Search
  • Rick LoPresti

Why use the King James Version?


There are more interpretations of the Bible than ever. Some think this is a good thing. Others bemoan the departure from "tradition". Some don't think it matters. Some people read the version of the Bible that seems to suit them best, while others research the background of various versions so they can find the one that evidence shows is the most faithful. To summarize this issue, some people believe that they need to take heed to verses like Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:5-6, Matthew 5:18, Matthew 24:35, and Revelation 22:18-19. They believe that the Bible is the word of God, and is to be treated and followed as such. They believe that despite the efforts of man and Satan to destroy and corrupt the scriptures, God has actively preserved His written word for us through the centuries (Psalm 12:6-7, Psalm 100:5, Psalm 117:2). This is a belief system or worldview as it is called today which informs their whole outlook. Other people don't embrace this view. They think that the Bible is just the word of man, or they believe that it has been changed so much over the years that we no longer have the accurate word of God, and therefore don't have to take it so literally or seriously. Others believe they have the right to decide what it should say and mean using their own criteria. This belief also informs their approach to life. They look at rules as guidelines or suggestions to be followed when it is convenient or it seems appropriate to them. They may even go so far as to look at rules as things to get away with breaking as much as possible. You may say that which version of the Bible you read most has nothing to do with your spiritual condition. I hope the following information sheds some helpful and instructive light on this issue, and lets you know about what sources you are using to feed your spirit. The following is a compilation of information from many resources.

I. The Masoretic Hebrew text of the Old Testament from which the OT of the KJV was

translated

A. When Jews would make copies of the Bible, they took extraordinary care of what they were

writing to make sure everything was letter perfect and holy before the Lord. The following

author writes about the rules listed in the Talmud (Jewish commentary) for copying scrolls:

"The parchment had to be made... from the skins of clean animals. The ink had to be of no

other color than black and had to be prepared according to a precise formula. No word or

letter could be written from memory. The Scribe had to have an authentic copy before him,

and he had to read and pronounce aloud each word before writing it. The Scribe had to

reverently wipe his pen each time before writing the word for God, and he had to wash his

whole body in the mikvah, the ceremonial bath, before writing the sacred Name, Jehovah

(YHWH). One mistake on a sheet condemned the sheet. If three mistakes were found on

any given page, the entire manuscript was condemned. Every word and every letter was

counted, and if a letter was omitted, an extra letter inserted, or if one letter touched another,

the manuscript was condemned and destroyed at once." - Diane A. McNeil, Ruth 3,000

Years of Sleeping Prophecy Awakened, Xulon Press, 2005, p. 226-227. Elder Rabbis would

also give a warning to new scribes: "Take heed how thou dost do thy work, for thy work is

the work of heaven, lest thou drop or add a letter of a manuscript and so become a destroyer

of the world." -Diane A. McNeil, Ruth 3,000 Years of Sleeping Prophecy Awakened, Xulon

Press, 2005, p. 227

B. The Masoretic text was thoroughly confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls.

II. The KJV

A. Before the KJV

In 1382 AD John Wycliffe was the first person to translate the complete English Bible from

the Latin vulgate. John was known as someone with immense energy and great courage, he

also trained young men to spread the word of God. The Catholic church was going to burn

John but he when to be with the Lord when he was saved by a stroke, but after he died and

was buried, they dug up his bones and burned them 44 years later. His disciples were

captured by the Catholic Church, their Bible translation was hung around their necks and

they were burnt alive at the stake. Bear in mind that there was no printing press in those days

thus copies of the Bible were done by hand-taking aprox 10 months.

In 1509, where King Henry VIII succeeded King Henry VII. In 1525AD William Tyndale

translated the first New Testament – this was printed from the original language. This was

the first Bible to be printed in English by the printing press. William Tyndale was a master

linguist of Oxford and Cambridge Universities. This was the first Bible translated from the

original languages. He completed translating the New Testament in 1525. It’s estimated that

18,000 copies were secretly shipped to England. Though the Catholic church ordered that

the Bibles were to be intercepted and burnt. They caught up with Tyndale after he was

betrayed by Henry Phillips (someone who befriended William, only later to betray him) and

on October 6th 1536 he was taken to be burned alive. His last words were a prayer, where he

prayed “Lord, Open the King of England’s eyes”.

Then in 1537AD the Tyndale-Matthews Bible (the second Bible printed in English was

released). Due to William Tyndale not finishing the translation of the Old Testament, John

Rodgers finished the task, though he used an alias “Thomas Matthew” to avoid persecution from the Catholic Church who forbid translation/printing of Bibles in English. Catholics

caught up to John Rodgers in 1555 and he was sentenced to be burned alive. He was given

an opportunity to recant to which John said “That which I have preached I will seal with my

blood.”. His wife and eleven children were not even allowed to see him until his was on his

way to the stake to die.

Then in 1539AD – Tyndale’s prayer was answered, 3 years later. The “Great Bible” was the

first authorised Bible in English. King Henry the 8th authorized this for public use. This was

due to the fact there was a split from the Catholic Church over the Pope and King Henry

having a disagreement over marriage/divorce. The translation used the Tyndale Bible, Latin

Vulgate and German text sources for its translation. The Bible is also known as the

Cromwell Bible, Whitchurch Bible, The Chained Bible and also the Cranmer Bible.

A number of protestant scholars fled persecution from England to Geneva, Switzerland. And

a new English translation of the Bible was undertaken under William Whittingham, who

supervised the Bible translation known as the Geneva Bible. This was done in collaboration

with Myles Coverdale, Christopher Goodman, Anthony Gilby, Thomas Sampson and

William Cole. In 1560AD the Geneva Bible was printed, the first English Bible to add

verses numbers to each chapter. This Bible was used by John Bunyan (the author of Pilgrims

Progress). This Bible was also the first to be machine produced to make the Bible publicly

available. This Bible came with an apparatus as well as study guides and aids. Most people

preferred this over the great Bible.

Queen Elizabeth in 1568AD had The Bishops Bible printed to improve on the previous

translation under the authority of the Church of England. This was the only legal authorized

version of the Bible for use in the Anglican church.

In 1603 Queen Elizabeth died and was succeeded by King James. King James was the King

of Scotland, but when Queen Elizabeth died, having no heirs/children and being unmarried

and King James being the closest relative became king of England in 1603. King James was

known to be very intelligent, considered to be one of the smartest meant to ever sit on the

throne. He helped people in England study science, literature and art. He was a God-fearing

believer with a strong character.

Is it true that King James was a homosexual? The easiest way to answer this silly

statement is to is answer it with this quote from a book written by King James- Basilikon

Doron (A Greek title that means Royal Gift). “There are some horrible crimes that ye are

bound in conscience never to forgive; such as witchcraft, wilful murder, incest and

sodemy.” James instructed his eldest son, Henry, in the following way: "But especially

eschew [i.e. hate] to be effeminate in your clothes, in perfuming, preining, or such like...

and make not a fool of yourself in disguising or wearing long your hair or nails," -Stephen

A. Coston & Richard D. Neumeier, King James, the VI of Scotland & the I of England:

Unjustly Accused?, KonigsWort, 1996, p. 4, ISBN: 9780965677738

B. The translators

The King James Version was not just the work of one man, but the work of a very large

conference of the best men of God in England, and every problem was worked out by God's

inspiration and the majority opinion. In 1604 at the Hampton court a conference was held to

discuss the issue. The attendees other than the King were his council of advisors, bishops

and Puritans. They discussed the translations and said that available translations were not

accurate and not answerable to the originals. So King James ordered a new translation. It

was to be accurate and true to the originals. He appointed 54 of the nations finest language

scholars and approved rules for carefully checking the results. It was said that “no marginal

notes at all are to be affixed but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words.” It

was decreed that special pain would be “taken for a uniform translation, which should be

done by the best learned men in both Universities, then reviewed by the bishops, presented

to the Privy council, and lastly ratified by the royal authority. 54 scholars were

commissioned, split into 6 companies into 3 groups (Cambridge, Oxford and Westminster)

to translate, review and check each translation. But first who were they? What kind of men

were they ?

