The Bible Controversy 10


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 translating 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.
  1. Probing question #1 – Why would you oppose the preservation and inspiration of the Bible?
  2. Probing question #2 – Is it right to use the philosophy of lost pagans to interpret the Holy Scriptures
  3. Probing Question #3 – Why would we let a man who admittedly was using pagan methods to interpret Holy Scriptures determine what words and verses belong in the Bible?
  4. Probing Question #4 – Why do we even consider it okay that Origen removed words and entire verses from the Bible when he wrote up his master Greek text? Doesn’t the Bible pronounce damnation upon anyone who removes words from or adds words to the Holy Bible? Shouldn’t we be furious that unholy hands had dared tamper with the Bible?
  5. Probing Question #5 – With all of the deficiencies, changes, emendations and editings of Vaticanus, why did seemingly intelligent men accept this manuscript as fitting to use to translate for our modern Bibles? Isn’t this editing (which we can obviously see happened) the very thing the so-called Scholars rejected the Textus Receptus for – the texts the churches have always used until 150 years ago, and has NO evidence of tampering???
  6. Probing Question#6 – If I take every course at Tennessee Temple University on Greek and Hebrew they offer, does that automatically give me, a man, the right to decide what words should be in the Bible (a book written and dictated letter for letter by God) or not? Isn’t the Bible God’s word, and doesn’t He warn of dire consequences for anyone willing to tamper with it? Does fallen men have the right, based upon a few hundred hours of sitting in a chair, scribbling notes, listening to lectures, and occasionally raising your hand and taking a few tests, to decide what words belong in the Bible (a book written by the infallable Creator of the Universe)?
  7. Probing Question #7 – Why would you want to treat the Bible like it is any other book? Isn’t it the inspired, inerrant word of God
  8. Probing Question #8 – if you believe the Bible has errors in it… doesn’t that mean you’re lying when you say you believe in the inspired, inerrant word of God???
  9. Probing Question #9 – when we already know the early Coptic and Gnostics were riddled with heresy, why would you prefer their heavily edited Bible texts over the ones you assume have been edited by the Bible-believing Christians who were suffering and dying for their faith?
  10. Probing Question #10 – Why was no attempt made to disprove Simonides’ claim to have forged Sinaiticus? was it because Tischendorf feared they couldn’t disprove it? Or was it because he suspected it was true all along?
  11. Probing Question #11 – There’s no proof of any “editing” of the Greek Recieved Text around 250 AD. How can you continue to believe one took place when all the evidence for editing points rather to your preferred manuscripts, the Alexandrian family?
  12. Probing Question #12 – why is it only verses referring to topics that Christ denying liberals object to that seem to be changed? If there were corruptions in transmission, shouldn’t it have also affected incidental verses like Matthew 20:29? It seems a little funny that the only verses that are changed or deleted are ones that a Bible scoffing, Christ Denying theological liberal would object to.
  13. Probing Question #13 – why do the “Scholars” insist the texts with no evidence of changes were edited, but the ones with all the evidence of tampering and editing are the “purest and best manuscripts”?

Convinced yet? We’ve barely started.

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

We all know this one, right? Do the other versions say this?

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1 (HCSB)

Same thing, right? No, because the Heavens were not separated from the Heavens until later on.

1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1 (ESV)

The ESV gets it wrong, too. So does the RSV, GW and NLT.

1 At the first God made the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1 (BBE)

Well, the BBE got the Heaven part right, but what’s so hard about saying, “In the beginning”? Define what “At the first” means. You think that this doesn’t have an effect on you, but do you doubt a literal six-day creation? Since I went King James Only, I have no doubts. Reading versions that create subtle contradictions install doubts.

I cannot emphasize this enough. This is foundational. We have to establish in the Bible there is a God, and we have to establish that He is a God! By putting a conflict in the very first verse of the Bible says major things about the underlying motives and objectives of the modern translators. And trust me, I’m really going to shake your faith in these translators in a couple of days by telling you who they are, what they personally believe about the Bible and the Lord. When you get that information, it should seal the issue one way or the other.

Is there motives and objectives by these translators? Oh, yes there is. There’s agendas. They’re pushing certain things. When you analyze who these translators are and what they personally believe, you start to see it in the Bible.

God fearing Christians do not dare tamper with God’s word. We would read the Greek and Hebrew, and do our very literal best to translate it exactly as it reads. Now, there’s an additional point I have to raise, and here’s where the translators play fast and loose with their work.

Some Greek words have two meanings. How do you determine the meaning? by the context. That suddenly gives a little wiggle room as to how to translate something. Such as the greek word Afi’emi. Ot means “to divorce” or “to forgive”. Either way, it means an end to any marital discord. Which meaning does it have? Well, you read it by context. “Let him write a letter of divorce” could also be translated “write a letter of forgiveness”. But when you read the versES, and not the verse, it becomes plain that it’s speaking of divorce – which the Bible speaks of in such a way you know the Lord is not pleased with it.

My point is this: Most of these Bible translators, and you’ll see when we get there in a day or two, are not saved Christians. I remember hearing how one of Ray Comfort’s staffers confronted Virginia Mollenkot at a particular rally, and he witnessed to her. Her reaction was anything but that of a saved Christian. Who’s Virginia Mollenkot? one of the sylistic consultants for the NIV. Her job was to read verse translations and suggest possilbe wordings that flowed together.

If you witness to me on the street, I’ll probably be overjoyed you’re trying to witness, tell you I’m a christian, share my testimony, and probably give you some pointers if you need some. I would not try to argue with you. Feel free to contact Mark Spence over at www.livingwaters.com for additional information about his run in with Virginia Mollenkot.

9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9 (KJV)

and to make all see what is the fellowship[a] of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ; (NKJV)

9 and to shed light for all about the administration of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things. Ephesians 3:9 (HCSB)

9 and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things, Ephesians 3:9 (ESV)

9 And make all men see what is the ordering of the secret which from the first has been kept in God who made all things; Ephesians 3:9 (BBE)

9 I was chosen to explain to everyone this mysterious plan that God, the Creator of all things, had kept secret from the beginning. Ephesians 3:9 (NLT)

9 He allowed me to explain the way this mystery works. God, who created all things, kept it hidden in the past. Ephesians 3:9 (GW)

9 and to make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery which for ages hath been hid in God who created all things; Ephesians 3:9 (ASV)

Do all these verses say the same thing? If you think they do, best look again. And make sure you read the footnote in the New King James: “NU-Text omits through Jesus Christ.” Really? I have a KJV study Bible that twice questions the inspiration of a verse. Each time I marked through it, because in each case I know for a fact that that verse is quoted by early christian authors, and therefore is not of “recent origin” as the footnotes suggest.

By and through have two different meanings. “By Jesus Christ” means Jesus Christ created all things, which is what the Bible says several times (well, my Bible -your modern translation has had almost all those verses removed or altered). “Through” means God did it, using Jesus Christ as His agent. It’s subtle, but denies an essential Bible doctrine and casts doubt on the deity of Jesus Christ.

The other versions just delete the offensive words. Why, they might give the impression that Jesus Christ was God, one third of the Trinity!

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. 1 Corinthians 15:47 (KJV)

The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord[a] from heaven. (NKJV) Footnote reads: NU-Text omits the Lord.

47 The first man was from the earth and made of dust; the second man is from heaven. 1 Corinthians 15:47 (HCSB)

47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 1 Corinthians 15:47 (ESV)

Again, the NKJV follows the corerct reading – this time without playing fast and loose with adverbs – but again, inserts a footnote raising doubt about a key verse. I’m seeing a pattern.

2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Colossians 1:2 (KJV)

To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are in Colosse: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Colossians 1:2 (NKJV) Footnotes: NU-Text omits and the Lord Jesus Christ.

2 To the saints in Christ at Colossae, who are faithful brothers. Grace to you and peace from God our Father. Colossians 1:2 (HCSB)

2 To the saints and faithful brothers in Christ at Colossae: Grace to you and peace from God our Father. Colossians 1:2 (ESV)

2 To the saints and true brothers in Christ at Colossae: Grace to you and peace from God our Father. Colossians 1:2 (BBE)

So each time, the NKJV cites the right translation, but proceeds to put in a footnote that casts doubt upon the verses. I personally would avoid the NKJV.

