Sign in or signup

6,242 active users!!Bandwidth
SEP 26, 2017
Events & Blogs
New Audio & Video
BroadcastersNew Stuff!
Local & Church Finder
Webcast LIVE NOW!
Sermons by Bible
Sermons by Topic
Sermons by Speaker
Sermons by Date
Staff Picks
CommentsALL -18 sec
Top Sermons
Daily Log
StoresNew Stuff!
Online Bible
Daily Reading
Our Services
Submit Sermon
Members Only

Breaking News Home | All | Religion | Society | Tech | Choice | Fridays | SA Newsroom
FRONT PAGE  |  9/26/2017
Choice News TUESDAY, JUL 22, 2008  |  27 comments
Scholars Plan to Reunite Ancient Bible – Online
LONDON - The oldest surviving copy of the New Testament, a 4th century version that had its Gospels and epistles spread across the world, is being made whole again – online.

The British Library says the full text of the Codex Sinaiticus will be available to Web users by next July, digitally reconnecting parts that are held in Britain, Russia, Germany and a monastery in Egypt's Sinai Desert.

A preview of the Codex, which also has some parts of the Old Testament, will hit the Web on Thursday — the Book of Psalms and the Gospel of Mark.

"Only a few people have ever had the opportunity to see more than a couple of pages of the (Codex)," said Scot McKendrick, the British Library's head of Western manuscripts. The Web site will give everyone access to a "unique treasure," he said. ...

CLICK HERE to Read Entire Article

How Do We Know Bible is True?
  Recommended sermons | more..
•  How Do We Know Bible is True?Brian Edwards | 7/17/2008
•  Why You Can Believe The BibleVoddie Baucham | 9/4/2014
•  Scripture's SufficiencyRev. Geoff Thomas | 8/21/2015
•  Is the Bible the Word of God?Dr. Alan Cairns | 4/27/2009

   09/26/17  |  Nashville church shooting 'a terrible tragedy' • 3 comments
   09/25/17  |  Conservative Roman Catholic theologians accuse pope of spreading... • 27 comments
   09/24/17  |  U.S. Protestants Are Not Defined by Reformation-Era... • 9 comments
   09/24/17  |  Mennonite Church Becomes First in Denomination to Appoint Openly... • 32 comments
   09/23/17  |  Caffeinated sodas allowed on Mormon church school’s campus • 6 comments
   09/21/17  |  California school board won’t let kids opt out of transgender... • 14 comments
   09/20/17  |  Teens are becoming adults later than they used to • 4 comments
   09/20/17  |  US government wiretapped former Trump campaign chairman • 3 comments
   09/20/17  |  Powerful 7.1 earthquake strikes Mexico City • 12 comments
   09/19/17  |  ‘Rising Number of Publications’ Calling for ‘Major Revision’ of... • 12 comments
   09/22/17  |  Feedback Friday for 09-22-17 • 1 comments
   09/15/17  |  Feedback Friday for 09-15-17
   09/08/17  |  Feedback Friday for 09-08-17
   09/01/17  |  Feedback Friday for 09-01-17
   08/31/17  |  Hurricane Harvey - SA Broadcaster Update • 2 comments
   09/26/17  |  Should Women Who Get Abortions be Prosecuted? • 16 comments
   09/26/17  |  Villanueva: The Truly Brave NFL Player • 6 comments
   09/26/17  |  Roy Moore 57, Luther Strange 41 in new Alabama GOP Senate poll • 10 comments
   09/26/17  |  Nashville church shooting 'a terrible tragedy' • 3 comments
   09/25/17  |  NASCAR owners side with Trump, take firm stance against anthem... • 23 comments
COMMENTS | show all | add new  
    Sorting Order:  
· Page 1 ·  Found: 27 user comment(s)
News Item8/20/08 5:41 PM
hidemi williges | san francisco, ca  Contact via emailFind all comments by hidemi williges
MurrayA wrote:
Re: the post of 8/18/08 6:20 PM
Where did you get this "information" that Codex Sinaiticus was sitting in a rubbish bin waiting to be burned?
Some leaves of the LXX part of the codex were discovered by Tischendorf in 1843 when he found a monk unknowingly throwing them in the fire.
Wouldn't that Monk have gotten those leaves somewhere. If he thought they were good for kindling, where then would he have them from?

