Posts Tagged ‘King James Only’

James A. ThM

One of the most disturbing trends behind the defense of modern “Bible” versions by “scholars” and “apologists” like James White, Daniel Wallace, Bruce Metzger, Norman Geisler, and their ilk is the deliberate omissions in their writings of the rationalists and occultists that laid the foundations for destructive textual criticism. The sycophants of James White often embrace his gibberish about Bible versions without ever bothering to study both sides of the issue, and White uses such vitriolic ad hominem attacks against King James Only Bible believers that he leaves his followers in the dark about the truth behind his influences.

Paul advised Timothy of the importance of knowing who is behind the teachings you embrace: “But continue thou in the things which thou has learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them” (2 Timothy 3:14). Any honest person should be horrified about the men who James White and his ilk endorse to support their attacks on the King James Bible and defense of their Roman Catholic texts.*

Here we will list** just a few of those heretics that James White wants you to trust when he excuses the fact that he can’t point you to a single book on earth or heaven that he can actually say IS the Bible, all the while claiming that he believes in something he calls “THE” Bible-he just can’t tell YOU where you can get your own copy.

Johann Jacob Griesbach (1745-1812)

Griesbach was influenced by a German Rationalist named Johann Semler. Semler did not believe that the entire canon of the Bible was inspired. He promoted the “accommodation theory” that holds one can give a person limited information about the truth because they presently lack the capacity to understand it. Semler taught that the New Testament writers’ miracles were fictitious and only written to appease certain needs of the followers of the apostles. He rejected the inspiration of Revelation calling it “the production of an extravagant dreamer”.

Bruce Metzger claimed that Westcott & Hort never collated any manuscripts, but simply “refined the critical methodology developed by Griesbach, Lachmann, and others, and applied it rigorously” (Metzger, Text of the New Testament, p. 129).

George Vance Smith (1816-1902), Westcott & Hort Revision Committee

Smith was a Unitarian that denied the deity of Christ and the blood atonement, the personality of the Holy Spirit, and the doctrine of the Trinity altogether. Smith did not believe in the inspiration of Scripture. Thousands of clergy protested Smith’s appointment to the revision committee of Westcott and Hort who threatened to quit if Smith was not allowed to remain on the committee.

Ezra Abbot (1819-1884)

Abbot was behind the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901. He claimed that Christ should not be worshiped. He wrote in a footnote in John 9:3 of the 1901 ASV that Christ was a created being, and made a distinction between Christ (created) and God (Creator).

Eberhard Nestle (1851-1913)

Nestle, of the popular Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (nearly 30 different editions now), rejected the infallibility of the Bible, and believed it was no more than a normal piece of literature. He claimed that authors of the New Testament never expected their writings to be read by others let alone be taken as the authoritative word of God.

United Bible Society (UBS) Greek New Testament

The UBS, which is highly recommended by James White (along with NA 28, and Westcott & Hort’s critical Greek apparatus), is partnered with the Pontifical Biblical Institute of Rome. One of its leading editors added in 1967 (1967-2002) was a Jesuit priest, Carlo M. Martini. Martini believed in evolution, that the Bible was ordinary literature and embraced numerous New Age philosophies.

The UBS 5 was recently endorsed by Pope Francis. Imagine that! James White and Pope Francis both endorse the 5th edition of the UBS Greek New Testament.

Kurt and Barbara Aland

Partner with Eberhard Nestle (above), he and his wife are also contributors the UBS. Aland does not believe in verbal inspiration of the Bible, and that the Old Testament and the gospels are full of myths that were not inspired by God but merely a naturalistic process. Kurt Aland does not believe that the canon of Scripture is complete or settled.

Bruce Metzger (1914-2007)

Plagiarist Bruce Metzger also denies the infallibility of the Bible. In his notes on the Reader’s Digest Condensed Bible, he rejected the authorship, dates, and supernatural inspiration of books written by Moses, Daniel, Paul, James and Peter. In the 1962 New Oxford Annotated Bible RSV, Metzger opined that the Old Testament is “a matrix of myth, legend and history”. He rejected the flood of Genesis, and said that Isaiah was written by two other authors, and the story of Jonah was a fairytale.

Westcott & Hort

Westcott & Hort led the committee that created a never-before-seen Greek New Testament. They used as their exemplar, the Codex Vaticanus, an abandoned and dusty ms from the shelf of a Vatican library in 1475, “rediscoverd” in the late 1800s (ironically, shortly after the “discovery” of the Codex Sinaiticus), and the Codex Sinaiticus, a forged document by a Greek paleographer named Constantine Simonides in 1840, stolen from the trash room of a Catholic/Muslim*** monastery in Egypt (St. Catherine’s) by Constantine Tischendorf who was wined and dined by Rome for his endeavors. Both are missing entire books of the Bible and have been deliberate altered in thousands of places. Neither of them believed in the infallibility of the Bible.

They belonged to several occult societies and socialist groups, and had an affinity for the Mary of the Catholic. Arthur Westcott writes that upon the finding of a pieta (Roman Catholic statute of Mary holding the dead body of Christ), that BF Westcott stated, “Had I been there alone I could have knelt for hours”. Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Vol I, p 81 (1903).

Although much has been written about these men, their greatest influence on the revision committee was the Genealogical Method and Lucian Recension. (For a thorough take down of these two methods, see Wilbur Pickering’s Identity of the New Testament, II, chapter 3) There is no historical evidence to support either one, and Westcott & Hort themselves never applied the genealogical method to their own New Testament. It was only used to attack the Greek Textus Receptus. Not even modern scholars use the method, and yet it, as well as the ghost theory of the Lucian Recension are touted as justifications for the hatchet job that Westcott & Hort presented in 1881 as the “best and oldest” manuscripts.
If taking James White and his ilk seriously, we are to believe that the transmission of the Textus Receptus which was maintained by faithful, persecuted Christians since the inception of the church, was full of errors, mistakes, and deliberate alterations (like those in the Lucian recension which James White rejected my challenge to debate proof for), and was preserved by God through Christ denying heretics who didn’t believe the Bible was infallible or inspired, and who persecuted those who did. We are also led to believe that the church was kept in the dark until 1881 when Tischendorf “discovered” the “oldest” and “best” manuscripts.