Coming up… more proofs. And meet the translators!

Advertisements

The Bible Controversy 9


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.
  1. Probing question #1 – Why would you oppose the preservation and inspiration of the Bible?
  2. Probing question #2 – Is it right to use the philosophy of lost pagans to interpret the Holy Scriptures
  3. Probing Question #3 – Why would we let a man who admittedly was using pagan methods to interpret Holy Scriptures determine what words and verses belong in the Bible?
  4. Probing Question #4 – Why do we even consider it okay that Origen removed words and entire verses from the Bible when he wrote up his master Greek text? Doesn’t the Bible pronounce damnation upon anyone who removes words from or adds words to the Holy Bible? Shouldn’t we be furious that unholy hands had dared tamper with the Bible?
  5. Probing Question #5 – With all of the deficiencies, changes, emendations and editings of Vaticanus, why did seemingly intelligent men accept this manuscript as fitting to use to translate for our modern Bibles? Isn’t this editing (which we can obviously see happened) the very thing the so-called Scholars rejected the Textus Receptus for – the texts the churches have always used until 150 years ago, and has NO evidence of tampering???
  6. Probing Question#6 – If I take every course at Tennessee Temple University on Greek and Hebrew they offer, does that automatically give me, a man, the right to decide what words should be in the Bible (a book written and dictated letter for letter by God) or not? Isn’t the Bible God’s word, and doesn’t He warn of dire consequences for anyone willing to tamper with it? Does fallen men have the right, based upon a few hundred hours of sitting in a chair, scribbling notes, listening to lectures, and occaisionally raising your hand and taking a few tests, to decide what words belong in the Bible (a book written by the infallable Creator of the Universe)?
  7. Probing Question #7 – Why would you want to treat the Bible like it is any other book? Isn’t it the inspired, inerrant word of God
  8. Probing Question #8 – if you believe the Bible has errors in it… doesn’t that mean you’re lying when you say you believe in the inspired, inerrant word of God???
  9. Probing Question #9 – when we already know the early Coptic and Gnostics were riddled with heresy, why would you prefer their heavily edited Bible texts over the ones you assume have been edited by the Bible-believing Christians who were suffering and dying for their faith?
  10. Probing Question #10 – Why was no attempt made to disprove Simonides’ claim to have forged Sinaiticus? was it because Tischendorf feared they couldn’t disprove it? Or was it because he suspected it was true all along?
  11. Probing Question #11 – There’s no proof of any “editing” of the Greek Recieved Text around 250 AD. How can you continue to believe one took place when all the evidence for editing points rather to your preferred manuscripts, the Alexandrian family?
  12. Probing Question #12 – why is it only verses referring to topics that Christ denying liberals object to that seem to be changed? If there were corruptions in transmission, shouldn’t it have also affected incidental verses like Matthew 20:29? It seems a little funny that the only verses that are changed or deleted are ones that a Bible scoffing, Christ Denying theological liberal would object to.
  13. Probing Question #13 – why do the “Scholars” insist the texts with no evidence of changes were edited, but the ones with all the evidence of tampering and editing are the “purest and best manuscripts”?

the first verse I look at in a Bible, as I said, is Acts 8:37.

35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. Acts 8:35-38 (KJV)

36 As they were traveling down the road, they came to some water. The eunuch said, “Look, there’s water! What would keep me from being baptized?” [ 37 And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart you may.” And he replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”] 38 Then he ordered the chariot to stop, and both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. 39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him any longer. But he went on his way rejoicing. Acts 8:36-39 (HCSB)

Notice the HCSB places this verse in brackets? the footnote says, “other mss omit bracketed text.”

Which manuscripts?

Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. But you can find it in the Antioch manuscripts.

How do other translations deal with this verse?

The NIV goes from verse 36 to 38, omitting verse 37. Yet it’s present in over 5,000 Greek manuscripts?

The ESV also omits the verse.

The BBE does, too.

as does the NLT.

As does God’s Word translation.

The RV/ASV simply puts it in italics.

So, most of the translations simply drop a verse… that shows salvation by grace through faith, without works.

Huh.

The kind of thing a Roman Catholic, or a Roman Catholic sympathizer would omit. Why? Because as I’ve mentioned before, the Council of trent pronounced anathema, damnation, against anyone who believed in salvation by grace through faith without works. and Hort was a Roman Catholic sypathizer, as well as a Marionist, someone who worships the virgin Mary. Both Wescott and Hort rejected substitutionary atonement.

Listen, it’s real simple. You cannot reject the substitutionary atonement of Christ and be saved!!! That’s a bottom line statement.

In addition, a denier of Christ also ends up with no substitutionary atonement. Why? Chris becomes merely a man. So obviously we have to be saved by other means. That either means universalism, or salvation by works.

Acts 8:37 refutes both, so it has to go.

53 And every man went unto his own house. 1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. 2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. 3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. John 7:53-8:11 (KJV)

  • The RSV omits these verses, placing it in the footnotes in very small italics.
  • The NIV includes a note: “The earliest manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11”.
  • The NLT claims “the most ancient mss omit these verses”
  • GW gibes a list of four other places the verses could be placed.
  • The RV/ASV does not omit them or have a footnote.

Funny, I see it in the Textus Receptus in greek! Why, it’s right here! Alas, i cannot simply copy the text for you, or I’d show it.

And funny, one of the Early Christian writers quotes it.

And when the elders had set another woman which had sinned before Him, and had left the sentence to Him, and were gone out, our Lord, the Searcher of the hearts, inquiring of her whether the elders had condemned her, and being answered No, He said unto her: “Go thy way therefore, for neither do I condemn thee.”[128] (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles Book II)

How can one of the early Christian writers quote it, if it’s not in the oldest manuscripts?

“Well, it’s not in the critical texts.”

You mean Vaticanus.

“Right.”

Vaticanus omits most of Genesis, too. Should we throw that out as well?

“uh….”

Exactly.

If an early Christian author quotes it… then it’s not recent. So tell me again why one of the greatest passages of the forgiveness of God is removed from the Bible? Oh, that’s right – no works. No sacraments. Just forgiveness. Huh. I guess if forgiveness is required, then Universality is a heresy, right?

Right.

Huh.

Sorry, leaning on the sarcasm button again.

Remember 1 John 5:7? James White and other King James critics always protest it can only be found in late manuscripts. What about Cyprian?

and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.” (Cyprian Treatise I On the Unity of the Church)

A few weeks ago, when I addressed Calvinism, I talked about a Kung Fu move called a spinning footsweep, where you kick the legs out from under your opponent. You just saw it again. Haiii-Yahhh!!!

Ready? Here we go. To save time, I’ll list the King James against a single modern translation, so that you can see the deliberate atttempt to cast doubt on, weaken, or even destroy Biblical doctrine. I recommend you look it up in all modern stransations. I can’t quote the NIV, the worst offender, as I can’t afford to purchase the NIV module (at $45 – why so much???), but the ESV, NLT and HCSB are free, so I can quote those.

22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Matthew 5:22 (KJV)

22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. Matthew 5:22 (ESV)

not a big deal? The Lord Jesus Christ was angry with his brothers… see Matthew 23. Was he angry with cause or without a cause? With. Did He sin? Absolutely not, according to the King James. How do the modern versions show it? think about that.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; Matthew 5:44 (KJV)

44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, Matthew 5:44 (ESV)

Can you see a difference? How much does this omission affect your Christian walk?

13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. Matthew 6:13 (KJV)

13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Matthew 6:13 (ESV)

Are you praying that “Thine is the kingdom, the power and glory forever?” Why not? I think I see why…

13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Matthew 9:13 (KJV)

13 Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy and not sacrifice. For I didn’t come to call the righteous, but sinners.” Matthew 9:13 (HCSB)

Musn’t have people repenting. Why, they might get saved and go to heaven, instead of suffering in Hell for all eternity with all the Textual Critics!

46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. 47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. 48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. Matthew 12:46-50 (KJV)

46 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. 48 But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” Matthew 12:46-50 (ESV)

why this verse is removed is absolutely beyond me.

21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. Matthew 17:21 (KJV)

verse omitted in ESV, in brackets in HCSB.

