Question:
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus VS. Textus Receptus-- which one to follow? Please help?
James
2012-09-14 04:47:55 UTC
I have come to Christ from Hinduism. I have been with the Bible and going to a Church for sometime now. But, I am so confused which one to follow:
Some say Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the "Oldest and more accurate" manuscripts (from which we have our NASB, NIV and other modern Bible translations-- they get their support because these are older to the next kind of manuscript, Textus Receptus.

Again others say that Textus Receptus is the TRUE manuscript (pure) and the former two have many errors and many human made changes.

On one side they say that the Textus Receptus scribes corrected the "Corrections" of the former two texts and hence KJV have those additional verses.

But the people supporting the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus say that since Textus Receptus came after these two, many things must have been erroneously added to the texts.

Both use the scripture from revelation that one should not either add nor remove things from the Bible. TR group says that things were "REMOVED" and the other group says things were "ADDED".

Please help me. I am weeping while I am typing this since I really want to follow the right translation.

PLEASE HELP with the TRUE answer.

Thanks
Eleven answers:
Annsan_In_Him
2012-09-14 05:14:08 UTC
Before the Reformation, the Western Church used the Vulgate Bible, which was in Latin. It was a closed book to most of the populace. An 'infallible' test for revealing a heretic to Roman Catholic authorities in the Middle Ages was to see if they possessed, or even knew any part of the Bible in their own language.



The King James Version comes down through the Hebrew-Masoretic Texts (Old Testament) and Koine Greek Texts (as written by the apostles and those who knew Jesus.) This formed the original Old Latin Version (as opposed to the one corrupted by Jerome and adopted by the Catholic Church - the Latin Vulgate). It became known as the Textus Receptus.



The Bible was first translated into English in 1382 by John Wycliffe, who worked from the Latin Vulgate. Wycliffe's Bible was immediately outlawed by the Catholic church, and anyone caught reading or reciting biblical passages in English faced imprisonment and even death for heresy.

In 1525 William Tyndale completed the translation of the New Testament from its original Koine Greek into English. He also translated most of the Old Testament from Hebrew to English, but was unable to complete the work before his death in 1536 (he was burned at the stake as a heretic).



Guttenberg's first printing job was the Bible, in 1453. It was not the Vulgate. This one had been translated from the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, known as the Majority or Traditional Text. Erasmus published the first printed Greek New Testament in 1516, then came the Tyndale/Coverdale Bibles in 1525; the Geneva Bible in 1560; the Bishops' Bible in 1568 and then King James I of England & VI of Scotland commissioned the KJV which was published in 1611. The KJV had used the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Received Text alongside working from the Bishops' Bible. You can get a list of the various translators at http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/transtoc.htm



All other Bibles come down through the Latin Vulgate, Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus. The Catholic Church helped to preserve these texts while at the same time murdering those who would preserve and preach the texts derived/descended from the Textus Receptus.



The group that put together the NIV used the Westcott and Hort manuscripts to create their version, making well over 30,000 changes to the word of God (when compared with the KJV), even removing verses at times (eg Matthew 18:11 among many omissions). The King James Version, commissioned by its namesake, was finished in 1611, with the Apocrypha included, thought to be because of King James' Catholic wife. The 1669 version of the King James removed the Apocrypha and tweaked some of the minor misprints.



That is a bit of history for you and I hope it helps you understand the differences. Nearly all the Christians I know use BOTH the KJV AND modern ones using the other pedigree of manuscripts. There is no single "right" translation! Ordinary Christians like you and I cannot know how best to choose, but the Holy Spirit guides us. He uses all different kinds of translations to 'speak' to seekers. Whatever part of God's written word a person comes across, the Holy Spirit can use to convert them and teach them. I've even known the notoriously corrupted Jehovah's Witness translation be used to show people the deity of Christ! Despite their efforts to water that down, it's still there and the Holy Spirit brings necessary points to the attention of people. Don't weep! Just thank God that we have such an abundance of Bibles today!
Paul
2012-09-14 05:07:24 UTC
Unless you are doing a degree in theology it's not really a big deal, the principles are largely the same throughout.



Sinaticus and Vaticanus have other books that are not in any of the proetestant translations such as the Shephard of Hermes but the people who argue over TR vs WH (Wescott & Horte) don't argue over the canon of the bible - that's a different debate altogether.



If you read the two bibles and get past the flowery English of the seventeenth century the differences are largely irrelevant.



At a normal level there is nothing in it worth crying over, you can pick either and it won't make a tiny bit of difference to your christianity.



Can you see any differences between say the NIV and the KJV that actually makes a difference on a practical level to your christianity? Have you ever seen a bible where "Thou shalt not kill" becomes "Thou shalt kill"? Of course not! Does it matter whether the text says nobody lights a lamp and places it under a bushell or a basket? The point of the metaphor is still equally valid.



Your point about the slight differences in the texts used for translations though are very sound and it should warn you off getting sucked into arguemens and controversies about the law which as the bible says are unprofitable.



Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. (NIV)



Let's just see what the good old KJV (based on the textus receptus) has to say.



But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.



See how there's no significant difference?
heyner
2016-12-11 21:16:06 UTC
Textus Receptus Vs
2012-09-14 07:30:20 UTC
This is one of the reasons why we have experts in the field of Biblical languages and Biblical manuscripts.



