Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
I read some abnout those MSS. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the two "oldest" MSS you read about in the footnotes of their translations today, that allegedly do not contain many of the references the Textus Receptus has (from which the KJV was translated). Through my understanding, I wholly reject the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
The Vaticanus was found on a shelf in the Vatican without any knowledge as to where it originated.
The Sinaiticus was found in a trash bin in a monastery on Mount Sinai, and indication showed it had been used to start fires.
The maxim "It must be better since it is older," is simply not always true. The Roman Catholic Church organization is older than any apostolic organization, but is it better?
The Alexandrian text is also in the same bad category. These all derived from the Alexandrian school where the likes of Adamantius Origen felt Mary was God's mother and that satan would be saved in the end. He felt at lilberty, "led by the Spirit", to add to the text of the Bible.
In short, all these MSS in this entire category of the Alexandrian line involve scholars who do nto beleive God took pains to supernaturally preserve His Word, although God took enough pains to inspire it. They treat the Bible as any secular ancient book, that has little if any odds of surviving the many centuries wherein people interpolate and delete.
But the bible is not just any ordinary ancient book. It is God's Word. If God took pains to inspire it, then obviously He ensured its preservation. THERE IS a Word of God today, despite the Alexandrian Cult's claims.
The Textus Receptus involved people thorughout the centuries who believed God DID preserve His Word, and took careful pains to carry it onward intact and without blemish. I agree with them.
|
This is what I'm talkin about!!!!!!!!!!
Were the translators of the KJV not effected by culturally sensitive colloquialisms, dialects, etc.?
Would interpretation become more clouded because of cultural bias?