First Lancelot Andrews, the director of the Westminster group, he was known as a great

man knowing over 15 modern languages as well as 6 ancient languages fluently, possessing

a photographic memory. He prayed at least 5 hours a day, also said he abstained from levity

and mirth. Meaning he didn’t joke about serious issues and didn’t joke around - a very

serious man. King James would say “No levity, brother Andrews is in court” – he was a

godly man.

Miles Smith, from the Oxford group. Smith was the one who wrote the preface of the KJV.

He went through the Greek and Latin fathers making notations in the writings of more than

300 church fathers from 100-600AD. He was familiar with the rabbinical glosses and

comments in the margins of the Masoretic Text. He had the Hebrew language at his finger

tips. He was also an expert in the Chaldea or Aramaic, Syriac and Arabic languages.

John Bois was in the Cambridge group. He learned Hebrew from his father. By the age of

six he was able to write Hebrew language legibly. He also had skill in Greek, spending 16

hours in the library without rest reading and studying the Greek language. He read through

the whole Old Testament by age five.

C. Directly from Hebrew and Greek

D. Textus receptus over 5,000 copies, now over 20,000

E. The English of the King James Version isn't nearly as hard to follow as its critics say. In

fact, it is in general written in a much simpler vocabulary, with a higher percentage of one

and two-syllable words, than almost any of the modern translations. The King James

Version, in fact, is almost universally acknowledged as the greatest of all masterpieces of

English literature. Believe it or not, some of the features most criticized in the King James

Bible are among the best reasons to keep it! For example, consider the "thee's" and "thou's."

The King James Version was not written in the everyday language of people on the street in

1611. It was written in high English, a very precise form of our language. The translators

italicized words they put into the text that do not appear in the original language.

The King James language is not hard to understand. Most of the so-called "archaic" words

are explained by the context of the passage or by comparing the passage with other passages

in the Bible where the same word is used. Heady and high-minded people resent the King

James language because it is plain and simple, and it isn't in tune with their high-minded

vocabulary. In fact, the Grade Level Indicator of the Flesch-Kincaid research company says

the King James language is easier to understand than the new versions. We certainly

agree that the language of the King James Bible is a unique language, but why shouldn't it

be? It's the WORD OF GOD! The KJV was penned at the pinnacle of English writing style,

and it served as a common fount of influence for classic authors for over three hundred

years. For this and other reasons we'll explore, the KJV stands alone as being uniquely

suited to serve as our "prime spine" in a classic literary curriculum. The way children

encounter information today is changing. As image-based information becomes more

prevalent, our cultural mastery of language is eroding. In response, modern schools move

toward materials and methods that are more image-based, and less language-based, than

those used in the past. But the great teachers of the past knew something so simple it's

profound: wrestling with rich language develops a strong, agile mind. Their master tool was

a literary curriculum, which is inherently language-based. Studies now confirm what they

knew by instinct: whereas images are largely passively received and require minimal

exercise of the brain, grappling with language requires the mind to work, flex, expand, and

make connections. However, the watered-down English that modern children typically

encounter is by no means a worthy wrestling partner. At the same time, as our hurried

postmodern ears grow more itchy for sound-bites than for rich, exact language, we've

gradually lost thousands of precise and useful words from common use. Dictionaries require

revision with increasing frequency, as publishers find that trying to define what has perhaps

become undefinable -- "standard" English -- is rather like trying to paint the definitive

portrait of a chameleon. And so it happened that the King James Bible was translated by

scholars of a uniquely verbal, word-dependent age. We can scarcely imagine such an age

nowadays, utterly devoid as it was of our modern dependence on image-based information.

Absent our ubiquitous glut of flickering screens, visual media and instantly available music,

we sense that mere words in that day more truly tickled the eye and ear. A fresh page of

written words commanded eager, vigorous attention, being the sole cultural transport of

news and ideas aside from word-of-mouth. Vocabulary was a craft; more lithe, richer in

breadth and depth, more colorful. Sentence construction was an art form in itself!

This phenomenon is also well-known among adult readers who study Charlotte Mason's

writings together in groups. In the many years I've participated in these studies, I've seen it

noted repeatedly that KJV readers have a head start toward accessing the depths of Miss

Mason's ideas. She was a daily reader of the KJV throughout her life, and thus her writings

are richly sprinkled with phrases, metaphors and references lifted directly from its pages. If

we come upon these references in a ready state of familiarity with their source and the

underlying context it provides, we may readily make the leap to her meaning. This is

precisely that science of relations she urges us toward! And this is that ease, that ready

"Aha!" of a connection well-made, which we seek for our children in their literary journeys.

And yet, despite the sure benefits, perhaps you still fear the KJV will be unapproachable for

you and your children. After all, we've been barraged by publishing marketers with the

notion that the KJV is just too hard for us (despite the fact that it was originally purposed as

a Bible for the common man!). Do you note the curious double standard afoot here? It

seems we do not hesitate to set our children upon a daunting course of Latin to expand their

vocabulary and grasp of great literature; we enthusiastically endorse a steady course of

"real" Shakespeare; we hand our children old, weighty volumes such as Bulfinch's

Mythology and Plutarch's Lives because they are bedrock foundations of Western literature.

Why, then, do we look upon the King James Bible, which offers similar language

experience as well as unexcelled, broadening literary enrichment, with fear and hesitancy?

How curious, really, that modern believers, especially those among us who claim to relish

great literature, should look upon this crowning literary achievement of the Christian era as

a distant and unapproachable relation! No need to keep your distance: the KJV is a truly

accessible work. After all, it was the Bible of common folk for over three hundred years,

read by peasant and scholar alike. And its effect was powerful -- the church in that period

flourished. Here we have the most universally beloved and captivating book in Western

history, and we should be reassured to note that if all those legions of readers could handle

it, surely we may expect to as well. Begin to choose memory verses from the KJV. Studies

have shown that it is more easily memorized than other versions, due to its rhythm and

meter - that "fine roll" to which Miss Mason referred.

Opposing Argument: The King James Bible is just too hard to read.

Those who make this argument have no clue what they're saying, and typically, when

someone makes this argument, it's a good indicator that you're dealing with someone who

doesn't bother to check out facts, but rather, he/she is just looking to make excuses for

themselves. The Flesch-Kincaid research company did analysis of Bible versions, and

compared them to standard grade school reading levels: "The KJV ranks easier in 23 out of

26 comparisons. (Their formula is: (.39 x average number of words per sentence) + (11.8 x

average number of syllables per word) - (15.59) = grade level. The first chapter of the first

and last books of both the Old and New Testaments were compared. (All complete

sentences, whether terminating in a period, colon, or semi-colon, and all incomplete phrases

ending in a period, were calculated as 'sentences'.)" -G.A. Riplinger, New Age Bible

Versions: An Exhaustive Documentation Exposing The Message, Men and Manuscripts

Moving Manking To The Antichrist's One World Religion, A.V. Publications, 1993, p. 195-

196, ISBN: 0-9635845-0-2

KJB NIV NASV TEV (GNB) NKJV

Genesis 1 4.4 5.1 4.7 5.1 5.2

Malachi 1 4.6 4.8 5.1 5.4 4.6

Matthew 1 6.1 16.4 6.8 11.8 10.3

Revelation 1 7.5 7.1 7.7 6.5 7.7

Grade

Level

Average 5.8 8.4 6.1 7.2 6.9

The KJB is averaging between 1-3 grade school levels lower in its overall difficulty of

reading, and this is because it uses less complicated words that use less syllables per word.

