The Bible Controversy 15


By now, you should have become just about convinced about the King James Bible. i’ll (like many of my other topics) probably return to this later, to add many other notes.

I do recommend the Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible and Christianity by David Cloud for further study, and the “Bible Version Question and answer database”.

I also recommend his free ebook, “Unholy Hands on God’s Holy Book.”

I DO NOT recommend any materials by Gail Riplinger, or Peter Ruckman. I have never read ANYTHING by either author, already having heard warnings about them by D. A. Waite, David Cloud, and Marc Monte.

D. A. Waite has a lot of materials on the King James Bible and the modern version issue, which I never have had a chance to obtain, due to limited funds. I’m sure you all understand. I’m a guy with a free blog. I make zero dollars from this, and I’d like to keep it that way. If you can afford it, I’d recommend them.

James Melton has some informative materials you can download for free. Be advised, he does recommend materials by Peter Ruckman, and I believe he probably is Ruckmanite. Use caution.

Samuel Gipp is also a Ruckmanite, and I recommend caution there as well. However, he too has made information available that is very good on defending the King James.

Edward Hills wrote two books on the King James. I recommend them both.

I’m hoping to get my hands on Otis Fuller’s book sometime soon. Once I do, I’ll be recommending that one, i’m sure.

Will Kinney has a lot of good information, and he should, as he’s the one man James White is afraid of. However, he’s Calvinist, so I have to advocate caution.

Marc Monte has a lot of sermons on sermonaudio, where he explains the King James issue very well. I recommed him as well.

Were you saved while reading an NIV? GREAT! So was I. was your conversion invalid? I doubt it, if it was a true conversion. Should you try to get saved all over again? Listen, I’m convinced truly saved Christians end up bowing their heads to every Invitation their pastor makes, because they recognize their sinful condition and need of a saviour in the Lord Jesus Christ. So, you’ve probably already taken care of that.

Were you convinced by this? Excellent! All you need do is put your other Bibles aside, and start using your King James. I recommend you spend some serious time studying it, to begin fixing past mistakes and start re-learning sound doctrine.

May God our Father reward youre study!

The Bible Controversy 14


so far we have examined:

  • Psalm 12:6-7 is correctly translated in the King James, but became increasingly incorrectly translated after Youngs “literal” version
  • The Bible is inspired and preserved letter for letter by God.
  • Many statements of faith for ministries and churches are deliberately worded to conceal that the Christian involved does not believe the Bible is inerrant and inspired by God.
  • While a few manuscripts may have copyists errors, we can still determine the overall correct reading by examining large numbers of them we can
  • This was done previously and forms the family of manuscripts known as the Textus Receptus
  • Modern Bibles are translated entirely from “The oldest and best manuscripts”
  • The “oldest and best manuscripts” actually date from 1881, and are the work of Wescott and Hort, men who denied most of the fundamentals of the faith and did not believe in the Bible as inspired.
  • Wescott and Hort used mostly Codex Vaticanus, and where Vaticanus was “unsure” (or quite simply, didn’t have the book, verse or chapter – which often is the case) they had to resort to Codex Sinaiicus
  • Codex Sinaiticus was found in St. Catherine’s Monastary by Count Tischendorf, who was desperately searching for an old manuscript – ANY old manuscript – which differed from the Textus Receptus
  • A Bible artifact forger (Constantinus Simonides) stepped forward and admitted to forging Sinaiticus early on in his manuscript career, and described it as “clumsy”. While his confesion was ignored, it ended up costing him a great deal of money as from then on nobody would buy any more artifacts from him. He had nothing to gain and everything to lose with his confession.
  • Tischendorf described Codex Sinaiticus as “highly unreliable.
  • Count Tischendorf was a man who denied the inerrancy of the Bible and the Godhood of Jesus Christ
  • Sinaiticus shows major sings of editing, or correcting if it is a modern forgery.
  • The Scenarios presented for any presumed editing of the Syrian Manuscripts is simply ridiculous, and falls apart under any kind of logical examination.
  • The supposed editing of the Syrian manuscripts suppose that they are edited over a massive geographical area all at once, by “Pious Scribes”. How did these “Pious Scribes” manage to get all the manuscripts to say exactly the same thing, over a massive geographical area?
  • There is absolutely no proof for any editing of the Syrian family of manuscripts
  • There is overwhelming evidence for massive editing of Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Sinaiticus.
  • The critics claim that the Syrian family did not exist before AD 300 – but then turn around and insist they were “heavily edited” by the year AD 350 – again, without any proof to the contrary.
  • The translating Committee for the RV was instructed not to alter the text, or use any other manuscripts other than the Textus Receptus. Their very first act was to select Wescott & Hort’s new “critical” Greek Manuscript, compiled from painstaking comparison of two flawed and heavily edited texts, and lots of guesswork
  • The transdlating committee was instructed not to make any deletions from the text. They promptly made hundreds.
  • The translating committee was instructed only to replace outdated words. Instead, they made literally tens of thousands of changes to the translation.
  • Textual Critics insist that no verses from the Syrian texts can be found in the Early Christian authors, the so called early church fathers. In reality, there are tens of thousands.
  • When questioned, the critics insist that this means you cannot find the entire text of the Syrian New Testament in any one Early Christian Author. This is misleading, as you can’t find the entire text of the New Testament in its entirety in the complete bulk of the Early Christian Writers, let alone any one. By their standards, we would have to reject the entire New Testament.
  • Their own standards are not consistent, as they accept any fragment of any verse in paraphrase as being of the Alexandrian family and therefore proof – but require the entire text of the New Testament from only one Early Christian author.
  • Its very odd that the subjects with verse changes are all ones that a theologically liberal, Christ denying heretic would object to.
  • There is absolutely no evidence that the Textus receptus was edited or changed, but much to show that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were.
  • Many of the verses that Scholars claim can only be found in a “Few late manuscripts and are of recent origin” can be found quoted in the writings of Early Christian Authors.
  • While the NKJV usually gives the correct reading, it sometimes shows problems with adverbs and always contains footnotes casting doubts on the Bible Text.
  • Westcott and Hort did not believe in the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ, and called it heresy.
  • Westcott and Hort also referred to the Biblical Principle of substitutionary atonement as “Modern”, betraying a pattern of trying to project their heretical beliefs as the original beliefs of all christians throughout the centuries, explaining why they called their text created in 1881 as “The oldest and best manuscripts”.
  1. Probing question #1 – Why would you oppose the preservation and inspiration of the Bible?
  2. Probing question #2 – Is it right to use the philosophy of lost pagans to interpret the Holy Scriptures
  3. Probing Question #3 – Why would we let a man who admittedly was using pagan methods to interpret Holy Scriptures determine what words and verses belong in the Bible?
  4. Probing Question #4 – Why do we even consider it okay that Origen removed words and entire verses from the Bible when he wrote up his master Greek text? Doesn’t the Bible pronounce damnation upon anyone who removes words from or adds words to the Holy Bible? Shouldn’t we be furious that unholy hands had dared tamper with the Bible?
  5. Probing Question #5 – With all of the deficiencies, changes, emendations and editings of Vaticanus, why did seemingly intelligent men accept this manuscript as fitting to use to translate for our modern Bibles? Isn’t this editing (which we can obviously see happened) the very thing the so-called Scholars rejected the Textus Receptus for – the texts the churches have always used until 150 years ago, and has NO evidence of tampering???
  6. Probing Question#6 – If I take every course at Tennessee Temple University on Greek and Hebrew they offer, does that automatically give me, a man, the right to decide what words should be in the Bible (a book written and dictated letter for letter by God) or not? Isn’t the Bible God’s word, and doesn’t He warn of dire consequences for anyone willing to tamper with it? Does fallen men have the right, based upon a few hundred hours of sitting in a chair, scribbling notes, listening to lectures, and occaisionally raising your hand and taking a few tests, to decide what words belong in the Bible (a book written by the infallable Creator of the Universe)?
  7. Probing Question #7 – Why would you want to treat the Bible like it is any other book? Isn’t it the inspired, inerrant word of God
  8. Probing Question #8 – if you believe the Bible has errors in it… doesn’t that mean you’re lying when you say you believe in the inspired, inerrant word of God???
  9. Probing Question #9 – when we already know the early Coptic and Gnostics were riddled with heresy, why would you prefer their heavily edited Bible texts over the ones you assume have been edited by the Bible-believing Christians who were suffering and dying for their faith?
  10. Probing Question #10 – Why was no attempt made to disprove Simonides’ claim to have forged Sinaiticus? was it because Tischendorf feared they couldn’t disprove it? Or was it because he suspected it was true all along?
  11. Probing Question #11 – There’s no proof of any “editing” of the Greek Recieved Text around 250 AD. How can you continue to believe one took place when all the evidence for editing points rather to your preferred manuscripts, the Alexandrian family?
  12. Probing Question #12 – why is it only verses referring to topics that Christ denying liberals object to that seem to be changed? If there were corruptions in transmission, shouldn’t it have also affected incidental verses like Matthew 20:29? It seems a little funny that the only verses that are changed or deleted are ones that a Bible scoffing, Christ Denying theological liberal would object to.
  13. Probing Question #13 – why do the “Scholars” insist the texts with no evidence of changes were edited, but the ones with all the evidence of tampering and editing are the “purest and best manuscripts”?
  14. Probing Question #14 – If the critical text of Wescott and Hort was correct and scholarly, why did they conceal their work?
  15. Probing question #15 – If the translation of the RV was approved of by God, why did they conceal their work, and lie when they agreed not to do everything they ended up doing?
  16. Probing Question #16: If the Bible commands us to disregard and put away any witnesses that disagree with each other… why are we blindly accepting Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus and Vaticanus?

