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.
- Westcott and Hort did not believe in the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ, and called it heresy.
- Westcott and Hort also referred to the Biblical Principle of substitutionary atonement as “Modern”, betraying a pattern of trying to project their heretical beliefs as the original beliefs of all christians throughout the centuries, explaining why they called their text created in 1881 as “The oldest and best manuscripts”.
- 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?
I’m running out of time to talk about this issue, as I’m starting a new topic on Feb. 1, on the Pretribulational Rapture. So, I’m going to have to wrap this up. I could talk on this subject for days.
I consider this the most important issue facing Christians. What do you read every day? your Bible (or you should be!). What shapes your doctrinal understanding? Your Bible. What do you implicitly trust as the word of God? Your Bible. When important doctrines are removed, or reworded to cast doubt on them, then you get WEAKENED as a Christian.
Heretics like Wescott and Hort were allowed to be on translating committees without complaint, along with representatives from the Roman Catholic Church, who were there to make sure that all translations reflected their doctrinal biases. This means downplaying the physical relationship of the brothers of Jesus – can’t use the word “sibling”. Go ahead and call them “brothers”, and that way we can claim they are just cousins, fellow Jews. It makes everyone happy.
And make sure you downplay salvation by grace through faith alone. Roman Catholics don’t like that.
Roman Catholics involved in Bible translations (make sure you read the forward, or translators notes or introduction or whatever they’re calling it in your hardcover Bible!) include Alberto Ablondi (bishop of Livorno, Italy), Francis Arinze (archbishop of Onitsha, Nigeria), Carlo Martini (archbishop of Milan and very influential in the translating of the NIV).
And there were Unitarians on the committees as well. Unitarians aren’t saved. They’re denying the deity of Christ. Who were the textual critics who were Unitarians? Daniel Mace (1685-1753), Johann Wettstein (1693-1754), Alexander Geddes (1737-1802), Edward Harwood (1729-94), George Vance Smith (1816-1902), Ezra Abbot (1819-84), Joseph Henry Thayer (1828-1901), and Caspar Rene Gregory (1846-1917). Of these, Smith, Abbott, and Thayer all were on the RV translating committee.
The Revised Version translation was not well recieved when it came out. So, the textual Critics had to wait until World War II to try again. Let’s get a new generation who don’t know any better, and try again.
This time, it was the RSV, the Revised Standard Version. Interestingly, a ffew of the “Scholars” on this version were investigated by the US Air Force for being communists – and the reports concluded that not only were they, but that they should be considered enemies of the United States.
Some of the translators of the RSV included William Albright (questioned the authenticity of the Gospel of John), Walter Bowie (called Methuselah “Folklore” and Abraham and Jacob “myth” and “legend”), Millar Burrows (questioned the authenticity of the Bible), Henry Cadbury (questioned the statements of Jesus Christ and accused Him of “Overstatement”), Clarence Craig (denied the ressurection and denied inspiration of the Bible), Edgar Goodspeed (denied Christ and the inspiration of the Bible), Frederick Grant (claimed parts of the Gospel were “not historical” – in other words, myth or folktale), H. G. G. Herklots (believed in the “Q” document and two authors of Isaiah, plus the JEPD theory of four authors of , Genesis), William Irwin (denied the veracity of the Bible), and William James (called parts of the Gospels as “legendary”).
Do you want ANY of these men determining what is and is not God’s word???
The RSV was much better recieved. And it prompted the eventual translation of the NASB by scholars who felt the RSV was just a little too blatent at its rationalism and denials of Biblical doctrine.
Michael Ramsey of the Church of England was a rampant Ecumenist, and was a key figure in the “back to rome” movement.
Charles Harold Dodd of the New English Bible deines the inspiration of the Bible, calls various stories in the Bible “myths”, claims “Moses left us no writings”, accused Ezekiel of being a magician, epilleptic and clairboyant, said many sayings of Jesus Christ were “not true or unacceptable”, and called God “cruel and untruthful.” Was this a man you wanted having ANYTHING to do with the Bible??? If he did not repent before his death, he entered Hell in 1973. Am I judging? No, I’m simply telling you – no saved person can say things like this. If you’re making statements like this, you’re not saved. Mr. Dodd could possibly (and I sincerely hope he did) have repented prior to his death – there are a couple of persons involved in the modern translations who have publicly repented. If there’s a couple that have publicly repented of it, then there must be some who privately repented. I’m hoping this is so.
Robert Bratcher was one of the translators of the TEV, “Today’s English version.” He made public statements that revealed his heretical beliefs, Bible denying, and possible atheism. Indeed, when he spoke at a Baptist Church in South Carolina, he ensured that nobody would ask pointed questions about his theology. Alas for him, the congregation saw through that, and asked him some questions like, “Do you know Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour?” (no, that wasn’t me – I’ve never been to any church in South Carolina!) and even “When you die, do you believe you’ll go to heaven?” He refused to answer all such questions. Good job spotting the wolf fur under the sheep coat, people!
What about Nestle-Aland? Some of you will have heard of this text. Kurt and Barbara Aland reject the idea that Canon is settled, and both reject verbal inspiration. If they’re still alive, I urge them to comment on this page, and make clear they accept the Lord Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, accept the Gospels and the entire Bible as history and prophecy, inerrant, God’s word, and divinely preserved before they pass on from this earth.
Bruce Metzger holds to heretical beliefis, does not believe the Bible, denies the flood, the ressurection, and the inspiration and veracity of the Bible.
Eugene Nida was the “Father” of “Dynamic Equivalency”. The very phrase means nothing. to be dynamic is to be powerful and moving. To be Equivalent is to be the same. How can something move from where it was and remain the same? When you’re talking about an automobile, sure. When you’re talking about the meaning of words, you’re coming up for a fancy phrase for, “I’m making this translation say whatever I want it to say.” Funny how a few ignorant MVO advocates make this very same claim about King James, who had NOTHING to do with the translation of the Bible, but see nothing wrong with the NIV, Nida’s brainchild. Nida denied the inspiration of the Bible, and claims accounts of Angels and Miracles are not to be interpreted literally. He also denied the blood atonement of Christ, and claimed it was reminiscent of “pagan myth”.
Was these men someone you wanted translating your Bibles?
The only time I’d let them touch my bible is if I was witnessing to them, and showing them the verses I wanted them toi read. Otherwise, get your filthy, christ-denying hands off God’s book!
I say it again, the Bible translation issue is the most important issue facing Christianity today. Do YOU have a perfect, inspired, preserved Bible? I believe the Greek Textus Receptus is, and the Ben Chayyim Hebrew Masoretic text is. And I believe the King James Bible to be the best translation of that manuscript, being the only one available commercially available today that was translated from this text.
I do not believe in a Ruckmanite or Riplingerite “second inspiration” happened, to make the King James superior to the Greek and Hebrew. I believe that’s heresy.
Do I believe I have God’s word? Absolutely. I have God’s inerrant, inspired, preserved word in the King James Bible.