-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is the Codex Sinaiticus FAKE?
- Thread starter AVL1984
- Start date
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!
They WERE problems existing in the AD50-90 first few decades of writings of apostles or they would not be included in warning TO those first century churches.
THEN in next 40 years (AD90-130 in the generation following the apostles, writings, such as the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas and 1 Clement, were considered generally orthodox and edifying to read, and they occasionally entered the discussion about canonicity.
Overall they were judged not to bear the authoritative marks of divine inspiration (fewer manuscripts than the canonical books, cited far less frequently by other patristic writers, and rarely considered "Scripture".
After that (AD130-380) there is much more historical record of the conflicts and decisions as to what the "consensus" was of truly inspired canonical books for sure.
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
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.
37818
Well-Known Member
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. . . ."
37818
Well-Known Member
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.
Last edited:
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?
37818
Well-Known Member
@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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
Scripture WAS Scripture when written, of course. BUT judging all the documents in AD50-60-70 as to what truly WAS Scripture and what was NOT Scripture was a battle the early Christians had to fight.
Even from the FIRST apostolic letters there were FAKE epistles attributed to them. It was easier for first-gen believers who HEARD Paul in person to judge letters purported to be from Paul by what they contained - did they agree with what Paul physically had said or contradict it? But what about the thousands who got copies of these letters (real Scripture or false - who knows?) and had to judge in years to come or were not from that coastal Greek area to verify this was Paul's message?
Paul only spent a few weeks in the Greek city of Thessalonica and a few more in neighboring regions of Berea. Paul wrote them letters to make sure they both accurately remembered and completely understood what he taught. By a year later (AD50) there were ALREADY FALSE letters with his name, teaching the opposite about the second coming, the rapture, the antichrist, etc. Today we can hardly put ourselves in the place where you have good information, collections of Jesus' teaching, etc but UNSURE if ANY were genuine letters from apostles to guide the local churches.
Paul wrote just his second letter to clarify facts of eschatology and Second Coming of the Lord, "Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to Him, we ask you, brothers, NOT to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit [some supernatural entity] or a spoken word [some teacher/apostle] or a LETTER THAT SEEMS TO BE FROM US [some false letters circulating in , to the effect that the day of the Lord has already come. Let no one deceive you in any way! For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things?"
The test each believer had to use was NOT some list of canonical books, but to see if what was written was ACCURATE and FAITHFUL to what had been taught by the apostles and to the OT Scriptures.
37818
Well-Known Member
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.
You are being less than forthright here. Just reread what you just stated and you will see you are 100% wrong (but that is your right).
(1) No, the early churches did NOT know most NT writers by sight, voice or even what they'd written. In an age with little communication and little in-person contact, coupled with limited travel, I cannot imagine ANY circumstance where joe believer in a local church in __________ AD50 would know who Mark or Luke or Matthew were from Adam! Or even Paul or Peter (famous big-fish in a very very small pond)/
You err in moving 21st century world setting back into the vastly different 1st century world. A common mistake we all make, brother, since we can hardly grasp how different the world was then from anything we can imagine.
(2) No, I gave you a BIBLE EXAMPLE from AD51 of a small Greek church that WAS in danger of false doctrine from false books/epistles that were circulating in AD51 already! Trust you are not denying what God said.
(3) No, this was NOT just post-apostolic issue. It started IN the first believers. This was a problem that started immediately. I would agree that it becomes a continuing problem and growing over the next centuries.
(1) No, the early churches did NOT know most NT writers by sight, voice or even what they'd written. In an age with little communication and little in-person contact, coupled with limited travel, I cannot imagine ANY circumstance where joe believer in a local church in __________ AD50 would know who Mark or Luke or Matthew were from Adam! Or even Paul or Peter (famous big-fish in a very very small pond)/
You err in moving 21st century world setting back into the vastly different 1st century world. A common mistake we all make, brother, since we can hardly grasp how different the world was then from anything we can imagine.
(2) No, I gave you a BIBLE EXAMPLE from AD51 of a small Greek church that WAS in danger of false doctrine from false books/epistles that were circulating in AD51 already! Trust you are not denying what God said.
(3) No, this was NOT just post-apostolic issue. It started IN the first believers. This was a problem that started immediately. I would agree that it becomes a continuing problem and growing over the next centuries.
37818
Well-Known Member
What I argued was the church which would receive an original document would know the human author. Why not?
37818
Well-Known Member
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?
Last edited:
37818
Well-Known Member
At this point I missed that reference.
I do not know of this. I missed this? i guess so. Please give me this reference.
Last edited:
Happily. That's how we learn together. II Thes 2:2 (written c. AD51)