I’m running out of time to talk about this issue, as I’m starting a new topic on Feb. 1, on the Pretribulational Rapture. So, I’m going to have to wrap this up. I could talk on this subject for days.

I consider this the most important issue facing Christians. What do you read every day? your Bible (or you should be!). What shapes your doctrinal understanding? Your Bible. What do you implicitly trust as the word of God? Your Bible. When important doctrines are removed, or reworded to cast doubt on them, then you get WEAKENED as a Christian.

Heretics like Wescott and Hort were allowed to be on translating committees without complaint, along with representatives from the Roman Catholic Church, who were there to make sure that all translations reflected their doctrinal biases. This means downplaying the physical relationship of the brothers of Jesus – can’t use the word “sibling”. Go ahead and call them “brothers”, and that way we can claim they are just cousins, fellow Jews. It makes everyone happy.

And make sure you downplay salvation by grace through faith alone. Roman Catholics don’t like that.

Roman Catholics involved in Bible translations (make sure you read the forward, or translators notes or introduction or whatever they’re calling it in your hardcover Bible!) include Alberto Ablondi (bishop of Livorno, Italy), Francis Arinze (archbishop of Onitsha, Nigeria), Carlo Martini (archbishop of Milan and very influential in the translating of the NIV).

And there were Unitarians on the committees as well. Unitarians aren’t saved. They’re denying the deity of Christ. Who were the textual critics who were Unitarians? Daniel Mace (1685-1753), Johann Wettstein (1693-1754), Alexander Geddes (1737-1802), Edward Harwood (1729-94), George Vance Smith (1816-1902), Ezra Abbot (1819-84), Joseph Henry Thayer (1828-1901), and Caspar Rene Gregory (1846-1917). Of these, Smith, Abbott, and Thayer all were on the RV translating committee.

The Revised Version translation was not well recieved when it came out. So, the textual Critics had to wait until World War II to try again. Let’s get a new generation who don’t know any better, and try again.

This time, it was the RSV, the Revised Standard Version. Interestingly, a ffew of the “Scholars” on this version were investigated by the US Air Force for being communists – and the reports concluded that not only were they, but that they should be considered enemies of the United States.

