Take Me Back to the Table of Contents
APPENDIX B continued from page 8
Which Bible
Today we have basically two versions of the Bible to choose from. They differ substantially on many hundreds of verses and this is a serious thing. Who is correct? Are these texts supposed to be in the Bible or not? This is downplayed but the truth is very real differences exist in many of the bible versions. In this section I will explain in plain English the how and why.
Many will say we don't have the original's of the bible. What they are saying is that we really don't know what Paul wrote for sure. This casting doubt on the word is of the devil. Jeremiah was told to destroy his original work (Jer.51:63) because the original is of no concern to God as long as it: has done its work and its message got through. We do not have the original ten commandments either from mosses script nor the tables of stone so maybe they have been modified over the years? This doubt in God's word is taught by "bible scholars".
What we know is that around the third century two schools or libraries of scripture were developing. One in Antioch, Asia minor the other in Alexandria, Egypt. The one in Antioch had the boring "pharisaical" the word is the word, literal sacred approach. The one in Antioch had more colorful leaders believing the word was spiritual and not to be taken literally. Their more open philosophy led to new interpretations and a looser translation of the new testament.
During the years that followed the forming of the catholic church accepted the more "scholarly" Alexandria manuscripts and soon restricted the use of scripture by anyone except those trained in its proper understanding. This is why martin Luther fond a copy chained in a church after having been a monk for many years. It was then illegal for anyone to own a copy except the church. Some scattered Greek speaking churches still had the Antioch texts and the "church in the wilderness" the Waldenses and Huganos that fled persecution from the church of Rome had copies of scripture from the Antioch text.
During the reformation some translations were made from the Latin Vulgate and other catholic texts of the Bible but soon this was rejected, even by some catholic scholars. Emmaus a roman catholic scholar at the time of Luther rejected the Vatican text in favor of those used by the Greek churches and other Antioch texts. His text became known as the received text and is what the protestant reformation based its bibles on. When undertaking the King James Version the catholic text was rejected as full of errors and after many years of using the received text human nature wanted something new and exciting and scholars wanted to make their mark with something new to justify their great learning. Two theologians, Wescott and Hort, with the finding of two new manuscripts the Vaticanus and the Siniaticus believing them to be the oldest Greek text of the New testament said that they were closer to the autographs and therefore more accurate that the received text. This has started the New Bibles and many revisions to it's content. It is well worth your time to examine the facts that affect which version is correct for it affects key promises and even the Lord's Prayer as well as bible prophecy and the clarity of controversial doctrines. The startling truth is that their in not a single ancient manuscript that supports the "neutral text" the basis of the new translations. The truth is that theologians have decided which parts of which manuscripts are correct and that they have piecemealed together, and constantly revise, a version of the manuscripts which their is scarcely a single manuscript which supports a single book of the bible among the original ancient manuscripts. Their wisdom alone determines which text is to be included or rewritten. This is a bold move rarely seen before in the history of translation. The protestant reformation translated the bible based on the agreement of whole manuscripts and dared not rearrange them to fit their fancy.
"The King James translators were committed to producing an English Bible that would be a precise translation, and by no means a paraphrase or a broadly approximate rendering. On the one hand, the scholars were almost as familiar with the original languages of the Bible as with their native English. On the other hand, their reverence for the divine Author and His Word assured a translation of the Scriptures in which only a principle of utmost accuracy could be accepted.
"In 1786 the Catholic scholar, Alexander Geddes, said of the King James Bible, 'If accuracy and strictest attention to the letter of the text be supposed to constitute an excellent version, this is of all versions the most excellent'. . . . Bible readers may be assured that the most important difference in the English New Testament of today are due, not to manuscript divergence, but to the way in which translators view the task of translation: How literally should the text be rendered? How does the translator view the matter of biblical inspiration? Does the translator adopt a paraphrase when a literal rendering would be quite clear and more to the point? The New King James Version follows the historic precedent of the Authorized Version in maintaining a literal approach to translation, {modern Bibles do not}. . . The manuscript preferences cited in many contemporary translations of the New Testament are due to recent reliance on a relatively few manuscripts discovered in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Dependence on these manuscripts, especially two, the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts, is due to the greater age of these documents. However in spite of their age, some scholars have reason to doubt their faithfulness to the autographs, since they often disagree with one another and show other signs of unreliability. The Greek text obtained by using these sources and related papyri is known as the Alexandrian Text.
"The great majority of existing manuscripts are in substantial agreement. ... This large body of manuscripts is the source of the Greek text underlying the King James Bible. It is the Greek text used by the Greek-speaking churches for many centuries, presently known as the Textus Receptus, or Received Text.
