Best government propaganda ever!!

[Stubby]

Wow now look who is putting words in someone's mouth, not that it is the first time though and ad hominems to boot. Classic GIT.

If you can't argue without being disrespectful, disparaging or demeaning, you should stop posting. I don't think there has been an argument here with anyone that you did not resort to attacking the poster rather than the argument.

I never claimed to 'know[s] all about the Codex Sinaiticus. I am not a biblical scholar unless you count Sunday school . I said I know of it and its siblings. They remind me of the golden plates that Joseph Smith claimed to have found and subsequently lost. Convenient that his translations of his tablets, like the translations of the bible, cannot be questioned.

People, whose religious background and studies that are more extensive then mine like current and former preachers and priests, know all about the codices.
The available texts are all copies. It IS the best you can do. It is why you need faith aka belief without evidence. If there was indisputable, falsifiable proof, I would be a believer.

As for you denial of translations of translations
The original languages of the copies of the bible are biblical hebrew, biblical aramaic and koine greek. It is assumed that the original documents were written is those languages. Here go educate yourself. Feel free to count how many translations of translations there are to get to the KJV. Feel free to count additions and deletions.
Really all you have to do is gather bibles from different denominations and compare. Or go here and search the various bibles and their variations of the same verses.
Just the mere fact that there are SOOO many versions of the bible and the multitudes of denominations is a red flag.

You can argue textural criticism all you want. You should read 'Misquoting Jesus' by Bart Ehrman. Ehrman was an evangelical christian who educated himself about the bible and is now currently agnostic. One of his professors was Bruce Metzger.

Tiny alterations?

Everyone knows the story about Jesus and the woman about to be stoned by the mob. This account is only found in John 7:53-8:12. The mob asked Jesus whether they should stone the woman (the punishment required by the Old Testament) or show her mercy. Jesus doesn’t fall for this trap. Jesus allegedly states “Let the one who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her.” The crowd dissipates out of shame. Ehrman states that this brilliant story was not originally in the Gospel of John or in any of the Gospels. “It was added by later scribes.” The story is not found in “our oldest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of John. Nor does its writing style comport with the rest of John. Most serious textual critics state that this story should not be considered part of the Bible

For good or ill, scribes are humans capable of honest mistakes or willful edits.

[GIThruster]

Well Stubby, all that aside, what answer do you give that not once but twice you have posted here that modern bibles are "translations of translations" when this is not true, and your assertions that this is all "hearsay" when in fact, these records all seem to come from people contemporaneous with the events?

I'm not here arguing for anything like "infallibility" or "inerrancy" but just saying, you do deliberate disservice to those of all these traditions and more, when you paint the holy writ of all the world's great religions as "hearsay".

Just looks like you're an asshole who doesn't know at all what he's whining about. Looks like your "Sunday school" was pretty shabby and as an ex-Mormon, you really don't know what historic Christianity has on offer. Worst is, you're habitually dishonest. It's the dishonesty that makes one unable to hold a real conversation with you.

[hanelyp]

The old King James Bible that certain groups seem to love is a translation of a translation, or translation of a translation of a translation in large parts. Serious modern Bible scholars, if they don't read the original Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic, favor translations direct from the original language, from as close to the original text as can be found. The latter is the standard of most modern translations of the Bible. Serious Bible scholars also like to cross check multiple good translations to see what subtleties different translators saw.

[GIThruster]

Yes well, the King James translation predates all modern textual criticism by several centuries. I won't be caught up in defending the veracity of what was at that time the best folks could do from the European texts, but instead note that modern scholars have done much better.

The European texts are generally the "majority texts" or texts including the latin Vulgate. No serious scholars think that is the way to get at the best translation.

I would note to you though, that the Mormon renderings make extensive use of the King James, including some serious mistranslations. Mormonism is a farce, hence why it is still normally considered a "cult" rather than a real branch of Christianity.

[Stubby]

You have me confused with someone else. I have never been a mormon.
Mormonism is just another religion.

Which modern bible version would you like to get caught up in?