The Codex Sinaiticus is now available online for viewing and reading. I find it quite fascinating (although I have only gone through parts of it), and am curious to hear what the likes of Pletho, NR, and Splendour have to say about it.

In particular, some modifications made by the church, and differences in the modern bible and the Codex Sinaiticus (and other Codex's) include:

1. In Matthew 5:22, the words "without cause" are missing in both the codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
2. The words of Matthew 6:13 "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever." Do not exist in these two most ancient manuscripts as well as many others. The parallel passages in Luke are also defective.
3. The original text of Matthew 8:2 as found in Codex Sinaiticus tells us that a leper asked Jesus to heal him and Jesus "angrily put forth [his] hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean." In our modern Bibles, the word "angrily" is strangely absent.
4. Matthew 17:21 is missing in Codex Sinaiticus.
5. Matthew 21:7 in our modern Bibles reads "And [the disciples] brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set [Jesus] thereon." In the original manuscripts, this verse read "and they set [Jesus] upon them," However, the picture of Jesus being placed upon two animals at the same time and being asked to ride them at once was objectionable to some, so this verse was changed to "and they set [Jesus] upon him" (which "him"?). Soon after, the English translation completely avoided this problem by translating it as "thereon."
6. Matthew 27:35 in our modern Bibles contains the words "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots." This passage, once again, is not found according to Rev. Merrill in any Biblical uncial manuscript dating before the ninth century.
7. In our modern Bibles, Mark 1:1 reads "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;" however, in this most ancient of all Christian manuscripts, this verse only reads "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ" Strangely, the very words which are most grating to the Quran, "the Son of God," are completely missing.
8. In Mark 6:11, our modern Bibles contain the words "Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city." However, these words are not to be found in either of these two most ancient of Christian Biblical manuscripts, having been introduced into the text centuries later.
9. In Mark chapter 9, the words "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." are again missing.
10. The words of Jesus in Luke 9:55-56 are missing.
11. Luke 22:44 in Codex Sinaiticus and our modern Bibles claim that an angel appeared before Jesus, strengthening him. In Codex Vaticanus, this angel is strangely absent.
12. The alleged words of Jesus on the cross "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34) were originally present in the Codex Sinaiticus but was later erased from the text by another editor.
13. John 5:4 is missing from Codex Sinaiticus.
14. 1 Timothy 3:16 originally read "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: which was manifest in the flesh.." This was then later ever so subtly changed to "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh…." Thus, the doctrine of the "incarnation" was born.

I would recommend researching/taking a look at this for anyone interested in the true history and nature of the Bible.

http://www.codex-sinaiticus.net/

I am assuming these are your notes on the passages? Did you bother to cross reference them with the NASB?

I see no issues here at all.

no, these are not my notes, just notes from a random website listing just some of the differences between the codex sinaiticus and the modern bible.

if you find no issues with there being differences between the two, then thats your prerogative.

Most of these notes are obviously done by someone with an extreme bias against the bible. And in most of them they were being very dishonest in their representation of what is in or not in "modern" bibles. They seem to think that the KJV is the modern bible, when most people would consider it to be the last translation that one should use.

Pletho, and his following, consider the KJV to be the *only* translation one should use. I imagine the majority of *other* Christians couldn't care less about the differences in the Codex's and the current NASB.

that said, the fact that there *are* differences should be at least a bit concerning, no?

"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. " - Matthew 5:18

What does this verse have to do with the topic at hand?

i think you can figure that one out on your own. if you dont think it has anything to do with the topic, then ignore it.

I should have been more explicit, i dont think you know what Jesus is refering to when he says "Law"

what do you think it means?

rofl

it literally doesnt matter what you post OP. there will never be an issue for a believer. the bible can say "please enslave everyone to the maximum amount possible" and it wouldnt matter in the least. to the unquestioning believer, the mind is infinitely maliable.

The issue, Jib, is that the KJV was, for centuries, the unquestioned Word of God (and still is, according to Pletho). The reality, however, shows that it is nothing more than a flawed work of man -- which has been proven over and over by better and more trustworthy manuscripts.

Doesn't this give you pause?

Of course you don't.

Awww, isn't that cute, Hopey thinks that he is contributing again. Such a sweet little scamp.

Now let the grown ups talk dear.

You need to come up with your own material instead of stealing mine.

lol, What! That's one of my favorite lines. I always use that.

First off, when you look at the "discrepancies" they are all pretty much negligible. No doctrinal change would arise from them.

Secondly, one of the major issue the "church" had was being so dogmatic. They did not follow the bible and it led them into issues, they plucked out of the bible what they needed to do what they wanted to anyway.

If the "church" was following the tradition of the early church then it would not be as big of a deal, as they did not focus on the little things but just tried to stay firm in the core teachings.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...2&postcount=11

lol, how the **** did you find that?

Anyway, that line is classic me. I try not to be anymore, but irl I was one condescending ****. And it is a lot funnier to say this to someones face, especially if you do not know them.

There are really two issues with for me here:

1. Books/Epistles/Whatever, that exist in these older manuscripts that no longer appear in modern bibles. If the Church thought it was ok to remove/add some verses/words here and there, why should we trust they didnt remove whole books for their purposes?

2. Adding removing words makes a huge difference. Maybe the meaning is fairly similar, but it just shows you the extent the Church was/is willing to go to to try to "pretty up" Christianity. The "angrily" removal is a great example ... can't have Jesus doing anything angrily! oh no! that would show that he isn't as all-loving and accepting as we want people to believe!

Law= God' instructions for man= bible

I might be a dick at times during internet discussions, but I would never say "Now let the grownups talk" to strangers and think it is funny (nor clever or original).

Now, wait a minute. Is the Bible the Word of God, or isn't it? Or is it just "close" to the Word of God -- kinda sorta.

This would be like me walking in to my financial advisor's office with $10K to talk to him about a stock I like. "Well, we don't have the actual financial statements for this company, but they're "close" -- kinda sorta."

The difference is, I'm risking 10K on "kinda-sorta", and you're risking your eternal soul.

I find this ridiculous.

Your comment is obviously from someone with an extreme bias against anything that questions the Bible.

I know dknight already addressed this, but you do realize there are many christians who would fiercely disagree with you on this. This is the kind of thing that leads to whole groups of people forming their own off shoot churches.

question... I thought I remembered that this passage was added to later additions of the Bible because people had been changing the Bible so often. Does that sound correct or am I thinking of a similar but different passage? If this is the correct passage, then the irony is delicious.

I can't quote specifics because it was awhile ago that I read it... but Bart Ehrman's work listed a number of passages like dknight quoted in the original post above and discussed how they were considered very significant at the time. He discussed what groups scholars believe made the changes and why (related to doctrinal differences between different sects of the church)

There's plenty of scholarly research that would show, historically, you're probably wrong.

(To be fair, the changes may be negligible to you know, but they were not neglible to the people who added them. There were battles between different sects as to what the language should be as different groups were making small changes to reflect how they wanted the Bible to be interpreted. Because you don't understand the significance of the change does not mean that it isn't meaningful. More importantly, it demonstrates that the Bible cannot be the 'word of God' because it has been changed by man (sometimes in contradictory and significant ways) throughout time to reflect what man wanted it to say.)