D
D46
Guest
I was asked why I hold the position I do as to the various bible versions and will attempt to do so here. It's not my desire to impart division or to create animosity toward those that hold a different opinion and see things in a different light than myself. I just want to answer the question and don't intend on discussing the various versions at length or the credentials of the translators, although I may bring this up. Satan is the one behind all this confusion and debating over God's word. God is not the author of confusion and division over this, but; I'm sure satan is laughing with glee over this much discussed topic.
I was brought up on the King James bible and never thought about any other version existing until about twenty years ago was I was given a NIV. I looked through it but, it just didn't "read right" to me and didn't feel right, so; I kept it but consigned it to the shelf for years. I bought a NKJV at a bookstore due to being curious and asked about the difference in it verses the KJV to the sales woman who prompted me into buying it. She explained it only eliminated the "Thee's, thou's, thine's, ye's" from the KJV and that nothing else had changed. I used that bible for several years until some things began to just not look right. I started reading the preface and saw where there were various verses with a "1" by them which led to the center margin references and explainations. This "NU" I saw stood for the Nestle/UBS text used to explain why a given verse was, although shown in the NKJV, omitted in the NU. I discovered the UBS had adopted the Nestle/Aland Text who adopted the corrupt Greek text of Westcott and Hort who in turn, used the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus as their basis for their new Greek text in 1881. At that time I had never heard of Westcott and Hort or the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, but; I intended on finding out...and did.
Just to give a few examples inside this NKJV I had come to know and now doubt was a verse in Acts 6:13...
Acts 6:13 (KJV) And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:
That verse in the center colum reference had the "NU" by it and indicated that the word blasphemous was "omitted from the NU". Worse yet was Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.. Again, referencing the center column indicated that "NU,M omits verse 37". NU meaning the Nestle/UBS test and M referencing the "Alexandrian text". In fact in the "How to Use This Reference Bible" portion of this NKJV it is explaiined that "Readings labled "NU" are from the modern eclectic or "critical" text, which depends heavily upon the Alexandrian tlype of text." So much for only changing the Thee's, thou's, and ye's I was told about.
Matthew 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
This verse (not even found in the NIV) was again explained away in the NKJV by indicating the "NU" omits verse 11 in the center column. Am I beginning to question this bible?- better believe it.
Mark 11:26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
This verse is also explained away with the familar "NU omits verse 26". This verse also, is entirely omitted from the NIV I have and is bracketed in the NASB I have.
This is what got the "ball in motion" for me to do some research as to what was going on. It was at this point that I began to discover who Clement and Origen was, their beliefs and how they corrupted the true word of God. It seems satan comes in pairs for some reason. Next came the Alexandrian team of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus which are the forefathers of modern day textual criticism that have their roots in Egypt and made their way into Rome where one (Aleph) was found in a trash can at St. Catherine's monestary and the other (B) was found on a dusty shelf in the Vatican. These two mss have been highly lauded as the authority by which all others are measured due to their "antiquity" if nothing else. Very few people have even seen these mss and the only ones seen and used were copies given by Rome. The real ones are under glass at the Vatican from what I've read. A copy from Rome...now, there's something you can really put confidence in. Nevertheless, these are the mss Westcott and Hort used for their new Greek text and this is the line of corrupt text that all modern bibles come from.
As I began studying these "textual scholars" and their beliefs, a red flag came up. Anyone can find plenty of information on these two (W-H) on the Iinternet and in many books available so; I won't go into their background as it is quite a lengthy study. Although about them I will say this, Westcott and Hort were responsible for the greatest feat in textual criticism. They were responsible for replacing the Universal Text of the Authorized Version with the Local Text of Egypt and the Roman Catholic Church. Both Wescott and Hort were known to have resented the pre-eminence given to the Authorized Version and its underlying Greek Text. They had been deceived into believing that the Roman Catholic manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, were better because they were "older." This they believed, even though Hort admitted that the Antiochian or Universal Text was equal in antiquity. "The fundamental text of the late extant Greek MSS generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian Text of the second half of the Fourth Century." They built their own Greek text based primarily on a few uncial MSS of the Local Text. These perverted MSS do not even agree among themselves. The ironic thing is that Westcott and Hort knew this when they formed their text! What was Hort's view of the atonment? "The fact is, I do not see how God's justice can be satisfied without every man's suffering in his own person the full penalty for his sins." In fact, Hort considered the teachings of Christ's atonement as heresy!
"Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy."
The fact is, that Hort believed Satan more worthy of accepting Christ's payment for sins than God.
"I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan, though neither am I prepared to give full assent to it. But I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the notion of a ransom paid to the Father." This is a textual scholar?
Vaticanus (B) is the most worshipped. This manuscript was officially catalogued in the Vatican library in 1475, and is still property of the Vatican today. Siniaticus (Aleph) was discovered in a trash can at St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai by Count Tischendorf, a German scholar, in the year 1844. Both B and Aleph are Roman Catholic manuscripts. You might also familiarize yourself with the following facts:
1. Both manuscripts contain the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament.
2. Tischendorf, who had seen both manuscripts, believed they were written by the same man, possibly Eusebius of Caesarea (260-340 A.D.).
3. Vaticanus was available to the King James translators, but God gave them sense enough to ignore it.
4. Vaticanus omits Geneses 1:1-46:28, Psalm 106-138, Matthew 16:2-3, Rom. 16:24, I Timothy through Titus, the entire book of Revelation, and it conveniently ends the book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14. If you're familiar with Hebrews 10, you know why.
5. While adding The Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas to the New Testament, Siniaticus omits John 5:4, 8:1-11, Matthew 16:2-3, Romans 16:24, Mark 16:9-20, Acts 8:37, and I John 5:7 (just to name a few).
6. It is believed that Siniaticus has been altered by as many as ten different men. Consequently, it is a very sloppy piece of work (which is probably the reason for it being in a trash can). Many transcript errors, such as missing words and repeated sentences are found throughout it.
7. The Dutch scholar, Erasmus (1469-1536), who produced the world's first printed Greek New Testament, rejected the readings of Vaticanus and Siniaticus.
8. Vaticanus and Siniaticus not only disagree with the Majority Text from which the KJV came, they also differ from each other. In the four Gospels alone, they differ over 3,000 times!
9. When someone says that B and Aleph are the oldest available manuscripts, they are lying. There are many Syriac and Latin translations from as far back as the SECOND CENTURY that agree with the King James readings. For instance, the Pashitta (145 A.D.), and the Old Syriac (400 A.D.) both contain strong support for the King James readings. There are about fifty extant copies of the Old Latin from about 157 A.D., which is over two hundred years before Jerome was conveniently chosen by Rome to "revise" it. Then Ulfilas produced a Gothic version for Europe in A.D. 330. The Armenian Bible, which agrees with the King James, has over 1,200 extant copies and was translated by Mesrob around the year 400. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are clearly NOT the oldest and best manuscripts.
The credential of the above mss and those of the highly lauded Westcott and Hort, and in light of the fact that i've cross referenced many scriptures in the NIV and NASB with the King James bible further add ammunition to the fact that God preserved his word in one book. Why would his word be in the unknown amount of vaious bibles on the market today? I submit that there is but one bible worthy to be called the word of God today and it is found in the King James bible. All others are counterfeits (in my opinion) and I don't study from them or read them unless I want to see if they agree or not even with each other.
A REAL Bible will testify of the Lord Jesus Christ. The true word of God will always EXALT Jesus Christ, and it will NEVER attack Hid Deity, His Virgin Birth, His Blood Atonement, His Bodily Resurrection, His Glorious Second Coming, or any other doctrines concerning His Person. However, the new versions attack ALL of the fundamental doctrines concerning the Lord Jesus Christ at one time or another. Versions over time may vary from one edition to the next, however.
By perverting the many important verses of scripture which deal with the fundamental doctrines of Christ, the new "bibles" have a CONTINUOUS ATTACK launched against our beloved Savior, and this is NOT an overstatement! His Virgin Birth is under attack in Isaiah 7:14, Luke 1:34, and Luke 2:33. His Blood Atonement is under attack in Colossians 1:14, Acts 20:28, Ephesians 1:7, and Revelation 1:5. The Bodily Resurrection is under attack in Acts 1:3, Luke chapter 24, and the last twelve verses of Mark. His Deity is under attack in Acts 10:28, John 9:35, and I Timothy 3:16. The new versions attack the Second Coming in Revelation 11:15, and Titus 2:13, and the list goes on, because the new versions have an extreme bitter HATRED toward the Authorized Version and the way it gives the Lord Jesus Christ the preeminence he deserves.