"A growing number of scholars now regard the Received Text as far more reliable than previously
thought." Preface of the New King James pgs iii, vi.
CHANGING BIBLE TEXTS - An Important Issue
How important is it? "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." Deut. 4:2 (Also Rev. 22:18,19). Many times I have heard new versions quoted and found sentences added without and Greek or Hebrew to back it up. This is why no new version will italicize their supplies words. It would show them up to much. For every text they "make clearer" they make numerous texts into absurdities. Many doctrines are heavily slanted in the new translations. For example the prophecy we will study in Daniel 8:14 is rewritten even though all use the same Hebrew text in order to fit into more modern theories. This is especially true of some controversial texts so we will only examine clear and obvious errors here. Since this is a very serious issue lets take a closer look:
Let's examine a few texts like: 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.]'" They cut out by every word of God and thus the whole meaning, making this text just a stupid comment on diet. Shirley Jesus said what we are to live by and completed the thought?
Rev 22:14 "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." is changed to mean something entirely different "Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life . . . " They say it means wash their robes in the blood of the Lamb but it doesn't say that. What it now says is that those that have clean laundry go to heaven.
Shall we honor the exact words used or change them to suit our idea's? "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. If we honor the words Jesus used we
will not correct his words and change them. Yet in Matthew 12:40 they FIX the word of God
"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man
be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." All manuscripts have the Greek
word Keetous meaning a whale, none have the Greek word often used by Jesus Ichthun meaning a
fish. Yet most modern Bibles correct it and replace the world Whale with Fish. This they do to be
consistent, in their opinion, with the story in Jonah. This liberty is common in modern translations.
How many changes?
In the New International Version which is touted as the most accurate we have in the New Testament alone 17 whole verses omitted, 180 portions of verses omitted, 173 more omissions of God's Name, and 229 additional changes that change the meaning of the verse.
For example the Why of the verse in Matt 9:13 "But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
Mark 2:17 "When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Leaving out to repentance destroys the purpose of the verse.
John 6:47 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." Again we believe on WHO? Or What? It doesn't say in the new Bibles.
Col 1:14 "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:"
How do we have redemption? The new Bibles don't say.
Why did they make these changes?
The fixing of the Bible to make it more acceptable to the doctrines of the church accounts for many changes. This can be seen in several texts like: Matt 1:25 "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." First born implies other children could have been born to Mary but Rome teaches the permanent virginity of Mary, so they "cut out" firstborn.
Again in Matt 6:13 "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the
kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." The church taught that it was the
kingdom that Jesus was praying for so in order to prevent confusion they cut out this verse from
the Lord's prayer in order to spare people confusion.
Dr. Gordon D. Free, a professor at Wheaton College, said in an article promoting the new versions in CHRISTIANITY TODAY
"The Contemporary translations as a group have one thing in common: they tend to agree against
the KJB... in omitting hundreds of words, phrases, and verses." Quoted in LET'S WEIGH THE
EVIDENCE by Barry Burton pg. 13.
Where are these omissions?
In the preface to the New American Standard Version "Brackets in the text are around words
probably not in the original writings." That is most theologians do not believe that the Word of
God was preserved in the faith, but was lost until the mid 1800's. The following is a list of some
of the bracketed texts in the NAS (because it is not found in the Alexandrian Text.) the same list
also applies to the other modern Bibles such as the NIV, TEV, NRSV, ASV, etc
Acts 8:36-38 parts Luke 24:40 All
Matt. 17:21 All Matt. 23:14 All
Matt. 18:11 All Mark 9:43-46 parts
Mark 7:16 All Mark 16:9-20 All
Mark 11:26 All Matt. 6:13 last sentence of lords prayer
Mark 15:28 All Luke 22:19-20 (all of 20)
Luke 17:36 All John 5:3-5 (all of 4)
Mark 15:28 All Acts 15:34 All
Luke 17:36 All Acts 24:6-8 (all of 7)
Luke 23:17 All John 7:53-John8:11 All
Luke 24:11-13 (all of 12)
Words missing but not even noted. (not even in brackets)
Matt. 1:25 firstborn Matt. 6:33 of God
Matt. 8:29 Jesus Matt. 9:13 to repentance
Matt. 12:35 of the heart Matt. 13:51 Jesus saith unto them,
Matt. 16:3 O ye hypocrites, Matt. 16:20 Jesus
Matt. 19:17 that is GOD Matt. 20:7 and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive
Matt. 20:16 for many are called but few chosen
Matt. 20:22 And to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with
Matt. 25:13 wherein the Son of man cometh
Matt. 27:35 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.
