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 Sinaiticus
- Codex Sinaiticus was found in St. Catherine’s Monastery 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 confession 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?
- 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?
- 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???
This may all have seemed technical and boring, but trust me when I say, I cannot think of a more important topic. Someone has switched deliberately altered Greek texts for God’s Inspired and Preserved Bible, and quite a few persons are willingly trying to keep the average Christian uninformed on the topic.
I’ll repeat the point I wasn’t always King James Only. I was VERY content with my NIV. I loved the strength and seeming emphasis of God’s might and power in the RSV. I was snobbish about my new NASB – the MacArthur Study Bible – because I had the Bible that all the experts said, “This was the most literal translation.” I even wanted to get a nice ESV soon. And a retired pastor from an evangelical (but very liberal) denomination had even given me some other translations, since he was clearing out his study after retirement.
I’d had the NASB for two, maybe three weeks? And my wife and I were trying to find a home church. We’d just left a church we’d planned on joining, because we’d just found out they were Charismatic. And we found a church that looked good, but they had an issue – they were King James Only.
Okay. Let me investigate that. At the very least, if this is some cultic thing, I can get enough information on it to disprove it. At least it will settle on whether this was the right church for us or not.
I began investigating. And suddenly I realized I was on the wrong side of the issue.
It’s not the King James Only weirdos who were on the wrong side of the issue. I was.
Christianity on the whole had accepted the King James Bible, and were united on it. And the manner in which the new Greek Manuscripts were introduced strongly reeked of dishonesty at the very least, and strongly suggested of an active plot by Satan. We’ll get there on that issue shortly.
It was the Modern Bible movement that moved away from the accepted position of orthodox Christianity, not the King James Bible defenders.
The King James Only people weren’t the weirdos and wackos. They were taking a very strong stance for the defense of God’s word. And I was part of the people who had unwittingly moved away from the accepted position.
It only literally took my one hour of research to find I was wrong. After many more hours of research, I remain convinced. You will be too.
We’ve learned about Codex Vaticanus. I dwelt on that issue yesterday because it’s actually Vaticanus that most of the modern Bibles come from, and Sinaiticus is used only where Vaticanus is missing verses or chapters. If it’s not in either one, but the Antioch family of manuscripts has it… too bad. The Antioch manuscripts are rejected almost entirely by the “Scholars”.
I heard a sermon by a man who’d been fired from Tennessee Temple University for his King James Only stance. He asked a probing question which they refused to answer before they fired him. I’m going to ask it now.
Sixth Probing Question: 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 occasionally raising your hand and taking a few tests, to decide what words belong in the Bible (a book written by the infallible Creator of the Universe)?
I’ll remind the reader I’ve had one year of Greek, and one year of Hebrew. I consider the training invaluable, as it gives you a great deal of insight into the meaning of the Scriptures. I would not consider, would not presume or DARE to look at the Greek manuscripts and say, “I don’t think Acts 8:27 should be there. I think some pious scribe added it years later.”
But that’s EXACTLY what these scholars are doing! Christians were up in arms over the Jesus Seminars many years ago. And the men in the Jesus Seminars weren’t doing anything that modern Bible “Scholars” today are doing! They were just more honest about it.
I’ll repeat that there are many corrections and changes done to Vaticanus. It would take x-ray machines to try to see if it was possible to see the very original writing on the scrolls. And it certainly was available to Beza, to Scrivener, to the Elzevir brothers and to Erasmus. They didn’t bother with it. It was available to the translators of the King James Bible, who ignored it. There’s a reason there. WE should take heed.
We KNOW that there were changes by “pious scribes” to Vaticanus. Indeed, the very people the scholars accuse of altering the Textus Receptus (who didn’t have it, had no access to it, and spurned using it) were in charge of Vaticanus – and we KNOW they altered Vaticanus!
Seventh Probing Question: Why do the scholars reject the Antioch manuscrips (the Textus Receptus) for supposedly being altered by the people who didn’t have access to it – and then turn around and advocate Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus who WERE altered by the very people we accuse of altering the Textus Receptus? Supposed redacting of the TR is only a theory without any proof, but a known fact for Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. If the scholars reject the TR for being altered, shouldn’t they be rejecting Vaticanus and Sinaiticus too???
I’m really surprised I’m the only person asking this question. Because it’s the key to understanding what’s happening. There are unGodly men who are making merchandise of God’s word, and neutering modern Christians who lack good doctrinal understanding, simply because scissors have been liberally applied to modern Bibles, cutting out whatever the Scholars don’t like.
We now start looking at Sinaiticus. Here’s the story.
Count Tischendorf was a man who quite simply, was searching for ANY manuscripts that read differently than the Textus Receptus. I have to ask why. Remember, the Textus Receptus represents 5,400 manuscripts that have been hand copied one from another, by Bible believing Christians, many of whom were Baptists.
