uhmmm... wrong, the vellum was wrapped in red cloth up in a monk's closet. some leaves were indeed found in the walls apparently, but not in the trash.
This is kind of hilarious, since the pages that Tischendorf saw in 1844 (in what White repeatedly described as a "trash can") were not some paltry "scraps" but were pages from Codex Sinaiticus -- the portion that Tischendorf called Codex Frederico-Augustus, from the Old Testament. You can go to the Codex Sinaiticus website today and see those pages identified as such along the edge.
For Real? So it's not totally written in KOIN Greek? I'm KJV I'm Pro text receptus, but I'm having a dialogue with a Jehovah Witness this week and I know their New World Translation is based on the Sinaiticus and vaticanus, especially concerning the Gospel of John 1:1 in which it seems like they don't apply all Greek grammar rules when it comes to the subject noun and the object noun in the Greek.
Just one question. If the British Museum is so verrrrrrrry certain of the authenticity, provenance and dating of this manuscript, why will they not allow radiocarbon dating of it?
That wouldnt work, carbon dating and other dating methods dont work. I can get my fingernails carbon dated to 10 thousand years old. They can however examine the paper and tell by the style and how it's made to date it. But since it's a fraud they wont.
Vaticanus and Siniaticus not only disagree with the Majority Text from which the KJV came, they also differ from each other. In the four Gospels alone, they differ over 3,000 times!
This guy is so devil possessed, with a clever one I can tell. That's the only explanation I can have after so much valid arguments against this corrupted critical texts and manuscripts you can find, no matter what they keep defending it. So funny to notice this.
It is believed that Siniaticus has been altered by as many as ten different men. Consequently, it is a very sloppy piece of work (which is probably the reason for it being in a trash can). Many transcript errors, such as missing words and repeated sentences are found throughout it. While adding The Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas to the New Testament, Siniaticus omits John 5:4, 8:1-11, Matthew 16:2-3, Romans 16:24, Mark 16:9-20, Acts 8:37, and I John 5:7 (just to name a few).
Who cares where it was found. I go with the majority of the texts we have which are the same body that the King James Bible was translated from. Why is that important? Because God said he would preserve his word! See Psalm 12:6-7 KJVS The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. [7] Thou shalt keep them, O Lord , thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. So why would the word of God be hidden for centuries from his believers in a monastery? The believers were copying the word of God so others would know which is why it is the most copied book in the history of man. They were using it and making copies, so we could have it today. Jesus did not say when he read the scriptures in the temple that this is just a copy, may not be infallible because it's not the original..... I believe all that the Bible says including that God would preserve his word. I don't need a 'textual critic' to compaire copies and let me know what the word of God says.
Christian Anarchist I think you are confused. It's the other way around. It is because of the way 'they' catergorize the texts. The majority of the manuscripts which is from the same line of texts from which the King James Bible was translated from do indeed have Acts 8:37 and the 16 other verses that are completely missing in the modern translations because they are not in the counterfeit Codex Vaticanus and the Sianaticus (spelling?)
Christian Anarchist it's in the Textus Receptus which is what the King James was translated from, which is actualy from the family of texts that have the most copies that are the same. It's not called by the scholars the majority text. That is why the King James has that and the other verses where the modern versions, that are based on two texts that don't agree with each other and do not agree with the majority of the new testament texts.
Bkak the point is...the TR isn't a manuscript. ..it's simply the textual choices of the KJV translators made from a few printed Greek texts that they had and those Greek printed texts were different from each other. the majority text and the TR differ from each other as well.
JesusChristisTruth the source is from Tischendorf’s book “When Were Our Gospels Written?” He gives an eyewitness account of how he discovered the manuscript.
Just curious - why should Tischendorf's accounts be taken at his word without critical analysis? Tischendorf clearly was a glory hunter and there are certainly enough divergences and internal contradictions in his own accounts over the years that a fair amount of skepticism and disbelief is not just warranted but mandatory.