Let's look at examples of this in the NASV vs the KJB, and count out the syllables in each

word as you read through these:

Personal pronouns beginning with "T" (specifically Thee, Thou, Thy, Thine) are

SINGULAR. Those beginning with "Y" (specifically Ye, You, Your) are PLURAL

See John 3:5

Singular Plural

1 (I) think (we) think

2 (thou) thinkest (you) think

3 (he) thinketh (they) think

See Jn 3:8

F. The King James Bible translators used a superior method in translating called formal

equivalency. Formal Equivalence, sometimes called Verbal Equivalence is a method of

translation, which takes the Greek, and Hebrew words and renders them as closely as

possible into English. This is the method used by the King James translators and is certainly

a superior method, seeing that our Lord is concerned about every word, even the jots and

tittles (Matthew 5:18; 24:35). Others, however, seek "dynamic equivalence." The "formal

equivalence" approach seeks to express in English the meaning of the words in Greek. The

"dynamic equivalence" approach seeks to express the meaning of the writer in modern

idiom. Unlike now they were strict and wanted to make it as accurate as possible. Every

translator of each company translated every chapter and verse of the books allocated to

them, then gathered and decided what translation was best.

After deciding the best translation they would then discuss and arrive at a final translation.

After they completed their translation they then passed this to the other companies. All

companies then translated it again separately, then after this was completed formed a joint

committee with 2 members from each company to make a final translation. This would mean

14 translations would be made before the final was decided. This team technique is

unequalled by any modern translation. If in any areas the translators didn’t agree – it was to

be given to a general committee made up of the heads of the 6 companies to make a final

decision. Other bishops and learned men in the land were invited to send contributions to the

various companies. They used Masoretic text for the Old Testament and the

Antiochan/Texus Receptus manuscripts for the New Testament. They researched everything

Thoroughly. There was a reason for every detail in the Bible. In 1611 the Authorized KJV

was published.

III. Wescott and Hort

After hearing the scholars Westcott and Hort venerated as spiritual giants, he becomes

acquainted with their personal correspondence in which they endorse evolution, socialism,

globalism, disarmament, spiritism, purgatory and communal living while deprecating the

inspiration of Scripture, salvation by grace, a literal Heaven and Hell and the United States

of America. Modern versions are erected on the faulty foundation of doubt! Here’s why I

say that. Westcott and Hort speculated, with no evidence to support their idea, that the

"pure" text of the New Testament had been lost. They said that the Antiochian text (also

called the Traditional Text, Textus Receptus, etc.), the text type behind the King James New

Testament, was an artificial and arbitrarily invented text, fabricated between 250 A.D. and

350 A.D. In fact, Westcott and Hort asserted that it remained lost until the 19th century

when Vaticanus was rediscovered 1845 in the Vatican library, where it had lain since 1481

and Sinaiticus was discovered in a wastebasket in St. Catherine’s Monastery in 1844.

Dr. Edward Hills wrote, "Westcott (picture to the right) and Hort followed an essentially

naturalistic Method. Indeed they prided themselves on treating the text of the New

Testament as they would that of any other book, making little or nothing of inspiration and

providence." (Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, pp. 65,66).

In other words, they treated the Bible just like they would the works of Plato, Shakespeare,

C. S. Lewis, J. K. Rowling or any other fallible book. In fact, neither believed in the

infallibility of the Bible. Brooke Foss Westcott stated "I never read of the account of a

miracle but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of

evidence in the account of it." (Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott; page 216)

Again Westcott said, "I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly."

(The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, p.207).

First, the new Bible versions are built on the Greek New Testament compiled by them.

Secondly, current day New Version Potentate Princeton Theological Seminary Professor

Bruce Metzger has a low regard for the Scriptures as well. He doubts Moses alone authored

the Pentateuch. As Co-editor of the New Oxford Annotated Bible RSV he wrote or

approved of notes asserting that the Pentateuch is "a matrix of myth, legend, and history"

that "took shape over a long period of time" and is "not to be read as history." Job is called

an "ancient folktale." And the book of Isaiah was written by at least three men. Jonah is

called "popular legend." Then add to that that Metzger claims that the Gospels are

composed of material gathered from oral tradition. The problem is, he completely ignores

the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the testimony of the Bible itself.

So, what manuscripts did Westcott and Hort use to get their Greek New Testament? They

used primarily two old 4th century manuscripts for their work. Hort’s partiality for Codex

Vaticanus (B) was practically absolute. Intuitively (without evidence) he believed it to be a

near perfect representation of the Greek New Testament. Whenever pages were missing in

Vaticanus he would use Codex Sinaiticus (ALEPH) to fill in the gap. And there was plenty

missing from Vaticanus. Barry Burtons writes in his book Let's Weigh the Evidence, "it

omits…Matthew 3, the Pauline Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon),

Hebrews 9:14 to 13:25, and all of Revelation... in the gospels alone it leaves out 237 words,

452 clauses and 748 whole sentences, which hundreds of later copies agree together as

having the same words in the same places, the same clauses in the same places and the

same sentences in the same places." Floyd Jones further notes that Matthew 16:2-3 and

Romans 16:24 are missing.

Here is a key fact you should know about Codex Vaticanus (B) -- "The entire manuscript

has had the text mutilated, every letter has been run over with a pen, making exact

identification of many of the characters impossible." More specifically, the manuscript is

faded in places; scholars think it was overwritten letter by letter in the 10th or 11th century,

with accents and breathing marks added along with corrections from the 8th, 10th and 15th

centuries. Those who study manuscripts say that all this activity makes precise paleographic

analysis impossible. Missing portions were supplied in the 15th century by copying other

Greek manuscripts. How can you call this manuscript "the oldest and the best."?

What about Codex Sinaiticus (ALEPH)? This is a Greek manuscript of the Old and New

Testaments, found on Mount Sinai, in St. Catherine's Monastery, which was a Greek

Orthodox Monastery, by Constantine Tischendorf. He was visiting there in 1844, under the

patronage of Frederick Augustus, King of Saxony, when he discovered 34 leaves in a

rubbish basket. He was permitted to take them, but did not get the remainder of the

manuscript until 1859. Konstantin Von Tischendorf identified the handwriting of four

different scribes in the writing of that text. But that is not the end of the scribal problems!

The early corrections of the manuscript are made from Origen's corrupt source. As many as

ten scribes tampered with the codex. Tischendorf said he "counted 14,800 alterations and

corrections in Sinaiticus." Alterations, and more alterations, and more alterations were

made, and in fact, most of them are believed to be made in the 6th and 7th centuries. So

much for the oldest! "On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and

revisions, done by 10 different people." He goes on to say, "…the New Testament…is

extremely unreliable…on many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40, words are dropped…letters,

words even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately

canceled. That gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the

same word as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament."

That these men should lend their influence to a family of MSS which have a history of

attacking and diluting the major doctrines of the Bible should not come as a surprise.

Oddly enough, neither man believed that the Bible should be treated any differently than

the writings of the lost historians and philosophers!

We must also confront Hort's disbelief that the Bible was infallible: "If you make a

decided conviction of the absolute infallibility of the N.T. practically a sine qua non for

cooperation, I fear I could not join you." He also stated: "But I am not able to go as far as

you in asserting the absolute infallibility of a canonical writing."

(All quotes are taken from the book: "An Understandable History of the Bible", by Samuel

C. Gipp)

Hort was also a lover of Greek philosophy. In writing to Mr. A. Macmillan, he stated:

"You seem to make (Greek) philosophy worthless for those who have received the

Christian revelation. To me, though in a hazy way, it seems full of precious truth of which

I find nothing, and should be very much astonished and perplexed to find anything in

revelation."

He did not believe in a personal devil: "Now if there be a devil, he cannot merely bear a

corrupted and marred image of God; he must be wholly evil, his name evil, his every

energy and act evil. Would it not be a violation of the divine attributes for the Word to be

actively the support of such a nature as that?"

He did not believe in hell: "Certainly in my case it proceeds from no personal dread; when

I have been living most godlessly, I have never been able to frighten myself with visions

of a distant future, even while I 'held' the doctrine." Rather, he believed in purgatory: "The

idea of purgation, of cleansing as by fire, seems to me inseparable from what the Bible

teaches us of the Divine chastisements; and, though little is directly said rejecting the

future state, it seems to me incredible that the Divine chastisements should in this respect

change their character when this visible life is ended.

In fact, Hort considered the teachings of Christ's atonement as heresy! "Certainly nothing

can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and

sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy."