Some of the translators of the RSV included William Albright (questioned the authenticity of the Gospel of John), Walter Bowie (called Methuselah “Folklore” and Abraham and Jacob “myth” and “legend”), Millar Burrows (questioned the authenticity of the Bible), Henry Cadbury (questioned the statements of Jesus Christ and accused Him of “Overstatement”), Clarence Craig (denied the ressurection and denied inspiration of the Bible), Edgar Goodspeed (denied Christ and the inspiration of the Bible), Frederick Grant (claimed parts of the Gospel were “not historical” – in other words, myth or folktale), H. G. G. Herklots (believed in the “Q” document and two authors of Isaiah, plus the JEPD theory of four authors of , Genesis), William Irwin (denied the veracity of the Bible), and William James (called parts of the Gospels as “legendary”).

Do you want ANY of these men determining what is and is not God’s word???

The RSV was much better recieved. And it prompted the eventual translation of the NASB by scholars who felt the RSV was just a little too blatent at its rationalism and denials of Biblical doctrine.

Michael Ramsey of the Church of England was a rampant Ecumenist, and was a key figure in the “back to rome” movement.

Charles Harold Dodd of the New English Bible deines the inspiration of the Bible, calls various stories in the Bible “myths”, claims “Moses left us no writings”, accused Ezekiel of being a magician, epilleptic and clairboyant, said many sayings of Jesus Christ were “not true or unacceptable”, and called God “cruel and untruthful.” Was this a man you wanted having ANYTHING to do with the Bible??? If he did not repent before his death, he entered Hell in 1973. Am I judging? No, I’m simply telling you – no saved person can say things like this. If you’re making statements like this, you’re not saved. Mr. Dodd could possibly (and I sincerely hope he did) have repented prior to his death – there are a couple of persons involved in the modern translations who have publicly repented. If there’s a couple that have publicly repented of it, then there must be some who privately repented. I’m hoping this is so.

Robert Bratcher was one of the translators of the TEV, “Today’s English version.” He made public statements that revealed his heretical beliefs, Bible denying, and possible atheism. Indeed, when he spoke at a Baptist Church in South Carolina, he ensured that nobody would ask pointed questions about his theology. Alas for him, the congregation saw through that, and asked him some questions like, “Do you know Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour?” (no, that wasn’t me – I’ve never been to any church in South Carolina!) and even “When you die, do you believe you’ll go to heaven?” He refused to answer all such questions. Good job spotting the wolf fur under the sheep coat, people!

What about Nestle-Aland? Some of you will have heard of this text. Kurt and Barbara Aland reject the idea that Canon is settled, and both reject verbal inspiration. If they’re still alive, I urge them to comment on this page, and make clear they accept the Lord Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, accept the Gospels and the entire Bible as history and prophecy, inerrant, God’s word, and divinely preserved before they pass on from this earth.

Bruce Metzger holds to heretical beliefis, does not believe the Bible, denies the flood, the ressurection, and the inspiration and veracity of the Bible.

Eugene Nida was the “Father” of “Dynamic Equivalency”. The very phrase means nothing. to be dynamic is to be powerful and moving. To be Equivalent is to be the same. How can something move from where it was and remain the same? When you’re talking about an automobile, sure. When you’re talking about the meaning of words, you’re coming up for a fancy phrase for, “I’m making this translation say whatever I want it to say.” Funny how a few ignorant MVO advocates make this very same claim about King James, who had NOTHING to do with the translation of the Bible, but see nothing wrong with the NIV, Nida’s brainchild. Nida denied the inspiration of the Bible, and claims accounts of Angels and Miracles are not to be interpreted literally. He also denied the blood atonement of Christ, and claimed it was reminiscent of “pagan myth”.

Was these men someone you wanted translating your Bibles?

The only time I’d let them touch my bible is if I was witnessing to them, and showing them the verses I wanted them toi read. Otherwise, get your filthy, christ-denying hands off God’s book!

I say it again, the Bible translation issue is the most important issue facing Christianity today. Do YOU have a perfect, inspired, preserved Bible? I believe the Greek Textus Receptus is, and the Ben Chayyim Hebrew Masoretic text is. And I believe the King James Bible to be the best translation of that manuscript, being the only one available commercially available today that was translated from this text.

I do not believe in a Ruckmanite or Riplingerite “second inspiration” happened, to make the King James superior to the Greek and Hebrew. I believe that’s heresy.

Do I believe I have God’s word? Absolutely. I have God’s inerrant, inspired, preserved word in the King James Bible.

The Bible Controversy 13


so far we have examined:

