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?
- 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?
We’ve examined a number of texts that the Bible versions have changed. It rapidly becomes obvious that certain doctrines are immediately targeted for change.
It’s time to look at exactly whose hands are on our Bibles.
We’ll start with Wescott and Hort, as their work was foundational to our accepting the Alexandrian family of manuscripts.
“I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with THE VILLAINOUS TEXTUS RECEPTUS…Think of THAT VILE TEXTUS RECEPTUS leaning entirely on late MSS.; it is a blessing there are such early ones” (Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, vol. 1, p. 211)
In case you’re interested, you can obtain most of these books on Wescott and Hort through the Bible For Today, D. A. Waite’s website. If you have the money and are driven to the Bible translation/preservation issue, it’s worth it to get these books.
Wescott and Hort were theological liberals, men who denied the literal inspiration of the Bible. It’s completely understandable that they rejected the King James and the Textus Receptus, as they clearly describe Wescott and Hort as “Wells without water.”
1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 Peter 2:1 (KJV)
Not too surprisingly, as you’ve come to expect, the modern translations render “Lord” as “Master”, again denying the divinity of Jesus Christ. Trust me when I say these facts will be brought up at the Great White Throne judgment, when these heretics who translate our Bibles are judged.
“When the constitution of the British and Foreign Bible Society was first formulated, it was understandably not foreseen that the question of Unitarianism would have much relevance to the society’s work. Before long, however, UNITARIANS GAINED SUBSTANTIAL INFLUENCE UPON THE AFFAIRS OF THE BIBLE SOCIETY, PARTICULARLY IN EUROPE, WHERE SOME AUXILIARY SOCIETIES WERE RUN ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY BY PERSONS OF UNITARIAN BELIEFS” (Brown, The Word of God Among All Nations, p. 12).
Hort in his own letters admits he did not hold to an infallible view of the Bible.
But I am not able to go as far as you in asserting the infallibility of a canonical writing” (Hort writing to Westcott in 1860, cited in Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I p. 422).
“For I too ‘must disclaim settling for infallibility.’ In the front of my convictions all I hold is the more I learn, the more I am convinced that fresh doubts come from my own ignorance, and that at present I find the presumption in favor of the absolute truth–I reject the word infallibility–of the Holy Scripture overwhelming” (Westcott writing to Hort in 1860, cited in Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p. 207).
It’s interesting that Hort claims to hold to the absolute truth – but not infallibility – of the Holy Bible. Okay, that’s talking out of both sides of your mouth. Infallible means the Bible is without error. If you don’t believe the bible is without error, you believe it has errors. If it has errors, it can’t be absolute truth.
So Hort is lying and telling the truth at the same time. What he’s really trying to do is play a politics game, by claiming the Absolute truth of the Bible, which will pacify Evangelicals, but not Fundamentalists. But since there are many more Evangelicals than Fundamentalists, they’ll fool most of those.
“No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis give literal history–I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did–yet they disclose to us a Gospel. So it is probably elsewhere [in the Bible]” (Westcott, writing to the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1890, cited in Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Vol. II, p. 69).
This is also a telling admission from Wescott, since I’ve been dealing with Hort up until now. Hort doesn’t believe in the Inspiration of the Bible, an admission which places grave doubts to his being saved. There also is a lack of any kind of testimony from either Wescott or Hort.
Here’s my point – how can you describe the first three chapters of Genesis as being a myth – that’s what Wescott is getting at in his letter – and still be saved? There is a radical change one experiences when you’re born again. Your view of the Bible suddenly changes. You hold it in high esteem. You read it, and accept what it says as the word of God. If you don’t have that, then I seriously doubt you are born again. And I think most Christians would look a little oddly at you if you espoused those views, yet claimed to be saved.
Why is this so important whether or not WEscott and Hort were saved or not? Think about that for a minute. They put themselves in charge of determining what words in the Greek texts were from God or not. Their decisions are still bowed to today.
“Modern textual criticism is psychologically ‘addicted’ to Westcott and Hort.” (Zane C. Hodges, “Rationalism and Contemporary New Testament Textual Criticism,” Bibliotheca Sacra, January 1971, p. 35).
“Thus THE TEXT, BUILT UP ON THE WORK OF THE 19TH CENTURY, HAS REMAINED AS A WHOLE UNCHANGED, particularly since the research of recent years has not yet led to the establishment of a generally acknowledged N.T. text” (Erwin Nestle and Kurt Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 24th edition, 1960, p. 62).
There you go – an admission that the Greek Wescott-Hort text remains mostly unchanged even today, when it is published as the UBS text and the Nestle-Aland text. They are almost word for word and letter for letter the same.
“The International committee that produced the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, NOT ONLY ADOPTED THE WESTCOTT AND HORT EDITION AS ITS BASIC TEXT, BUT FOLLOWED THEIR METHODOLOGY in giving attention to both external and internal consideration.” (Bruce Metzger, The Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament–Yesterday and Today)
“There is nothing unique about Metzger’s theory of textual criticism. It is simply a refinement of Westcott and Hort’s theory in the New Testament in the Original Greek (1881). … this theory is dominant today in part because of Metzger’s great influence. It was the theory employed in producing the United Bible Societies Greek text. It is the theory lying behind the Greek text used by most modern versions: The Revised Standard, the New Revised Standard, the New English Bible, the Revised English Bible, the New American Bible, the New American Standard, the Good News Bible, the New International Version…” (Brooks, Bible Interpreters of the 20th Century, p. 264).
