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.
- Probing question #1 – Why would you oppose the preservation and inspiration of the Bible?
- Probing question #2 – Is it right to use the philosophy of lost pagans to interpret the Holy Scriptures
- 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?
- 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?
- 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???
- 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)?
- 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 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?
- 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.
So far we looked only at a few verses of the deity of Christ, and were a little shocked at how the modern translations pervert them. We noticed a trend that if it’s a verse that the average Christian is knowledgeable about (Like John 1:1 or John 3:16) they leave it alone, knowing some Christians are discriminating enough to reject any Bible that mistranslated John 1:1. But how many Christians were aware of 1 John 5:6-8, 1 Tim. 3:16, Matthew 1:23, Phillipians 2:6, Colossians 2:9, John 20:28, John 10:29:30, or John 1:14?
Yesterday I deliberately arranged the verses from less shocking to completely shocking. I let you in easy, now there’s no need to pull punches now. And I’m going to really harp on this issue: Why is it these particular verses seem to be changed?
Let’s talk about documentary fingerprint. I came up with this term (I’m sure forgery experts have a technical term for it) to describe linguistic phrases that a human being uses. For instance, Joseph Smith’s forgery “The Book of Mormon” uses the phrase “And it came to pass…” thousands of times.
If the same person supposedly edited the Syrian family of manuscripts, a feat that would have required a lifetime of travel and the willing permission of the owners of these manuscripts, wouldn’t he have left evidence that pointed specifically to him? And since over 5,200 Greek manuscripts of the Syrian family all agree almost letter for letter, it would HAVE to have been the same person. Let me flesh out this scenario, and see if it sounds correct to you.
I give you a list of verses of the Bible to correct, and urge you to be careful to correct them the way I wrote them down. Right away, its a huge project, because there’s no chapter or verse numbers in 350 AD.
- Are you going to get them all?
- Is the order of magnitude of the project going to intimidate you? Will you hurry through it?
- With the project so large, and there are all these verses you’re supposed to add all these words to, what are the odds you’re going to miss a verse, add them to the wrong verse, forget some of the words you’re supposed to add?
- And since at least two of the passages are lengthy (9 verses), what are the odds you’re going to miss large portions of it, perhaps as much as a single verse?
Here’s a homework assingment. I want you to write out on paper 1 John 5:6-8 as it reads in either the NIV, ESV, or NASB.
Once that’s complete, go and add in the missing words as written in the King James. Don’t re-write the entire verses, just add the words to the existing verses.
Done? Okay, look at it critically.
Huh. It’s BLATENTLY obvious those words are added in later. Isn’t it? You had to cram those words in. The spacing of the letters is different, aren’t they? Even the style of the lettering changes as you begin to stress JUST A BIT about fitting those words in there. And the most common Western technique to fit words in is bottom letter compression (the bottom strokes of the letters point towards one another in an arch), or superscription – to write the added words ABOVE the text.
There’s not a scroll, uncial, parchment, miniscule, lectionary, or codex anywhere in the Antioch/Syrian/Textus Receptus family that shows that kind of editing.
Here’s the biggie – east of Turkey, the habit is to write added words in the margins of the text – sometimes even adding two or three words preceding and following from the verse where the addition should go, to clearly notate it. And again, there’s no scroll, uncial, parchment, miniscule, lectionary, or codexes anywhere in the Antioch family showing that, either.
So what does that do to the theory of the Textual Critics?
Explode it utterly. The only conclusion is that, to effect the changes the “scholars” claim took place would require the re-writing of the entire codex or lectionary.
People are resistant to change. I guarantee at least a dozen, if not more, Christians in Antioch alone would have resisted the changes, and we’ve had ended up with a third family of manuscripts, the suppsed “Neutrals” the “scholars” proposed. And the numbers of those should roughly have rivaled that of the Textus Receptus manuscripts. We have 5,200 to 5,400 manuscripts belonging to the Textus Receptus line, and about 47 of the Alexandrian family. so how many belong to the supposed neutral texts?
Codex D was the lone “neutral” text. And the opinion of that is that its a back translation. In other words, the source document probably was latin, and the copyist simply translated the latin back into Greek.
Modern scholars dismiss the supposed Neutral manuscript theory, not realizing without it, Wescott and Hort’s theory is utterly crushed. And I just demonstrated the utter lack of evidence for Textual Criticism.
IF THERE’S NO EVIDENCE OF ANY EDITING, THEN THERE’S NO NEED TO DISCOVER WHAT THE ORIGINAL GREEK MUST HAVE SAID!!! You can just open Stephanus’s 4th edition Greek and look at it!
“Wait! Stephanus made 4 edtions! Doesn’t that mean he may have been wrong?”
You guys are up to, what, 23 editions of the Nestle-Aland? Plus Wescott-Hort and the United Bible Society’s myriad texts? you’ve got some 30 editions of your “critical” greek text! We’ve got… 4. I think 3 chances to get it right versus 29 – we’re in a lot better theological ground than you are. And guess what? I feel the spirit of prophecy coming on me!!! Thus sayeth the NIV, there will eventually be a 24’th edition!!!
Okay, sorry, leaned on the sarcasm button again. I just need a place to rest my elbow while I type!
okay, tomorrow I promise to get back to the changed verses. i had to get this issue dealt with before I forgot it. I meant to get this put in as Bible Controversy #3, but got sidetracked.