“En 1844 Constantino Von Tischendorf descubrió 43 hojas de pergamino del hoy famoso Códice Sinaítico, en el monasterio de Santa Catalina, en El Monte Sinaí. De aquí el nombre del manuscrito. Al parecer los monjes ignoraban por completo su valor, porque las 43 hojas habían sido puestas en un cesto de papeles viejos en donde Tischendorf las descubrió y las rescató...” (Nuestra Santa Biblia; Donald E. Demaray; página 46.
Could someone please help me. The Jehovah's Witnesses (Watchtower) says that the Codex Sinaticus does not contain John 8:1-11, is that true? How do I find factual evidence of that?
It does not. None of the older manuscripts do because that section was an interpolation. It lacks internal consistency which is proof of its falsehood. Older manuscripts aren't needed to deduce that the "woman caught in adultery" is a fraudulent passage.
5 років тому
Wanna see JC white shat his shorts?? Tell him to debate David daniels about the authenticity of codex siniaticus. He will never ever EVER do that
Right because the info that both David Daniels ( who has quiet the number of degrees behind his name) and David Hocking.....He has great info on the two codexes that the modern translations are based on. The vaticanus and sinaiticus differ from each other in many places, and even the 7th to 8th edition of the codex sinaiticus had 1000 changes at least. Plus the vaticanus is missing huge sections of scriptures. They are alexandrian codexes. ua-cam.com/video/execQXFRZMY/v-deo.html
constantin von tischendorf visited the greek monastery of saint catherine ( where about 40-50% of the miracles of greek literature is located ) in sinai feb. 4 1859 , the monks were ready to put in fire some 346 pages of papyri ( written in greek as the old testament ) to keep warm. those pages were the copy of the first bible from eusebius pamphili ( greek ) later dated to about 370ad which is the oldest copy on new testament , SOME INTERESTING FACTS ABOUT : ONLY THE GOSPEL OF MARK ON THE CODEX , NO LETTERS OF PAUL ON THE CODEX seems that other gospels are plagiarisms of the gospel of mark , seems that the letters of paul were devised and added 397ad by john chrysostom maily copying writings of appolonios of tyana the code was bought by the london museum for 100,000 pounds from the ch har of russia. Totum Grecorum Est CICERO
Saigon Kiss, Your information is incorrect. It was during the 1844 visit, not the 1859 visit, that (according to Tischendorf) the monks were preparing to burn the codex (which, imho, is highly improbable). Also, whatever you are trying to say about "No letters of Paul on the codex," etc. -- you are aware I hope that the MS can be viewed online today, including its pages containing the letters of Paul is not just wrong, but bizarrely wrong. I advise starting over completely.
SIN..AT..IT..I..CUS = What a name? - Why Not = GOD..AT..IT..I..DONT..CUSS - ? And all Liars tell the truth at least once! I dont care if it came from a trash can or Red cloth. Might be more believable if it came with a Gold SEAL & a Gold Ribbon. And a bull hates Red almost as much as I do. - IMO
JON Cunningham you may want to learn a little about how language works other than just make up acrostics from English that didn't even exist until centuries later my friend. this isn't how we study scripture or determine truth or facts about anything in life.
According to Tischendorf himself, he DID find portions of sinaiticus in a basket with other papers ‘for use as kindling’
Berean in addition, the burn basket story adds more proof to the fact that Tichendorf was a crook. Who burns leather?
uhmmm... wrong, the vellum was wrapped in red cloth up in a monk's closet. some leaves were indeed found in the walls apparently, but not in the trash.
@@mihaeltomasovic That was on a Supposed 2nd visit, 15 years later... yeah
@@mihaeltomasovic ua-cam.com/video/execQXFRZMY/v-deo.html
This is kind of hilarious, since the pages that Tischendorf saw in 1844 (in what White repeatedly described as a "trash can") were not some paltry "scraps" but were pages from Codex Sinaiticus -- the portion that Tischendorf called Codex Frederico-Augustus, from the Old Testament. You can go to the Codex Sinaiticus website today and see those pages identified as such along the edge.
ua-cam.com/video/LJUusrUcE_o/v-deo.html Who darkened the sinaiticus?
*Alternate Title: "Codex Sinaticus BELONGS In A Trashcan"*
Tischendorf was a liar. And the codex has modern greek, and back translated medieval text in it.
For Real? So it's not totally written in KOIN Greek?