10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. 11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. 12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? Matthew 18:10-12 (KJV)

10 “See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven. 12 What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray? Matthew 18:10-12 (ESV)

Did the Son of Man come to seek and to save the lost? Not in modern Bibles, he didn’t. It might give us the impression He’s the son of God!

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. Matthew 19:9 (KJV)

9 And I tell you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” Matthew 19:9 (HCSB)

Hard words for the disciples to hear. Apparently for Modern “Scholars”, as well!

13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. 14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. 15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. Matthew 23:13-15 (KJV)

13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in. 15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves. Matthew 23:13-15 (ESV)

Musn’t criticize the Roman Catholics – they might not give us positions of authority when we help bring all the Christians under the Papal See again! The modern “Scholars” would do well to heed Matthew 23:15, the verse they left in. And look up at 23:13 as well. Study them! If you’re a textual critic, this could be talking about YOU.

13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh. Matthew 25:13 (KJV)

13 Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour. Matthew 25:13 (ESV)

…leaving all the Calvinists watching and waiting… but for what???

34 They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink. Matthew 27:34 (KJV)

34 they offered him wine to drink, mixed with gall, but when he tasted it, he would not drink it. Matthew 27:34 (ESV)

The King James shows a fulfillment of a messianic prophecy. The ESV destroys it.

Okay, there you go… and that was just the Gospel of Matthew! Do you now begin to suspect the modern perversions corrupt doctrine?

The Bible Controversy 8


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.
  1. Probing question #1 – Why would you oppose the preservation and inspiration of the Bible?
  2. Probing question #2 – Is it right to use the philosophy of lost pagans to interpret the Holy Scriptures
  3. Probing Question #3 – Why would we let a man who admittedly was using pagan methods to interpret Holy Scriptures determine what words and verses belong in the Bible?
  4. Probing Question #4 – Why do we even consider it okay that Origen removed words and entire verses from the Bible when he wrote up his master Greek text? Doesn’t the Bible pronounce damnation upon anyone who removes words from or adds words to the Holy Bible? Shouldn’t we be furious that unholy hands had dared tamper with the Bible?
  5. Probing Question #5 – With all of the deficiencies, changes, emendations and editings of Vaticanus, why did seemingly intelligent men accept this manuscript as fitting to use to translate for our modern Bibles? Isn’t this editing (which we can obviously see happened) the very thing the so-called Scholars rejected the Textus Receptus for – the texts the churches have always used until 150 years ago, and has NO evidence of tampering???
  6. Probing Question#6 – If I take every course at Tennessee Temple University on Greek and Hebrew they offer, does that automatically give me, a man, the right to decide what words should be in the Bible (a book written and dictated letter for letter by God) or not? Isn’t the Bible God’s word, and doesn’t He warn of dire consequences for anyone willing to tamper with it? Does fallen men have the right, based upon a few hundred hours of sitting in a chair, scribbling notes, listening to lectures, and occaisionally raising your hand and taking a few tests, to decide what words belong in the Bible (a book written by the infallable Creator of the Universe)?
  7. Probing Question #7 – Why would you want to treat the Bible like it is any other book? Isn’t it the inspired, inerrant word of God
  8. Probing Question #8 – if you believe the Bible has errors in it… doesn’t that mean you’re lying when you say you believe in the inspired, inerrant word of God???
  9. Probing Question #9 – when we already know the early Coptic and Gnostics were riddled with heresy, why would you prefer their heavily edited Bible texts over the ones you assume have been edited by the Bible-believing Christians who were suffering and dying for their faith?
  10. Probing Question #10 – Why was no attempt made to disprove Simonides’ claim to have forged Sinaiticus? was it because Tischendorf feared they couldn’t disprove it? Or was it because he suspected it was true all along?
  11. Probing Question #11 – There’s no proof of any “editing” of the Greek Recieved Text around 250 AD. How can you continue to believe one took place when all the evidence for editing points rather to your preferred manuscripts, the Alexandrian family?
  12. Probing Question #12 – why is it only verses referring to topics that Christ denying liberals object to that seem to be changed? If there were corruptions in transmission, shouldn’t it have also affected incidental verses like Matthew 20:29? It seems a little funny that the only verses that are changed or deleted are ones that a Bible scoffing, Christ Denying theological liberal would object to.

So far we looked only at a few verses of the deity of Christ, and were a little shocked at how the modern translations pervert them. We noticed a trend that if it’s a verse that the average Christian is knowledgeable about (Like John 1:1 or John 3:16) they leave it alone, knowing some Christians are discriminating enough to reject any Bible that mistranslated John 1:1. But how many Christians were aware of 1 John 5:6-8, 1 Tim. 3:16, Matthew 1:23, Phillipians 2:6, Colossians 2:9, John 20:28, John 10:29:30, or John 1:14?

Yesterday I deliberately arranged the verses from less shocking to completely shocking. I let you in easy, now there’s no need to pull punches now. And I’m going to really harp on this issue: Why is it these particular verses seem to be changed?

Let’s talk about documentary fingerprint. I came up with this term (I’m sure forgery experts have a technical term for it) to describe linguistic phrases that a human being uses. For instance, Joseph Smith’s forgery “The Book of Mormon” uses the phrase “And it came to pass…” thousands of times.

If the same person supposedly edited the Syrian family of manuscripts, a feat that would have required a lifetime of travel and the willing permission of the owners of these manuscripts, wouldn’t he have left evidence that pointed specifically to him? And since over 5,200 Greek manuscripts of the Syrian family all agree almost letter for letter, it would HAVE to have been the same person. Let me flesh out this scenario, and see if it sounds correct to you.

I give you a list of verses of the Bible to correct, and urge you to be careful to correct them the way I wrote them down. Right away, its a huge project, because there’s no chapter or verse numbers in 350 AD.

  1. Are you going to get them all?
  2. Is the order of magnitude of the project going to intimidate you? Will you hurry through it?
  3. With the project so large, and there are all these verses you’re supposed to add all these words to, what are the odds you’re going to miss a verse, add them to the wrong verse, forget some of the words you’re supposed to add?
  4. And since at least two of the passages are lengthy (9 verses), what are the odds you’re going to miss large portions of it, perhaps as much as a single verse?

Here’s a homework assingment. I want you to write out on paper 1 John 5:6-8 as it reads in either the NIV, ESV, or NASB.

Once that’s complete, go and add in the missing words as written in the King James. Don’t re-write the entire verses, just add the words to the existing verses.

Done? Okay, look at it critically.

Huh. It’s BLATENTLY obvious those words are added in later. Isn’t it? You had to cram those words in. The spacing of the letters is different, aren’t they? Even the style of the lettering changes as you begin to stress JUST A BIT about fitting those words in there. And the most common Western technique to fit words in is bottom letter compression (the bottom strokes of the letters point towards one another in an arch), or superscription – to write the added words ABOVE the text.

There’s not a scroll, uncial, parchment, miniscule, lectionary, or codex anywhere in the Antioch/Syrian/Textus Receptus family that shows that kind of editing.

Here’s the biggie – east of Turkey, the habit is to write added words in the margins of the text – sometimes even adding two or three words preceding and following from the verse where the addition should go, to clearly notate it. And again, there’s no scroll, uncial, parchment, miniscule, lectionary, or codexes anywhere in the Antioch family showing that, either.

So what does that do to the theory of the Textual Critics?

Explode it utterly. The only conclusion is that, to effect the changes the “scholars” claim took place would require the re-writing of the entire codex or lectionary.

People are resistant to change. I guarantee at least a dozen, if not more, Christians in Antioch alone would have resisted the changes, and we’ve had ended up with a third family of manuscripts, the suppsed “Neutrals” the “scholars” proposed. And the numbers of those should roughly have rivaled that of the Textus Receptus manuscripts. We have 5,200 to 5,400 manuscripts belonging to the Textus Receptus line, and about 47 of the Alexandrian family. so how many belong to the supposed neutral texts?

One.

Codex D was the lone “neutral” text. And the opinion of that is that its a back translation. In other words, the source document probably was latin, and the copyist simply translated the latin back into Greek.