KJVO critics often ask the dumbest question ever: “where was the Bible before 1611?”, which we have answered ad nauseum, and it wasn’t sitting on a shelf in a Vatican library collecting dust. But modern version onlyists never answer that same question: where was the Bible before 1881? Did God sandbag the church by hiding the best and oldest manuscripts from the entire church for 1800 years only to cause them to be found by heretics and rationalists on a dusty shelf and a library shared with Muslims in Egypt?

Those of you defending James White who believe his absurd rhetoric about King James Only”ism” need a serious reality check.

________________________________________________

*James White will often punt to his “debates” with Roman Catholics as proof that he does not support the Catholic church, but he never calls them to leave the Roman Catholic Church, he never refers to it as a cult (which it is)-of course while referring to King James Only advocates as cultists (many of whom are Calvinists like James White)- he has defended Pope Francis’ statement that Jesus death on the cross was a failure, and he is a staunch advocate for the two Roman Catholic manuscripts that underlie all of the modern Bible versions. James White is also an amillennialist which is the same eschatological heresy taught by the Catholic church. White ignores prophecy debates even though he claims to be an “apologist”. Any apologist who neglects the defense of over half of the Bible is no real apologist (Acts 20:27).

The subtlety of the devil and of the Jesuits is permitting just enough truth to appear orthodox, but leaving out enough that a person is never actually called to repentance and belief of the truth. Catholics frankly don’t care that White “debates” them, so long as White never encourages and of them to LEAVE even though he claims to believe in repentance. And as long as he endorses their Bibles, no honest critic of Catholicism could ever take him seriously that they have a common theological enemy.

** The outline follows chapter 2 of David Cloud’s exhaustive and excellent expose of this subject in For the Love of the Bible. WayofLife.Org

*** It is well known that St. Catherine’s was a Catholic monastery. What modern versionists do NOT tell you is that it was also shared with Egyptian Muslims who had numerous Islamic relics and writings stored there. This probably explains the reason why a 12th Islamic prophecy is scrawled in Arabic on the footnote of Revelation 7-8 on the Codex Sinaiticus. How 12th century Islamic prophecies using 18th Century Arabic writing style ended up on a supposed 4th century ms is an anomaly that James White has continually dodged, telling his followers that I and Dr. James Ach are “the biggest trolls on the internet”, and “beneath contempt

 

Dr James Ach and J/A (PMI PhD Student)

Lest anyone deem my response as unkind, I’m going to begin this article by showing how Colby Bonham treated Matthew Flynn (the subject of this article), so that nobody whines when I treat Colby’s article with the same fervor in which he treated Flynn’s.

I hope you have the discernment to see the idiocy of Mr. Flynn’s argument.

Although I’ve had this debate a million times- and no KJVO (King James Version Only) critic has ever raised a logical or Biblical defense to their criticism of the KJVO position on Psalm 12- from time to time some buffoon thinks he’s smarter than God and can just rewrite the Scriptures-in any language-and even alter basic rules of grammar-in any language.

Some Bible corrector named Colby Bonham decided to send me a link to his blog in response to an argument he had with another Twitter friend who is KJVO. The blog can be found here  . This is not a new attack on Psalm 12, but certainly one of the worst I’ve ever seen. The logic employed here is a stretch even for critics like James White and Daniel Wallace. But for the sake of a few of my friends that this guy repeatedly harasses, I’m going to peel his onion blog.*

Colby first states his goal is not to “critique KJVO position in its entirety”, but yet he maintains that anyone who holds to the KJVO view is mislead, dangerous, and teaching false doctrine. If that’s not a critique of the KJVO position in its entirety I don’t know what is.

I can’t speak on the points where he is apparently rebutting “Flynn’s” arguments because I do not have access to that blog’s content, so I will simply respond to the errors of Colby’s attacks on the KJVO position and specifically his ridiculous arguments on Psalm 12:6-7.

Traditional King James Only View of Psalm 12:6-7

Most people who understand the Bible and take it literally view Psalm 12:7 as referring to the words of the LORD in verse 6. When read naturally line upon line and in the normal flow of context and syntax, that’s how the passage reads. The words of the LORD are the natural antecedent of what God preserves. However, Bible correcting “scholars” have introduced a monkey wrench into this passage by claiming that it what God preserves are the poor of Psalm 12:5 instead of the words of the LORD of verse 6.  Colby is one of such that takes this foolish position and we shall dismantle his major errors below.

Colby  Error #1 Purified Silver

Colby admits that there is some symbolism used here. But he misses the point and presumes that “KJVOS assume God’s word needs purifying”. That’s the DUMBEST thing I’ve ever heard, and a blatant strawman attack that no KJVO holds to. Yes, the silver is a finished product being compared to the words of the LORD, but the TRYING OF THE SILVER isn’t to purify God’s words, it’s the process of bringing them to light to US.

Now I am not so dogmatic as to boldly claim that Psalm 12 refers to 7 translations prior to the KJV in 1611. I think it is certainly a shocking coincidence, but not one that I can claim with certainty. I think Laurence Vance has offered some convincing arguments for it, but it’s not a position that I am convinced is a MUST or necessity for a KJVO advocate. What I CAN claim with certainty is that Psalm 12:7 is a reference to the words of the LORD, not the poor of verse 5. More on that later but Colby was not merely attacking this view, but cited Doug Kutilek’s article in support of his argument in which Kutilek attacks the entire view that Psalm 12:7 is not a reference to the words of the LORD at all, and also, the commentators cited by Colby support this view as well.

Thus for Colby to claim that he is merely attacking the KJVO position of Psalm 12:7 as being a prophetic reference to the English translations that preceded the KJV is disingenuous and dishonest in light of the resources he cited in support of his position that ALL agree with each other (with the exception of a few that Colby misquoted), that Psalm 12:7 refers to “the poor” instead of the words of the LORD of Psalm 12:6. Colby is in fact attacking 2 different positions even though he claims to only be attacking one. This is an obvious attempt to “win by default” where if there is shown disagreement among even KJVOs and other commentators on Psalm 12 regarding the versions preceding the KJV, then by default that means Psalm 12:7 is not a reference to the words of the LORD. Quite a deceptive sleight-of-hand indeed.