There's only one line of mss we can trust, and this is the line from Antioch...the "Syrian or Byzantine" type text-the Textus Receptus. No copyright needed for the text of the KJV as the modern versions have because it wasn't a translation for money and prestige but one to bring truth, revival and salvation to mankind.
I was brought up on the King James bible and never thought about any other version existing until about twenty years ago was I was given a NIV. I looked through it but, it just didn't "read right" to me and didn't feel right, so; I kept it but consigned it to the shelf for years. I bought a NKJV at a bookstore due to being curious and asked about the difference in it verses the KJV to the sales woman who prompted me into buying it. She explained it only eliminated the "Thee's, thou's, thine's, ye's" from the KJV and that nothing else had changed. I used that bible for several years until some things began to just not look right. I started reading the preface and saw where there were various verses with a "1" by them which led to the center margin references and explainations. This "NU" I saw stood for the Nestle/UBS text used to explain why a given verse was, although shown in the NKJV, omitted in the NU. I discovered the UBS had adopted the Nestle/Aland Text who adopted the corrupt Greek text of Westcott and Hort who in turn, used the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus as their basis for their new Greek text in 1881. At that time I had never heard of Westcott and Hort or the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, but; I intended on finding out...and did.
Just to give a few examples inside this NKJV I had come to know and now doubt was a verse in Acts 6:13...
Acts 6:13 (KJV) And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:
That verse in the center colum reference had the "NU" by it and indicated that the word blasphemous was "omitted from the NU". Worse yet was Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.. Again, referencing the center column indicated that "NU,M omits verse 37". NU meaning the Nestle/UBS test and M referencing the "Alexandrian text". In fact in the "How to Use This Reference Bible" portion of this NKJV it is explaiined that "Readings labled "NU" are from the modern eclectic or "critical" text, which depends heavily upon the Alexandrian tlype of text." So much for only changing the Thee's, thou's, and ye's I was told about.
Matthew 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
This verse (not even found in the NIV) was again explained away in the NKJV by indicating the "NU" omits verse 11 in the center column. Am I beginning to question this bible?- better believe it.
Mark 11:26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
This verse is also explained away with the familar "NU omits verse 26". This verse also, is entirely omitted from the NIV I have and is bracketed in the NASB I have.
This is what got the "ball in motion" for me to do some research as to what was going on. It was at this point that I began to discover who Clement and Origen was, their beliefs and how they corrupted the true word of God. It seems satan comes in pairs for some reason. Next came the Alexandrian team of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus which are the forefathers of modern day textual criticism that have their roots in Egypt and made their way into Rome where one (Aleph) was found in a trash can at St. Catherine's monestary and the other (B) was found on a dusty shelf in the Vatican. These two mss have been highly lauded as the authority by which all others are measured due to their "antiquity" if nothing else. Very few people have even seen these mss and the only ones seen and used were copies given by Rome. The real ones are under glass at the Vatican from what I've read. A copy from Rome...now, there's something you can really put confidence in. Nevertheless, these are the mss Westcott and Hort used for their new Greek text and this is the line of corrupt text that all modern bibles come from.
As I began studying these "textual scholars" and their beliefs, a red flag came up. Anyone can find plenty of information on these two (W-H) on the Iinternet and in many books available so; I won't go into their background as it is quite a lengthy study. Although about them I will say this, Westcott and Hort were responsible for the greatest feat in textual criticism. They were responsible for replacing the Universal Text of the Authorized Version with the Local Text of Egypt and the Roman Catholic Church. Both Wescott and Hort were known to have resented the pre-eminence given to the Authorized Version and its underlying Greek Text. They had been deceived into believing that the Roman Catholic manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, were better because they were "older." This they believed, even though Hort admitted that the Antiochian or Universal Text was equal in antiquity. "The fundamental text of the late extant Greek MSS generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian Text of the second half of the Fourth Century." They built their own Greek text based primarily on a few uncial MSS of the Local Text. These perverted MSS do not even agree among themselves. The ironic thing is that Westcott and Hort knew this when they formed their text! What was Hort's view of the atonment? "The fact is, I do not see how God's justice can be satisfied without every man's suffering in his own person the full penalty for his sins." In fact, Hort considered the teachings of Christ's atonement as heresy!
"Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy."
The fact is, that Hort believed Satan more worthy of accepting Christ's payment for sins than God.
"I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan, though neither am I prepared to give full assent to it. But I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the notion of a ransom paid to the Father." This is a textual scholar?
