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.
- 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.
- 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”?
the first verse I look at in a Bible, as I said, is Acts 8:37.
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. Acts 8:35-38 (KJV)
36 As they were traveling down the road, they came to some water. The eunuch said, “Look, there’s water! What would keep me from being baptized?” [ 37 And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart you may.” And he replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”] 38 Then he ordered the chariot to stop, and both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. 39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him any longer. But he went on his way rejoicing. Acts 8:36-39 (HCSB)
Notice the HCSB places this verse in brackets? the footnote says, “other mss omit bracketed text.”
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. But you can find it in the Antioch manuscripts.
How do other translations deal with this verse?
The NIV goes from verse 36 to 38, omitting verse 37. Yet it’s present in over 5,000 Greek manuscripts?
The ESV also omits the verse.
The BBE does, too.
as does the NLT.
As does God’s Word translation.
The RV/ASV simply puts it in italics.
So, most of the translations simply drop a verse… that shows salvation by grace through faith, without works.
The kind of thing a Roman Catholic, or a Roman Catholic sympathizer would omit. Why? Because as I’ve mentioned before, the Council of trent pronounced anathema, damnation, against anyone who believed in salvation by grace through faith without works. and Hort was a Roman Catholic sypathizer, as well as a Marionist, someone who worships the virgin Mary. Both Wescott and Hort rejected substitutionary atonement.
Listen, it’s real simple. You cannot reject the substitutionary atonement of Christ and be saved!!! That’s a bottom line statement.
In addition, a denier of Christ also ends up with no substitutionary atonement. Why? Chris becomes merely a man. So obviously we have to be saved by other means. That either means universalism, or salvation by works.
Acts 8:37 refutes both, so it has to go.
53 And every man went unto his own house. 1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. 2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. 3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. John 7:53-8:11 (KJV)
- The RSV omits these verses, placing it in the footnotes in very small italics.
- The NIV includes a note: “The earliest manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11”.
- The NLT claims “the most ancient mss omit these verses”
- GW gibes a list of four other places the verses could be placed.
- The RV/ASV does not omit them or have a footnote.
Funny, I see it in the Textus Receptus in greek! Why, it’s right here! Alas, i cannot simply copy the text for you, or I’d show it.
And funny, one of the Early Christian writers quotes it.
And when the elders had set another woman which had sinned before Him, and had left the sentence to Him, and were gone out, our Lord, the Searcher of the hearts, inquiring of her whether the elders had condemned her, and being answered No, He said unto her: “Go thy way therefore, for neither do I condemn thee.” (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles Book II)
How can one of the early Christian writers quote it, if it’s not in the oldest manuscripts?
“Well, it’s not in the critical texts.”
You mean Vaticanus.
Vaticanus omits most of Genesis, too. Should we throw that out as well?
If an early Christian author quotes it… then it’s not recent. So tell me again why one of the greatest passages of the forgiveness of God is removed from the Bible? Oh, that’s right – no works. No sacraments. Just forgiveness. Huh. I guess if forgiveness is required, then Universality is a heresy, right?
Sorry, leaning on the sarcasm button again.
Remember 1 John 5:7? James White and other King James critics always protest it can only be found in late manuscripts. What about Cyprian?
and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.” (Cyprian Treatise I On the Unity of the Church)
A few weeks ago, when I addressed Calvinism, I talked about a Kung Fu move called a spinning footsweep, where you kick the legs out from under your opponent. You just saw it again. Haiii-Yahhh!!!
Ready? Here we go. To save time, I’ll list the King James against a single modern translation, so that you can see the deliberate atttempt to cast doubt on, weaken, or even destroy Biblical doctrine. I recommend you look it up in all modern stransations. I can’t quote the NIV, the worst offender, as I can’t afford to purchase the NIV module (at $45 – why so much???), but the ESV, NLT and HCSB are free, so I can quote those.
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Matthew 5:22 (KJV)
22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. Matthew 5:22 (ESV)
not a big deal? The Lord Jesus Christ was angry with his brothers… see Matthew 23. Was he angry with cause or without a cause? With. Did He sin? Absolutely not, according to the King James. How do the modern versions show it? think about that.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; Matthew 5:44 (KJV)
44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, Matthew 5:44 (ESV)
Can you see a difference? How much does this omission affect your Christian walk?
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. Matthew 6:13 (KJV)
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Matthew 6:13 (ESV)
Are you praying that “Thine is the kingdom, the power and glory forever?” Why not? I think I see why…
13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Matthew 9:13 (KJV)
13 Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy and not sacrifice. For I didn’t come to call the righteous, but sinners.” Matthew 9:13 (HCSB)
Musn’t have people repenting. Why, they might get saved and go to heaven, instead of suffering in Hell for all eternity with all the Textual Critics!
46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. 47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. 48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. Matthew 12:46-50 (KJV)
46 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. 48 But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” Matthew 12:46-50 (ESV)
why this verse is removed is absolutely beyond me.
21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. Matthew 17:21 (KJV)
verse omitted in ESV, in brackets in HCSB.
10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. 11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. 12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? Matthew 18:10-12 (KJV)
10 “See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven. 12 What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray? Matthew 18:10-12 (ESV)
Did the Son of Man come to seek and to save the lost? Not in modern Bibles, he didn’t. It might give us the impression He’s the son of God!
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. Matthew 19:9 (KJV)
9 And I tell you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” Matthew 19:9 (HCSB)
Hard words for the disciples to hear. Apparently for Modern “Scholars”, as well!
13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. 14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. 15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. Matthew 23:13-15 (KJV)
13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in. 15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves. Matthew 23:13-15 (ESV)
Musn’t criticize the Roman Catholics – they might not give us positions of authority when we help bring all the Christians under the Papal See again! The modern “Scholars” would do well to heed Matthew 23:15, the verse they left in. And look up at 23:13 as well. Study them! If you’re a textual critic, this could be talking about YOU.
13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh. Matthew 25:13 (KJV)
13 Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour. Matthew 25:13 (ESV)
…leaving all the Calvinists watching and waiting… but for what???
34 They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink. Matthew 27:34 (KJV)
34 they offered him wine to drink, mixed with gall, but when he tasted it, he would not drink it. Matthew 27:34 (ESV)
The King James shows a fulfillment of a messianic prophecy. The ESV destroys it.
Okay, there you go… and that was just the Gospel of Matthew! Do you now begin to suspect the modern perversions corrupt doctrine?