Featured Is the Codex Sinaiticus FAKE?

Dear @Dr. Bob, I for one do not believe there was any debate of the actual written word of God as given to first century churches. I acknowledge problems began in the first century, 2 Corinthians 11:3-4, 2 Peter 2:1.

 

Even if one accepts those passages as not being legit, there are many acceptable passages to confirm the trinity, that we are sent to be witnesses, and that God forgives sinners!

 

Those who argue strongly though for ending of gospel and John 5:7 seem to almost act as if there are not seen as being legit cannot provide trinity with out it!

 

If you're going to correct false claims (and the KJVOs, like everyone else, certainly have those), then please be careful not to make such wanton statements.

Erasmus used the Byzantine Text and got much heat for it from the Catholic Church, but he persisted. Thus in relying in part of Erasmus' text, the KJB translators were relying on a non-Catholic text.

As for the use of Rheims and the Vulgate, that's apples and oranges.
A) You're comparing using a translation for guidance VS using a manifestly corrupt single manuscript to overrule mainstream Syrian/Byzantine readings.
B) The ISBE states that "A few Latinisms were even adopted by the translators of the King James Version from the Catholic Douai-Rheims version, such as upbraideth not, bridleth his tongue, at his own charges, and others."
Add to that part of the renderings of Colossians 2:18; 1Peter 1:20, 4:9; and Revelation 18:13's slaves.

 

John 5:7? You mean ". . . This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. . . ."

 

Source please. Regarding what text?

Those writings are post the Apostles and the Revelation [Revelation 1:1.].

Post Apostolic.

My understanding is Scripture was Scripture when God gave it through His choosen author. It is my understanding the book of Revelation was the close of our Bible.

 

You fail to prove that it is an apples and oranges comparison.

Erasmus used an edition of the Latin Vulgate to overrule mainstream Byzantine readings in his few Greek manuscripts as he added several readings from the Vulgate which are not found in a majority of Byzantine Greek manuscripts and in some cases are found in no known Greek NT manuscripts. Erasmus and Beza also introduced some textual conjectures into their edited Greek texts. The varying Textus Receptus editions may have over 1,000 minority readings. In addition, the Latin Vulgate had a great influence on the KJV through the Hebrew-Latin and Greek-Latin lexicons (used by the KJV translators) that often had renderings from the Latin Vulgate as their definitions.

More than a few renderings were adopted from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament in the 1611 KJV. Two scholars suggested that as many as 25% of the changes that the KJV translators made to its underlying 1602 Bishops' Bible text in one portion of the NT came from the 1582 Rheims.
The 1902 book The Part of the Rheims in the Making of the English Bible by James Carleton (its text can be found online) lists more than a few renderings.

 

The part of Rheims in the making of the English Bible : Carleton, James G. (James George), 1848-1918 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

 

Just seems that the Kjv had far more "vatican influences" then the Kjvo will ever admit!

 

I agree completely. However, it was several centuries later before Christians divided out the God-breathed writings from the many other writings of the time. It appears that this was done through consensus rather than thru some "Choose A, B or C" type of test. Quoting from the book "From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man" (1999), the chapter on Canonization and Apocrypha:

From ppg 31-32,
In general, the process of collecting the books of the Old Testament involved four steps over a period of about twelve hundred years.
1. God directed men to write, spanning about a millennium.
2. Throughout that time, Israel recognized the divine origin of writings inspired by God.
3. Those scrolls so recognized were left with the priests for safekeeping.
4. Ultimately, the present thirty-nine books of the Old Testament were accepted as Scripture. (Jewish Bibles number differently. For example, the twelve minor prophets are collected as one book.)

The collection of the books of the New Testament involved three basic steps over a period of about three centuries.
1. The books of the New Testament were all written by God's direction during a period lasting thirty to fifty years.
2. The early churches circulated, copied, translated, and taught those books they recognized as divinely inspired and, therefore, authoritative.
3. Eventually, church councils officially recognized the list of the present twenty-seven books that had long been regarded as Scripture.

From page 59,
The benchmark for canonicity was the book's content. Does it teach that which is consistent with the rest of Scripture without contradiction? Is it appropriate and helpful for public reading and instruction? Does it speak with the dynamic power of the Word of God?

 

@OnlyaSinner,
I am not following or understanding what those page references are referring to, since I do not have said book to agree or disagree as a case may require.

The Scripture that made up our Bible was set by God before man decided anything. Psalms 119:89.

 

They refer to the segments that I copied directly from the book I noted: "From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man". This book was assembled by many mature Christian authors being asked to address various scriptural issues, each author working independently, and one aim of the book was to counter the strange ideas coming from the KJVO movement.

 

I do not think so. The receiving church knew the human writer. Matthew, James, Mark, Peter, Jude, Paul, Luke, of the writer for Hebrews and John. Why wouldn't they? Those problems begain post Apostolic with the irregular churches and the Apocryphal forgeries. Paul warned the Corinthian church, and Peter and John warned.

 

What I argued was the church which would receive an original document would know the human author. Why not?

 

Prior to John's writings there were 22 books. What known bok written between those 22 and what John was going to write was known to be rejected for what ever reason?

Paul's letter to the Laodicea church? Any others?

 

At this point I missed that reference.

I do not know of this. I missed this? i guess so. Please give me this reference.