Vaticanus & Sinaiticus, corrupted manuscript copies - proof

As for Vaticanus and Sinaiticus being corrupted ensamples of the Greek NT I will here supply some evidence in the form of excerpts from an article by a man named Will Kinney:

Mark 1:1-2.
Another error still retained in the NASB and NIV is found in Mark 1:1-2. The KJB reads, "As it is written IN THE PROPHETS, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way BEFORE THEE. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."
Here we have two different prophets quoted. One is Malachi and the other Isaiah. That is why it says prophets – plural. It is the reading of the Majority of Greek texts. It is found in many ancient versions and quoted by Ireneaus and Tertullian who lived 150 years before Aleph and B ever saw the light of day. The NASB and NIV say, "…as it is written in ISAIAH...” but only part of the quote is from Isaiah (40:3); the other part is from Malachi (3:1).

John 7:8-10
In John 7:8-10 of the KJB we read of Jesus telling his brethren to go up unto a feast and He says, "I go NOT up YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." He did in fact go up to the feast. Sinaiticus joins the KJB reading with, "I go not up YET unto this feast,” and so does the NIV, but B (Vaticanus, Harald) says: "I DO NOT GO to this feast,” and so does the NASB, thus making our Lord a liar.


1 Corinthians 15:51
In 1 Corinthians 15:51 instead of the KJB reading, "We shall NOT all sleep, but we shall all be changed," Sinaiticus reads "we shall sleep but we shall NOT ALL be changed" – the exact opposite.

2 Peter 3:10
The KJB reads in 2 Peter 3:10, “…the earth also and the works that are therein SHALL BE BURNED UP." Sinaiticus and Vaticanus both read, "the works that are therein SHALL BE FOUND."


Revelation 4:8
The KJB reads in 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
The KJB mentions in Revelation 7:4 and 14:3 the number of 144,000. However Sinaiticus has 140,000 in 7:4 and 141,000 in 14:3.


Revelation 21:4
The KJB reads in Revelation 21:4, "For THE FORMER THINGS are passed away.” Sinaiticus reads: "For THE SHEEP are passed away."


Revelation 21:5
The KJB reads in 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.

END OF QUOTE

One needs not be an especially intelligent person to perceive that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, reportedly the pet manuscripts of W & Hort, are tampered with and adulterated manuscript copies, just like I stated to Larry. They exhibit very bad theology, and in no wise reflect the character of the originally given infallibly God-breathed inerrant Greek Testament of the Son of God the Lord Christ Jesus. **attack removed***
Harald

[ June 30, 2003, 10:20 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]

 

You're welcome BrianT. I am not familiar with the man Kinney, but I found this article of his when I did a Yahoo search

http://webpages.charter.net/carlgraham/The%20True%20Character%20Of%20The%20Sinaiticus%20And%20Vaticanus%20Texts.htm

It was from this I excerpted. The search words I used were

"Vaticanus" & errors

The fact of Westcott and Hort utilizing these two texts in a major way shows how incompetent they were as regards textual criticism. Had they believed in the infallible inspiration of the NT in Greek and its consequent absolute inerrancy they would never have incorporated such errors as the above or similar ones into their 1881 Greek text. They discredited many reliable witnesses in favour of these two tampered with manuscript copies. A heartfelt zeal-igniting faith in the Bible's testimony of its own nature and character leads a textual critic right rather than such German rationalism as W & H were possessed of. Just look at F H A Scrivener and there you have a man who knew what he was doing.

Harald

 

QUOTE:
"we're impressed at ur knowledge of B n Aleph, but can u also point out the corruptions in the KJB1611, KJB1769, TR1, TR2, TR3, n Majority Text MSS?

as u've pointed out, it doesn't take extraordinary intelligence, surely, to apply the same criteria u've used to ascertain corruption across the board, incl. those other MSS/texts.

we're eagerly looking fwd to ur consistently Christian discoveries!"

Amarillo. Mock as much as you like. But I will give credit to Mr. Kinney for the above. It was not I who was knowledgeable as to those two texts and their errors. As for KJB 1611 I do not have a copy. And even if I had I would not do it for your pleasure. As for the 1769 I have a file on one of my pages where I have some deviations of the KJV, from the underlying TR, listed, mainly to disprove Ruckmanian KJV Onlyism.

As for TR 1, 2 etc. you must be more specific. And for the record I have none others than Estienne's 1550, Elzevier's 1624 and Scrivener's 1894, the last being the best. As for Estienne's and Elzevier's I have found one common reading in both which I believe to be the erroneous reading, it is in Luke 2:22. Scrivener is on target. As for Hodges and Farstad MT it has a heretical and blasphemous reading in Rev. 21:6. Literally and formally translated into English it would read:

And He said to me, "I have become the Alpha and the Omega...

This is directly from the NKJV interlinear, which Greek text is the said Hodges-Farstad MT. The one who made the literal rendering is a competent scholar I bet, and honest at that in this instance. The translators of the NKJV interlinear are stated to be messieurs Arthur L Farstad, Zane C Hodges, C Michael Moss, Robert E Picirilli, Wilbur N Pickering. But I take it some DE translator could have made that erroneous Greek wording seem good by utilizing some DE magic tricks, and whizz it and voila he would have given a "I am the Alpha and Omega". But these honest FE gentlemen of the NKJV interlinear showed by their formal rendering that the MT is in error here.

