57 Comments

1. 

   oggie on December 1, 2010 at 1:45 pm

   Another interesting perspectives:

   http://www.lastdaywatchers.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=137&sid=af87eb1a0172bcfa66a6492131adcce6

   Reply
2. 

   SP on July 10, 2010 at 12:04 pm

   Higher Textual Criticism is the worst thing I ever discovered. It corrects the Bible instead of the Bible correcting it. Having the Bible in a readible modern language is not problem. The problem is when the Bibles are based on the wrong set of manuscripts. I have a question for you modernists who correct the KJV & the Textus Receptus. The Reformers wanted the Bible written in their language. The KJV translators earnestly prayed God would bless their efforts. Why would God allow the last verses of Mark if it was deception? My Bible says if we ask for a fish will God give us a stone? God does not deceive. Why would a holy God allow us to have over 60,000 verses and then 400 years later take them away? Think about it. I went to Bible college & learned all this Wescott/Hort, Rationalism, & Alexandrian bunk. It has does nothing but confuse me & make me question the Word of God. Maybe I am too simple minded but I just don’t believe God lies. But I tell you man does all the time. I am astounded at all the Bible reference tools that correct the Word of God even all the modern versions. Doubt, skepticism, & unbelief that’s all it is. We need to have a standard not a shifting line in the sand. I’m tired of Biblical scholarship that brings doubt & unbelief. I am about ready to sell about half of my library because of all this textual apostacy. If you agree with me, can I get an amen????

   Reply
3. 

   Jim on June 4, 2010 at 2:22 am

   Hi oggie,

   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.

   Reply
   • 

     oggie on June 21, 2010 at 7:13 pm

     Surely, what you are giving is a Unitarian attack on the hated Trinitarian doctrine.

     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

     Reply
4. 

   oggie on May 26, 2010 at 5:15 pm

   WESTCOTT AND HORT — OCCULTISTS

   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

   Reply
5. 

   oggie on May 26, 2010 at 5:14 pm

   Modern Bible Versions, and occultists Westcott and Hort

   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

   Reply
6. 

   oggie on April 23, 2010 at 6:37 pm

   This must be nothing to the homosexual translators of NIV:

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

   Reply
7. 

   oggie on April 23, 2010 at 5:28 pm

   from: Lisa Marie Mueller

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

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

   Reply
8. 

   oggie on April 23, 2010 at 5:25 pm

   A diagram of the sources of the present day bibles and their relationships:

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

   Reply
9. 

   oggie on April 23, 2010 at 5:13 pm

   Some modern bible (per)versions based on the corrupted Alexandrian texts:

   NIV or New Infernal Version

   RSV or Revised Satanic Version

   ASV or American Satanic Version

   NASV or New American Satanic Version

   TEV or Today’s Evil Version

   and similar meanings behind their acronyms!!

   Reply
10. 

    oggie on April 23, 2010 at 4:37 pm

    This explosive explicit expose is worse than the hypocritical accusation that King James was a homosexual(which is proven apocryphal):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8GRk91fKds&feature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-BZSfpbWUs&feature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKCW9CjEwRg&feature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFwgpIEqhYA&feature=related

    Reply
11. 

    oggie on April 23, 2010 at 3:33 pm

    A so very interesting FYI:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-HynaTooUA&playnext_from=TL&videos=E4YACJEKgg0

    Reply
12. 

    oggie on April 18, 2010 at 2:16 pm

    Interesting info from:

    http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=3796915&id=688215955#!/textus.receptus?v=wall&story_fbid=118187208198150

    IT IS A SIMPLE ANALYSIS

    by Walter Nagel

    If you want me to email this simple analysis to you, send me your email address:

    It is a simple study, that the liberal’s made complex because of the all the falsehoods they say, think, & write about.

    The simplicity of it all is this: We have two streams of text, one from the believing Church, and one from the Gnostics. The believing Church handed down the very Word of God to succeeding believers. The Gnostics, out of Alexandria Egypt, passed their text down to Rome, where it was embraced by the Catholics.

    It gets a little confusing after that point. If you read Foxes Book of the Martyrs, you will read about how the Catholics persecuted the believing Church, and burned those who supported the Bible from the believing Church at the stake.

    At this point in time there was a clear demarcation of the texts. The Believing Church had the very Words of God, and the Catholic Church had the Gnostic text.

    Then, in 1881 Westcott and Hort released their “Revised” New Testament. It was supposed to be an update of the 1611 King James Bible, using the same text passed down from the believing Church. However Westcott and Hort had another agenda. They switched the text with their “Revised” New Testament, from that of the believing Church, with the very Word of God, to the Gnostic Text, found in the Catholic Bible. So today, if you have a King James Bible in your hands, you have the Words of God passed down from the believing Church. If you have any other “newer” version, created since 1881, you have the words of the Gnostics, who cut and pasted God’s Spirit Breathed Word to conform to their own depravity.

    What was the response from the Protestant body of Christ in 1881 when the “Revision” was released? Did they support it, or was it rejected??

    What was their response in 1881? Similar to the response by conservative Christians today. The conservative Protestant Church of 1881 REJECTED the “1881 revision” (it was not a “revision”, it was a replacement!). They rejected it as being a plagiarism of the 1808 Belsham’s Unitarian Testament. It was rejected until the early 1900’s, when it started to get a little support by the Liberal’s in the body of Christ. Today, people actually prefer the newer versions than they do the Authorized Protestant Bible.

    The story line in the 1881 New York Times reads as follows: “Certain striking coincidences discovered- a comparison with the Unitarian Version Published in London in 1808”.

    Thoughout this 1881 article they note all of the Scripture (Doctrine) that has been changed or eliminated in this 1881 Revision in comparison to the Protestant Bible- the King James, just like Conservative Protestant Christians do today when comparing the King James Bible to all of the newer versions. In this article, they actually compared the changes in the 1881 revision to be identical (plagiarism) on a verse by verse basis with the liberal 1808 Belsham’s Unitarian New Testament, concluding as follows:

    “These striking coincidences of sense, and even of phraseololy, as well as the omissions and changes made in the text, would seem to indicate that the revisers must have had constantly in their view the Unitarian version of 1808, if they did not, indeed, make it the basis of their revision. It would hardly seem as if such coincidences could have been accidental. If the rest of the revised New Testament corresponds closely with the Unitarian version of 1808 as the examples given in the THE TIMES of Jan. 1881, the work will be a remarkable tribute to learning and skill of Mr. Belsham and his coadintors whose version was gotten up three-quarters of a century ago.”

    Belsham’s Unitarian New Testament (1808) can be found here:

    http://www.bible-researcher.com/belsham.html
    The 1808 Belsham Unitarian New Testament “included a valuable introduction on the progress and principles of textural criticism, anticipating many judgments later adopted in the Revised Version of 1881”; but drew the fire of the Orthodox by omitting as late interpolations several passages traditionally cited as pillars of Trinitarian doctrine (to Protestant Believers).

    What none of the Protestant critics knew in 1881, when they published their discovery that the 1881 Revision by Westcott and Hort was a plagiarism of the 1808 Belsham Unitarian New Testament, was that Belsham, as well as Westcott & Hort had switched the Authorized version of the New Testament and with the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus used to create the Catholic Bible. Even today, I don’t think people are aware of what really happened—the SUBSTITUTION of the very Word of God, passed down by the Church with the corrupt text CREATED by Justin Martyr, Taitan, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Eusebius & Jerome to conform to their belief of Gnosticism!

    What is the fruit of Caholocism? What is the fruit of all the over 90 newer Bible Versions created since 1881. Today, the Protestant is crying out for Revival, but it is nowhere to be found. The Protestant Church is crying out for Brokenness, but it cannot be found. It is crying out for a “real” prayer life and a “real” personal walk with Jesus Christ, but again, it cannot be found!

    Do these facts have interest to you? They have great interest to me, and they should be of great interest to any Child of God who wants a closer walk with Jesus Christ in these last days!

    When we open our Bibles today, we are opening up one of the two” types” of Bibles. Even though today we have many Bible versions (over 90 and counting) to choose from, we still only have two “types” of Bibles. One of the Bibles has been passed down from the Christian Church, from the very beginning, and is the Protestant Bible, the Textus Receptus, the Majority Text, the King James Bible.

    The other Bible that could be in our hands today has been passed down from Gnostic’s who revised God’s Word to conform to their own beliefs- it is the Catholic Bible, that used the minority text, created by the Gnostics, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

    In 1881 the Westcott & Hort used the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus to produce their new Greek New Testament. This Greek New Testament is not the same as the one used for the King James Bible during the Reformation. All of the newer Bible Versions since 1881 have relied on the Greek New Testament created by Westcott & Hort, relying on the faulty Vaticanius and Sinaiticus text.

    So, to clarify the issue, today, if you study the NIV, NASB, American Standard, or any of the other “newer” versions, you are actually studying Gnostic Doctrine, as found in the Catholic Bible and the Catholic Church.

    “The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” Psalm 12:6,7

    Please see attached Letters to the Editor from the February 8, 1881 edition of the New York Times:

    http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=3&res=9D0CEEDA153BE033A25757C1A9649C94609FD7CF&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

    Reply
13. 

    oggie on April 17, 2010 at 6:46 pm

    The Johannine Comma

    from: http://www.libertybaptistchurch.org.au/bookstore/NIVOmissions.pdf
    pages 10, 11

    13. The NIV denies the TRINITY and DEITY of CHRIST
    in I John 5:7,8. This is called ‘The Johannine Comma’.

    NIV I John 5:7,8
    For there are three that testify
    OMIT
    OMIT
    OMIT
    OMIT
    the Spirit, the water, and the blood;
    and the three are in agreement.

    KJV I John 5:7,8
    For there are three that (oi=masc) bear record
    in heaven, the Father, the Word, and
    the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
    And there are three that bear record
    in earth,
    the Spirit, and the water, and the blood
    and these (oi=masc) three agree in one”.

    I John 5:7,8 is omitted by all modern versions. It is called the “famous Trinitarian Proof text”. Modernists claim that this passage ought not to be in the Bible, because it is not in most Greek manuscripts. Only 6 Greek manuscripts before the 7th Century omit v.7,8.
    (14 manuscripts before the 9th Century).

    Background: Erasmus omitted it from his first edition of the printed Greek N.T. (1516), because it occurred in the Latin Vulgate and not in any Greek manuscript. To quieten the outcry that followed, he agreed to restore it if one Greek manuscript could be found containing it. Two Greek manuscripts, Codex 61 and 629 were presented, so Erasmus
    included it in his 1522 edition. Since these manuscripts are late (15th and 16th centuries) some think the readings are corrupt. What do we answer?

    What early manuscript evidence exists for I John 5:7,8?

    i) Early church writers:

    – Cyprian 200-258 AD. “The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one;’ and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are
    one’.” If Cyprian quotes I John 5:7 from his Bible in 200-258 AD, it must be a valid reading. His Bible was copied from an older manuscript containing this verse.
    Cyprian lived only 100 years after John wrote the book of I John.

    Cyprian would have had access to the original manuscript to check.

    – Priscillian 350 AD, a Spanish bishop quotes I John 5:7,8.

    – Idacius Clarus 360 AD, who opposed Priscillian quotes it.

    – Varimadum 380 AD. – Cassiodorus 485 AD.

    – Cassian 435 AD. – Victor Vita 489 AD.

    – Jerome 450 AD. – Fulgentius 533 AD.

    – Ps. Vigilius 484 AD. – Ansbert 660 AD.

    ii) Early Bible Versions: Old Syriac 170 AD.

    Old Latin 200 AD, in North Africa and Italy.
    Italic 4th and 5th century. – Italic – Monacensis 7th century.