Also suspect is Hort's delving into the supernatural along with his good friend, Brooke

Foss Westcott, and others in what was called the 'Ghostly Guild': "Westcott, Gorham,

C.B., Scott, Benson, Bradshaw, Luard, etc., and I have started a society for the

investigation of ghosts and all supernatural appearances and effects, being all disposed to

believe that such things really exist, and ought to be discriminated from hoaxes and mere

subjective delusions; we shall be happy to obtain any good accounts well authenticated

with names. Westcott is drawing up a schedule of questions. Cope calls us the 'Cock and

Bull Club'; our own temporary name is the 'Ghostly Guild'."

Unfortunately for the "new Bible" supporters, Dr. Westcott's credentials are even more

anti-biblical. Westcott did not believe that Genesis 1-3 should be taken literally. He also

thought that "Moses" and "David" were poetic characters whom Jesus Christ referred to by

name only because the common people accepted them as authentic.

Westcott believed Heaven to be a state and not a literal place. Note the following

quotations from Bishop Westcott: "No doubt the language of the Rubric is unguarded, but

it saves us from the error of connecting the Presence of Christ's glorified humanity with

place; 'heaven is a state and not a place…’ We may reasonably hope, by patient, resolute,

faithful, united endeavour to find heaven about us here, the glory of our earthly life."

Westcott – “Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise.” (Westcott, On the

Canon of the New Testament, p. vii).

Westcott – “(Hell is) not the place of punishment of the guilty, (it is) the common abode of

departed spirits.” (Westcott, Historic Faith, pp.77-78).

Westcott – “No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for

example, give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with

open eyes could think they did.” (Westcott, cited from Which Bible?, p. 191).

Hort – “I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and ‘Jesus’-worship

have very much in common in their causes and their results.” (Life, Vol.II, p.50).

Hort – “We have no sure knowledge of future punishment, and the word eternal has a far

higher meaning.” (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p.149).

So who cares what Westcott and Hort believed? The reason is that although someone

might have the technical skills and knowledge to translate text, if the translator has a bias

or disbelieves the original text this will come through in the new translation. For example

the NIV version of the Bible being gender neutral. 2 of the translators were sodomites. It is

logical, if you have a democratic text in a foreign language would you trust a translation

from a communist and expect it to be accurate? Of course not.

Hort: “I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little

Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus.. Think of that vile

Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS.; it is a blessing there are such early ones”

(Life, Vol.I, p.211). Dec. 29,30th 1851

“I am inclined to think that no such state as “Eden” (I mean the popular notion) ever

existed, and that Adam’s fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants

(Life of Hort Vol I page 78)”

"I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness."

-Brooke Westcott, quoted by Michael Dedivonai, The Questi for Truth, AuthorHouse,

2012, p. 563, ISBN: 9781477263471

"Further I agree with them [Authors of "Essays and Reviews"] in condemning many

leading specific doctrines of the popular theology ... Evangelicals seem to me perverted

rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the

subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible."

-Fenton J. A. Hort, letter to Rev. Rowland Williams, Oct 21, 1858; See also Sir Arthur

Hort, Life and letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Macmillan, Vol. 1, 1896, p. 400

Hort believed in Darwinian evolution:

"The beginning of an individual is precisely as inconceivable as the beginning of a

species...It certainly startles me to find you saying that you have seen no facts which

support such as view as Darwin's... But it seems to me the most probable manner of

development, and the reflexions suggested by his book drove me to the conclusion that

some kind of development must be supposed,"

-Fenton J. A. Hort, letter to Brooke F. Westcott, Oct 15, 1850; See also Sir Arthur Hort,

Life and letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Macmillan, Vol. 1, 1896, p. 431

"Have you read Darwin? How I should like a talk with you about it! In spite of

difficulties, I am inclined to think it unanswerable. In any case it is a treat to read such a

book."

-Fenton J. A. Hort, letter to Brooke F. Westcott, Mar 10, 1860; See also Sir Arthur Hort,

Life and letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Macmillan, Vol. 1, 1896, p. 414

Hort believed in works-based doctrine that denies Jesus Christ:

"The fact is, I do not see how God's justice can be satisfied without every man's suffering

in his own person the full penalty for his sins,"

-Fenton J. A. Hort, letter to Rev. F. D. Maurice, Nov 16, 1849; See also Sir Arthur Hort,

Life and letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Macmillan, Vol. 1, 1896, p. 120

That these men should lend their influence to a family of MSS which have a history of

attacking and diluting the major doctrines of the Bible should not come as a surprise.

Oddly enough, neither man believed that the Bible should be treated any differently than

the writings of the lost historians and philosophers!

(All quotes are taken from the book: "An Understandable History of the Bible", by

Samuel C. Gipp)

Hort was also a lover of Greek philosophy. In writing to Mr. A. Macmillan, he stated:

"You seem to make (Greek) philosophy worthless for those who have received the

Christian revelation. To me, though in a hazy way, it seems full of precious truth of which

I find nothing, and should be very much astonished and perplexed to find anything in

revelation."

Dr. Hort also believed that the Roman Catholic teaching of "baptismal regeneration" was

more correct than the "evangelical" teaching: "...at the same time in language stating that

we maintain 'Baptismal Regeneration' as the most important of doctrines... the pure

'Romish' view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the

Evangelical." He also stated that, "Baptism assures us that we are children of God,

members of Christ and His body, and heirs of the heavenly kingdom."

Also suspect is Hort's delving into the supernatural along with his good friend, Brooke

Foss Westcott, and others in what was called the 'Ghostly Guild': "Westcott, Gorham,

C.B., Scott, Benson, Bradshaw, Luard, etc., and I have started a society for the

investigation of ghosts and all supernatural appearances and effects, being all disposed to

believe that such things really exist, and ought to be discriminated from hoaxes and mere

subjective delusions; we shall be happy to obtain any good accounts well authenticated

with names. Westcott is drawing up a schedule of questions. Cope calls us the 'Cock and

Bull Club'; our own temporary name is the 'Ghostly Guild'."

Unfortunately for the "new Bible" supporters, Dr. Westcott's credentials are even more

anti-biblical. Westcott did not believe that Genesis 1-3 should be taken literally. He also

thought that "Moses" and "David" were poetic characters whom Jesus Christ referred to by

name only because the common people accepted them as authentic.

IV. Other interpretations based on Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts

A. Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts, as well as certain others, which were discovered in the

19th Century and which were older, accepted by the scholars Westcott, Hort, Nestle, basis

for all the subsequent modern English translations.

Vaticanus, as its name implies, is in the Vatican library at Rome. No one knows when it was

placed in the Vatican library, but its existence was first made known in 1841.

This Codex omits many portions of Scripture vital to Christian doctrine. Vaticanus omits

GENESIS 1:1 through GENESIS 46:28; PSALM 106 through 138; MATTHEW 16:2-3;

ROMANS 16:24; the Pauline Pastoral Epistles; REVELATION; and everything in

HEBREWS after 9:14.

The Vaticanus is considered to be the most authoritative, although it is responsible for over

thirty-six thousand changes that appear today in the new versions. This perverted

manuscript contains the books of the pagan Apocrypha, which are not Scripture; it omits

the pastoral epistles (I Timothy through Titus), the Book of Revelation, and it cuts off the

Book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14 (a very convenient stopping point for the Catholic

Church, since God forbids their priesthood in Hebrews 10!). The attacks on the Word of

God found in these manuscripts originated in Alexandria, Egypt with the deceitful work

of such pagan Greek "scholars" as Origen and Clement of Alexandria. Then in 313 A.D.

the Roman emperor Constantine ordered fifty copies of "the Bible" from Eusebius, the

Bishop of Caesaria. Eusebius, being a devout student of Origin's work, chose to send him

manuscripts filled with Alexandrian corruption, rather than sending him the true word of

God in the Syrian text from Antioch, Syria. So the corrupt Alexandrian text (also called

the "Egyptian" or "Hesychian" type text) found its way into the Vatican manuscript, then

eventually into the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, and finally into the new "Bible" versions

in your local "Christian" bookstore. Therefore, when you hear or read of someone

"correcting" the King James Bible with "older" or "more authoritative" manuscripts, you

are simply hearing someone trying to use a Roman Catholic text to overthrow the

God-honored text of the Protestant Reformation and the great revivals.