Scrivener avoided this MT's erroneous reading and that of Estienne and Elzevier in Luke 2:22, and numerous of those in the Alexandrian editions. I thank God for Scrivener's TR.

Harald

 

Brian. I do not believe W & H were as conscientious as you make them appear. Their principles were not in any sense superior to those of e.g. Burgon, Scrivener, Miller et.al. All of whom were knowledgeable respecting textual criticism, Scrivener even editing a GNT. Nor were they more competent than Beza and Estienne and Erasmus. They may have had more copies to work with but they foolishly incorporated erroneous and errant readings. This shows they were not prudent men. I know hardly anything of textual criticism, but I do not give much for such textual criticism which criticizes inspired words of God in the sense of aborting them from a GNT edition, like W-H did. A textual critic with no consciousness and sense for theological and doctrinal harmony and orthodoxy is very unwise. Thus were W & H. Their bringing in discrepancies and errors many into their text exhibits this fact. Their text is an errant text which in no way reflects what God's holy word testifies as to itself and its nature. Biblical Textual Criticism is and must be a sacred science, and not like any other branch of textual criticism.

I cannot fathom why some would want to defend and propagate an inferior and manifestly errant text like the W&H text and its successors. What makes you people want to prefer the vile to the precious?

Harald

 

What is really your problem with Kinney's article? Do you claim he came up with fabricated lies as to these readings in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus? If so why don't you show where he errs. This thread has not so much to do with Kinney as with corrupt manuscript readings. If need be I will check out Kinney and whether he is sound or not in the faith. That is no problem with me. The word of God commands me to test the spirits. If you perchance have stumbled across one of my articles touching upon KJV onlyism you will see that while I respect David Cloud to a certain degree for what he has written respecting DE and textual issues etc. I do not condone his errors, and am not afraid to expose him, which I have done as to his believing the heresy of Bible regeneration.

As for D A Waite I likewise respect him for what profitable he has put forth, but on the whole I regard Cloud a more honest man. I know D A Waite is a heretic on soteriological matters. The same goes for Cloud and many other KJV only men. I am not KJV only, nor have I any need to be that. Sadly it is very hard to find men who are wholly sound in soteriology from among the KJV only camp(s). For some reason a comparatively sound standpoint on the Bible and bibliology does not guarantee soundness when it comes to the Gospel and related matters.

KJV onlyites generally cover up each other's heresies, as if "zealous KJV onlyism covers a multitude of sins". KJV onlyism at its worst is unbiblical ecumenism over denominational boundaries centering around a Bible translation, and not fellowship in the one true Gospel revealed in the word of God. The same goes also for most of what is called "Calvinism". Some KJV onlyites obviously seem to believe that adherence to KJVO is the same as being "born again". They regard KJVO's "saved" and non KJVO's lost according to their arbitrary standards of judgment, which is adherence or non-adherence to KJVO. The only valid standard of judgment as to saved or lost, unconverted or converted, is the whole counsel of God's word.

As for Ruckman he is one of the more unskillful and heretical defenders of the KJV, albeit he does say some things which are true.

If I somewhere have stated that each and every TR edition is entirely free from errant readings then I admit I have been wrong. As I have no own horse in the race I have no problem whatsoever ackowledging an error in a TR edition if I encounter one and if it is evidently genuine an error. I believe Luke 2:22 in Stephens and Elzevier is an example of a genuine scribal error. If there are two known readings on this passage, "their purification" and "her purification", simple logic dictates, at least to me, that the one which wholly harmonizes with all of God's word in what it reveals about the things related to this verse and its statement must be the originally God-breathed wording. Because God the Lord is the God of harmony and concord, not of error and disorder. The young child Jesus was sinless and to link him with some ceremonial purification seems to me like blasphemy. The OT clearly teaches that a mother was to be involved in some sort of purification after her delivery. My faith in God desires to vindicate Him whenever He is being judged and imputed with incongruity and error etc. Let every man be a liar and God true. Therefore I cannot for the world believe God the Holy Spirit inspired "their" in Luke 2:22. If that had been the only reading I would have been forced to accept it as most probably genuine, but an explanation would have been needed so as not to give the impression Jesus was in need of purification due to some impurity in or about His holy person. But now when there is the reading "her" all is well and God the Holy Ghost is exonerated.
The basis for my reasoning is nothing more and nothing less than belief in the God who gave His written word by infallible inspiration resulting in an absolutely inerrant text, pure truth undefiled. Glory!

Harald

 

Yes, Larry I am a novice in textual criticism, which is no doubt an important science when it relates to God's word. But yet a more important science is theology and all its branches. A textual criticism that is disconnected from sound doctrine and theology I do not want to know. I have ordered some good material on textual criticism by Burgon, Hoskier and Scrivener. I think I will still get a book by Edward S Miller. As for the modernist text critics like Metzger I do not trust them at all due to their rationalistic approach and their Westcott-Hortism. I do not believe their books can profit me any. But it might be good to have some of Metzger's books so as to be familiar with his arguments, because so many seem to regard him an authority.

Harald