The Fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule


Recently I had someone appeal to ridicule twice in a debate.

Number one, my position on comment debates is well established. I sometimes wave it if you’re an atheist, because you aren’t an apostate, you’re being foolish, according to the Psalms.

I’ve said it before that if you ever plan on getting involved in Apologetics works, you need to take 30 days to study Thouless’s examples of dishonest and crooked thinking.

There’s others, most of which now are put online by people who are atheists (and usually democrats, if they’re american…). I recommend you stick to Thoulass, because he was honest enough to state one of his pet beliefs was destroyed by his own research into honest and straight thinking.

Recently, an Atheist did two debate no-no’s – he “shushed”, and he appealed to ridicule.

“shushing” is the example where someone begins raising their voice, then when the other person begins to match the intensity, they drop to a whisper and say, “There’s no need to shout!”

In online debates, it’s done by raising the argumentative intensity, then when the other person starts matching it, you respond with, “What are you talking about? I’m not arguing!”

The next debate no-no is appeal to ridicule. This is to, when you realize you have no answer, try to phrase your response in such a way so the other person is perceived as foolish or ridiculous by any readers.

I let the first one pass without too much comment. The second one showed me that the only response was – block the person, which had been a tactic I’d done to this same person in the past for – well, similar behaviour.

When you resort to badgering, appeal to ridicule and other arrogant debate tactics, it shows that your position was weak, and untenable. In past debates, the appeal to ridicule was the tossing around of the word “Stupid”. The person who used it was incensed when I responded with my standard response when you accuse me of being less intelligent than you – I tell you my IQ. “My IQ is 174 – what’s yours?”

Their response was to call me stupid again. And never did tell me their own IQ.

So if you ever wonder why my comments are moderated… now you see why! I seem to bring out the worst behaviour in people.

Textual Criticism – Still Believe in it???


I’m not done with this by a long shot – but I know if I go overlong on a subject, everyone’s eyes start glazing over.

We return to the question we asked in the beginning…

“If I take every class in a seminary, and get every degree known to man – does this give me the right, a mere man, to decide what words of God belong in the Bible or not?”

The answer of the Seminaries is this – yes.

The answer of the God fearing Christians should be – oh, no way.

I can just see holding up my hand to God at the Great White Throne and saying, “Wait, Lord – you don’t have a degree from Bob Jones or Pensacola or from Dallas Theological. I do. move over, I’m judging.”

That seems to be how university presidents and Biblical scholars and etc. evaluate the rules of Textual Criticism.

Let me take my hand at it. I’ve been to college. And I’m something Griesbach and Tragellen and Wescott-Hort and Abbott & Costello aren’t or weren’t – I’m Jewish.

And a believer.

1. Treat the Biblical text as if it is the inspired, preserved, inerrant word of God. Man may not dare to raise his hand to the texts of God.

2. To rediscover the preserved texts of God, all we must do is look at the texts that the churches of God have always used, and not ones hidden away in a cupboard or a private library. To be preserved, they must be used.

3. The words of God would be the largest number of texts that resemble each other. the tendency of man is to individualize and change.

4. The False Witness is those texts that disagree with each other in many sundry places. The fingerprints of man who is prone to error is a manuscript who contradicts itself, and each other.

5. The Words of God need no correction, as they are without error.

6. The texts of God would be those with as few errors as possible.

7. The texts of God would be conforming to themselves – having no errors, they would not contradict themselves

Since these words do not describe Aleph or V, but rather the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic Hebrew Ben Chayyim texts…

We must discard all texts as worthless which are not of the TR lineage, but rather the Alexandrian lineage.

***

There! Now you have some sure rules of Textual Criticism that work.

“But they rule out my deciding what words beling in the Bible!!!”

Whoever said you personally had the right to do that???

Textual Criticism – Doctrines Affected


The sad line of those defending the atheist apostates who translate our Bibles is this: “Not one doctrine is affected.”

How I wish that were true. I’ll make an admission. I have a copy of the RSV. I remember when I got Logos 2 in the 90’s (which, if I still had it today, would seem awfully… blah by comparison to today’s Bible software) and one of the Bibles I actually bought for it was the RSV.

I loved it. I loved how strong it sounded!