With the fourth-century codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus being recommended as the two

most reliable manuscripts worthy of supplanting the time-honored Textus Receptus, the

reader learns the facts of their defective character which reveal their disagreement with

each other in over 3,000 places in the Gospels alone.

Vaticanus leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of

careless transcriptions on every page. Codex Sinaiticus abounds with errors of the eye and

pen to an extent not indeed unparalleled, but happily rather unusual in documents of first-

rate importance. On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very

carelessness. Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over,

or begun and immediately cancelled; while that gross blunder whereby a clause is omitted

because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than

115 times in the New Testament.

Vaticanus, though intact physically, is found to be of very poor literary quality. It exhibits

numerous places where the scribe has written the same word or phrase twice in succession.

The mass of corrections and scribal changes render its testimony highly suspicious and

questionable.

Vaticanus leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of

careless transcriptions on every page. Codex Sinaiticus abounds with errors of the eye and

pen to an extent not indeed unparalleled, but happily rather unusual in documents of first-

rate importance. On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very

carelessness. Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or

begun and immediately cancelled; while that gross blunder whereby a clause is omitted

because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115

times in the New Testament.

In 1844, Count Tishendorf found a manuscript in the rubbish in the St Catherine

Monastery on Mount Sinai. This script is called the Codex Sinaiticus also known as Codex

Alef. Linguistic scholars observed that is was very poorly written- with repeated sentences,

missing words as well as other issues such as spelling and grammar.

It had about 400 pages, it contained about 1/2 the Old Testament from the Septuagint and

the full New Testament. It has been dated around the 4th century. It seems even the writer

realized that it belonged in the rubbish. It would have been better off being left there.

Apart from their obvious issues, Both Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus disagree with

themselves over 3,000 times, but even though this was the case a Greek translation was put

together from these sources.

Sinaiticus from all outward appearances looks very beautiful. But it contains many spurious books such as the "Shepherd of Hermes," the "Epistle of Barnabas," and even the "Didache".

It has survived time well, but being in good physical shape by no means makes its contents

trustworthy. The Codex is covered with alterations... brought in by at least ten different

revisers.

"Codex B differs from the commonly received Text of Scripture in the Gospels alone in

578 places, of which no less than 2877 are instances of omission." Dean J. Burgon,

Causes of Corruption of the New Testament Text, Sovereign Grace Publishers, 2000, p. 5,

ISBN: 9781878442871

"The Codex is covered with such alterations... brought in by at least ten different revisors,

some of them systematically spread over every page, others occasional or limited to

separated portions of the manuscript, many of these being contemporaneous with the first

writer, but for the greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh century."-Dr. Frederick H.

Scrivener, quoted in Johnson's Universal Cyclopedia, published A.J. Johnson & Co., 1886,

p. 135; See also David Fuller, True or False?, Grand Rapids International Publications,

1973, p. 74-75.

There is clear evidence of many different edits of this document, bearing the language used

around the 6th or 7th century. The only thing "original" about this document is the

imagination of each person who changed it.

It seems suspicious indeed that a MS possessed by the Roman Catholic Church omits the

portion of the book of Hebrews which exposes the "mass" as totally useless. (Please read

HEBREWS 10:10-12). The "mass" in conjunction with the false doctrine of purgatory go

hand-in-hand to form a perpetual money-making machine for Rome. It also omits portions

of Scripture telling of the creation (GENESIS), the prophetic details of the crucifixion

(PSALM 22), and, of course, the portion which prophesies of the destruction of Babylon

(Rome), the great whore of REVELATION chapter 17.

B. Some new Bibles are dangerous because of the theological bias of their translators. The

Revised Standard Version of the Bible was presented to the public as a completed work in

1952. It was authorized by the notoriously liberal National Council of Churches. The

unbelieving bias of the majority of the translators is evident in such readings as Isaiah 7:14:

The Good News Bible (or, properly, Today's English Version) was translated by neo-

orthodox Richard Bratcher, and purposely replaces the word "blood" with the word "death"

in many New Testament passages that refer to the blood of Christ (such as Colossians 1:20,

Hebrews 10:19, and Revelation 1:5). Bratcher also replaces the word "virgin" with "girl" in

Luke 1:27. His theological bias ruins his translation. Other versions, such as the Phillips

translation and the New English Bible, were also produced by liberal or neo-orthodox

religionists. New American Standard Bible or the New International Version, he finds the

whole story of the woman taken in adultery set apart with lines or brackets. A note is placed

in relation to the bracketed section that says something like this: "The earliest and most

reliable manuscripts do not have John 7:53 – 8:11." Something similar is done to the great

commission in Mark 16:9-20.

Christians ought to be interested in having the very words of God, since this is what Jesus

said we need! Anyone who takes seriously our Lord's admonition in Matthew 4:4 will want

a "formal equivalence" translation. Several of the new versions do not offer this to us. The

so-called "Living Bible" does not even pretend to be a translation of the words. Copies of

this book clearly identify it as a "paraphrase" of God's Word. Dr. Kenneth Taylor wrote the

Living Bible, and freely admitted that it was his paraphrase of the Scriptures.

The looseness of the N.I.V.'s translation is admitted by the publishers and well-known. The

scholars who did the translation believe that it is possible and beneficial to put into English

what the writers of scripture meant, rather than what they actually said. One great problem

with this approach is the element of interpretation that is introduced into the translation

process. To translate is to put it into English. To interpret is to explain what it means.

The real changes (over 36,000 of them) didn't start until the modern revisionists came on

the scene.

That's not all that the wicked NIV deceivers took out of the Bible. It's not surprising that the

word “sodomite” is completely gone, when you learn that an open unrepentant homosexual,

Dr. Marten Woudstra (now deceased), was the chairman of the Old Testament committee.

According to Wikipedia.org, the New International Bible (NIV) is the most popular Bible

version today. What Zondervan Publishers won't tell you is that they are owned

by Harper Collins, who also publishes The Satanic Bible and The Joy of Gay Sex.

First, the NIV 2011, following the TNIV, employs gender-neutral language by neutering the

masculine pronouns. Gender-neutral language is not illegitimate if the biblical text is

speaking generically about human beings (e.g., Acts 17:25) but is suspect if the biblical text

is referring to a specific sex.

The NIV might have 64,000 words less, roughly, (63,203) than a King James Bible.

In the early 90s, out came the KJV/NKJV Parallel Bible. Look at the back cover. It reads:

"Nelson's KJV/NKJV Parallel Bible with Center-Column References is ... a great way to

enjoy and compare the beauty and accuracy of both the enduring King James Version and

the outstanding New King James Version without having two Bibles open." And then he

says "And this is the perfect transition Bible if you are thinking about moving from the

classic King James to a modern translation." Harper Collins bought Thomas Nelson and

now 55% of all the Bibles that we can possibly get, are coming from one company. So

you'd better believe they want you to buy all of them.

Paraphrasing is simply taking what the text says and rewriting it to what you think it says.

It is more like a condensed commentary than a Bible. The most popular paraphrase is the

Living Bible. It is really not a translation at all!

The new King James isn’t a King James Bible. I don’t even know how it has the name,

when King James is dead-having nothing to do with it. It has been estimated over 100,000

translation changes have been made corrupting many important verses as well as when the

translators didn’t agree with the KJV scripts (over 1 200 times) they copied from other

versions such as the NIV.

Dr. Arthur Farstad, chairman of the NKJV Executive Review Committee which had the

responsibility of final text approval, stated that this committee was about equally divided

as to which was the better Greek New Testament text - the Textus Receptus or the

Westcott-Hort. Apparently none of them believed that either text was the Divinely

preserved Word of God. Yet, all of them participated in a project to “protect and preserve

the purity and accuracy” of the original KJV based on the TR. Is not this duplicity of the

worst kind, coming from supposedly evangelical scholars?”