Modern scholars dismiss the supposed Neutral manuscript theory, not realizing without it, Wescott and Hort’s theory is utterly crushed. And I just demonstrated the utter lack of evidence for Textual Criticism.

IF THERE’S NO EVIDENCE OF ANY EDITING, THEN THERE’S NO NEED TO DISCOVER WHAT THE ORIGINAL GREEK MUST HAVE SAID!!! You can just open Stephanus’s 4th edition Greek and look at it!

“Wait! Stephanus made 4 edtions! Doesn’t that mean he may have been wrong?”

You guys are up to, what, 23 editions of the Nestle-Aland? Plus Wescott-Hort and the United Bible Society’s myriad texts? you’ve got some 30 editions of your “critical” greek text! We’ve got… 4. I think 3 chances to get it right versus 29 – we’re in a lot better theological ground than you are. And guess what? I feel the spirit of prophecy coming on me!!! Thus sayeth the NIV, there will eventually be a 24’th edition!!!

Okay, sorry, leaned on the sarcasm button again. I just need a place to rest my elbow while I type!

okay, tomorrow I promise to get back to the changed verses. i had to get this issue dealt with before I forgot it. I meant to get this put in as Bible Controversy #3, but got sidetracked.

The Bible Controversy 7


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.
  1. Probing question #1 – Why would you oppose the preservation and inspiration of the Bible?
  2. Probing question #2 – Is it right to use the philosophy of lost pagans to interpret the Holy Scriptures
  3. Probing Question #3 – Why would we let a man who admittedly was using pagan methods to interpret Holy Scriptures determine what words and verses belong in the Bible?
  4. Probing Question #4 – Why do we even consider it okay that Origen removed words and entire verses from the Bible when he wrote up his master Greek text? Doesn’t the Bible pronounce damnation upon anyone who removes words from or adds words to the Holy Bible? Shouldn’t we be furious that unholy hands had dared tamper with the Bible?
  5. Probing Question #5 – With all of the deficiencies, changes, emendations and editings of Vaticanus, why did seemingly intelligent men accept this manuscript as fitting to use to translate for our modern Bibles? Isn’t this editing (which we can obviously see happened) the very thing the so-called Scholars rejected the Textus Receptus for – the texts the churches have always used until 150 years ago, and has NO evidence of tampering???
  6. Probing Question#6 – If I take every course at Tennessee Temple University on Greek and Hebrew they offer, does that automatically give me, a man, the right to decide what words should be in the Bible (a book written and dictated letter for letter by God) or not? Isn’t the Bible God’s word, and doesn’t He warn of dire consequences for anyone willing to tamper with it? Does fallen men have the right, based upon a few hundred hours of sitting in a chair, scribbling notes, listening to lectures, and occaisionally raising your hand and taking a few tests, to decide what words belong in the Bible (a book written by the infallable Creator of the Universe)?
  7. Probing Question #7 – Why would you want to treat the Bible like it is any other book? Isn’t it the inspired, inerrant word of God
  8. Probing Question #8 – if you believe the Bible has errors in it… doesn’t that mean you’re lying when you say you believe in the inspred, inerrant word of God???
  9. Probing Question #9 – when we already know the early Coptic and Gnostics were riddled with heresy, why would you prefer their heavily edited Bible texts over the ones you assume have been edited by the Bible-believing Christians who were suffering and dying for their faith?
  10. Probing Question #10 – Why was no attempt made to disprove Simonides’ claim to have forged Sinaiticus? was it because Tischendorf feared they couldn’t disprove it? Or was it because he suspected it was true all along?
  11. Probing Question #11 – There’s no proof of any “editing” of the Greek Recieved Text around 250 AD. How can you continue to believe one took place when all the evidence for editing points rather to your preferred manuscripts, the Alexandrian family?

One of the points we raised yesterday was that they claim you cannot find any quotations from the Syrian Manuscripts in the early Christian writings. After Dean John Burgon compiled tens of thousands of quotes from the pre-nicean Christian writers, they mocked, disparaged and belittled him.

After others began reproducing the same results, a hasty huddle must have been called – because many of those writings are now omitted from published works of the “Early Church Fathers”, or changed to reflect the Alexandrian families. They also hastily warn in their “Foreword from the Author” that the early christian authors manuscripts were “edited many times to reflect desired readings”.

What does that mean? “When you see something that proves the Alexandrian family, that’s proof, but if it’s reflecting the Syrian, then it’s ‘edited'”.

If the Byzantine readings now summarily dismissed in the early Fathers were legitimately included, the Fathers’ overall text would be seen to be far more ‘Byzantine’ than current scholarly opinion claims. This was Burgon’s original contention, which was dismissed out of hand, due to his use of ‘uncritical’ editions of the Fathers. Current ‘critical’ editions, however, follow the above-mentioned practice of eliminating distinctive Byzantine readings where unconfirmed by direct comment. Were this not so, Burgon’s assertion might find contemporary corroboration” (Maurice Robinson, “The Case for the Byzantine Textform: A New Approach to ‘Majority Text’ Theory,” Southeastern Regional Meeting, Evangelical Theological Society, at Toccoa Falls College, March 8-9, 1991)

Now we begin to move onto a major area that’s not being questioned or discussed – and I think it’s key to WHY this is happening.

When we start looking into what verses are edited, and what subjects they are, we start to discern something.

  • It’s fairly easy to prove salvation by faith alone, the KEY Christian doctrine – from the King James Bible. It’s much harder from the modern mis-translations.
  • It’s fairly easy to prove the Trinity from the King James Bible. It’s much harder from the modern mis-translations.
  • It’s rarly easy to prove the deity of Christ from the King James Bible. It’s much harder from the modern mis-translations.
  • It’s fairly easy to prove eternal security from the King James Bible. It’s much harder from the modern mis-translations.
  • It’s fairly easy to show the importance of the shed blood of Jesus Christ from the King James Bible. It’s much harder from the modern mis-translations.
  • It’s fairly easy to prove eternal suffering in a literal Hell forever for the unsaved from the King James Bible. It’s much harder from the modern mis-translations.

Wescott and Hort did not believe in any of these doctrines. I’m fairly sure they believe in a literal Hell now. After all, they’ve been there for around eighty years or so. Guaranteed, unless they repented of these heresies prior to their deaths – and I’m hoping they did so. If you’ve ever contemplated the literal reality of Hell for more than a second, you’ve realized by now the horror of it.

Let’s look at some verses supporting these doctrines. If I can’t document any changes to these verses, then I’ll drop mmy King James Only stance and start using modern translations. On the other hand, if I can prove my theory, then you need to consider abandoning modern per-versions and using only the King James Bible.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1 (KJV)

no change.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John 1:14 (KJV)

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14 (ESV)

begotten is removed.

18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. John 5:18 (KJV)

no change.

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)

24 For this reason I said to you that death will overtake you in your sins: for if you have not faith that I am he, death will come to you while you are in your sins. John 8:24 (BBE)

Believe is changed to “have faith.”

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. John 8:58 (KJV)

58 Jesus said to them, Truly I say to you, Before Abraham came into being, I am. John 8:58 (BBE)

The emphatic repetition is removed.

30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. John 10:30-33 (KJV)

29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all. No one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 The Father and I are one.” John 10:29-30 (HCSB)

I and the Father are one. (NIV)

“My Father” becomes “the father”. not too tremendous, but the repetition of the Scripture is now removed, weakening the claim. A heretic here could claim that Jesus Christ now is just a man, claiming deity through personal relationship. and indeed, that’s the contention of some heretics.

28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. John 20:28 (KJV)

28 “My Lord and my God!” Thomas exclaimed. John 20:28 (NLT)

The NLT translation here is questionable, as it seems like Thomas is expressing disbelief, with a blasphemous “OMG!” – rather than with a declaration of Christ’s deity, as even the NIV portrays.

Nothing major yet, although some very questionable translations.

9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Colossians 2:9 (KJV)

9 For the entire fullness of God’s nature dwells bodily in Christ, Colossians 2:9 (HCSB)

9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form (NIV)

9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, Colossians 2:9 (ESV)

9 For in him all the wealth of God’s being has a living form, Colossians 2:9 (BBE)

9 For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body. Colossians 2:9 (NLT)

Uh…. take your time and read those. Literally, it’s taking one key verse affirming the Trinity, and cutting ithe Trinity itself out of the verse. This is a heresy. The text clearly says θεότης, Godness in completeness. To describe it, as the Bible clearly states the doctrines of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, the King James translators know to translate it “Godness” would be misleading. So they chose to use Godhead, to show all three reside in one body, in a way we cannot understand.