He wouldn't have picked them up off of the boss's desk.

Some things are just common sense.


News Item8/18/08 7:09 PM
MurrayA | Australia  Find all comments by MurrayA
Re: the post of 8/18/08 6:20 PM
Where did you get this "information" that Codex Sinaiticus was sitting in a rubbish bin waiting to be burned? Does that come from the Dean Burgon Society too? Or does it trace back to Dean Burgon's wild and inflammatory rhetoric against this and other very ancient manuscripts?

Some leaves of the LXX part of the codex were discovered by Tischendorf in 1843 when he found a monk unknowingly throwing them in the fire. Later, however, in 1859, he revisited the monastery and another monk revealed that he had the entire NT part of the Codex in his cell, carefully wrapped in a red cloth. This monk knew the value of the MS, even if others did not. So much for the "rubbish bin" allegation.

St Catherine's monastery may be strange, but it is like so many such institutions in the Near East. And valuable manuscripts, or portions, have been found in stranger places still: the Bodmer collection was found in the ruins of a Pachomian monastery at Jabal Abu Mana in Egypt; some portions of the NT were found in wrappings around mummified animals. Does any of this thereby rule them out of consideration?

This 'poisoning the wells' type of argument, so common in KJVO rhetoric, does you no credit.


News Item8/18/08 6:37 PM
Neil | Tucson  Find all comments by Neil
The article omitted the URL: Codex Sinaiticus
"the oldest substantial book to survive Antiquity"

I'm glad I'm not a Muslim: Textual History of the Quran


News Item8/18/08 6:20 PM
hidemi williges | san francisco, ca  Contact via emailFind all comments by hidemi williges
Why would anyone ever consider a manuscript that sat in a garbage can waiting to be burned to be Holy Writ.

St. Catherine's monastery is one of the strangest places on earth. How can anyone believe that something Godly would be there except a deluded Tischendorf.


News Item7/28/08 7:41 AM
ENGINEER | USA  Find all comments by ENGINEER
Jim Lincoln wrote:
You mean the Bible has to be in a particular language to be correct?
You are COMPLETELY right: I worded my
post wrong: I meant that FOR ENGLISH
SPEAKERS (those who ONLY speak ENGLISH)
they should learn English.
I should have known how it could be taken

(since some DO think this(wrongly)

I was VERRRRRY sloppy and inattentive.
No, the BEST would be to be schooled in Hebrew from the age of 5,
and Learn Koine Greek to the point that you write your devotionals and correspondence in Koine, (or Hebrew).
[like the Authorised Bible workmen]

BUT IN OTHER languages,
Jim is completely right.
I meant that "English only people" should learn their complete vocabulary (even that which they think is archaic, or that which IS archaic).

This was more a comment on how dumbed down our vocabular is, than anything else.

Jim concededed a (probably painful to him ??) compromise "I couldn't even argue with people who use the KJV which is part of the Ryrie Study Bible"


which I have (I use it at times)
so WE HAVE NO arguement about MY Bible.

Jim: I was wrong:
I'm sorry for my sloppiness.


News Item7/26/08 2:44 PM
Jim Lincoln | Nebraska  Find all comments by Jim Lincoln
You mean like the Muslims, Engineer, the Bible has to be in a particular language to be correct? Well, if was, we would have to learn Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, Hebrew is God's language not English. I will also point out, the ISBE does have some commentary on the versions of the Bible, English Versions and American Revised Version. Why may there be less to some modern versions? Simple, because the KJV had material in it that should not have been there! This gave it a poorer reading! the article, King James Onlyism, gives you something to compare your chart to, and see if you got bonus material in the KJV--that God didn't put there.

