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, but by examining large numbers of them we can determine the overall correct reading
- 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.
First probing question we have asked: Why would you oppose the preservation and inspiration of the Bible?
Okay, now that we spent four days laying the groundwork, let’s explain how this whole thing came about.
The original family of manuscripts are called the Syrian, or Antiochan manuscripts. The differing family of manuscripts are called the Alexandrian manuscripts, from Egypt.
The best guess is that the Alexandrian manuscripts came originally from Origen. Origen came from Alexandria, Egypt around the end of the 4th century – so we’re talking about 350 years or so after the ascending of Christ to heaven. By this time the churches had by and large fallen into error already, so he was in good company.
Origen had some bizarre notions about Scripture. He had misunderstood the Gospels, and actually castrated himself from a faulty understanding of “If thine hand offend thee…”. He opened a school to teach how to study the Bible, teaching that one should interpret the word of God through the eyes of a Pagan, Plato. His rationale for doing this was that “The Ark of the Covenant was made of gold plundered from Egypt.” Thus, one could use the philosophy of pagans to interpret Holy Scripture.
Second Probing question: Is it right to use the philosophy of lost pagans to interpret the Holy Scriptures?
Third Probing Question: 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?
Fourth Probing Question: 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?
It is highly probable that Codex Vaticanus comes to us from Origen. It is recorded that Origen did make a master Greek text. Why isn’t this raising eyebrows? Have we lost our love for the Bible this much that we don’t stop and question, “Why would you need to make a master text?”
Let me explain, before we go on. “Scholarship” and “textual criticism” have given us this heritage of taking the word of God so lightly. Today, it is understandable to take all of the Antioch manuscripts, go through them, and make sure we have the correct readings. They were, after all, hand written. And we do have over 5,000 of them. There is the occaisional spelling error. Greek has two letters for O, Omega and Omicron. Accidentally wroting an Omega instead of the omicron sometimes happens.
Or when copying a text, inadvertantly part of a verse is omitted. Verses that feature the same word twice have this happen sometimes. The eye sees the first occurance of the word, and when the eyes return to the source document, sees the second occurance and continues the copying from there. I’ll spare you all the technical terms.
The issue here is, with over 5,000 manuscripts, it’s merely labor intensive to go through and make sure we have the correct reading. This was done by four men independant of one another, and their master manuscripts make NO CHANGES to the text, merely ensuring we have the complete manuscript, nothing omitted – by comparing the manuscripts. Nobody decided whether a manuscript was genuine. Nobody sat and questioned, “Was this added later by some pious scribe?”
Vaticanus is missing entire books, and chapters of the Bible. It is a woefully incomplete manuscript. Christians are constantly being told that Sinaiticus is the manuscript that Bibles are made from, when in reality it is Vaticanus.
Words have been overwritten three, four, and fve times. Letters in those words have been changed, and an entire portion of Mark was literally scrubbed off of the parchment.
Fifth Probing Question: 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???
Here’s the point behind these probing questions: If James White finds out about this blog, and attempts his usual nonsense – he’s got to answer these probing questions before I start answering his. Them’s the rules.
Origen died and left Eusebius in place as his successor. Right in time for Constantine’s supposed conversion to Christianity. I really don’t buy his story at all, by the way. There’s nothing about mystic visions of Praxis symbols being a sign of sudden, unwilling salvation AT ALL in the Bible!
Leaving that aside, we find Constantine ordering 50 hand written copies of the Bible (well, there were no printing presses yet, so of course hand written). Eusebius apparently had his students use Vaticanus as their guide to make their copies from.
This is why there are about 47 copies of texts belonging to the Alexandrian family extant. These are the ones.
There are over 5,400 Antioch family manuscripts. The majority of the quotes from the early church “fathers” match these texts.
There are 47 Alexandrian Family manuscripts. 46, if you discount Sinaiticus because of the possible forgery.
Why are we accepting Alexandria over Antioch? The Bible shows that Christians were devout and had correct doctrine at Antioch. Alexandria had produced a man whose doctrine was faulty and needed coorecting – once he got to Antioch and met followers of the Apostle Paul.
If anything, things would have gotten worse in both places after the Apostles died. So if Antioch got questionable from good, then Alexandria would have gone from faulty and questionable to BAD. Do we agree? Yes?
So… why are we accepting Alexandrian manuscripts over Antiochan? Someone tell me why?
I know, very few people are asking this question in exactly this way.
Alexandria should be fighting the uphill battle. It’s a place of incorrect doctrine, its manuscripts edited and revised, faulty, missing entire books of the Bible,, missing verses and even chapters. It has been discarded by the churches, finding only acceptance in the Roman Catholic Church – which should make it suspect right from the start.
If I bought several copies of a book, and I noticed one of them was missing many of the chapters and sentences, I wouldn’t blame the other copies for being faulty – I’d blame the obviously defective one!
So WHY is it different when we come to God’s word?
97 O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. 98 Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me. 99 I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation. 100 I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts. 101 I have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I might keep thy word. 102 I have not departed from thy judgments: for thou hast taught me. 103 How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth! 104 Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way. Psalm 119:97-104 (KJV)
Obviously, these words do not apply to the Scholars, to the textual critics, to those who defend the modern versions.