A quote from David Cloud…
Donald Waite, who studied 1,291 pages of their writings, concluded that, among other things, Westcott and Hort did not affirm the infallibility of Scripture; they undermined the vicarious substitutionary atonement of Christ; they embraced the Fatherhood of God and evolution. Dr. Waite warns that the heresy of Westcott and Hort is subtle. Like many neo-orthodox and modernistic theologians,Westcott and Hort did not so much deny the doctrines of the Word of God directly; they undermined orthodox doctrine with clever doubt and with subtle questioning. Dr. Waite’s books on this subject (The Theological Heresies of Westcott and Hort: As Seen inTheir Own Writings and Heresies of Westcott & Hort) are available from Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108,http://www.biblefortoday.org. (David Cloud, The Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible & Christianity, pg. 81, emphasis mine.)
I strongly recommend the purchase of the Way of LIfe Encyclopedia, as it has in depth articles in it such as this one, and deals with all matters Biblical and Fundamentalist. It’s the first Bible Encyclopedia written by a Fundamentalist, and does not question nor cast doubt upon the Bible. And I shouldn’t have to make such a statement about ANY Bible Encyclopedia. Think about that for a good, long while.
“… the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit. … Certainly nothing could be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ’s bearing our sins and sufferings to his death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy” (Hort to Westcott, 1860, cited in Life of Hort, Vol. I, p. 430).
If you weren’t convinced that either man was a heretic, this quote should. Hort is literally calling the doctrine substitutionary death of Jesus Christ a “heresy”. This means Hort did not believe in propitiation, the satisfaction of the sin debt. If he didn’t believe in it, and considered it heresy… then he couldn’t have taken advantage of it. If you need ANY more proof that Hort was not saved, then your standards are pretty low, and you need to stop and go to the “How to be saved” blog post. You have to believe in something to have faith in it.
If you don’t believe the death and blood of Jesus’s vicarious atonement saves you, you cannot have faith in it. If you do not believe it saved you, then (listen carefully) it hasn’t.
AS I said a few days ago, I highly doubt that you’ll meet either Westcott or Hort in Heaven.
After reading these quotes, let me drop a bombshell on you. Westcott and Hort were Mariolatrists, praying to the Virgin Mary. They didn’t believe in salvation by grace through faith. And they believed in the ransom theory, that Christ’s life saved us, but the deal was sealed by him dying… as a ransom payment to Lucifer.
BUZZZZ… not saved. Heretics. I’m not even going to give those quotes, again, as the Westcott & Hort foundation insists that “King James Only cultists are fond of taking quotes out of context against Westcott and Hort.”
Fine. But you admit they said it, right? You admit they believed it, right? If you, the reader find this hard to believe they said and espoused these beliefs, many of Westcott & Hort’s papers are online. Or you can buy actual copies of their public domain writings from the Bible For Today, who has made them all available in hardcover format (and hopefully soon, in Ebook).
And THESE TWO MEN decided what words belonged in the Greek text of the Bible. I’ve established enough quotes that everyone should be satisfied that their work is still being utilized today. Literally, the Wescott-Hort greek text is being used against copies of Aleph and B to determine what, if any, variant readings should be followed.
And as I mentioned far earlier on, those “oldest and best” Greek Texts you constantly see references to in your Bibles in the footnotes is literally the one assembled by Wescott and Hort – placing it in 1881, which is not the oldest text, and is assembled using an incomplete and highly edited manuscript (Vaticanus, “B”) and a possible forgery or heavily edited and also incomplete manuscript (Sinaiticus, or “Aleph”). So, it’s not the “Best”, either.
I ask again, how can two defective manuscripts be used to make a new manuscript that is referred to by the description, “The oldest and best manuscripts?” There’s so many lies in that description I don’t know where to start! It’s not the oldest, it’s not the best, and it’s only one manuscript! Unless of course they’re describing the printed editions that were made from W&H’s blaspemous work.
So, here’s the question, and no, I won’t make this another pointed question: Why were these two unsaved heretics allowed to tamper with God’s word? Why was no testimonies ever solicited to ensure only saved men were working on this translation? Indeed, that hasn’t been the practice for ANY of the modern Bible translating committees to ensure everyone working on it is a Christian!!! Now I DO ask – shouldn’t we be ensuring this???
I mean, since the wording chosen has dramatic impact on the doctrinal understandings of Christians, shouldn’t we be insisting on this very thing? Why should the unsaved be given any say in what words like “hamarteon” are translated to in our language?
These men should have been witnessed to. They should have been evangelized, not misled. We shouldn’t have cooperated with their schemes and errors. Whose fault is it that Westcott and Hort right now are in unspeakable torment, and have been since they died, for around 115 years? The fault of every true Christian who met them and never bothered to try to witness to them. Now, that is forgiven us, and paid by Christ’s death on Calvary. But imagine how GREAT it would have been to have gotten these two heretics saved, and what they could have done as believing Christians. Alas, it must be that false teachers enter in.
Tomorrow, we look at the other translators and what they believe.