2 Timothy 2:15(RSV)

15Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

But it was completely heretical. It denied the deity of Christ. It removed entire sections from the Bible. No wonder later I got doctrinally all confused. Now that I’m King James Only, I am more than doctrinally sure, I am rock solid on the Fundamentals of the faith!

Repent is 104 times in the King James. It is 64 times in the New King James. Repentence is removed 40 times.

Hell is 54 times in the Kng James. It is 32 times in the NKJV, and of those only 13 times is in the NT. Hell is removed 22 times, most of which are in the New Testament.

Satan is 49 times in the Kning James, 48 in the New King James. Funny, they left Satan pretty much alone.

The only Bible that tells you to study the Bible is the King James (2 Tim. 2:15). The rest just tell you to do your best, or be diligent at…. something. They don’t tell you what.

No doctrine is affected. Huh.

1 Timothy 3:16(KJV)

16And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

1 Timothy 3:16(NASB)

16By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.

1 Timothy 3:16(ESV)

16Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He£ was manifested in the flesh, vindicated£ by the Spirit,£ seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

1 Timothy 3:16(NKJV)

16And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God£ was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.

1 Timothy 3:16(TMSG)

16This Christian life is a great mystery, far exceeding our understanding, but some things are clear enough: He appeared in a human body, was proved right by the invisible Spirit, was seen by angels. He was proclaimed among all kinds of peoples, believed in all over the world, taken up into heavenly glory.

The footnote on this verse in the NKJV is, “Text reads ‘He'”.

καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον· Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ.

The text does not read He, it reads God. If it said “he was manifest in the flesh”, it would have read “who”, ὅς. So, the footnote of the NKJV is misleading, if not a complete lie! The differece is one letter, but it makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE DOCTRINALLY!

I’m manifest in the flesh. I appeared in a body. It’s a denial of the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. See, that’s a damnable heresy. That’s a major denial of Godly, Biblical doctrine. “No doctrine is changed in the differences in Bible versions.” Wanna make a bet? Only the King James tells you that you’ll be approved by God if you study your Bible. Only the two King James’s tell you Jesus Christ is God – and then the NKJV casts doubt on it by the footnote.

The modern Bible mis-translations will weaken you doctrinally. It will derail you. It will lead you astray. And sincere Evangelical Christians are involved in things now that are not Christian and simply can’t see what’s wrong with it, because you have no doctrinal understanding any more!

Unless you’re going to be an Apologist, take your modern transactions to the thrift store and donate them. Or if you get doctrinally convicted that NOBODY should read them, throw them in the trash.

Get a good King James Bible, and start from scratch. You’ll be dumbfounded how quickly you get doctrinally straightened out.

Textual Criticism – New King James


No, I’m not going to dwell on the cover of the New King James for page upon page. Yes, the New King James has a symbol upon it that is three interlocked 6’s. Yes, it is a symbol used by witchcraft. But I’m more scared about what’s inside it.

The New King James was made under the knowledge that most Fundamentalists would use only a King James. There was one advertising ploy that the Bible publishing companies could use. For those who’ve never been to Seminary, and don’t understand that a Bible dictionary can be very important during study, the archaic words presented a stumblingblock. Things like Beeves. What’s a Beeve? Plural of Beef. What’s a turtle? Something on the ground right? No, if it refers to flight or sitting in a tree, it’s a turtledove. Chapiter? The adornment or crown of a column, of course!

So, the Big Bible Business people tried to make Big Bucks by trying a completely new ploy.

THey’d sell it the same way they marketed the RV back in 1888. “From the same manuscripts! The same Bible you know and love, but with updated language!”

The bottom line of the New King James is that it relies SOMEWHAT on the Textus Receptus.

But it also follows W/H, Nestle-Aland and UBS in some places.

Is it essentially the KIng James?

One ploy they ALWAYS use to mislead you is to give you John 3:16 in every Bible to show you the differences. That’s a rigged game, because they’re always VERY careful to keep John 3:16 as conservative as they can. But the rest of the Bible is open for whatever heresy they wish to push.

The modern Bible Only advocate still uses the same defense of their position – “The total number of words changed is very small, less than a chapter of the Bible. And no doctrine is changed – they are essentially the same.”

