Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus

Written for:
Bible Versions/Translations
personal vendettas
which is now closed

Earlier I said:
//My problem probably stems from the way we worked
the bulletin boards 22 years ago. The charge was by
the minute connected (and with the 300-baud modems /compare
to 100,000 baud cable modems today/ that was LOTS of time.
SO one brought one's comments, uploaded them, downloaded some
words and got off. Here is how I generally operate on
the Bible board:

Day one - people post on a new topic.
8AM on day 2 - I download these comments
8PM on day 2 - I compose answers to those comments
8AM on day 3 - I upload my responses.

As can be seen, i'm two days behind. Some Version/translation
topics don't even last three days. I destroy more of
my version/translation writings than I post//


C4K: //However, far too often one side or the other begins
to call the other names, attack their choice of Bible translation,
or starts implying that another is unsaved, ignorant,
or less spiritual because of their views.//

I understand the names, the translation attach,
the salvation/less spiritual attack.
However, I don't really understand why 'ignorant' is
an attack. I consider 'ignorant' like 'left handed',
just a fact with no judgement.

Ignorant - adj.
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned
2. lacking knowlege about a particualr subject or fact
3. uninformed; unaware

I understand i got this definitions from a 1982 dictionary
made 24 years ago, has the meaning changed?
If the term is pejorative, shouldn't I be told?

KJVBibleThumper//(And Ed, if you are reading this, the 1611 KJV
you sent me I still am enjoying it, and
having fun playing with it. )//

\o/ Praise Iesus!! \o/

DD: //Has anyone
shown any evidence as to why the alexandrian manuscripts
MUST be corrupt, and the Byzantine are not?//

Jack Chick said it; I swallowed it; and that settles it.

 

This is my confused face......

What are you asking?

 

Sinaiticus contains too many errors and I doubt the value of it as the manuscript for the Bible, discovered at the monastery in the Sinai peninsula around 1850 by Tischendorf. There may be many arguements but what I do know is that it contains ridiculous errors( spelling mistakes) when it is compared to others, especially majority texts. For example, Sinaiticus alone omited"shall not be" in Mt 6:5, and "in a field " at Mt 13:44, while all the others have some words there.


Vatican Text may be the oldest codex dating back to 350 AD, which has no Genesis 1-45, Timothy ( as 1 Tim 3:2 contradict Compulsory celibacy), Heb after 10:14 ( because 10:17-18 contradict Mass), Rev etc.

Both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus don't have Mark 16:9-20. As far as I know, there are 620 manuscripts (in various forms) for Mark and 1 of them has no chapter 16. Among them 615 are majority texts and have the longer ending of Mark ( 16:9-20). Among the rest of it( among 4 minority texts), 2 of them ( Alexandrianus and Codex Ephraemi) have the longer ending.

So, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are the only ones which do not have the longer ending ( Mark 16:9-20), and are the bases for Westcot-Hort-Nestle-Alland, and Modern versions are mostly based on this just because they believe they are the oldest mss.

Last time I mentioned the omission of Pneuma in John 7:39. Sinaiticus and p75 omitted "Holy" while the most of the mss for John contain it.
I think Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are similar each other basically.

 

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
Sinaiticus contains too many errors and I doubt the value of it as the manuscript for the Bible, discovered at the monastery in the Sinai peninsula around 1850 by Tischendorf. There may be many arguements but what I do know is that it contains ridiculous errors( spelling mistakes) when it is compared to others, especially majority texts. For example, Sinaiticus alone omited"shall not be" in Mt 6:5, and "in a field " at Mt 13:44, while all the others have some words there.


Vatican Text may be the oldest codex dating back to 350 AD, which has no Genesis 1-45, Timothy ( as 1 Tim 3:2 contradict Compulsory celibacy), Heb after 10:14 ( because 10:17-18 contradict Mass), Rev etc.

Both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus don't have Mark 16:9-20. As far as I know, there are 620 manuscripts (in various forms) for Mark and 1 of them has no chapter 16. Among them(619 mss), 615 are majority texts and have the longer ending of Mark ( 16:9-20). Among the rest of it( among 4 minority texts), 2 of them ( Alexandrianus and Codex Ephraemi) have the longer ending.

So, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are the only ones which do not have the longer ending ( Mark 16:9-20), and are the bases for Westcot-Hort-Nestle-Alland, and Modern versions are mostly based on this just because they believe they are the oldest mss.

Last time I mentioned the omission of Pneuma in John 7:39. Sinaiticus and p75 omitted "Holy" while the most of the mss for John contain it even including the oldest mss for John p66 contains it.

I think Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are similar each other basically.

 

Apparently means we have two NT manuscripts that a lot of fighting and arguing is being done about on the Baptist Board!

In His grace,
Ed

 

Both are Latin names of MSS, named after the modern places where they were discovered, one in a monastery on Mt. Sinai and the other at the Vatican in Rome.

 

These 3,000 disagreements between B and Aleph are to ask yourself: How accurate are this disagreement? Trust this disagreements?

 

Williams and Askjo,

Yes, they disagree in many places. Do the Byzantine disagree in many places too? DO we trust their disagreements?

 

Minor only. Minor is the best! Compare the difference between B VS Aleph and TR VS TR on the Gospel of Mark only for example:

B vs Aleph 650+ times!

TR vs TR 19 times!

 

Minor only. Minor is the best! Compare the difference between B VS Aleph and TR VS TR on the Gospel of Mark only for example:

B vs Aleph 650+ times!

TR vs TR 19 times! </font>[/QUOTE]My set of MSS can beat up your set of MSS!

 

Now that's funny!!!

finally someone with a sense of humor in the translations forum!

 

What did i Miss???

 

Stand your ground, william. Every good Southerner knows "Missippi" is the right spelling!

And now, back to our regularly scheduled thread. Are Yankees are more likely to trust Siniaticus and Vaticanus instead of the TR/Byzantine/Majority? Remember this salient fact: we have the Bible Belt down South!!