    Italic – Speculum 9th century.
    Latin Vulgate 4th, 5th century.

    iii) Greek minuscule manuscripts:(UBS Greek NT, p.824; History of Debate over I John 5:7,8,p268).

    – 221 in the 10th century.(variant).
    – 88 in the 12th century.(margin).
    – 629 in the 14th century.(Ottobanianus)
    – 429 in the 14th century (margin).
    – 636 in the 15th century. (margin).
    – 61 in the 16th century.(Codex Montfortianus)
    – 918 in the 16th century. (an Escorial ms).
    – 2318 (a Bucharest manuscript).
    9

    iv) Early writings: Liber Apologeticus 350 AD. Council of Carthage 415 AD.

    v) Greek grammar rules demand its presence. NIV has mismatched genders in v. 7,8.

    Question 1: If the NIV is right in omitting the Johannine comma, then why do we have a masculine Greek article (oi) in v.7 (oi marturountes = that bear record in heaven) wrongly agreeing with three neuter nouns (Spirit, water and blood) in v.8?

    Spirit, water and blood are all neuter Greek nouns with neuter Greek articles, which would dictate a neuter Greek article in v.7, (if the Johannine comma was never in the
    original), but we have masculine articles (oi) in v.7,8. Why?

    Question 2: What is it that causes the masculine Greek article (oi) in v.7 and (oi) in v.8?

    Answer: It is the two masculine nouns (Father and Word) of the Johannine comma in v.7. These control the gender of the article connected with them to be a masculine article (oi) which is what we have.

    Hence the problem is solved if the Johannine comma is part of the Greek text.

    Therefore, the NIV and NWT have wrong Greek grammar by omitting the Johannine comma, as seen by them having a masculine article in verse 7 wrongly agreeing with
    three neuter nouns (Spirit, water and blood) in verse 8.

    Question 3: Why would the Johannine Comma be absent from some Greek manuscripts, but present in the Latin manuscripts?

    Firstly, because of a similar ending in v.7 and v.8, a scribe may have been distracted in v.7, but when resuming his copying, his eye fell on v.8 from where he continued copying, thus accidentally omitting the Johannine Comma.

    Copies of this would have multiplied the mistake.

    Secondly, between 220-270 AD, the heresy that Greek Christians were fighting was not Arianism (denying Christ’s deity) as this had not yet arisen, but Sabellianism (named after Sabellius) which taught that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were identical, and that God the Father died on the cross when Christ died on the cross. The statement in the Johannine comma that “these three are one” seemed to support the Sabellian heresy that
    the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are identical. If, during the course of this controversy, manuscripts were discovered which had accidentally lost the Johannine Comma as described above, it is easy to see how the orthodox party would consider these mutilated manuscripts to be the true text.

    In the Greek speaking east, where the struggle against Sabellianism was most intense, the Johannine comma came to be unanimously rejected.

    However, in the Latin manuscripts of Africa and Spain, where the influence of Sabellianism was not so great, the Johannine Comma was retained. This explains why the Johannine comma is strongly represented in the Latin manuscripts, and why we should retain it today.

    Source: “KJV defended”. E.F. Hills, p.204-208.

    Reply
    • 

      Jim on June 3, 2010 at 12:03 am

      Hi oggie,

      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

      Reply
    • 

      Jim on June 4, 2010 at 10:17 am

      Hi oggie,

      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

      Reply
14. 

    oggie on April 17, 2010 at 6:17 pm

    A great issue regarding the corruptedness by omissions of the Alexandrian texts:

    from: http://logosresourcepages.org/Versions/uncials.htm

    “There is one particular omission that made a real impact upon my mind, that I believe is important to beings into the picture at this point. Several years back I went to the British Museum, specifically to take a look at Sinaiticus. To my surprise I discovered that, while Mark 16:9-20 indeed was missing, it was clear to see that it had originally been there, but had been pumiced (erased) out. The space was still evident in the codex and the letters could faintly be seen.

    My point is, it was there originally. I could see it with my own eyes! It was at that point that I realized that the note in my New International Version – “The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20”, was not telling the whole story! In reality, the verses were originally there! I should be noted that the New Testament omits Matthew 16:2-3; John 5:5, John 8:1-11; Acts 8:37; Romans 16:24; 1 John 5:7 and about a dozen other entire verses. “The most significant fact regarding these MSS it that in both Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph, John 1:18 reads that Jesus was the only begotten “God” instead of the only begotten “Son.” God was not begotten at the incarnation! God begat his “only begotten son who, insofar as his deity is concerned, is eternal as we read in Micah 5:2. That is the original Arian heresy. The Arian heresy is believed by many to have resulted “from Origen’s editing the Greek manuscripts encountered in his travels and appears in Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus a which were derived from copying his work. (The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis by Floyd Jones; published by Global Evangelism 1998; p. 10).”

    Reply
15. 

    oggie on April 17, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    An extensive explicit explosive expose from

    http://www.libertybaptistchurch.org.au/bookstore/NIVOmissions.pdf

    such as this (quote):

    Question 6: How do we explain the Majority Text’s 98% domination
    of manuscripts?
    Answer: It must come from the originals. Hort disliked this, so he
    invented a theory that Lucian revised the New Testament text around 250
    AD.
    a) This theory has been abandoned as without any historical support.
    Note: The remaining 2% do not represent a single competing text form,
    but disagree more among themselves than they do with the Majority text.
    Those who reject the Majority Text are faced with a serious problem. If Lucian revised the
    originals to give the Majority Text, many people would have protested that he was
    changing the original.
    b) Yet no protest exists in history. Checking the Autographs was still possible in 250AD.
    Text history explains Majority manuscript accuracy and Minority manuscript mistakes.
    Pastor David L. Brown
    writes: “…I went to the
    British Museum, specifically
    to take a look at Sinaiticus.
    To my surprise I discovered
    that, while Mark 16:9-20
    indeed was missing, it was
    clear to see that it had
    originally been there, but had
    been pumiced (erased) out.
    The space was still evident in
    the codex and the letters
    could faintly be seen.”
    http://logosresourcepages.org/
    Versions/uncials.htm

    Reply
16. 

    oggie on April 10, 2010 at 2:06 pm

    Some more related FYI’s of the much maligned king who commissioned the AV translation:

    http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kinginde.htm

    Reply
17. 

    oggie on April 10, 2010 at 1:58 pm

    On the slanderous myth that has been used to discredit the quality and reliability of the KJV translation:

    http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjcoston.htm

    Reply
18. 

    Textus Teceptus on April 10, 2010 at 1:56 pm

    The statement ‘King James is homosexual” is fraudulent. see – http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjcoston.htm

    Reply
19. 

    oggie on April 8, 2010 at 8:10 pm

    The subtle and intentional mistranslations or adding or subtracting from the original words and meaning are like flies in the ointment, small they may be, but the effect can be so pervading. Even Christ said that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. Rat poison is like 99% sugar with only 1% poison. Heresies can be 99% truths but with 1% error. It only take a little virus to infiltrate, invade, and infect to give such deadly effects. This is so related to the mathematical concept of Chaos Theory that model natural phenomenon that can be seen even in many systems like economics, the weather, etc.:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

    Reply
20. 

    oggie on April 4, 2010 at 8:20 pm

    Corrected version (of typo error):

    King James, who was accused as a homosexual, was not among the brilliant translators of the KJV with such impeccable credentials. However, some translators of the NIV are apostate liberals, non-Trinitarian heretics, and one even a lesbian.

    Who has/have more significant influence on the quality and reliability of the translations: a king who commissioned a translation, or the translators whose credentials are so doubtful and questionable, particlarly in context to orthodox Christianity?

    A related video:

    http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/webseries/watch/v17470448spktxFkB

    Reply
21. 

    oggie on April 4, 2010 at 8:18 pm

    A related slogan from computer programming:

    GIGO = Garbage In, Garbage Out!

    If the intention of the translators would be to pervert and dilute the purity of God’s infallible words in the original as they translated, what kind of quality and reliability would the translation be???

    Reply
22. 

    oggie on December 24, 2009 at 5:38 pm

    Socrates said:

    “The unexamined life is not worth living.”

    which I may modify for our discussion:

    “The unexamined belief is not worth believing.”

    “The unexamined bible is not worth buying.”

    Reply
23. 

    oggie on December 24, 2009 at 5:36 pm

    Unless we pay only shallow lip service to the distinctive doctrinal Evangelical essential of the “sola scriptura”, or the final authority of scriptures over the believers’ doctrines and deeds, beliefs and behaviors, attitudes and actions, principles and practices, we won’t be that deadly serious as to the reliability of our scriptural sources, translations, hermeneutics, homilitics, interpretation, etc… because we’ll only have the flippant attitude that all types of scriptures and translations are all of equal value and worth.

    If the bible said:

    Proverbs 30:5
    EVERY WORD of God [is] pure: he [is] a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

    Matthew 4:4
    But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

    Matthew 18:16
    But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses EVERY WORD may be established.

    Luke 4:4
    And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD of God.

    then shouldn’t the quality, reliability, transferability of our scriptural sources, translations, hermeneutics, homilitics, interpretation, etc… be taken seriously?

    So, the big question would be:

    WHICH REALLY REPRESENT(S) THE TRUE, SURE, AND RELIABLE WORDS OF GOD??

    Reply
24. 

    oggie on December 24, 2009 at 1:17 pm

    Maybe, we should adopt the attitudes and actions of the Berean Bible Believers, who would always check and balance anybody else’s teachings and preachings, be they coming from pastors, prophets, people of God, etc… against biblical revelation, and do discern if a teaching or preaching is really either from the infallible words of the infallible God or from the fallible words of fallible man.

    Or, adopt Pauline apologetics and rhetorics as given by:

    http://www.thebereancall.org/node/6797

    Reply
25. 

    oggie on December 24, 2009 at 1:08 pm

    If you would really seriously study all pertinent aspects and all persuasive perspectives of this very divisive issue, you can understand my “Textus Receptus Only” (so much different from the “King James Only”!!!) kind of conviction.

    Understanding one another does not always mean each one can agree with one another. Each has his/her own freedom of beliefs, freedom of conscience, etc… that each one should respect, but not impose their own version or ideology on others … Such is the legacy of the Reformation — to question even the authoritarian authorities. The Baptist legacy of constitutional democracy and egalitarianism enshrines this freedom in the constitutions in every democratic governments. Popes, priests, pastors, profits, politicians are not infallible so as to protect this freedom without abusing their God-ordained powers and authorities. As one British parliamentarian said:

    “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

    This is so much related to this issue:

    http://www.mtc.org/inquis.html

    which is also related to this issue

    http://www.mtc.org/bishop_s.html

    I am not forcing other people to believe what I believe, just I won’t let other people force me to believe what they believe!

    “Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God”.
    — Thomas Jefferson

    “Obedience to tyrants is rebellion against God.”
    — Oggie

    Reply
26. 

    Michael Janapin on December 2, 2009 at 2:24 pm

    Here’s a good read:
    http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/tabor_357913.shtml

    P.S.
    Nung march 2008 lang ako naka-gradweyt. Hehehe…
    .-= Michael Janapin´s last blog ..The Desktop Challenge =-.

    Reply
27. 

    Michael Janapin on December 2, 2009 at 6:45 am

    Never thought this was a very well-discussed issue by the lone poster Oggie. 🙂

    Anyway, all translations are interpretations. And according to my favorite professor here in the seminary,
    “traduttore, traditore.”

    Reply
    • 

      Ptr. Vince on December 2, 2009 at 7:30 am

      Dr. Oggie claims to be “Textus Receptus” adherent and not by any other translations. Perhaps you can share your ideas here since you are almost a Doctor now.:) (Or doctor ka na ba?).
      .-= Ptr. Vince´s last blog ..Alas Bro. Eddie Villanueva Filed His COC for 2010 Elections =-.

