Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by william s. correa, Apr 26, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    What does it REALLY mean?
     
  2. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    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. ;)
     
  3. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    9,949
    Likes Received:
    78
    I suppose it means what it says.
     
  4. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is my confused face......

    What are you asking?
     
  5. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  6. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  7. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Apparently means we have two NT manuscripts that a lot of fighting and arguing is being done about on the Baptist Board! :rolleyes: :eek: :D

    In His grace,
    Ed
     
  8. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    913
    Likes Received:
    4
    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.
     
  9. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK Are they trust worthy, and why
     
  10. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    These 3,000 disagreements between B and Aleph are to ask yourself: How accurate are this disagreement? Trust this disagreements?
     
  11. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Williams and Askjo,

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

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do not trust my heart on the matter of the text due to the fact that the early fathers had different opinions and texts that were, "Not found in the oldest and best manuscripts", If Sinaiticus was an accurate copy of the Word of God at the beginning of its history, it is impossible that it is now, after "specialists" have made so many alterations in the text.
    If Sinaiticus was not an accurate copy of the Word of God at the start, then it is absolutely inconceivable that ten different chiropractors laboring over a period of a few hundred years, have succeeded in making what must have been a hopeless copy into one of the "oldest and best" of manuscripts.
    And I certainly do not trust the Vaticanus and we need not go there yet!
     
  13. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    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!
     
  14. Orvie

    Orvie
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    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! [​IMG]
     
  15. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    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! [​IMG]
    </font>[/QUOTE]Are you trying to spell Missippi?
     
  16. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    oop Mississippi
     
  17. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now that's funny!!!

    finally someone with a sense of humor in the translations forum!
     
  18. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    What did i Miss???
     
  19. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,019
    Likes Received:
    148
    Stand your ground, william. Every good Southerner knows "Missippi" is the right spelling! [​IMG] [​IMG]

    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!! [​IMG] [​IMG] ;)
     
  20. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    I like that, I thank God that wonderfully and fearfully he created us , and with opinions that make each of us unique. I guess that beeing in the South, there is a special bond one has with the Bible belt, I know my grandpaw about beat my brother and I to death for fighting. I grew up on a tabbacco farm in Alma, Ga. I love my South. I really dont know what makes one choose manuscripts but early church fathers have tried to gain either attention; or for filthy lucre sake, by changing or ommiting texts that were not in the oldest and best manuscripts which God has preserved from when He dictaded to Moses in Genesis 1:1. Well got to to church have a blessed day and God bless.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...