Yes, it’s a major issue. So far, we’ve seen the actions of the Bible translators have been to downplay the deity of Christ – but now we’re dealing with the Trinity! This is something Wescott and Hort had a problem with. Not surprisingly, it gets removed.

Think it’s a fluke? Get your Bibles. You’re about to be completely shocked at what you see next. Modern translations literally turn the next verse around to say the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the Bible really says.

5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Philippians 2:5-8 (KJV)

You’re seen this verse before, right? Read it out loud several times, making sure you pay attention to the wording. “thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” Thats what it says, right? The Greek text says Isos, equal, same as, equality. Let’s see what heresy (yes, heresy) the modern versions advocate.

6 who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage. Philippians 2:6 (HCSB)

6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, Philippians 2:6 (ESV)

6 Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to. Philippians 2:6 (NLT)

6 who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, Philippians 2:6 (ASV)

6 who, being in the very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped. (NIV)

WHAT??? That’s a heresy. The Bible says he thought it not robbery to be equal with God. The modern perversions claim he did not consider it to be something to be grasped. Now, you tell me if you think those two sentences are exactly the same? They’re not. One says He was equal to God, the other says he wasn’t.

the King James presents an awesome portayal of the gentleness and humility of the King of Kings, Emmanuel, God with us, the LORD Jesus Christ, second person of the trinity.

The modern versions claim instead he was just a man who knew he couldn’t be God, and didn’t even try.

Ready for the big shocker?

14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14 (KJV)

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Matthew 1:23 (KJV)

23 See, the virgin will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and they will name Him Immanuel, which is translated “God is with us.” Matthew 1:23 (HCSB)

The translation of Immanu-El as “God with us” shows a statement of Christ’s eternal sonship. Translating it to “God is with us” turns it rather to being a standard Jewish name, reflecting the greatness of God. In addition, the HCSB downplays the virgin birth.

16 And 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 (KJV)

16 And most certainly, the mystery of godliness is great: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory. 1 Timothy 3:16 (HCSB)

16 Great 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 (ESV)

16 And without argument, great is the secret of religion: He who was seen in the flesh, who was given God’s approval in the spirit, was seen by the angels, of whom the good news was given among the nations, in whom the world had faith, who was taken up in glory. 1 Timothy 3:16 (BBE)

16 Without question, this is the great mystery of our faith: Christ was revealed in a human body and vindicated by the Spirit. He was seen by angels and announced to the nations. He was believed in throughout the world and taken to heaven in glory. 1 Timothy 3:16 (NLT)

16 The mystery that gives us our reverence for God is acknowledged to be great: He appeared in his human nature, was approved by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was announced throughout the nations, was believed in the world, and was taken to heaven in glory. 1 Timothy 3:16 (GW)

16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the spirit, Seen of angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory. 1 Timothy 3:16 (ASV)

16 Beyond all question, the mystery of Godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory. 1 Timothy 3:16 (NIV)

The Greek manuscripts, the Syrian family, all say Theos Ephanerothe – God was manifested. Not Autos Ephanerothe – he was manifested.

Not a big deal? I’m manifest in the flesh. So are you. But to say God was manifest in the Flesh is a HUGE deal. It portrays what we learned in Seminary is called the Hypostatic union – Jesus Christ is Fully God, and Fully Man. He did not become so at His Baptism – he always WAS God.

Is this a major problem? It should be. I’d be VERY careful of any Bible that deliberately weakens doctrine.

As you’ll see over the next couple of weeks, this is the tip of the iceberg.

“you’re paranoid, and imagining conspiraciies where there are none!”

Am I? Why these verses? Why not some of the incidental ones?

29 And as they departed from Jericho, a great multitude followed him. Matthew 20:29 (KJV)

29 As they were leaving Jericho, a large crowd followed Him. Matthew 20:29 (HCSB)

29 And as they went out of Jericho, a great crowd followed him. Matthew 20:29 (ESV)

Close to identical. But we’ve seen that the modern versions weaken the deity of Christ, and deny the Trinity. Should you be studying a bible that denies the Trinity and call it God’s word? We decry the New World Translation for doing it, but say NOTHING about the modern versions which all do exactly the same thing!!!

“‘They left John 1 alone…”

Yes, because so many Christians have memorized it, and discerning Christians look at it first to see if a Bible advocates heresy. If they hide it, you’ll never notice it! did you notice the changes in Colossians, Phillipians and 1 Timothy? Most Christians don’t look at those.

My first glance at a new Bible is Acts 8:36-38. Then I turn to 1 John 5:6-7.

6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 1 John 5:6-8 (KJV)

read it carefully. Nowe lets look at the modern perversions.

6 Jesus Christ—He is the One who came by water and blood, not by water only, but by water and by blood. And the Spirit is the One who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and these three are in agreement. 1 John 5:6-8 (HCSB)

Does that even say remotely the same thing? Look again.

6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 1 John 5:6-8 (KJV)

6 Jesus Christ—He is the One who came by water and blood, not by water only, but by water and by blood. And the Spirit is the One who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and these three are in agreement. 1 John 5:6-8 (HCSB)

Uh…. that’s a little shocking. Wheres verse 8??? They chopped off most of verse 7, and stuck on verse 8 – and you PROBABLY NEVER NOTICED. Let’s look at more translations.

6 This is he who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree. 1 John 5:6-8 (ESV)

6 This is he who came by water and by blood, Jesus Christ; not by water only but by water and by blood. 7 And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is true. 8 There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood: and all three are in agreement. 1 John 5:6-8 (BBE)

The BBE chops out even more of the verse than the other popular versions! I’m sure even Satan was astonished! “Really??? We can get away with that???”

6 And Jesus Christ was revealed as God’s Son by his baptism in water and by shedding his blood on the cross—not by water only, but by water and blood. And the Spirit, who is truth, confirms it with his testimony. 7 So we have these three witnesses— 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and all three agree. 1 John 5:6-8 (NLT)

And the NLT butchers the verses even more!!!

6 This Son of God is Jesus Christ, who came by water and blood. He didn’t come with water only, but with water and with blood. The Spirit is the one who verifies this, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 There are three witnesses: 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood. These three witnesses agree. 1 John 5:6-8 (GW)

Astounding. Absolutely. And I’m not even CLOSE to being done! If I analyzed every change the perversions did, I could be writing for the next two years!

If you’re not shocked now, just wait at what else you see the perversions cut out.

The Bible Controversy 6


so far we have examined:

  • Psalm 12:6-7 is correctly translated in the King James, but became increasingly incorrectly translated after Young’s “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 Sinaiticus
  • Codex Sinaiticus was found in St. Catherine’s Monastery 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 confession 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.
  1. First probing question we have asked: Why would you oppose the preservation and inspiration of the Bible?
  2. Second Probing question: Is it right to use the philosophy of lost pagans to interpret the Holy Scriptures
  3. Third Probing Question: Why would we let a man who admittedly was using pagan methods to interpret Holy Scriptures determine what words and verses belong in the Bible?
  4. Fourth Probing Question: Why do we even consider it okay that Origen removed words and entire verses from the Bible when he wrote up his master Greek text? Doesn’t the Bible pronounce damnation upon anyone who removes words from or adds words to the Holy Bible? Shouldn’t we be furious that unholy hands had dared tamper with the Bible?
  5. Fifth Probing Question: With all of the deficiencies, changes, emendations and editings of Vaticanus, why did seemingly intelligent men accept this manuscript as fitting to use to translate for our modern Bibles? Isn’t this editing (which we can obviously see happened) the very thing the so-called Scholars rejected the Textus Receptus for – the texts the churches have always used until 150 years ago, and has NO evidence of tampering???
  6. Sixth Probing Question: 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 occasionally raising your hand and taking a few tests, to decide what words belong in the Bible (a book written by the infallible Creator of the Universe)?

Okay, now that I’ve approached the back story from several angles, let’s put it all together.