No, that’s not true. The total number of words in the NIV amount to 64,000 words LESS than the King James. That’s a MIGHTY LONG CHAPTER.

THere was a lot of chaos over the TNIV, the “Gender Inclusive” Bible. Well, we’re reaping the heresy of that Bible today.

Guess what? The TNIV is much less “Gender Inclusive” than the New King James.

1 Corinthians 1:26(KJV)

26For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

1 Corinthians 1:26(NKJV)

26For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called.

1 Corinthians 2:15(KJV)

15But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

1 Corinthians 2:15(NKJV)

15But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.

1 Corinthians 3:5(KJV)

5Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

1 Corinthians 3:5(NKJV)

5Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one?

1 Corinthians 3:8(KJV)

8Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

1 Corinthians 3:8(NKJV)

8Now he who plants and he who waters are one, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor.

1 Corinthians 3:10(KJV)

10According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

1 Corinthians 3:10(NKJV)

10According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it.

1 Corinthians 3:11-15(KJV)

11For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

12Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;

13Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.

14If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.

15If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

1 Corinthians 3:11-15(NKJV)

11For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

12Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,

13each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is.

14If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward.

15If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

1 Corinthians 3:17-18(KJV)

17If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

18Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

1 Corinthians 3:17-18(NKJV)

17If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.

18Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise.

As you can see, I just did this by using 1 Corinthians. The first reference of “Man” or “Men said… “man” or “Men”. The sad part is, I skipped not one reference to man or men after that. Not a big deal? It’s changing the word of God. “But shouldn’t women be included???” They already ARE. Not one saved woman to my knowledge ever assumed that the constant use of man or men in the King James for over 400 years meant only men go to heaven, get heavenly rewards, etc. I’m sure every woman read the verses and understood this meant everyone. I could have gone on and on.

The point is, they slipped this in under your nose, and you’d never notice. I didn’t know because, well, I’d never really looked at this until recently because I don’t look at the NKJV! I didn’t know until I heard a teaching by Sam Gipp (I like Sam Gipp, but I don’t agree with some things he teaches, as he is a Ruckmanite and holds to the concept of second inspiration). Sam Gipp is the first I’ve heard point this out, because he bought one of those comparison Bibles that was a KJV/NKJV Bible and read it through twice in one year, which as Sam Gipp points out is more than the editor of the NKJV has done, as the editor of the NKJV reads his devotions in a Latin copy of the Vulgate (???!!!). Gipp circled every time the NKJV did this, and it was thousands of times. I just picked one book of the Bible and did that.

Textual Criticism 9


If you read yesterday, you’ll have read quotes that show – from Wescott’s own words – that he did not believe the bible literally. that he believed in Baptismal regeneration. That he considered Genesis a myth.

There are many other quotes – a lot of them – where you’d see that Wescott denied the deity of Christ.

You won’t be seeing Wescott in Heaven, unless he repented on his death bed.

John Hort was essentially of the same cloth as Wescott. These are men who were heretics. We are commanded to separate from such men, not to listen to or follow their teachings. The Bible says such things over and over again.

It’s a shame. It’s so sad.

The bottom line is, the Bible itself does not permit you to read the works of a heretic. ESPECIALLY when it comes to the removing of words from the Bible – which they do – and the adding of words to the Bible – which they do.

Words are removed, words are changed. THe Bible does not speak well of the destiny of anyone who does that. One hopes that there was chill in Wescott’s heart when he read John 3:18. Or Luke 16.

Philippians 2:5-6(KJV)

5Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Jesus Christ considered it not robbery to be equal with God.

All the modern versions downplay or reject that.

Why would you READ such Bibles???

Philippians 2:5-6(GWT)

5Have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had.

6 Although he was in the form of God and equal with God, he did not take advantage of this equality.

Philippians 2:5-6(TEV)

5The attitude you should have is the one that Christ Jesus had:

6 He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to remain£ equal with God.

Philippians 2:5-6(HCSB)

5Make your own attitude that of Christ Jesus,

6 who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God£ as something to be used for His own advantage.£

Philippians 2:5-6(CEV)

5and think the same way that Christ Jesus thought:£

6 Christ was truly God. But he did not try to remain£ equal with God.

Philippians 2:5-6(NLT)

5You must have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had.

