The British Library has a number of leaves of the famous “Codex Sinaiticus”, reputed to date from the years 300AD or so. Their forensics experts have examined it. They have a number of things to say. Also, they say it is a fraud. This is how they say it:
Although skin materials are remarkably durable given reasonable conditions of storage, collagen fibres nevertheless degenerate slowly especially when exposed to water vapour, light and heat. Fluctuations in humidity and excessive moisture levels can result in hydrolysis which, in the presence of natural and man-made pollutants such as sulphur dioxide or nitrogen dioxide in the atmosphere, can catalyse oxidisation. This process of deterioration leads initially to a reduction in strength of the dermal fibre network causing phenomena such as curling and shrinkage. Over a prolonged period it can lead to a complete breakdown of the fibre structure and more permanent damage such as brittleness, splits and losses….
The conservation team discovered that, despite being over 1600 years old, the pages of Codex Sinaiticus held at the British Library consisted of a supple, high quality parchment in relatively good condition….
Apart from a small percentage of folios with heavy ink corrosion, most of the folios appeared to have survived the rigours of 16 centuries with an unexpected lack of damage, suffering in the main only from small tears and losses along the head, tail, fore-edge and spine folds. Much of this damage is more likely attributable to mechanical damage than physical deterioration….
Much of the visual parchment evidence cannot answer many of the questions asked by those seeking proof about the origins of the Codex and the story of its survival…
Did you hear that? They looked at it, and they have NOTHING to say that will answer questions of authenticity. They cannot reconcile the visible evidence with the story spun about it. It is visibly evident to the document experts that Sinaiticus is a FRAUD. They don’t want to say so, but they say it anyhow.
Codex Sinaiticus is a fraud, which means that all of these are a fraud too:
- Codex Vaticanus – it has the same fraudulently truncated ending of the gospel of Mark, and that fraud was done by the same handwriting in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
- The Shepherd of Hermas, 1855, Simonides – this is identical to the copy in Sinaiticus, therefore not ancient, but a medieval work (probably copied by Simonides at Mt. Athos, as he claimed.)
- The Revised Standard Version – my Dad’s bible
- The New American Standard Version – we had this in our house because it’s “literal”
- The Good News Version – the version I grew up with … an awful mess of footnotes and easy English.
- The New International Version – the version I was educated with
- The English Standard Version – the version they tried to sell me after they had gone too far with the NIV.
- Everything based on the “critical text”.
- Innumerable issue-driven translations that corrupt the word of God for profit – including those pushing one “Yshua” and “Yahweh”, and not a few editions written in punchy modern phrases.
What does this leave us with? Just one: The King James Version – the Authorised Version. You don’t like the language of that? Well, that’s tough: it’s all we’ve got. Learn to live with it. Thou shouldest learn therewith to live.
The “New King James Version” deserves a special mention: it’s a deceptive beast. While it is a somewhat reasonable translation of the uncorrupted Textus Receptus Greek, there are places where the scholars displayed their liberal preference, and for the Old Testament, the text has been deliberately chosen for its corruption. Basically, you can’t trust them: all that the translators intend with this translation is to draw the few people still reading the King James Version away from the older language to the language of the corrupt versions. The language is easier, but the message is not completely true.
All of this fuss is about just 6000 changes or so in a very large document, and that would normally be a storm in a teacup – a few changes in spelling and grammar – the odd sentence here and a missing clause there. For a regular document of no importance, it would matter little, but this is the word of God.
When something corrupt is added to something holy, is the product holy, or is the product defiled?
Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these [holy offerings], shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean.
Then answered Haggai, and said, So is this people, and so is this nation before me, saith the LORD; and so is every work of their hands; and that which they offer there is unclean.
This is not an isolated teaching in the Bible. This matter goes all the way to life and death, heaven and hell:
- Psalm 12:6-7 – The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
If we accept Sinaiticus and it’s tale of an ever-changing word of God, then the word has not been preserved, and is not pure.
- Psalm 119:140 – Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.
If we accept Sinaiticus and its many small flaws, what is left to love?
- 2 Corinthians 6:7 – By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left,
If we proclaim the gospel by a ever-so-slightly flawed word, then how will we see the power of God?
- Psalm 119:41-43 – Let thy mercies come also unto me, O LORD, even thy salvation, according to thy word.
So shall I have wherewith to answer him that reproacheth me: for I trust in thy word.
And take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth; for I have hoped in thy judgments.
If the word of truth is utterly out of our mouth, and we trust in a sightly corrupt word that is the word of man, and not the word of God, then how will we be saved?
- Ephesians 1:13 – In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
If we heard some other word that is not entirely true, then and if we believed that slightly unholy word, then how did we believe in the truth?
- James 1:17-18 – Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
If God has shown variableness and turning, changing the most minor aspects of his word, then he has begotten us with unstable double-mindedness, and we cannot reasonably hope to be born again – if that is so, we are yet dead in our sins.
Quo vadis? (And now?) Indeed. Toss it all in the garbage:
- 170 years of textual criticism – it’s all lies and damned lies.
- All the new English versions – they’re all deception and lies
- All the other language versions based on the critical text
- All those lest-reached people group versions translated from the corrupt text by these same corrupt scholars. Those folks are going to have to learn a second language, sorry.
- Everything that says “Nestle”, “Alland”, “UBS” and is littered with footnotes.
- Dead Sea Scrolls: yes, toss these too, because the same people that believe these sold us Sinaiticus as the holy truth.
Actually, we won’t need to burn the new versions – they are already fading away, as the people that they have corrupted are fading away.
What remains? Just one:
- Textus Receptus and Masoretic text
- King James Version – the Authorised Version 1611
- A few language translations from the Textus Receptus
Where are we at?
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
We’re almost done with falling away, and the next step is the man of sin.