Colby  Error #2 Hebrew Grammar

Naturally, as an Israeli born Hebrew speaking Jew, this one got my attention. I was eagerly waiting for the punch line of Colby’s devastating Hebrew analysis, and it never materialized. When I asked him where it went? He replied on Twitter “I never said I knew Hebrew”. Wait! Yes you did. You said, “The rules of Hebrew grammar prove that KJVOs are wrong on Psalm 12”. It’s one thing to quote someone else and claim that THEY SAID Hebrew grammar rules support their view, quite another to assert it as a fact of your argument when you admittedly don’t know Hebrew.

Colby cites Doug Kutilek, someone who’s NOT a Hebrew scholar, just a KJVO critic that many of us have dealt with before. Kutilek’s only real challenge offered where grammar is concerned is that the pronominal suffix in “keep them” a masculine gender and “the words of the LORD” (v6)  feminine in gender, and so he concludes the “them” must be a reference to the “people” of verse 5.

Gesenius, a Hebrew scholar, states,

“Through a weakening in the distinction of gender … masculine suffixes (especially in the plural) are not infrequently used to refer to feminine substantives (E Kautzsch, ed,Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 2nd ed by A E Cowley [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910], 440, sect O).

Other examples include, Genesis 31:8-9, “Thus God hath taken away the cattle of your [masculine plural pronoun suffix—refering to Rachel and Leah] father, and given them to me.”;  Genesis 32:15, “Thirty milch camels with their [masculine plural pronoun suffix—referring to the 30 female camels] colts, forty kine, and ten bulls, twenty she asses, and ten foals.”; Exodus 1:21, “And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them [masculine plural pronoun suffix — a reference to the midwives] houses.

Speaking on the remainder of grammar issues, Quek Suan Yew from Far Eastern Bible College states:

Anti-preservationists also argue that the pronominal suffix in “preserve them” (v7b) is in the singular, and so the KJV translators were wrong to render it as “them” (plural). It is true that the pronominal suffix for “preserve them” in verse 7b is a third person masculine singular suffix (him). Why did the KJV translators translate it as “them?” The answer is in the attaching of the energetic nun (the Hebrew letter n) to the pronominal suffix. When this occurs an additional rule applies in the Hebrew language. It is important to note that there is no masculine plural pronominal suffix in the third person when the energetic nun is applied to a verb (see Gesenius, 157-8,l sect 4, I). Hence the Scripture writer, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, used the singular masculine pronominal suffix, retaining the same gender as in “keep them” in verse 7a. It is again very legitimate and consistent with Hebrew grammar for the KJV translators to translate the masculine singular pronominal suffix with the energetic nun as a masculine plural pronoun — “them.”

When we speak of context, it is the immediate context that is considered first, and not the distant context. The immediate context speaks of the words of the Lord. Hence the preservation and keeping (guarding) would be the words of the Lord. We know that the grammar and syntax allow it. Verse 6 is what is known as an emblematic parallelism where the purity of God’s Word is likened to the sevenfold purification (as pure as you can ever get) process of purging silver of every bit of dross leaving behind the purest silver (see Tremper Longman III, How to Read the Psalms [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988], 100). This verse teaches that the words of the Lord are without error or fallibility and it is 100% perfect.

Verse 7 is known as a synonymous parallelism where the second line restates what is mentioned in the first, but using different words (Longman III, 99). As mentioned before, the use of the energetic nun emphasises the act of preservation. This preservation is forever. The relationship between verses 6 and 7 is what we callsynthetic parallelism where the second verse adds or expands on the teaching mentioned in the first verse. These two verses combined teach that the words of God are forever perfect; like silver purified seven times, they will be preserved by God for eternity.

The contrast within the psalm would be the words of these evil men versus the words of the Lord. These evil men speak vanity and flattery (v2), and boast that their words will prevail and no one is lord over them (v4). The psalmist counters this by declaring that it is the words of the Lord that will prevail over the words of the evil ones. This is the assurance and comfort that the Lord gives to His people. Do not fear the words of these evil flatterers and boasters; trust in the words of the Lord that is purified seven times as opposed to the words of the evil men which are vain, proud and stem from a double heart (v2). God will keep (guard) His holy words and preserve (action is emphasised by the energetic nun) them from this generation forever. The Lord gave this verbal assurance to that generation and after because He knew they needed it. God’s people were distressed by the many wicked and confusing words that came from proud and evil men. But the thrice holy and perfect God encouraged His people by reminding them that His words and promises are ever true and will forever remain.

Published in The Burning Bush, Volume 10 Number 2 (July 2004)

Furthermore from Gesenius,

“The suffix gains still more strength, when instead of the union-vowels there is inserted between it and the verb a union-syllable n-, which, when the syllable has the tone, becomes n- (commonly called Nûn epenthetic or Nûn demonstrative), which, however, occurs only in the Imperfect and chiefly in pause, e.g. yebarkenehu he will bless him (Ps. 72,15)… This Nûn is, however, for the most part incorporated with the suffixes, and hence we get a new series of forms … Rem. The uncontracted forms with Nûn written distincly are rare and only poetic (Ex. 15,2) Deut. 32,10, Jer. 5,22,, 22,24) and do not occur at all in 3 fem. sing. and 1 plur. The contracted forms (with the Nûn assimilated) are rahter frequent also in prose, especially in pause (very seldom -nu as first pers. pl. Hosea 12, 5) This Nûn is of a demonstrative nature, and gives more emphasis to the word, and is therefore chiefly found in pause. But it occurs also in the union of the suffixes with certain particles.” Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, London: Asher & Co., 1903, p. 146. 

Interesting that the NASV altered the nun form in Psalm 12:7 even though they followed the rules in hundreds of other places (In Genesis alone Genesis  5:29; 9:5; 21:13; 42:4; 42:15; 43:9; Ex 21:29; 21:33; 22:21; 22:26; 23:4; 23:29; 25:2; 25:11; Le 1:3; 1:10; 3:1; 6:5; 7:6;  13:11; 13:44; 13:55; 13:57; 17:9; 23:11; 25:49; 25:53; 27:8; 27:10; 27:33; Nu 6:9; 9:16; 18:13; 22:6; 23:13; 23:25; 24:9; 24:17; 30:13; De 7:26; 12:15; 12:16; 12:18; 12:22; 12:24; 12:25; 13:9; 14:27; 15:8; 15:12; 15:13; 15:20; 15:21; 15:22; 15:23; 20:5; 20:6; 21:23; 23:21; 25:3; 28:30; 28:48; 30:13; 31:14-Thank you Brandon Staggs).

