David Daniels' book "Is the 'World's Oldest Bible' a Fake?" is quite interesting. If you haven't read it, you should do that before making a decision on Sinaiticus.
He’s a nutty KJV-only conspiracy theorist….and that book of his convinced me that he might be right about that particular claim. The page color differences would be hard to explain any other way.
@@JasonJrake I actually was impressed enough by the book that I contacted him and he was gracious enough to talk to me for about two hours over Skype. The book convinced me that, if nothing else, he's a good researcher.
No he isn’t a nutty KJV-only conspiracy guy, though he is KJB only! Since he used to be a liberal critical text guy, but came to the understanding that the TR/Majority/Byzantine type text is the only true manuscripts, and the KJB in English is the only pure rendering of God’s word! He is passionate and really just wants to protect, and preserve God’s word! I would slightly differ in that I would say that I am KJB preferred/best, and have no problem with mild, or minor updates for a more contemporary rendering. As I myself had some learning difficulties when I was a child. I understand people with reading, and learning challenges may have difficulty with the KJB, plus we are in a severely dumbed down society with people having much lower reading levels. There are several options ie: first is of course the NKJV(though it has some issues because of some critical text renderings, and notes, it’s better than the others), MEV(Modern English Version), MLV(Modern Literal Version), WEB(World English Bible), and KJV variants KJV2000, KJV21, KJVER, Simplified KJV. Also online at Textus Receptus Bibles.com, a 2016 KJB update in the NT. Also on the Chick Publications website, in David Daniels videos he literally eviscerates the Sinaiticus, Tischendorf, and establishes that Simonides created it in the 1800’s! But the caveat, or the nail in the coffin if you will? Daniels has evidence with independent chemical testing showing that the ink, both written, and art are 19th century! Yes the vellum is old, but not the ink!
Amen! Dean Burgeon and FHA Scrivener excoriated Sinaiticus. It's tragic and criminal that these texts dominate textual criticism. I may not care for the KJV but I'm really developing an aversion to "modern" texts that rely on such fraudulent pretenders. I'm beginning to think Sinaiticus is not a forgery, a forger would be more careful. Instead we just have a piss poor text that doesn't deserve the time of day let alone such exaltation that overthrows common sense. Gee tell me how you really feel ;)
We are estimating how many variants have Sinaiticus as a tipping point. When it is removed from the apparatus they will have to make “NEW” post-Sinaiticus versions with about 200 variant differences, and a lot of egg on the textual criticism faces! :)
@@nothingnothing7958 Alexandrinus was condemned by Jerome in the 4th century comparing it with the Antioch manuscripts(was the only authorized place for Biblical manuscripts for the first 4 centuries, they are what is now referred to as the TR/Majority Text/Byzantine type text). All known copies of the Alexandrinus destroyed(burned), because of the rebellious nature of the Alexandrian’s(gnostic, pagan, heretics) a single copy survived! This is what we now have, a corrupt/fake manuscript!
@@claytonsmith6148 where did Jereome condemn Codex Alexandrinus, you say Alexandria was pagan and corrupt so by your logic we have to ignore the writings of Clement of Alexandria who was a early church Father.
@@SAMBUT Here is how it seems to me: He claimed he forged it. So he was either a deceiver in that he forged it or he was a deceiver in that he lied about forging it. Either way, it doesn’t seem to bode well for his credibility to me. I could be missing something however. If he forged it, it wouldn’t impact my view on the text.
Deut4v2, Pro 30v4 and Rev 22v18n19. Deut 8v3 Matt 4v4 n Luke 4v4 Jesus said: man shall live every word of God. Alow the Holy Spirit to Speak. This is what these text do add n taking away. If any church or Christian tells read any other Bible than Geneva bible, King James bible, NKJV or MEV. They can take a walk.
When we get together I hope we have time to delve into this among other things. My general view is that the reason we have the older copies is that they weren't faithful enough to use repeatedly when compared with better manuscripts. Those better ones then wore out again and again. While Sinaiticus and Vaticanus didn't get the repeated handling of the more faithful copies. Thus surviving on shelves somewhere. While the Greeks (Gentiles) did revere the texts, it paled in comparison to the methods adopted to ensure scribal accuracy of Old Testament manuscripts. Plus when one people (Jews) copied vs. the entire Roman Empire and the many tongues, dialects, and idioms native to each area, it's easy to see why we have so many minor variants to words in the different manuscripts.
Well Vaticanus was supposedly discovered in the 1400’s by the Catholic Church, with no prior history? Erasmus examined it, and rejected it as corrupt. As did all of the Reformers, and reformed era scholars as being a corrupt manuscript! See Daniels video at Chick Publications where he eviscerates the Sinaiticus, Constantine Tischendorf(a known money hungry, lier), providing it was created in the 19th century by Constantine Simonides. The icing on the cake is he has evidence with independent chemical testing, showing that the ink is 19th century, both the written, and the art! The vellum is old, but the ink is not!
I love codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, not so much for the New Testament, but for the Old Testament as providing us with early manuscripts of the Septuagint.
@@OrthodoxPhilip I have responded twice, and they have been deleted? Apparently someone doesn’t like, or is an afraid of the truth? Septuagint as we know it is a fraud!
David Daniels' book "Is the 'World's Oldest Bible' a Fake?" is quite interesting. If you haven't read it, you should do that before making a decision on Sinaiticus.
He’s a nutty KJV-only conspiracy theorist….and that book of his convinced me that he might be right about that particular claim.
The page color differences would be hard to explain any other way.