The only thing good about the errors in the KJV they do not effect theological viewpoints and I respect your intelligence and belief in Christianity, Engineer, but but please, I pray, don't be a slave to human tradition.


News Item7/25/08 11:07 AM
ENGINEER | USA  Find all comments by ENGINEER
Better yet, learn English, and use the Bible the Lord provides for us:
SEE the easy comparison CHART:
shows the most significant areas of change in modern translations which affect fundamental Christian doctrine. This listing is only a portion of the overwhelming number of alterations to essential doctrines.
If you wish to see a true history of the English Bible see

Now, you might need to learn a few new words: but they are God's wordS.
Well worth the time.
like Bruce Metzger, you could use a "Reader's Digest" easy to read version: also, the NIV is 62,000 words shorter than the Authorised Bible.
easy reading! (not inspired version, but close enough?)


News Item7/24/08 2:29 PM
Jim Lincoln | Nebraska  Find all comments by Jim Lincoln
If you wish to see a good history of the English Bible, with little emphasis on the Catholic one, this would be the lengthy history to read, Series Title: The History of the English Bible . This even has mp3 files to listen to, for people who might be visually impaired. While the KJV is a flawed, antiquated version of the Bible, it at least does not introduce theological errors, q.v.,The Roman Catholic Bible. It also makes excellent study tool for sixteenth century English. For picking a version of the Bible, one should look at, Comparing Bible Translations. As has been pointed out earlier, in one of my messages, you could get an NKJV, to help you translate the KJV into English.

News Item7/23/08 4:45 PM
ENGINEER | USA  Find all comments by ENGINEER
Tony Borrelli wrote:
the Puritans & the Geneva Bible

The Geneva Bible promoters apparently believe that God lied about preserving his words, because the Geneva Bible virtually disappeared from existence along with the Coverdale, Great, Bishops and other worthy predecessors of the King James Bible. It was the KJV that built the church and it is the KJV that is holding together the remnant church during the great falling away in which we currently live. It was the KJV that inspired the great missionary movement of the nineteenth century, and it was the KJV that brought about the Bible translations of that period throughout the world.

There were Puritans on the translation committee and their changeover
to the King James Bible was throughout the 1600's.
Since the Mayflower was 1620 there is no suprise that the primary Bible was still Geneva.
The Geneva Bible is a good Bible,
and identical to the King James Bible on verses included, against the mistaken changes made in the 19th century, and close to the Authorised Bible in translation.
But why not the Best?


News Item7/23/08 1:00 PM
Tony Borrelli | Suburban Philadelphia  Find all comments by Tony Borrelli
I was led to believe that the Puritans used the Geneva Bible and rejected the KJV believing it to have been influenced by King and Episcopate forces in contention with Puritan ideas of "No King But Christ".

News Item7/23/08 6:34 AM
Daniel Lee Ford | Spring Arbor, Mich.  Find all comments by Daniel Lee Ford
Many of the early English versions contained the Apocrypha, for two basic reasons - because of the general acceptance of the Apocrypha during the Dark Ages, and/or (in case of the Authorized, King James Version) for Scriptural analysis.

In each case, the Apocrypha were delineated either in an appendix and/or with an explanation showing them to be non-canonical.

a. Tyndale's Bible (1525 A.D.) places them by themselves as "uninspired."
b.Coverdale's Bible (1535 A.D.) does likewise, and with the following title: "Apocrifa. The bokes & treatises which amonge the Fathers of old are not rekened to be of authorite with the other bokes of the Byble, neither are the foude in the Canon of the Hebrews."
c. Matthew's Bible (1537 A.D.) and Taverner's Bible (1539 A.D.) place the Apocrypha between the Testaments.
d.The Authorized, King James Version (1611), like the Great Bible, (1539 A.D.), the Geneva Bible (1560 A.D.) and the Bishop's Bible (1568 A.D.) before it, places them in an appendix.
Apocrypha began to be omitted from the Authorized Version in 1629, and by 1827 were excluded permanently.