The masculine pronominal suffixes “them (תשׁמרם)”/”him (תצרנו)” and the feminine “words (אמרות)” are not an uncommon unpaired match and in this context when it is semantically masculine as a whole phrase (“אמרות יהוה”) the entire phrase takes on a masculine construction.

For more examples and a THOROUGH Hebrew analysis of the grammatical issues of Psalm 12:6-7 see Dr. Thomas Strauss

For a thorough response to Doug Kutilek’s butchering of Psalm 12, see Will Kinney, Answering Doug Kutilek’s anti- Preservation in Psalms 12

We also won’t mention that Kutilek relies much on “19th century writers..like Simon Patrick”, who lived from 1626-1707, hardly “19th century”, or how Doug lied about Rashi’s claims about Psalm 12:7 never referencing the words of the LORD, but who said Doug was good with FACTS!

See also Gender Discord by Kent Brandenburg and Sam Gipp Is the King James Bible inspired or preserved?

Colby Error #3 The King James Translators View of Psalm 12

Apparently, Colby seems to think that the KJV translators share his view of Psalm 12. He has obviously never seen the footnote in the 1611 KJV in context with the verse, “Heb. him. i. every one of them“. The translators knew it was grammatically singular and translated the pronoun as semantically plural in reference to the masculine being THEM-the words of God! For whatever reason Colby doesn’t get the footnote reference by the KJV translators. (More below as to the grammatical nature used here.)

Colby Error #4 Commentators Vs Hebrew Scholars

Colby seems to think that a person who blogs about KJVOs or writes commentaries qualifies as an expert in Hebrew grammar. He can’t seem to tell the difference between a textual scholar, linguistic expert, and a commentator.

But let’s look at the logic of some of the commentators.

Colby cites the Pulpit Commentary as follows:

Ver. 7. — Thou shalt keep them, O Lord. God having promised to set the righteous, who are oppressed, in a place of safety (ver. 5), the psalmist is sure that he will keep them and preserve them from the wicked“generation,”  which has possession of the earth, and bears rule in it

First of all, NOWHERE in Psalm 12 are the poor referred to as “the righteous”.  This is eisegetical suicide invented to make Psalm 12:7 fit their view. God commanded Israel to be courteous to the poor because they themselves were oppressed and strangers in Egypt.  Deut 15:11, 23:5-7, Ex 23:6. In fact, Deut 15:11 shows a distinction between “thy brother” and “the poor”. Just because God defends the poor doesn’t mean they are saved. More on this point later.

Furthermore, when David wrote Psalm 12, Israel was the dominant kingdom of the earth, not their enemies. Israel was not taken into captivity until well after Saul, David, and Solomon were memories. So to claim that Psalm 12 is about keeping the “righteous” away from the wicked who are IN POSSESSION AND RULE THE EARTH is a blunder of mammoth proportions because no wicked nation ruled the earth at that time, Israel did.

Colby erroneously relies on a handful of commentators to prove that the historicity of commentators debunks the KJVO position. That is just patently absurd. In the same breath, the existence of just as many commentators who say otherwise would therefore vindicate the KJVO position.

John Wesley, June 5, 1765 says,

Psalm 12:6. Pure-Without the least mixture of falsehood; and therefore shall infallibly be fulfilled.

V.7. Thou shalt keep them-Thy words or promises: these thou wilt observe and keep, both now, and from this generation for ever.

Noah Webster,

“Webster’s 1833 translation, and the Lesser Bible 1853 – “Thou shalt keep THEM, O LORD, thou shalt preserve THEM from this generation for ever.”

Dr. G. Campbell Morgan,

The psalmist breaks out into praise of the purity of His words, and declares that Jehovah will ‘keep them’ and ‘preserve them.’ The ‘them’ here refers to his words. There is no promise made of widespread revival or renewal. It is the salvation of a remnant and the preservation of His own words which Jehovah promises.” Exposition of the whole Bible, Psalms, pg 32

Hebrew Scholar J.H. Eaton,

…but we may rather follow the main Hebrew tradition: “Thou O Lord shalt keep them (i.e. watch over the words to fulfill them, Jer. 1:12)…” (Torch Bible Commentaries, 1967). [Confirming that the interpretation of ‘thou shalt keep them’ as referring to the words of God was in fact, established Hebrew tradition].

David Guzik, Study Guide for Psalm 12, 2008,

B.1.(b). You shall keep them, O LORD, You shall preserve them: This was David’s declaration of confidence in God’s ability to preserve His own words. He did not only give His word to mankind; His providential hand has protected the existence and integrity of His word through the centuries.

Trinitarian Bible Society,

Furthermore, since these Scriptures were placed near the ark, in theheart of the tabernacle or temple, they were separated from all common books. They were manifestly declared to be holy. Certainly, God’s written Word is pure and sublime. It is truth, without any mixture of error. “The
words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times” (Psalm 12:6).” Malcom H. Watts, The Lord Gave the Word, 1998, page 5.

Henry Ainsworth (1526)

the sayings” [of Psalm 12:7] are “words” or “promises” that are “tried” or “examined” “as in a fire.”

Dr. W. Gary Crampton,

Textual criticism over the last century has moved away from the textual critical principles of the Reformers and Puritans that was grounded in the doctrines of inspiration and preservation, and has led the church astray. We have been told that a few texts upon which the new translations are based are better than the majority of texts upon which the King James and the New King James versions are based. As this article has shown, however, this is not true. The Westcott-Hort critical text is not dependable. As Pickering wrote, it is unproved at every point. Neither the Westcott-Hort theory nor the Modern Critical Text theory of eclecticism (often called “reasoned eclecticism”) can rationally claim to believe that God has providentially preserved His Word throughout the centuries. Any view that disclaims passages such as Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8-11, and 1 John 5:7 (which have been “received” as a part of the New Testament for centuries) shows this to be the case. When God tell us that He will preserve His Word for us from generation to generation, as He does in Psalm 12:7; 119:152, 160; and Isaiah 40:8, then He will do so, because He “is not a man that He should lie” (Numbers 23:19).” Crampton: Bart D. Ehrman & Daniel B. Wallace in Dialogue: The Reliability of the New Testament

For more scholars on Psalm 12:7, see David Cloud’s exhaustive research in For the Love of the Bible.