      Reply
28. 

    oggie on November 1, 2009 at 5:30 pm

    On the translators of the modern versions of the English Bibles:

    from: http://watch-unto-prayer.org/revision.html

    BIBLE REVISION IN ENGLAND

    1851 – B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort found the Cambridge University Ghost Society, one of the early pioneers of modern Spiritualist inquiry:

    “In 1851 was founded at Cambridge a Society to ‘conduct a serious and earnest inquiry into the nature of the phenomena vaguely called supernatural,’ and a number of distinguished persons became members.” [Alan Gauld, The Founders of Psychical Research, NY:Schocken Books, 1968, p. 66]

    Cambridge Ghost Society was parent of the Society for Psychical Research, which was directed by Henry Sidgwick, the husband of Eleanor Balfour, who was the sister of Arthur Balfour.

    “Among the numerous persons and groups who in the middle of the nineteenth century were making enquiries into psychical occurrences may be mentioned a society from which our own can claim direct descent. In the Life of Edward White Benson, Archbishop of Canterbury, by his son, A. C. Benson, will be found, under the year 1851-2, the following paragraph:

    “‘Among my father’s diversions at Cambridge was the foundation of a ‘Ghost Society,’ the forerunner of the Psychical Society [meaning the S.P.R.] for the investigation of the supernatural. Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort were among the members. He was then, as always, more interested in psychical phenomena than he cared to admit.’

    “Lightfoot and Westcott both became bishops, and Hort Professor of Divinity. The S.P.R. has hardly lived up to the standard of ecclesiastical eminence set by the parent society.” [brackets in original] [W.H. Salter, The Society For Psychical Research: An Outline of its History, London, 1948, pp. 5,6]

    Fenton John Antony Hort joined the Cambridge Company of the Apostles.

    “…[F.J.A. Hort] found time to attend the meetings of various [Cambridge] societies and in June joined the mysterious Company of the Apostles… He remained always a grateful and loyal member of the secret Club, which has now become famous for the number of distinguished men who have belonged to it. In his time the Club was in a manner reinvigorated, and he was mainly responsible for the wording of an oath which binds members to a conspiracy of silence. ” (Alan Gauld, The Founders of Psychical Research, NY: Schocken Books, 1968, pp. 317, 49)

    “(The) Apostles had hoped that developments in the social sciences would before long make possible an equitable and frictionless society…” (Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p. 170)

    1853 – B.F.Westcott and F.J.A. Hort begin New Greek Testament based on Alexandrian manuscripts.

    “In 1853 Hort began to devote himself more definitely to work on the lines recently laid down for himself. . . It was during these weeks, in the course of a walk with Mr. Westcott, who had come to see him at Umberslade, that the plan of a joint revision of the text of the Greek New Testament was first definitely agreed upon. . . About this time Mr. Daniel Macmillan suggested to him that he should take part in an interesting and comprehensive ‘New Testament Scheme.’ Hort was to edit the text in conjunction with Mr. Westcott; the latter was to be responsible for a commentary, and Lightfoot was to contribute a New Testament Grammar and Lexicon.” [Arthur Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Volume I, London: Macmillan and Co., 1896, pp. 239-40]

    April 19, 1853 letter to Rev. John Ellerton: “One result of our talk I may as well tell you. He (Westcott) and I are going to edit a Greek text of the New Testament some two or three years hence, if possible. Lachmann and Tischendorf will supply rich materials, but not nearly enough; and we hope to do a good deal with Oriental versions. Our object is to supply clergymen generally, schools, etc., with a portable Greek text which shall not be disfigured with Byzantine corruptions.” [Ibid., p. 250]

    Reply
29. 

    oggie on October 30, 2009 at 6:00 pm

    Was King James a Homosexual?

    from: http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/james-h.html

    There is absolutely no legitimate historical evidence to indicate that he was.

    The same critics who decry examinations of the lives of Westcott and Hort as ad hominem attacks gleefully slander King James and by association deride the Bible translation that now bears his name. First, we must note that whereas Westcott and Hort are directly responsible for modern textual criticism theory and practice, having a major impact on translations employing their methods, King James did not have such influence on the AV.

    Second, the charge itself is slanderous and false. The historical basis for the charge is based on non-eye witness claims of enemies of King James who resented a Scott being on the throne of England. Modern scholars who continue to perpetuate this lie find themselves quoting modern homosexual authors with a clear agenda to promote, and betray their monumental ignorance of historical context of writings and customs. These same “historians” would cite 1 Sam. 18 as proof that David and Jonathan had sexual relations.

    Further, an examination of King James’ numerous extant writings show him to be a true man and father; in deep love with his wife. For complete and detailed research on this issue, I refer you to the book King James VI of Scotland & I of England, Unjustly Accused?, by Stephen A. Coston, which goes in to exhaustive detail on the matter.

    Related Articles: Erasmus, King James, and His Translators (2/3)

    The following is from Sam Gipp’s The Answer Book.

    QUESTION 3: I have been told that King James was a homosexual. Is this true?

    ANSWER: No.

    EXPLANATION: King James I of England, who authorized the translation of the now famous King James Bible, was considered by many to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, monarchs that England has ever seen.

    Through his wisdom and determination he united the warring tribes of Scotland into a unified nation, and then joined England and Scotland to form the foundation for what is now known as the British Empire.

    At a time when only the churches of England possessed the Bible in English, King James’ desire was that the common people should have the Bible in their native tongue. Thus, in 1603, King James called 54 of history’s most learned men together to accomplish this great task. At a time when the leaders of the world wished to keep their subjects in spiritual ignorance, King James offered his subjects the greatest gift that he could give them. Their own copy of the word of God in English.

    James, who was fluent in Latin, Greek, and French, and schooled in Italian and Spanish, even wrote a tract entitled “Counterblast to Tobacco,” which was written to help thwart the use of tobacco in England.

    Such a man was sure to have enemies. One such man, Anthony Weldon, had to be excluded from the court. Weldon swore vengeance. It was not until 1650, twenty-five years after the death of James, that Weldon saw his chance. He wrote a paper calling James a homosexual. Obviously, James, being dead, was in no condition to defend himself.

    The report was largely ignored since there were still enough people alive who knew it wasn’t true. In fact, it lay dormant for years, until recently when it was picked up by Christians who hoped that vilifying King James would tarnish the Bible that bears his name so that Christians would turn away from God’s book to a more “modern” translation.

    It seems, though, that Weldon’s false account is being once again largely ignored by the majority of Christianity with the exception of those with an ulterior motive, such as its author had.

    It might also be mentioned here that the Roman Catholic Church was so desperate to keep the true Bible out of the hands of the English people that it attempted to kill King James and all of Parliament in 1605.

    In 1605 a Roman Catholic by the name of Guy Fawkes, under the direction of a Jesuit priest by the name of Henry Garnet, was found in the basement of Parliament with thirty-six barrels of gunpowder which he was to use to blow up King James and the entire Parliament. After killing the king, they planned on imprisoning his children, re- establishing England as a state loyal to the Pope and kill all who resisted. Needless to say, the perfect English Bible would have been one of the plot’s victims. Fawkes and Garnet and eight other conspirators were caught and hanged.

    It seems that those who work so hard to discredit the character of King James join an unholy lot.

    Reply
30. 

    oggie on October 30, 2009 at 2:44 pm

    Also from:

    http://watch.pair.com/church-on-trial.html

    THE SUBJECTS

    Ø IF THERE WAS A PLAN TO CORRUPT THE SCRIPTURES,
    WHAT WERE THE TARGETED DOCTRINES?

    · All Bible corruptions are concerned with the
    doctrine of Christ.

    “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.” – 2 John 1:9

    · The most serious deception is that none of the changes affect Bible doctrine. The truth is that any word changes in Scripture affect Bible doctrine.

    “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: “ – 2 Tim. 3:16

    § Sound doctrine can only be based on sound words.

    “Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.” – 2 Tim. 1:13

    “Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.” – Titus 1:9

    o “sound”

    Strong’s Dictionary #5918 – “true”

    Greek Lexicon – “pure, uncorrupted”

    o “gainsayers”

    Strong’s Concodance #483 – means “deniers”

    o “deny”

    Strong’s Concordance #720 – “to contradict or disavow”

    Lexicon – “disclaim”

    Thesaurus – “gainsay”

    Dictionary – “to withhold something from, to refuse to recognize of acknowledge”

    · God has given the following Scripture verses to help discern true readings from corrupted readings (textual criticism).

    * As the Pharisees and Sadducees denied certain points of doctrine pertaining to Jesus Christ, so also do the modern versions. Most Bible corruptions are concerned with diminishing or denying these specific doctrines:

    DOCTRINE OF CHRIST

    SECTION 12 Jesus is Christ (1 John 2:22-23)
    3.A Jesus is God’s Son (1 John 2:22-23)
    3.B Jesus is the Lord God (Jude 4)
    2.A, 2.C Jesus is God the Son Incarnate (1 John 4:3)
    2.A Jesus has all of the divine attributes
    (Acts 3:14)
    3.A Jesus’ Name (Rev. 3:8)
    2.A, 3.B Jesus’ Word (2 Peter 2:2)
    1.A Jesus’ Substitutionary Atonement
    (2 Peter 2:1)
    3.C, 7.A Jesus was indwelt by Holy Spirit
    (Matt. 12:31)
    2.A, 3.A Jesus’ Bodily Resurrection (Acts 23:8)
    3.D Jesus’ Angels (Acts 23:8)
    5 Jesus’ definition of Sin (1 Tim 6:3)
    6 Jesus’ Church (Acts 8:1)
    6, 8 Jesus’ Second Coming/Millennial Reign
    (2 Peter 3:3-4)

    Reply
31. 

    oggie on October 30, 2009 at 2:36 pm

    from an extensive expose at:

    http://watch.pair.com/church-on-trial.html

    we get this:

    THE SCRIPTURES

    Ø ARE THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS STILL IN EXISTENCE?

    * No.

    Ø HOW MANY GREEK MANUSCRIPT LINES ARE THERE UNDERLYING ALL OF THE THE BIBLE VERSIONS?

    * Two

    § Antiochian (from Antioch, Syria)
    § Alexandrian (from Alexandria, Egypt)

    Ø HOW MANY GREEK MANUSCRIPTS FORMED THE BASIS FOR THESE TWO GREEK LINES?

    * Two

    § Antiochian/Byzantine
    § Alexandrian

    There are over 3,000 Antiochian manuscripts as opposed to only 3 Alexandrian manuscripts.

    “In the 300 years since the publication of the first printed Greek text (which came to be known as the ‘Textus Receptus’), a large number of New Testament manuscripts have come to light. By 1968 a total of 3,112 manuscripts of the New Testament in Greek were listed by Kurt Aland. The overwhelming number of these manuscripts are in agreement with the Textus Receptus, as are lectionaries, versions and many patristic writings.” – Robert Sargent, Landmarks of English Bible Manuscript Evidence (199:173)

    Ø HOW CAN WE TELL THE TRUE MANUSCRIPT LINE FROM THE FALSE LINE?

    · True manuscript line
    § Many copies extant.
    § Copies agree with each other.
    § There were thousands of Greek mss.
    which formed the Antioch line.