Apart from the actual translation, did you know that some of the translators of the NIV

were sodomites? Dr Marten Woudstra was the chairman of the Old Testament committee,

and an unrepentant open homosexual. Dr Virginia Mollenkott a literary critic on the NIV

was also a homosexual. The fact the NIV is gender neutral and sodomite (amongst other

words) being removed is a result from the influence of the translators.

The NKJV removed 2289 words, NIV 5219 words and 16 verses, NASV added 3561

words and removed 17 verses, NRSV removed 3890 words and removed 18 verses, RSV

removed 6985 words and 25 verses, NCV added 11 114 words and removed 16 verses and

the LIV Bible added 17 003 words and removed 7 verses.

In the Gospels [New Testament] alone, Codex B (i.e. Vaticanus) leaves out words or

whole clauses no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of careless transcriptions on every

page."

Dr. Frank Logsdon, co-founder of the New American Standard Version quoted in the above chart, wrote a letter to Cecil Carter of Prince George, British Columbia on June 9, 1977, in

which he renounced the NASV, and realized the judgment he would face before the Lord

God for changing the Bible: "I must under God renounce every attachment to the New

American Standard version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord... We laid the

groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I wrote the

preface... I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; it's wrong, terribly wrong; it's

frighteningly wrong; and what am I going to do about it? When questions began to reach

me, at first I was quite offended... I used to laugh with the others... However, in attempting

to answer, I began to sense that something was not right about the New American Standard

Version. I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them. The

deletions are absolutely frightening... there are so many... Are we so naive that we do not

suspect Satanic deception in all this?

Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was

forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV. The product is grievous to my heart and

helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times... I don't want anything to do

with it. The finest leaders that we have today haven't gone into it [the new version's use of a

corrupted Greek text] just as I hadn't gone into it; that's how easily one can be deceived. I'm

going to talk to him [Dr. George Sweeting, president of Moody Bible Institute] about these

things.

You can say the Authorized Version (KJV) is absolutely correct. How correct? 100%

correct. I believe the Spirit of God led the translators of the Authorized Version. If you

must stand against everyone else, stand. [Signed] Dr. Frank Logsdon, Co-founder NASB"

-Lindsay Cole, Letters from God, Author House, 2014, p. xxi-xxii, ISBN: 9781491874363

This process of preserving the pure Word of God through faithful local churches continued

on without interruption until 1831 when Karl Lachmann, a German rationalist, began to

apply to the New Testament Greek text the same criteria that he had used in editing texts of

the Greek classics. Lachmann had been studying such Greek classics as Homer’s Iliad.

These Greek writings were mere stories, but Lachmann was trying to get back to what

Homer and other Greek authors had originally written. The Greek classics had been

thoroughly altered over the years. So many alterations of the Greek classics had been made

that no one was sure what the original author had written. Lachmann wanted to know what

the original text had been, so he developed a textual criticism process whereby he would

try to sort out the original text from the badly corrupted modern text.

After this, someone got the “bright idea” that Lachmann’s process should be applied to the

New Testament. Lachmann had set up a series of presuppositions and rules for arriving at

the original text of the Greek classics that were hopelessly corrupted. He now began with

these same presuppositions and rules to correct the New Testament. He began with the

presupposition that the New Testament was as hopelessly corrupted as the Greek classics.

He had made a very dangerous mistake. A similar process in the copying of the Greek classics did not match the loving and reverent care given to the copying of the Word of

God by faithful churches. The Greek classics were hopelessly corrupted but this was not

true of the New Testament. Extremely careful scribes had taken great pains to copy New

Testament manuscripts. These scribes knew the exact number of words and letters that

were in the original copies. They counted the words and letters each time a new copy was

made to insure that nothing had been added or deleted. In addition to this, faithful churches

carefully guarded their precious copies of Scripture to protect them from heretical changes

that may have been inserted in other copies of the text.

Dr. Gresham Machen, the greatest Greek scholar and theologian in American history,

called this kind of scholarship “the tyranny of the experts.” Similarly, Charles H. Spurgeon

preached the same theme in a sermon entitled, “The Greatest Fight in the World.” He said,

“We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set

up instead of him a horde of little popelings fresh from college. Are these correctors of

Scripture infallible? Are we now to believe that infallibility is with learned men? Now,

Farmer Smith, when you have read your Bible, and have enjoyed its precious promises, you

will have, to-morrow morning, to go down the street to ask the scholarly man at the

parsonage whether this portion of the Scripture belongs to the inspired part of the Word, or

whether it is of dubious authority. We shall gradually be so bedoubted and becriticized, that

only a few of the most profound will know what is Bible, and what is not, and they will

dictate to all the rest of us. I have no more faith in their mercy than in their accuracy: they

will rob us of all that we hold most dear, and glory in the cruel deed. This same reign of

terror we shall not endure, for we still believe that God revealeth himself rather to babes

than to the wise and prudent, and we are fully assured that our own old English version of

the Scriptures is sufficient for plain men for all purposes of life, salvation, and godliness.

We do not despise learning, but we will never say of culture or criticism, “These be thy

gods, O Israel!” Machen had it right and so did Spurgeon. Textual criticism by the

“experts” is a horde of little popelings who by their assumed infallibility have the gall to

tell us what is God’s Word and what is not. Such is the tyranny of the experts.

After Westcott and Hort, the Pandora’s box had been opened and all the evils of German

rationalism began to tear at the Foundation of the Faith, the Holy Scriptures. This has

continued until this day in both the higher and lower forms of textual criticism. Today the

situation involves almost as many different texts of the Greek New Testament as there are

scholars. Each scholar decides for himself what he will or will not accept as the Word of

God. Consequently, each new edition of the Greek New Testament has led to a smaller and

smaller New Testament. If Satan has his way, this would continue until all of the New

Testament would cease to exist.

Until 1881, the churches had accepted one text of the New Testament, the one preserved by

faithful churches in the majority of the manuscripts. Since 1881 and the Westcott and Hort

text, there has not been a text accepted by all Christians. Since 1881 there has been

controversy and confusion (which by the way, is reflected in the many modern translations

all claiming to be the Word of God and all different from each other). Some say it is the

United Bible Society’s Greek text and the English translation of it that is God’s Word.

Others say, no, it is the Nestle Greek text and the English translation of it that is God’s

Word. Now it comes down to the tyranny of the experts. What do the scholars say? Each

scholar says something different than the other. This leaves the King James Version

standing like a lighthouse on the storm swept shore, for it is the only English translation of

the New Testament based entirely upon the text that has been passed on to us by faithful

churches.

It comes down to two choices: accept the text handed down by faithful churches for two

thousand years or accept the findings of modern textual critics, no two of which fully agree.

If we go with the scholars, there is no text that is accepted by all of them. Confusion reigns.

There is no standard. We are left like a ship at sea without a rudder to guide it.

Since 1881, all the critical texts of the Greek New Testament are a little shorter than the

one published before it. Westcott and Hort had a few hundred variant readings. Metzger’s

edition has three to four thousand variant readings, many of which he has deleted from the

text without so much as a footnote to tell you it has been deleted. The modern critical texts

have steadily become shorter and shorter. This is a clear indication that there is a “snake in

the woodpile somewhere.”

These textual critics have rules that they follow in deciding if a word, phrase, or sentence

should be allowed in or taken out of Scripture. To give you an idea of some of the rules,

here is one of them:

In general, the more difficult reading is to be preferred, particularly when the sense appears

on the surface to be erroneous, but on more mature consideration it proves itself to be

correct. This statement is very vague. It says “In general:” which means sometimes but not

always. Who decides when the rule applies and when it does not apply? On what basis is

such a decision made? We are not told. Then it says, “The more difficult reading.” Who

decides when a reading is more difficult than another one and on what basis? Again, we are

not told. Then the rule says, “particularly when the sense appears on the surface to be

erroneous.” Who decides when this “sense” or that “sense” is “on the surface” and

“erroneous?” The scholars do. Then it says in a question begging statement that “on a more

mature consideration it proves itself to be correct.” Who decides which consideration is the

mature one? Naturally, the same self-appointed scholars do. This “rule” allows a textual

critic to read the Greek New Testament variants and decide which reading is the more

difficult, which sense is the surface meaning and which consideration is the mature one.