In the 1870’s, pastors began calling for an updating of the Bible. There technically was only one Bible – the King James. They wanted some of the older, misunderstood words updated (do you know what an “Ossifrage” is? It’s a Vulture).

There was to be no substitutions of the Greek Texts, merely an updating. Those were the explicit instructions. The Textus Receptus SHALL be used. There will be no additions, ro deletions, merely an updating of the Bible to everyday English. This, by the way, has been the rationale of all modern Bibles – merely to update the outdated words. This, by the way, did not include the “Thees” and “Thous” that for some reason everyone complains about. The Bible was to be called the Revised Version – a revision, not a new translation. There was specific instructions that they were not to add to nor take away from, but to REVISE. One of the sponsors of the project was Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the “Prince of Preachers”.

A number of scholars were suggested for the work, and the first meeting was going well, until one man was suggested. He was a scholar, but he was a Unitarian. For the first (and to my knowledge only time) objections were raised, on the grounds an unSaved man was incapable of understanding the Bible – after all, he was a Christ denying heretic. Wescott and Hort promptly stood up and announced that if this man was not permitted to work on the project, they too would resign (and possibly take some of the funding sponsors with them).

Seeing that the entire project was about to break apart, the objection was dismissed, and the council permitted to continue. Wescott then produced his Greek manuscript. He explained that he and Hort had secretly been reconciling the two manuscripts of Codex Vaticanus (which they nicknamed “B”) and Codex Sinaiticus (Which they nicknamed aleph, after the inscribing of a single Hebrew letter on the beginning of the manuscript).

This manuscript had been prepared in secret, with no other scholars being consulted. Now, my information says that they had already begun the process, and continued it throughout the translation process of the RV. I have also heard from a teaching by Marc Monte they did the project in secret, and revealed the completed manuscript AT the first committee meeting. I still have to verify wich of the reports is accurate.

What is to be noted:

  • The committee was not authorized to replace the Textus Receptus with any other manuscript. They promptly did so.
  • The compiling of this manuscript was done in secret, no one else was privy to the discussion of which manuscript’s variant readings was to be followed. My counsel here would have been “None of them = stick with the Textus Receptus”.
  • Wescott and Hort had already written of their opposition to the Textus Receptus, which they described as “vile” and “Villainous” (Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. 1, p. 211). God’s word is “Villainous”? The word describes something vile, and evil. To describe God’s word as evil is to show you are an utter reprobate.
  • The decision was made for “inclusiveness”, to include someone whose doctrine was rank heresy. This guaranteed that he would immediately object to any translating of a verse that could possibly prove the Trinity, or the Deity of Jesus Christ. The squelching of the objection of any man who was a heretic prevented further objections to the doctrinal corruptions of the committee.

The decision was made based to engage in what would be called “textual criticism”. The Committee actually endorsed this, and would formulate a series of rules and observations. I’ve got them listed in bold at the beginning of emphasis. You’ll notice once or twice I will categorically answer these false charges in bold as well. As you’re used to seeing from me, we’ll pay close attention to the wording of it.

  1. The goal of textual criticism is the recovery of the true text of the Bible. this assumes of course that the true text of the Bible was lost prior to the 19th century! What extreme arrogance to assume that early Christians were careless about the very Bible they were being murdered and tortured for! And how odd they should agree on the texts possibly either written by a heretic (Origen denied the deity of Christ, and his writings would be influential among the Arians and Sabellians later on), and from a country whose original Christians were all gnostics or heretics of one form or another. It is no reflection on modern Egyptian Christians, who have to suffer for the stigma of the early Coptic “christians”, whose writings reek of heresy.
  2. The Bible is to be treated like any other book. The Bible is not any other book! The Bible is the inspired, preserved word of God. No saved man can honestly abide by this rule. If to you the Bible is like any other book, it means you do not literally believe it. If you don’t literally believe it, I do question your salvation. Why did we allow unSaved men to translate the Bible, let alone decide which texts REALLY are the Bible?
  3. There are four families of Bible manuscripts: Traditional (Antioch/Syrian), Western (codex D), Alexandrian (the attempt by Coptic Christians to “correct” the Antioch manuscripts to neutral), and Neutral (Codex Vaticanus and Sniaiticus). The assumptions here are numerous and wild. The assumptions here are that since the Coptic “Christians” felt free to edit, add to and remove from the Bibles, that all other early Christians did as well. It’s a false assumption, as there’s no proof for it. Rather the proof is that only the Coptics did this. The reality is – there is no “Neutral Manuscripts”. There is only the texts of the Heretics, and the texts of the inerrant, inspired preserved word of God. There is no “western text”.
  4. “All trustworthy restoration of corrupted texts is grounded on the study of their history” (Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek, Introduction and Appendix, 1881). Again, major assumptions. It sounds logical – and that’s what hoodwinks so many Christians. All this sounds logical. But we see again a major priorii argument – the assumption that all of the received texts are corrupted. They’re not looking at Alexandrian manuscripts to see how to restore those… they’re examining the received texts to see how they can get them to say what they want. As for their history, the known history of the Textus Receptus is known because the texts were publicly available. If you found Christians, you found their Bible, which they encouraged you to copy and read. Indeed, a great deal of time was spent copying the Bible in advance to spread the Gospel. Can I prove any one manuscript was one the Waldenses copied, and which one it was copied from? No. Likewise, we cannot prove that Vaticanus was written by Eusebius or Origen. Nor can anyone at this late date prove Sinaiticus was written by Origen.
  5. Nearly all text critics assume that between 250 and 350 A.D. there was a revision of the Greek text which produced the traditional text” (A.H. McNeile, An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, p. 428). Why? What proof do you have? None. To even state that suspicion, one must have proof of an editing. Approaching this with a priorii argument is faulty logic and circular reasoning. “We know that the Bible manuscripts were edited.” “How?” “Uh… because they must have been edited.” Funny how this unproven editing resulted in so many of the texts reading exactly the same. Did a master editor – we’ll call him Huey – went around to all these countries the Received Text existed in, found almost all of them, and made the same changes to almost all of them! and… didn’t touch the spelling errors in those few manuscripts with them. Why do they believe the TR had to be edited? Because it convicted them. It clearly showed the deity of Christ, the reality of Hell, the eternal condemnation of those who reject the deity of Christ, whom they rejected. Why those years? Because Vaticanus dates from around the 4th century, and the assumption is that Vaticanus represents the “original Greek” and Sinaiticus represents any attempt to “restore” the “corrupt” text back to it’s original. Since Aleph and B disagree with each other in so many places, wouldn’t it make more sense to assume both were products of editing to remove anything unSaved men disagreed with? And didn’t Hort even admit, “The fundamental Text of late extantGreek MSS. generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian Text of the second half of the fourth century” (The New Testament in the Original Greek, Introduction, p. 92). If they’re identical… isn’t this a complete admission that this editing never took place???
  6. The traditional text did not exist before the 3rd century. This contention contradicts the previous one, as any exercise in logic should show. How can it have been created in the early 300’s, then have been massively edited by Huey the wandering scribe only a couple of decades later? “Byzantine readings have now been proven to be in existence by the end of the second century…” (Sturz, The ByzantineText-type, p. 78)
  7. readings characteristic of the Received Text are never found in the quotations of Christian writers prior to about A.D. 350” (Kenyon, Recent Developments in the Textual Criticism of the Greek Bible, London: Oxford UniversityPress, 1933, pp. 7-8). This theory of Hort’s, which Kenyon above is paraphrasing, is either the product of ignorance or a deliberate lie. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of quotes of the pre-Nicean church “fathers” show that a preponderance of them come exclusively from the Syrian texts. It is during the post-Nicean era that we begin to see the number of quotes from the Alexandrian manuscripts begin to increase. The truth? There are a total of almost 5,000 quotations prior to 350 AD that support the Received Text. Wescott and Hort make a demand for the entire text of the Syrian Greek texts to be found, from Matthew to Revelation, in any of the early Christian writers – which is ridiculous, as it would then be dismissed as an “edited text”. Wescott and Hort, however, then propose different standards for the Alexandrian, and include any paraphrasing of a verse as being proof for the Alexandrian. If you require the entire Greek Syrian text in the writing of any one pre-Nicean Christian writer as proof, you must also require the entire Alexandrian text in the writings of any one Pre-Nicean writer.
  8. The shorter reading is preferred. Sounds logical, until one considers this is a deliberate rule invented to gain support for the Alexandrian family. Since the editing of the Coptics and Gnostics were designed more to remove words that contradicted their man-made heresies, you realize very quickly the need to cry “foul”. Again, they are suggesting that the Syrian texts were edited for which there is no proof, and announcing their preference for the Alexandrian texts, for which there is AMPLE proof that they have been edited.