    “The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it.” – Psalm 68:11

    · False manuscript line
    § Few manuscripts extant
    § Only three Greek manuscripts formed
    the Alexandrian line.
    § Alexandrian mss. do not agree with each other . (Mark 14:55-56)

    “And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none. For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together.” – Mark 14:55-56

    Reply
32. 

    oggie on October 20, 2009 at 7:23 pm

    This part from the excerpt on the NIV is very revealing:

    Other findings provide convincing evidence that the hidden agenda of the NIV is to alter Bible doctrine. The NIV has 64,098 or 10% fewer words than the King James Version. 62. Careful comparison of Scripture verses, such as those found in the Tables, reveals that these omissions are not random, but selective. Most incredible was the appointment of a homosexual, Dr. Marten Woudstra, as Chairman of the Old Testament Committee of the NIV Committee on Bible Translation 63., and the retainer as a consultant of a lesbian and feminist, Dr. Virginia Mollenkott. 64.

    Reply
33. 

    oggie on October 20, 2009 at 7:19 pm

    Excerpt from: http://watch.pair.com/another.html

    The New International Version

    The NIV Story, by Burton Goddard, describes the eclectic method used by the NIV joint committee for this contemporary translation. Webster’s New World Dictionary defines “eclectic” as: “to select, to pick out, to choose – 1. selecting from various systems, doctrines or sources; 2. composed of material gathered from various sources or systems.” According to Goddard, the members of the committee chose not to confine themselves to one printed text of ancient or modern writings, but to privately determine, based on their evidence, what readings are true or genuine. In addition to its primary selections, the NIV committee decided to include alternative readings in footnote form to acquaint the reader with other interpretations. And in some extended portions of Scripture, liberty was taken to introduce verses not well-attested by manuscript evidence. 56.

    Although NIV apologists claim that the eclectic method was used in translation, editors of this version have shown in their other writings a preference for the Westcott and Hort Aleph and B manuscripts. 57. In NIV passages that do not involve fundamental doctrinal issues, the editors used Majority Text readings. This was necessary in order to comply with copyright regulations, which require that new versions contain a larger portion of the Traditional Text in order to be classified as “Bibles.” However, in selected verses containing essential doctrine, “They used random minority text type readings when an opportunity arose to present New Age philosophy or demote God or Christ.” 58.

    It seems that the New International Version was translated without much theological restraint in order to convey the private interpretations of men and to appeal to, or not offend, a variety of religious sects. According to one NIV editor, I John 5:7 is “the strongest statement in the KJV on the Trinity.” 59. Yet its omission from this new version reflects its prior omission from the New Greek Text, by F.J.A. Hort’s design. 60. This revision, along with many others of doctrinal importance, probably accounts for the broad application of the Westcott-Hort New Greek Text. Few Christians realize that the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witness cult is based upon this same corrupted text which underlies the NIV and all other modern translations. 61.

    Other findings provide convincing evidence that the hidden agenda of the NIV is to alter Bible doctrine. The NIV has 64,098 or 10% fewer words than the King James Version. 62. Careful comparison of Scripture verses, such as those found in the Tables, reveals that these omissions are not random, but selective. Most incredible was the appointment of a homosexual, Dr. Marten Woudstra, as Chairman of the Old Testament Committee of the NIV Committee on Bible Translation 63., and the retainer as a consultant of a lesbian and feminist, Dr. Virginia Mollenkott. 64.

    Reply
34. 

    oggie on October 20, 2009 at 7:06 pm

    Continuation of the New Greek Text of Westcott and Hort:

    from: http://watch.pair.com/another.html

    Lachmann’s theories laid the foundation for the German school of higher criticism which rejected the authenticity of the Gospels, particularly the miracles, and also the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith. The widespread acceptance of Lachmann’s work furnished the critical authority for Drs. Westcott and Hort in their formulation of a method of Textual Criticism, known as the Westcott and Hort Textual Theory. Drs. Westcott and Hort hypothesized that that the original New Testament text had survived in near perfect condition in two manuscripts other than the Received Greek Text and that the early church used these manuscripts to edit the Textus Receptus. The Westcott-Hort Theory, which maintains that the true text of Scripture was lost by the true Church for approximately 1600 years, has since been discredited for lack of historical evidence. 46.

    Constantin Tischendorf (1815-74) was a German textual editor whom Dr. Frederick Scrivener of the English Revision Committee ranked “the first Bible Critic in Europe.” Tischendorf traveled extensively in search of ancient documents and was responsible for finding the two manuscripts most relied upon in the Westcott-Hort Greek Text, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Tischendorf discovered (c. A.D. 1844) the Vaticanus B manuscript in the Vatican Library and Sinaiticus Aleph in a waste basket in a Catholic convent at the base of Mt. Sinai. 47. Psalm 108:5 promises that God will preserve His Word “unto a thousand generations.” For this reason, He would never allow it to be suppressed or withheld from His people as the Roman Catholic hierarchy did for 1400 years. It is reasonable to assume that God removed these manuscripts from circulation because they were not His Word.

    Westcott and Hort used the Codex Vaticanus (B) and the Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) manuscripts as the basis for their New Testament Greek Text, which in turn was the basis for the 1881 text adopted by the ERV revisers. 48. Dean John Burgon, the brilliant textual scholar and Anglican clergyman who led the opposition to the English revision, described for his English readers the corrupt character of the manuscripts primarily used by Westcott and Hort – not to revise the Textus Receptus – but to create an altogether new Greek Text.

    “It matters nothing that all four are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant MSS, besides, but even from one another. This last circumstance, obviously fatal to their corporate pretensions, is unaccountably overlooked. And yet it admits of only one satisfactory explanation: viz. That in different degrees they all five exhibit a fabricated text… We venture to assure [the reader] without a particle of hesitation, that Aleph, B, D, are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant: – exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with: – have become, by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of Truth, – which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of God.” 49.

    Reply
35. 

    oggie on October 20, 2009 at 7:03 pm

    On the basis of the modern translations’ questionable quality and reliability:

    Excerpt from: http://watch.pair.com/another.html

    THE NEW GREEK TEXT

    In 1853, F.J.A. Hort and B.F. Westcott, who later became an Anglican bishop, proceeded to create, not a revision, but an altogether New Greek Text of the New Testament. 42. According to Dr. Hort, their intention was to radically alter the Traditional or Majority Text for future generations. “Our object is to supply clergymen generally, schools, etc., with a portable Greek Text which shall not be disfigured with Byzantine corruptions.” 43. The correction of “Byzantine corruptions” by Hort and Westcott was, in fact, the substitution of corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts for the Textus Receptus which underlies the Authorised Version – the text which agrees with the majority of manuscripts extant today.

    Wrote Dr. Hort: “He (Westcott) and I are going to edit a Greek text of the New Testament some two or three years hence, if possible. Lachmann and Tischendorf will supply rich materials, but not nearly enough; and we hope to do a good deal with Oriental versions.” 44. Karl Lachmann (1793-1851) was professor of Classical and German Philology in Berlin, and also a German rationalist and textual critic who produced modern editions of the New Testament in Germany in 1842 and 1850. Lachmann began to apply to the New Testament Greek text the same rules that he had used in editing texts of the Greek classics which had been radically altered over the years. Having also set up a series of several presuppositions and rules which he used for arriving at the original text of the Greek classics, he then began with these same presuppositions and rules to correct the New Testament which he assumed was hopelessly corrupted. 45.

    Reply
36. 

    oggie on October 20, 2009 at 6:55 pm

    On the qualifications of the KJV translators:

    Excerpt from: http://watch.pair.com/another.html

    Rev. Terence H. Brown, formerly Secretary of the Trinitarian Bible Society of London wrote of the fifty-four translators of the KJV:

    “No reasonable person imagines that the translators were infallible or that their work was perfect, but no one acquainted with the facts can deny that they were men of outstanding scholarship, well qualified for their important work, or that with God’s blessing they completed their great task with scrupulous care and fidelity… They were indeed ‘learned men’ – and their scholarship was recompensed by a deep conviction of the divine origin of the records which they were translating. Learning and faith went hand in hand to open the storehouse of God’s word of truth for the spiritual enrichment of millions from generation to generation, over a period of more than three hundred years.” 15.

    The Translators’ Preface to the 1611 AV describes the intent of the translators, their method of translation and presents much valuable background information. 16. Unfortunately, the Preface has been removed from King James Bibles for the past one hundred years which has given rise to the Ruckmanite Heresy that the KJV is superior to the Greek Textus Receptus. For this reason, manuscript scholar Professor Edgar J. Goodspeed wrote a Thesis on the Preface and endeavored during his lifetime to restore the Preface to the King James Bible, but to no avail. 17.

    Reply
37. 

    oggie on October 20, 2009 at 6:40 pm

    Excerpt from: http://watch.pair.com/another.html

    Origen produced a six-column Bible, the Hexapla, which he subtly permeated with Gnostic doctrine. Diocletian (302-312), the last in an unbroken line of pagan emperors, had furiously sought to destroy the Christian sect and pursued every copy of the Scriptures to destroy them also. Constantine succeeded him as Roman emperor and, desiring to bring peace to the Roman Empire, commissioned a Bible which would facilitate the amalgamation of pagan religion and Christianity. “Quite naturally he preferred the one edited by Eusebius and written by Origen, the outstanding intellectual figure that had combined Christianity with Gnosticism in his philosophy, even as Constantine himself was the political genius that was seeking to unite Christianity with pagan Rome… Eusebius in publishing the Bible ordered by Constantine, had incorporated the manuscripts of Origen… The Church of Rome built on the Eusebio-Origen type of Bible.” 6.

    Origen had been pronounced a heretic by a number of general synods in the early Church period. The Church also recognized that the Alexandrian manuscripts produced by Origen had altered the Apostles’ doctrine and rejected them as heretical. Early Christians chose not to use them and they were abandoned in Rome in 500 A.D. However, Origen’s influence extended to the Roman Catholic religion during the Middle Ages: “One of the greatest results of his life was that his teachings became the foundation of that system of education called Scholasticism, which guided the colleges of Latin Europe for nearly one thousand years during the Dark Ages. Origenism flooded the Catholic Church through Jerome. ‘I love…the name of Origen,’ said the most distinguished theologian of the Roman Catholic Church since 1850. [John Henry Newman]” 7.

    Reply
38. 

    oggie on October 20, 2009 at 6:39 pm

    Together with his disciple, Eusebius, the heretical Origen was the origin of the corrupted bibles, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, from which all modern translations have been based, such as NIV, RV, RSV, ASV, NASV, etc….

    Reply
39. 

    oggie on October 18, 2009 at 6:01 pm

    from: http://www.thebereancall.org/node/2565

    When challenged about its lies, Stan Gundry, Zondervan’s Vice President and Editor-in-Chief responded, “The purpose of the rewriting was…to give a more balanced portrayal of the history of Christianity.” Whitewashing Roman Catholic doctrine and practice and leaving out the slaughter of millions of Christians gives a “more balanced” history?! And who owns Zondervan, publisher of The Purpose-Driven Life?

    In 1988, Zondervan and its NIV Bible were purchased by Harper & Row Publishers (now HarperCollins Publishers), who put out pro-homosexual books such as Making Out, The Book of Lesbian Sex and Sexuality (“Beautifully illustrated with full-color photography…”) and others! HarperCollins is a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch’s The News Corporation which owns Twentieth Century Fox and Fox Broadcasting. The latter produces some of the most immoral, anti-family shows on television. Murdoch—to whom Pat Robertson sold the Family Channel (paid for by CBN donors) for $1.9 billion—was knighted by the Pope after donating $10 million for a new Catholic cathedral in Los Angeles. And Rick Warren claims to be Murdoch’s pastor.

    Christian publishers have put profits ahead of sound doctrine and have made a lot of money by giving customers what they want instead of the biblical truth they need, selling out to the world monetarily as they already had morally. Isn’t this the opposite of contending for the faith?

