There are more interpretations of the Bible than ever. Some think this is a good thing. Others bemoan the departure from "tradition". Some don't think it matters. Some people read the version of the Bible that seems to suit them best, while others research the background of various versions so they can find the one that evidence shows is the most faithful. To summarize this issue, some people believe that they need to take heed to verses like Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:5-6, Matthew 5:18, Matthew 24:35, and Revelation 22:18-19. They believe that the Bible is the word of God, and is to be treated and followed as such. They believe that despite the efforts of man and Satan to destroy and corrupt the scriptures, God has actively preserved His written word for us through the centuries (Psalm 12:6-7, Psalm 100:5, Psalm 117:2). This is a belief system or worldview as it is called today which informs their whole outlook. Other people don't embrace this view. They think that the Bible is just the word of man, or they believe that it has been changed so much over the years that we no longer have the accurate word of God, and therefore don't have to take it so literally or seriously. Others believe they have the right to decide what it should say and mean using their own criteria. This belief also informs their approach to life. They look at rules as guidelines or suggestions to be followed when it is convenient or it seems appropriate to them. They may even go so far as to look at rules as things to get away with breaking as much as possible. You may say that which version of the Bible you read most has nothing to do with your spiritual condition. I hope the following information sheds some helpful and instructive light on this issue, and lets you know about what sources you are using to feed your spirit. The following is a compilation of information from many resources.
I. The Masoretic Hebrew text of the Old Testament from which the OT of the KJV was
translated
A. When Jews would make copies of the Bible, they took extraordinary care of what they were
writing to make sure everything was letter perfect and holy before the Lord. The following
author writes about the rules listed in the Talmud (Jewish commentary) for copying scrolls:
"The parchment had to be made... from the skins of clean animals. The ink had to be of no
other color than black and had to be prepared according to a precise formula. No word or
letter could be written from memory. The Scribe had to have an authentic copy before him,
and he had to read and pronounce aloud each word before writing it. The Scribe had to
reverently wipe his pen each time before writing the word for God, and he had to wash his
whole body in the mikvah, the ceremonial bath, before writing the sacred Name, Jehovah
(YHWH). One mistake on a sheet condemned the sheet. If three mistakes were found on
any given page, the entire manuscript was condemned. Every word and every letter was
counted, and if a letter was omitted, an extra letter inserted, or if one letter touched another,
the manuscript was condemned and destroyed at once." - Diane A. McNeil, Ruth 3,000
Years of Sleeping Prophecy Awakened, Xulon Press, 2005, p. 226-227. Elder Rabbis would
also give a warning to new scribes: "Take heed how thou dost do thy work, for thy work is
the work of heaven, lest thou drop or add a letter of a manuscript and so become a destroyer of the world." -Diane A. McNeil, Ruth 3,000 Years of Sleeping Prophecy Awakened,
Xulon Press, 2005, p. 227
B. The Masoretic text was thoroughly confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls.
II. The KJV
A. Before the KJV
In 1382 AD John Wycliffe was the first person to translate the complete English Bible from
the Latin vulgate. John was known as someone with immense energy and great courage, he
also trained young men to spread the word of God. The Catholic church was going to burn
John but he when to be with the Lord when he was saved by a stroke, but after he died and
was buried, they dug up his bones and burned them 44 years later. His disciples were
captured by the Catholic Church, their Bible translation was hung around their necks and
they were burnt alive at the stake. Bear in mind that there was no printing press in those
day thus copies of the Bible were done by hand-taking aprox 10 months.
In 1509, where King Henry VIII succeeded King Henry VII. In 1525AD William Tyndale
translated the first New Testament – this was printed from the original language. This was
the first Bible to be printed in English by the printing press. William Tyndale was a master
linguist of Oxford and Cambridge Universities. This was the first Bible translated from the
original languages. He completed translating the New Testament in 1525. It’s estimated that
18,000 copies were secretly shipped to England. Though the Catholic church ordered that
the Bibles were to be intercepted and burnt. They caught up with Tyndale after he was
betrayed by Henry Phillips (someone who befriended William, only later to betray him) and
on October 6th 1536 he was taken to be burned alive. His last words were a prayer, where he
prayed “Lord, Open the King of England’s eyes”.
Then in 1537AD the Tyndale-Matthews Bible (the second Bible printed in English was
released). Due to William Tyndale not finishing the translation of the Old Testament, John
Rodgers finished the task, though he used an alias “Thomas Matthew” to avoid persecution from the Catholic Church who forbid translation/printing of Bibles in English. Catholics
caught up to John Rodgers in 1555 and he was sentenced to be burned alive. He was given
an opportunity to recant to which John said “That which I have preached I will seal with my
blood.”. His wife and eleven children were not even allowed to see him until his was on his
way to the stake to die.
Then in 1539AD – Tyndale’s prayer was answered, 3 years later. The “Great Bible” was the
first authorised Bible in English. King Henry the 8th authorized this for public use. This was
due to the fact there was a split from the Catholic Church over the Pope and King Henry
having a disagreement over marriage/divorce. The translation used the Tyndale Bible, Latin
Vulgate and German text sources for its translation. The Bible is also known as the
Cromwell Bible, Whitchurch Bible, The Chained Bible and also the Cranmer Bible.
A number of protestant scholars fled persecution from England to Geneva, Switzerland. And
a new English translation of the Bible was undertaken under William Whittingham, who
supervised the Bible translation known as the Geneva Bible. This was done in collaboration
with Myles Coverdale, Christopher Goodman, Anthony Gilby, Thomas Sampson and
William Cole. In 1560AD the Geneva Bible was printed, the first English Bible to add
verses numbers to each chapter. This Bible was used by John Bunyan (the author of Pilgrims
Progress). This Bible was also the first to be machine produced to make the Bible publicly
available. This Bible came with an apparatus as well as study guides and aids. Most people
preferred this over the great Bible.
Queen Elizabeth in 1568AD had The Bishops Bible printed to improve on the previous
translation under the authority of the Church of England. This was the only legal authorized
version of the Bible for use in the Anglican church.
In 1603 Queen Elizabeth died and was succeeded by King James. King James was the King
of Scotland, but when Queen Elizabeth died, having no heirs/children and being unmarried
and King James being the closest relative became king of England in 1603. King James was
known to be very intelligent, considered to be one of the smartest meant to ever sit on the
throne. He helped people in England study science, literature and art. He was a God-fearing
believer with a strong character.
Is it true that King James was a homosexual? The easiest way to answer this silly
statement is to is answer it with this quote from a book written by King James- Basilikon
Doron (A Greek title that means Royal Gift). “There are some horrible crimes that ye are
bound in conscience never to forgive; such as witchcraft, wilful murder, incest and
sodemy.” James instructed his eldest son, Henry, in the following way: "But especially
eschew [i.e. hate] to be effeminate in your clothes, in perfuming, preining, or such like...
and make not a fool of yourself in disguising or wearing long your hair or nails," -Stephen
A. Coston & Richard D. Neumeier, King James, the VI of Scotland & the I of England:
Unjustly Accused?, KonigsWort, 1996, p. 4, ISBN: 9780965677738
B. The translators
The King James Version was not just the work of one man, but the work of a very large
conference of the best men of God in England, and every problem was worked out by God's
inspiration and the majority opinion. In 1604 at the Hampton court a conference was held to
discuss the issue. The attendees other than the King were his council of advisors, bishops
and Puritans. They discussed the translations and said that available translations were not
accurate and not answerable to the originals. So King James ordered a new translation. It
was to be accurate and true to the originals. He appointed 54 of the nations finest language
scholars and approved rules for carefully checking the results. It was said that “no marginal
notes at all are to be affixed but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words.” It
was decreed that special pain would be “taken for a uniform translation, which should be
done by the best learned men in both Universities, then reviewed by the bishops, presented
to the Privy council, and lastly ratified by the royal authority. 54 scholars were
commissioned, split into 6 companies into 3 groups (Cambridge, Oxford and Westminster)
to translate, review and check each translation. But first who were they? What kind of men
were they ?