  • Psalm 12:6-7 is correctly translated in the King James, but became increasingly incorrectly translated after Youngs “literal” version
  • The Bible is inspired and preserved letter for letter by God.
  • Many statements of faith for ministries and churches are deliberately worded to conceal that the Christian involved does not believe the Bible is inerrant and inspired by God.
  • While a few manuscripts may have copyists errors, we can still determine the overall correct reading by examining large numbers of them we can
  • This was done previously and forms the family of manuscripts known as the Textus Receptus
  • Modern Bibles are translated entirely from “The oldest and best manuscripts”
  • The “oldest and best manuscripts” actually date from 1881, and are the work of Wescott and Hort, men who denied most of the fundamentals of the faith and did not believe in the Bible as inspired.
  • Wescott and Hort used mostly Codex Vaticanus, and where Vaticanus was “unsure” (or quite simply, didn’t have the book, verse or chapter – which often is the case) they had to resort to Codex Sinaiicus
  • Codex Sinaiticus was found in St. Catherine’s Monastary by Count Tischendorf, who was desperately searching for an old manuscript – ANY old manuscript – which differed from the Textus Receptus
  • A Bible artifact forger (Constantinus Simonides) stepped forward and admitted to forging Sinaiticus early on in his manuscript career, and described it as “clumsy”. While his confesion was ignored, it ended up costing him a great deal of money as from then on nobody would buy any more artifacts from him. He had nothing to gain and everything to lose with his confession.
  • Tischendorf described Codex Sinaiticus as “highly unreliable.
  • Count Tischendorf was a man who denied the inerrancy of the Bible and the Godhood of Jesus Christ
  • Sinaiticus shows major sings of editing, or correcting if it is a modern forgery.
  • The Scenarios presented for any presumed editing of the Syrian Manuscripts is simply ridiculous, and falls apart under any kind of logical examination.
  • The supposed editing of the Syrian manuscripts suppose that they are edited over a massive geographical area all at once, by “Pious Scribes”. How did these “Pious Scribes” manage to get all the manuscripts to say exactly the same thing, over a massive geographical area?
  • There is absolutely no proof for any editing of the Syrian family of manuscripts
  • There is overwhelming evidence for massive editing of Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Sinaiticus.
  • The critics claim that the Syrian family did not exist before AD 300 – but then turn around and insist they were “heavily edited” by the year AD 350 – again, without any proof to the contrary.
  • The translating Committee for the RV was instructed not to alter the text, or use any other manuscripts other than the Textus Receptus. Their very first act was to select Wescott & Hort’s new “critical” Greek Manuscript, compiled from painstaking comparison of two flawed and heavily edited texts, and lots of guesswork
  • The transdlating committee was instructed not to make any deletions from the text. They promptly made hundreds.
  • The translating committee was instructed only to replace outdated words. Instead, they made literally tens of thousands of changes to the translation.
  • Textual Critics insist that no verses from the Syrian texts can be found in the Early Christian authors, the so called early church fathers. In reality, there are tens of thousands.
  • When questioned, the critics insist that this means you cannot find the entire text of the Syrian New Testament in any one Early Christian Author. This is misleading, as you can’t find the entire text of the New Testament in its entirety in the complete bulk of the Early Christian Writers, let alone any one. By their standards, we would have to reject the entire New Testament.
  • Their own standards are not consistent, as they accept any fragment of any verse in paraphrase as being of the Alexandrian family and therefore proof – but require the entire text of the New Testament from only one Early Christian author.
  • Its very odd that the subjects with verse changes are all ones that a theologically liberal, Christ denying heretic would object to.
  • There is absolutely no evidence that the Textus receptus was edited or changed, but much to show that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were.
  • Many of the verses that Scholars claim can only be found in a “Few late manuscripts and are of recent origin” can be found quoted in the writings of Early Christian Authors.
  • While the NKJV usually gives the correct reading, it sometimes shows problems with adverbs and always contains footnotes casting doubts on the Bible Text.
  1. Probing question #1 – Why would you oppose the preservation and inspiration of the Bible?
  2. Probing question #2 – Is it right to use the philosophy of lost pagans to interpret the Holy Scriptures
  3. Probing Question #3 – Why would we let a man who admittedly was using pagan methods to interpret Holy Scriptures determine what words and verses belong in the Bible?
  4. Probing Question #4 – Why do we even consider it okay that Origen removed words and entire verses from the Bible when he wrote up his master Greek text? Doesn’t the Bible pronounce damnation upon anyone who removes words from or adds words to the Holy Bible? Shouldn’t we be furious that unholy hands had dared tamper with the Bible?
  5. Probing Question #5 – With all of the deficiencies, changes, emendations and editings of Vaticanus, why did seemingly intelligent men accept this manuscript as fitting to use to translate for our modern Bibles? Isn’t this editing (which we can obviously see happened) the very thing the so-called Scholars rejected the Textus Receptus for – the texts the churches have always used until 150 years ago, and has NO evidence of tampering???
  6. Probing Question#6 – If I take every course at Tennessee Temple University on Greek and Hebrew they offer, does that automatically give me, a man, the right to decide what words should be in the Bible (a book written and dictated letter for letter by God) or not? Isn’t the Bible God’s word, and doesn’t He warn of dire consequences for anyone willing to tamper with it? Does fallen men have the right, based upon a few hundred hours of sitting in a chair, scribbling notes, listening to lectures, and occaisionally raising your hand and taking a few tests, to decide what words belong in the Bible (a book written by the infallable Creator of the Universe)?
  7. Probing Question #7 – Why would you want to treat the Bible like it is any other book? Isn’t it the inspired, inerrant word of God
  8. Probing Question #8 – if you believe the Bible has errors in it… doesn’t that mean you’re lying when you say you believe in the inspired, inerrant word of God???
  9. Probing Question #9 – when we already know the early Coptic and Gnostics were riddled with heresy, why would you prefer their heavily edited Bible texts over the ones you assume have been edited by the Bible-believing Christians who were suffering and dying for their faith?
  10. Probing Question #10 – Why was no attempt made to disprove Simonides’ claim to have forged Sinaiticus? was it because Tischendorf feared they couldn’t disprove it? Or was it because he suspected it was true all along?
  11. Probing Question #11 – There’s no proof of any “editing” of the Greek Recieved Text around 250 AD. How can you continue to believe one took place when all the evidence for editing points rather to your preferred manuscripts, the Alexandrian family?
  12. Probing Question #12 – why is it only verses referring to topics that Christ denying liberals object to that seem to be changed? If there were corruptions in transmission, shouldn’t it have also affected incidental verses like Matthew 20:29? It seems a little funny that the only verses that are changed or deleted are ones that a Bible scoffing, Christ Denying theological liberal would object to.
  13. Probing Question #13 – why do the “Scholars” insist the texts with no evidence of changes were edited, but the ones with all the evidence of tampering and editing are the “purest and best manuscripts”?
  14. Probing Question #14 – If the critical text of Wescott and Hort was correct and scholarly, why did they conceal their work?
  15. Probing question #15 – If the translation of the RV was approved of by God, why did they conceal their work, and lie when they agreed not to do everything they ended up doing?
  16. Probing Question #16: If the Bible commands us to disregard and put away any witnesses that disagree with each other… why are we blindly accepting Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus and Vaticanus?

We’ve examined a number of texts that the Bible versions have changed. It rapidly becomes obvious that certain doctrines are immediately targeted for change.

It’s time to look at exactly whose hands are on our Bibles.

We’ll start with Wescott and Hort, as their work was foundational to our accepting the Alexandrian family of manuscripts.

“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 and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, vol. 1, p. 211)

In case you’re interested, you can obtain most of these books on Wescott and Hort through the Bible For Today, D. A. Waite’s website. If you have the money and are driven to the Bible translation/preservation issue, it’s worth it to get these books.

Wescott and Hort were theological liberals, men who denied the literal inspiration of the Bible. It’s completely understandable that they rejected the King James and the Textus Receptus, as they clearly describe Wescott and Hort as “Wells without water.”