@@JasonJrake I actually was impressed enough by the book that I contacted him and he was gracious enough to talk to me for about two hours over Skype. The book convinced me that, if nothing else, he's a good researcher.
ruclips.net/video/Sq276qJlW6Y/видео.htmlsi=Y0OK6U5SpxDmWI7x
No he isn’t a nutty KJV-only conspiracy guy, though he is KJB only! Since he used to be a liberal critical text guy, but came to the understanding that the TR/Majority/Byzantine type text is the only true manuscripts, and the KJB in English is the only pure rendering of God’s word! He is passionate and really just wants to protect, and preserve God’s word! I would slightly differ in that I would say that I am KJB preferred/best, and have no problem with mild, or minor updates for a more contemporary rendering. As I myself had some learning difficulties when I was a child. I understand people with reading, and learning challenges may have difficulty with the KJB, plus we are in a severely dumbed down society with people having much lower reading levels. There are several options ie: first is of course the NKJV(though it has some issues because of some critical text renderings, and notes, it’s better than the others), MEV(Modern English Version), MLV(Modern Literal Version), WEB(World English Bible), and KJV variants KJV2000, KJV21, KJVER, Simplified KJV. Also online at Textus Receptus Bibles.com, a 2016 KJB update in the NT. Also on the Chick Publications website, in David Daniels videos he literally eviscerates the Sinaiticus, Tischendorf, and establishes that Simonides created it in the 1800’s! But the caveat, or the nail in the coffin if you will? Daniels has evidence with independent chemical testing showing that the ink, both written, and art are 19th century! Yes the vellum is old, but not the ink!
Horrible book based on conspiricy theories.
Take siniaticus away, you dont have textual criticism
Amen! Dean Burgeon and FHA Scrivener excoriated Sinaiticus. It's tragic and criminal that these texts dominate textual criticism. I may not care for the KJV but I'm really developing an aversion to "modern" texts that rely on such fraudulent pretenders. I'm beginning to think Sinaiticus is not a forgery, a forger would be more careful. Instead we just have a piss poor text that doesn't deserve the time of day let alone such exaltation that overthrows common sense. Gee tell me how you really feel ;)
We have Codex Alexandrinus, Washingtonianus and earlier papyri such as Papyrus 66,75,9 etc.
We are estimating how many variants have Sinaiticus as a tipping point.
When it is removed from the apparatus they will have to make “NEW” post-Sinaiticus versions with about 200 variant differences, and a lot of egg on the textual criticism faces! :)
@@nothingnothing7958 Alexandrinus was condemned by Jerome in the 4th century comparing it with the Antioch manuscripts(was the only authorized place for Biblical manuscripts for the first 4 centuries, they are what is now referred to as the TR/Majority Text/Byzantine type text). All known copies of the Alexandrinus destroyed(burned), because of the rebellious nature of the Alexandrian’s(gnostic, pagan, heretics) a single copy survived! This is what we now have, a corrupt/fake manuscript!
@@claytonsmith6148 where did Jereome condemn Codex Alexandrinus, you say Alexandria was pagan and corrupt so by your logic we have to ignore the writings of Clement of Alexandria who was a early church Father.
Fake 100%
Didn't Constantine Simonedes create the text as a gift to a Russian ruler before he abanoned the project in an Athens monestary in 1844?
We discuss Simonides briefly in the longer video. He claimed he forged but he was a notorious liar.
@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I would equally be cautious with attacks on Simonides in this contested matter
@@SAMBUT dismissing Simonides is always an easy excuse, and poor scholarship.
@@SAMBUT Here is how it seems to me: He claimed he forged it. So he was either a deceiver in that he forged it or he was a deceiver in that he lied about forging it. Either way, it doesn’t seem to bode well for his credibility to me. I could be missing something however. If he forged it, it wouldn’t impact my view on the text.
@BiblicalStudiesandReviews
I would agree to remain sceptical in the variety of options - you might know the content of the first 5 videos...
Simple question. What do you do with Isaiah 34:16?
Is it pronounce sin-eeaticus? I know, splitting hairs but my lecturer keeps correcting me 😂
Common sense take.
Deut4v2, Pro 30v4 and Rev 22v18n19. Deut 8v3 Matt 4v4 n Luke 4v4 Jesus said: man shall live every word of God. Alow the Holy Spirit to Speak. This is what these text do add n taking away. If any church or Christian tells read any other Bible than Geneva bible, King James bible, NKJV or MEV. They can take a walk.
what
When we get together I hope we have time to delve into this among other things. My general view is that the reason we have the older copies is that they weren't faithful enough to use repeatedly when compared with better manuscripts. Those better ones then wore out again and again. While Sinaiticus and Vaticanus didn't get the repeated handling of the more faithful copies. Thus surviving on shelves somewhere. While the Greeks (Gentiles) did revere the texts, it paled in comparison to the methods adopted to ensure scribal accuracy of Old Testament manuscripts. Plus when one people (Jews) copied vs. the entire Roman Empire and the many tongues, dialects, and idioms native to each area, it's easy to see why we have so many minor variants to words in the different manuscripts.
Looking forward to it! Dr. Robinson doesn’t favor the theory that they were preserved because they were used less. I’ll have to look into that again.
Well Vaticanus was supposedly discovered in the 1400’s by the Catholic Church, with no prior history? Erasmus examined it, and rejected it as corrupt. As did all of the Reformers, and reformed era scholars as being a corrupt manuscript! See Daniels video at Chick Publications where he eviscerates the Sinaiticus, Constantine Tischendorf(a known money hungry, lier), providing it was created in the 19th century by Constantine Simonides. The icing on the cake is he has evidence with independent chemical testing, showing that the ink is 19th century, both the written, and the art! The vellum is old, but the ink is not!
I love codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, not so much for the New Testament, but for the Old Testament as providing us with early manuscripts of the Septuagint.
@@OrthodoxPhilip I have responded twice, and they have been deleted? Apparently someone doesn’t like, or is an afraid of the truth? Septuagint as we know it is a fraud!