First Lancelot Andrews, the director of the Westminster group, he was known as a great
man knowing over 15 modern languages as well as 6 ancient languages fluently, possessing a photographic memory. He prayed at least 5 hours a day, also said he abstained
from levity and mirth. Meaning he didn’t joke about serious issues and didn’t joke around - a very serious man. King James would say “No levity, brother Andrews is in court” – he was a
godly man.
Miles Smith, from the Oxford group. Smith was the one who wrote the preface of the KJV.
He went through the Greek and Latin fathers making notations in the writings of more than
300 church fathers from 100-600AD. He was familiar with the rabbinical glosses and
comments in the margins of the Masoretic Text. He had the Hebrew language at his finger
tips. He was also an expert in the Chaldea or Aramaic, Syriac and Arabic languages.
John Bois was in the Cambridge group. He learned Hebrew from his father. By the age of
six he was able to write Hebrew language legibly. He also had skill in Greek, spending 16
hours in the library without rest reading and studying the Greek language. He read through
the whole Old Testament by age five.
C. Directly from Hebrew and Greek
D. Textus receptus over 5,000 copies, now over 20,000
E. The English of the King James Version isn't nearly as hard to follow as its critics say. In
fact, it is in general written in a much simpler vocabulary, with a higher percentage of one
and two-syllable words, than almost any of the modern translations. The King James
Version, in fact, is almost universally acknowledged as the greatest of all masterpieces of
English literature. Believe it or not, some of the features most criticized in the King James
Bible are among the best reasons to keep it! For example, consider the "thee's" and "thou's."
The King James Version was not written in the everyday language of people on the street in
1611. It was written in high English, a very precise form of our language. The translators
italicized words they put into the text that do not appear in the original language.
The King James language is not hard to understand. Most of the so-called "archaic" words
are explained by the context of the passage or by comparing the passage with other
passages in the Bible where the same word is used. Heady and high-minded people resent
the King James language because it is plain and simple, and it isn't in tune with their high-
minded vocabulary.
In fact, the Grade Level Indicator of the Flesch-Kincaid research company says
the King James language is easier to understand than the new versions. We certainly
agree that the language of the King James Bible is a unique language, but why shouldn't it
be? It's the WORD OF GOD! The KJV was penned at the pinnacle of English writing style,
and it served as a common fount of influence for classic authors for over three hundred
years. For this and other reasons we'll explore, the KJV stands alone as being uniquely
suited to serve as our "prime spine" in a classic literary curriculum. The way children
encounter information today is changing. As image-based information becomes more
prevalent, our cultural mastery of language is eroding. In response, modern schools move
toward materials and methods that are more image-based, and less language-based, than
those used in the past. But the great teachers of the past knew something so simple it's
profound: wrestling with rich language develops a strong, agile mind. Their master tool was
a literary curriculum, which is inherently language-based. Studies now confirm what they
knew by instinct: whereas images are largely passively received and require minimal
exercise of the brain, grappling with language requires the mind to work, flex, expand, and
make connections. However, the watered-down English that modern children typically
encounter is by no means a worthy wrestling partner. At the same time, as our hurried
postmodern ears grow more itchy for sound-bites than for rich, exact language, we've
gradually lost thousands of precise and useful words from common use. Dictionaries
require revision with increasing frequency, as publishers find that trying to define what has
perhaps become undefinable -- "standard" English -- is rather like trying to paint the
definitive portrait of a chameleon.
And so it happened that the King James Bible was translated by
scholars of a uniquely verbal, word-dependent age. We can scarcely imagine such an age
nowadays, utterly devoid as it was of our modern dependence on image-based information.
Absent our ubiquitous glut of flickering screens, visual media and instantly available music,
we sense that mere words in that day more truly tickled the eye and ear. A fresh page of
written words commanded eager, vigorous attention, being the sole cultural transport of
news and ideas aside from word-of-mouth. Vocabulary was a craft; more lithe, richer in
breadth and depth, more colorful. Sentence construction was an art form in itself!
This phenomenon is also well-known among adult readers who study Charlotte Mason's
writings together in groups. In the many years I've participated in these studies, I've seen it
noted repeatedly that KJV readers have a head start toward accessing the depths of Miss
Mason's ideas. She was a daily reader of the KJV throughout her life, and thus her writings
are richly sprinkled with phrases, metaphors and references lifted directly from its pages. If
we come upon these references in a ready state of familiarity with their source and the
underlying context it provides, we may readily make the leap to her meaning. This is
precisely that science of relations she urges us toward! And this is that ease, that ready
"Aha!" of a connection well-made, which we seek for our children in their literary journeys.
And yet, despite the sure benefits, perhaps you still fear the KJV will be unapproachable for
you and your children. After all, we've been barraged by publishing marketers with the
notion that the KJV is just too hard for us (despite the fact that it was originally purposed as
a Bible for the common man!). Do you note the curious double standard afoot here? It
seems we do not hesitate to set our children upon a daunting course of Latin to expand their
vocabulary and grasp of great literature; we enthusiastically endorse a steady course of
"real" Shakespeare; we hand our children old, weighty volumes such as Bulfinch's
Mythology and Plutarch's Lives because they are bedrock foundations of Western literature.
Why, then, do we look upon the King James Bible, which offers similar language
experience as well as unexcelled, broadening literary enrichment, with fear and hesitancy?
How curious, really, that modern believers, especially those among us who claim to relish
great literature, should look upon this crowning literary achievement of the Christian era as
a distant and unapproachable relation! No need to keep your distance: the KJV is a truly
accessible work. After all, it was the Bible of common folk for over three hundred years,
read by peasant and scholar alike. And its effect was powerful -- the church in that period
flourished. Here we have the most universally beloved and captivating book in Western
history, and we should be reassured to note that if all those legions of readers could handle
it, surely we may expect to as well. Begin to choose memory verses from the KJV. Studies
have shown that it is more easily memorized than other versions, due to its rhythm and
meter - that "fine roll" to which Miss Mason referred.
Opposing Argument: The King James Bible is just too hard to read.
Those who make this argument have no clue what they're saying, and typically, when
someone makes this argument, it's a good indicator that you're dealing with someone who
doesn't bother to check out facts, but rather, he/she is just looking to make excuses for
themselves. The Flesch-Kincaid research company did analysis of Bible versions, and
compared them to standard grade school reading levels: "The KJV ranks easier in 23 out of
26 comparisons. (Their formula is: (.39 x average number of words per sentence) + (11.8 x
average number of syllables per word) - (15.59) = grade level. The first chapter of the first
and last books of both the Old and New Testaments were compared. (All complete
sentences, whether terminating in a period, colon, or semi-colon, and all incomplete
phrases ending in a period, were calculated as 'sentences'.)" -G.A. Riplinger, New Age Bible
Versions: An Exhaustive Documentation Exposing The Message, Men and Manuscripts
Moving Manking To The Antichrist's One World Religion, A.V. Publications, 1993, p. 195-
196, ISBN: 0-9635845-0-2
KJB NIV NASV TEV (GNB) NKJV
Genesis 1 4.4 5.1 4.7 5.1 5.2
Malachi 1 4.6 4.8 5.1 5.4 4.6
Matthew 1 6.1 16.4 6.8 11.8 10.3
Revelation 1 7.5 7.1 7.7 6.5 7.7
Grade
Level
Average 5.8 8.4 6.1 7.2 6.9
The KJB is averaging between 1-3 grade school levels lower in its overall difficulty of
reading, and this is because it uses less complicated words that use less syllables per word.
