So, if the Johannine Comma is spurious, then you have to refute these following articulate articles with a preponderance of clear biblical and historical proofs and evidences to prove beyond reasonable doubts regarding your Anti-Trinitarian points:

http://www.equip.org/articles/the-trinity-a-case-study-in-implicit-truth

http://www.equip.org/articles/the-biblical-basis-of-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity

http://www.equip.org/perspectives/trinity-doctrine-is-the-trinity-biblical

http://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html

http://www.gotquestions.org/trinitarianism.html

http://www.gotquestions.org/three-gods.html

http://www.gotquestions.org/council-of-Nicea.html

http://www.equip.org/articles/what-really-happened-at-nicea-

http://www.equip.org/articles/loving-the-trinity

John consistently and repeatedly refers to the Son of God as the Son after 1 John 1:1-2, where he refers to Him as the Word only prior to becoming a man, which is consistent with what John says in John 1:1 and 1:14 (the Gospel). Therefore, if John has written of heavenly witnesses bearing witness to the fact that Jesus is the Son of God in the fifth chapter in his first epistle, he would have said Father, Son and Spirit, not Father, Word and Spirit. So John obviously did not write the Johannine Comma. In Contra Maximinum in 427 or 428 AD, Augustine quotes 1 John 5:8 from a Latin text that does NOT contain the Johannine Comma (the phrase “on earth” is not present in the quote), and he explains that “Spirit” in 1 John 5:8 symbolizes “God” in John 4:24 and that “water” in 1 John 5:8 symbolizes “Spirit” in John 7:38-39 and that “Blood” in 1 John 5:8 symbolizes “Word” in John 1:14, hence the Trinity interpretation of “Spirit and water and Blood” in 1 John 5:8 as symbolizing “God and Spirit and Word,” hence the phrase “Father, Word and Spirit” being inferred from the phrase “Spirit and water and Blood” in 1 John 5:8 in a Latin text that does NOT contain an explicit reference to the Trinity in the immediately preceding verse. Cyprian quotes the same thing that Augustine does and vaguely refers to the same interpretation before 258 AD, and Priscillian presents his own version of this interpretation before 385 AD, in which he uses the neuter gender instead of the masculine gender and says “water and flesh and blood” instead of “Spirit and water and Blood” and places the Trinity interpretation AFTER his misquotation of 1 John 5:8, which is consistent with ADDING an interpretation of a verse to the verse, and adds the phrase “in Christ Jesus.” It was not until Augustine endorsed the Trinity interpretation of 1 John 5:8 that this interpretation began to frequently appear in the Latin copies of John’s first epistle, first in the margin next to 1 John 5:8, then AFTER 1 John 5:8 in the text, which is consistent with ADDING an interpretation of the verse to the verse, and then before 1 John 5:8. Centuries later, the altered Latin text was translated into Greek in some Greek manuscripts. This describes the evolution of the addition of the Trinity interpretation of 1 John 5:8 to the Latin text, and it explains how the phrase “Father, Word and Spirit” came to be. It did not come from John, but from this Trinity interpretation of 1 John 5:8, as explained in detail by Augustine in Contra Maximinum in 427 or 428 AD. Not only would John have said “Son” instead of “Word,” but also he would not have named the Spirit as one of the witnesses bearing witness in heaven to the fact that Jesus is the Son of God, because in John 15:26 and 16:7-14 (the Gospel), John quotes Jesus as stating that He would have to ascend to heaven before the Spirit could be sent from the Father in heaven to earth, at which time the Spirit would bear witness regarding Him (the Son). This is incompatible with the Johannine Comma, which states that the Spirit bears witness regarding Him (the Son) in heaven, which John obviously did not write.

Jim

John begins his Gospel by saying this.

John 1:1 In beginning, It-was, the Word, and the Word It-was with the God, and God It-was, the Word. 2 This It-was in beginning with the God. … 14 And the Word flesh It-became, and He-dwelled among us, and we-beheld the glory of Him, glory as Only-Begotten from Father, full of-grace and of-truth.

John begins his first epistle by saying this.

1 John 1:1 Which-Thing It-was from beginning, Which-Thing we-have-heard, Which-Thing we-have seen by-the eyes of-us, Which-Thing we-beheld and the hands of-us they-handled, regarding the Word of-the Life—2 and the Life It-was-manifested, and we-have-seen, and we-bear-witness, and we-proclaim to-you the Life, the Eternal, which It-was with the Father, and It-was-manifested to-us—3 Which-Thing we-have-seen and we-have-heard we-proclaim also/even to-you, so-that also/even you fellowship you-would-have with us, even also the fellowship, the ours, with the Father and with the Son of Him, Jesus Christ.

In the rest of John’s first epistle, John consistently and repeatedly refers to the Son and to the Father and the Son. Prior to becoming a man, He is referenced as the Word, not only here in John’s first epistle (verse 1:1), but also in John’s Gospel (verses 1:1 and 1:14). After becoming a man, He is consistently and repeatedly referenced as the Son, NOT the Word.

Therefore, IF John had written in the 5th chapter in his first epistle of heavenly witnesses bearing witness to the fact the Jesus is the Son of God, THEN he would have written of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, NOT of the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit.

Since John is NOT the source of this reference to the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, what is the source?

The source of this reference to the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit is the Trinitarian INTERPRETATION of the Spirit and the water and the Blood in 1 John 5:8, as explained in detail by Augustine in his composition titled Contra Maximinum, dated 427 or 428 AD. This is what Augustine says.

