The Bible Controversy 11


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.
  • 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.
  • While the NKJV usually gives the correct reading, it sometimes shows problems with adverbs and always contains footnotes casting doubts on the Bible Text.
  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 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)?
  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”?

One thing I need to take a minute and stress about the modern versions is this: the secrecy they used.

If the Bible translators were doing something right, they wouldn’t have hidden the fact they were using another manuscsript.

If Wescott and Hort didn’t theink they were doing something wrong, they would have published their Bible Manuscript as soon as it was completed, encouraging scholarly review of their work.

Instead, Wescott and Hort waited until the day before the RV was published to release their “critical” Greek text – which universally met with disapproval and cries of heresy.

Instead, the translators never bothered to explain to the committee that hired them that they planned on using the Critical Greek text. They accepted their terms of hire, the injunction to make no changes, to use the Textus Receptus – and went ahead and privately did the opposite.

Technically, both the translators and Wescott/Hort left themselves open for civil liability. The committee and its sponsors, including C. H. Spurgeon, could have sued to recover ALL the monies spent on the translation process, and in my opinion should have. If I hire you to do work on my house, and I specify that I don’t want a certain product used, you agree and tell me afterwards you went ahead and used it – I’m going to strongly consider suing you for the cost of hiring a second contractor to do it right.

Imagine your reaction, if you went privately to the Crown of England and to various churches, seeking sponsors and funding for an updating of the revered Bible used by the saints for three centuries – and your reaction when the Scholars, beaming with pride, hand you a Bible that was the product of EVERYTHING you instructed them not to do! A Bible that contains thousands of doctrinal errors, including removing the two strongest references to the Trinity, questioning or downplaying the deity of Jesus Christ, and even omits one of the Ressurection accounts?

I’d have been sick. I’d have been on my face, repenting to the Lord, begging forgiveness, and pleading with insight on what to do.

Of course, the wastebasket would have been my first reaction. THUMP!

There’s no way I’d have allowed that miserable manuscript to have been published. I’d have told the scholars, “If you want this pubished, I’ll see you in court.” I may have lost possibly, but I wouldn’t want to explain to the Lord how I’d allowed that nonsense to see the light of day!

So here’s a probing question that is going to cause a lot of grief for the Multi-Version Onlyist –

Probing Question #14 – If the critical text of Wescott and Hort was correct and scholarly, why did they conceal their work?

Probing question #15 – If the translation of the RV was approved of by God, why did they conceal their work, and lie when they agreed not to do everything they ended up doing?

7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 2 Thessalonians 2:7-12 (KJV)

9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; 11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust. 1 Timothy 1:9-11 (KJV)

7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. 8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. Revelation 21:7-8 (KJV)

The Bible speaks very strongly that Christians should not lie. Indeed, the very fruit of it, that they were told what not to do, and indeed specifically went and did what they were told not to do and concealed it while they did it, suggests strongly that the modern translations are not of God, but of Satan.

When EVER has God been part of a lie? Yes, Tyndale and others all had to hide ther translating of the Bible, and their smuggling it into England. Was that a lie? No, that was the response of Peter to the Sanhedrin/ “We ought to obey God rather than men.”

Objection: “Well, Peter and the Apostles would have lied when they agreed not to preach Jesus… and then went ahead and did it anyway…”

answer: “Peter and the apostles never agreed. They were beaten and ordered not to preach Jesus resurrected, and Peter was honest and forthright about it to the Sanhedrin.”

The scolars who worked on the RV were told not to use a critical text. They had every opportunity to say, “But wait! There’s new discoveries we have…” If they so believed everything scholars today tell us, they should have honestly spoken up. They weren’t being threatened with death, scourgings, or burning at the stake. They were being hired to do a specific job with specific materials. If they couldn’t in all honesty do the job as specified, they should have had the integrity to speak up immediately. “I’m sorry, I can’t do that.”

Let me put it the other way. let’s just say I was being hired to participate in the translating of the New American International Engish Message Standard Living Version. The committee made it clear to me in the interview they wanted me to stick to the latest Nestle-Aland manuscript. I would sadly decline, saying, “I’m sorry, I feel that’s a heretical manuscript. If you wanted me to use the TR, I could participate. I’m afraid I’ll have to decline your offer.”

THAT’S integrity. I probably would also point out I’d only had a year in Greek and Hebrew and was unqualified to undertake such a job (note it didn’t stop Hort, who was just out of seminary when he began work on the WH manuscript).

so, why aren’t these questions being asked by every born again Christian who loves the Bible?

Advertisements

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???