I'm KJV I'm Pro text receptus, but I'm having a dialogue with a Jehovah Witness this week and I know their New World Translation is based on the Sinaiticus and vaticanus, especially concerning the Gospel of John 1:1 in which it seems like they don't apply all Greek grammar rules when it comes to the subject noun and the object noun in the Greek.
Just one question. If the British Museum is so verrrrrrrry certain of the authenticity, provenance and dating of this manuscript, why will they not allow radiocarbon dating of it?
That wouldnt work, carbon dating and other dating methods dont work. I can get my fingernails carbon dated to 10 thousand years old. They can however examine the paper and tell by the style and how it's made to date it. But since it's a fraud they wont.
@@CoolioMoDee Nope. What orifice did you pull that number from?
@@CoolioMoDee No, it is the ONLY reliable way we have of dating organic material.
Vaticanus and Siniaticus not only disagree with the Majority Text from which the KJV came, they also differ from each other. In the four Gospels alone, they differ over 3,000 times!
Lots of lies told about the texts to sell new bibles. If the truth about the sinaiticus and vaticanus were told new bibles wouldn't sell.
@@brendakauffman2222 I concur 100%.
Why can't we see all the dislikes anymore? James White needs serious prayer. I seriously doubt his salvation.
Because UA-cam decided to remove it to endorse some form of positivity. You won’t find dislikes at all in any videos these days.
Amen
next thing you gotta refute is the claim that Westcott and Hortt were occultists
Yeah. They were into a weird science study to try and study paranormal activities. They then left it and eventually became Christians and scholars.
Christian Anarchist when did they become Christians?
Christian Anarchist When did they become Christians?
Uh yes James parts of it were 🙄
Yes Wescott & Hort were heretical we know this for sure. Hort called the KJV text "villainous."
This guy is so devil possessed, with a clever one I can tell. That's the only explanation I can have after so much valid arguments against this corrupted critical texts and manuscripts you can find, no matter what they keep defending it. So funny to notice this.
It is believed that Siniaticus has been altered by as many as ten different men. Consequently, it is a very sloppy piece of work (which is probably the reason for it being in a trash can). Many transcript errors, such as missing words and repeated sentences are found throughout it.
While adding The Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas to the New Testament, Siniaticus omits John 5:4, 8:1-11, Matthew 16:2-3, Romans 16:24, Mark 16:9-20, Acts 8:37, and I John 5:7 (just to name a few).
I thought it was a forgery
Who cares where it was found. I go with the majority of the texts we have which are the same body that the King James Bible was translated from. Why is that important? Because God said he would preserve his word! See Psalm 12:6-7 KJVS
The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. [7] Thou shalt keep them, O Lord , thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
So why would the word of God be hidden for centuries from his believers in a monastery? The believers were copying the word of God so others would know which is why it is the most copied book in the history of man. They were using it and making copies, so we could have it today. Jesus did not say when he read the scriptures in the temple that this is just a copy, may not be infallible because it's not the original.....
I believe all that the Bible says including that God would preserve his word. I don't need a 'textual critic' to compaire copies and let me know what the word of God says.
Bkak Even though the majority text lacks verses like Acts 8:37?
Christian Anarchist I think you are confused. It's the other way around. It is because of the way 'they' catergorize the texts. The majority of the manuscripts which is from the same line of texts from which the King James Bible was translated from do indeed have Acts 8:37 and the 16 other verses that are completely missing in the modern translations because they are not in the counterfeit Codex Vaticanus and the Sianaticus (spelling?)
Bkak Not when I last checked. Acts 8:37 is not in the majority text.
Christian Anarchist it's in the Textus Receptus which is what the King James was translated from, which is actualy from the family of texts that have the most copies that are the same. It's not called by the scholars the majority text. That is why the King James has that and the other verses where the modern versions, that are based on two texts that don't agree with each other and do not agree with the majority of the new testament texts.
Bkak the point is...the TR isn't a manuscript. ..it's simply the textual choices of the KJV translators made from a few printed Greek texts that they had and those Greek printed texts were different from each other.
the majority text and the TR differ from each other as well.
Yet where is this sourcing?