Matt. 28:2 from the door, Matt. 28:9 And as they went to tell his disciples,
Mark 1:14 of the kingdom Mark 2:17 to repentance
PLUS+ Mark 7:16; 9:24; 9:42; 9:44,46; 10:21; 11:10,26; 12,29-30; 13:14; 15:28; 16:9-20, Luke 1:28; 2:33,43; 4:4,8,41; 7:31; 9:54; 11:29; 22:31; 23:17,42; 24:12,40,49,51, John 1:14,18,27; 3:13,15; 4:42; 5:3,4; 6:47; 7:53; 8:11; 8:16; 11:41; 16:16; 17:12, Acts 2:30; 7:30,37; 8:37; 9:5-6; 10:6; 16:31; 17:26; 20:25, Rom. 1:16; 5:2; 9:28; 11:6; 13:9; 14:6,9,21; 15:29; 16:24, 1 Cor. 5:7; 6:20; 7:39; 10:28; 11:24,29; 15:47; 16:22,23, 2 Cor. 4:6,10, Gal. 3:1; 4:7; 6:15, Eph. 3:9 (Plus 80 more)
Likewise there are numerous old testament texts which are supposed to be based on the same
Jewish manuscripts that have been butchered like Isa. 59:19 in which "the enemy" has been
removed completely gutting the meaning of this verse.
Their CLAIM:
They claim that finding these older copies supports the few Alexandrian library Greek version
since their, debatable and opinionated, analysis concludes that these are the oldest Greek version
of the New Testament. Though they admit that older Syrian translations exist that support the
traditional Received text they are excited the have something new. A handful of Alexandrian
manuscripts, as they are called since that is where they are believed to have originated from, were
examined and rejected by the early protestant cannons or bible counsels including the King James
Version. They have numerous problems with their manuscripts and to fix these they have merged
them together into one "neutral" version and it is from one of these Greek versions which all
modern bibles are translated from. Lets examine some of these claims to accuracy.
Are these "Oldest" manuscripts accurate?
In Acts 1:1,2 Luke makes the following statement: "The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, Until the day in which he was taken up, after that . . . " "The former treatise" is of course the Gospel of Luke which Luke wrote to a believer named Theophilus (Luke 1:3). The things which Jesus began to do are first recorded in Luke 2:41-52 in which the story being left behind in Jerusalem at age 12. He is the only one that records any of Christ's actions prior to His baptism at age thirty. Thus Acts 1:1. Luke's gospel ends with Christ being "carried up into heaven" in Luke 24:51. This correlates with Acts 1:2 "Until the day in which he was taken up."
Thus, Luke states the his gospel begins with the earliest acts of Christ and ends with His
ascension. Therefore, any Greek manuscript containing the Gospel of Luke which omits either of
these accounts in not authentic. Yet the 23rd Edition of Nestle's Greek Text does not contain the
phrase "and was carried up into the heaven". This is based on only two manuscripts and this is
why it is deleted from the New American Standard Version (NASV) as well as the Revised
Standard Version (RSV). It is retained in other modern versions, not because they believe it to be
true but because it is too familiar.
Let's Examine the Source
Let's let the Bible tell us about the character of the two cities from which these different manuscripts come from.
The Bible has a consistently negative outlook of Egypt. Gen 12:10-12; Exodus 1:11-16; Exodus 20:2; Deut. 4:20; Deut. 17:16; Rev. 11:8. Alexandria the city in Egypt is mentioned only four times and again it is always bad. Acts 6:9 [Alexandrians disputing with Stephen]; Acts 18:24 [Apollos from Alexandria who was mixed up doctrinally see Acts 18:25, 19:3]; Acts 27:6 [Paul sent to Rome for punishment on a ship from Alexandria]; Acts 28:11. Alexandria was a center of education and philosophy (Col. 2:8) which it received from Athens in about 100 B.C. (Acts 17:16). There was a school of Scriptures founded there by Pantaenus who was a philosopher who interpreted scripture philosophically and allegorically. He did not believe that the Bible was infallible but relative. He believed Adam, Noah, Moses, and David existed only as poetry and were not true historical characters. He was succeeded as head of the school by Clement of Alexandria and later by Origen. All men of skepticism regarding the scriptures.
It was Origen, deceived by eh duel intoxicants of education and philosophy who upon receipt of pure copies of scripture altered them to parallel his twisted thinking. He is the father of all Bible critics and is not only responsible for the physical manuscripts which delete such verses as Luke 24:40, Acts 8:37 and 1 John 5:7, but he is also responsible for the Alexandrian philosophy of Bible error that can only be understood by wise learned men.