    Reply
40. 

    oggie on October 18, 2009 at 5:44 pm

    When lip service about the importance of sound doctrine from sound sources (e.g., good translation), we can get this:

    from: http://www.thebereancall.org/node/5958

    Brian McLaren, the most prominent of the emergent leaders, echoes Bell’s “doctrine” of avoidance regarding what the Bible says about homosexuality:

    “Perhaps we need a five-year moratorium on making [doctrinal] pronouncements. In the meantime, we’ll practice prayerful Christian dialogue, listening respectfully, disagreeing agreeably. When decisions need to be made, they’ll be admittedly provisional. We’ll keep our ears attuned to scholars in biblical studies, theology, ethics, psychology, genetics, sociology, and related fields. Then in five years, if we have clarity, we’ll speak; if not, we’ll set another five years for ongoing reflection.”

    Reply
41. 

    oggie on October 18, 2009 at 5:39 pm

    Considering modern translations coming from the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as of equal quality, value, and reliability with the translations coming from the Textus Receptus only gives lip service to the importance of God’s Word while undermining its inerrancy, authority, and sufficiency.

    Reply
42. 

    oggie on October 18, 2009 at 4:25 pm

    FROM: http://www.thebereancall.org/node/7266

    Question: We are in urgent need of information for our church family concerning the Bible paraphrase by Eugene Peterson: The Message published by NavPress….I do not believe that The Message is a good translation…yet it is promoted by Promise Keepers as well as other “big, trusted” names in the Christian world. We are many here in our town who hope to be able to obtain a brochure or a position paper concerning this paraphrase.

    Response: Unfortunately, the errors in this paraphrase (it’s not a translation) are numerous and serious. The Message cannot be relied upon to tell the truth and, in fact, is dangerously misleading. If Promise Keepers endorses it, that is one more mark against that organization.

    Let me give you only a few examples. John 1:1 actually says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The Message renders it, “The Word was first, the Word present to God, God present to the Word. The Word was God, in readiness for God from day one.” That garbling is an improvement?! It is confusing at best and misleading at worst, changing the meaning. “In the beginning was the Word” is changed to “The Word was first.” First before God? And what does “in readiness for God” mean? In verse 5, “the darkness comprehended it not” is rendered, “the darkness couldn’t put it out,” changing the meaning entirely.

    In verse 14, “full of grace” becomes “Generous inside and out,” while “truth” becomes “true from start to finish.” “Generous” and “grace” do not mean the same, nor does “true from start to finish” convey the rich meaning of Christ being “full of truth.” In verse 29, “which taketh away the sin of the world” becomes “He forgives the sins of the world.” There is a world of difference between taking away the sin of the world by paying the debt mankind owed, and forgiving sins! In John 3:5, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit” becomes, “unless a person submits to this original creation—the ‘wind hovering over the water’ creation, the invisible moving the visible, a baptism into a new life,” again obscuring, complicating, and changing the true meaning. In 3:17, “but that the world through him might be saved” becomes “He came to help, to put the world right again,” a destructive change in the meaning.

    “Saved” means to be redeemed, rescued from the judgment we deserve for our sins; whereas “to help, to put the world right again” sounds like social or political reformation. In verse 36, “the wrath of God abideth on him” becomes, “All he experiences of God is darkness, and an angry darkness at that.” How can anyone experience darkness from God, when 1 John 1:5 says of God, “in him is no darkness at all”? Serious error is added to serious error!

    In 1 Corinthians 1:17, “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel” is perverted to read, “God didn’t send me out to collect a following for myself but to preach the Message.” It is important that Paul, a former rabbi, is a follower of Christ—The Message says “of God.” The main point Paul makes is that baptism is not part of the gospel—The Message misses that completely. “Lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect” is changed to “…lest the powerful action at the center—Christ on the Cross—be trivialized into mere words.” There is a vast difference between the eternal effect of “the cross of Christ” as the Bible states it and “Christ on the Cross” as The Message puts it and Catholicism depicts it. Christ is not on the cross; the work is finished! In verse 30, “sanctification, and redemption” is changed to read “a clean slate and a fresh start”—both trivializing and misleading. In Hebrews 11:1, “the substance of things hoped for” becomes “the firm foundation under everything that makes life worth living,” a totally different meaning, with hope for eternity expunged. In verse 4, regarding the lamb, which speaks of Christ, the “more excellent sacrifice” offered by Abel, the comment is interjected, “It was what he believed, not what he brought, that made the difference.” On the contrary, the sacrifice he brought was important to his belief, and without the proper sacrifice there could be no forgiveness no matter what was believed.

    In verse 7, “became heir of the righteousness which is by faith” is changed to “became intimate with God,” again an entirely different meaning which leaves out the vital phrase “righteousness which is by faith.” In verse 16, “God is not ashamed to be called their God” is twisted into “God is so proud of them.” Never! Attributing the human evil of pride to God is blasphemy and leaves the dangerous impression that if God is proud then it isn’t so bad for man to be proud as well.

    In verse 35, “that they might obtain a better resurrection” becomes “preferring something better: resurrection.” Again the meaning is changed completely. It makes it sound as though resurrection is dependent upon good works. It was not a question of whether they would be resurrected, but of the reward they would receive in the Resurrection.

    These are only a few among many errors, some extremely serious. It is appalling that any mere man would change or ignore the meaning of God’s Word under the vain delusion that he could improve upon what God has said and the way He has said it! It is even more appalling that a leading evangelical publisher would publish this blasphemy, Christian bookstores would sell it, and Christian leaders would praise instead of denounce this perversion!

    Reply
43. 

    oggie on October 18, 2009 at 2:38 pm

    For those translations of liberals that belittle the deity of Christ, Jude is very clear in:

    Jude 1:4
    For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this CONDEMNATION, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

    Reply
44. 

    oggie on October 18, 2009 at 2:12 pm

    from: http://www.thebereancall.org/node/2427

    ronically, our day is seeing more Christian media and entertainment, and more Bibles of every sort. Yet, the result is a corruption of God’s truth because there is no heart for sound biblical doctrine, especially since marketing departments are now leading the way! At best, the evangelical church in the U.S. reflects the lukewarmness of the Laodiceans (Revelation 3:14-17): rich and increased with experiential goods that can only yield shallow Christians; at worst, it has become a willing contributor to the end-times delusion.

    Yet even in the face of so troubling a situation, we have reason to be both encouraged and fruitful, that is, if we will obey Paul’s inspired exhortation: “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee [from the growing apostasy]” (1 Timothy 4:16). Let us pray for one another to that end.

    Reply
45. 

    oggie on October 18, 2009 at 12:31 pm

    If people would just be only giving flippant lip service to the issue of the quality and reliability of bible translations, then they would just obviously give an “I-don’t-care” and “no big deal” attitude to the implications and impacts of a questionable translation.

    If they think that believing a truncated version that denigrates the essentials doctrines of the faith (e.g., solo Christo, sola fide, sola gratia, sola scriptura, and solo Deo gloria) so obviously done by modern translations with liberal biases based on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, particularly on the deity and humanity of Christ as not a big deal, then they are so entitled to their own fixated biases for what they believe. Even God respects the choices of man, and no one can take away his freedom of choice. The chooser is accountable to the consequences of his choices.

    Reply
46. 

    oggie on October 18, 2009 at 12:19 pm

    A clearer expose on the issue:

    from: http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/king.htm

    The Bible always calls for choices (Josh. 24:15); this is also true in reading a Bible translation. You must choose which one you will read. Do so, not by what men say, but by the Word of God.

    Christ must have preeminence in all things (Colossians. 1.18). This includes translations of the Bible. The Bible that God honors is the Bible that honors God!

    WHICH REALLY HONORS GOD AND CHRIST???

    The King James Controversy:
    A Biblical View

    Ps. 12:6
    The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

    Ps. 12:7
    Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
    Dear Friends,

    Of late there I’ve been an onslaught of material published concerning the issue of which translation is best, or which one is the inerrant word of God. Of the two camps (one camp supporting modern translations, the other supporting the King James Bible), two things are abundantly clear. First, the view in favor of modern translations bases its view solely on the wisdom, intellect, and textual findings of man. Second, the view supporting the King James Bible does so not only by bringing to light factual evidence which underlines the majority of manuscripts, but also establishes its points on a scriptural basis.

    This is quite clear in a recent publication by Dr. John MacArthur entitled “The Biblical Position On The KJV Controversy”. In this 30 Page booklet, Dr. MacArthur does everything except. present the Biblical position on the King Jams controversy. Not one Scripture is ever given to support his position in favor of modern translations. The only time Scripture is ever used It to try to show some “errors” in the King James Bible. Such are the attacks by the higher and lower critics who set In judgment of God’s holy word.

    Therefore, I felt the need to present the Biblical view of this controversy. No point is presented by man’s wisdom, intellect or textual theory. All points are underlined and fortified by God’s word. When we state that the Bible is infallible and without error, we mean what we say- not, as the modern Translators believe, that the Bible was infallible but through the process of time has lost its infallibility.

    This paper is presented in outline form and gives only a brief survey of the issue at hand. It is dedicated to the living Word, my Saviour Jesus Christ. If but one person reads it and begins to believe God’s every word (Matthew 4:4), it will have been a job well done.

    ‘But speaking the truth in love, …’ —Ephesians 4:15

    A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE BIBLE ISSUE:
    I. A Biblical Starting Point.

    “So then faith cometh by hearings and hearing by the word of God.” —Rom. 10:17

    A. The Starting point for this issue must be Scripture! “…let God be true, but every man a liar;” —Rom. 3:4

    1. God’s word is infallible, without error (John 17:17; Acts l:3). In His infallible word, God promises to keep His words (note: W-0-R-D-S, not messages). Not one word was to be in error.

    “The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, 0 Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” —Psalm 12:6-7

    For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” —Matt. 5:18

    “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” —Matt. 24:35

    “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” —I Peter 1:23

    2. Man was not to add to or take from God’s word (Deuteronomy 4:2; Prov. 30:6; Revelation 22:18).

    3. Therefore, the keeping of God’s word is God’s job, not fallible man’s.

    “…Thou shalt keep them, 0 Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” —Psalm 12:7

    4. This was the view of the translators of the King James Bible (KJB).

    Note how they concluded their preface to the A.V. 1611:

    “…we commend thee to God, and to the Spirit of His grace, which is able to build further than we can ask or think. He removeth the scales from our eyes, the veil from our hearts, opening our wits that we may understand His word, enlarging our hearts, yea, correcting our affections, that we may love it above gold and silver, that we may love it to the end.” (See enclosed information, “Appendix 2”)

    If you start with Scripture, your finishing point is confidence in God’s word.

    “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.” —I Thess. 2:13

    B. The starting point of modern translations.

    1. First the student must study Hebrew and Greek.

    2. Second he must learn the major points of textual criticism.

    3. Then he makes a translation of the Bible, presents it to a translational board for review and revision by scholars.

    4. The outcome is a reliable translation, but not one free of error. Note how the preface to the New International Version (NIV) reads:

    “Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by imperfect man, this one undoubtedly falls short of its goals.”

    5. This view is also seen in the statement of Dr. William Shedd:

    “Why did not God Inspire the copyists as well as the original authors? Why did He begin with ABSOLUTE inerrancy and end with RELATIVE inerrancy?”

    Psalm 118:8— “It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man.”

    II. The Question of Final Authority.

    A. If you have two authorities and they differ, you need a third authority to tell you which one is correct. (Such as in the courtroom). The same is true of translations. If the KJB says one thing and the NASV (New American Standard Version) says something else, you need a third authority to tell you which one is right (such as a pastor, teacher, scholar, etc.). When you do, then they become your final authority, not the Bible (Psalm 118:8).