Let's look at examples of this in the NASV vs the KJB, and count out the syllables in each
word as you read through these:
Personal pronouns beginning with "T" (specifically Thee, Thou, Thy, Thine) are
SINGULAR. Those beginning with "Y" (specifically Ye, You, Your) are PLURAL
See John 3:5
Singular Plural
1 (I) think (we) think
2 (thou) thinkest (you) think
3 (he) thinketh (they) think
See Jn 3:8
F. The King James Bible translators used a superior method in translating called formal
equivalency. Formal Equivalence, sometimes called Verbal Equivalence is a method of
translation, which takes the Greek, and Hebrew words and renders them as closely as
possible into English. This is the method used by the King James translators and is certainly
a superior method, seeing that our Lord is concerned about every word, even the jots and
tittles (Matthew 5:18; 24:35). Others, however, seek "dynamic equivalence." The "formal
equivalence" approach seeks to express in English the meaning of the words in Greek. The
"dynamic equivalence" approach seeks to express the meaning of the writer in modern
idiom. Unlike now they were strict and wanted to make it as accurate as possible. Every
translator of each company translated every chapter and verse of the books allocated to
them, then gathered and decided what translation was best.
After deciding the best translation they would then discuss and arrive at a final translation.
After they completed their translation they then passed this to the other companies. All
companies then translated it again separately, then after this was completed formed a joint
committee with 2 members from each company to make a final translation. This would mean 14 translations would be made before the final was decided. This team technique is
unequalled by any modern translation. If in any areas the translators didn’t agree – it was to
be given to a general committee made up of the heads of the 6 companies to make a final
decision. Other bishops and learned men in the land were invited to send contributions to the
various companies. They used Masoretic text for the Old Testament and the
Antiochan/Texus Receptus manuscripts for the New Testament. They researched everything
Thoroughly. There was a reason for every detail in the Bible. In 1611 the Authorized KJV
was published.
III. Wescott and Hort
After hearing the scholars Westcott and Hort venerated as spiritual giants, he becomes
acquainted with their personal correspondence in which they endorse evolution, socialism,
globalism, disarmament, spiritism, purgatory and communal living while deprecating the
inspiration of Scripture, salvation by grace, a literal Heaven and Hell and the United States
of America. Modern versions are erected on the faulty foundation of doubt! Here’s why I
say that. Westcott and Hort speculated, with no evidence to support their idea, that the
"pure" text of the New Testament had been lost. They said that the Antiochian text (also
called the Traditional Text, Textus Receptus, etc.), the text type behind the King James New
Testament, was an artificial and arbitrarily invented text, fabricated between 250 A.D. and
350 A.D. In fact, Westcott and Hort asserted that it remained lost until the 19th century
when Vaticanus was rediscovered 1845 in the Vatican library, where it had lain since 1481
and Sinaiticus was discovered in a wastebasket in St. Catherine’s Monastery in 1844.
Dr. Edward Hills wrote, "Westcott (picture to the right) and Hort followed an essentially
naturalistic Method. Indeed they prided themselves on treating the text of the New
Testament as they would that of any other book, making little or nothing of inspiration and
providence." (Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, pp. 65,66).
In other words, they treated the Bible just like they would the works of Plato, Shakespeare,
C. S. Lewis, J. K. Rowling or any other fallible book. In fact, neither believed in the
infallibility of the Bible. Brooke Foss Westcott stated "I never read of the account of a
miracle but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of
evidence in the account of it." (Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott; page 216)
Again Westcott said, "I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly."
(The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, p.207).
First, the new Bible versions are built on the Greek New Testament compiled by them.
Secondly, current day New Version Potentate Princeton Theological Seminary Professor
Bruce Metzger has a low regard for the Scriptures as well. He doubts Moses alone authored
the Pentateuch. As Co-editor of the New Oxford Annotated Bible RSV he wrote or
approved of notes asserting that the Pentateuch is "a matrix of myth, legend, and history"
that "took shape over a long period of time" and is "not to be read as history." Job is called
an "ancient folktale." And the book of Isaiah was written by at least three men. Jonah is
called "popular legend." Then add to that that Metzger claims that the Gospels are
composed of material gathered from oral tradition. The problem is, he completely ignores
the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the testimony of the Bible itself.
So, what manuscripts did Westcott and Hort use to get their Greek New Testament? They
used primarily two old 4th century manuscripts for their work. Hort’s partiality for Codex
Vaticanus (B) was practically absolute. Intuitively (without evidence) he believed it to be a
near perfect representation of the Greek New Testament. Whenever pages were missing in
Vaticanus he would use Codex Sinaiticus (ALEPH) to fill in the gap. And there was plenty
missing from Vaticanus. Barry Burtons writes in his book Let's Weigh the Evidence, "it
omits…Matthew 3, the Pauline Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon),
Hebrews 9:14 to 13:25, and all of Revelation... in the gospels alone it leaves out 237 words,
452 clauses and 748 whole sentences, which hundreds of later copies agree together as
having the same words in the same places, the same clauses in the same places and the
same sentences in the same places." Floyd Jones further notes that Matthew 16:2-3 and
Romans 16:24 are missing.
Here is a key fact you should know about Codex Vaticanus (B) -- "The entire manuscript
has had the text mutilated, every letter has been run over with a pen, making exact
identification of many of the characters impossible." More specifically, the manuscript is
faded in places; scholars think it was overwritten letter by letter in the 10th or 11th century,
with accents and breathing marks added along with corrections from the 8th, 10th and 15th
centuries. Those who study manuscripts say that all this activity makes precise paleographic analysis impossible.
Missing portions were supplied in the 15th century by copying other
Greek manuscripts. How can you call this manuscript "the oldest and the best."?
What about Codex Sinaiticus (ALEPH)? This is a Greek manuscript of the Old and New
Testaments, found on Mount Sinai, in St. Catherine's Monastery, which was a Greek
Orthodox Monastery, by Constantine Tischendorf. He was visiting there in 1844, under the
patronage of Frederick Augustus, King of Saxony, when he discovered 34 leaves in a
rubbish basket. He was permitted to take them, but did not get the remainder of the
manuscript until 1859. Konstantin Von Tischendorf identified the handwriting of four
different scribes in the writing of that text. But that is not the end of the scribal problems!
The early corrections of the manuscript are made from Origen's corrupt source. As many as ten scribes tampered with the codex. Tischendorf said he "counted 14,800 alterations
and corrections in Sinaiticus." Alterations, and more alterations, and more alterations were
made, and in fact, most of them are believed to be made in the 6th and 7th centuries. So
much for the oldest! "On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and
revisions, done by 10 different people." He goes on to say, "…the New Testament…is
extremely unreliable…on many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40, words are dropped…letters,
words even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately
canceled. That gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the
same word as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament."
That these men should lend their influence to a family of MSS which have a history of
attacking and diluting the major doctrines of the Bible should not come as a surprise.
Oddly enough, neither man believed that the Bible should be treated any differently than
the writings of the lost historians and philosophers!
We must also confront Hort's disbelief that the Bible was infallible: "If you make a
decided conviction of the absolute infallibility of the N.T. practically a sine qua non for
cooperation, I fear I could not join you." He also stated: "But I am not able to go as far as
you in asserting the absolute infallibility of a canonical writing."
(All quotes are taken from the book: "An Understandable History of the Bible", by Samuel
C. Gipp)
Hort was also a lover of Greek philosophy. In writing to Mr. A. Macmillan, he stated:
"You seem to make (Greek) philosophy worthless for those who have received the
Christian revelation. To me, though in a hazy way, it seems full of precious truth of which
I find nothing, and should be very much astonished and perplexed to find anything in
revelation."
He did not believe in a personal devil: "Now if there be a devil, he cannot merely bear a
corrupted and marred image of God; he must be wholly evil, his name evil, his every
energy and act evil. Would it not be a violation of the divine attributes for the Word to be
actively the support of such a nature as that?"
He did not believe in hell: "Certainly in my case it proceeds from no personal dread; when
I have been living most godlessly, I have never been able to frighten myself with visions
of a distant future, even while I 'held' the doctrine." Rather, he believed in purgatory: "The
idea of purgation, of cleansing as by fire, seems to me inseparable from what the Bible
teaches us of the Divine chastisements; and, though little is directly said rejecting the
future state, it seems to me incredible that the Divine chastisements should in this respect
change their character when this visible life is ended.
In fact, Hort considered the teachings of Christ's atonement as heresy! "Certainly nothing
can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and
sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy."
