so far we have examined:
- Psalm 12:6-7 is correctly translated in the King James, but became increasingly incorrectly translated after Young’s “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 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???
- 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)?
Okay, now that I’ve approached the back story from several angles, let’s put it all together.
In the 1870’s, pastors began calling for an updating of the Bible. There technically was only one Bible – the King James. They wanted some of the older, misunderstood words updated (do you know what an “Ossifrage” is? It’s a Vulture).
There was to be no substitutions of the Greek Texts, merely an updating. Those were the explicit instructions. The Textus Receptus SHALL be used. There will be no additions, ro deletions, merely an updating of the Bible to everyday English. This, by the way, has been the rationale of all modern Bibles – merely to update the outdated words. This, by the way, did not include the “Thees” and “Thous” that for some reason everyone complains about. The Bible was to be called the Revised Version – a revision, not a new translation. There was specific instructions that they were not to add to nor take away from, but to REVISE. One of the sponsors of the project was Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the “Prince of Preachers”.
A number of scholars were suggested for the work, and the first meeting was going well, until one man was suggested. He was a scholar, but he was a Unitarian. For the first (and to my knowledge only time) objections were raised, on the grounds an unSaved man was incapable of understanding the Bible – after all, he was a Christ denying heretic. Wescott and Hort promptly stood up and announced that if this man was not permitted to work on the project, they too would resign (and possibly take some of the funding sponsors with them).
Seeing that the entire project was about to break apart, the objection was dismissed, and the council permitted to continue. Wescott then produced his Greek manuscript. He explained that he and Hort had secretly been reconciling the two manuscripts of Codex Vaticanus (which they nicknamed “B”) and Codex Sinaiticus (Which they nicknamed aleph, after the inscribing of a single Hebrew letter on the beginning of the manuscript).
This manuscript had been prepared in secret, with no other scholars being consulted. Now, my information says that they had already begun the process, and continued it throughout the translation process of the RV. I have also heard from a teaching by Marc Monte they did the project in secret, and revealed the completed manuscript AT the first committee meeting. I still have to verify wich of the reports is accurate.
What is to be noted:
- The committee was not authorized to replace the Textus Receptus with any other manuscript. They promptly did so.
- The compiling of this manuscript was done in secret, no one else was privy to the discussion of which manuscript’s variant readings was to be followed. My counsel here would have been “None of them = stick with the Textus Receptus”.
- Wescott and Hort had already written of their opposition to the Textus Receptus, which they described as “vile” and “Villainous” (Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. 1, p. 211). God’s word is “Villainous”? The word describes something vile, and evil. To describe God’s word as evil is to show you are an utter reprobate.
- The decision was made for “inclusiveness”, to include someone whose doctrine was rank heresy. This guaranteed that he would immediately object to any translating of a verse that could possibly prove the Trinity, or the Deity of Jesus Christ. The squelching of the objection of any man who was a heretic prevented further objections to the doctrinal corruptions of the committee.
The decision was made based to engage in what would be called “textual criticism”. The Committee actually endorsed this, and would formulate a series of rules and observations. I’ve got them listed in bold at the beginning of emphasis. You’ll notice once or twice I will categorically answer these false charges in bold as well. As you’re used to seeing from me, we’ll pay close attention to the wording of it.
- The goal of textual criticism is the recovery of the true text of the Bible. this assumes of course that the true text of the Bible was lost prior to the 19th century! What extreme arrogance to assume that early Christians were careless about the very Bible they were being murdered and tortured for! And how odd they should agree on the texts possibly either written by a heretic (Origen denied the deity of Christ, and his writings would be influential among the Arians and Sabellians later on), and from a country whose original Christians were all gnostics or heretics of one form or another. It is no reflection on modern Egyptian Christians, who have to suffer for the stigma of the early Coptic “christians”, whose writings reek of heresy.
- The Bible is to be treated like any other book. The Bible is not any other book! The Bible is the inspired, preserved word of God. No saved man can honestly abide by this rule. If to you the Bible is like any other book, it means you do not literally believe it. If you don’t literally believe it, I do question your salvation. Why did we allow unSaved men to translate the Bible, let alone decide which texts REALLY are the Bible?
- There are four families of Bible manuscripts: Traditional (Antioch/Syrian), Western (codex D), Alexandrian (the attempt by Coptic Christians to “correct” the Antioch manuscripts to neutral), and Neutral (Codex Vaticanus and Sniaiticus). The assumptions here are numerous and wild. The assumptions here are that since the Coptic “Christians” felt free to edit, add to and remove from the Bibles, that all other early Christians did as well. It’s a false assumption, as there’s no proof for it. Rather the proof is that only the Coptics did this. The reality is – there is no “Neutral Manuscripts”. There is only the texts of the Heretics, and the texts of the inerrant, inspired preserved word of God. There is no “western text”.