6 Though he was God,£ he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to.

Philippians 2:5-6(ICB)

5In your lives you must think and act like Christ Jesus.

6 Christ himself was like God in everything. He was equal with God. But he did not think that being equal with God was something to be held on to.

Philippians 2:5-6(NASB)

5Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,

6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Philippians 2:5-6(MSNT)

5Let the same disposition be in you which was in Christ Jesus.

6Although from the beginning He had the nature of God He did not reckon His equality with God a treasure to be tightly grasped.

Philippians 2:5-6(RSV)

5Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,

6who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Philippians 2:5-6(ASV)

5Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

6who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Philippians 2:5-6(DNT)

5For let this mind be in you£ which [was] also in Christ Jesus;

6who, subsisting in the form of God, did not esteem it an object of rapine£ to be on an equality with God;

Philippians 2:5-6(DRB)

5For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

6who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Philippians 2:5-6(ESV)

5Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,£

6who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Philippians 2:5-6(ISVNT)

5Have the same attitude among yourselves£ that was also in Christ Jesus:£

6 In God’s own form existed he, And shared with God equality, Deemed nothing needed grasping.

Philippians 2:5-6(NCV)

5In your lives you must think and act like Christ Jesus.

6 Christ himself was like God in everything. But he did not think that being equal with God was something to be used for his own benefit.

Philippians 2:5-6(NKJV)

5Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,

6who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,

Philippians 2:5-6(TLB)

5Your attitude should be the kind that was shown us by Jesus Christ,

6who, though he was God, did not demand and cling to his rights as God,

Philippians 2:5-6(TMSG)

5Think of yourselves the way Christ Jesus thought of himself.

6He had equal status with God but didn’t think so much of himself that he had to cling to the advantages of that status no matter what.

Philippians 2:5-6(NAB)

5Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus,°

6 °Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.

Philippians 2:5-6(NRSV)

5Let the same mind be in you that was£ in Christ Jesus,

6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited,

Philippians 2:5-6(NRSVA)

5Let the same mind be in you that was£ in Christ Jesus,

6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited,

Philippians 2:5-6(YLT)

5For, let this mind be in you that is also in Christ Jesus,

6who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God,

The message so turns itself inside out you get done reading it and think… “what???”

They add words. They take away words. They weaken doctrines.

The standard line is, “They all say the same thing.”

Do they? Read the NASB and the KJV and tell me if that’s the same thing??? The King James says that Christ thought it not robbery to be equal.

The modern translations say that Christ thought it robbery to be equal.

Do they all say the same thing?

No.

The new versions weaken doctrinal stands. you cannot find ONE doctrine that the King James weakens. The NASB denies the deity of Christ, removes fasting in connection with prayer, removes references to the blood of Christ, and claims Jesus Christ is less than God, and in some places claims he is not God.

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

That’s so blunt in the Greek, so powerful, so magnificent. It demands a magificent translation to put that out for devotional reading.

Whereas the Message reads more like a horrific motorcycle accident than a Bible.

Why would you want to read a Bible that denies Jesus Christ???

Aren’t you worried that you may very well have to explain to Jesus Christ why you read such Bibles???

Every doctrinal problem facing Christianity today is a reflection of the Bible mis-translations of ten years ago.

I’m horrified at the thought of what we’ll reap because Rick Warren, Joni Erikson Tada and Amy Grant enthusiastically supported the Message. WE should start seeing those heresies any day now.

Get back to the Bible. Preachers have been saying it for years. I’m saying it now, too. Get a King James Bible, leave the others behind. Don’t look at them again.

Textual Criticism 8


This brings us to the current scoundrels.

I’ve talked about what Textual criticism is, and kighlighted some of the problems.

I’ve talked about the spurious conclusions of men with axes to grind.

I’ve talked about false teachers.

I’ve talked about modernists. I’ve given quotes about how Evangelicals recognize there’s major problems with textual critics, and instead of applying the rules of the Bible ‘by their fruits will ye knew them…’ – they use pithy sayings such as “they may be heretics and lost men, but when it comes to the Holy word of God, they’re just reporters.”