Also suspect is Hort's delving into the supernatural along with his good friend, Brooke
Foss Westcott, and others in what was called the 'Ghostly Guild': "Westcott, Gorham,
C.B., Scott, Benson, Bradshaw, Luard, etc., and I have started a society for the
investigation of ghosts and all supernatural appearances and effects, being all disposed to
believe that such things really exist, and ought to be discriminated from hoaxes and mere
subjective delusions; we shall be happy to obtain any good accounts well authenticated
with names. Westcott is drawing up a schedule of questions. Cope calls us the 'Cock and
Bull Club'; our own temporary name is the 'Ghostly Guild'."
Unfortunately for the "new Bible" supporters, Dr. Westcott's credentials are even more
anti-biblical. Westcott did not believe that Genesis 1-3 should be taken literally. He also
thought that "Moses" and "David" were poetic characters whom Jesus Christ referred to by
name only because the common people accepted them as authentic.
Westcott believed Heaven to be a state and not a literal place. Note the following
quotations from Bishop Westcott: "No doubt the language of the Rubric is unguarded, but
it saves us from the error of connecting the Presence of Christ's glorified humanity with
place; 'heaven is a state and not a place…’ We may reasonably hope, by patient, resolute,
faithful, united endeavour to find heaven about us here, the glory of our earthly life."
Westcott – “Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise.” (Westcott, On the
Canon of the New Testament, p. vii).
Westcott – “(Hell is) not the place of punishment of the guilty, (it is) the common abode of
departed spirits.” (Westcott, Historic Faith, pp.77-78).
Westcott – “No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for
example, give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with
open eyes could think they did.” (Westcott, cited from Which Bible?, p. 191).
Hort – “I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and ‘Jesus’-worship
have very much in common in their causes and their results.” (Life, Vol.II, p.50).
Hort – “We have no sure knowledge of future punishment, and the word eternal has a far
higher meaning.” (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p.149).
So who cares what Westcott and Hort believed? The reason is that although someone
might have the technical skills and knowledge to translate text, if the translator has a bias
or disbelieves the original text this will come through in the new translation. For example
the NIV version of the Bible being gender neutral. 2 of the translators were sodomites. It is
logical, if you have a democratic text in a foreign language would you trust a translation
from a communist and expect it to be accurate? Of course not.
Hort: “I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little
Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus.. Think of that vile
Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS.; it is a blessing there are such early ones”
(Life, Vol.I, p.211). Dec. 29,30th 1851
“I am inclined to think that no such state as “Eden” (I mean the popular notion) ever
existed, and that Adam’s fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants
(Life of Hort Vol I page 78)”
"I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness."
-Brooke Westcott, quoted by Michael Dedivonai, The Questi for Truth, AuthorHouse,
2012, p. 563, ISBN: 9781477263471
"Further I agree with them [Authors of "Essays and Reviews"] in condemning many
leading specific doctrines of the popular theology ... Evangelicals seem to me perverted
rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the
subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible."
-Fenton J. A. Hort, letter to Rev. Rowland Williams, Oct 21, 1858; See also Sir Arthur
Hort, Life and letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Macmillan, Vol. 1, 1896, p. 400
Hort believed in Darwinian evolution:
"The beginning of an individual is precisely as inconceivable as the beginning of a
species...It certainly startles me to find you saying that you have seen no facts which
support such as view as Darwin's... But it seems to me the most probable manner of
development, and the reflexions suggested by his book drove me to the conclusion that
some kind of development must be supposed,"
-Fenton J. A. Hort, letter to Brooke F. Westcott, Oct 15, 1850; See also Sir Arthur Hort,
Life and letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Macmillan, Vol. 1, 1896, p. 431
"Have you read Darwin? How I should like a talk with you about it! In spite of
difficulties, I am inclined to think it unanswerable. In any case it is a treat to read such a
book."
-Fenton J. A. Hort, letter to Brooke F. Westcott, Mar 10, 1860; See also Sir Arthur Hort,
Life and letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Macmillan, Vol. 1, 1896, p. 414
Hort believed in works-based doctrine that denies Jesus Christ:
"The fact is, I do not see how God's justice can be satisfied without every man's suffering
in his own person the full penalty for his sins,"
-Fenton J. A. Hort, letter to Rev. F. D. Maurice, Nov 16, 1849; See also Sir Arthur Hort,
Life and letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Macmillan, Vol. 1, 1896, p. 120
That these men should lend their influence to a family of MSS which have a history of
attacking and diluting the major doctrines of the Bible should not come as a surprise.
Oddly enough, neither man believed that the Bible should be treated any differently than
the writings of the lost historians and philosophers!
(All quotes are taken from the book: "An Understandable History of the Bible", by
Samuel C. Gipp)
Hort was also a lover of Greek philosophy. In writing to Mr. A. Macmillan, he stated:
"You seem to make (Greek) philosophy worthless for those who have received the
Christian revelation. To me, though in a hazy way, it seems full of precious truth of which
I find nothing, and should be very much astonished and perplexed to find anything in
revelation."
Dr. Hort also believed that the Roman Catholic teaching of "baptismal regeneration" was
more correct than the "evangelical" teaching: "...at the same time in language stating that
we maintain 'Baptismal Regeneration' as the most important of doctrines... the pure
'Romish' view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the
Evangelical." He also stated that, "Baptism assures us that we are children of God,
members of Christ and His body, and heirs of the heavenly kingdom."
Also suspect is Hort's delving into the supernatural along with his good friend, Brooke
Foss Westcott, and others in what was called the 'Ghostly Guild': "Westcott, Gorham,
C.B., Scott, Benson, Bradshaw, Luard, etc., and I have started a society for the
investigation of ghosts and all supernatural appearances and effects, being all disposed to
believe that such things really exist, and ought to be discriminated from hoaxes and mere
subjective delusions; we shall be happy to obtain any good accounts well authenticated
with names. Westcott is drawing up a schedule of questions. Cope calls us the 'Cock and
Bull Club'; our own temporary name is the 'Ghostly Guild'."
Unfortunately for the "new Bible" supporters, Dr. Westcott's credentials are even more
anti-biblical. Westcott did not believe that Genesis 1-3 should be taken literally. He also
thought that "Moses" and "David" were poetic characters whom Jesus Christ referred to by
name only because the common people accepted them as authentic.
IV. Other interpretations based on Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts
A. Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts, as well as certain others, which were discovered in the
19th Century and which were older, accepted by the scholars Westcott, Hort, Nestle, basis
for all the subsequent modern English translations.
Vaticanus, as its name implies, is in the Vatican library at Rome. No one knows when it was
placed in the Vatican library, but its existence was first made known in 1841.
This Codex omits many portions of Scripture vital to Christian doctrine. Vaticanus omits
GENESIS 1:1 through GENESIS 46:28; PSALM 106 through 138; MATTHEW 16:2-3;
ROMANS 16:24; the Pauline Pastoral Epistles; REVELATION; and everything in
HEBREWS after 9:14.
The Vaticanus is considered to be the most authoritative, although it is responsible for over
thirty-six thousand changes that appear today in the new versions. This perverted
manuscript contains the books of the pagan Apocrypha, which are not Scripture; it omits
the pastoral epistles (I Timothy through Titus), the Book of Revelation, and it cuts off the
Book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14 (a very convenient stopping point for the Catholic
Church, since God forbids their priesthood in Hebrews 10!). The attacks on the Word of
God found in these manuscripts originated in Alexandria, Egypt with the deceitful work
of such pagan Greek "scholars" as Origen and Clement of Alexandria. Then in 313 A.D.
the Roman emperor Constantine ordered fifty copies of "the Bible" from Eusebius, the
Bishop of Caesaria. Eusebius, being a devout student of Origin's work, chose to send him
manuscripts filled with Alexandrian corruption, rather than sending him the true word of
God in the Syrian text from Antioch, Syria. So the corrupt Alexandrian text (also called
the "Egyptian" or "Hesychian" type text) found its way into the Vatican manuscript, then
eventually into the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, and finally into the new "Bible" versions
in your local "Christian" bookstore. Therefore, when you hear or read of someone
"correcting" the King James Bible with "older" or "more authoritative" manuscripts, you
are simply hearing someone trying to use a Roman Catholic text to overthrow the
God-honored text of the Protestant Reformation and the great revivals.
