The devil is in the detail AGAIN. In the 19th century, almost all Bible translations had a spurious Trinitarian addition at 1 John 5:7. The Sinaitic Syriac does not have this long conclusion either, adding further evidence that the long conclusion is a later addition and was not originally part of Marks Gospel. The 4th century Codex Sinaiticus manuscript ("the Sinai Book") is one of the most important texts in Christianity, dating to the time of Constantine the Great. Bro. It must be stated that most modern versions/translations still have statements in their pages that will support the divinity of Jesus Christ and His work on earth and on the cross, and all or most of His message etc. Unbelievable! Wilbur N. Pickering, Th.M Ph.D is qioted as saying Please give a link that is based on literature and that would show the inauthenticity of Codex Sinaiticus. For those of us that interested in the background of texts, such as whether the verses are original or vary, it would make sense to have an annotated version of the Bible, whatever your faith might be, even if it is absent. See the works of Dr.Ivan Panin on internet concerning this and other issues.. BAS seems to use the Codex when it suits the notion that Yeshua was not the Son of God. Pilate was used to trouble makers in Judea and he saw and heard a lot of phony messiahs, and many of those were armed to the teeth to try and get rid of Romes power base in Judea. ECT - Textus Receptus (Majority Text) versus the Alexandrian I will want a copy of the oldest new testament it is written how Jesus says it should be. You are applying 20th century, literate society ideas on a first century oral transmission society. Being in the ultimate best group (your current religion is the correct one of course) is a very powerful aphrodisiac. Theres also another question which IS academic but also glossed over: What's Missing from Codex Sinaiticus, the Oldest New Testament? Corrupt Path - The 'Minority Text' consists of only 5% of existing manuscripts. There also was the first letter to the Corinthian church which described resurrection appearances and so on..And there are numerous modern scholars (agnostic, Christian, not Christianapparently also Jewish) who assert that belief in the physical resurrection rose up within the church immediately. A court is not the appropriate place to prove or disprove the authenticity of old manuscripts. This is old news for many. Many of the larger monasteries had a scriptorium in which the production of new manuscripts was constant. The Greek text obtained by using these sources and the related papyri (our most ancient manuscripts . While faith comes by the hearing of the Word, the fact that there is the omission of the ending of St. Marks Gospel in the Sinaiticus, whatever the reason, does not prevent the Holy Spirit from bringing hearers to the knowledge of salvation in Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Son of God. Nevertheless, for many readers and contributors to this forum, there are things in that entry which they might not agree with; others might not bat an eye. One said to the other of the Textus Receptus Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS. Since 1611, older, more accurate Bible manuscripts have been discovered; the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. People will accept critical change if it appears in small and harmless doses. and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and Who is the envisioned recipient of this article? Please site such evidence if it exists. What is so important about the KJV being a translation from the Textus Receptus (received text)???