Tres sunt testes, spiritus et aqua et sanguis, et tres unum sunt [Three they-are, witnesses, Spirit and water and Blood, and three-ones one-thing they-are]. I would not have thee mistake that place in the epistle of John the apostle where he saith, ‘There are three witnesses, the Spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are one,’ lest haply thou say that the Spirit and the water and the blood are diverse substances, and yet it is said, ‘the three are one.’ For this cause I have admonished thee that thou mistake not the matter. For these are mystical expressions, in which the point always to be considered is, not what the actual things are, but what they denote as signs. Since they are signs of things, and what they are in their essence is one thing, what they are in their signification another. If then we understand the things signified, we do find these things to be of one substance. … which three things, if we look at as they are in themselves, they are in substance several and distinct, and therefore they are not one. But if we will inquire into the things signified by these, there not unreasonably comes into our thoughts the Trinity itself … so that by the term SPIRIT we should understand GOD the Father to be signified, as indeed it was concerning the worshipping of Him that the Lord was speaking when He said, ‘GOD is a SPIRIT [John 4:24];’ by the term BLOOD, the SON, because “the WORD was made FLESH [John 1:14];’ and by the term WATER, the Holy SPIRIT, as when Jesus spake of the WATER which He would give to them that thirst, the evangelist saith, ‘But THIS said He of the SPIRIT which they that believed on Him were to receive [John 7:38-39].’ …

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iv.xiv.html

As Augustine explains in detail in 427 or 428 AD, the Trinity INTERPRETATION of the phrase “Spirit and water and Blood” in the Latin version of 1 John 5:8 is that the word “Spirit” in 1 John 5:8 correlates with the word “God” in John 4:24, and the word “water” in 1 John 5:8 correlates with the word “Spirit” in John 7:38-39, and the word “Blood” in 1 John 5:8 correlates with the word “Word” in John 1:14, hence the phrase “God and Spirit and Word” (and thus the phrase “Father, Word and Spirit Holy”) from the phrase “Spirit and water and Blood.” This is the Trinity INTERPRETATION of 1 John 5:8, as explained by Augustine.

Notice that the Latin version of 1 John 5:8 that Augustine quotes is from a Latin text that does NOT contain the Johannine Comma, because the quoted verse does NOT contain the phrase “in terra [on earth],” which it would have to contain if the Johannine Comma were present in the text.

Also, Augustine states that the Trinity must be INFERRED from 1 John 5:8 as being “signified” by the phrase “Spirit and water and Blood” in this verse, as opposed to being explicitly stated in the immediately preceding verse.

Therefore, the Johannine Comma had not yet been added to the Latin text. Rather, a Trinity INTEPRETATION of 1 John 5:8 had been circulating, and Augustine was now explaining that Trinity interpretation in detail.

As stated by Martin Shue, Cyprian (died in 258 AD) states, “de patre et filio et spiritu sancto scriptum est, et tres unum sunt [of Father and Son and Spirit Holy written it-is, ‘and three-ones one-thing they-are’].” The quoted (by Cyprian) words “et tres unum sunt [and three-ones one-thing they-are]” are the same words that Augustine quotes from 1 John 5:8.

Like Augustine, Cyprian INFERS the Trinity from what is stated in 1 John 5:8, stating that what is written in 1 John 5:8 speaks “de patre et filio et spiritu sancto scriptum [of Father and Son and Spirit Holy].”

http://www.avdefense.webs.com/wallace.html

Both Cyprian (before 258 AD) and Augustine (in 427 or 428 AD) appear to be quoting from the same verse (1 John 5:8) from the same Latin text (which does NOT yet contain the Johannine Comma), and both of them are INFERRING the Trinity from what is stated in 1 John 5:8.

Priscillian (died in 385 AD) wrote, “Sicut Johannes ait: tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in terra, aqua caro et sanguis, et haec tria in unum sint; et tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in caelo, pater uerbum et spiritus, et haec tria unum sunt in Christo Jesu,” which means, “As John says, ‘three-things they-are which-things witness they-give on earth, water, flesh and blood, and those three-things in one-thing they-are, and three-things they-are which-things witness they-give in heaven, Father, Word and Spirit, and those three-things one-thing they-are in Christ Jesus.”

This is the Trinity INTERPRETATION of 1 John 5:8 that is vaguely referenced by Cyprian and explained in detail by Augustine. This is NOT a quotation of the Johannine Comma. It is Priscillian’s own version of the Trinity interpretation of 1 John 5:8, which Priscillian expresses AS IF John had said it (“as John says”), which John most certainly did NOT say.

Priscillian uses the neuter gender instead of the masculine gender, and he says “water and flesh and blood” in his misquotation of 1 John 5:8 instead of “Spirit and water and the Blood,” and he places the Trinity interpretation of 1 John 5:8 AFTER 1 John 5:8, which is consistent with ADDING an interpretation of a verse to the verse, and he adds the phrase “in Christ Jesus.”

According to what is written by Cyprian (before 258 AD) and by Priscillian (before 385 AD) and by Augustine (in 427 or 428 AD), the Johannine Comma, which is the Trinitarian INTERPRETATION of 1 John 5:8, had NOT yet been added to the Latin text in the Latin manuscripts of John’s first epistle.

