Featured Is the Codex Sinaiticus FAKE?

Only found in KJVO sites and groups!

 

They are liars and false witnesses. The Manuscript is genuine. It doesnt have the best text, and it's scribes made many mistakes, but it is a genuine Complete Bible from the 4th century AD. Rarely does anything survive that old.

The Text of the Gospels: What Darkened Sinaiticus?

The Text of the Gospels: Ten Reasons Why Sinaiticus Was Not Made By Simonides

The Text of the Gospels: Ten More Reasons Sinaiticus Was Not Made by Simonides

The Text of the Gospels: Tares Among the Wheat - A Review

 

Just wonder if it was not a "vatican:" Bible greek text, would Kjvo have so much issues and concerns?

 

It's not "Vatican", nor does it stay in Rome. You are thinking of Codex Vaticanus, the other 4th Century Greek Bible.

 

You are correct!
Just ironic though how much Kjvo despise MV for being "Vatican" corrupted, yet Kjv used Erasmus, Rheims, and Vulgate, how much more catholic could they had gotten?

 

That's because KJVO (not to be confused with KJV Preferred) are a bunch of brainwashed dunderheads who wouldn't know truth if it smacked them in the face.

 

Wonder which edition of the Kjv is seen as being the best one to the Kjvo, maybe the Cambridge 1873 edition?

 

Think their best kjv is the leather bound one God gave to Moses at mt Sinai

 

The Codex Sinaiticus Project (link)

 

All that you need to accept is that the Nkjvo camp seems to have little in regards to real textual criticism scholars, and the best one that they support, dean Burgeon, did not support kjvo!

 

It would be mega-optimistic to think another codex of the magnitude of the four great ones would be discovered. But I'd be ultra happy if that would take place. Finding various types of manuscripts is more likely. I think an average of about five per year are uncovered.

There is a possibility that smaller codices (usually portions of the NT) might be found. The smaller ones that have been collected are rather valuable. About a year ago I took notes on five of them. Very interesting stuff.

However, it has been said by a number of biblical scholars that the work of Westcott and Hort with their Greek N.T. is as reliable as ever. Even though at that time more than 140 years ago many more manuscripts have been found.

 

Well ya know, occasionally God makes revisions to His word.

 

It is found on KJVO. sites. But not solely.

Wilbur N. Pickering in Appendix E in his book, "The Identity of the New Testament Text IV," says of part of the Codex,

"As for Codex א, the folded sheet containing the end of Mark and beginning of
Luke is, quite frankly, a forgery. Tischendorf, who discovered the codex,
warned that those four pages appeared to be written by a different hand and
with different ink than the rest of the manuscript. However that may be, a
careful scrutiny reveals the following: the end of Mark and beginning of Luke
occur on page 3 (of the four); pages 1 and 4 contain an average of 17 lines of
printed Greek text per column (there are four columns per page), just like the
rest of the codex; page 2 contains an average of 15.5 lines of printed text per
column (four columns); the first column of page 3 contains only twelve lines of
printed text and in this way verse 8 occupies the top of the second column, the
rest of which is blank (except for some designs); Luke begins at the top of
column 3, which contains 16 lines of printed text while column 4 is back up to
17 lines. On page 2 the forger began to spread the letters, displacing six lines
of printed text; in the first column of page 3 he got desperate and displaced
five lines of printed text, just in one column! In this way he managed to get two
lines of verse 8 over onto the second column, avoiding the telltale vacant
column (as in B). That second column would accommodate 15 more lines of
printed text, which with the other 11 make 26. Verses 9-20 occupy 23.5 such
lines, so there is plenty of room for them. It really does seem that there has
been foul play, and there would have been no need for it unless the first hand
did in fact display the disputed verses. In any event, א as
it stands is a forgery
and therefore may not legitimately be alleged as evidence against them. . . ."

 

Those leafs are known as cancel sheets, and not "forgeries".

What the more extreme KJVO people are claiming is that the *entire* Codex Sinaiticus manuscript was a 19th-century forgery by Simonides—a position otherwise accepted by nobody.

 

At issue for examples, John 7:53 - John 8:11 and Mark 16:9-20 either being the word of God or not the word of God.