1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 Peter 2:1 (KJV)

Not too surprisingly, as you’ve come to expect, the modern translations render “Lord” as “Master”, again denying the divinity of Jesus Christ. Trust me when I say these facts will be brought up at the Great White Throne judgment, when these heretics who translate our Bibles are judged.

“When the constitution of the British and Foreign Bible Society was first formulated, it was understandably not foreseen that the question of Unitarianism would have much relevance to the society’s work. Before long, however, UNITARIANS GAINED SUBSTANTIAL INFLUENCE UPON THE AFFAIRS OF THE BIBLE SOCIETY, PARTICULARLY IN EUROPE, WHERE SOME AUXILIARY SOCIETIES WERE RUN ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY BY PERSONS OF UNITARIAN BELIEFS” (Brown, The Word of God Among All Nations, p. 12).

Hort in his own letters admits he did not hold to an infallible view of the Bible.

But I am not able to go as far as you in asserting the infallibility of a canonical writing” (Hort writing to Westcott in 1860, cited in Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I p. 422).

“For I too ‘must disclaim settling for infallibility.’ In the front of my convictions all I hold is the more I learn, the more I am convinced that fresh doubts come from my own ignorance, and that at present I find the presumption in favor of the absolute truth–I reject the word infallibility–of the Holy Scripture overwhelming” (Westcott writing to Hort in 1860, cited in Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p. 207).

It’s interesting that Hort claims to hold to the absolute truth – but not infallibility – of the Holy Bible. Okay, that’s talking out of both sides of your mouth. Infallible means the Bible is without error. If you don’t believe the bible is without error, you believe it has errors. If it has errors, it can’t be absolute truth.

So Hort is lying and telling the truth at the same time. What he’s really trying to do is play a politics game, by claiming the Absolute truth of the Bible, which will pacify Evangelicals, but not Fundamentalists. But since there are many more Evangelicals than Fundamentalists, they’ll fool most of those.

“No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis give literal history–I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did–yet they disclose to us a Gospel. So it is probably elsewhere [in the Bible]” (Westcott, writing to the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1890, cited in Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Vol. II, p. 69).

This is also a telling admission from Wescott, since I’ve been dealing with Hort up until now. Hort doesn’t believe in the Inspiration of the Bible, an admission which places grave doubts to his being saved. There also is a lack of any kind of testimony from either Wescott or Hort.

Here’s my point – how can you describe the first three chapters of Genesis as being a myth – that’s what Wescott is getting at in his letter – and still be saved? There is a radical change one experiences when you’re born again. Your view of the Bible suddenly changes. You hold it in high esteem. You read it, and accept what it says as the word of God. If you don’t have that, then I seriously doubt you are born again. And I think most Christians would look a little oddly at you if you espoused those views, yet claimed to be saved.

Why is this so important whether or not WEscott and Hort were saved or not? Think about that for a minute. They put themselves in charge of determining what words in the Greek texts were from God or not. Their decisions are still bowed to today.

“Modern textual criticism is psychologically ‘addicted’ to Westcott and Hort.” (Zane C. Hodges, “Rationalism and Contemporary New Testament Textual Criticism,” Bibliotheca Sacra, January 1971, p. 35).

“Thus THE TEXT, BUILT UP ON THE WORK OF THE 19TH CENTURY, HAS REMAINED AS A WHOLE UNCHANGED, particularly since the research of recent years has not yet led to the establishment of a generally acknowledged N.T. text” (Erwin Nestle and Kurt Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 24th edition, 1960, p. 62).

There you go – an admission that the Greek Wescott-Hort text remains mostly unchanged even today, when it is published as the UBS text and the Nestle-Aland text. They are almost word for word and letter for letter the same.

“The International committee that produced the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, NOT ONLY ADOPTED THE WESTCOTT AND HORT EDITION AS ITS BASIC TEXT, BUT FOLLOWED THEIR METHODOLOGY in giving attention to both external and internal consideration.” (Bruce Metzger, The Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament–Yesterday and Today)

“There is nothing unique about Metzger’s theory of textual criticism. It is simply a refinement of Westcott and Hort’s theory in the New Testament in the Original Greek (1881). … this theory is dominant today in part because of Metzger’s great influence. It was the theory employed in producing the United Bible Societies Greek text. It is the theory lying behind the Greek text used by most modern versions: The Revised Standard, the New Revised Standard, the New English Bible, the Revised English Bible, the New American Bible, the New American Standard, the Good News Bible, the New International Version…” (Brooks, Bible Interpreters of the 20th Century, p. 264).

A quote from David Cloud…

Donald Waite, who studied 1,291 pages of their writings, concluded that, among other things, Westcott and Hort did not affirm the infallibility of Scripture; they undermined the vicarious substitutionary atonement of Christ; they embraced the Fatherhood of God and evolution. Dr. Waite warns that the heresy of Westcott and Hort is subtle. Like many neo-orthodox and modernistic theologians,Westcott and Hort did not so much deny the doctrines of the Word of God directly; they undermined orthodox doctrine with clever doubt and with subtle questioning. Dr. Waite’s books on this subject (The Theological Heresies of Westcott and Hort: As Seen inTheir Own Writings and Heresies of Westcott & Hort) are available from Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108,http://www.biblefortoday.org. (David Cloud, The Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible & Christianity, pg. 81, emphasis mine.)

I strongly recommend the purchase of the Way of LIfe Encyclopedia, as it has in depth articles in it such as this one, and deals with all matters Biblical and Fundamentalist. It’s the first Bible Encyclopedia written by a Fundamentalist, and does not question nor cast doubt upon the Bible. And I shouldn’t have to make such a statement about ANY Bible Encyclopedia. Think about that for a good, long while.

“… the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit. … Certainly nothing could 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” (Hort to Westcott, 1860, cited in Life of Hort, Vol. I, p. 430).

If you weren’t convinced that either man was a heretic, this quote should. Hort is literally calling the doctrine substitutionary death of Jesus Christ a “heresy”. This means Hort did not believe in propitiation, the satisfaction of the sin debt. If he didn’t believe in it, and considered it heresy… then he couldn’t have taken advantage of it. If you need ANY more proof that Hort was not saved, then your standards are pretty low, and you need to stop and go to the “How to be saved” blog post. You have to believe in something to have faith in it.