Yeah, uh… wrong.

Textual critics do not just report.

They make decisions. Like Griesbach, a man to whom the Bible is not the inspired word of God, but a mere book. He advocated the dismissal of Mark 16:9-20.

Lo and behold, 70 years later, a manuscript is found that supports Griesbach. Instead of rejecting it as written by heretics or forgers, “Scholars” rush to embrace it.

Vaticanus is championed by the scholars as well. Instead of questioning it, and denouncing it as possibly a Sixtus manuscript, or written by Eusebius the heretic, it is embraced.

Can we honestly say that Textual Critics – most of whom hold heretical views of Christ, the Bible, Salvation, etc., are just reporters?

No. We let them tell us what the Bible really is. We let them tell us that verses are not in the Bible. We let them tell us that words and parts of verses are not in the Bible. We let them tel us that this section of the Bible and that section of the Bible is based upon Jewish superstition, or Jewish culturism – and not stopping to consider that although Jews wrote down the Bible, we did not write the Bible.

We are so impressed with their unsaved scholarship, we invite them to place their sin-laden hands upon the Bible, and translate our Bibles for us. And we protest not when they yank out verses, or write footnotes casting doubt.

This brings us to Wescott and Hort.

Wescott writes about the textual critic in his Some Lessons of the Revised Version of the New Testament (1897), “He will accept, without the least misgiving, the canon that the Bible must be interpreted like any other book; and his reward will be, to find that it is by the use of this reverent freedom he becomes assured with a conviction, rational and immovable, that it is not like any other book.”

Doublespeak.

For starters, the bible is not to be interpreted like any other book. Books are divided into two categories – fiction, and non fiction. Wescott is not stating in which category he is placing the Bible. I will assume he’s placing it into the historical category, and thus non-fiction – since Wescott neglects to say so in his book. Incidentally, the books of Wescott and Hort would have slipped into obscurity if not for the efforts of the Dean Burgon society, who publish them for other defenders of the King James Bible. Others have haunted book sellers, and done mischievious things like scan them and upload them to archive.org

The first Greek book which I possessed was a copy of the manual edition of Griesbach’s revision of the New Testament. – – Brooke Foss Wescott, 1890

Brooke Wescott and Fenton John Hort were the two responsible for all the problems. The need was felt at the time for a new revision of the King James, where the archaic words were to be removed. The call for a revision was being made by such people as Charles Spurgeon, and the scholars and Bible societies began to push for the new translation.

The first major error, was that none of the scholars who were championed for the new revision project ever were asked to sign a statement of faith. I believe that Wescott and Hort would have lied, as Wescott wrote books in which he advocated things that in his letters he privately admitted he did not believe (see The Historic faith vs. The private letters of Brooke Wescott vols 1 & 2). All three books can be found, by the way, on Archive.org

The committee handed the rules to the scholars included an outright order that they were to use the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Textus Receptus, and no other manuscripts.

The doors of the chambers had barely shut when Wescott began agitating for them all to use his brand new Greek Manuscript. The manuscript was made by Wescott and Hort by diligent comparison between Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Vaticanus.

The problems with this cannot be underestimated. Vaticanus omits chapters, verses, words… and entire books. Sinaiticus has the same problem. The renderings of verses between them cannot be easily reconciled, as Vaticanus says one way, Sinaiticus words it another. When they conflict, Wescott and Hort sided with Vaticanus, which they felt – based simply on a hunch – was the most accurate Biblical manuscript. There’s no word on how they reconciled when the verse or book was missing in both.

felt. Based upon a hunch. “That’s the one!”

They’re the first ones who felt that way – every scholar before them who collated Greek manuscripts ignored Vaticanus.

The way it should be done is to take manuscripts that the Christians used (not the Catholics) for centuries, and compare them. It doesn’t matter if they’re late manuscripts or old, as long as what they copy is accurate. If I diligently copy a Greek manuscript used by the early churches and I am thorough, then it is far more accurate than a flawed and edited Greek manuscript whose very age is completely irrelevant.