    B. To say there is no difference between modern translations and the KJB is not correct. The modern translations are based on Roman Catholic manuscripts and differ from the Greek text of the KJB 5,788 times! Translations such as the NASV differ from the KJB 36,000 times in the N.T. alone! (See enclosed information, “A Brief History of Modern Translations:” and “A Brief Comparison of Bible Translations.”)

    C. Modern translations have no real authority other than the view of some scholars. Scholarship is not a deciding factor in relation to the preservation of God’s word. Our Lord does not say kind things concerning scholars. Note what Malachi 2:12 says, “The Lord will cut off the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the Lord of hosts.”

    D. We should take heed In how we judge God’s word, for one day God’s word will judge us.

    “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.” —Heb. 4:12-13

    A BRIEF HISTORY OF MODERN TRANSLATIONS:

    “Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit: but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” —Matt. 7:17-18

    Note the roots of corruption.

    I. Justin Martyr (100 A.D.)

    A. He was born a pagan, and died in the robes of a pagan priest.

    B. He was the first to mix Gnosticism with Christianity. Gnosticism was a heretical doctrine which taught that Christ was created by God the Father. Funk and Wagnall’s Standard Dictionary defines Gnosticism as “A philosophical and religious system (first to sixth century) teaching that knowledge rather than faith was the key to salvation.” Many scholars today place their knowledge above faith in God’s word.

    “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” —Rom. 10:17

    C. Historian Dr. Benjamin G. Wilkinson wrote, “In the teachings of Justin Martyr, we begin to see how muddy the stream of pure Christian doctrine was running among the heretical seats fifty years after the death of the apostle John.”

    (“Which Bible?”. ed. Dr. David 0. Fuller, Grand Rapids International Pub., Grand Rapids, Mica., 49501, p. 191)

    II. Tatian (150 A.D.)

    A. He was a disciple of Justin Martyr.

    B. Like Martyr, he also embraced Gnosticism.

    C. Tatian wrote a harmony of the gospels using the Christian Scriptures and the Gnostic gospels, thus omitting Scripture (such as John 8:1-11; and Mark 16.9-20).

    D. His. “Harmony of the Gospels” was so corrupt that the Bishop of Syria threw out 200 copies.
    III. Clement of Alexandria (200 A.D.)

    A. Clement was a disciple of Tatian (Remember Luke 6:40-“The disciple is not above his master: but everyone that is perfect shall be as his master.”)

    B. Clement taught that there was no real heaven or hell, no blood atonement of Christ, and no infallible Bible.

    C. He used the Gnostic Scriptures to teach his students.

    D. He founded the school of Theology in Alexandria Egypt.

    IV. Origen (184-254 A.D.)

    A. Origen was a disciple of Clement of Alexandria.

    B. He held to the same doctrine as Clement, plus he taught baptism was necessary for babies to gain salvation.

    C. Origen stated, “The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written.” (Ibid. p. 192).

    D. Dr. Wilkinson stated, “When we come to Origen, we speak the name of him who did the most of all to create and give direction to the forces of apostasy down through the centuries.” (Ibid.).

    E. Origen was one of the first textual critics. His textual work in both the N.T. and the O.T. (the “Hexapla”) was the basis for two of the most corrupt manuscripts used by the Roman Catholic Church. (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus).

    F. Origen developed a method of Biblical interpretation which is called “allegorization”. Origen believed the Bible was only a set of stories that illustrate truth, but not literal facts. He believed Christ to be created and subordinate to the Father (the same as Jehovah’s Witnesses), the pre-existence of the soul before birth (the same as the Mormons), and the final restoration of all spirits (Universal Salvation). (see Dr. Earle Cairns “Christianity Through The Centuries”, Zondervan Publishing House, p. 122).
    V. Eusebius (260-340 A.D.)

    A. He was trained at Origen’s school in Alexandria.

    B. Eusebius was the editor of two Greek manuscripts (mss.) named Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. These two mss. were discredited and abandoned by early Christians as being corrupt. (“Which Bible?” p. 139,143).

    These are Roman Catholic mss. and were not used by Protestant Christians until 1881. These two mss. are the basis for Roman Catholic Bibles and every major English translation of the Bible since 1901. These mss. were not the ones used for the King James Bible.

    C. Eusebius was Roman Catholic in his doctrine (see his book, “Ecclesiastical History”, Vols. 1-5).

    D. He was commissioned by Emperor Constantine to make 50 copies of Scripture for the Roman church. Eusebius copied the Gnostic Scriptures and Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
    VI. Jerome (340-420 A.D.)

    A. Like Eusebius, Jerome was Roman Catholic in doctrine.

    B. Jerome translated the Greek mss. of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus into Latin (called Jerome’s Latin Vulgate). This was the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church.

    C. The ms. Vaticanus was placed in the Vatican library, while the ms. Sinaiticus was abandoned in a Catholic monastery, and they were not used for the next 1,500 years.
    VII. Tischendorf (1869)

    A. He was the first Protestant to find and use the mss. of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

    B. Tischendorf was a liberal theologian.
    VIII. Westcott and Hort (1881)

    A. They used Vaticanus and Sinaiticus to produce a new Greek N.T.. This Greek N.T. is not the same as the one used for the KJB nor during the Reformation.

    B. Their Greek N.T. was the basis for the Revised Version (RV) of 1881 and the basic Greek text for all modern translations such as the RSV, TEV, NASV, N.TV, etc.

    C. The Greek text of Westcott and Hort (W & H) differs from the Greek text of the King James Bible (the Received Text) 5,788 times, or 10% of the text. (For examples, see the section “A Brief Comparison of Bible translations”.)

    D. Since all modern translations are based on the work of W & H, it would do us well to know the theology of these two men.

    WESTCOTT: “I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry (Mary-worship) bears witness.”

    “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.”

    HORT: “Mary-worship and Jesus-worship have very much in common.”

    “Protestantism is only parenthetical and temporary.”

    “The pure Romish view (Catholic) seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical.”

    “Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue.”

    These men did not hold to sound doctrine; instead they have turned, “…away their ears from the truth, and she be turned unto fables.” —2 Tim. 4:4

    NOTE: Where the KJB and the Catholic Bible (such as the New American Bible) differ, the NIV and the NASV agree with the Catholic Bible. The Bible says, “For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: —2 Corinthians 2:17a. The prophet Amos wrote, “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord.” —Amos 8:11

    A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE AND ITS GREEK TEXT:

    I. Believers at Antioch (1st. century)

    A. The believers in Antioch were the first to be called “Christians” (Acts 11:26).

    B. Since Antioch is in Syria, they translated the Bible into Old Syrian. This Bible agrees with the KJB and not the Catholic line of mss.

    C. The believers at Antioch copied the Scriptures in both Syrian and Greek on papyrus (a paper-like material).

    II. Believers in Greece (1st.-3rd. century)

    A. They used the Greek text of Antioch and rejected the Greek text of Alexandria Egypt as corrupt. (Fuller, p. 194-215).

    B. This is the church which departed from Rome and the Catholic church in the 4th century. History shows that the text of the KJB always goes away from the Roman Catholic Church. This being a historical fact, then why go back to Rome to make a new translation?

    C. These believers copied Scripture on papyrus in both Greek and Old Latin (not Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, but Old Latin). This Bible was translated in 150 A.D. and agrees in its text with the KJB, not the modern translations.

    III. Believers in Northern Italy (3rd.-12th century)

    A. They copied and used the Old Latin Bible and rejected the vulgate as corrupt.

    B. These believers were called “Waldensens” and were known for the evangelism they did and the street preaching.

    C. During the Inquisitions by the Catholic church, the Waldensens were the believers who were put to death (see “Foxe’s Book of Martyr’s”)

    IV. Believers in Early England and France (2nd.-17th. century)

    A. They used the Old Latin Bible of the Waldensens as the official translation. They also copied the Greek text which later came to be called the Receptus.

    B. These believers were very evangelistic and suffered much under Rome.

    V. Erasmus (1466-1536 A.D.)

    A. Erasmus compiled the Greek mss. of the believers in Greece, Italy, England, and France and the Old Syrian and Latin translations to produce the Greek N.T. the Reformers used.

    B. Note, this was the Greek text of the Reformation. This line always goes away from Rome.

    VI. Luther (16th. century)

    A. Luther translated the Bible into German using the text of Erasmus. He rejected the Greek text of the Catholic church (the text modern translations use).

    B. Luther was the father of the Reformation.

    VII. The King James Bible (1611)

    A. The N.T. was translated off the Greek text of the Reformation. The translators rejected Jerome’s Vulgate and the Catholic Bible.

    B. The translators were men of God who knew their task. Note the following concerning a few of the translators of the Y-M.

    1. Dr. Lansalot Andrews He was the chairman. He spoke 20 languages. He spent 5 hours a day in prayer. (see E. M. Bound, “Power Through Prayer” p. 33).

    2. Dr. John Reynolds, Puritan leader. He spoke Hebrew and Greek as well as he could English by the time he was 18 years old.

    3. Dr. John Boise He spoke Hebrew by the time he was 5 Years old. By the time he was 14 years old he spoke Greek. He spent from 4:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. studying each day.

    4. Dr. Miles Smiths He spoke Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic as well as he could English. He also served with Dr. Thomas Bilson as one of the two final editors of the whole King James Bible.

    5. Dr. William Bedwell: He was called the father of Arabic studies in England. He wrote Lexicons in Arabic, Hebrew, Syriac and Chaldean. (Note: a Lexicon is like a Dictionary telling the meaning of words and their root meaning).

    6. Dr. Thomas Holland: Not only was he a great Hebrew and Greek scholar, but a man of great dedication to God. His dying words were, “Come, 0 come, Lord Jesus, Thou Morning Star! Come, Lord Jesus; I desire to be dissolved and to be with Thee.”

    7. Dr. Laurence Chaderton: He was noted for his knowledge of Latin, Hebrew and Greek. He also spoke French, Spanish, and Italian ‘ Because of his Christian faith his father cut him off from his family. People enjoyed his preaching so much that they would beg him to preach even after he had just preached a two hour sermon! He was committed to personal witnessing. He said of his household servants, “I desire as much to have my servants know the Lord as myself.”

    8. All the translators of the KJB suffered under the reign of Queen Mary (also called “Bloody Mary”) before James became King of England. This is the only Bible committee to suffer persecution of their faith.

    NOTE: For more information on the above translators and the others, see “Which Bible?” pp. 13-24, or the book by Dr. Gustavus S. Paine, “The Men Behind The KJB”

    C. The text of the KJB is the same today as it was in 1611, (see enclosed “A Brief Summary of Some Objections to the King James Bible”, V.)

    D. The translators of the KJB believed they translated the pure word of God. (see Appendix 2).

    E. The Greek text of the KJB is based on the majority of all Greek mss. and the line of Bible Believers throughout Church history.

    F. The KJB is the Bible of the Great Awakening, the Well’s Revival, the preaching of Edwards, Wesley, Moody, Carry, Hudson Taylor, Sunday, Spurgeon, etc., and every major revival from 1611 until now! No modern translation (or its Greek text) can make the same claim.

    Matthew 12:33 “Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known of his fruit.”

    1. The tree of the modern translation is corrupt, how can the translation be good?

    2. The tree of the KJB is pure, how can the translation be bad?

    3. The fruit of the KJB is Reformation and Revival, not Rome.

    4. The modern translation says it is with error, the KJB says it is without error. Which one would you want to read???

    5. The Bible always calls for choices (Josh. 24:15); this is also true in reading a Bible translation. You must choose which one you will read. Do so, not by what men say, but by the Word of God.