Tischendorf was searching vainly, trying to find reputable manuscripts in the mideast. I say reputable, because quite a few obvious forgeries were turning up, including some questionable ones by a man named Constantinus Simonides, who apparently was being suspected of forging manuscript fragments.
Just before Tischendorf’s funding ran out, he visited the Monastery of St. Catherine, on Mt. Sinai. Please note two things – Tischendorf was a liberal theologically, part of the great movement afoot in Germany at the time, which was denying the Flood, the Genesis account, dismissing all the patriarchs of the Bible as “folk tales”, and calling the Lord Jesus Christ just a “Good man”, and dismissing any accounts of the ressurection as “legends”.
Tischendorf was also being funded by someone, and all the information I have on it right now (I lack the time right now to go and read his writings) is scarce. I think it was Tubingen university? When I find out later, I’ll correct this entry.
Tischendorf found the manuscripts in a trash pile, about to be burned. The monks there had little or no regard for the manuscripts at all. Tischendorf sat up all night copying the Gospel of Barnabus (Really? You get your hands on the supposed great find of the century, and you sit up copying a pseudo-canonical book???), and convinced the monks not to burn the manuscripts, bargaining to purchase it. He promised to return to Germany and secure funding for it. The monks agreed, and stuffed it on the shelf. Tischendorf returned to Germany, secured the funding, returned and bought the manuscript. I’m sure the monks found some other spurious documents to sell as well, but nothing is made of those.
We see that Tischendorf was part of a group who denied the Bible and the Godhood of Jesus Christ, which means this manuscript was advocated by a Godless Heretic. We have two strikes against Sinaiticus right away. It’s either one of Origen’s or Eusebius’s 50 manuscripts, both of whom held to heretical methods of biblical interpretation – and whom admittedly were writing THEIR versions of the Greek Manuscripts.
The other strike against Sinaiticus was that it was being championed by men who obviously were not saved, not Christians, and unless they repented of their theological positions, are in the very Hell they denied.
Tischendorf described his precious discovery as “Highly unreliable”, showing signs of editing, overwriting of verses countless times, as many as “five different hands”. words had vanished from verses, entire verses were gone, and even large portions of entire chapters.
These two manuscripts are not the “Oldest and best manuscripts.” The current Bible Scholars will say “this verse is not in the oldest and best manuscripts. They cannot be found in Codex Sinaiticus or Codex Vaticanus.”
The two sentences do not refer to the same thing, although they imply they do. You’ll see soon what exactlky the “oldest and best manuscripts” are.
Tischendorf produced his discovery, to scholarly acclaim. Other men who were theologically liberal and denied Christ was delighted, as apparently key verses were removed from the Bible advocating the Deity of Christ.
And then Simonides spoke up. “I made Sinaiticus years ago. It was a clumsy forgery, one of my first attempts, and fairly pathetic at that.”
It created quite a stir, as Simonides now admitted to forging documents – and specifically claimed writing Sinaiticus. Tischendorf simply waited for the controversy to die down, and repeated his claims. As far as I know, there were no serious attempts to discover whether Simonides’s confession was true or not. The Scholars were simply too enraptured with Tischendorf’s “Unreliable” manuscript.
I’ll point out that while the modrn Bible defender may argue there’s no proof for Simonides, there’s no proof against it – because there was no investigation. Simonides was in the region of St. Catharine’s monastary years prior to this. He was apparently suspected of forging manuscript fragments.
I’ll state two more things. Simonides, by confessing to forging Sinaiticus, ruined his career as a dealer in antique manuscripts. He could have produced the Ark of the Covenant and not one person would have purchased it.
I’ll also state that I have an RSV dating back to the 1950’s. The paper is getting heavily yellowed, and a little brittle at the edges. I’ve owned a few books from before 1900.
Amazingly, for a supposed 1500 year old manuscript, it looks REALLY good. REALLY good. It’s online, go look at it!
Which means either it was kept rolled up and hidden somewhere with a leather cover over it and never used…
or it was written by a Greek manuscript forger in the mid 19th century.
Any way you slice it, Sinaiticus has major problems. Its own discoverer calls it “highly unrelaible”, admits to evidence of editing (or correcting by an inexperienced forger), and it was either written by a heretic or by a con artist. Take your pick. You choose. I leave it up to you.
It’s a bad choice either way.
Compare this to the Textus Receptus, the manuscripts written down carefully by devout Bible Believing people, smuggling them and hiding them, risking capture, imprisonment, torture and even death at the hands of the very people…
…who supposedly altered those documents and left them alone, after killing their owners? No, that’s not how the Vatican operated. At least one person is recorded as being wrapped in the leaves of their own hand written Bible, and set afire. The Vatican has a history of burning the Bible, especially the Textus Receptus. Are we to believe that some pious monk found these hidden Christians, snuck into their homes at night, and edited their Bibles while the people slept, undisturbed???
No, that’s ridiculous.
The Manuscripts that the Roman Catholics had were indeed the very ones being championed as “excellent” – despite thousands of edits, corrections, additions and deletions!