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.
- 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”?
- 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?
All the translating committees always include Roman Catholic clergy. Why? These are men whose very Mother Church deny salvation by grace through faith, condemning such a bielief and any who refuse to believe in salvation by works to eternal damnation (something they have no power to do).
All the translating committees feature Unitarians, and listen with respect as these Christ-denying infidels give their opinions as to why a reading that downplays the Godhood of the Lord Jesus Christ should be rendered. Why? Why not ask for a statement of faith, and upon hearing they don’t accept the deity of Christ simply say, “I’m sorry, this is work for saved men only. Unsaved men are truly incapable of understanding anything in Scripture beyond their need for a saviour, and the eventual doom of burning in Hell for all eternity unless they are born again.”
Why? Are we going to invite Jehovah’s Witnesses next to the translating committees? It’s not because they don’t accept the deity of Christ – that’s not the issue at all, or they wouldn’t allow MOST of the people on our Bible translating committees to be on them. The actual issue is – the number of Jehovah’s Witnesses knowing Greek and Hebrew rapidly approaches zero.
What’s the difference theologically between Jehovah’s Witnesses and most Bible translators? Answer – Most Jehovah’s Witnesses believe THEIR Bible! The average translator of Protestant Bibles doesn’t believe theirs.
It really doesn’t matter that much – unless Jehovah’s Witnesses get saved, they’ll be swimming in the same Lake of Fire that the modernists and Unitarians will.
How can I say that? Easy – that’s what the Bible says.
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. John 3:3 (KJV)
24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. John 8:24 (KJV)
27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. 28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Matthew 10:27-28 (KJV)
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Matthew 23:33 (KJV)
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. Revelation 20:14-15 (KJV)
Let’s continue our examination of Bible verses affected by modern Bibles. The point to remember here is that these are changes made by comparing Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, something that’s EXTREMELY difficult to do. Why? Because they disagree with each other over 3,000 times in the Gospels alone!
15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. 16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; 17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; 18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; 19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. Deuteronomy 19:15-19 (KJV)
If witnesses do not agree, they must be discarded. Vaticanus does not agree with Sinaiticus – indeed, Dean Burgon made a sarcastic comment about them saying, “It would be easier to find three consecutive verses where they disagree than where they agree!”
Probing Question #16: If the Bible commands us to disregard and put away any witnesses that disagree with each other… why are we blindly accepting Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus and Vaticanus?
Why aren’t people asking this question???
2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. Mark 1:2 (KJV)
2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: Look, I am sending My messenger ahead of You, who will prepare Your way. Mark 1:2 (HCSB)
2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way, Mark 1:2 (ESV)
um… it’s not just from Isaiah 40:3-5. It’s also from Malachi 3:1.
17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Mark 2:17 (KJV)
17 And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” Mark 2:17 (ESV)
Again, musn’t have people repenting. They might realize they need to be born again.
11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. Mark 6:11 (KJV)
11 And if any place will not receive you and they will not listen to you, when you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them.” Mark 6:11 (ESV)
Notice anything missing? I bet you didn’t when you read this in your NIV, NASB, ESV, HCSB, RSV, NRSV, GW, Good News, etc.
29 And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting. Mark 9:29 (KJV)
29 And he said to them, “This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer.” Mark 9:29 (ESV)
Let’s see, what Christian doctrine is removed from this verse? If the Lord taught it, shouldn’t we observe it?
43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: 48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. Mark 9:43-48 (KJV)
43 And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. 45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, 48 ‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’ Mark 9:43-48 (ESV)
It’s absolutely no secret that the modern versions downplay Hell. No wonder Billy Graham began to turn away from believing in a literal Hell that burns forever, where the lost writhe in unspeakable agony forever, tormented by worms and flame.
