Featured Sorenson's new book Neither Oldest Nor Best

Sorenson, David H. Neither Oldest Nor Best--How the Foundational Manuscripts of Modern
Bible Translations are Unreliable. Duluth, MN: Northstar Ministries, 2017.

I just received and read Sorenson's new book in which he alleges that Codex Sinaiticus was made by Constantine Simonides around 1839 to 1840 and in which he suggests that Vaticanus is of medieval origins.

David Sorenson asserted: "And where there have been changes made in the NKJV in relation to the original KJV, the changes have largely followed the Critical Text. So much for it being based exclusively upon the Textus Receptus. It moreover uses the Biblia Hebraica Hebrew text for the Old Testament which is analogous to the Critical Text of the New Testament. In reality, the NKJV is thoroughly adulterated with critical readings in both the Old and New Testaments" (p. 35).

Sorenson's allegations against the NKJV in this book are misleading and inaccurate.

 

Sorenson does list Chris Pinto's film "Tares Among the Wheat" in his bibliography. He also lists a 2016 Kindle ebook entitled The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus by Bill Power, which seems to a source from which he may have learned about a few articles and books from the 1840-1870's. He also cites a 1859 book or memoir about Constantine Simonides by Charles Stewart along with several other sources.

 

Sorenson's new book has endorsements or recommendations by the following four men:

David Brown, pastor and author of a KJV-only book
James Stringer
Dell Johnson, formerly at Pensacola Christian College and involved in the making of its KJV videos around 1998
Randall King

One of James Stringer's comments was "a real lesson about being careful where you get your information."

Some may wonder if David Sorenson was being careful by getting information from Chris Pinto.

 

After citing Luke 2:33 in the ESV, David Sorenson asserted: "The context clearly is of Joseph and Mary. But virtually all other Critical Text translations refer to Joseph as the father of Jesus. That is absolute heresy and directly undercuts the doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Christ" (Neither Oldest Nor Best, pp. 22-23).

Anyone who has researched and studied the Bible translation issue or KJV-only issue should know that the reading "father" is not exclusive to the Critical Text since this reading was found in some Textus Receptus editions because it is found in a number of the Greek New Testament manuscripts on which those TR editions were based.

Perhaps KJV-only advocates such as David Sorenson are unaware of the fact that several of the early Bibles on the KJV-only view's pure stream of Bibles have "his father" at Luke 2:33 including Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Whittingham's, and Bishops'. The 1543 Spanish Enzinas New Testament has "padre" [father] at Luke 2:33. Luther's German Bible has "Vater" [father] at Luke 2:33. An edition of Erasmus’ Latin New Testament has “pater” [father] at Luke 2:33.

Erasmus' Greek edition of the TR had the Greek word for "father" at Luke 2:33. Concerning Luke 2:33, Jan Krans translated Erasmus as stating the following: “In some Greek manuscript I read ‘Joseph’ instead of ‘father’; in my opinion it has been changed by someone who feared that Joseph be called Jesus’ father” (Beyond What is Written, p. 44, footnote 65).

The Anglo-Saxon (995 A.D.) has "his father" at Luke 2:33 (Bosworth, Gospels, p. 280). The West Saxon Gospels also have “his father” [“faeder”] at Luke 2:33. The Anglo-Saxon rendering above the Latin at Luke 2:33 in the Lindisfarne Gospels is “father” [“fader”].

Would KJV-only advocates in effect claim that the KJV is a revision of earlier good English Bibles that attacked the deity of Christ and denied the virgin birth with an inexcusable, heretical, or blasphemous reading? Would a consistent application of their own accusations imply that the KJV is a translation of some Textus Receptus editions and a revision of some earlier English Bibles that were "perversions?" In their attempts to allege or show corruption in their other line or stream of Bibles, have KJV-only authors in effect shown corruption in their own good or pure line or stream of Bibles?

 

In his bibliography, David Sorenson had listed that book as having the author Bill Powers, and he has no book listed for Bill Cooper.

However, in one of his footnotes, he does list the same book title with Bill Cooper (p. 158) and in the text he referred to "Bill Cooper in his book The Forging of Sinaiticus" (p. 101). The footnote [number 11] for this mention on page 101 has "Bill Powers, The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus, Kindle edition, 2006" (p. 112)

Perhaps the entry in his bibliography is mistaken unless both men are somehow associated with it. It is listed right under his entry for Chris Pinto's film (p. 197).

Pinto, Chris. Tares Among the Wheat.
Powers, Bill. The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus. Kindle Version, 2016. location 669.

 

James D. Price wrote: "I have been able to account for only nine differences that affect translation."

1 Chronicles 15:2, Proverbs 8:16, Isaiah 10:16, Isaiah 27:2, Isaiah 38:14, Jeremiah 34:1, Ezekiel 30:18, Zephaniah 3:15, and Malachi 1:12
(King James Onlyism: a New Sect, pp. 222-223)

His nine does not include one that you list (1 Kings 20:38) while he includes two not in your list (1 Chronicles 15:2 and Jeremiah 34:1).

1 Chronicles 15:2 ark of the LORD (Stuttgart) ark of God (Bomberg)
Jeremiah 34:1 Nebuchadrezzar (Stuttgart) Nebuchadnezzar (Bomberg)