With the fourth-century codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus being recommended as the two
most reliable manuscripts worthy of supplanting the time-honored Textus Receptus, the
reader learns the facts of their defective character which reveal their disagreement with
each other in over 3,000 places in the Gospels alone.
Vaticanus leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of
careless transcriptions on every page. Codex Sinaiticus abounds with errors of the eye and
pen to an extent not indeed unparalleled, but happily rather unusual in documents of first-
rate importance. On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very
carelessness. Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over,
or begun and immediately cancelled; while that gross blunder whereby a clause is omitted
because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than
115 times in the New Testament.
Vaticanus, though intact physically, is found to be of very poor literary quality. It exhibits
numerous places where the scribe has written the same word or phrase twice in
succession. The mass of corrections and scribal changes render its testimony highly suspicious and questionable.
Vaticanus leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of
careless transcriptions on every page. Codex Sinaiticus abounds with errors of the eye and
pen to an extent not indeed unparalleled, but happily rather unusual in documents of first-
rate importance. On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very
carelessness. Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or
begun and immediately cancelled; while that gross blunder whereby a clause is omitted
because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament.
In 1844, Count Tishendorf found a manuscript in the rubbish in the St Catherine
Monastery on Mount Sinai. This script is called the Codex Sinaiticus also known as Codex
Alef. Linguistic scholars observed that is was very poorly written- with repeated sentences,
missing words as well as other issues such as spelling and grammar.
It had about 400 pages, it contained about 1/2 the Old Testament from the Septuagint and
the full New Testament. It has been dated around the 4th century. It seems even the writer
realized that it belonged in the rubbish. It would have been better off being left there.
Apart from their obvious issues, Both Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus disagree with
themselves over 3,000 times, but even though this was the case a Greek translation was put
together from these sources.
Sinaiticus from all outward appearances looks very beautiful. But it contains many spurious books such as the "Shepherd of Hermes," the "Epistle of Barnabas," and even the "Didache".
It has survived time well, but being in good physical shape by no means makes its contents
trustworthy. The Codex is covered with alterations... brought in by at least ten different
revisers.
"Codex B differs from the commonly received Text of Scripture in the Gospels alone in
578 places, of which no less than 2877 are instances of omission." Dean J. Burgon,
Causes of Corruption of the New Testament Text, Sovereign Grace Publishers, 2000, p. 5,
ISBN: 9781878442871
"The Codex is covered with such alterations... brought in by at least ten different revisors,
some of them systematically spread over every page, others occasional or limited to
separated portions of the manuscript, many of these being contemporaneous with the first
writer, but for the greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh century."-Dr. Frederick H.
Scrivener, quoted in Johnson's Universal Cyclopedia, published A.J. Johnson & Co., 1886,
p. 135; See also David Fuller, True or False?, Grand Rapids International Publications,
1973, p. 74-75.
There is clear evidence of many different edits of this document, bearing the language used
around the 6th or 7th century. The only thing "original" about this document is the
imagination of each person who changed it.
It seems suspicious indeed that a MS possessed by the Roman Catholic Church omits the
portion of the book of Hebrews which exposes the "mass" as totally useless. (Please read
HEBREWS 10:10-12). The "mass" in conjunction with the false doctrine of purgatory go
hand-in-hand to form a perpetual money-making machine for Rome. It also omits portions
of Scripture telling of the creation (GENESIS), the prophetic details of the crucifixion
(PSALM 22), and, of course, the portion which prophesies of the destruction of Babylon
(Rome), the great whore of REVELATION chapter 17.
B. Some new Bibles are dangerous because of the theological bias of their translators. The
Revised Standard Version of the Bible was presented to the public as a completed work in
1952. It was authorized by the notoriously liberal National Council of Churches. The
unbelieving bias of the majority of the translators is evident in such readings as Isaiah 7:14:
The Good News Bible (or, properly, Today's English Version) was translated by neo-
orthodox Richard Bratcher, and purposely replaces the word "blood" with the word "death"
in many New Testament passages that refer to the blood of Christ (such as Colossians 1:20,
Hebrews 10:19, and Revelation 1:5). Bratcher also replaces the word "virgin" with "girl" in
Luke 1:27. His theological bias ruins his translation. Other versions, such as the Phillips
translation and the New English Bible, were also produced by liberal or neo-orthodox
religionists. New American Standard Bible or the New International Version, he finds the
whole story of the woman taken in adultery set apart with lines or brackets. A note is placed
in relation to the bracketed section that says something like this: "The earliest and most
reliable manuscripts do not have John 7:53 – 8:11." Something similar is done to the great
commission in Mark 16:9-20.
Christians ought to be interested in having the very words of God, since this is what Jesus
said we need! Anyone who takes seriously our Lord's admonition in Matthew 4:4 will want
a "formal equivalence" translation. Several of the new versions do not offer this to us. The
so-called "Living Bible" does not even pretend to be a translation of the words. Copies of
this book clearly identify it as a "paraphrase" of God's Word. Dr. Kenneth Taylor wrote the
Living Bible, and freely admitted that it was his paraphrase of the Scriptures.
The looseness of the N.I.V.'s translation is admitted by the publishers and well-known. The
scholars who did the translation believe that it is possible and beneficial to put into English
what the writers of scripture meant, rather than what they actually said. One great problem
with this approach is the element of interpretation that is introduced into the translation
process. To translate is to put it into English. To interpret is to explain what it means.
The real changes (over 36,000 of them) didn't start until the modern revisionists came on
the scene.
That's not all that the wicked NIV deceivers took out of the Bible. It's not surprising that the
word “sodomite” is completely gone, when you learn that an open unrepentant homosexual,
Dr. Marten Woudstra (now deceased), was the chairman of the Old Testament committee.
According to Wikipedia.org, the New International Bible (NIV) is the most popular Bible
version today. What Zondervan Publishers won't tell you is that they are owned
by Harper Collins, who also publishes The Satanic Bible and The Joy of Gay Sex.
First, the NIV 2011, following the TNIV, employs gender-neutral language by neutering the
masculine pronouns. Gender-neutral language is not illegitimate if the biblical text is
speaking generically about human beings (e.g., Acts 17:25) but is suspect if the biblical text
is referring to a specific sex.
The NIV might have 64,000 words less, roughly, (63,203) than a King James Bible.
In the early 90s, out came the KJV/NKJV Parallel Bible. Look at the back cover. It reads:
"Nelson's KJV/NKJV Parallel Bible with Center-Column References is ... a great way to
enjoy and compare the beauty and accuracy of both the enduring King James Version and
the outstanding New King James Version without having two Bibles open." And then he
says "And this is the perfect transition Bible if you are thinking about moving from the
classic King James to a modern translation." Harper Collins bought Thomas Nelson and
now 55% of all the Bibles that we can possibly get, are coming from one company. So
you'd better believe they want you to buy all of them.
Paraphrasing is simply taking what the text says and rewriting it to what you think it says.
It is more like a condensed commentary than a Bible. The most popular paraphrase is the
Living Bible. It is really not a translation at all!
The new King James isn’t a King James Bible. I don’t even know how it has the name,
when King James is dead-having nothing to do with it. It has been estimated over 100,000
translation changes have been made corrupting many important verses as well as when the translators didn’t agree with the KJV scripts (over 1 200 times) they copied from other
versions such as the NIV.
Dr. Arthur Farstad, chairman of the NKJV Executive Review Committee which had the
responsibility of final text approval, stated that this committee was about equally divided
as to which was the better Greek New Testament text - the Textus Receptus or the
Westcott-Hort. Apparently none of them believed that either text was the Divinely
preserved Word of God. Yet, all of them participated in a project to “protect and preserve
the purity and accuracy” of the original KJV based on the TR. Is not this duplicity of the
worst kind, coming from supposedly evangelical scholars?”
