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?

The quotation I reproduced I gained from a book borrowed from a College library, and I did not take sufficient details, which was remiss of me. But I remember it well. Burgon's general position was similar to that of S P Tregelles. Neither were rigid Textus Receptus only scholars, for all their rejection of Westcott etc.

As to other ancient versions: The Vulgate manuscripts Dublinensis, and Harleianus both omit the Comma. It is absent also from almost all other versions: Coptic, Syriac, Slavonic, Ethiopic, and most of the Armenian - save for a small handful of these.

Let me make several points about what de Jonge actually says:
1. True, he can find no evidence that Erasmus made any promise to include the verse if a Greek manuscript could be found containing it.
2. True again, he did not, as far as his writings indicate, write a protest expressing his grave suspicions that the manuscript which subsequently turned up (MS Gregroy 61) had been made to order.

However, de Jonge confirms that this MS had been made to order (p.386), and does cite Erasmus' admission, "Although I suspect this manuscript too, to have been revised after the manuscripts of the Latin world", and was "recent" (p.387).

The Fouad Papyrus is part of the Chester Beatty collection, but the manuscripts you mention are NT portions, and date to the C3rd A.D. In any collection each fragment must be considered individually: just because P45 etc date to the C3rd A.D. does not mean that the Fouad fragment (no.266) does so too. On the contrary, the Fouad Papyrus dates to either the late C3rd B.C. or to the early C2nd. Meanwhile, the Qumran fragments of the LXX belong to the C2nd. B.C.

hidemi williges wrote:
...the Fouad Papyri, I find only references to the New World Translation by the Watchtower Assn.
Why not be specific about Aleph, A and B by calling them by their names (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Ephraemi Rescriptus?
You (just like DJC49 and Rogerant) have not shown any proof, just examples of supposed evidence that the Septuagint was written before the 4th century.

Point 2: Codex Aleph is Sinaiticus (as you say), but Codex A is Alexandrinus; and Codex B is Vaticanus. Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus is Codex C. I thought you would be aware of this since you parade yourself as one in the know.

Point 3: My point was that the Fouad Papyrus dates from not merely prior to the C4th A.D. but is PRE-CHRISTIAN (C3rd B.C.)! And it is not the only pre-Christian manuscript of the LXX that is extant, not by far. But even if it were the only one, that by itself destroys the KJVO position that the LXX is of post-Christian origin (Origen or whoever).

You cited Isa.29:13 from the LXX, but omitted the words after houtos, viz. en tw stomati autou, kai en... Then your quotation from Mark 7:6-7 reproduced only the introduction to the quotation, no the quotation itself. The actual quotation occurs in Mark 7:6b-7, and when one compares it with the original LXX it corresponds quite closely, the only variations as follows:
The words above (en tw stomati etc.) are omitted;
Mark has me tima, where the LXX has timwsi me;
In the last line (of the Mark citation) there is a variation of word order, but without any variation of meaning.
Otherwise the quotation corresponds exactly. Mark IS quoting the LXX, and to suggest otherwise is the merest nit-picking.

To show this, there is a papyrus fragment of the psalm in question in the British Museum (No.230, from the C3rd A.D., containing Psa.12:7 - 15:4). This apparently does not contain the added words, although I will need to verify this.

As to the pre-Christian origin of the LXX, one does not need to lean on the Letter of Aristeas. Pre-Christian fragments of the LXX have turned up in both Egypt and at Qumran. There are several collections, and there is one fragment from the C3rd B.C., the Fouad Papyrus, containing a portion of Deut.

The standard texts on homosexuality, or sodomy, are abundantly clear: Lev.18:22; 20:13; Rom.1:26-7; 1 Cor.6:9-10. This is the case in whatever version you choose. The only difference now is the prevalent human inclination to explain these away, manifesting that ever-present sinful human rebellion against God's law and standards.

From your remarks re the KJV vis-a-vis modern versions you much prefer the former. That's fine. Blessings on you! All I ask is that you don't make it a law for others, myself included. If I have given you the impression that I demand that you use the NASB or whatever, I withdraw such an implication. It was not my intention to assert that.

