NO they don’t. Do you even understand what you read? Here’s the paragraph from the site you sent me to.
It is interesting to note that these two manuscripts are NOT older than the earliest versions of the Bible (the Peshitta, Italic, and Waldensian), all versions which agree with the Textus Receptus, the underlying text of the King James Bible. These anient versions are some 200 years older than Vaticanus and Sinaiticus; so the "older is better" argument should not be used.<
Seems you’re still digging that hole and you really need to stop.
“NO they don’t. Do you even understand what you read?”
Oh, my gosh. Did you even look at the very website you went to first? Here is something from the page I linked to:
SECOND SENTENCE ON THE PAGE!!!!!!!!! “So, let’s examine if OLDER necessarily equates with BETTER, shall we?”
“The evidence shows that both codices (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) ... Yes, these two codices are older than other Greek manuscripts...”
OLDER. Then they throw in this caveat: “It is interesting to note that these two manuscripts are NOT older than the earliest versions of the Bible (the Peshitta, Italic, and Waldensian), all versions which agree with the Textus Receptus, the underlying text of the King James Bible.”
The Peshitta is NOT Hebrew. The Italic is NOT Hebrew. The Waldensian is NOT Hebrew.
PAY ATTENTION TO THE WEBSITES YOU CHOOSE TO USE and answer your own question: “Do you even understand what you read?”
You need to learn to read:
“Peshitta, Italic, and Waldensian” are said to “all versions which agree with the Textus Receptus,”.
They are NOT the Testus Receptus. You do know the difference between “agree with” and “are”, right?
The hole is all yours and you’re deep down in it.