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 Received 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?

next, we will begin to examine some of these changes, and I’m going to bring up yet another question nobody seems to be asking!

The Bible Controversy 5


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, but by examining large numbers of them we can determine the overall correct reading
  • 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 Sinaiticus
  • Codex Sinaiticus was found in St. Catherine’s Monastery 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 confession 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.
  1. First probing question we have asked: Why would you oppose the preservation and inspiration of the Bible?
  2. Second Probing question: Is it right to use the philosophy of lost pagans to interpret the Holy Scriptures
  3. Third Probing Question: Why would we let a man who admittedly was using pagan methods to interpret Holy Scriptures determine what words and verses belong in the Bible?
  4. Fourth Probing Question: Why do we even consider it okay that Origen removed words and entire verses from the Bible when he wrote up his master Greek text? Doesn’t the Bible pronounce damnation upon anyone who removes words from or adds words to the Holy Bible? Shouldn’t we be furious that unholy hands had dared tamper with the Bible?
  5. Fifth Probing Question: 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???

This may all have seemed technical and boring, but trust me when I say, I cannot think of a more important topic. Someone has switched deliberately altered Greek texts for God’s Inspired and Preserved Bible, and quite a few persons are willingly trying to keep the average Christian uninformed on the topic.

I’ll repeat the point I wasn’t always King James Only. I was VERY content with my NIV. I loved the strength and seeming emphasis of God’s might and power in the RSV. I was snobbish about my new NASB – the MacArthur Study Bible – because I had the Bible that all the experts said, “This was the most literal translation.” I even wanted to get a nice ESV soon. And a retired pastor from an evangelical (but very liberal) denomination had even given me some other translations, since he was clearing out his study after retirement.

I’d had the NASB for two, maybe three weeks? And my wife and I were trying to find a home church. We’d just left a church we’d planned on joining, because we’d just found out they were Charismatic. And we found a church that looked good, but they had an issue – they were King James Only.

Okay. Let me investigate that. At the very least, if this is some cultic thing, I can get enough information on it to disprove it. At least it will settle on whether this was the right church for us or not.

I began investigating. And suddenly I realized I was on the wrong side of the issue.

It’s not the King James Only weirdos who were on the wrong side of the issue. I was.

Christianity on the whole had accepted the King James Bible, and were united on it. And the manner in which the new Greek Manuscripts were introduced strongly reeked of dishonesty at the very least, and strongly suggested of an active plot by Satan. We’ll get there on that issue shortly.

It was the Modern Bible movement that moved away from the accepted position of orthodox Christianity, not the King James Bible defenders.

The King James Only people weren’t the weirdos and wackos. They were taking a very strong stance for the defense of God’s word. And I was part of the people who had unwittingly moved away from the accepted position.

It only literally took my one hour of research to find I was wrong. After many more hours of research, I remain convinced. You will be too.

We’ve learned about Codex Vaticanus. I dwelt on that issue yesterday because it’s actually Vaticanus that most of the modern Bibles come from, and Sinaiticus is used only where Vaticanus is missing verses or chapters. If it’s not in either one, but the Antioch family of manuscripts has it… too bad. The Antioch manuscripts are rejected almost entirely by the “Scholars”.

I heard a sermon by a man who’d been fired from Tennessee Temple University for his King James Only stance. He asked a probing question which they refused to answer before they fired him. I’m going to ask it now.

Sixth Probing Question: 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 occasionally raising your hand and taking a few tests, to decide what words belong in the Bible (a book written by the infallible Creator of the Universe)?

I’ll remind the reader I’ve had one year of Greek, and one year of Hebrew. I consider the training invaluable, as it gives you a great deal of insight into the meaning of the Scriptures. I would not consider, would not presume or DARE to look at the Greek manuscripts and say, “I don’t think Acts 8:27 should be there. I think some pious scribe added it years later.”

But that’s EXACTLY what these scholars are doing! Christians were up in arms over the Jesus Seminars many years ago. And the men in the Jesus Seminars weren’t doing anything that modern Bible “Scholars” today are doing! They were just more honest about it.

I’ll repeat that there are many corrections and changes done to Vaticanus. It would take x-ray machines to try to see if it was possible to see the very original writing on the scrolls. And it certainly was available to Beza, to Scrivener, to the Elzevir brothers and to Erasmus. They didn’t bother with it. It was available to the translators of the King James Bible, who ignored it. There’s a reason there. WE should take heed.

We KNOW that there were changes by “pious scribes” to Vaticanus. Indeed, the very people the scholars accuse of altering the Textus Receptus (who didn’t have it, had no access to it, and spurned using it) were in charge of Vaticanus – and we KNOW they altered Vaticanus!

Seventh Probing Question: Why do the scholars reject the Antioch manuscrips (the Textus Receptus) for supposedly being altered by the people who didn’t have access to it – and then turn around and advocate Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus who WERE altered by the very people we accuse of altering the Textus Receptus? Supposed redacting of the TR is only a theory without any proof, but a known fact for Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. If the scholars reject the TR for being altered, shouldn’t they be rejecting Vaticanus and Sinaiticus too???

I’m really surprised I’m the only person asking this question. Because it’s the key to understanding what’s happening. There are unGodly men who are making merchandise of God’s word, and neutering modern Christians who lack good doctrinal understanding, simply because scissors have been liberally applied to modern Bibles, cutting out whatever the Scholars don’t like.

We now start looking at Sinaiticus. Here’s the story.

Count Tischendorf was a man who quite simply, was searching for ANY manuscripts that read differently than the Textus Receptus. I have to ask why. Remember, the Textus Receptus represents 5,400 manuscripts that have been hand copied one from another, by Bible believing Christians, many of whom were Baptists.

Tischendorf was searching vainly, trying to find reputable manuscripts in the mideast. I say reputable, because quite a few obvious forgeries were turning up, including some questionable ones by a man named Constantinus Simonides, who apparently was being suspected of forging manuscript fragments.

Just before Tischendorf’s funding ran out, he visited the Monastery of St. Catherine, on Mt. Sinai. Please note two things – Tischendorf was a liberal theologically, part of the great movement afoot in Germany at the time, which was denying the Flood, the Genesis account, dismissing all the patriarchs of the Bible as “folk tales”, and calling the Lord Jesus Christ just a “Good man”, and dismissing any accounts of the ressurection as “legends”.

Tischendorf was also being funded by someone, and all the information I have on it right now (I lack the time right now to go and read his writings) is scarce. I think it was Tubingen university? When I find out later, I’ll correct this entry.

Tischendorf found the manuscripts in a trash pile, about to be burned. The monks there had little or no regard for the manuscripts at all. Tischendorf sat up all night copying the Gospel of Barnabus (Really? You get your hands on the supposed great find of the century, and you sit up copying a pseudo-canonical book???), and convinced the monks not to burn the manuscripts, bargaining to purchase it. He promised to return to Germany and secure funding for it. The monks agreed, and stuffed it on the shelf. Tischendorf returned to Germany, secured the funding, returned and bought the manuscript. I’m sure the monks found some other spurious documents to sell as well, but nothing is made of those.

We see that Tischendorf was part of a group who denied the Bible and the Godhood of Jesus Christ, which means this manuscript was advocated by a Godless Heretic. We have two strikes against Sinaiticus right away. It’s either one of Origen’s or Eusebius’s 50 manuscripts, both of whom held to heretical methods of biblical interpretation – and whom admittedly were writing THEIR versions of the Greek Manuscripts.

The other strike against Sinaiticus was that it was being championed by men who obviously were not saved, not Christians, and unless they repented of their theological positions, are in the very Hell they denied.