BTW, Bible MAPS are not inspired, crossing out the word "Palestine" and writing in ISRAEL improves many Bible maps.

Sinaiticus' canonizing of Apocrypha, shows it as corrupted.


News Item7/22/08 8:20 PM
A Democratic Conservative  Find all comments by A Democratic Conservative
The 1620 Plymouth Pilgrims, Independents, Non-Conformists & Puritans REJECTED "The Apocrypha" in Their American-Imported/English-Exported Authorized "King James" Version of The Holy Bible; and TOTALLY REMOVED & ERADICATED IT from Their KJV Bibles !

Therefore, "The Apocrypha" was NOT included in The Earliest & Subsequent American Published Editions of The Authorized "King James" Bible During The 1600s, 1700s, 1800s, 1900s & Today; July 22, 2008:

As we enter into The Coming Future 400th Anniversary of The Authorized "King James" Bible in 2011 !

Ever since The Satanic Vatican-financed Sinaticus/Vaticanus based "Bible" CRAZE Flooded America in the 1970s: The Roman "Catholic" Cult has effectively REMOVED The 'Epistle of Dedicatory' from over 90% of America's Published "King James" Bible !


A:"So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish Persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God's Holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom They desire still to keep in Ignorance and Darkness..."


News Item7/22/08 3:04 PM
Tony Borrelli wrote:
I was having a "senior" moment.
maybe I should change my label to be safer...Before I do the same thing...

News Item7/22/08 2:24 PM
Tony Borrelli | Suburban Philadelphia  Find all comments by Tony Borrelli
For the record, I did not move to Syracuse. I was having a "senior" moment while thinking of a friend in Syracuse and typed that in as my location on the earlier post. I just caught it.

News Item7/22/08 1:41 PM
ENGINEER | USA  Find all comments by ENGINEER
The Authorised Bible Translators
good BIOs of these workmen...

In the days in which our Bible was translated, the Apocrypha was accepted reading based on its historical value, though not accepted as Scripture by anyone outside of the Catholic church. The translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscnpts.

That they rejected the Apocrypha as divine is very obvious by the seven reasons given below.
7/22/08 8:25 AM ENGINEER

Tony's right that as things progressed, it was a sign of the victory of Bible Believers that you didn't need the Apocrypha as an appendix anymore.
In facts, as historical memory faded, it could be confusing, as some wouldn't know the purpose of its inclusion.


News Item7/22/08 12:54 PM
Tony Borrelli | Syracuse  Find all comments by Tony Borrelli
It is important to remember that the Reformers were just coming out of Rome. Most were ordained "priests". The Reformation, like all historical movements, grew as time went on.. Thus early Reformers held to more of Rome than they would later on. The more Rome resisted reform, the more radical the Reformation became. Thus Luthernism gave way to Calvinism which gave way to Zwinglism which gave way to Anabaptism etc. Thus the Apocrypha was slowly eased out of Protestant Bibles from being good for historical reasons only, to being not worthy to grace the same pages of Holy Writ.

News Item7/22/08 12:26 PM
ENGINEER | USA  Find all comments by ENGINEER
Mike wrote:
God tell them to?
OBVIOUS. They were responding to a worldwide CULT that used these lies that the Bible believers knew were counterfeit, fabricated, false, etc., It is obvious why they had to include them.
like including a quote from the previous writer, & saying
"Warning, what you are about to read is false, don't believe a word of it!" Their reasoning for including the false among the true:the Bible itself.
The Bible contains many lies.
The serpent in the garden, Job's comforters, the skeptics to Jesus

Joh 10:20 He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him?
WARNING above quote IS FALSE

Since the Apocrypha is partly included to rebuke lies that Romanists thought were true:
noted below
One may hardly rebuke them for including them as 'non-inspired'.
As proven below: no one at the time mistook their inclusion as anything else:they OPENLY rejected the Apocrypha.
But, now, there is little need to include these books. Hence their exclusion.

