new

Hi all,

I'll begin this little tale by saying that my daughter is interested in learning sign language. So....I went online and found out that a University on the other side of our state has a "chimposium", where the chimps actually communicate through signing. Brilliant! I scheduled an appointment time and in the weeee hours a couple of days later we jumped in the car and headed off on our 5 hour journey to chimpville.

This is where it all begins. Our group consisted of about 25 people and we were led into a classroom for about 25 minutes of "education" about the chimps. We were told how we, as humans, branched off from the chimps approx. 7 million years ago. Oh boy, I thought....what have I done? Just when I thought it couldn't get worse, we were then told that before we could go into the viewing room, we would need to hunch over and stick out our lower jaw to make the chimps feel more at ease. Oh golly, this was not looking good. But in the name of amusement, we laughed to ourselves and went forward into the land of Uncle Bob. And let me tell ya, they were not happy to see us (senile I think).

The chimps only knew certain words to sign. One of them kept signing the word "black" which we were told was his way of saying "cool". What? Again I'll say it, what? These poor little guys were angry and expressed it quite well. Apparently, they weren't happy to see their long lost relatives and the progress we've made. "But Uncle Bob, it's me!" I kept muttering under my breath. Nothing. Not a single ounce of recognition. No signing "I love you" or "I've missed you, where have you been?". Wow! That's all I can say, too much time had passed.

On a more serious note, my heart ached for the young college kids involved in this program who are being brainwashed into thinking this garbage. Help me to lift them up in prayer, that their eyes, hearts, minds and spirits will be open to the truth!

[trying to explain why early bible fragments don't match the KJV]

I'm not too keen on the Sinaiticus's accuracy (or the Codex Vaticanus, or the dead sea scrolls for that matter).

It maybe one of the oldest bible texts, but it resembles more of a first draft than anything due to all the insertions and omissions. It doesn't even agree with other scripts that are considered very old (and even those other scripts don't agree with each other).

The only reason I think there are occasional pieces are found else where is because they needed the scrap parchment. [...]

Why isn't there any super old texts of the bible that closely match today's King James bible or the Textus Receptus (which there is not longer a copy of)?
It is said either the Textus Receptus was lost, or never was a single document, but rather a consensus of trusted translated scripts which consisted of the majority of texts found with very little variation minus any printing errors that may have occured as printing was a new technology (which is about 95% of old texts avalaible).
Even so, if the original was really lost, we shouldn't despair, as the copies or related texts are essentially the same due to the copying method. The oldest text is not needed for validation of the bible.

The problem is, people and some bible scholars don't recognize this, so they take the oldest script they can possibly find, fill in the missing places with other scripts to formulate their new translations of the bible or use it to prove the bible's validity, but get stuck when people say the old version isn't the same as newer scripts or evidence for X religion is still much older.

Why do these old erroneous scripts still exist? Why are they more likely to be kept? For the same illogical reasoning above. They don't realize the power in the copying method used. So when they come across something "different" they try to preserve it, whether it be hiding it in a library hundreds of years ago, or archeologists and librarians finding it now.
The only thing the Codex Sinaiticus proves is that bible did exist back then.