Somehow, these experts get down into a “deeper knowledge” that allows them to include or

exclude a verse of the Greek New Testament. Their decisions to include or exclude words

and verses from the Bible are based on what the scholars think. It is no longer the Word

judging them. They can now judge the Word. This is nothing more than the old first

century Gnosticism which feeds on the pride of man in his intellect and leads to the

destruction of the Faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints.

Another rule followed by textual critics says: In general, the shorter reading is to be

preferred. If a textual variant is the longer reading, then choose the shorter textual variant

as the most valid one. Who says so? The scholars do. In textual criticism, you can make up

your own rules and follow them to your own preconceived ends.

Another rule of textual criticism says: That reading which involves verbal dissidence is

usually to be preferred to one which is verbally concordant. This vague language means

that one should choose the variant reading which clashes most with the grammatical

structure of the book rather than the reading which is most in harmony with it’s

grammatical structure. This meaningless jargon allows each scholar to choose whatever he

wants.

Therefore, it comes down to accepting what the scholars say or accepting what the majority

of the manuscripts say. One must either accept the correct reading based on the majority of

manuscripts, or he may follow a few manuscripts that have a reading that is different from

the majority of the manuscripts. On the other hand, one can ask the scholars which variant

is the right one and they will say, “Well, for certain reasons the few manuscripts with the

variant reading are right.” They base their decisions on the “external evidences” and

“internal probabilities” developed by German rationalism. This is just the old first century

Gnosticism warmed over and is not the right way to go about deciding the text of the Holy

Scriptures. The textual critic is flying into the face of thousands of years of history when

the text of the New Testament was preserved, not by scholars, but by faithful churches. For

nearly two thousand years, the churches never applied these vague rules of textual

criticism in order to determine what the correct reading of Scripture was. Faithful churches

preserved accurate copies of the New Testament that had been passed on to them. Eighteen

hundred years later the scholars came along and said, “No, your text is as corrupted as the

Greek classics, and besides you cannot determine the right reading on the basis of the

majority of the manuscripts. You must now determine the correct reading on the basis of

scholarly principles.”

So now, the correct reading is “up for grabs.” One Greek scholar says one reading is right,

while another says it is not. There is mass confusion much like the ridiculous uncertainty

of modern art. Well, that is how the situation came to be, but that does not mean that is

what it should be. God is not the author of confusion. God inspired the Scriptures by

causing them to be written by holy men of God who were controlled by the Holy Spirit (II

Peter 1:21). Moreover, after God inspired His Word, he did not abandon it to be protected

by mere man’s scholarship. Through faithful churches, He watched over the transmission

of the Scriptures from one century to the next. True, this transmission was done by

copyists who made mistakes in their copying, but there was always the checking of

manuscripts with those of other faithful churches to insure that the text was transmitted

without error. God not only took great care to inspire men to write the Scriptures under the

control of the Spirit, He also took great care to preserve those Scriptures. When God sent

His Son into the world as the Living Word, he did not abandon Him but preserved His life

until it was time for Jesus to die on Calvary. Even then, he raised Him from the dead to

triumph over all His enemies. Similarly, God did not send His written Word into the world

and abandon it to the whims of men. He watched over His Word to preserve it just as He

preserved the Living Word. Without the preservation of Scripture, the inspiration of

Scripture would be in vain. God guarded his Word through faithful churches who carefully

checked their copies of manuscripts with those of other churches. The result is that today

there are over 5,000 manuscripts of various books of the Greek New Testament and some

complete New Testaments all of which, in the majority of manuscripts, agree. If we need

to decide what is the right text, we can go by what the reading is in the majority of the

manuscripts. Because of the extreme care taken by Scripture copyists and the reverent care

of faithful churches over their Scriptures, God has preserved a text in the majority of the

manuscripts that is the same as the original Greek New Testament!

Most modern translations are based on Nestle's Greek Text from 1898 (except the New

King James Version and New Scofield Version). This text is also known as the Egyptian

Text or the Alexandrian Text which was the basis for the critical Greek Text of Brooke

Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort. The Westcott and Hort Text of 1881 was

collated with Weymouth's third edition and Tischendorf's eighth edition by Eberhard

Nestle in 1898 to become what is known as the Nestle's Greek New Testament. Its two

outstanding trademarks in history are that orthodox Christianity has never used it and that

the Roman Catholic Church has militantly (read that "bloodily") supported it. The text is

based on only a few manuscripts. The two most important ones are called Sinaiticus and

Vaticanus. Brook Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort published their text in

1881. Hort published a translation of the New Testament in 1884. In 1901 another round

was fired in the form of the American Revised Version, later called the American Standard

Version (An intentional misnomer since it never became the 'standard' for anything). This

version, other than being the darling of critical American scholarship met a dismal end

when, twenty-three years later, it was so totally rejected by God's people that its copyright

had to be sold. (Does this sound like God's blessing?)

The ASV was further revised and republished in 1954 as the Revised Standard Version

(RSV). This sequence of events has repeated itself innumerable times, resulting in the New

American Standard Version (NASV) of 1960, the New Scofield Version (NSV) of 1967, t

he New International Version (NIV) of 1978, and the New King James Version (NKJB) of

1979 to name but a few.

The process has never changed. Every new version that has been launched has been,

without exception, a product of Satan's Alexandrian philosophy which rejects the premise

of a perfect Bible. Furthermore, they have been copied, on the most part, from the corrupt

Alexandrian manuscript. (Although a few have been translated from pure Antiochian

manuscripts after they were tainted by the Alexandrian philosophy.)

V. Antioch vs. Alexandria

As said above, the about 5250 manuscripts of the New Testament can be divided into two

groups: the vast majority coming from Antioch (the original text) and a very small minority

from Alexandria (the spurious text).

It may be that many of the original autographs of Paul's epistles were penned in Antioch. In the

second century, a disciple by the name of Lucian founded a school of the Scriptures in

Antioch. Lucian was noted for his mistrust of pagan philosophy. His school magnified the

authority and divinity of Scripture and taught that the Bible was to be taken literally, not

figuratively as the philosophers of Alexandria taught. So Antioch is not only the point of origin

for the correct family of Bible manuscripts, but is also the source for the ideology that accepts

the Bible as literally and perfectly God's words. From Antioch we receive the pure line of

manuscripts culminating in what is known as the “Received Text” or Textus Receptus.

Let’s jump right into it, starting with the Egyptian line-where the Old Testament comes from,

this is called the Septuagint – this is an Egyptian manuscript, usually referred as the oldest best

manuscript you can use. It is believed that an Egyptian King ordered the translations to be

made,and was made by the Hellenistic Jews using the royal libraries of Alexander. The text is

dated between the 3rd Century Before Christ.

So lets look at where the New Testament comes from. We will move forward in time to

Antioch, a city in ancient Syria, now its a town in South-Central Turkey, about 19 km North

West of the Syrian border, this was founded in aprox 300 BC. This was one of the first

Churches – and it was a great location for the first Church. This was because the location was

far away from the Egyptians as well as the Gentiles of Rome and was in the middle of a trade

route-allowing the spread the Gospel.

A primary example of corrupting the Word of God would be the pagan Alexandrian cult in

Egypt. The Alexandrians removed a lot from the original texts of Antioch (the base of

operations for early Christianity), like the Lordship from Christ, the divinity of Jesus, etc. The

Alexandrians are much like the Jehovah's Witnesses today: The Christians could easily spot the

counterfeit and rejected the Alexandrian manuscripts.

So the true Word of God was being rolled and unrolled repeatedly, copied, and then once the

original was worn out, it was thrown out and the new copy was used. However, books that are

never used do not need to be copied because they don't wear out from exposure. The

Alexandrian manuscript sat on a library shelf in Egypt because it was never used, therefore it

would not wear out, therefore it was preserved.