They determine - using objective and statistical methods - which texts are most reliable and how likely it is that they are unaltered.



Naturally we - the ignorant masses - should accept the carefully-studied findings of this large body of especially-trained people who have gone to great pains to discover the truth for us *based on expert knowledge*.



These scholars are in agreement regarding the Textus Receptus: it includes very many additions and alterations.



They are not so clear-cut about Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (statistics vary from verse to verse)...but the point is that **they have carefully, logically, scientifically and expertly evaluated every single word and every single verse in every single known original language manuscript**. They don't tell you "Textus Receptus is preserved by God because I believe it." They don't tell you, "Vaticanus is best because it is oldest." They tell you, "This verse that is found in all of these copies is probably original and these are the reasons for believing that; the next verse, which is found in a different set of copies, is probably original and these are the reasons for believing that; the next verse, which is found in a different set of copies, is probably original and these are the reasons for believing that." etc.



The scholars who make this determination by analyzing all of the known Biblical manuscripts in excruciating detail have produced what are called "critical texts", and these are the texts used by almost all appropriately-accredited Biblical language scholars when producing a new Bible translation. So: the critical language texts are far, far more reliable than any other source (including all of those that you mention) simply because they are the result of careful expert analysis rather than the result of unthinking doctrine or wishful thinking.



- Jim, http://www.BibleSelector.com/
synopsis
2012-09-14 04:55:28 UTC
God didn't send a Book, He sent His Son.



Sinaiticus was never intended as a 'definitive Bible' (it has variant readings, and lacunae are marked in the text); nor was any early manuscript.



The Textus Receptus was a good text at the time (though it is now severely out of date). It also has the advantage of being Roman Catholic (it was compiled by Desiderius Erasmus).



If you seriously wish to follow Christianity, pray for guidance and use your head.



'God made the Angels to worship Him by their glory; the animals to worship Him by their innocence; but Man to worship Him by His intelligence.'
2012-09-14 04:52:42 UTC
Codex Sinaiticus is your best bet as it is the closest translation to the Japanese Originals™



Vaticanus is riddled with "errors" and is guilty of "leaving things out" due to "preferences."



==



>Follow any major English version of the Bible and you will be quite all right.



Don't be so goddam stupid. The English versions are just about the worst you can follow. The Bible WAS NOT written in English NOR was it intended for English speaking people..
2016-05-18 03:21:25 UTC
according to some views the King James Bible, an english version of the Bible was translated from the textus receptus in the new testament and using the septuagint version of the OT, the new versions use different manuscripts and the masoretic text or septuagint version of the OT
2012-09-14 04:52:05 UTC
Follow any major English version of the Bible and you will be quite all right.



The deficiency lies not in the text of Scripture, but in the human heart.



What matters is that you receive the Spirit of Christ:



http://4laws.com/laws/english/flash/



http://www.biblegateway.com/
?
2012-09-14 04:59:36 UTC
The correct one is the Textus Receptus.



https://shop.avpublications.com/product_info.php?products_id=77



http://www.biblebelievers.com/Reagan_TALE3cities.html



http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/Gipp/ab_toc.htm



http://www.av1611.org/voice1.html



Search for the names Gail Riplinger and Samuel Gipp, both give accurate information the the true bible versions.

Please read this short article from Samuel Gipp, about the Textus Receptus.

http://samgipp.com/answerbook/?page=48.htm
Richard
2017-02-24 09:01:36 UTC
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are actually the same. Vaticanus is a manuscript of the Vatican, and the Sinaiticus is a manuscript found in a monastery (vatican controlled) at Mt. Sinai. Vaticanus dates back to about 400 AD. Here is the thing. The archaeologists can only find a few manuscripts to back up either of these, but can find thousands to back up Textus Receptus (the one that the King James is based from). I am about finished with two studies and about to start writing books on those studies, and I'm now just starting to study this conundrum. I enjoy KJ, but I'm not a KJ onlyism just because. I find a plethora of errors in the other perverted translations. Too numerous to even begin listing here. So many of them dismiss the deity of Yeshua (Jesus). I've attached just a tiny sample of the differences. And if you understand the identity of the beast in Revelation 17, you do want to avoid Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus both. We also need to remember that the KJ was written in 1611, and the English language in England is not exactly the same as what we speak today, so on some words, it is important to have access to a 1611 dictionary, right? I find this website to be helpful (http://av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-dictionary/kjv-dictionary-index.html), and if you do not have a KJ Bible and you want one, "e-sword" is a free program that has a LOT of free extra downloads you can download. It has KJ1611+, and Strong's, and if you use the 1611+ and have Strong's open, and then click on the number by the word you want to know more about, that information will appear (http://www.e-sword.net/downloads.html). These two help me immensely in my study. But in all my time going into deeper study, I have found more and more errors in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and I've stayed with the KJ. Now, don't let people try to fool you by saying their bible was written with the Wescott and Hortt, well, which transcripts did they use??? Or the "Vulgate", all this is, is the Vaticanus translated into Latin, don't be too impressed here. I hope this helped.
implumbus
2012-09-14 04:52:21 UTC
neither are close to the original...both are mans concept of God....and God is clear..His ways are better than ours...



stop looking for a version of His Word and seek Him...who is life...


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...