If you don’t believe the death and blood of Jesus’s vicarious atonement saves you, you cannot have faith in it. If you do not believe it saved you, then (listen carefully) it hasn’t.

AS I said a few days ago, I highly doubt that you’ll meet either Westcott or Hort in Heaven.

After reading these quotes, let me drop a bombshell on you. Westcott and Hort were Mariolatrists, praying to the Virgin Mary. They didn’t believe in salvation by grace through faith. And they believed in the ransom theory, that Christ’s life saved us, but the deal was sealed by him dying… as a ransom payment to Lucifer.

BUZZZZ… not saved. Heretics. I’m not even going to give those quotes, again, as the Westcott & Hort foundation insists that “King James Only cultists are fond of taking quotes out of context against Westcott and Hort.”

Fine. But you admit they said it, right? You admit they believed it, right? If you, the reader find this hard to believe they said and espoused these beliefs, many of Westcott & Hort’s papers are online. Or you can buy actual copies of their public domain writings from the Bible For Today, who has made them all available in hardcover format (and hopefully soon, in Ebook).

And THESE TWO MEN decided what words belonged in the Greek text of the Bible. I’ve established enough quotes that everyone should be satisfied that their work is still being utilized today. Literally, the Wescott-Hort greek text is being used against copies of Aleph and B to determine what, if any, variant readings should be followed.

And as I mentioned far earlier on, those “oldest and best” Greek Texts you constantly see references to in your Bibles in the footnotes is literally the one assembled by Wescott and Hort – placing it in 1881, which is not the oldest text, and is assembled using an incomplete and highly edited manuscript (Vaticanus, “B”) and a possible forgery or heavily edited and also incomplete manuscript (Sinaiticus, or “Aleph”). So, it’s not the “Best”, either.

I ask again, how can two defective manuscripts be used to make a new manuscript that is referred to by the description, “The oldest and best manuscripts?” There’s so many lies in that description I don’t know where to start! It’s not the oldest, it’s not the best, and it’s only one manuscript! Unless of course they’re describing the printed editions that were made from W&H’s blaspemous work.

So, here’s the question, and no, I won’t make this another pointed question: Why were these two unsaved heretics allowed to tamper with God’s word? Why was no testimonies ever solicited to ensure only saved men were working on this translation? Indeed, that hasn’t been the practice for ANY of the modern Bible translating committees to ensure everyone working on it is a Christian!!! Now I DO ask – shouldn’t we be ensuring this???

I mean, since the wording chosen has dramatic impact on the doctrinal understandings of Christians, shouldn’t we be insisting on this very thing? Why should the unsaved be given any say in what words like “hamarteon” are translated to in our language?

These men should have been witnessed to. They should have been evangelized, not misled. We shouldn’t have cooperated with their schemes and errors. Whose fault is it that Westcott and Hort right now are in unspeakable torment, and have been since they died, for around 115 years? The fault of every true Christian who met them and never bothered to try to witness to them. Now, that is forgiven us, and paid by Christ’s death on Calvary. But imagine how GREAT it would have been to have gotten these two heretics saved, and what they could have done as believing Christians. Alas, it must be that false teachers enter in.

Tomorrow, we look at the other translators and what they believe.

The Bible Controversy 12


so far we have examined:

  • Psalm 12:6-7 is correctly translated in the King James, but became increasingly incorrectly translated after Youngs “literal” version
  • The Bible is inspired and preserved letter for letter by God.
  • Many statements of faith for ministries and churches are deliberately worded to conceal that the Christian involved does not believe the Bible is inerrant and inspired by God.
  • While a few manuscripts may have copyists errors, we can still determine the overall correct reading by examining large numbers of them we can
  • This was done previously and forms the family of manuscripts known as the Textus Receptus
  • Modern Bibles are translated entirely from “The oldest and best manuscripts”
  • The “oldest and best manuscripts” actually date from 1881, and are the work of Wescott and Hort, men who denied most of the fundamentals of the faith and did not believe in the Bible as inspired.
  • Wescott and Hort used mostly Codex Vaticanus, and where Vaticanus was “unsure” (or quite simply, didn’t have the book, verse or chapter – which often is the case) they had to resort to Codex Sinaiicus
  • Codex Sinaiticus was found in St. Catherine’s Monastary by Count Tischendorf, who was desperately searching for an old manuscript – ANY old manuscript – which differed from the Textus Receptus
  • A Bible artifact forger (Constantinus Simonides) stepped forward and admitted to forging Sinaiticus early on in his manuscript career, and described it as “clumsy”. While his confesion was ignored, it ended up costing him a great deal of money as from then on nobody would buy any more artifacts from him. He had nothing to gain and everything to lose with his confession.
  • Tischendorf described Codex Sinaiticus as “highly unreliable.
  • Count Tischendorf was a man who denied the inerrancy of the Bible and the Godhood of Jesus Christ
  • Sinaiticus shows major sings of editing, or correcting if it is a modern forgery.
  • The Scenarios presented for any presumed editing of the Syrian Manuscripts is simply ridiculous, and falls apart under any kind of logical examination.
  • The supposed editing of the Syrian manuscripts suppose that they are edited over a massive geographical area all at once, by “Pious Scribes”. How did these “Pious Scribes” manage to get all the manuscripts to say exactly the same thing, over a massive geographical area?
  • There is absolutely no proof for any editing of the Syrian family of manuscripts
  • There is overwhelming evidence for massive editing of Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Sinaiticus.
  • The critics claim that the Syrian family did not exist before AD 300 – but then turn around and insist they were “heavily edited” by the year AD 350 – again, without any proof to the contrary.
  • The translating Committee for the RV was instructed not to alter the text, or use any other manuscripts other than the Textus Receptus. Their very first act was to select Wescott & Hort’s new “critical” Greek Manuscript, compiled from painstaking comparison of two flawed and heavily edited texts, and lots of guesswork
  • The transdlating committee was instructed not to make any deletions from the text. They promptly made hundreds.
  • The translating committee was instructed only to replace outdated words. Instead, they made literally tens of thousands of changes to the translation.
  • Textual Critics insist that no verses from the Syrian texts can be found in the Early Christian authors, the so called early church fathers. In reality, there are tens of thousands.
  • When questioned, the critics insist that this means you cannot find the entire text of the Syrian New Testament in any one Early Christian Author. This is misleading, as you can’t find the entire text of the New Testament in its entirety in the complete bulk of the Early Christian Writers, let alone any one. By their standards, we would have to reject the entire New Testament.
  • Their own standards are not consistent, as they accept any fragment of any verse in paraphrase as being of the Alexandrian family and therefore proof – but require the entire text of the New Testament from only one Early Christian author.
  • Its very odd that the subjects with verse changes are all ones that a theologically liberal, Christ denying heretic would object to.
  • There is absolutely no evidence that the Textus receptus was edited or changed, but much to show that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were.
  • Many of the verses that Scholars claim can only be found in a “Few late manuscripts and are of recent origin” can be found quoted in the writings of Early Christian Authors.
  • While the NKJV usually gives the correct reading, it sometimes shows problems with adverbs and always contains footnotes casting doubts on the Bible Text.
  1. Probing question #1 – Why would you oppose the preservation and inspiration of the Bible?
  2. Probing question #2 – Is it right to use the philosophy of lost pagans to interpret the Holy Scriptures
  3. Probing Question #3 – Why would we let a man who admittedly was using pagan methods to interpret Holy Scriptures determine what words and verses belong in the Bible?
  4. Probing Question #4 – Why do we even consider it okay that Origen removed words and entire verses from the Bible when he wrote up his master Greek text? Doesn’t the Bible pronounce damnation upon anyone who removes words from or adds words to the Holy Bible? Shouldn’t we be furious that unholy hands had dared tamper with the Bible?
  5. Probing Question #5 – With all of the deficiencies, changes, emendations and editings of Vaticanus, why did seemingly intelligent men accept this manuscript as fitting to use to translate for our modern Bibles? Isn’t this editing (which we can obviously see happened) the very thing the so-called Scholars rejected the Textus Receptus for – the texts the churches have always used until 150 years ago, and has NO evidence of tampering???
  6. Probing Question#6 – If I take every course at Tennessee Temple University on Greek and Hebrew they offer, does that automatically give me, a man, the right to decide what words should be in the Bible (a book written and dictated letter for letter by God) or not? Isn’t the Bible God’s word, and doesn’t He warn of dire consequences for anyone willing to tamper with it? Does fallen men have the right, based upon a few hundred hours of sitting in a chair, scribbling notes, listening to lectures, and occaisionally raising your hand and taking a few tests, to decide what words belong in the Bible (a book written by the infallable Creator of the Universe)?
  7. Probing Question #7 – Why would you want to treat the Bible like it is any other book? Isn’t it the inspired, inerrant word of God
  8. Probing Question #8 – if you believe the Bible has errors in it… doesn’t that mean you’re lying when you say you believe in the inspired, inerrant word of God???
  9. Probing Question #9 – when we already know the early Coptic and Gnostics were riddled with heresy, why would you prefer their heavily edited Bible texts over the ones you assume have been edited by the Bible-believing Christians who were suffering and dying for their faith?
  10. Probing Question #10 – Why was no attempt made to disprove Simonides’ claim to have forged Sinaiticus? was it because Tischendorf feared they couldn’t disprove it? Or was it because he suspected it was true all along?
  11. Probing Question #11 – There’s no proof of any “editing” of the Greek Recieved Text around 250 AD. How can you continue to believe one took place when all the evidence for editing points rather to your preferred manuscripts, the Alexandrian family?
  12. Probing Question #12 – why is it only verses referring to topics that Christ denying liberals object to that seem to be changed? If there were corruptions in transmission, shouldn’t it have also affected incidental verses like Matthew 20:29? It seems a little funny that the only verses that are changed or deleted are ones that a Bible scoffing, Christ Denying theological liberal would object to.
  13. Probing Question #13 – why do the “Scholars” insist the texts with no evidence of changes were edited, but the ones with all the evidence of tampering and editing are the “purest and best manuscripts”?
  14. Probing Question #14 – If the critical text of Wescott and Hort was correct and scholarly, why did they conceal their work?
  15. Probing question #15 – If the translation of the RV was approved of by God, why did they conceal their work, and lie when they agreed not to do everything they ended up doing?

Questions…

All the translating committees always include Roman Catholic clergy. Why? These are men whose very Mother Church deny salvation by grace through faith, condemning such a bielief and any who refuse to believe in salvation by works to eternal damnation (something they have no power to do).

All the translating committees feature Unitarians, and listen with respect as these Christ-denying infidels give their opinions as to why a reading that downplays the Godhood of the Lord Jesus Christ should be rendered. Why? Why not ask for a statement of faith, and upon hearing they don’t accept the deity of Christ simply say, “I’m sorry, this is work for saved men only. Unsaved men are truly incapable of understanding anything in Scripture beyond their need for a saviour, and the eventual doom of burning in Hell for all eternity unless they are born again.”

Why? Are we going to invite Jehovah’s Witnesses next to the translating committees? It’s not because they don’t accept the deity of Christ – that’s not the issue at all, or they wouldn’t allow MOST of the people on our Bible translating committees to be on them. The actual issue is – the number of Jehovah’s Witnesses knowing Greek and Hebrew rapidly approaches zero.

What’s the difference theologically between Jehovah’s Witnesses and most Bible translators? Answer – Most Jehovah’s Witnesses believe THEIR Bible! The average translator of Protestant Bibles doesn’t believe theirs.

The Lake Of Fire
The Future home of Bible Translators

It really doesn’t matter that much – unless Jehovah’s Witnesses get saved, they’ll be swimming in the same Lake of Fire that the modernists and Unitarians will.

How can I say that? Easy – that’s what the Bible says.

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. John 3:3 (KJV)

24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. John 8:24 (KJV)

27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. 28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Matthew 10:27-28 (KJV)

33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Matthew 23:33 (KJV)

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. Revelation 20:14-15 (KJV)

Let’s continue our examination of Bible verses affected by modern Bibles. The point to remember here is that these are changes made by comparing Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, something that’s EXTREMELY difficult to do. Why? Because they disagree with each other over 3,000 times in the Gospels alone!