Tischendorf described his precious discovery as “Highly unreliable”, showing signs of editing, overwriting of verses countless times, as many as “five different hands”. words had vanished from verses, entire verses were gone, and even large portions of entire chapters.

These two manuscripts are not the “Oldest and best manuscripts.” The current Bible Scholars will say “this verse is not in the oldest and best manuscripts. They cannot be found in Codex Sinaiticus or Codex Vaticanus.”

The two sentences do not refer to the same thing, although they imply they do. You’ll see soon what exactlky the “oldest and best manuscripts” are.

Tischendorf produced his discovery, to scholarly acclaim. Other men who were theologically liberal and denied Christ was delighted, as apparently key verses were removed from the Bible advocating the Deity of Christ.

And then Simonides spoke up. “I made Sinaiticus years ago. It was a clumsy forgery, one of my first attempts, and fairly pathetic at that.”

It created quite a stir, as Simonides now admitted to forging documents – and specifically claimed writing Sinaiticus. Tischendorf simply waited for the controversy to die down, and repeated his claims. As far as I know, there were no serious attempts to discover whether Simonides’s confession was true or not. The Scholars were simply too enraptured with Tischendorf’s “Unreliable” manuscript.

I’ll point out that while the modrn Bible defender may argue there’s no proof for Simonides, there’s no proof against it – because there was no investigation. Simonides was in the region of St. Catharine’s monastary years prior to this. He was apparently suspected of forging manuscript fragments.

I’ll state two more things. Simonides, by confessing to forging Sinaiticus, ruined his career as a dealer in antique manuscripts. He could have produced the Ark of the Covenant and not one person would have purchased it.

I’ll also state that I have an RSV dating back to the 1950’s. The paper is getting heavily yellowed, and a little brittle at the edges. I’ve owned a few books from before 1900.

Amazingly, for a supposed 1500 year old manuscript, it looks REALLY good. REALLY good. It’s online, go look at it!

Which means either it was kept rolled up and hidden somewhere with a leather cover over it and never used…

or it was written by a Greek manuscript forger in the mid 19th century.

Any way you slice it, Sinaiticus has major problems. Its own discoverer calls it “highly unrelaible”, admits to evidence of editing (or correcting by an inexperienced forger), and it was either written by a heretic or by a con artist. Take your pick. You choose. I leave it up to you.

It’s a bad choice either way.

Compare this to the Textus Receptus, the manuscripts written down carefully by devout Bible Believing people, smuggling them and hiding them, risking capture, imprisonment, torture and even death at the hands of the very people…

…who supposedly altered those documents and left them alone, after killing their owners? No, that’s not how the Vatican operated. At least one person is recorded as being wrapped in the leaves of their own hand written Bible, and set afire. The Vatican has a history of burning the Bible, especially the Textus Receptus. Are we to believe that some pious monk found these hidden Christians, snuck into their homes at night, and edited their Bibles while the people slept, undisturbed???

No, that’s ridiculous.

The Manuscripts that the Roman Catholics had were indeed the very ones being championed as “excellent” – despite thousands of edits, corrections, additions and deletions!

The Bible Controversy 4


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, but by examining large numbers of them we can determine the overall correct reading
  • 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.

First probing question we have asked: Why would you oppose the preservation and inspiration of the Bible?

Okay, now that we spent four days laying the groundwork, let’s explain how this whole thing came about.

The original family of manuscripts are called the Syrian, or Antiochan manuscripts. The differing family of manuscripts are called the Alexandrian manuscripts, from Egypt.

The best guess is that the Alexandrian manuscripts came originally from Origen. Origen came from Alexandria, Egypt around the end of the 4th century – so we’re talking about 350 years or so after the ascending of Christ to heaven. By this time the churches had by and large fallen into error already, so he was in good company.

Origen had some bizarre notions about Scripture. He had misunderstood the Gospels, and actually castrated himself from a faulty understanding of “If thine hand offend thee…”. He opened a school to teach how to study the Bible, teaching that one should interpret the word of God through the eyes of a Pagan, Plato. His rationale for doing this was that “The Ark of the Covenant was made of gold plundered from Egypt.” Thus, one could use the philosophy of pagans to interpret Holy Scripture.

Second Probing question: Is it right to use the philosophy of lost pagans to interpret the Holy Scriptures?

Third Probing Question: 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?

Fourth Probing Question: 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?

It is highly probable that Codex Vaticanus comes to us from Origen. It is recorded that Origen did make a master Greek text. Why isn’t this raising eyebrows? Have we lost our love for the Bible this much that we don’t stop and question, “Why would you need to make a master text?”

Let me explain, before we go on. “Scholarship” and “textual criticism” have given us this heritage of taking the word of God so lightly. Today, it is understandable to take all of the Antioch manuscripts, go through them, and make sure we have the correct readings. They were, after all, hand written. And we do have over 5,000 of them. There is the occaisional spelling error. Greek has two letters for O, Omega and Omicron. Accidentally wroting an Omega instead of the omicron sometimes happens.

Or when copying a text, inadvertantly part of a verse is omitted. Verses that feature the same word twice have this happen sometimes. The eye sees the first occurance of the word, and when the eyes return to the source document, sees the second occurance and continues the copying from there. I’ll spare you all the technical terms.

The issue here is, with over 5,000 manuscripts, it’s merely labor intensive to go through and make sure we have the correct reading. This was done by four men independant of one another, and their master manuscripts make NO CHANGES to the text, merely ensuring we have the complete manuscript, nothing omitted – by comparing the manuscripts. Nobody decided whether a manuscript was genuine. Nobody sat and questioned, “Was this added later by some pious scribe?”

Vaticanus is missing entire books, and chapters of the Bible. It is a woefully incomplete manuscript. Christians are constantly being told that Sinaiticus is the manuscript that Bibles are made from, when in reality it is Vaticanus.

Words have been overwritten three, four, and fve times. Letters in those words have been changed, and an entire portion of Mark was literally scrubbed off of the parchment.

Fifth Probing Question: 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???

Here’s the point behind these probing questions: If James White finds out about this blog, and attempts his usual nonsense – he’s got to answer these probing questions before I start answering his. Them’s the rules.

Origen died and left Eusebius in place as his successor. Right in time for Constantine’s supposed conversion to Christianity. I really don’t buy his story at all, by the way. There’s nothing about mystic visions of Praxis symbols being a sign of sudden, unwilling salvation AT ALL in the Bible!

Leaving that aside, we find Constantine ordering 50 hand written copies of the Bible (well, there were no printing presses yet, so of course hand written). Eusebius apparently had his students use Vaticanus as their guide to make their copies from.

This is why there are about 47 copies of texts belonging to the Alexandrian family extant. These are the ones.

There are over 5,400 Antioch family manuscripts. The majority of the quotes from the early church “fathers” match these texts.

There are 47 Alexandrian Family manuscripts. 46, if you discount Sinaiticus because of the possible forgery.

Why are we accepting Alexandria over Antioch? The Bible shows that Christians were devout and had correct doctrine at Antioch. Alexandria had produced a man whose doctrine was faulty and needed coorecting – once he got to Antioch and met followers of the Apostle Paul.

If anything, things would have gotten worse in both places after the Apostles died. So if Antioch got questionable from good, then Alexandria would have gone from faulty and questionable to BAD. Do we agree? Yes?

So… why are we accepting Alexandrian manuscripts over Antiochan? Someone tell me why?

I know, very few people are asking this question in exactly this way.

Alexandria should be fighting the uphill battle. It’s a place of incorrect doctrine, its manuscripts edited and revised, faulty, missing entire books of the Bible,, missing verses and even chapters. It has been discarded by the churches, finding only acceptance in the Roman Catholic Church – which should make it suspect right from the start.

If I bought several copies of a book, and I noticed one of them was missing many of the chapters and sentences, I wouldn’t blame the other copies for being faulty – I’d blame the obviously defective one!

So WHY is it different when we come to God’s word?

97 O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. 98 Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me. 99 I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation. 100 I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts. 101 I have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I might keep thy word. 102 I have not departed from thy judgments: for thou hast taught me. 103 How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth! 104 Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way. Psalm 119:97-104 (KJV)

Obviously, these words do not apply to the Scholars, to the textual critics, to those who defend the modern versions.