LOL! "Least altered???"
I guess that might be true. Who needs to "alter" a forgery?
Amazing, isn't it, to think there are some people who actually believe some questionable fragments (still in good shape and thus obviously not widely used or accepted) were "discovered" only a few hundred years ago, and were judged as authentic by the RCC, when they are actually just more intrigue and diversion from Rome.
The Vaticanus and Sinaitcus disagree with each other over 3,000 in the Gospels alone, while all manuscripts of the Textus Receptus agree with each other over 95%!
From the following excellent site...
The Vaticanus was found... in 1481 in the Vatican library in Rome, where it is currently held..." ""The Sinaiticus is a manuscript that was found in 1844 in a trash pile in St.Catherine's Monastery near Mt. Sinai, by a man named Mr Tischendorf. It contains nearly all of the New Testament plus it adds the 'Shepherd of Hermes' and the 'Epistle of Barnabas' to the New Testament...
And where no man can view the "original," but only "copies" of it distributed by Rome.
You can fool some people some of the time...
A fact Rome has counted on for quite a while.
As usual, this is an untruth.
Sinaiticus is a mid 4th century Bible. What proof do you have that it is a "forgery?"
The Vaticanus and Sinaitcus disagree with each other over 3,000 in the Gospels alone, while all manuscripts of the Textus Receptus agree with each other over 95%!
The KJV had hundreds of erros in its first edition, what singificane are the 3,000 variants in the two Codices you mention? The more polished a version simply means it is more altered. It doesn't mean is ti more God-breathed!
B. The Alexandrian Text-type
This is a very small group of manuscripts. Peculiarities of spelling show that they are to be associated with Alexandria in Egypt; and, not surprisingly, readings from this type of text are to be found among the early Egyptian papyri (e.g., P46, P47). Its chief representatives, however, are Codex Sinaiticus (or Codex Aleph) and Codex Vaticanus (or Codex B).
Support for this text-type comes from the Alexandrian Fathers, most notably from Origen (AD 185-254) and Cyril (376-444).
Several things should be observed here:
1. This text-type originated from Alexandria, in Egypt. Scripture gives no indication that there was ever an apostolic presence in those parts, but church history reveals that many notorious heretics lived and taught there including such Gnostics as Basilides, Isidore, and Valentinus. Anything proceeding from this place must be regarded with some suspicion.
2. There is clear evidence of revision by its rearrangement of words. B.H. Streeter suggested that the editor was an Egyptian bishop called Hesychius.23 This means that although great claims are made for it, this text-type cannot be regarded as singularly “pure”.
3. The two great representatives of this text-type, Codices Aleph (Sinaiticus) and B (Vaticanus) are exceedingly poor in quality. When examined by Dr. F.H.A. Scrivener, Codex Aleph was declared to be “roughly written” and “full of gross transcriptural blunders” such as “leaving out whole lines of the original”. Codex B, although “less faulty”, was found to be “liable to err” committing “errors of the most palpable character”.24
4. These principal manuscripts show their corruptions by disagreeing with themselves in literally thousands of places (3,000 times in the Gospels alone).
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/