Apart from the actual translation, did you know that some of the translators of the NIV
were sodomites? Dr Marten Woudstra was the chairman of the Old Testament committee,
and an unrepentant open homosexual. Dr Virginia Mollenkott a literary critic on the NIV
was also a homosexual. The fact the NIV is gender neutral and sodomite (amongst other
words) being removed is a result from the influence of the translators.
The NKJV removed 2289 words, NIV 5219 words and 16 verses, NASV added 3561
words and removed 17 verses, NRSV removed 3890 words and removed 18 verses, RSV
removed 6985 words and 25 verses, NCV added 11 114 words and removed 16 verses and
the LIV Bible added 17 003 words and removed 7 verses.
In the Gospels [New Testament] alone, Codex B (i.e. Vaticanus) leaves out words or
whole clauses no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of careless transcriptions on every
page."
Dr. Frank Logsdon, co-founder of the New American Standard Version quoted in the above chart, wrote a letter to Cecil Carter of Prince George, British Columbia on June 9, 1977, in
which he renounced the NASV, and realized the judgment he would face before the Lord
God for changing the Bible: "I must under God renounce every attachment to the New
American Standard version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord... We laid the
groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I wrote the
preface... I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; it's wrong, terribly wrong; it's
frighteningly wrong; and what am I going to do about it? When questions began to reach
me, at first I was quite offended... I used to laugh with the others... However, in attempting
to answer, I began to sense that something was not right about the New American Standard Version. I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them. The deletions are absolutely frightening... there are so many... Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all this?
Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was
forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV. The product is grievous to my heart and
helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times... I don't want anything to do
with it. The finest leaders that we have today haven't gone into it [the new version's use of a
corrupted Greek text] just as I hadn't gone into it; that's how easily one can be deceived. I'm
going to talk to him [Dr. George Sweeting, president of Moody Bible Institute] about these
things.
You can say the Authorized Version (KJV) is absolutely correct. How correct? 100%
correct. I believe the Spirit of God led the translators of the Authorized Version. If you
must stand against everyone else, stand. [Signed] Dr. Frank Logsdon, Co-founder NASB"
-Lindsay Cole, Letters from God, Author House, 2014, p. xxi-xxii, ISBN: 9781491874363
This process of preserving the pure Word of God through faithful local churches continued
on without interruption until 1831 when Karl Lachmann, a German rationalist, began to
apply to the New Testament Greek text the same criteria that he had used in editing texts of
the Greek classics. Lachmann had been studying such Greek classics as Homer’s Iliad.
These Greek writings were mere stories, but Lachmann was trying to get back to what
Homer and other Greek authors had originally written. The Greek classics had been
thoroughly altered over the years. So many alterations of the Greek classics had been made that no one was sure what the original author had written. Lachmann wanted to know the original text had been, so he developed a textual criticism process whereby he would try to sort out the original text from the badly corrupted modern text.
After this, someone got the “bright idea” that Lachmann’s process should be applied to the
New Testament. Lachmann had set up a series of presuppositions and rules for arriving at
the original text of the Greek classics that were hopelessly corrupted. He now began with
these same presuppositions and rules to correct the New Testament. He began with the
presupposition that the New Testament was as hopelessly corrupted as the Greek classics.
He had made a very dangerous mistake. A similar process in the copying of the Greek classics did not match the loving and reverent care given to the copying of the Word of
God by faithful churches. The Greek classics were hopelessly corrupted but this was not
true of the New Testament. Extremely careful scribes had taken great pains to copy New
Testament manuscripts. These scribes knew the exact number of words and letters that
were in the original copies. They counted the words and letters each time a new copy was
made to insure that nothing had been added or deleted. In addition to this, faithful churches
carefully guarded their precious copies of Scripture to protect them from heretical changes
that may have been inserted in other copies of the text.
Dr. Gresham Machen, the greatest Greek scholar and theologian in American history,
called this kind of scholarship “the tyranny of the experts.” Similarly, Charles H. Spurgeon
preached the same theme in a sermon entitled, “The Greatest Fight in the World.” He said,
“We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set
up instead of him a horde of little popelings fresh from college. Are these correctors of
Scripture infallible? Are we now to believe that infallibility is with learned men? Now,
Farmer Smith, when you have read your Bible, and have enjoyed its precious promises, you
will have, to-morrow morning, to go down the street to ask the scholarly man at the
parsonage whether this portion of the Scripture belongs to the inspired part of the Word, or
whether it is of dubious authority. We shall gradually be so bedoubted and becriticized, that
only a few of the most profound will know what is Bible, and what is not, and they will
dictate to all the rest of us. I have no more faith in their mercy than in their accuracy: they
will rob us of all that we hold most dear, and glory in the cruel deed. This same reign of
terror we shall not endure, for we still believe that God revealeth himself rather to babes
than to the wise and prudent, and we are fully assured that our own old English version of
the Scriptures is sufficient for plain men for all purposes of life, salvation, and godliness.
We do not despise learning, but we will never say of culture or criticism, “These be thy
gods, O Israel!” Machen had it right and so did Spurgeon. Textual criticism by the
“experts” is a horde of little popelings who by their assumed infallibility have the gall to
tell us what is God’s Word and what is not. Such is the tyranny of the experts.
After Westcott and Hort, the Pandora’s box had been opened and all the evils of German
rationalism began to tear at the Foundation of the Faith, the Holy Scriptures. This has
continued until this day in both the higher and lower forms of textual criticism. Today the
situation involves almost as many different texts of the Greek New Testament as there are
scholars. Each scholar decides for himself what he will or will not accept as the Word of
God. Consequently, each new edition of the Greek New Testament has led to a smaller and
smaller New Testament. If Satan has his way, this would continue until all of the New
Testament would cease to exist.
Until 1881, the churches had accepted one text of the New Testament, the one preserved by
faithful churches in the majority of the manuscripts. Since 1881 and the Westcott and Hort
text, there has not been a text accepted by all Christians. Since 1881 there has been
controversy and confusion (which by the way, is reflected in the many modern translations
all claiming to be the Word of God and all different from each other). Some say it is the
United Bible Society’s Greek text and the English translation of it that is God’s Word.
Others say, no, it is the Nestle Greek text and the English translation of it that is God’s
Word. Now it comes down to the tyranny of the experts. What do the scholars say? Each
scholar says something different than the other. This leaves the King James Version
standing like a lighthouse on the storm swept shore, for it is the only English translation of
the New Testament based entirely upon the text that has been passed on to us by faithful
churches.
It comes down to two choices: accept the text handed down by faithful churches for two
thousand years or accept the findings of modern textual critics, no two of which fully agree.
If we go with the scholars, there is no text that is accepted by all of them. Confusion reigns.
There is no standard. We are left like a ship at sea without a rudder to guide it.
Since 1881, all the critical texts of the Greek New Testament are a little shorter than the
one published before it. Westcott and Hort had a few hundred variant readings. Metzger’s
edition has three to four thousand variant readings, many of which he has deleted from the
text without so much as a footnote to tell you it has been deleted. The modern critical texts
have steadily become shorter and shorter. This is a clear indication that there is a “snake in
the woodpile somewhere.”
These textual critics have rules that they follow in deciding if a word, phrase, or sentence
should be allowed in or taken out of Scripture. To give you an idea of some of the rules,
here is one of them:
In general, the more difficult reading is to be preferred, particularly when the sense appears on the surface to be erroneous, but on more mature consideration it proves itself to be correct. This statement is very vague. It says “In general:” which means sometimes but not always.
Who decides when the rule applies and when it does not apply? On what basis is
such a decision made? We are not told. Then it says, “The more difficult reading.” Who
decides when a reading is more difficult than another one and on what basis? Again, we are
not told. Then the rule says, “particularly when the sense appears on the surface to be
erroneous.” Who decides when this “sense” or that “sense” is “on the surface” and
“erroneous?” The scholars do. Then it says in a question begging statement that “on a more
mature consideration it proves itself to be correct.” Who decides which consideration is the
mature one? Naturally, the same self-appointed scholars do. This “rule” allows a textual
critic to read the Greek New Testament variants and decide which reading is the more
difficult, which sense is the surface meaning and which consideration is the mature one.