But once Augustine had explained in detail the Trinity INTERPRETATION of 1 John 5:8 and had endorsed it as a valid INTERPRETATION (in 427 or 428 AD), this Trinity INTERPRETATION began to be ADDED to the Latin copies of John’s first epistle in increasing frequency, first in the margin next to 1 John 5:8, and then in the text, but AFTER 1 John 5:8, which is consistent with ADDING an interpretation of 1 John 5:8 to 1 John 5:8, and then BEFORE 1 John 5:8.

All of this is consistent with the evolutionary process of the Trinity INTEPRETATION of 1 John 5:8 being gradually ADDED to the Latin text AFTER Augustine gave his endorsement of that INTERPRETATION.

Centuries later, the ALTERED Latin text was translated into Greek in some Greek manuscripts.

This whole thing began before Cyprian with a Latin MISTRANSLATION of the last clause in 1 John 5:8 from Greek to Latin.

John wrote, “… kai oi treiV eiV to en eisin,” in the Greek, which means, “… and the three-ones FOR the one-thing they-are,” in the last clause in 1 John 5:8.

This was MISTRANSLATED into Latin to say, “et tres unum sunt,” which means, “and three-ones one-thing they are.” Trinitarians looked at this MISTRANSLATION and thought that it looked like a reference to the Trinity, when in fact John never even wrote it in the first place.

Out of this INTERPRETIVE ASSUMPTION regarding this MISTRANSLATION came the Trinity INTEPRETATION that “Spirit and water and Blood” in 1 John 5:8 in the Latin text was a symbolic reference to “God and Spirit and Word,” and thus to “Father, Word and Spirit Holy.”

It was in this manner that the Johannine Comma, which John most certainly did NOT write, was born.

Not only would John have said “Son” instead of “Word” if he had written of heavenly witnesses, of which he did NOT write, but also John would NOT have said that the Spirit is one of the ones bearing witness in heaven, because, in John 15:26 and 16:7-16, John quotes Jesus to have stated that He (the Son) must ascend to heaven so that the Spirit can descend from the Father in heaven to earth, at which point the Spirit will bear witness regarding Him (the Son).

According to this, the Spirit does NOT bear witness in heaven regarding the Son, but on earth, as John states in the text SURROUNDING the Johannine Comma.

The only part of the fifth chapter in John’s first epistle that contradicts John’s Gospel is the Johannine Comma. The reason that the Johannine Comma contradicts John’s Gospel is that John did NOT write the Johannine Comma.

Jim

PS: Edward Hills says that, just as the word “three” is repeated in Matthew 12:40 regarding the duration of the death of the Son of God (three days and three nights), one would expect the word “three” to be repeated in 1 John 5:6-9 regarding the number of witnesses bearing witness to the fact that Jesus is the Son of God. However, Hills fails to mention that the duration of the death of the Son of God is discussed in eleven different places (Matthew 12:40, 26:61, 27:40 and 27:63, Mark 8:31, 9:31, 10:34, 14:58 and 15:29 and John 2:19 and 2:20) in the Gospels, in which Jesus is doing the speaking in five of them (Matthew 12:40, Mark 8:31, 9:31 and 10:34 and John 2:19), and the word “three” is repeated in ONLY one (Matthew 12:40) of these instances, which means that the word “three” is NOT repeated either ten out of eleven times or four out of five times, which is either 90% or 80% of the time. Based on this example, there is a 90% or 80% likelihood that the word “three” would NOT be repeated in 1 John 5:6-9. Also, the Mosaic prescription for two or three witnesses (men) is cited in Matthew 18:16, John 8:17-18, 2 Corinthians 13:1, 1 Timothy 5:19, Hebrews 10:28-29 and 1 John 5:8-9 (Majority Text), and the number of witnesses is always (six out of six times) limited to two or three witnesses, which is a 100% likelihood that the word “three” would NOT be repeated in 1 John 5:6-9.

If you compare the grammar in Matthew 23:23 and 1 John 2:16 and 1 John 5:7 and 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text (on which the KJV is based), what you’ll find is the same kind of grammatical construction in all four verses, that is, a subject or direct object of a verb which is followed by three nouns that rename or explain the subject or direct object, the three nouns having the same grammatical case as the subject or direct object but not having the same number and/or gender as the subject or direct object.

When a substantive (either a noun or a word or phrase that functions as a noun) is followed by another substantive in the same grammatical case, in which the following substantive renames or explains the idea to which the preceding substantive refers, the following substantive is called an appositive. Whereas an appositive must agree with the preceding substantive in grammatical case, it does not have to agree with the preceding substantive either in number or in gender, as these four verses show.