JesusChristisTruth the source is from Tischendorf’s book “When Were Our Gospels Written?”
He gives an eyewitness account of how he discovered the manuscript.
Just curious - why should Tischendorf's accounts be taken at his word without critical analysis? Tischendorf clearly was a glory hunter and there are certainly enough divergences and internal contradictions in his own accounts over the years that a fair amount of skepticism and disbelief is not just warranted but mandatory.
Early Church Father Cyprian quoted from the Textus Receptus about 250 AD.
What conclusion comes from this fact.
SpotterVideo He quoted from a document that came much later after his time?
Text us receptors is thousands of documents.
@@r.c.apologist2008
How could he quote from a document that came after him?
That's ridiculous.
You are a very sad man James White ... I surely wouldn't want to be in your shoes come Judgement day ...
Why
Why were the monks about to burn the Septuagint fragments?
I don't know. I'd have to read about it.
Such questions are to great for supporters of Sinaticus ... SMH
James White makes things up
“En 1844 Constantino Von Tischendorf descubrió 43 hojas de pergamino del hoy famoso Códice Sinaítico, en el monasterio de Santa Catalina, en El Monte Sinaí. De aquí el nombre del manuscrito. Al parecer los monjes ignoraban por completo su valor, porque las 43 hojas habían sido puestas en un cesto de papeles viejos en donde Tischendorf las descubrió y las rescató...” (Nuestra Santa Biblia; Donald E. Demaray; página 46.
Could someone please help me. The Jehovah's Witnesses (Watchtower) says that the Codex Sinaticus does not contain John 8:1-11, is that true? How do I find factual evidence of that?
It does not. None of the older manuscripts do because that section was an interpolation. It lacks internal consistency which is proof of its falsehood. Older manuscripts aren't needed to deduce that the "woman caught in adultery" is a fraudulent passage.
Wanna see JC white shat his shorts??
Tell him to debate David daniels about the authenticity of codex siniaticus.
He will never ever EVER do that
Right because the info that both David Daniels ( who has quiet the number of degrees behind his name) and David Hocking.....He has great info on the two codexes that the modern translations are based on. The vaticanus and sinaiticus differ from each other in many places, and even the 7th to 8th edition of the codex sinaiticus had 1000 changes at least. Plus the vaticanus is missing huge sections of scriptures. They are alexandrian codexes. ua-cam.com/video/execQXFRZMY/v-deo.html
constantin von tischendorf visited the greek monastery of saint catherine ( where about 40-50% of the miracles of greek literature is located ) in sinai feb. 4 1859 , the monks were ready to put in fire some 346 pages of papyri ( written in greek as the old testament ) to keep warm. those pages were the copy of the first bible from eusebius pamphili ( greek ) later dated to about 370ad
which is the oldest copy on new testament , SOME INTERESTING FACTS ABOUT : ONLY THE GOSPEL OF MARK ON THE CODEX , NO LETTERS OF PAUL ON THE CODEX seems that other gospels
are plagiarisms of the gospel of mark , seems that the letters of paul were devised and added 397ad by john chrysostom maily copying writings of appolonios of tyana
the code was bought by the london museum for 100,000 pounds from the ch har of russia. Totum Grecorum Est CICERO
Saigon Kiss,
Your information is incorrect. It was during the 1844 visit, not the 1859 visit, that (according to Tischendorf) the monks were preparing to burn the codex (which, imho, is highly improbable).
Also, whatever you are trying to say about "No letters of Paul on the codex," etc. -- you are aware I hope that the MS can be viewed online today, including its pages containing the letters of Paul is not just wrong, but bizarrely wrong. I advise starting over completely.
SIN..AT..IT..I..CUS = What a name? - Why Not = GOD..AT..IT..I..DONT..CUSS - ?
And all Liars tell the truth at least once! I dont care if it came from a trash can or Red cloth. Might be more believable if it came with a Gold SEAL & a Gold Ribbon. And a bull hates Red almost as much as I do. - IMO
JON Cunningham you may want to learn a little about how language works other than just make up acrostics from English that didn't even exist until centuries later my friend. this isn't how we study scripture or determine truth or facts about anything in life.