Somehow, these experts get down into a “deeper knowledge” that allows them to include or
exclude a verse of the Greek New Testament. Their decisions to include or exclude words
and verses from the Bible are based on what the scholars think. It is no longer the Word
judging them. They can now judge the Word. This is nothing more than the old first
century Gnosticism which feeds on the pride of man in his intellect and leads to the
destruction of the Faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints.
Another rule followed by textual critics says: In general, the shorter reading is to be
preferred. If a textual variant is the longer reading, then choose the shorter textual variant
as the most valid one. Who says so? The scholars do. In textual criticism, you can make up
your own rules and follow them to your own preconceived ends.
Another rule of textual criticism says: That reading which involves verbal dissidence is
usually to be preferred to one which is verbally concordant. This vague language means
that one should choose the variant reading which clashes most with the grammatical
structure of the book rather than the reading which is most in harmony with it’s
grammatical structure. This meaningless jargon allows each scholar to choose whatever he wants. Therefore, it comes down to accepting what the scholars say or accepting what the majority of the manuscripts say.
One must either accept the correct reading based on the majority of
manuscripts, or he may follow a few manuscripts that have a reading that is different from
the majority of the manuscripts. On the other hand, one can ask the scholars which variant
is the right one and they will say, “Well, for certain reasons the few manuscripts with the
variant reading are right.” They base their decisions on the “external evidences” and
“internal probabilities” developed by German rationalism. This is just the old first century
Gnosticism warmed over and is not the right way to go about deciding the text of the Holy
Scriptures. The textual critic is flying into the face of thousands of years of history when
the text of the New Testament was preserved, not by scholars, but by faithful churches. For
nearly two thousand years, the churches never applied these vague rules of textual
criticism in order to determine what the correct reading of Scripture was. Faithful churches preserved accurate copies of the New Testament that had been passed on to them. Eighteen hundred years later the scholars came along and said, “No, your text is as corrupted as the Greek classics, and besides you cannot determine the right reading on the basis of the majority of the manuscripts. You must now determine the correct reading on the basis of scholarly principles.”
So now, the correct reading is “up for grabs.” One Greek scholar says one reading is right,
while another says it is not. There is mass confusion much like the ridiculous uncertainty
of modern art. Well, that is how the situation came to be, but that does not mean that is
what it should be. God is not the author of confusion. God inspired the Scriptures by
causing them to be written by holy men of God who were controlled by the Holy Spirit (II
Peter 1:21). Moreover, after God inspired His Word, he did not abandon it to be protected
by mere man’s scholarship. Through faithful churches, He watched over the transmission
of the Scriptures from one century to the next. True, this transmission was done by
copyists who made mistakes in their copying, but there was always the checking of
manuscripts with those of other faithful churches to insure that the text was transmitted
without error. God not only took great care to inspire men to write the Scriptures under the
control of the Spirit, He also took great care to preserve those Scriptures. When God sent
His Son into the world as the Living Word, he did not abandon Him but preserved His life
until it was time for Jesus to die on Calvary. Even then, he raised Him from the dead to
triumph over all His enemies. Similarly, God did not send His written Word into the world
and abandon it to the whims of men. He watched over His Word to preserve it just as He
preserved the Living Word. Without the preservation of Scripture, the inspiration of
Scripture would be in vain. God guarded his Word through faithful churches who carefully
checked their copies of manuscripts with those of other churches. The result is that today
there are over 5,000 manuscripts of various books of the Greek New Testament and some
complete New Testaments all of which, in the majority of manuscripts, agree. If we need
to decide what is the right text, we can go by what the reading is in the majority of the
manuscripts. Because of the extreme care taken by Scripture copyists and the reverent care of faithful churches over their Scriptures, God has preserved a text in the majority of the manuscripts that is the same as the original Greek New Testament!
Most modern translations are based on Nestle's Greek Text from 1898 (except the New
King James Version and New Scofield Version). This text is also known as the Egyptian
Text or the Alexandrian Text which was the basis for the critical Greek Text of Brooke
Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort. The Westcott and Hort Text of 1881 was
collated with Weymouth's third edition and Tischendorf's eighth edition by Eberhard
Nestle in 1898 to become what is known as the Nestle's Greek New Testament. Its two
outstanding trademarks in history are that orthodox Christianity has never used it and that
the Roman Catholic Church has militantly (read that "bloodily") supported it. The text is
based on only a few manuscripts. The two most important ones are called Sinaiticus and
Vaticanus. Brook Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort published their text in
1881. Hort published a translation of the New Testament in 1884. In 1901 another round
was fired in the form of the American Revised Version, later called the American Standard
Version (An intentional misnomer since it never became the 'standard' for anything). This
version, other than being the darling of critical American scholarship met a dismal end
when, twenty-three years later, it was so totally rejected by God's people that its copyright
had to be sold. (Does this sound like God's blessing?)
The ASV was further revised and republished in 1954 as the Revised Standard Version
(RSV). This sequence of events has repeated itself innumerable times, resulting in the New
American Standard Version (NASV) of 1960, the New Scofield Version (NSV) of 1967, t
he New International Version (NIV) of 1978, and the New King James Version (NKJB) of
1979 to name but a few.
The process has never changed. Every new version that has been launched has been,
without exception, a product of Satan's Alexandrian philosophy which rejects the premise
of a perfect Bible. Furthermore, they have been copied, on the most part, from the corrupt
Alexandrian manuscript. (Although a few have been translated from pure Antiochian
manuscripts after they were tainted by the Alexandrian philosophy.)
V. Antioch vs. Alexandria
As said above, the about 5250 manuscripts of the New Testament can be divided into two
groups: the vast majority coming from Antioch (the original text) and a very small minority
from Alexandria (the spurious text).
It may be that many of the original autographs of Paul's epistles were penned in Antioch. In the
second century, a disciple by the name of Lucian founded a school of the Scriptures in
Antioch. Lucian was noted for his mistrust of pagan philosophy. His school magnified the
authority and divinity of Scripture and taught that the Bible was to be taken literally, not
figuratively as the philosophers of Alexandria taught. So Antioch is not only the point of origin
for the correct family of Bible manuscripts, but is also the source for the ideology that accepts
the Bible as literally and perfectly God's words. From Antioch we receive the pure line of
manuscripts culminating in what is known as the “Received Text” or Textus Receptus.
Let’s jump right into it, starting with the Egyptian line-where the Old Testament comes from,
this is called the Septuagint – this is an Egyptian manuscript, usually referred as the oldest best manuscript you can use. It is believed that an Egyptian King ordered the translations to be
made,and was made by the Hellenistic Jews using the royal libraries of Alexander. The text is
dated between the 3rd Century Before Christ.
So lets look at where the New Testament comes from. We will move forward in time to
Antioch, a city in ancient Syria, now its a town in South-Central Turkey, about 19 km North
West of the Syrian border, this was founded in aprox 300 BC. This was one of the first
Churches – and it was a great location for the first Church. This was because the location was
far away from the Egyptians as well as the Gentiles of Rome and was in the middle of a trade
route-allowing the spread the Gospel.
A primary example of corrupting the Word of God would be the pagan Alexandrian cult in
Egypt. The Alexandrians removed a lot from the original texts of Antioch (the base of
operations for early Christianity), like the Lordship from Christ, the divinity of Jesus, etc. The
Alexandrians are much like the Jehovah's Witnesses today: The Christians could easily spot the
counterfeit and rejected the Alexandrian manuscripts.
So the true Word of God was being rolled and unrolled repeatedly, copied, and then once the
original was worn out, it was thrown out and the new copy was used. However, books that are
never used do not need to be copied because they don't wear out from exposure. The
Alexandrian manuscript sat on a library shelf in Egypt because it was never used, therefore it
would not wear out, therefore it was preserved.