Origen (184-254 A.D.) Of Alexandria "The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written." McClintock and Strong, Art. Origen. His devotion to pagan philosophy and especially "Plato, led him in to many grand and fascinating errors." Dr Schaff's Church History, Vol II, pg 791.
Antioch is mentioned Acts 6:3-5 [first deacons full of Holy Ghost]; Acts 11:19-21 [great work];
Acts 11:22-24 [great ministry]; Acts 11:25,26 [upon finding Saul Barnabus does not bring him
back to Jerusalem but to Antioch, the spiritual capital of the New Testament church]; Acts
11:25-28 [were first called Christians, prophets from Jerusalem sent to Antioch]; Acts 11:29,30
[saints in Antioch sending money to Jerusalem]; Acts 13:1-3 [when God decides to send
missionaries out into the world to preach the gospel, He never even glances in the direction of
Jerusalem but looks to His faithful servants at Antioch.]; Acts 14:25-28 [again in the will of God];
Acts 15:23-27 [Jerusalem sent letters to Antioch, Judas returns to Jerusalem and is never heard
from again, Silas stays and becomes prominent in Scripture]. Antioch was a cultural center but
not abandoned to pagan religion or education-philosophy worship as Rome, Athens, and
Alexandria. It was centrally located and on the East-West trade routes and Sea access. In the
second century, a disciple by the name of Lucian founded a school of Scriptures in Antioch.
Lucian was noted for his mistrust of pagan philosophy. His school taught that the Bible was to be
taken literally. This is the source of the Received text manuscripts. The Answer Book by Dr
Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D. pg. 38,39.
What is the Received Text or the King James is based on:
"There are at least 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts which contain all or part of the New Testament. Plus.. There are translations into different languages which date back to within 100 years of the disciples. For example the Peshitta is a Syrian translation of the 2nd Century. These manuscripts agree with each other about 95% of the time."
Quoted in LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE by Barry Burton pg. 59
Papyrus copies 150-400 AD (Syrian)
Uncial Copies 500-1500 AD
Latin Bible - Waldensian 1100-1300 AD [Church in mountain/wilderness Rev. 12:6,13,14]
Latin Bible - Albigenses 1380-1550 AD ditto
Latin Bible - Lollards 1300-1500 AD ditto
Tyndale' 1525 Bible Translation
Luther's Bible 1530
Coverdale 1535
Matthews 1537
Great Bible 1539
Geneva Bible 1560
Bishops Bible 1568
KJV 1611
What are the new Bibles based on:
The Vaticanus: "It was found in the Vatican Library in 1481 A.D. In spite of being in excellent condition, it omits Genesis 1:1-Gen. 46:28, Psalms 106-138, Matt. 16:2-3, the Pauline Pastoral Epistles, Hebrews 9:14-13:25, and all of Revelation.
Besides all that - in the gospels alone it leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses and 748 whole sentences, which hundreds of later copies agree together as having the same words in the same places, the same clauses in the same places and the same sentences in the same places."
Quoted in LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE by Barry Burton pg. 60
The Siniaticus: The Siniaticus is a manuscript that was found in 1844 in a trash pile in St. Catherine's Monastery near Mount Sinai. It contains nearly all of the New Testament plus it adds the "Shepherd of Hermes" and the "Epistle of Barnabas" to the New Testament.
The Siniaticus is extremely unreliable, proven by examining the manuscript itself. John Burgon spent years examining every available manuscript of the New Testament. He writes about the Siniaticus:
"On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped, through very carelessness. Letters, words or even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause proceeding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament."
Quoted in LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE by Barry Burton pg. 61
"The Siniaticus disagrees with the Vaticanus over 3000 times in the Gospels alone!"
Quoted in LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE by Barry Burton pg. 60
On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revision, done by 10 different people. Some of these corrections were made about the same time that it was copied, but most of them were made in the 6th or 7th century.
Phillip Mauro was a brilliant lawyer who was admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court in April 1892. He wrote a book called Which Version in the early 1900's. He writes concerning the Siniaticus:
"From these facts, therefore, we deduce: first that the impurity of the Codex Sinaiticus, in every part of it, was fully recognized by those who were best acquainted with it, and that from the very beginning until the time when it was finally cast aside as worthless for any practical purpose."
Quoted in LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE by Barry Burton pg. 61
What about the character of the Modern Translators:
The Authority of the Bible by Professor C.H.Dodd director of the Translation of the New English Bible. pg. 15 "The most downright claims to infallibility are made by the apocalyptist [the Book Revelation], as for example in the New Testament Revelation [See 22:6, 16,18-19)] a book which some of the wisest thinkers of the early Church wished to exclude from the canon, and which as a whole, is sub-Christian in tone and outlook."