The NIV changes Deuteronomy 32:22, Job 26:6, Proverbs 23:14, Proverbs 27:20, Isaiah 28:18, and Isaiah 57:9 from reading “Hell” to “Death”. That’s a deliberate heresy and error. The word Sheol is Hebrew for “Hell”, whereas Death is “Mavet”. In Yiddish, it’s Mavess. If you’re sickly as a baby, your parents change your name to “chaim”, life, to supposedly confuse the Melech Ha’Mevess, the angel of Death.
The NIV also changes Job 11:8, 2 Samuel 22:6, Psalms 18:5, Psalms 55:15, Psalms 116:3, Proverbs 7:27, Psalms 16:10, Psalms 86:13, Psalms 9:17, Proverbs 15:24, Isaiah 5:14, Isaiah 14:15, Isaiah 28:15, Ezekiel 31:16, Ezekiel 31:17, Ezekiel 32:21, Ezekiel 32:27, Jonah 2:2, Habakkuk 2:5, Acts 2:27, and Acts 2:31 from reading “Hell” to Grave. As I pointed out in the articles on the Jehovah’s Witnesses, you have to read these verses in context. Graves are cool, and do not burn. Yet in many of these verses, it talks about “burning” and “torment”. When it’s obvious that the passage is speaking of eternal torment or punishment, the correct translation should be “Hell”.
Psalms 139:8, Matthew 11:23, and Luke 10:15 are all changed from “Hell” to “Depths”.
If you keep reading a Bible that downplays, dismisses or removes essential Christian and Biblical Doctrines, what do you end up as? A doubter, one who is weak on their grasp of essential Christian doctrines. And eventually, apostating.
I ask you, is it absolutely crucial you reject modern versions? I’m telling you, yes. I began getting VERY strong in Biblical doctrines by giving up my NASB – which is the exact opposite of what the scholars tell you would happen, by the way – and sticking to my King James.
If you lose belief in a literal Hell, or you are not reminded of it constantly in your devotional reading, you lose the zeal to evangelize. Why? You get a subconscious complacency. If they die, they die! Oh, well. Should have been saved. Alas. And the heresy of Universalism begins to set in. “I can’t wait to laugh at ol’ so and so when I see him in heaven! Bet he’s surprised now!” Oh, he’s surprised all right. But it’s not some feeling stupid, egg on your face kind of sheepish embarrassment. It’s a horrendous future of suffering and torment. The greatest horror is eventually the realization that THIS WILL NEVER END! You’re not getting out of here!!!
21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. Mark 10:21 (KJV)
21 And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” Mark 10:21 (ESV)
Huh! Guess what we don’t have to do anymore? We don’t need to repent, or give up control of our life, or deny ourselves any more!!! Yay!!! And we don’t have to get born again any more, or be saved! Yay!!! It’ll be a party in the lake of fire! Kegger party, whooo!
I’m telling you, almost any verse that seems to imply you have to change your life and repent, and get saved is downplayed or changed in modern translations, except for those crucial verses that Christians have this annoying habit of memorizing, and using as a litmus test to see if anyone has changed their Bibles. I guess the Bible translators believe in “misery loves company.” You know, Wescott and Hort could have just gotten saved, and spared themselves any anguish.
For more on this, I seriously recommend two must have books – the Bible Version Question & Answer Database by David Cloud, as well as the Way of Life Encyclopedia by David Cloud, both available at very low cost from Way of Life.
We’ve gone all the way through Matthew, and almost all the way through Mark, and what I’ve shown should have set off serious alarms in your soul. I’d continue on this throughout the entire New Testament, but both David Cloud and D. A. Waite have done much of this work already, and the Scripture says the laborer is worthy of his hire. I do recommend you spend a few dollars and get the two books by David Cloud – the total for both is less than $20, which is not that much.
Next, we’re going to start looking at the heretics who translate your modern Bibles. If you haven’t agreed there’s been an agenda by evil men to deprive you of your Christian growth, and to keep you inactive, or possibly even trying to keep people from repenting and getting saved… check here tomorrow.