Suffice it to say “history” is not on Colby’s side because common sense would tell us that if history itself was the benchmark, then the earliest comment wins, and the evidence shows that the earlier commentators and Hebrew scholars (as opposed to Colby’s citation of recent ones) supported the Psalm 12:7 view as applied to the words of the Lord of verse 6. The paradigm shift in Psalm 12:7 among some scholars is a recent one, certainly not a “historical” position.

Colby Error #5 The Benjamin Wilkinson Fallacy

Most KJVO critics erroneously blame a 7th Day Adventist for many of the KJVO claims bypassing the common sense notion of figuring out where Wilkinson got HIS ideas from. They weren’t original, and in fact, even James White admits that most of what Wilkinson wrote in defense of the Textus Receptus and King James Version he got from An Inquiry Into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate by Dr. Frederick Nolan  (1784-1864) (White’s critique of Wilkinson’s book). Thus the claims made by Wilkinson were derived from a CALVINIST nearly 100 years BEFORE Wilkinson wrote his book. The idea of 7-fold purification was also mentioned by G. Campbell Morgan well before Wilkinson.

The very fact that Colby quotes John Gill who died in 1771 (long before Wilkinson was born) who shows his disagreement with Aben Ezra on Psalm 12 shows that there were Hebrew scholars that held this position long before Benjamin Wilkinson.

This is a classic “guilt by association” fallacy. The KJVO critics ignore the fact that a large amount of KJV translators were Calvinists and pick out folks like a 7th Day Adventist to slander the KJVO position. Granted, KJVOs have done this with the beliefs of Westcott & Hort, but neither of these men believed that the Scriptures were infallible and/or perfectly preserved and thus at this point what they believed made quite a difference in their bias in translation whereas in spite of the different views among the KJV translators, what they all DID have in common was that the word of God was preserved and was the final authority on all matters of faith and practice, hardly the same view held by the Catholic Bible translators (including the lesbians on the NIV committee).

What is really silly about this accusation is that there’s not one 7th Day Adventist today that holds Wilkinson’s position. In fact, the 7DA publication “Amazing Facts” is adamantly opposed to King James Only advocacy.

Nevertheless, when it comes to associations, I can hardly think of any worse association than a manuscript that is named after the Vatican (Codex Vaticanus) and a Roman Catholic owned monastery (St. Catherine’s, Codex Siniaticus) -both of which are the primary underlying texts that make up the critical text apparatus and all modern versions (including the Jehovah’s Witnesses ‘New World Translation’)- by those who claim to oppose the Roman Catholic Church.

Colby Error #7 God Never Uses Exclusiveness of Language

For nearly 2000 years, God used ONLY the Hebrew language to preserve and communicate His word to Israel. To claim that it is wrong for KJVOs to expect others to learn English because God wouldn’t require that of anyone defies the fact that that’s EXACTLY how God operated for 2,000 years. English is the universal language. It is impossible to conduct international business without knowledge of English. It is even impossible to get the right time zone without setting it to the standard of Greenwich, England. Why is that the rest of the world is fine with learning English for business and trade, but the KJVO critic is opposed to it for learning the Bible?

Moreover, it is even more absurd to claim that instead of learning English, the only way to truly know the Bible is to have a thorough knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. In other words, KJVO critics, in chastising us for expecting others to learn English, expect everyone else to learn TWO different languages in order to “properly” interpret and convey God’s “original” meaning.

This silly argument also ignores the fact that the KJV has been translated into hundreds of other languages. Thus the KJV is NOT JUST AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION. A little gloss that KJVO critics frequently (deliberately in my opinion) ignore.

Critics forget that God is the one that confounded the languages of man in the first place (Genesis ch 11). God did not WANT there to be common communication. He reserved ONE LANGUAGE for His people (Hebrew: and for the idiots who argue “you left out Aramaic”, Aramaic is a form of Hebrew, genius). There’s no reason to dismiss God using an exclusive GENTILE language during the times of the Gentiles.

Other Ridiculous Questions by Colby

“Why would God allow His people to remain in such an error all the way up until 1930?”

Considering that his ‘camp’ of Bible agnostics say the same thing about Codex Siniaticus and Codex Vaticanus, this is quite the accusation coming from KJVO critics. Let me explain. Critics like James White and ..well…every other KJVO critic and modern version proponent claim that neither Erasmus nor any of the KJV translators had the manuscripts available to them that were available to the Westcott & Hort Revision Committee that released their critical text and “revision” between 1881-1885. Thus according to all KJVO critics, not only did the KJV translators not have the word of God in 1611, neither did anyone else until at least the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus in 1859 by Constantine von Tischendorf, which gave credence to Codex Vaticanus, both of which the Revision Committee used to rewrite the Greek New Testament and overthrow the Textus Receptus.

In other words, the position that critical text scholars and their fans take against the KJVO is the exact same position that should equally apply to their own position. But of course, KJVO critics are never consistent in their accusations. They make the absurd claim that KJVO proponents don’t think the word of God showed up until 1611, yet their own position doesn’t allow for the complete word of God to be discovered until over 200 years later, and published in 1865.

Furthermore, critics like James White chide KJVO advocates for not being ‘open minded’ enough to accept new discoveries. So like the evolutionist, new discoveries may some day prove that evolution is true, and shame on those closed-minded creationists for accepting as truth -right NOW- that the matter of creation is settled without one more bit of “scientific evidence” needed to vindicate creationism. For the KJV Bible critic, the issue of preservation is never settled. In fact, it is this very point that Muslims have used against James White to reinforce their attacks against the Bible. (See proof in our article “Jesus Didn’t Forgive Them” with Will Kinney , and video evidence citing by a Muslim).

For more, see Will Kinney’s Where Was The Bible Before 1611?

