Is scionofzion.com Safe?

KJV-only website. Argues that since the word "Vatican" originally meant "divination" the Codex Vaticanus is sinful. Also, it asserts that the omissions found in it are deliberate, because "there was room left." Few of these omissions have any doctrinal relevance, and even the ones that do are nonetheless found in modern Catholic translations, going as far back as the Vulgate. (see for yourself ***** My interest was piqued by the article title "Your modern version is Roman Catholic" -but the point was only that Catholic scholars collaborated on the Nestle-Aland text (which no more makes it Catholic than makes the NEB a Quaker translation) -All of this is very much beside the point, as not only did Erasmus (compiler of the Received Text) use the Vulgate where convenient (see ***** but he was HIMSELF a Catholic Priest (see ***** -By the very reasoning used to condemn all Bibles that make use of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (for using Roman Catholic MSS), it is necessary to conclude that the KJV is ALSO a Catholic Bible (for using a Roman Catholic MS). An obvious absurdity, of course, as throughout their preface, the KJV translators were disdainful of Catholicism for its dogmatism. (see ***** It's surprising that he fuses KJV-onlyism with an opposition to Catholicism. The King James Bible was translated by Anglican Churchmen (who belonged to a religion which prides itself as sitting on the fence as regards Protestantism and Catholicism - ***** It should also be noted that King James believed that Jesus was literally present in the communion host, and for this reason wanted his Presbyterian subjects to kneel before it. He also sent a Baptist named Thomas Helwys to prison for the remainder of his life, and had the Baptist Edward Wightman burned at the stake for heresy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_I_of_England_and_religious_issues#Pur...) A second bold claim came in the article "The NIV hates the Lord Jesus." Proof of this consisted of a series of verses in which "Jesus", "Lord", etc. were replaced with "he" and the like. The author then elucidated that this conspicuous difference was on account of the 'accursed' MSS (mentioned above). These MSS are, of course, the oldest, but the author sees more to the story, these are GNOSTIC manuscripts, which deny Jesus' divinity. (this is itself a dubious claim about the gnostics that has gained wide acceptance, e.g. Dan Brown's work of fiction ***** Remember that, earlier, he insisted that these MSS were Roman Catholic, while now they are Gnostic. He associates them with Nestorianism, and is quick to point out that this was condemned as 'heresy' at the First Council at Ephesus. (There is some irony in that this was a Roman Catholic decision by a Roman Catholic council, that only assembled by the permission of a pope, Celestine I) This same council demanded that Mary be recognized as "God-Bearer", and that all who refused be excommunicated. I rather doubt the author would agree with THAT decision, or that the authority of doctrinal matters lies in the hands of a pontiff. He attacks his opponents as "intellectual idiots", but I could only say of this site that it is intellectually untrustworthy, as I hope the foregoing has shown. It is committed, not to accuracy, but to exalting the KJV at any cost, using false arguments and appeals to empty authority where convenient (by which I refer to Mr. Celestine). This is not to say that the author is Catholic by any stretch, but in his zeal for a pet translation, and armed with a deep but narrow knowledge, he makes numerous mistakes in his facts, and is inconsistent in his arguments. That said, the site won't be a problem if you have children nearby, no explicit images, and there are no viruses. But if you do visit it, check his facts, because you cannot properly assume that he has.