Monday, July 21, 2014

Why I don't trust Siniaticus and Vaticanus

Here is an email I sent a friend of mine. --Eli "Hoss" Caldwell

The Vaticanus contains the Apocrypha, it omits the pastoral epistles (I Timothy through Titus), the Book of Revelation, and it cuts off the Book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14. Siniaticus has a lot of those errors as well, but it also adds "Sheperd of Hermes" and "The Epistle of Barnabas" to the NT.

If those are truly the oldest and best manuscripts than the modern versions would make those changes as well. If those two manuscripts justify getting rid of the last twelve verses of Mark, Rmans 8:1, Acts 8:37, etc. than we should also get rid of 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Revelation, etc.

But the modern versions (NIV, ESV, NASB, etc.) and scholars do NOT get rid of those books and do NOT add the apocrypha which shows their inconsistency and PROVES that they only want to attack the KJB and pure line of texts, they really don't care to follow their "oldest and best manuscripts". 

But James White says in regards to modern scholars and translators that "Their goal is not to corrupt God's Word but to preserve it and accurately pass it on to future generations." So was inserting farts in the text of the NEB an attempt at that? What about when it said that Christ got His hands cutoff?

And in regards to the KJB "But as we have seen, it was a human process, and as in all human life and endeavor, it did not partake of infallibility." HUMAN PROCESS, White doesn't believe that Satan nor the Holy Spirit guide in Bible translations. However, the Bible says that God preserves it (Ps. 12:6-7), and Satan and man cast doubt on and corrupt the word of God (Gen. 3:1, 2 Cor. 2:17).
Also see: 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Your questions or comments welcome.