(Received Text) Matthew 23:23 … afhkate TA BARUTERA tou nomou thn KRISIN kai ton ELEON kai thn PISTIN …

23:23 … you-dismiss THE WEIGHIER-THINGS [accusative plural neuter] of-the law, the JUDGMENT [accusative singular feminine] and the MERCY [accusative singular masculine] and the FAITH [accusative singular feminine] …

(Received Text) 1 John 2:16 … PAN TO en tw kosmw h EPIQUMIA thV sarkoV kai h EPIQUMIA twn ofqalmwn kai h ALAZONEIA tou biou ouk estin ek tou patroV …

2:16 … EVERY THING [nominative singular neuter] in the world, the LUST [nominative singular feminine] of-the flesh and the LUST [nominative singular feminine] of-the eyes and the PRIDE [nominative singular feminine] of-the life, not it-is out-of the Father …

(Received Text) 1 John 5:7 … treiV eisin OI MARTUROUNTEV en tw ouranw o PATHR o LOGOV kai to agion PNEUMA …

5:7 … three they-are, THE-ONES BEARING-WITNESS [nominative plural masculine] in the heaven, the FATHER [nominative singular masculine], the WORD [nominative singular feminine] and the Holy SPIRIT [nominative singular neuter] …

(Received Text) 1 John 5:8 … treiV eisin OI MARTUROUNTEV en th gh to PNEUMA kai to UDWR kai to AIMA …

5:8 … three they-are, THE-ONES BEARING-WITNESS [nominative plural masculine] on the earth, the SPIRIT [nominative singular neuter] and the WATER [nominative singular neuter] and the BLOOD [nominative singular neuter] …

In Matthew 23:23, an accusative plural neuter direct object of a verb is followed by two accusative singular feminine appositives and one accusative singular masculine appositive. None of the three appositives has the same number or gender that the preceding substantive has.

In 1 John 2:16, a nominative singular (collective singular [grammatically singular, but semantically plural]) neuter subject of a verb is followed by three nominative singular feminine appositives. None of the three appositives has the same gender that the preceding substantive has.

In 1 John 5:7, a nominative plural masculine subject of a verb is followed by two nominative singular masculine appositives and one nominative singular neuter appositive. None of the three appositives has the same number that the preceding substantive has, and one the appositives does not have the same gender that the preceding substantive has.

In 1 John 5:8, a nominative plural masculine subject of a verb is followed by three nominative singular neuter appositives. None of the three appositives has the same number or gender that the preceding substantive has.

In each of these four verses, the three appositives have the same grammatical case as the preceding substantive but a different number and/or gender than the preceding substantive. This is normal grammar for this kind of grammatical construction.

In Matthew 23:23 and 1 John 2:16, the gender of the preceding substantive is neuter because it refers to things.

In 1 John 5:7 and 1 John 5:8, the gender of the preceding substantive is masculine because it refers to persons.

This is what John says in 1 John 5:8-9 in the Majority Text.

(Majority Text) 1 John 5:8 Because three they are, THE ONES BEARING WITNESS, (the Spirit and the water and the Blood), and THE THREE ONES for the one thing they are. 5:9 If THE WITNESS OF THE MEN we accept, (the witness of the God) greater it is, because this it is, (the witness of the God which He has born witness regarding the Son of Him).

John is comparatively (this is like that) equating “the witness of the God / the witness of the God which He has born witness regarding the Son of Him” in verse 5:9, which is comprised of “the Spirit and the water and the Blood” (three witnesses) in verse 5:8, to “the witness of the men” in verse 5:9, which is comprised of “the ones bearing witness / the three ones” (three witnesses) in verse 5:8.

John is comparatively (this is like that) equating the three witnesses (either three things or a Person and two things) that comprise the witness of God regarding His Son to the three witnesses (three men, hence the masculine gender) that comprise the traditionally accepted witness of the men.

All John is saying in 1 John 5:8-9 in the Majority Text is that the Jewish culture traditionally accepts the witness of three men to establish the truth in any matter, and God has provided three such witnesses to establish the truth that Jesus is His Son, only these three witnesses are even “greater” than three men, namely, the Spirit and the water and the Blood.

In Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15, Moses prescribes two or three witnesses (men) to establish the truth in any matter.

This Mosaic prescription is cited in Matthew 18:16, John 8:17-18, 2 Corinthians 13:1, 1 Timothy 5:19, Hebrews 10:28-29 and 1 John 5:8-9.

In John 8:17-18, Jesus comparatively (this is like that) equates the Father and the Son to the two or three men prescribed by Moses.

In 2 Corinthians 13:1, Paul comparatively (this is like that) equates his three visits to Corinth (three things) to the two or three men prescribed by Moses.

In Hebrews 10:28-29, the author comparatively (this is like that) equates three actions (three things), trampling the Son of God and considering His Blood to be ordinary blood and insulting the Spirit, to the two or three men prescribed by Moses.

In 1 John 5:8-9, John comparatively (this is like that) equates the Spirit and the water and the Blood (either three things or a Person and two things) to the two or three men prescribed by Moses.

Therefore, the claim that there is something grammatical wrong with 1 John 5:8 and that there is a grammatical requirement for the Johannine Comma is simply not true.

Frederick Nolan (1815) and Robert Dabney (1890) and Edward Hills (1956) and the others make a lot of grammatical claims, but none of them ever provides any example in support of any of those grammatical claims. The reason for this is that there is no such supporting example in the Greek language, because what they are claiming regarding Greek grammar never occurs anywhere in the Greek language, because what they are claiming is false. They simply made the whole thing up and presented it in publications as if it were factually true, and readers who didn’t know any better just assumed (incorrectly) that they were telling the truth.

