The Bible Controversy 10

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 translating 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.
  • Many of the verses that Scholars claim can only be found in a “Few late manuscripts and are of recent origin” can be found quoted in the writings of Early Christian Authors.
  1. Probing question #1 – Why would you oppose the preservation and inspiration of the Bible?
  2. Probing question #2 – Is it right to use the philosophy of lost pagans to interpret the Holy Scriptures
  3. 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?
  4. 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?
  5. 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???
  6. 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 occasionally 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)?
  7. 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
  8. 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???
  9. 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?
  10. 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?
  11. 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?
  12. 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.
  13. 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”?

Convinced yet? We’ve barely started.

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

We all know this one, right? Do the other versions say this?

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1 (HCSB)

Same thing, right? No, because the Heavens were not separated from the Heavens until later on.

1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1 (ESV)

The ESV gets it wrong, too. So does the RSV, GW and NLT.

1 At the first God made the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1 (BBE)

Well, the BBE got the Heaven part right, but what’s so hard about saying, “In the beginning”? Define what “At the first” means. You think that this doesn’t have an effect on you, but do you doubt a literal six-day creation? Since I went King James Only, I have no doubts. Reading versions that create subtle contradictions install doubts.

I cannot emphasize this enough. This is foundational. We have to establish in the Bible there is a God, and we have to establish that He is a God! By putting a conflict in the very first verse of the Bible says major things about the underlying motives and objectives of the modern translators. And trust me, I’m really going to shake your faith in these translators in a couple of days by telling you who they are, what they personally believe about the Bible and the Lord. When you get that information, it should seal the issue one way or the other.

Is there motives and objectives by these translators? Oh, yes there is. There’s agendas. They’re pushing certain things. When you analyze who these translators are and what they personally believe, you start to see it in the Bible.

God fearing Christians do not dare tamper with God’s word. We would read the Greek and Hebrew, and do our very literal best to translate it exactly as it reads. Now, there’s an additional point I have to raise, and here’s where the translators play fast and loose with their work.

Some Greek words have two meanings. How do you determine the meaning? by the context. That suddenly gives a little wiggle room as to how to translate something. Such as the greek word Afi’emi. Ot means “to divorce” or “to forgive”. Either way, it means an end to any marital discord. Which meaning does it have? Well, you read it by context. “Let him write a letter of divorce” could also be translated “write a letter of forgiveness”. But when you read the versES, and not the verse, it becomes plain that it’s speaking of divorce – which the Bible speaks of in such a way you know the Lord is not pleased with it.

My point is this: Most of these Bible translators, and you’ll see when we get there in a day or two, are not saved Christians. I remember hearing how one of Ray Comfort’s staffers confronted Virginia Mollenkot at a particular rally, and he witnessed to her. Her reaction was anything but that of a saved Christian. Who’s Virginia Mollenkot? one of the sylistic consultants for the NIV. Her job was to read verse translations and suggest possilbe wordings that flowed together.

If you witness to me on the street, I’ll probably be overjoyed you’re trying to witness, tell you I’m a christian, share my testimony, and probably give you some pointers if you need some. I would not try to argue with you. Feel free to contact Mark Spence over at for additional information about his run in with Virginia Mollenkot.

9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9 (KJV)

and to make all see what is the fellowship[a] of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ; (NKJV)

9 and to shed light for all about the administration of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things. Ephesians 3:9 (HCSB)

9 and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things, Ephesians 3:9 (ESV)

9 And make all men see what is the ordering of the secret which from the first has been kept in God who made all things; Ephesians 3:9 (BBE)

9 I was chosen to explain to everyone this mysterious plan that God, the Creator of all things, had kept secret from the beginning. Ephesians 3:9 (NLT)

9 He allowed me to explain the way this mystery works. God, who created all things, kept it hidden in the past. Ephesians 3:9 (GW)

9 and to make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery which for ages hath been hid in God who created all things; Ephesians 3:9 (ASV)

Do all these verses say the same thing? If you think they do, best look again. And make sure you read the footnote in the New King James: “NU-Text omits through Jesus Christ.” Really? I have a KJV study Bible that twice questions the inspiration of a verse. Each time I marked through it, because in each case I know for a fact that that verse is quoted by early christian authors, and therefore is not of “recent origin” as the footnotes suggest.

By and through have two different meanings. “By Jesus Christ” means Jesus Christ created all things, which is what the Bible says several times (well, my Bible -your modern translation has had almost all those verses removed or altered). “Through” means God did it, using Jesus Christ as His agent. It’s subtle, but denies an essential Bible doctrine and casts doubt on the deity of Jesus Christ.

The other versions just delete the offensive words. Why, they might give the impression that Jesus Christ was God, one third of the Trinity!

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. 1 Corinthians 15:47 (KJV)

The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord[a] from heaven. (NKJV) Footnote reads: NU-Text omits the Lord.

47 The first man was from the earth and made of dust; the second man is from heaven. 1 Corinthians 15:47 (HCSB)

47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 1 Corinthians 15:47 (ESV)

Again, the NKJV follows the corerct reading – this time without playing fast and loose with adverbs – but again, inserts a footnote raising doubt about a key verse. I’m seeing a pattern.

2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Colossians 1:2 (KJV)

To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are in Colosse: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Colossians 1:2 (NKJV) Footnotes: NU-Text omits and the Lord Jesus Christ.

2 To the saints in Christ at Colossae, who are faithful brothers. Grace to you and peace from God our Father. Colossians 1:2 (HCSB)

2 To the saints and faithful brothers in Christ at Colossae: Grace to you and peace from God our Father. Colossians 1:2 (ESV)

2 To the saints and true brothers in Christ at Colossae: Grace to you and peace from God our Father. Colossians 1:2 (BBE)

So each time, the NKJV cites the right translation, but proceeds to put in a footnote that casts doubt upon the verses. I personally would avoid the NKJV.

Coming up… more proofs. And meet the translators!


Author: philipdean2013

Seminary graduate with a Ba. in Theology/Pastoral Studies, Happily married, Independent Baptist. I can't keep silent about what I see going on in Christianity any longer! Apostasy reigns around us, churches are sliding into worldiness, a whitewashed Gospel is preached everywhere... "Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. Jeremiah 6:16 (KJV) So, I'm speaking out. ...Why aren't you???