Testament according to the Majority text.

All that info is right there in Greek and in black and white.  You also might try The Revision Revised by Dean Burgeon.  He also lists a lot of these corrupt readings found in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

Will K

[AndysDad]

In short these two codices are old simply because, first,they were written on extremely expensive and durable antelope skins, and secondly, they were so full of errors, alterations, additions and deletions, that they were never used by true believers and seldom even by their own custodians. Thus they had little chance of wearing away.

Actually, Sinaiticus has now been examined and found to be composed of mostly bovine and some ovine hides.  It would have cost a small fortune to buy the hundreds of hides and copy out the massive amount of text, so these Bibles were tremendously valuable. They are also of considerable size--even bigger than a Family Bible. Therefore by that nature alone they would have not been in circulation all that much. But they obviously got a lot of use, because they ARE quite worn out--both have long since lost their original binding. Sinaiticus is missing about half the OT and Vaticanus is missing parts from the front and back of the codex.  Many other manuscripts with even worse texts that these two have been retrieved from Egyptian landfills where they were deposited with every page worn to a frazzle.

So this argument doesn't carry much weight any more--it just doesn't fit the facts.

Andy'sDad

Advanced search

• 1 Timothy 3:16 GOD was manifest in the flesh, or the Vatican versions "he"?: Translation Questions and Discussion byandiclare (3)
• Revelation 18:20 - Bible critics and "ye holy apostles and prophets": Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• What About the 2011 NIV Old Testament?: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• 1 Samuel 6:19 Is your Bible the 100% historical truth of God? 50,070 or 70 slain: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (3)
• What About the new NIV 2011?: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (2)
• Answering the Typical Anti-KJB Only sites: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• We are Gods?: Bible Discussion bySoffi (0)
• Every Man For Himself Bible Versions: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• Answering James White's Question - Which KJV?: Translation Questions and Discussion byAndysDad (6)

• Japanese/English Bible?: Translation & Publishing—Resources, Questions & Interaction byGarlicMomma (5)
• Beka....?: Announcements & Updates byandiclare (0)
• HELP? Hubby can't sleep (I tried to search this): Healthcare @ Home byandiclare (1)
• Where is everyone?: Nothing Deep byGarlicMomma (5)
• Introduce Yourself!: Nothing Deep bypiperjameson (325)
• The scoop on Soap: House and Home byCherika Four Seasons (1)
• Ideas: Children serving each other: Parenting byjenibee (0)
• My husband needs help with something I think is wrong: Relationships byjackiee (4)
• like minded moms?: Parenting byHomeschool_Newbie (2)
• "Courtship" discussions/questions: Relationships byHomeschool_Newbie (15)
• Announcing....: Announcements & Updates byBJ_BOBBI_JO (5)
• 80 days dream: Announcements & Updates bybasething (16)
• strabismus: Healthcare @ Home byFree Woman (10)
• Prayer Requests -- Health Related: Healthcare @ Home byBJ_BOBBI_JO (640)
• Translations in Guatemala...: Translation & Publishing—Resources, Questions & Interaction byAndysDad (5)
• Boring christian life: Sarah's Daughters byBJ_BOBBI_JO (6)
• Is this site for real?: Relationships byandiclare (2)
• Emergency food: canned or powder?: Nothing Deep byGarlicMomma (9)
• A heart issue for my children?: Parenting byandiclare (9)
• Keeping Warm, Heating Tips & Tricks: House and Home byherbalmom (60)

[Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.Did you miss your activation email?]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

February 09, 2012, 03:15:25 AM

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Members

• Total Members: 6896
• Latest: ESTel987

Stats

• Total Posts: 243886
• Total Topics: 21906
• Online Today: 31
• Online Ever: 437
• (April 01, 2008, 03:09:36 PM)

Users Online

• Users: 0
• Guests: 29
• Total: 29