Jim

from: http://www.lastdaywatchers.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=137&p=258#p258

Interestingly enough, one of the main issues that keeps on surfacing in the “Which Bible is Scripture” debacle centers on the persons of Wescott and Hort. the nineteenth century mystical editors of the Greek text that provides the foundation for what some are calling the “modern perversions of the Bible”. About these men’s work, Dr. Panin had nothing but praise! Here is what he had to say about the value of their work:

“Without the aid of Wescott and Hort I could not have really done my work, because the text of the Authorized Version from my point of view — not from the point of view of salvation or doctrine even, but from the textual point of view — the text of the Authorized Version was useless to me, and for this reason: it has too many inaccuracies for my special purpose. Erasmus, for example, who was the Editor of the first Greek text in print was very anxious to get ahead of the Roman Catholic scholars who were issuing a Bible of their own; and he was in such a hurry that he used one MS. [manuscript] for the Book of Revelation and the last page of Revelation was missing in that MS. So what do you suppose Erasmus did? He simply concocted his own Greek for that page; he took the Latin Vulgate and translated it into his own Greek! So that the last page of the Authorized Version is a translation of Erasmus into Greek of a Latin inaccurate translation itself! Now, you and I wish to have an inspired page of the Bible, not one man’s mere guessage. The Received Text has a great many suspicious readings of that kind. They do not affect doctrine or conduct seriously, because the great blessing of the Word of God is like the Lord Himself. if you only touch the hem of His garment, you can be made whole. God has seen to it that His blessed Book, no matter how distorted it is in any language sometimes the missionaries are at their wits end to know how to translate the word “God” nevertheless, the Word of God is so full of spiritual power, that if we only get the fringe of it to them, those dear heathen can be converted by it. But you and I wish to have the last page of Revelation as it was truly the inspired Word of God. Wescott and Hort based all their work largely on the Vatican and Sinai MSS., and decided that wherever the two MSS. agreed, that should generally settle the reading. Well, you know, there has been some doubt cast upon the Sinai MSS., because a very shrewd Greek copied a great many MSS. and tried to foist his own MSS. on the folk, so that has left a cloud on the Sinai MSS., and some people see fit to cast doubt on it even now, when there is the question as to whether the British Government did wisely to take part in its acquisition … I have analysed the Greek words for the Sinai and Vatican Codexes. I have here page after page of the numerics of those words in Greek. Whenever we wish to study numerics relating to our own affairs or life or anything else, we must always remember that the language in which God wishes us to count is Greek, because He left the name of the anti-christ in Greek. You and I will have to stand the test when anti-christ comes. The Holy Spirit has given us warning. “Be sure not to receive this mark of the beast upon you,” because it will be the number of the beast upon ourselves. The Holy Spirit warns us that he is 666, that is, in Greek. You and I have to go to numerics in Greek when we wish to prove the correctness of a passage. The three words show striking numerics. There is a system there of sevens and nines at once on the blackboard. I have here page after page of the numerics of those three words. The Sinai Codex has a separate scheme of its own and the Vatican Codex has a separate scheme of its own.”

“That is how God has set His seal on His book; so that by the aid of the text presented to us by Wescott and Hort, I was able to verify everything they stated, and verify all the doubtful readings, so that those two great MSS. can be established in such a way that no one can attack their authenticity. This is the testimony of numerics as to any aspersion on the Sinai Codex.”

“My prayer is simply this. That God may make that blessed Book of His as precious to you as He has made it to me. It has been an inexpressible joy in my life to work these things out, simply because of the testimony of the majesty and the marvel of the loving-kindness of God vouchsafed in this Book unto our charge. Pray for me, and may the Lord bless you.” (Ivan Panin, “Bible Numerics”, pp.25-27, emphasis in the original).

From these statements made by Dr. Panin himself, he expresses an indebtedness to Messrs. Wescott and Hort for their work in editing a Greek text that, for the most part, stands up to the test of Bible numerics. However guilty these two men may have been in their involvement with the occult, that involvement should not. in and of itself. mean that the Greek texts they edited were thus rendered unacceptable. “The proof of the pudding is in the eating” and Dr. Panin testifies that their work stands the numeric test! A diamond is still a diamond even if it is found in a mud-hole.

PRACTICING OCCULTISTS ALSO REVERE SCRIPTURE

There is no doubt that Westcott and Hort were practicing occultists; however, to then assert that their occult involvement automatically ensures that they tampered with the text is, firstly wrong, and, secondly, demonstrates that you do not understand the mind-set of the occultist. An occultist — especially White Magic practitioners — reveres Scripture almost as much as does a true Christian! He would not be interested one iota in “corrupting” or changing the original languages, because he reveres them greatly.

The occultist believes that the God of the Holy Bible did supernaturally reveal the Scriptures to the various writers. However, the occultist believes that the writings of other occult writers are just as inspired. They believe Jesus was a Messiah, an Avatar, or Teacher, but no greater than Buddha, or Mohammed. They place Christianity on an elevated plane, but only on an equal level with Buddhism or Islam or Hinduism.

They further have re-interpreted all of the Bible, giving every single verse and every single doctrine, an occult interpretation. Alice Bailey [demonically possessed by 'Master D.K.'] speaks of this reinterpretation in her book, The Externalisation of the Hierarchy: “Starting with St. Paul, the theologians interpreted His {Jesus’} words in such a manner that & the teachings of the loving, simple Son of God have been largely ignored; the failure of Christianity can be traced to its Jewish background which made it full of propaganda & This situation is one which the Christ is seeking to alter; it has been in preparation for His instituting a new and more correct presentation of divine truth &” [Bailey, p. 543]

On page 511, Bailey is even more explicit, as she says that the sacraments “must be mystically interpreted” if the true meaning is to be understood.