However, when 'a kjv lover' gives voice to this view, it does get my hackles up:

"The Divinely Inspired, Preserved & Perpetuating ETERNAL WORD OF THE LIVING GOD In The English Language!"

Do you endorse that viewpoint? If so, let me tell you it is heresy. It is no part of the faith of the Church through the ages; it has no Scriptural support (the oft-quoted Psa.12:6-7; Psa.119:89 have nothing to do with the issue), and it denigrates the original text and languages. It is a Johnny-come-lately doctrine which finds no support e.g. in Miles Smith's "Translators to the Reader".

So then, go ahead and read and find blessing in the KJV by all means, while I will find the same blessing in the NASB.

I look forward to discussing things further. But I'm a bit weary right now.
I had a global warm-mongerer attack my web-page on global warming earlier on, and I had to reply to that, then go to Bible study.

Let me make two further points in reply and clarification:
1. When you say that Christ from heaven is calling to Himself a people, and reigning in the lives of the redeemed - fine! Precisely my point: calling and ruling in lives is the exercise of kingship. He reigns as His Kingdom is extended; cf. the Kingdom parables in Matt.13. However, it's only a Reformed view of salvation that enables one to assert this, and you seem to be coming from that perspective. The Arminian/semi-Pelagians on this board cannot say this sort of thing.

2. Yet there is still the more general rule over the nations, whereby He reigns such that ALL things (and people) are brought to a climax in the fulness of time (Eph.1:10-11). IOW, not only a saving rule, but a providential rule as well. That's the bit that premill'sm is strongly moved to reject: just look at the rhetoric from the likes of JD!! His view of Christ's reign certainly is Deistic!

Also, whether the prince who shall come is Titus or Christ, the outcome is the same: the event is the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. On one view the prince is Titus directly; on the other the prince is Christ who employs Titus as His agent.

Whatever, the prophecy was completely fulfilled by 70 A.D., and thereby the six objectives of v.24 were accomplished.

You are right about the covenant: it's not some peace treaty 2000+ years hence, but the one covenant of which the Saviour is Mediator and Redeemer, confirmed by Messiah's death, Heb.9:15.

Daniel Lee Ford wrote:
Looks like the FOUNDATION of Wesley's work, and continued `blessed preaching' was from the Authorised Bible.
Others on this site note Billy Graham's early use of the 1611 and blessing, and then the decline when he slipped into new versions.

On Billy Graham: one could likewise "prove" that because the incidence of mental illness increases every full moon, therefore full moon causes that increase; or that because the the thunder stops whenever the tribesman offers sacrifice therefore offering sacrifice will make the thunder cease. IOW, this argument is nothing more than the fallacy of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc", and proves nothing.

The issue was the argument for the KJV along the line of "God used it in revivals of the past, therefore that somehow vindicates it."

In response I pointed out that an acknowledged revival leader, John Wesley, made an extensive series of corrections to the KJV, along with his "Notes on the New Testament", for the benefit of his converts. Is he therefore a corrupter of the Word of God; and, Did God use him for the revival of Christianity in the C18th? (My answers are "no" and "yes" respectively)

The issue is not how great or otherwise Wesley was, or whether his views are relevant today. It is simply this, to stick to the point:
Is this line of argument (above) valid or not? Although I have seen it from KJVO folks many times, it would appear from the various responses to my question that, when faced with the Wesley evidence, your answer is, "NO, it is not valid."

JD wrote:
John Wesley and his work and what he did and their results are not the standard for truth, the word of God is.
Perhaps if he would have taken a stronger stand on the Word of God his legacy would have reaped better rewards.

Now, for you is this a valid line of argument, or not? Just answer the simple question, because I have seen this line on this board many times from various people.

Then to cast aspersions on Wesley's commitment to Scripture, that "if Wesley had taken a stronger stand on the Word of God...&c" is a base slander. You obviously have not read his sermons and writings! His commitment to the supreme authority of Scripture is unimpeachable. I think it's merely because for you he dared to correct the sacred KJV that his commitment is somehow under suspicion.