God Only Preserved His Word In the “Original Languages”

An oldie but a goodie. This is the Alexandrian Cult’s favorite line. Nevermind that Moses destroyed the originals that God made of the Ten Commandments, or a king destroying the “original” in Jeremiah 36, or that God reveals that COPIES of His word were still inspired Scripture (See Deut 17:18). While Colby uses a childish argument such as “where does the Bible say Psalm 12 refers to the King James”, there’s nothing in the Bible that says inspiration and preservation are limited to the “original languages”, and for that matter, where does the Bible mention NIV, ESV, ASV, NASB? #StupidArgument. If it were limited to God’s spoken words, then there are spoken words that John admits were never recorded that should actually be a part of Scripture, but they’re not. John 21:25. This Alexandrian logic leaves us with a blatant contradiction in the promise of preservation if preservation meant that ONLY God’s “original” spoken words were to be Scripture.

Apparently it is “OK” for the KJV to change/eliminate words, but it is not “OK” for the modern translations to change/eliminate words.

The KJV corrected printing errors and updated some of the language. That is NOT what modern versions have done, and every KJVO critic knows that. Changing a middle English “f” to a modern English “s” isn’t the same as eliminating an entire half of a chapter (Mark 16:9-21), or whole verses (Acts 28:29, 1 John 5:7-8, Acts 8:37), or making changes like “The Son of God” (KJV) to “a son of the gods” (All others) in Daniel 3:25. The modern versions are making corrections that alter the text from a Greek text that has been fabricated by Bible hating scoffers influenced by German Rationalists. THAT is the issue, and these KJVO critics are well aware of that, but they attempt to cloud the issue by comparing the changes the KJV translators made to the deliberate alterations and corruptions made by modern versions since 1881.

Forget of course, that KJV translators as well as Erasmus rejected many manuscripts as corrupt. That tells you that men of the Reformation discriminated against manuscripts they believed were corrupt. But today even many of those who call themselves Reformers scoff at the idea of choosing one manuscript over another or labeling ANY of them as corrupt. The one thing that the Reformers had in common was they all knew what a corrupt Greek, Hebrew, and Latin manuscript looked like, and refused to acknowledge it/them as the word(s) of God. It is only in recent times that this centuries accepted practice since the foundation of the church has been questioned, shunned, and anathematized in the church. Anyone today who practices the same textual discrimination that ALL of the early churches did is labeled “divisive”.

For more on the preposterous logic of “originals only” arguments, see Will Kinney’s Can Translations Be Inspired? 

 The Absurd Conclusion: Salvation of All Poor People

The conclusion we are left with if Colby’s (and his citations) are taken seriously is that all poor people are saved without exception or distinction: universalist salvation of all poor and oppressed. Colby did not offer any proof that God preserved any of the poor forever. Common sense and logic would tell us that for a person to be preserved forever they would have to be saved, yet according to the logic of KJVO critics, we can bypass the gospel and just become poor enough to be eternally secure. No repentance, no faith, no belief in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, ignore the deity of Christ, because according to this view of Psalm 12, poverty=salvation. Colby & Co have invented an exemption to the gospel for the poor, not to mention that the poor are then purified by fire in a furnace of earth!

This is the kind of “scholarship” and “logic” you deal with from MVO (Modern Version Onlyist) and “Original Onlyist” Googleogians. The clear and obvious antecedent to “thou shalt preserve THEM” is not a skip over verse 6 as if it’s just a parenthetical side comment, but a reference to the words of the LORD being preserved forever. It is obvious why greedy for filthy lucre scholars don’t want evidence of preservation, because it allows them to continue setting themselves up as the authority on the Bible, and to add to the word of God when they see fit. The Bible then can’t be added to or new discoveries uncovered to reveal some altering revelation that would revolutionize Christianity if Psalm 12:7 shows that God is the one that keeps and preserves His words. It also emphasizes man’s self efforts to maintain God’s words instead of having any real faith in God’s ability to transmit His own Scriptures. It is the Jesuit method of replacing the Dark Ages priest with the modern day “scholar” (Malachi 2:12).

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. Matthew 24:35

For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven. Psalm 119:89

______________________

*It is interesting, as a side-note, that one of the first observations I had made about Colby’s blog was his erroneous use of descriptions of logic. He had initially referred to “laws of logic” as #1 being “law of contradiction”. He vehemently argued with me that this was correct even though no Christian scholar from Geisler to William Lane Craig uses it. Colby has now changed his blog to reflect the proper term, “Law of NON contradiction”. It is called the law of NON contradiction because the law asserts that truth does NOT contradict truth. Law of contradiction would imply that contradictions are necessary elements of logic.

Colby also doesn’t seem to grasp what logical fallacies are. The simple explaining of a contradiction does not itself identify what the logical fallacy is. Not all logical fallacies apply to the categorical syllogisms that Colby seems to be referring to. The law of Non Contradiction simply shows that a thing can not be both A and be NOT A at the same time. That is not the definition “logical fallacies”. Yet in all of Colby’s parading his new found Googlisms, he failed to expound on any known logical fallacies as applied in his arguments.

Colby also seems to think he was victorious in that I had “blocked” him a month or so ago (Ignored. If Colby had actually bothered to check he isn’t blocked, he just assumed so because I obviously never responded to him because I didn’t see any of his comments). My “blocking” him then had nothing to do with any inability to respond, but because every comment he made even if it was about which topping to put on a sandwich had my named tagged to it, and with 70 thousand followers it’s a little hard to follow comments when one person yields over 100 notifications that have nothing to do with a conversation I am involved in.

______________________________

Dr. Elisha Weismann

Contrary to critics like James White, Rick Norris, Fred Butler, JD Hall, Doug Cutelick, and all modern professional liars, the King James Only view did not begin with Peter Ruckman, Ruckman was merely instrumental in causing professing Baptists to quit riding the fence on the issue.

Thomas Morris posted the following quote in a group on Facebook ran by a great Jewish brother of mine (“Boaz Baptist”):

Hey look! William Lyon Phelps was “King James only” in 1922. Phelps was an honored Professor of English at Yale for over 30 years. Listen to what he says,

“The Elizabethan period — a term loosely applied to the years between 1558 and 1642 — is properly regarded as the most important era in English literature…the crowning achievement of those spacious times was the Authorized Translation of the Bible, which appeared in 1611…our English translation is even better than the original Hebrew and Greek. There is only one way to explain this…I am confident that the Authorized Version was inspired. Now as the English-speaking people have the best Bible in the world, and as it is the most beautiful monument ever erected with the English alphabet, we ought to make the most of it, for it is an incomparably rich inheritance, free to all who can read. This means that we ought invariably in the church and on public occasions to use the’ Authorized Version; all others are inferior.”