I have copies of new-age versions on my bookshelf that still look brand new, and that's because

I hardly ever use them, but my King James Bible is more worn out than those other versions

because I use it a lot. This is something I think many Bible "scholars" today do not consider,

because when the Alexandrian manuscripts in Eygpt were found, they thought, "These are

older and well-preserved, therefore, they're better!" Older does NOT mean better. The only

reason the Alexandrian documents were well-preserved is because they were an easily-

recognizable fraud and no one used them.

Typically I hear new-agers try to claim: "Well, the original says..." This is deception. The

originals are gone, and it upsets many new-age version users when I point this out, but I would

strongly urge Christians not to put more emphasis on the originals than God does.

In Jeremiah 36, the Lord God has Jeremiah write down God's Word to Israel. When the King

was read the Word of the Lord through Jeremiah, read what he does: And it came to pass, that

when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire

that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth -

Jeremiah 36:23. Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah... Take thee again another roll,

and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of

Judah hath burned -Jeremiah 36:27-28. Through the rage of a king who didn't want to hear the

truth, the originals were destroyed, but God had Jeremiah write it down again. If God was

putting emphasis on the original, then He would not have allowed the king to destroy it. Later,

God actually commanded that Jeremiah destroy the secondary copies too! (Jer 51:61-64) Yet, a

third copy was written down, otherwise we would not have a record of Jeremiah, so no one has the originals. Also, consider that the Ten Commandments originals were destroyed as well, and

copies had to be made. What you read in Exodus 20 is a secondary version of the Ten

Commandments because God allowed the originals to be destroyed. The point is that it doesn't

matter if you have the originals or not, it matters if God's Word is perfectly inspired and

preserved in that perfection by His own guidance.

The entire source of Bible versions today can be traced back to two basic groups: The Majority

Texts (i.e. the true preserved Word of God) or the Minority Texts (i.e. corrupt alterations based

on pagan philosophy). The Majority Texts (derived from Antioch) make up about 99% of all

the available manuscripts we have to confirm the Bible, and the Minority Texts (derived from

Alexandria) make up the other 1%. The Majority Texts were the preserved Word of God being

copied and spread out around the world, while the Minority Texts were the corrupt pagan

philosophy that was almost never copied, rarely read, and found on dusty bookshelves or trash

bins.

Origen is praised among new-age scholars as one of the "early church fathers," but he denied

the divinity of Jesus Christ as the true Living God in the flesh. From his teachings, the

Alexandrian manuscripts, which removed the lordship and diety of Christ, were born.

"Origen... denied the deity of Christ, teaching that Jesus was a lesser, created god. He and other

false teachers who did not confess the Lord Jesus Christ set to mutilating the Alexandrian

group of manuscripts, 'editing,' omitting, and changing passages of Scripture. The Alexandrian

texts underlying the modern Bible versions are based on these corrupted manuscripts."

-Matthew Brill, Evangelism Expounded, WinePress Publishing, 2011, p. 113-114, ISBN:

9781414118147

"[Origen] believed that Jesus was only a created being and Gnosticism taught that Jesus

became Christ at his baptism but that he was never God. He [Jesus] was a just a good man with

very high morals." Ken Matto, "Origen's Gnostic Belief System," scionofzion.com, retrieved

Oct 3, 2014, [www.scionofzion.com/origen.htm]

Origen was a student of the humanistic philosophies of Aristotle, Plato, and Ammonius, and he

altered the Bible to make God's Word say what he wanted it to say, although new-age version

defenders seem to act as if no one ever lied to corrupt the Word of God.

"Origen, being the textual critic, is supposed to have corrected numerous portions of the sacred

manuscripts. Evidence to the contrary shows that he changed them to agree with his human

philosophy of mystical and allegorical ideas. Thus, through deceptive scholarship of this kind,

certain manuscripts became corrupt."-Les Garrett, Which Bible Can We Trust, Prophecy Club,

1998, ISBN: 9781585380060

Origen was also a student of Clement of Alexandria, who sought to combine Greek philosophy

with Christianity, no different than many religions today trying to corrupt Christianity by

combining it with pagan ideas. (See George E. Karamanolis, Plato and Aristotle in

Agreement?, Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 208, ISBN: 9780199264568)

It seems that this type of text was a local text of Alexandria, Egypt of which Eusebius (Bishop

of Caesarea) made fifty copies to fulfil a request by Emperor Constantine. Unfortunately

Eusebius turned to the education centre in Egypt and got a "scholarly revision" instead of

turning to Antioch for the pure text which was universally accepted by the true Christians.

Why would Eusebius choose Alexandria over Antioch? Primarily because he was a great

admirer of Origen, an Egyptian scholar. Origen, though once exalted by modern-day

Christianity as a trustworthy authority, has since been found to have been a heretic who

interpreted the Bible in the light of Greek philosophy. He propagated the heresy that Jesus

Christ was a "created" God. This is a false doctrine clung to by Jehovah's Witnesses of our day,

who strangely enough get their teaching from the corrupt Alexandrian Text's rendition of

JOHN 1:1-5 and JOHN 3:13, a corruption which Origen is responsible for when he revised the

original Text to read in agreement with his personal heresy! It is quite possible that Sinaiticus

and Vaticanus are two of these fifty copies ordered by Constantine or are copies of those

copies.

The Alexandrian text fell into disuse about 500 A.D. while the original Antioch Text was

spreading true Christianity throughout Europe. The Alexandrian Text was abandoned between

500 to 1881, merely revised in our day and stamped as genuine.

Alexandria and Egypt are mentioned in the Bible exclusively in a negative way: see GENESIS

12:10-12; EXODUS 1:11-14; EXODUS 20:2; DEUTERONOMY 4:20; DEUTERONOMY

17:16; REVELATION 11:8; ACTS 6:9; ACTS 18:24; Acts 21; ACTS 27:6.

Alexandria was a centre of education and philosophy (COLOSSIANS 2:8) which it received

from Athens in about 100 B.C. (ACTS 17:16). There was a school of the Scriptures founded

there by one Pantaenus who was a philosopher. Pantaenus interpreted scripture both

philosophically and allegorically. That is to say that philosophically he believed truth to be

relative, not absolute. He did not believe that the Bible was infallible. By looking at the Bible

allegorically he believed that men such as Adam, Noah, Moses, and David existed only in

Jewish poetry and were not true historical characters. He was succeeded as head of the school

by Clement of Alexandria and later by Origen. Men who shared his scepticism.

Antioch on the other hand is mentioned only in a positive light in the Bible: One of the first

seven deacons was Nicolas of Antioch (ACTS 6:5). He is the only deacon whose hometown is

given.

ACTS 11:21 tells us that God's Holy Spirit worked mightily in Antioch and that a "great

number" were saved. We see then that the first great gentile awakening occurred in Antioch.

In ACTS 11:25-26 we find Barnabas departing for Tarsus to seek the young convert Saul.

Upon finding Saul, Barnabus does not bring him back to Jerusalem (and certainly not to

Alexandria). He returns with him to Antioch, the spiritual capital of the New Testament

church.

In ACTS 11:26 we find that born again believers were called "Christians" for the first time at

Antioch. Thus every time we believers refer to ourselves as Christians we complete a spiritual

connection to our spiritual forefathers in Antioch. Antioch is to the Christian what Plymouth

Rock is to the American.

In ACTS 11:29-30 we find that the saints who God is blessing in Antioch, must send monetary

aid to the saints in Jerusalem.

ACTS 13:1-3: The first missionary journey mentioned in Scripture originated in Antioch, with

Christians from Antioch.

What was it about Antioch that was so attractive to God that He chose it as the centre of New

Testament Christianity? Antioch although it was a cultural centre, had not abandoned itself to

pagan religion, pagan education and pagan philosophy, as had such prominent sites as Rome,

Athens, and Alexandria. It might also be weighed that Antioch, unlike the above-mentioned

cities, or even Jerusalem, was located almost exactly in the middle of the known world, and

was built at the crossing of the East-West trade routes. It even boasted a seaport, via the

Orontes River. These are all important attributes for the capital of Christianity, which is known

for its mobility.


7 views