- “All trustworthy restoration of corrupted texts is grounded on the study of their history” (Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek, Introduction and Appendix, 1881). Again, major assumptions. It sounds logical – and that’s what hoodwinks so many Christians. All this sounds logical. But we see again a major priorii argument – the assumption that all of the received texts are corrupted. They’re not looking at Alexandrian manuscripts to see how to restore those… they’re examining the received texts to see how they can get them to say what they want. As for their history, the known history of the Textus Receptus is known because the texts were publicly available. If you found Christians, you found their Bible, which they encouraged you to copy and read. Indeed, a great deal of time was spent copying the Bible in advance to spread the Gospel. Can I prove any one manuscript was one the Waldenses copied, and which one it was copied from? No. Likewise, we cannot prove that Vaticanus was written by Eusebius or Origen. Nor can anyone at this late date prove Sinaiticus was written by Origen.
- “Nearly all text critics assume that between 250 and 350 A.D. there was a revision of the Greek text which produced the traditional text” (A.H. McNeile, An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, p. 428). Why? What proof do you have? None. To even state that suspicion, one must have proof of an editing. Approaching this with a priorii argument is faulty logic and circular reasoning. “We know that the Bible manuscripts were edited.” “How?” “Uh… because they must have been edited.” Funny how this unproven editing resulted in so many of the texts reading exactly the same. Did a master editor – we’ll call him Huey – went around to all these countries the Received Text existed in, found almost all of them, and made the same changes to almost all of them! and… didn’t touch the spelling errors in those few manuscripts with them. Why do they believe the TR had to be edited? Because it convicted them. It clearly showed the deity of Christ, the reality of Hell, the eternal condemnation of those who reject the deity of Christ, whom they rejected. Why those years? Because Vaticanus dates from around the 4th century, and the assumption is that Vaticanus represents the “original Greek” and Sinaiticus represents any attempt to “restore” the “corrupt” text back to it’s original. Since Aleph and B disagree with each other in so many places, wouldn’t it make more sense to assume both were products of editing to remove anything unSaved men disagreed with? And didn’t Hort even admit, “The fundamental Text of late extantGreek MSS. generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian Text of the second half of the fourth century” (The New Testament in the Original Greek, Introduction, p. 92). If they’re identical… isn’t this a complete admission that this editing never took place???
- The traditional text did not exist before the 3rd century. This contention contradicts the previous one, as any exercise in logic should show. How can it have been created in the early 300’s, then have been massively edited by Huey the wandering scribe only a couple of decades later? “Byzantine readings have now been proven to be in existence by the end of the second century…” (Sturz, The ByzantineText-type, p. 78)
- readings characteristic of the Received Text are never found in the quotations of Christian writers prior to about A.D. 350” (Kenyon, Recent Developments in the Textual Criticism of the Greek Bible, London: Oxford UniversityPress, 1933, pp. 7-8). This theory of Hort’s, which Kenyon above is paraphrasing, is either the product of ignorance or a deliberate lie. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of quotes of the pre-Nicean church “fathers” show that a preponderance of them come exclusively from the Syrian texts. It is during the post-Nicean era that we begin to see the number of quotes from the Alexandrian manuscripts begin to increase. The truth? There are a total of almost 5,000 quotations prior to 350 AD that support the Received Text. Wescott and Hort make a demand for the entire text of the Syrian Greek texts to be found, from Matthew to Revelation, in any of the early Christian writers – which is ridiculous, as it would then be dismissed as an “edited text”. Wescott and Hort, however, then propose different standards for the Alexandrian, and include any paraphrasing of a verse as being proof for the Alexandrian. If you require the entire Greek Syrian text in the writing of any one pre-Nicean Christian writer as proof, you must also require the entire Alexandrian text in the writings of any one Pre-Nicean writer.
- The shorter reading is preferred. Sounds logical, until one considers this is a deliberate rule invented to gain support for the Alexandrian family. Since the editing of the Coptics and Gnostics were designed more to remove words that contradicted their man-made heresies, you realize very quickly the need to cry “foul”. Again, they are suggesting that the Syrian texts were edited for which there is no proof, and announcing their preference for the Alexandrian texts, for which there is AMPLE proof that they have been edited.
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?
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???
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?
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?
Probing Question #11 – There’s no proof of any “editing” of the Greek Received 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?
next, we will begin to examine some of these changes, and I’m going to bring up yet another question nobody seems to be asking!