(Phelps, William L. Human Nature in the Bible. New York: Scribner, 1922, pp. ix-xii)

This is just one of many such authors that we know that have supported, promoted, endorsed, and defended the King James Bible Only position long before Peter Ruckman started challenging the Bible agnostics at Bob Jones University and writing books about the professional con artists that they helped produce and send into “fundamental Baptist” churches.

Just a little reminder that the KJVO critics are wrong (as usual).

J/A

Most liberal scholars contend that the NT relied partly on several quotes taken from the LXX/Septuagint. James White, Nestle & Aland, Doug Kutilek, Daniel Wallace, et al, all agree with this assertion.

I strongly disagree that the Septuagint was used by any of the NT apostles or Christ, and was taken from Origan’s 5 Column of the Hexapla in 245 AD, and there are numerous NT quotes that show that Christ quoted from a Hebrew OT, not Greek (Matt 7:12, 11:13, 22:40, 23:35, Luke 24:27,44*). However, I believe for those that do agree with the notion that the NT writers quoted the LXX are faced with 2 problems:

1. Does this mean that they believe the LXX to be inspired? Scholars emphatically claim that only the “originals” are inspired, but it is obvious that if the stories surrounding the LXX were true, and it was really a 4th century –2nd century BC translation concocted by Aristeas, then it clearly is not part of the original Hebrew, which means that for the NT writers to claim that all Scripture in the NT are authoritative that made OT quotes based on the LXX would have to necessarily claim inspiration for the LXX. Otherwise, the apostles and Christ Himself could be accused of calling something Scripture that was not given by inspiration of God.

2. The second problem this presents is that these ‘scholars’ emphatically claiming that only the originals are inspired, but not translations, are faced with a blatant contradiction. If the LXX was a translation from Hebrew to Greek, and quoted by the Apostles and Christ in the NT, not only must they hold the LXX to be inspired, but they must also abandon their argument that a translation can not be inspired because by default, if the LXX is inspired, then it naturally follows that since it is itself a translation, that translations can be inspired.

So either scholars must abandon their arguments against the KJV that translations can not be inspired, or they must admit that the LXX is not authoritative and was in fact NOT used by any of the NT writers, or quoted by Jesus.

__________________________________________________

*The LXX was not divided in the manner in which the Hebrew OT was with the divisions of the Law, Prophets and Writings. These quotes from Christ show clearly that He never quoted from the Septuagint, but from the Hebrew. In Matthew 23:35, Christ makes reference to the Pharisees being guilty of the blood of Abel to Zacharias. In a Hebrew Bible, 2 Chronicles is the last book (where Zacharias is located. 2 Chronicles 24). Thus Christ is quoting this story in the order given in a Hebrew Bible, not a Septuagint.

By Dr. Elisha Weismann and Dr. James Ach

A recent article by the Pope adoring Fred Butler slandering Chris Pinto follows the logic of James White-among many others-contending that the Codex Sinaiticus was not actually discovered in a trash can as affirmed by “KJVOnlyists”. What is their evidence? From the donut- glaze- saturated keyboard of Butler is written:

Tischendorf’s second return in 1853 to the monastery was unfruitful, but on his third visit in 1859, he took a walk with a young Athenian steward who invited him back to his room for some refreshment. The steward told Tischendorf that he had read the OT in Greek and then revealed to him a bulky parcel wrapped in a red cloth. When he unwrapped it, it contained not only the sheets Tischendorf saw in 1844 that were being used to light fires, it contained some 346 parchments from the same volume.

Quip and Lie (Fred Butler, the author of the Hip and Thigh blog) as most others, conveniently leave out the events that lead up to this red-wrapped bundle of apostate joy. First, they lay emphasis that the Codex was “neatly wrapped” in red cloth, and then secondly, they note that a basket is not the same thing as a garbage can, and wallah, no evidence exists that any part of the Codex was found in a garbage can. Thus essentially, the argument for whether or not the Codex was found in a garbage can comes down to semantics and a little history revision (by deliberately omitting Tischendorf’s own statements regarding how the Codex was found).

Butler has a bad habit of quoting bias sources as well. In one article again slandering Chris Pinto, Butler sites Frederick Kenyon who claimed that Constantine SImonides, who laid claim to the actual authorship of Codex Sinaiticus, was only 15 years old when he claimed to have compiled manuscripts for the transcription of the Codex, and that therefore Simonides could not have possibly had the scholarship necessary at such a young age to perform such a rigorous and pedantic task (although, as a Calvinist, Butler would have no problem with the scholarship of Jonathon Edwards who went to Yale at age 13).  However, Kendrick admitted, as does history, that Simonides was born in 1820, and his first claim to the Codex occurred in 1840. That would have made Simonides 20 years old, not 15. After confronting Fred Butler with this glaring inconsistency, Butler removed the date of Simonides birth year from his article, and indicated no correction, although he still maintains that Simonides was only “a teenager”. Butler defends his usage of “teenager” by claiming Simonides could have been 19, but Butler makes this assertion in support of Kenyon who claimed that Simonides was only 15. Butler cited Kenyon as an authority on the veracity of Simonides claims, but then capitulates and obfuscates on the reliability of Kenyon’s facts.

From Tischendorf’s own testimony he writes the following:

It was in April, 1844, that I embarked at Leghorn for Egypt. The desire which I felt to discover some precious remains of any manuscripts, more especially Biblical, of a date  which would carry us back to the early times of Christianity, was realized beyond my expectations. It was at the foot of Mount Sinai, in the convent of St. Catherine, that I discovered the pearl of all my researches. In visiting the library of the monastery, in the month of May, 1844, I perceived in the middle of the great hall a large and wide basket full of old parchments; and the librarian, who was a man of information, told me that two heaps of papers like this, mouldered by time, had been already committed to the flames. What was my surprise to find amid this heap of papers a considerable number of sheets of a copy of the Old Testament in Greek, which seemed to me to be one of the most ancient that I had ever seen. The authorities of the convent allowed me to possess myself of a third of these parchments, or about forty-five sheets, all the more readily as they were destined for the fire

First of all, how could Tischendorf claim that these were the oldest manuscripts he’d seen without any examination of them first?*. Secondly, the story shows clearly that the manuscripts that were in the basket were there for the purpose of awaiting incineration. If that’s not a “trash can” excuse the puppies for drinking out of the kitten’s milk bowl.