    A BRIEF COMPARISON OF BIBLE TRANSLATIONS:

    “Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.?” —1 Corinthians 5:6

    (Leaven In the Bible is false teaching —Matt. 16:12)

    I. Comparing the KJB with any modern translation of the Bible will show the following:

    Colossians. 1:14 “Through his blood” is omitted.

    Acts 17:26 “Blood!’ is omitted.

    1 John 5:7 The part of the verse proving the Trinity is omitted.

    I Tim. 3:16 “God was manifest in the flesh” is changed to “He who was

    made manifest in the flesh,” thus weakening the doctrine of the Deity of Christ.

    Luke 2:33 “Joseph” is changed to “Father” thus calling Joseph the father of Christ.

    John 5:4 The whole verse is omitted.

    Acts 8:37 The whole verse is omitted.

    Mark 9:44,46 These verses are omitted in all modern versions.

    Romans 16:24 The whole verse is omitted.

    Matthew 18:11 The whole verse is omitted.

    Matthew 12:47 The whole verse is omitted.

    Mark 11:26 The whole verse is omitted.

    Mark 15:28 The whole verse is omitted.

    Mark 16:9-20 This passage is either omitted in the modern versions or placed in brackets with a footnote stating that it should not be there.

    John 8:l-11 This passage is either omitted or placed In brackets with a footnote stating that it should not be there.

    Acts 15:34 The whole verse is omitted.

    Acts 2417 The whole verse is omitted.

    Acts 28:29 The whole verse is omitted.

    Romans 811 Half of the verse is omitted.

    Romans 1:16 The phrase “of Christ” is omitted.

    Matthew 6:13 Half of the verse is omitted in the modern versions.

    I Peter 2:2 The phrase “unto salvation” or “in regard to your salvation” is added to the text in modern versions to teach salvation by works.

    Matthew 9:13 “To repentance” is omitted.

    Mark 2:17 “To repentance” is omitted.

    I John 4:3 “Christ is come in the flesh” is omitted

    John 1:18 “Begotten Son” is changed to “Begotten God” in the NASV. This is also how it reads in the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. These are only a few of the 36,000 changes made. In light of Scripture, one change is one too many (Deuteronomy 4:2; Prov. 30:6; Revelation 22:18).

    II. In reading the KJB, NIV and NASV, you can see that they do not teach the same thing:

    2 Samuel 21:19

    KJB: “…Elhanan slew the brother of Goliath…”

    NIV: “…Elhanan killed Goliath…”

    NASV: “…Elhanan killed Goliath…”

    Daniel 3:25

    KJB: “He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.”

    NIV: “He said, Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed and the fourth looks like a son of the gods.

    NASV: He answered and said, Look! I see four men loosed and walking about In the midst of the fire, without ham, and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.”

    Genesis 6:4

    KJB: “There were giants in the earth…”

    NIV: “The Nephilim were on the earth…”

    NASV: “The Nephilim were on the earth…”

    Genesis 7:1

    KJB: “And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou … into the ark;”

    NIV: “The Lord then said to Noah, Go into the ark,…”

    NASV: “Then the Lord said to Noah, Enter the ark,…”

    NOTE: There is a difference between “Come” and “Go”. The KJB shows that the Lord was in the ark with Noah and his family.

    I Samuel 13:1

    KJB: “Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel,”

    NIV: “Saul was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel forty two years.”

    NASV: “Saul was forty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned thirty-two years over Israel.”

    NOTE: How old was Saul when he began to reign, 30 or 40? How long did he reign, 42 or 32 years? The RSV and the New Scofield Reference Bible read, “Saul was ______ years old…”.

    I Corinthians 7:36

    KJB: “But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin,…”

    NIV: “If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to,….”

    NASV: “But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter,…”

    NOTE: is it his virgin daughter or the virgin he is engaged to?

    III. The KJB and the Catholic Bible (New American Version) are compared with the NIV, NASV, TEV, RSV, and the NWT below.

    The following is a list of verses showing a few places where the KJB and the NAV (Catholic) differ. The KJB receives a “P” for Protestant, the NAV receives a “C” for Catholic. If the NIV, NASV, TEV, RSV, or NWT agree with the KJB they receive a “P”. If they agree with the Catholic Bible they receive a “C”.

    Verse KJB NAV NIV NASV TEV RSV NWT

    Matthew:

    5:22 p c c c c c c

    5:27 p c c c c c c

    5:44 p c c c c c c

    9:13 p c c c c c c

    16:20 p c c c c c c

    18:2 p c c c c c c

    18:11 p c c c c c c

    20:16 p c c c c c c

    20:22 p c c c c c c

    22:30 p c c c c c c

    23:14 p c c c c c c

    25:13 p c c c c c c

    27:35 p c c c c c c

    Mark:

    1:2 p c c c c c c

    l:14 p c c c c c c

    6:11 p c c c c c c

    7:27 p c c c c c c

    9:44 p c c c c c c

    9:46 p c c c c c c

    10:21 p c c c c c c

    11:10 p c c c c c c

    11:26 p c c c c c c

    12:23 p c c c c c c

    13:14 p c c c c c c

    15:28 p c c c c c c

    16:9-20 p c c c c c c

    Luke:

    2:33 p c c c c c c

    2:44 p c c c c c c

    4:4 p c c c c c c

    4:8 p c c c c c c

    9:56 p c c c c c c

    9:57 p c c c c c c

    11:2 p c c c c c c

    12:31 p c c c c c c

    17:36 p c c c c c c

    23:17 p c c c c c c

    John:

    4:42 p c c c c c c

    5:4 p c c c c c c

    8:1-11 p c c c c c c

    8:29 p c c c c c c

    Acts:

    2:30 p c c c c c c

    4:24 p c c c c c c

    8:37 p c c c c c c

    Verse KJB NAV NIV NASV TEV RSV NWT

    Acts:

    15:18 p c c c c c c

    16:31 p c c c c c c

    17:26 p c c c c c c

    28:29 p c c c c c c

    Romans:

    1:16 p c c c c c c

    8:1 p c c c c c c

    11:6 p c c c c c c

    15:8 p c c c c c c

    16:24 p c c c c c c

    I Corinthians:

    5:4 p c c c c c c

    6:20 p c c c c c c

    9:1 p c c c c c c

    10:28 p c c c c c c

    Galatians:

    6,15 p c c c c c c

    Ephesians:

    3:9 p c c c c c c

    5:30 p c c c c c c

    Colossians.:

    1: 14 p c c c c c c

    1 Thess.:

    1:1 p c c c c c c

    I Tim.:

    3:3 p c c c c c c

    3:16 p c c c c c c

    1 John:

    5:7 p c c c c c c

    Revelation:

    1:6 p c c c c c c

    1:8 p c c c c c c

    1:11 p c c c c c c

    21:24 p c c c c c c

    In light of this and about 5,000 other places, how can the modern version be called Protestant Bibles? Remember, they are based on Roman Catholic mms.

    The Bible says,

    “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” —Amos 3:3
    IV. The Modern Translation omits the name of Christ almost 200 times.!!!

    Number of Times Omitted

    NIV NASV RSV

    Jesus:

    38 75 73 (examples: Colossians. 1:2; 1 Peter 5:14)

    Christ:

    43 43 42 (examples Romans 1:16; Revelation 22:21)

    Lord:

    35 35 36 (examples: 2 Corinthians 4:10; Titus 1:4)

    God:

    31 33 34 (examples: Acts 20:25; 1 Jn. 5:13)

    Other names:

    26 26 28 (such as “The Beginning” —Rev. 1:8
    “the Word” —l Jn. 5:7; and
    “the Spirit, —I Peter 1:22).

    Christ must have preeminence in all things (Colossians. 1.18). This includes translations of the Bible. The Bible God honors is the Bible that honors God!
    BRIEF SUMMARY OF SOME OBJECTIONS TO THE KING JAMES BIBLE:

    The following are some objections people use against the KJB, followed by Biblical answers.

    People who use the KJB only, worship a Bible and not the God of the Bible.

    A. You can not make such a distinction between the Word of God in flesh (Jesus Christ) and the word of God in print (the King James Bible). If the word of God in print has error, what about the word of God in flesh? No, both are infallible.

    “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” —I Peter l:23

    B. God’s word is holy, there is no honor in trying to prove the Bible

    has error In it. Note the following Scriptures.

    “I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.” —Psalm 138:2

    “Seven times a day do I praise thee because of thy righteous judgments.” —Psalm 119:164

    “Jesus answered and said unto him, if a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.” —John 14:23

    I. Only the originals are inspired and without error, not any translation.

    A. Where is this taught In Scripture?

    B. In the following Scripture, Paul calls copies (not originals) inspired Scripture. Therefore, more than just the originals are inspired and without error. Any of the words God gives are inspired.

    “And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which is able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus, All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction In righteousness.” —2 Tim. 3:15-16

    II. There is no difference between the KJB and modern translations.

    A. The Creek mss. of the modern translations and the Greek mss. of the KJB differ about 10% of the time.

    B. Ninety-six percent (96%) of all Creek mss. are of the same type as the KJB.

    C. When dealing with translations themselves, there are over 36,000 differences between them and the KJB in the N.T. alone. Dr. Jack Lewis, who was one of the translators of the NIV, even stated this. When he compared the KJB and the ASV of 1909, he wrote…

    “…in the end more than 36,191 corrections of various sorts were made in the N.T.. These included changes resulting from alterations in the Greek text itself, changes where the KJB appears to have chosen the poorer of the two readings, changes where the KJB is ambiguous or obscure, changes where the KJB is not consistent with itself in rendering phrases or passages that are alike or parallel, and changes that are required because of other changes made.” (“The English Bible/ From the KJV To NIV”; P. 70.)

    While I do not agree with Dr. Lewis’s statement, he points out the number of differences between the KJB and modern translations.

    IV. The KJB is too hard to understand. The modern translation is better than nothing.

    A. The Bible is a spiritual book, and cannot be understood by natural means, such as changing the words. As one preacher said, the Bible needs to be reread, not revised.

    B. The Bible must be revealed by the Holy Spirit, not translators using Roman Catholic mss.

    “But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.” —l Corinthians 2:9-10

    “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings is to search out a matter.” —Prov. 25:2

    Fifty years ago people read the KJB and understood it. Our language has not changed that much in such a short period of time.

    C. A little error counts a great deal. The Bible says, “Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?” —l Corinthians 5:6. Therefore, the modern translation is not better than nothing at all when we have a Bible that is 100% error free and the Holy Spirit to teach it to us.

    V. The KJB we have today is not the same as the one in 1611.

    A. This is not true! The KJB we have today is the same as the one in 1611. Not a word of the text was changed. The American Bible Society wrote, “The English Bible, as left by the translators (of 1611), has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text…” They further stated, “With the exception of typographical errors and changes required by the progress of orthography in the English language, the text of our present Bible remains unchanged and without variation from the original copy as left by the translators.”

    B. Calligraphy: This is the change in the way letters were used. For example the word “gave” would have been written as “gaue” in 1611. The reason was the letter “v” was written as “u”. This is not changing the text as the NIV does.

    C. Orthography: This is the change in spelling. Some words today are spelled differently than they were in 1611. For example, the word “took” was spelled “tooke”. Again, this does not change the text as the NASV did 36,000 times.

    “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” —John 8:32

    “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” —John 17:17

    My friends, God said He would keep His words, without error, forever (Psalm 12:6-7; 119:89,140; Matthew 5:17; 24:35). If He did not do this, then the whole Bible is a lie. However, the Lord is always true to His word. Why not ask Christ which Bible honors Him the most and use the Bible with no corruption?