"Moses has left us no writings, and we know little of him with certainty." pg. 27 (But The Bible Says: Ex. 24:4 "And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord")
Quoted in LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE by Barry Burton pg. 69
We are not studying from the modern translations but the KJV because:
1. They give precedence to the Alexandrian Text which is in the minority and is inaccurate even when compared with itself.
2. They delete words that are in the Greek text, (even in the Alexandrian).
3. Many of the translators did not believe the Bible is sacred or trustworthy.
4. Many of the translators pursued a goal of innovation and interpretation instead of literal word for word translation.
5. The KJV and the New King James Versions are the only versions that place words added that are not based directly on a Greek or Hebrew words in Italics, so that the reader may know what is added by the translator even if only done for clarity. This demonstrates that the translators had a great fear or respect for God's Word. They did not feel at liberty to delete words they felt were unnecessary.
6. The KJV had a long history of being blessed by God.
7. The KJV is the only non copyrighted Bible, so it can be freely quoted from without having to get permission or paying royalties.
"For God is not the author of confusion," 1 Cor. 14:33 But people are confused and do not know
which is correct when everyone has a different version. It discourages people from reading and
following along with the pastor in church.
CONCLUSION: This, the Vaticanus and Siniaticus, is what most religion teachers think is "The most reliable manuscripts"! You don't believe me read it for yourself in one of the new counterfeit Bibles. As in the NIV after John 7:52 they say "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11." and that is a boldfaced lie. "In fact many of the earliest manuscripts were very corrupt." The Text of the New Testament, by Bruce M. Metzger, 2nd Ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968), pg. 201
You think this isn't very important. God must, for he says that playing with his word will cost you your salvation. It is like the unpardonable sin.
Fortunately the Bible verses were numbered so that any future tampering with it would show up. But what if there is a mistake in my Bible and I don't know it? Well if you use the God's ordained method of study you are somewhat safeguarded.
What the theologians and translators of these Bibles are saying is that the early Christian church, that is the early Greek church, Syrian church, Egyptian church, and even to a large extent the Latin vulgate, the official Bible of the Catholic church and the persecuted Protestants such as the Waldensians all of which harmonize and are ancient, were in error. The two partial manuscripts riddled with spelling and other errors "found" in the Vatican library in 1481 and in the garbage at a monastery in 1844 are actually the most accurate and reliable manuscripts, even though they disagree with each other over 3000 times and are incomplete. Even though these have sections, verses and whole books missing and have verses repeated numerous times and more numerous spelling errors than the "received text" or the 95% of manuscripts they are the correct and the others had those verses etc added and are in fact spurious. In fact the oldest manuscripts, the Syrian, are in harmony with the received text. In fact no Christian body accepted these "Alexandrian text" until the recent theologians started coming out with these "new Bibles". None of the early Christian churches till near the turn of the 20th century, accepted these manuscripts as valid. These new manuscripts' origin and proponents are all of questionable ethics. They have been linked to people like ORIGEN and Wescott and Hort. The promoters of these Vatican made texts have dubious and questionable sources (St Constantine/St Jerome/Oregin).
Are these Bible texts supposed to be in the Bible? They are in the majority of ancient texts. Or do
you believe the two spurious manuscripts that were "found" and the questionable sources from
which they come? You decide.
For Further Study:
Fuller, David Otis, D.D.: Counterfeit or Genuine Mark 16? John 8? 1978, 217 pages Lib.Congress:74-82807 ISBN 0-8254-2615-4 Which Bible 1978, 350 pages Lib Card:70-129737 ISBN 0-8254-261-2-X True or False 1975, 305 pages Grand Rapids International Publication; P.O.Box 2607 Grand Rapids, Mi. 49501
Wilkinson, Benjamin G. PHD. The Authorized Bible Vindicated 1930, 258 pages Leaves of Autumn Books, P.O.Box 440 Payson,Arizona 85541
Hills, Edward F. The King James Version Defended 1956, 280 pages, Lib.Card:83-73428 ISBN 0-915923-00-9 Christian Research Press P.O.Box 2013 Des Moines, Iowa 50310
Burton, Barry Let's Weigh the Evidence 1983, 95 pages Lib.Card:83-71271 ISBN 0-937958-17-4 Chick Publications P.O.Box 662 Chino, CA 91710
Chick, Jack T Sabbatoge? 1979, 32 pages (Same Pub as above)
Crews, Sharon Thomas The Faithful Witness 1990, 47 pages Amazing Facts P.O.Box 680 Frederick MD 21701
Burnside, George The New International Version or The King James Version 173 pages, Leaves of Autumn Books (See Above for Address)