15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. 16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; 17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; 18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; 19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. Deuteronomy 19:15-19 (KJV)

If witnesses do not agree, they must be discarded. Vaticanus does not agree with Sinaiticus – indeed, Dean Burgon made a sarcastic comment about them saying, “It would be easier to find three consecutive verses where they disagree than where they agree!”

Probing Question #16: If the Bible commands us to disregard and put away any witnesses that disagree with each other… why are we blindly accepting Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus and Vaticanus?

Why aren’t people asking this question???

2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. Mark 1:2 (KJV)

2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: Look, I am sending My messenger ahead of You, who will prepare Your way. Mark 1:2 (HCSB)

2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way, Mark 1:2 (ESV)

um… it’s not just from Isaiah 40:3-5. It’s also from Malachi 3:1.

17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Mark 2:17 (KJV)

17 And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” Mark 2:17 (ESV)

Again, musn’t have people repenting. They might realize they need to be born again.

11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. Mark 6:11 (KJV)

11 And if any place will not receive you and they will not listen to you, when you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them.” Mark 6:11 (ESV)

Notice anything missing? I bet you didn’t when you read this in your NIV, NASB, ESV, HCSB, RSV, NRSV, GW, Good News, etc.

29 And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting. Mark 9:29 (KJV)

29 And he said to them, “This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer.” Mark 9:29 (ESV)

Let’s see, what Christian doctrine is removed from this verse? If the Lord taught it, shouldn’t we observe it?

43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: 48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. Mark 9:43-48 (KJV)

43 And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. 45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, 48 ‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’ Mark 9:43-48 (ESV)

It’s absolutely no secret that the modern versions downplay Hell. No wonder Billy Graham began to turn away from believing in a literal Hell that burns forever, where the lost writhe in unspeakable agony forever, tormented by worms and flame.

The NIV changes Deuteronomy 32:22, Job 26:6, Proverbs 23:14, Proverbs 27:20, Isaiah 28:18, and Isaiah 57:9 from reading “Hell” to “Death”. That’s a deliberate heresy and error. The word Sheol is Hebrew for “Hell”, whereas Death is “Mavet”. In Yiddish, it’s Mavess. If you’re sickly as a baby, your parents change your name to “chaim”, life, to supposedly confuse the Melech Ha’Mevess, the angel of Death.

The NIV also changes Job 11:8, 2 Samuel 22:6, Psalms 18:5, Psalms 55:15, Psalms 116:3, Proverbs 7:27, Psalms 16:10, Psalms 86:13, Psalms 9:17, Proverbs 15:24, Isaiah 5:14, Isaiah 14:15, Isaiah 28:15, Ezekiel 31:16, Ezekiel 31:17, Ezekiel 32:21, Ezekiel 32:27, Jonah 2:2, Habakkuk 2:5, Acts 2:27, and Acts 2:31 from reading “Hell” to Grave. As I pointed out in the articles on the Jehovah’s Witnesses, you have to read these verses in context. Graves are cool, and do not burn. Yet in many of these verses, it talks about “burning” and “torment”. When it’s obvious that the passage is speaking of eternal torment or punishment, the correct translation should be “Hell”.

Psalms 139:8, Matthew 11:23, and Luke 10:15 are all changed from “Hell” to “Depths”.

If you keep reading a Bible that downplays, dismisses or removes essential Christian and Biblical Doctrines, what do you end up as? A doubter, one who is weak on their grasp of essential Christian doctrines. And eventually, apostating.

I ask you, is it absolutely crucial you reject modern versions? I’m telling you, yes. I began getting VERY strong in Biblical doctrines by giving up my NASB – which is the exact opposite of what the scholars tell you would happen, by the way – and sticking to my King James.

If you lose belief in a literal Hell, or you are not reminded of it constantly in your devotional reading, you lose the zeal to evangelize. Why? You get a subconscious complacency. If they die, they die! Oh, well. Should have been saved. Alas. And the heresy of Universalism begins to set in. “I can’t wait to laugh at ol’ so and so when I see him in heaven! Bet he’s surprised now!” Oh, he’s surprised all right. But it’s not some feeling stupid, egg on your face kind of sheepish embarrassment. It’s a horrendous future of suffering and torment. The greatest horror is eventually the realization that THIS WILL NEVER END! You’re not getting out of here!!!

21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. Mark 10:21 (KJV)

21 And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” Mark 10:21 (ESV)

Huh! Guess what we don’t have to do anymore? We don’t need to repent, or give up control of our life, or deny ourselves any more!!! Yay!!! And we don’t have to get born again any more, or be saved! Yay!!! It’ll be a party in the lake of fire! Kegger party, whooo!

I’m telling you, almost any verse that seems to imply you have to change your life and repent, and get saved is downplayed or changed in modern translations, except for those crucial verses that Christians have this annoying habit of memorizing, and using as a litmus test to see if anyone has changed their Bibles. I guess the Bible translators believe in “misery loves company.” You know, Wescott and Hort could have just gotten saved, and spared themselves any anguish.

For more on this, I seriously recommend two must have books – the Bible Version Question & Answer Database by David Cloud, as well as the Way of Life Encyclopedia by David Cloud, both available at very low cost from Way of Life.

We’ve gone all the way through Matthew, and almost all the way through Mark, and what I’ve shown should have set off serious alarms in your soul. I’d continue on this throughout the entire New Testament, but both David Cloud and D. A. Waite have done much of this work already, and the Scripture says the laborer is worthy of his hire. I do recommend you spend a few dollars and get the two books by David Cloud – the total for both is less than $20, which is not that much.

Next, we’re going to start looking at the heretics who translate your modern Bibles. If you haven’t agreed there’s been an agenda by evil men to deprive you of your Christian growth, and to keep you inactive, or possibly even trying to keep people from repenting and getting saved… check here tomorrow.

KJV Textual Technology


KJV Textual Technology.

I’m doing this to remind myself to look at this website in more detail. The truth of King James Onlyism is spreading. I can only speculate it precursors the final revival before the Rapture,