    “Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the

    joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, 0 Lord God

    of hosts.” —Jer. 15:16

    BIBLIOGRAPHY

    BOOKS:

    Burgon, Dean John William. The Revision Revised. Paradise, PA Conservative Classics, l883

    Fowler, Everett W. Evaluating Versions of the New Testament. Watertown WI Maranatha Baptist Press, 1981

    Fuller, David Otis. Counterfeit or Genuine., Grand Rapids, MI Grand Rapids International Publications, 1980

    Fuller, David Otis. True or False? Grand Rapids, MI Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975

    Fuller, David Otis. Which Bible? Grand Rapids, MI Grand Rapids International Publications, 1970

    Hills, Edward F. The King James Version Defended. Des Moines, IA The Christian Research Press, 1976

    McMlure, Alexander. Translators Revived. Litchfield, MI Maranatha Bible Society, l885

    Paine, Gustavus S. The Men Behind the KJV. Grand Rapids, MI Bake, Book House, 1977

    Pickering, Wilbur N. The Identity of the New Testament Text. Nashville, TN Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1980 ad.

    Ray, J. J. God Wrote Only One Bible. Eugene, DR: The Eye Opener Publishers, 1970

    Ruckman, Peter S. The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence. Palatka, FL Pensacola Bible Press, 1976
    APPENDIX 1

    7 UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

    In the Spring of 1986 I debated two “scholars” in Dayton Ohio on the Bible issue. During the debate I raised 7 main questions which were never addressed by my two opponents and remain unanswered to this day. The following are the 7 questions.

    1. According to the “science” of textural criticism (I Tim. 6:20; Colossians. 2:8) two of the most controversial passages of Scripture are Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:1-11. Are these passages inspired Scripture?

    A. If yes, why use a Bible which calls them into question by setting them aside in brackets with footnotes reading “not found in the most reliable manuscripts” ? (see NIV or RSV footnotes).

    B. If no, why use a Bible which places them into the text with brackets? Why not leave them out completely? Where is your integrity?

    C. If you do not know, how has your science helped you?

    2. Where is the inerrant word of God today? Could you show me this infallible Bible? If you can not, how can you teach Biblical infallibility?

    3. When we check modern translations In such places as 2 Samuel 21:19, Mark 1:2; Daniel 3:25; Matthew 5:22; and 2 Corinthians 2:17, we see they are less than truthful (John 17:17; 2 Thess. 2-13). How can translations which lie about the truth be more reliable?

    4. Modern translations remove the names of Christ over 200 times in the New Testament. Who is it that would want you to read a translation which does not allow Christ to be as preeminent (Colossians. I..18)?

    5. Why should we use a Roman Catholic text to correct the Protestant Bible of the Reformation?

    6. In 1 Thess. 5:21 we read, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good”. The KJB is a good thing. Why are we not holding fast to it?

    7. The Bible says, “…it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” (Jude 2b). How could anyone that loves the Lord and His word stand before a group of babies In Christ or the unsaved and question the authenticity of a text of Scripture? Is this contending for the faith that was once delivered unto us?

    Those of us who believe God preserved His words without error are often accused of being devisive. The Bible does encourage us to be loving in our attitude and message (Ephesians 4:15). However, in light of 1 Thess. 5:21; Jude 2 and dozens of other passages, the argument seems rather void of substance. Love in silence is a poor substitute for speaking the truth in love as the Bible commands.
    APPENDIX 2

    THE KJB TRANSLATORS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES

    The following are some quotations from the original preface to the 1611 KJB by the translators themselves as set forth by one of the translators, Dr. Miles Smith.

    “The Romanist therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the Word translated did no less than despite the Spirit of grace,…” p.24 “…and all is sound for substance in one or other of our editions (a reference to translations based on the Textus Receptus), and the worst of ours (that is before 1611) far better than their (Romanist) authentic vulgar.” p. 22

    “Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time (a reference to earlier English translations of the Greek Textus Receptus) and the later thoughts are thought to be wisers so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do ondeavour to make that better which they left so good,…” p. 21

    “And this is the Word of God, which we translate.” p. 23

    “… but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that YOU Bee”. P. 31

    “If we be sons of the Truth we must consider what it speaketh and trample upon our own credit, yea, and upon other men’s too.” P. 25

    “It remaineth that we commend thee to God, and to the Spirit of His grace, which is able to build futher than we can ask or think. He removeth the scales from our eyes, the veil from our hearts, opening our wits that we may understand His Word, enlarging our hearts, yea, correcting our affections, that we may love it above gold and silver, yea, that we may love it to the end.” p. 35

    On pages 7-9 of the preface, the translators compared their work to David bringing in the ark and Solomon building the Temple. Also they compared the work on the KJB to men like Moses, Solomon and Stephen.

    Historian Dr. Gustavus S. Paine in his book, “The Men Behind The KJV” (Baker Books) stated the following.

    “Though we may challenge the idea of word-by-word inspiration, we surely must conclude that these were men able, in their profound moods, to transcend their human limits. In their own words, they spake as no other men spake because they were filled with the Holy Ghost. Or, in the clumsier language of our time, they so adjusted themselves to each other and to the work as to achieve a unique coordination and balance, functioning thereafter as an organic entity—no mere mechanism equal to the sum of its parts, but a whole greater than all of them.” P. 173 (1977 edition)
    By itself this does not prove what we have stated in this booklet. It does prove that the translators of the KJB would agree with the claims of this booklet, that the KJB is the inerrant word of God for the English-speaking people.

    Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved!

    flourish

    Sojourners of the Lord Home PageSojourners of the Lord Home Page Bible Studies, Articles, Links, More…
    Sojourners’ King James Bible PageSojourners’ King James Bible Page Large Collection of Manuscript Evidence
    Sojourners’ NoteTabbers’ Assistants PageSojourners’ NoteTabbers’ Page Loaded with Libraries, Clips, and Images…
    Sojourners’ Site IndexSojourners’ Site Index Listing of Most Pages on All Sites

    flourish

    Sites Brought to You by Sojourners of the Lord
    Sojourners’ Bible Study Rightly dividing the word of truth
    Sojourners’ King James Bible Information on Bible Versions
    Sojourners’ Clean-Funnies dot com Many Clean Jokes; a Must Visit.
    Sojourners’ NoteTabbers Assistant Great Stuff for Great Editors
    Sojourners’ Fookes Software.us Software Doesn’t Get Any Better!
    Sojourners Software Excellent Shareware and Freeware
    Sojourners of the Lord Flagship Sojourners of the Lord

    If you write reporting a problem, please send the url with the post or name of the page and copy some of the text you are reporting.

    I’m normally way too busy to reply to all my eMail, especially long messages. If you have a question that only requires a short reply, I’ll try to answer it if I can. I do read sincere mail and thank you in advance for your valuable feedback!

    You can write me at: Jody

    Reply
47. 

    oggie on October 18, 2009 at 8:43 am

    From a very clear arguments of

    http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/king.htm

    we get this:

    IV. The KJB is too hard to understand. The modern translation is better than nothing.

    A. The Bible is a spiritual book, and cannot be understood by natural means, such as changing the words. As one preacher said, the Bible needs to be reread, not revised.

    B. The Bible must be revealed by the Holy Spirit, not translators using Roman Catholic mss.

    “But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.” —l Corinthians 2:9-10

    “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings is to search out a matter.” —Prov. 25:2

    Fifty years ago people read the KJB and understood it. Our language has not changed that much in such a short period of time.

    C. A little error counts a great deal. The Bible says, “Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?” —l Corinthians 5:6. Therefore, the modern translation is not better than nothing at all when we have a Bible that is 100% error free and the Holy Spirit to teach it to us.

    Reply
48. 

    oggie on October 17, 2009 at 6:20 pm

    There are many facets to this complex issue of translation and their reliability.

    Since choosing what version to use is a personal choice, if a verse in one translation seems to be a little confusing, sometimes comparing it side-by-side with another version can make the meaning more clear. No matter what Bible translation we use, we can trust that it is God’s Word, and that it will accomplish His purposes (Isaiah 55:11; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; Hebrews 4:12). And only the Holy Spirit can truly enlighten the reader about what His words really mean, and even if a bad translation would be used, if the reader is a true seeker, the Holy Spirit would lead him/her to His truths!!

    Reply
49. 

    oggie on October 17, 2009 at 1:41 pm

    Does clarity in language of newer translations imply veracity compared to the KJV?

    Usual argument of the newer translations is the the sources of their translations are older to hastily conclude reliability, but not pointing out the fact that they were corrupted copies. On the other hand, the KJV translation was based on younger but purer sources. Which would be of better quality and of more reliability???

    Reply
    • 

      Vince on October 17, 2009 at 7:37 pm

      Hold on… the article says, Textus Receptus is a “MORE RELIABLE” source compared to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. But it doesn’t claim that Textus Receptus is “WITHOUT ERROR” due to manual copying of scribes. So there is “STILL” room for “corruptions” right???

      But ok, let’s face it, KJV is “MORE RELIABLE”, but still it doesn’t give us the authority to “HASTILY” say that other versions are “CORRUPT” and “PER-VERSIONS” of the Bible Translation. I hope this can clarify all the more.

      So what’s safer to do then? I guess, we need to be more careful then comparing God’s word to KJV since Bible Scholars claim this to be “MORE RELIABLE”. NIV and other versions is still useful to the fact that it is really “more understandable” that KJV having a very exotic English. I myself have difficulty in understanding the Old English used in KJV. So with this, what good then can it give to me if I cannot understand God’s word? I guess, I better used at the same time other translations. 🙂
      .-= Vince´s last blog ..Unchanging =-.

      Reply
50. 

    oggie on October 17, 2009 at 1:15 pm

    If Evangelicals truly believe the essential Sola Scriptura, the issue of the quality and reliability of a bible translation is very important, since the purity of the original word of God can be adulterated and compromised by the hidden biases of the translators. E.g., the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witness so mangled the original bible to fit their translation to their Unitarian biases. Some liberals translated the bible to fit into their biased unbelief on the virgin birth, and most of all, on the Deity of Jesus Christ. Just how much translators’ whim and caprices can be tolerated in their biased translations so as to fit into their heretical belief systems, while using their version as their final authority???

    Reply
51. 

    oggie on October 17, 2009 at 12:12 pm

    David and Solomon were womanizers. Did their sins affected their writings of the books now in the bible?

    Did King James homosexuality affect the translation of the bible to come out with the attacked King James Version, which is considered as the nearest to the original Textus Receptus, known as the bible used by the true believers since apostolic times??

    How about the liberal, heretical, even homosexual lifestyles of the translators of the other versions? Don’t their biases creep into the translations, since as toning down gender into gender-neutral words, since the original words would be a big rebuke on their sinful behaviors???

    How many saints were sinful, but God still used them to fulfill God’s will? Moses killed a man. Jonah ran away from God’s command to preach to the Ninevites? Even the saint known as very patient, Job, was also seen as questioning God’s acts in his life of misery? Even the prophet Jeremiah, like Job, cursed the day they were conceived??

    Reply
    • 

      Vince on October 17, 2009 at 7:27 pm

      With this reasoning, why then publish some personal attacks on the article against the people behind NIV translation?

      And this is exactly the same that I am referring. Basically, all these translators and Bible authors have the same or at least a little difference from each other when it comes to background. Why then we question so much the personalities and backgrounds of these translators?

      Please Refer to Point 2 of “Why NIV Turn Out To So Badly?”
      2. The second reason for NIV’s poor quality may be found in the translators themselves.

      Well, I am not questioning the reliability of KJV, but I am questioning the criticisms against the people behind NIV translation. Exactly the same point, they are sinners just like us, yet still they can be used by God.
      .-= Vince´s last blog ..When Evil Reigns =-.

      Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.