I have copies of new-age versions on my bookshelf that still look brand new, and that's because I hardly ever use them, but my King James Bible is more worn out than those other versions because I use it a lot. This is something I think many Bible "scholars" today do not consider because when the Alexandrian manuscripts in Eygpt were found, they thought, "These are older and well-preserved, therefore, they're better!" Older does NOT mean better. The only
reason the Alexandrian documents were well-preserved is because they were an easily-
recognizable fraud and no one used them.
Typically I hear new-agers try to claim: "Well, the original says..." This is deception. The
originals are gone, and it upsets many new-age version users when I point this out, but I would
strongly urge Christians not to put more emphasis on the originals than God does.
In Jeremiah 36, the Lord God has Jeremiah write down God's Word to Israel. When the King
was read the Word of the Lord through Jeremiah, read what he does: And it came to pass, that
when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire
that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth -
Jeremiah 36:23. Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah... Take thee again another roll,
and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of
Judah hath burned -Jeremiah 36:27-28. Through the rage of a king who didn't want to hear the
truth, the originals were destroyed, but God had Jeremiah write it down again. If God was
putting emphasis on the original, then He would not have allowed the king to destroy it. Later,
God actually commanded that Jeremiah destroy the secondary copies too! (Jer 51:61-64) Yet, a
third copy was written down, otherwise we would not have a record of Jeremiah, so no one has the originals. Also, consider that the Ten Commandments originals were destroyed as well, and
copies had to be made. What you read in Exodus 20 is a secondary version of the Ten
Commandments because God allowed the originals to be destroyed. The point is that it doesn't
matter if you have the originals or not, it matters if God's Word is perfectly inspired and
preserved in that perfection by His own guidance.
The entire source of Bible versions today can be traced back to two basic groups: The Majority
Texts (i.e. the true preserved Word of God) or the Minority Texts (i.e. corrupt alterations based
on pagan philosophy). The Majority Texts (derived from Antioch) make up about 99% of all
the available manuscripts we have to confirm the Bible, and the Minority Texts (derived from
Alexandria) make up the other 1%. The Majority Texts were the preserved Word of God being
copied and spread out around the world, while the Minority Texts were the corrupt pagan
philosophy that was almost never copied, rarely read, and found on dusty bookshelves or trash
bins.
Origen is praised among new-age scholars as one of the "early church fathers," but he denied
the divinity of Jesus Christ as the true Living God in the flesh. From his teachings, the
Alexandrian manuscripts, which removed the lordship and diety of Christ, were born.
"Origen... denied the deity of Christ, teaching that Jesus was a lesser, created god. He and other
false teachers who did not confess the Lord Jesus Christ set to mutilating the Alexandrian
group of manuscripts, 'editing,' omitting, and changing passages of Scripture. The Alexandrian
texts underlying the modern Bible versions are based on these corrupted manuscripts."
-Matthew Brill, Evangelism Expounded, WinePress Publishing, 2011, p. 113-114, ISBN:
9781414118147
"[Origen] believed that Jesus was only a created being and Gnosticism taught that Jesus
became Christ at his baptism but that he was never God. He [Jesus] was a just a good man with very high morals." Ken Matto, "Origen's Gnostic Belief System," scionofzion.com, retrieved
Oct 3, 2014, [www.scionofzion.com/origen.htm]
Origen was a student of the humanistic philosophies of Aristotle, Plato, and Ammonius, and he
altered the Bible to make God's Word say what he wanted it to say, although new-age version
defenders seem to act as if no one ever lied to corrupt the Word of God.
"Origen, being the textual critic, is supposed to have corrected numerous portions of the sacred
manuscripts. Evidence to the contrary shows that he changed them to agree with his human
philosophy of mystical and allegorical ideas. Thus, through deceptive scholarship of this kind,
certain manuscripts became corrupt."-Les Garrett, Which Bible Can We Trust, Prophecy Club,
1998, ISBN: 9781585380060
Origen was also a student of Clement of Alexandria, who sought to combine Greek philosophy
with Christianity, no different than many religions today trying to corrupt Christianity by
combining it with pagan ideas. (See George E. Karamanolis, Plato and Aristotle in
Agreement?, Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 208, ISBN: 9780199264568)
It seems that this type of text was a local text of Alexandria, Egypt of which Eusebius (Bishop
of Caesarea) made fifty copies to fulfil a request by Emperor Constantine. Unfortunately
Eusebius turned to the education centre in Egypt and got a "scholarly revision" instead of
turning to Antioch for the pure text which was universally accepted by the true Christians.
Why would Eusebius choose Alexandria over Antioch? Primarily because he was a great
admirer of Origen, an Egyptian scholar. Origen, though once exalted by modern-day
Christianity as a trustworthy authority, has since been found to have been a heretic who
interpreted the Bible in the light of Greek philosophy. He propagated the heresy that Jesus
Christ was a "created" God. This is a false doctrine clung to by Jehovah's Witnesses of our day,
who strangely enough get their teaching from the corrupt Alexandrian Text's rendition of
JOHN 1:1-5 and JOHN 3:13, a corruption which Origen is responsible for when he revised the
original Text to read in agreement with his personal heresy! It is quite possible that Sinaiticus
and Vaticanus are two of these fifty copies ordered by Constantine or are copies of those
copies.
The Alexandrian text fell into disuse about 500 A.D. while the original Antioch Text was
spreading true Christianity throughout Europe. The Alexandrian Text was abandoned between
500 to 1881, merely revised in our day and stamped as genuine.
Alexandria and Egypt are mentioned in the Bible exclusively in a negative way: see GENESIS
12:10-12; EXODUS 1:11-14; EXODUS 20:2; DEUTERONOMY 4:20; DEUTERONOMY
17:16; REVELATION 11:8; ACTS 6:9; ACTS 18:24; Acts 21; ACTS 27:6.
Alexandria was a centre of education and philosophy (COLOSSIANS 2:8) which it received
from Athens in about 100 B.C. (ACTS 17:16). There was a school of the Scriptures founded
there by one Pantaenus who was a philosopher. Pantaenus interpreted scripture both
philosophically and allegorically. That is to say that philosophically he believed truth to be
relative, not absolute. He did not believe that the Bible was infallible. By looking at the Bible
allegorically he believed that men such as Adam, Noah, Moses, and David existed only in
Jewish poetry and were not true historical characters. He was succeeded as head of the school
by Clement of Alexandria and later by Origen. Men who shared his scepticism.
Antioch on the other hand is mentioned only in a positive light in the Bible: One of the first
seven deacons was Nicolas of Antioch (ACTS 6:5). He is the only deacon whose hometown is
given.
ACTS 11:21 tells us that God's Holy Spirit worked mightily in Antioch and that a "great
number" were saved. We see then that the first great gentile awakening occurred in Antioch.
In ACTS 11:25-26 we find Barnabas departing for Tarsus to seek the young convert Saul.
Upon finding Saul, Barnabus does not bring him back to Jerusalem (and certainly not to
Alexandria). He returns with him to Antioch, the spiritual capital of the New Testament
church.
In ACTS 11:26 we find that born again believers were called "Christians" for the first time at
Antioch. Thus every time we believers refer to ourselves as Christians we complete a spiritual
connection to our spiritual forefathers in Antioch. Antioch is to the Christian what Plymouth
Rock is to the American.
In ACTS 11:29-30 we find that the saints who God is blessing in Antioch, must send monetary
aid to the saints in Jerusalem.
ACTS 13:1-3: The first missionary journey mentioned in Scripture originated in Antioch, with
Christians from Antioch.
What was it about Antioch that was so attractive to God that He chose it as the centre of New
Testament Christianity? Antioch although it was a cultural centre, had not abandoned itself to
pagan religion, pagan education and pagan philosophy, as had such prominent sites as Rome,
Athens, and Alexandria. It might also be weighed that Antioch, unlike the above-mentioned
cities, or even Jerusalem, was located almost exactly in the middle of the known world, and
was built at the crossing of the East-West trade routes. It even boasted a seaport, via the
Orontes River. These are all important attributes for the capital of Christianity, which is known
for its mobility.