Bailey then demonstrates the practical result of the “mystical reinterpretation” of all Scripture and all doctrine. She calls the Apostle Paul the “initiate Paul” [p. 514] and Jesus Christ “the greatest Psychic of all time”. [p. 517]

The fact is, this reinterpretation of Christian Scripture, verse by verse, has been going on within occult circles over much of the last 2,000 years. Occultists do not fear accurate Scripture, because they have reinterpreted every single verse and every single doctrine.

They believe there are two types of spiritual knowledge in the world:

Exoteric — open, for all to see [New age Dictionary, p. 60]
Esoteric — hidden from view, occult, [Ibid., p. 59]
The exoteric spiritual knowledge is that which is taught to the masses, while the esoteric knowledge is reserved for the privileged few, whom occultists call Initiates or Adepts. The occultist believes that Christianity, with its emphasis on a literal interpretation of Scripture, is exoteric spiritual knowledge. The masses of the people are taught what they can accept, but that which is deeper spiritual knowledge is hidden from them, reserved only for the Initiate or Adept of the secret society.

Thus, the Western occultist has systematically reinterpreted the Scriptures esoterically, every single verse. They believe in this esoteric reinterpretation with all their hearts, and are not afraid of any interpretation a disciple or scholar of the Literalist Christian movement might give. They really do read every single word of the Scripture truthfully translated, only to then give it a hidden, esoteric meaning. They fancy themselves as being the “Illumined Ones”, the ones who have been given “special interpretation”, “special knowledge”. Further, this special interpretation has been given these men by supernatural guiding spirits, who are so much more intelligent than any human that all ocultists are over-awed by this demonic reinterpretation.

Therefore, occultists have no desire to deliberately change or corrupt the original text! In fact, they guard the original text just as vehemently as does any Fundamental Christian scholar. This fact explains why the Roman Catholic Church did not change the text of Scripture even though they had possession of it for centuries prior to Martin Luther. They had reinterpreted the Scriptures, giving them a new meaning. Had they changed the verse, “the just shall live by faith”, they would have saved themselves a whole lot of trouble, and would have preserved their secular and religious power.

Thus, you can and do have an occultist expressing as convincing a declaration of support for, and love of, the Holy Bible, as you will ever see or hear from a Fundamental Bible scholar.

We should expect that occultists like Westcott & Hort would take great care to not change or corrupt any of the original language. They believe in it and study it just as carefully as do we, with the only difference that they are listening to the lying Guiding Spirits giving them a false interpretation instead of the Holy Spirit giving God’s true interpretation.

Listen to Bailey describe the activities of the various Masters to bring the world to the New World Order of Antichrist. “The second group will implement the new religion, by the time they come into control the old theological activities will have been completely broken; Judiasm will be fast disappearing; Buddhism will be spreading and becoming increasingly dogmatic; Christianity will be in a state of chaotic divisions and upheavals. When this takes place and the situation is acute enough, the Master Jesus will take certain initial steps towards reassuming control of His Church & ” [Bailey, p. 653-4; Emphasis added]

Thus, it is a mistake of the greatest proportions to assume that, just because some scholar is a practicing Satanist, he will automatically change Scripture if he has the opportunity.

http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1363.cfm

_________________
“For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place and you and your father’s house will perish. And who knows whether you have not attained royalty for such a time as this?” Esther 4:14

from: http://www.lastdaywatchers.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=137&p=258#p258

Modern Bible Versions, and occultists Westcott and Hort
When it comes to the various Bible versions of our modern day, most readers assume that all
Bibles are created equal, with perhaps differing degrees of readability. By the same token, most have
rid themselves of the “ancient” King James Version and upgraded for a newer model, such as the NIV,
or NASB, etc. When the modern Bible reader is asked if they are familiar with the two Textual Bible
Critics, Westcott and Hort, most have never heard of them. They are not aware nor concerned that
almost all the modern Bible versions of our day are built upon the Greek Text of Westcott and Hort,
commonly called the Westcott-Hort text. In my own NIV Student Bible (Zondervan Publishing House,
Grand Rapids Michigan, Copyright 1986, 1992), there is no mention of Westcott and Hort, but a mere
reference to “textual criticism.”

“Where existing manuscripts differ, the translators made their choice of readings according to
accepted principles of New Testament textual criticism.”

Though these quotations say nothing of Westcott and Hort, they are hidden behind the words “accepted
principles of textual criticism“.

Textual Criticism

To understand Westcott and Hort, you must first understand textual criticism. This requires us to
reach back in history to the days of the apostles, when the New Testament was written in the original
Greek language – sometime between 33-100 AD. Since the original books of the Bible do not exist any
more, it becomes necessary to translate the Bible from copies of the original. The word
MANUSCRIPTS is used to describe these copies or parchments which still exist. There are over 5366
manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. Not one of these manuscripts is exactly the same in Greek
content. However the majority of these manuscripts agree with each other almost perfectly.