Those who sell annotated study bibles & use them are in more danger of thinking the commentary in the study bible as somehow authoritative.


News Item7/22/08 12:10 PM
Mike | New York  Find all comments by Mike
And that's not an apocryphal story...

so we can know it is a FACT that
they thought the stories 'spurious'
(another word for "apocryphal").
counterfeit, disputed, doubtful, dubious, fabricated, false, fictitious, sham, unauthentic, unreal, untrue
in the original 1611 :EVERY page of it says APOCRYPHA... as a 'heads up'.
Curious. If they were considered counterfeit, fabricated, false, etc., it seems a little more than odd to include them. Like, "Warning, what you are about to read is false, don't believe a word of it!" What kind of reasoning did they use for including the false among the true? God tell them to?

News Item7/22/08 10:29 AM
ENGINEER | USA  Find all comments by ENGINEER
preacherjond. wrote:
They clearly labeled it "Apocrypha", .
And that's not an apocryphal story...

so we can know it is a FACT that
they thought the stories 'spurious'
(another word for "apocryphal").
counterfeit, disputed, doubtful, dubious, fabricated, false, fictitious, sham, unauthentic, unreal, untrue
in the original 1611 :EVERY page of it says APOCRYPHA... as a 'heads up'.

News Item7/22/08 9:52 AM
preacherjond.  Find all comments by preacherjond.
John D. wrote:
How did you conclude the Authorised Bible translators rejected the Apocrypha as divine? I don't have my 1611 in front of me; is that in the notes somewhere? and if so, where?
They clearly labeled it "Apocrypha", and placed it between the testaments, the time period when they were written.
There are a total of 27 user comments displayed | add new comment |Subscribe to these comments
Jump to Page : [1] 2 | last
Last PostTotal
Nashville church shooting 'a terrible tragedy'
john yurich usa from usa: "a terrible tragedy."
-23 min 
Roy Moore 57, Luther Strange 41 in new Alabama GOP Senate poll
john yurich usa from usa: "strange is very strange."
-27 min 10 
Moore: ‘Crime, corruption, immorality, abortion, sodomy,...
mike from new york: " penny is it the president's fault that the sbc has put..."
-48 min 

Jim Byrd
The Day of Wrath and No..

Revelation 6:12-17
Sunday Service
13th Street Baptist Church
Play! | MP4 | RSS

Hourly: Face Temptation with Courage
David McClelland
Grace Covenant Church
Staff Picks..

Ligon Duncan
Elijah's Disappointment..

Sermons by Bob and Others
Special Meeting
Play! | MP3

Pressed by Christ's Love
Dr. Peter Masters

Southampton, PA | zip
Southampton Primitive Baptist Church

We are in your area! We'd love to have you join us for Worsh­ip!

SPONSOR | 3,400+


Access to God lies open to none but His pure worshippers. ... John Calvin

Gospel of John
Cities | Local | Personal

iPhone + iPad New!
Church App
Android New!
Church App
Kindle + Nook
Chromecast TV
Apple TV
Amazon Fire TV New!
Apple Watch
Android Wear
Kindle Reader

Uploading Sermons
Uploading Videos
Tips & Tricks
YouTube Screencasts

Weekly Newsletter
Staff Picks Feed
SA Newsroom
RSS | Twitter | Facebook
Church Finder | Info
Sermon Player
Mobile & Apps
Podcasting | Videos
Live Webcasting
Events Support
Transcription | PowerClips
Billboards Service New!
Business Cards
SOLO | MINI | Domain
Favorites | QR Codes
Online Donations
24x7 Radio Stream
Embed Codes
Logos | e-Sword | BW

Transfer Agent
Protected Podcasts
Auto-Upload Sermons
Upload via FTP
Upload via Dropbox
The largest and most trusted library of audio sermons from conservative churches and ministries worldwide.

Our Services | Articles of Faith
Broadcast With Us
Advertising | Local Ads
Support Us | Feedback Fridays | Stories