“No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history—I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did—yet they disclose to us a Gospel. So it is probably elsewhere.” — Brooke Foss Wescott, Westcott, Arthur, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, (New York, 1903), Volume 2, P.69

Let’s take a look at the very first verse of Mark 1. This would have given me a great deal of pause if I’d started WEscott and Hort’s project, and I would have gone to the Textus Receptus right away.

Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ· – Textus Receptus

Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ – Wescott/Hort

What’s missing? υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ “The son of God.”

1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; Mark 1:1 (KJV)

Archē tou euaggeliou Iēsou Christou, huiou tou Theou;

Hu-wheee-o’u Tou The’oo is how it’s roughly pronounced.

Was this an isolated example of Wescott/Hort I pulled out?

Nope. It’s the very first verse I looked at, comparing the TR and the W/H.

“Certainly nothing can 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, Arthur Fenton, Life and letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, (New York, 1896), Vol. 1, p. 430

I’ve spoken a couple of times about a Methodist pastor who I used to work with. We were talking about Greek one day at work, and he told me he kept the Greek New Testament on his cell phone. “Which manuscript?” I asked.

“UBS and Wescott/Hort.” He answered.

“Wait, I thought you said you had the Bible in Greek.”

He rolled his eyes.

If I’d been sitting in the room with the Scholars and W/H tried submitting their Greek manuscript, i’d have voted “no” very loudly. And if they’d pushed it through (which they did over all objections), i’d have resigned and gone to the press, which in those days would have leaped on a story like that.

Codex Vaticanus was NEVER used by churches. It remained under lock and key in the Vatican. Codex Sinaiticus was NEVER used by the churches. If it’s genuine, it’s been sitting on a shelf for 500 years (it cannot be traced back before the 15th century – and I have not seen the investigation to determine its age).

I personally think Vaticanus was written by Origen, or is a survivor of the heretical Pope Sixtus manuscripts. Dean John Burgon was convinced as well that Vaticanus was an Origen manuscript.

Sinaiticus was probably written in 1830-40 by Constantinus Simonides. If it is genuine and Simonides was lying (I see no reason why he should, and many more reasons to have kept silent if he was telling the truth), then it is a Eusebian manuscript.

Origen and Eusebius were Arian heretics who believed in using a Greek method of allegorical interpretation in the Bible. They wrote Greek manuscripts to support Gnostic or Arian interpretations of the Bible.

Vaticanus is one of those, or possibly a Sixtus manuscript. If Sinaiticus is not a modern forgery, which I believe it to be, then it is most certainly another Eusebian manuscript.

Both are described as unreliable, and having heavy editing, including marginal notes to Scribes telling to not change the Bible! All of the claims that the scholars falsely make about the Antioch manuscripts actually apply to the Alexandrian manuscripts!

Wescott and Hort were able to force their document through over objections. They completed the translation work using a new Greek manuscript (in violation of the very rules they’d been commissioned on), and published the W/H manuscript for critical review the day before the RV was published!

This did not allow any scholars enough time to review the W/H before the RV was published.

It caused a furor. The very men who’d championed a revision now loudly decried it. Spurgeon distanced himself from the RV quickly. The RV was commercially a failure. Fundamentalist pastors ignored it.

But New Evangelicals loved it, and touted it. The RV was responsible for the birth of the Charismatic phenomenon, as it was the personal Bible of Frank Sandford, the cult leader of Shiloh, the origination of the speaking in tongues phenomenon (although Charles Parham took credit for it several years later).

It’s interesting that the first Christian apologist (Wilbur Pickering) wrote a book championing the King James – but allowed the RV to affect his doctrine (he had a particular dislike for the story of the paralytic at Bethesda, and preferred the RV’s butchering of that text).

I too “must disclaim setting forth infallibility” in front of my convictions. All I hold is, that 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 favour of absolute truth- I reject the word infallibility-of Holy Scripture overwhelming.” Westcott, Arthur, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, (New York, 1903), Volume 1, P. 207

I don’t have the time to go into all the problems with Wescott/Hort. The Modern Version champions claim that the scholars no longer use W/H for their Bibles – but that’s a smoke screen. The UBS and Nestle-Aland texts are essentially different editions of W/H. The preface to those editions explain that they always start with the W/H text, then make their changes as they see fit. Essentially, from what I see when I look at it, the differences between W/H and N/A or UBS are so vanishingly small, I wouldn’t be able to tell without an exhaustive word by word study.