Translators of the Bible over the years have used these agreeing manuscripts to make what is
called the MAJORITY TEXT. Other names for the Majority Text are Traditional Text, Syrian Text,
Byzantine Text, and the Common Text. This Majority Text was made from more than five thousand
(5000+) manuscripts. It is sometimes called the Textus Receptus. Since 99.9% of these manuscripts
agree, we can be comforted knowing that God has preserved His Word among us. You could say that
“Over five thousand witnesses agree, this New Testament is God’s holy Word”. Not only do we have
5000+ manuscripts which are nearly identical, but the Lord Himself promises us through His Word to
preserve His Scriptures for the sake of mankind. In Matthew 24:35 Jesus said, “Heaven and earth shall
pass away but My words shall not pass away.” Isaiah 40:8 says, “The grass withereth, the flower
fadeth: but the Word of our God shall stand forever.” See also Is. 30:8, 59:21, I Pet 1:23. The point
here is simple. God has promised to preserve His Word among us, and God always keeps His
promises! Likewise we dare never put confidence in man. “It is better to trust in the LORD than to put
confidence in man.” Ps. 118:8 Putting our confidence in God and not man, it seems apparent our Lord
has kept His promise and that His Word is faithfully preserved in over 5000 witnesses!

Now we have said that 99.9% of those 5000+ manuscripts agree with each other almost
perfectly, but what about the other .1%??? These are commonly called the MINORITY TEXTS, but
they are also known to many as the corrupted manuscripts. For much unlike the 5000+, these five
manuscripts are radically different. They do not even agree with each other. Their names are as
follows:

Codex Vatican (B)
Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph)
Codex Alexandrian (A)
Codex Ephraemi (C)
Codex Bezae (D)

If we are to understand the foundation of the NIV, it is critical to understand that the NIV is translated
from these five manuscripts above which do not agree with one another.

But what does this mean and is it important? Take, for example, five men who are eye witnesses
to a crime. In the court room they tell it to the judge as it is, yet when the judge hears each of their
stories, the witnesses do not agree. The judge then listens to the other side which holds over 5000
witnesses. These 5000 agree perfectly as to what happened.

So here is the dilemma when it comes to the “witness” of the Greek manuscripts. Do we listen
to the 5000+ witnesses, or do we listen to the 5? Which group do you think would be more
trustworthy? At this point we have entered the realm of “textual criticism”. A textual critic is one who
picks and chooses what part of whose story they will believe to be true. They make themselves the
judge. For example, the witness “Codex Vatican B” (one of the five), a Greek manuscript of the New
Testament, testifies that the last 12 verses of Mark do not exist. In other words, the manuscript “Codex
Vatican B” does not contain Mark 16:9-20. Now take your Bibles and look at Mark 16:9-20. If you
have a King James Bible you see it is about the resurrected Christ,….quite an important part of
Scripture. The King James men used the Majority text (5000+) and simply translated it as is. But if
you have a NIV Bible, between verses 8 and 9 there is a line and a large space along with this caption
in brackets:

[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20]

After this bracket in the NIV they then list verses 9-20 (Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids
Michigan, Copyright 1986, 1992, pg 1104).

For the reader of the NIV this note in brackets must at least cause doubt to enter one’s mind as to
the authenticity of these verses. They might argue, “My Bible says the “earliest” manuscripts do not
have this verse!” But does this reader know of the thousands of other manuscripts which do contain
this verse? The one who writes “the earliest manuscripts…..” is the man we call a textual critic. He
picks and chooses what belongs in the Bible and what doesn’t, based upon his education, beliefs, and
ideals. His method of picking and choosing which verses belong and which verses don’t, is called the
eclectic method. The Westcott-Hort text is an eclectic text. They are the judges as to what belongs in
the Bible and what does not.

The whole problem with textual criticism is that man becomes the judge of what belongs in the
Bible and what doesn’t. A textual critic sets himself up as judge over God’s Word, when no man has
such a right. The Scriptures are not to be privately interpreted. The Bible teaches “No Scripture is of
private interpretation”. No mere mortal dare add to, or subtract from God’s Word (the last chapter in
Revelation teaches this). Textual criticism is flawed because man’s judgment is by nature flawed with
bias. It is comparable to a judge with a criminal past, making a judgment based upon the witness of
five liars, and at the same time ignoring the unified witness of over 5000 men. Can his verdict be true?
We know the verdict and outcome before the trial is over. So our modern Bibles today have been
translated by men who make themselves judges. Instead of simply translating what the majority of
witnesses agree to, they translate from their own fancy, the false witness of the five. In like manner, if
a scientist is also an evolutionist and aetheist, do we need to hear his science before we know his
verdict? Assuredly his verdict will be against the six literal days of creation.

Westcott and Hort were the original textual critics of their day. Though they no longer live, their
legacy lives on in the form of a corrupted Greek text. The influence of their methods blackens and
corrupts every modern translation of the Bible available (NIV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, NAB, REB, RSV,
CEV, TEV, GNB, LIVING, PHILLIPS, NEW JERUSALEM, NEW CENTURY, and the New Word
Translation). Readers of these new Bibles are quite unaware that they are reading the translation of a
corrupt text. Without thinking or looking deeper into the matter, they blindly assume that every Bible
is the same. They assume some are just more easy to read than others. But we must remember that
Bibles are translated by men, and thus corruption is possible. Westcott and Hort did what was
unthinkable…..they picked through five Greek texts which did not agree with each other, and came up
with a new revised Greek version of the Bible. All modern Bibles of the day have therefore not been
translated from the 5000+ Majority text, but from the 5 disagreeing witnesses. Which Bible do you
think is more reliable? Isn’t it better to trust that God preserved His Word in the 5000+ witnesses rather
than the five witnesses who do not agree with each other? The KJV is a straight translation from the
Majority text. The NIV (and others) is taken from the five Minority texts, which do not agree. We
don’t even know what part of which text they used and where! The consensus however is they favored
the Aleph and B text more than the others.