Vaticanus (B) is the most worshipped. This manuscript was officially catalogued in the Vatican library in 1475, and is still property of the Vatican today. Siniaticus (Aleph) was discovered in a trash can at St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai by Count Tischendorf, a German scholar, in the year 1844. Both B and Aleph are Roman Catholic manuscripts. You might also familiarize yourself with the following facts:
1. Both manuscripts contain the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament.
2. Tischendorf, who had seen both manuscripts, believed they were written by the same man, possibly Eusebius of Caesarea (260-340 A.D.).
3. Vaticanus was available to the King James translators, but God gave them sense enough to ignore it.
4. Vaticanus omits Geneses 1:1-46:28, Psalm 106-138, Matthew 16:2-3, Rom. 16:24, I Timothy through Titus, the entire book of Revelation, and it conveniently ends the book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14. If you're familiar with Hebrews 10, you know why.
5. While adding The Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas to the New Testament, Siniaticus omits John 5:4, 8:1-11, Matthew 16:2-3, Romans 16:24, Mark 16:9-20, Acts 8:37, and I John 5:7 (just to name a few).
6. It is believed that Siniaticus has been altered by as many as ten different men. Consequently, it is a very sloppy piece of work (which is probably the reason for it being in a trash can). Many transcript errors, such as missing words and repeated sentences are found throughout it.
7. The Dutch scholar, Erasmus (1469-1536), who produced the world's first printed Greek New Testament, rejected the readings of Vaticanus and Siniaticus.
8. Vaticanus and Siniaticus not only disagree with the Majority Text from which the KJV came, they also differ from each other. In the four Gospels alone, they differ over 3,000 times!
9. When someone says that B and Aleph are the oldest available manuscripts, they are lying. There are many Syriac and Latin translations from as far back as the SECOND CENTURY that agree with the King James readings. For instance, the Pashitta (145 A.D.), and the Old Syriac (400 A.D.) both contain strong support for the King James readings. There are about fifty extant copies of the Old Latin from about 157 A.D., which is over two hundred years before Jerome was conveniently chosen by Rome to "revise" it. Then Ulfilas produced a Gothic version for Europe in A.D. 330. The Armenian Bible, which agrees with the King James, has over 1,200 extant copies and was translated by Mesrob around the year 400. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are clearly NOT the oldest and best manuscripts.
The credential of the above mss and those of the highly lauded Westcott and Hort, and in light of the fact that i've cross referenced many scriptures in the NIV and NASB with the King James bible further add ammunition to the fact that God preserved his word in one book. Why would his word be in the unknown amount of vaious bibles on the market today? I submit that there is but one bible worthy to be called the word of God today and it is found in the King James bible. All others are counterfeits (in my opinion) and I don't study from them or read them unless I want to see if they agree or not even with each other.
A REAL Bible will testify of the Lord Jesus Christ. The true word of God will always EXALT Jesus Christ, and it will NEVER attack Hid Deity, His Virgin Birth, His Blood Atonement, His Bodily Resurrection, His Glorious Second Coming, or any other doctrines concerning His Person. However, the new versions attack ALL of the fundamental doctrines concerning the Lord Jesus Christ at one time or another. Versions over time may vary from one edition to the next, however.
By perverting the many important verses of scripture which deal with the fundamental doctrines of Christ, the new "bibles" have a CONTINUOUS ATTACK launched against our beloved Savior, and this is NOT an overstatement! His Virgin Birth is under attack in Isaiah 7:14, Luke 1:34, and Luke 2:33. His Blood Atonement is under attack in Colossians 1:14, Acts 20:28, Ephesians 1:7, and Revelation 1:5. The Bodily Resurrection is under attack in Acts 1:3, Luke chapter 24, and the last twelve verses of Mark. His Deity is under attack in Acts 10:28, John 9:35, and I Timothy 3:16. The new versions attack the Second Coming in Revelation 11:15, and Titus 2:13, and the list goes on, because the new versions have an extreme bitter HATRED toward the Authorized Version and the way it gives the Lord Jesus Christ the preeminence he deserves.
There's only one line of mss we can trust, and this is the line from Antioch...the "Syrian or Byzantine" type text-the Textus Receptus. No copyright needed for the text of the KJV as the modern versions have because it wasn't a translation for money and prestige but one to bring truth, revival and salvation to mankind.
: We are supposed to be different by our LOVE for others and yet we judge and condemn others because they prefer a different Bible translation.