And I won’t do that. I’d rather spend my time reading the Bible.

Textual Criticism 7


Before we look at Griesbach, we need to look at Semler.

Johann Semler (1725-91). Semler is “often regarded as the father of German rationalism” (Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, p. 115). Semler rejected the view that the entire canon of Scripture is infallibly inspired. He taught that the writers of the New Testament accommodated the teachings of Christianity to the needs of various classes of people, “which explains the appeal to miracles.” He looked upon the book of Revelation as “the production of an extravagant dreamer” and argued that it was not inspired or canonical.

Cloud, David Way of Life Encyclopedia of The Bible And Christianity, pg. 81

The Unitarians loved the critical Greek text from the days of German modernists Johann Semler (1725-91) and Johann Griesbach (1745-1812) onward. Semler himself published an attack upon 1 John 5:7 entitled, Historical and Critical Collections, relative to what are called the proof passages in dogmatic theology, Vol. I. on 1 John v. 7.

Cloud, David Bible Version Question and Answer Database, pg. 339

Many of the foundational modern textual critics were Unitarians or theological modernists who denied the deity of Jesus Christ, including Johann Semler (1725-91), Edward Harwood (1729- 94), Johann Griesbach (1745-1812), George Vance Smith (1816-1902), Ezra Abbot (1819- 1884), Joseph Henry Thayer (1828-1901), William Sanday (1843-1920), Caspar Gregory (1846- 1917), and Henry Vedder (1853-1935).

Cloud, David Bible Version Question and Answer Database, pg. 340

Johann Semler was a German rationalist who taught at Halle. He was part of the rising flood of German “rationalists”, men who discounted the truth of the Bible, considered Genesis a Myth, believed Jesus Christ was just a man, and did not believe in the miracles of the Bible.

If you get on the floor, press your ear against it, you might possibly hear faintly the sound of screams of agony and misery in the center of the Earth. There’s your rationalists. You cannot believe Jesus Christ was just a man and be saved.

Semler taught Griesbach, and greatly influenced him. You should CAREFULLY examine your Bible colleges, and talk to instructors before you send your children there. How many people in Germany proudly sent little Johann and little Hans off to University, and eight years later recieved back a heretic, denying the common salvationand even the Lord which bought them? How many Godly parents wept themselves into the grave, beseeching with much prayer for their children to be saved?

It’s a tragedy. Make sure the Bible college you send your children to is a Godly one. If the College re-writes its rules to being more Biblical and more Godly and the instructors object and refuse to sign it… don’t send your children there unless the college takes the right step and FIRES those instructors.

I’ll be glad to take over teaching at any Bible College. Tell your kids to wear gloves, because you’ll be handling so much Sword your hands get cut!

Getting back to Griesbach, you’ve already seen he was hostile to the Bible. Any work done in the area of Textual Criticism should have been discarded then. “But sir, you are an unsaved heretic, incapable of understanding even what you’re looking at!!!”

Griesbach should never have been allowed to write any introductions to any books on the New testament. He was not a believer. Anyone who considers Genesis a myth is not a believer.

1. The shorter reading, if not wholly lacking the support of old and weighty witnesses, is to be preferred over the more verbose. For scribes were much more prone to add than to omit. They hardly ever leave out anything on purpose, but they added much.

Okay, Griesbach went afoul on his first rule. It’s been proven that copyists tend to omit words far more frequently than they add words. When I went to school, anyone who had to stay after was handed a dictionary and told to copy pages. I found that I left out words sometimes. I didn’t care, because it wasn’t a project of mine – it was sometrhing I had to do, usually because everyone else was talking, and not me. But you know how it is. Everyone is punished for the offensees of a few. Injustice prevails.

Anyway, Griesbach was introducing a rule based wholly upon Wellhausen theories of a “pious Scribe”. WEllhausen believed that obviously, Ezra and Nehemiah wrote much of Genesis, which had been edited by a Levite, which had originally been written by an Israeli during perhaps the first temple period, which was originally written by a primitive Jew during the time of Joshua.

All of that is nonsense. Moses wrote Genesis through Deuteronomy.