The Men Who Made Themselves Judges

And what do we know about these men who made themselves the judges over God’s holy Word?
Much has been written about them, but also their own recorded words shed light on their beliefs. The
following is information is take from two sources, G.A. Riplinger’s New Age Bible Versions, and Mr.
Joseph Van Beek’s tract, KJV vs NIV.

“In 1841 an old manuscript (Codex Vaticanus) was discovered lying on a shelf in the Vatican library.
In 1844 part of another old manuscript (Codex Sinaiticus) was found in a wastebasket in St.
Catherines’s monastery (the other part was found in 1859). It is generally believed that these were
from the 50 that Eusebius prepared for Constantine. In 1853 these two Cambridge professors, Westcott
and Hort, began to prepare a Greek Text based primarily on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts.
They passed by the Traditional Text (Textus Receptus) which was the text upon which the King James
Version is based. Instead they used the corrupted manuscripts of the Gnosticism-Origen-Eusebius-
Jerome-Augustine lineage.” (Joseph Van Beek‘s tract: KJV vs NIV, pgs 5 & 6)

As to the personal beliefs of Westcot and Hort: 1) They never claimed or testified that the Bible
was verbally inspired or inerrant. 2) They denied the Genesis account of creation and questioned
whether Eden ever existed……Instead they praised Darwin’s 1859 theory of evolution. 3) Hort wrote,
“The popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit. Certainly nothing could
be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ’s bearing our sins and sufferings to his death;
but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy.” 4) Hort wrote, “I have been
persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and Jesus worship have very much in common in their
causes and their results.” Westcott found a statue of Mary and a crucified Christ in a remote chapel and
wrote, “Had I been alone, I could have knelt there for hours.”

Please note that neither Westcott nor Hort believed that the Bible was God’s Word. Hort did not
believe in the complete blood atonement of Christ for the forgiveness of sins, calling such doctrine
“heresy”. Both found nothing wrong with the worship of Mary.

The following are quotes of Westcott and Hort, found in Riplinger’s book.

Westcott – “I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly.” Riplinger, pg 622

Hort – “Evangelicals seem to me perverted. . . There are, I fear, still more serious differences
between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of the Bible.” Riplinger, pg 621

Hort – “[T]his may be cowardice – I have sort of a craving that our text should be cast upon the
world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean, a text issued by
men who are already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy will have
great difficulty in finding its way to regions which it might otherwise hope to reach and whence
it would not be easily banished by subsequent alarms. (Hort’s letter to Westcott regarding their
writing other things.)” Riplinger, pg 623

Westcott – “I shall aim at what is transcendental in many peoples eyes. . . I suppose I am a
communist by nature.” Riplinger, pg 624

Westcott – “our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise.” Riplinger, pg 625

Westcott and Hort were spiritualists. They sought out contact with the spiritual world (talking with the
dead, etc.). Riplinger speaks much on this subject and also aligns them with the New Age movement.
They started the “Ghostly Guild” in 1851 and before that the “Hermes Club” in 1845. Riplinger links
the spiritualist teachings of Westcott and Hort to the occult teachings of Madame Helena P. Blavatsky
who wrote the Lucifer magazine. Westcott, Hort, and Blavatsky are all forerunners of the modern day
New Age movement which aims at one world religion.

Conclusion

The conclusion is obvious. Any modern translation that is based upon Westcott and Hort’s
Greek text cannot be trusted, for it is based upon five manuscripts which do not even agree with one
other. The KJV, on the other hand, is based upon the Majority text, over 5000 witnesses agreeing. This
is to say nothing of the hundreds of church fathers who quoted their Scriptures in sermons, writings,
etc., which also testify to the standard of the Majority text. Even the casual reader of the Bible, if he
were to compare a modern translation (NIV) with the KJV, will easily find numerous differences
between the two (Consider Revelation 1:11, Heb. 2:16, Col. 2:9). Even a brief comparison of passages
between the NIV and KJV will yield useful information. Therefore it is unwise for the sincere
Christian to readily accept modern Bible translations assuming them to be accurate and faithful to the
Word of God. They are anything but. To learn more about Bible versions and the many problems with
modern translations, consider the following:

David Otis Fuller, D. D. Which Bible Grand Rapids International Publications, Grand Rapids,
Michigan, 49501

David Otis Fuller, D. D. Counterfeit Or Genuine Mark 16? John 8? Grand Rapids
International Publications, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 49501

Pastor R. W. Shekner, Comparisons, Anchor Publications (anchorbooksandtracts.com)

Taylor and Young, Distorted Scripture, Anchor Publications (anchorbooksandtracts.com)

G. A. Riplinger New Age Bible Versions A V Publications, Box 388 Munroe Falls, Ohio,
44262
1-800-435-4535.

“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add
unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man
shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the
book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” Rev 22:18,19

http://orthodoxlutheran.org/pdf/Modernbibleversions.pdf

_________________
“For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place and you and your father’s house will perish. And who knows whether you have not attained royalty for such a time as this?” Esther 4:14

http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2010/04/21/islamic-homosexual-pederasty-and-afghanistan%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cdancing-boys-%E2%80%9D/

And i dare all NIV users to take this simple test using their NIV bibles:

http://www.bible-truth.org/NIVtest.html

http://lastdaywatchers.com/image-gallery/mixed-pictures/?pid=3256