lambslave wrote:The problem you are having is that you are using an inferior manuscript evidence, the TR, used in the KJV. Look at the diffference between the two texts:
the Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, [etc] used in more recent NASB, NIV, RSV
4ὁ ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον θεὸν ἢ σέβασμα, ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν του̂ θεου̂ καθίσαι ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστιν θεός.
Black, Matthew ; Martini, Carlo M. ; Metzger, Bruce M. ; Wikgren, Allen: The Greek New Testament. electronic ed. of the 3rd ed. (Corrected). Federal Republic of Germany : United Bible Societies, 1983; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996, S. 2 Th 2:4
the Textus Receptus, KJV
4 ὁ ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πα̂ν λεγόμενον Θεὸν ἢ σέβασμα, ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν του̂ Θεου̂ ὡς Θεὸν καθίσαι, ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστι Θεός.
Scrivener's 1881 Textus Receptus . electronic ed. Oak Harbor, WA : Logos Research Systems, 1995, S. 2 Th 2:4
This is why verse four in the KJV is a mess. It should say, so as to seat himself in the temple of God. Hoste plus infinitive. lambslave
It seems that the sinaiticus is by far the inferior and corrupted text. Unless proven otherwise. Please see link, though I am not a KJV only kinda guy, maybe I should be. http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/codex ... icus.html/
The Sinaiticus was written by three different scribes and was corrected later by several others. (This was the conclusion of an extensive investigation by H.J.M. Milne and T.C. Skeat of the British Museum, which was published in Scribes and Correctors of Codex Sinaiticus, London, 1938.) Tischendorf counted 14,800 corrections in this manuscript (David Brown, The Great Uncials, 2000). Dr. F.H.A. Scrivener, who published A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus in 1864 testified: "The Codex is covered with alterations of an obviously correctional character—brought in by at least ten different revisers, some of them systematically spread over every page, others occasional, or limited to separate portions of the manuscript, many of these being contemporaneous with the first writer, but for the greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh century." Thus, it is evident that scribes in bygone centuries did not consider the Sinaiticus to represent a pure text. Why it should be so revered by modern textual critics is a mystery.
A great amount of carelessness is exhibited in the copying and correction. "Codex Sinaiticus 'abounds with errors of the eye and pen to an extent not indeed unparalleled, but happily rather unusual in documents of first-rate importance.' On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament." (John Burgon, The Revision Revised)It is clear that the scribes who copied the Codex Sinaiticus were not faithful men of God who treated the Scriptures with utmost reverence. The total number of words omitted in the Sinaiticus in the Gospels alone is 3,455 compared with the Greek Received Text (Burgon, p. 75).
Mark 16:9-20 is omitted in the Codex Sinaiticus, but it was originally there and has been erased.
Codex Sinaiticus includes the apocryphal books (Esdras, Tobit, Judith, I and IV Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus) plus two heretical writings, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. The apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas is filled with heresies and fanciful allegorizing, claiming, for example, that Abraham knew Greek and baptism is necessary for salvation. The Shepherd of Hermas is a gnostic writing that presents the heresy that the "Christ Spirit" came upon Jesus at his baptism.
Lastly, Codex Sinaiticus (along with Codex Vaticanus), exhibits clear gnostic influence. In John 1:18 "the only begotten Son" is changed to "the only begotten God," thus perpetuating the ancient Arian heresy that disassociates the Son Jesus Christ with God Himself by breaking the clear connection between "God" of John 1:1 with "the Son" of John 1:18. We know that God was not begotten; it was the Son who was begotten in the incarnation.
clearly the sinaiticus is heretical and should not be used for any purpose
sorry to hijack and sidetrack, but I cant stand to see garbage promotedhttp://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/textus_receptus.html/
Why did the early churches of the 2 nd and 3rd centuries and all the Protestant Reformers of the
15th, 16th and 17th centuries choose Textus Receptus in preference to the Minority Texts?
The answer is because of the following:
Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (over 95%) of the 5,300+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.
Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text.
Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the Minority Texts (like Vatican and Sinai) favored by the Roman Catholic Church.
Textus Receptus agrees wih the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers.
Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and unbelief.
Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the Saviour's miracles, his bodily resurrection, his literal return and the cleansing power of his blood!