Dean Burgon, who thoroughly debunked the work of Westcott & Hort (whom Butler considers “good godly evangelical scholars”-more on that later) writes,

“We suspect that these two manuscripts are indebted for their preservation, “solely to their ascertained evil character”; which has occasioned that the one eventually found its way, four centuries ago, to a forgotten shelf in the Vatican Library;

“while the other, after exercising the ingenuity of several generations of critical Correctors, eventually got deposited in the wastepaper basket of the Convent at the foot of Mount Sinai.

“Had B and ALEPH been copies of average purity, they must long ago since have shared the inevitable fate of books which are freely used and highly prized; namely, they would have fallen into decadence and disappeared from sight.” The Revision Revised , pg 319.

Even Norman Geisler, who is not only NOT KJVO, but wrote an endorsement for James White’s “The King James Only Controversy” shown on the cover of White’s book writes,

“It was found in the monastery of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai by the German Count Tischendorf, who was living in Prussia by permission of the czar…”On his first visit (1844), he discovered forty-three leaves of vellum, containing portions of the LXX (I Chronicles, Jeremiah, Nehemiah and Esther), in a basket of scraps which the monks were using to light their fires. He secured it and took it to the University Library at Leipzig, Germany. It remains there, known as the Codex Frederico-Augustanus…Geisler & Nix, General Introduction to the Bible, 1968.

Popular KJVO critic, James White, although adamantly denying that the Codex was found in a waste basket, says of the finding of Tischendorf,

Constantin von Tischendorf embarked on a journey to the Middle East in 1844 searching for biblical manuscripts. While visiting the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai, he noted some scraps of parchment in a basket that was due to be used to stoke the fires in the oven of the monastery. Upon looking at the scraps he discovered that they contained part of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament.

This was exactly what he was looking for, and so he asked if he could take the scraps to his room for examination, warning the monks that they should not be burning such items. His obvious excitement worried the monks, who became less than cooperative in providing further information about manuscripts at the monastery. King James Only Controversy, pp 32-33

Thus we have clear and convincing evidence that the Codex was FIRST discovered in a basket, and that basket was used to reserve fodder for kindling. Now perhaps White and Butler call fodder for fire from materials one wishes to discard by burning as non-trash, but common sense modern vernacular would have no issues with the term “waste basket”. To offer such criticism merely because the manuscripts were not placed in Glad bags and the “basket” did not have a Flip Wilson lid on it is shear semantic nonsense.

Furthermore, White and Butler, et al, lay emphasis on Tischendorf’s receipt of the REMAINDER of the Codex wrapped in red cloth as evidence that the Codex was not found in a dumpster. However, Tischendorf’s own writings show that he obtained his initial manuscripts directly from the waste basket, and it was only LATER that he gained REMAINING manuscripts that were wrapped in cloth. BUT! where did THOSE manuscripts “wrapped in red cloth” come from?? Again, from Tischendorf’s own testimony relaying what the monk had given him he writes,

 Scarcely had he entered the room when, resuming our former subject of conversation, he said, “And I too have read a Septuagint, i. e., a copy of the Greek translation made by the Seventy;” and so saying, he took down from the corner of the room a bulky kind of volume wrapped up in a red cloth, and laid it before me. I unrolled the cover, and discovered, to my great surprise, not only those very fragments which, fifteen years before, I had taken out of the basket, but also other parts of the Old Testament, the New Testament complete, and in addition, the Epistle of Barnabas and a part of the Pastor of Hermas.

Notice what Tischendorf says about the manuscripts in the red wrapped cloth, “ which, fifteen years before, I had taken out of the basket”. So whatever manuscripts Tischendorf did not obtain 15 years ago from the waste basket, he collected the remainder on this particular visit, and the manuscripts that White and Butler, et al, so vivaciously remind us were “wrapped neatly in red cloth” were themselves TAKEN FROM THE SAME BASKET WHERE TISCHENDORF OBTAINED HIS FIRST MANUSCRIPTS 15 YEARS AGO. 

Oh the lengths that Bible agnostics will go to in defending their beloved Pope and his Jesuit minions.

Butler’s Veneration of Westcott & Hort

In response to a blogger named “Sandy” who asks “So do you really believe there is no counter reformation being led by Jesuits?”, Butler replies,

No, not today, nor in the manner that Chris Pinto describes. You have to consider the fact that a number of men committed to the importance of Sinaiticus are Bible-believing, God-fearing, evangelical Christians who are squarely anti-Catholics. Pinto’s thesis implicates them as either being duped by the Jesuits, which would throw their spiritual discernment into being seriously questioned, or unbelieving Catholic sympathizers who are secretly aiding the Jesuits. Both of those scenarios are patently absurd.

First of all, what a naive imbecile to believe that the Jesuits have no CURRENT plans involving a “counter-reformation”. Let’s not forget that Rome’s current “vicar” is a Jesuit. Sure, Butler and White will tell you that Rome has a few bad doctrines, all short of naming the Pope as an antichrist and the Catholic Church as a CULT. But nevertheless, any casual perusal of the Jesuit Oath reveals that a Jesuit will “to a Jew become a Jew, to a Calvinist a Calvinist, to a Protestant a Protestant”.

The first men “committed to the importance of the Sinaiticus” were Westcott & Hort, who comprised a committee for the “revision” of the King James Version in 1881. The following are the “good godly evangelical” beliefs of Westcott & Hort of which almost all modern Bible translations owe their lineage,

“I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly.” (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).

“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.” (Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.400)

“He [Jesus Christ] never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him.” (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297).

“(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ.”…(Rev. 3:15) might no doubt bear the Arian meaning, the first thing created.”

“”…Have you read Darwin? How I should like to talk with you about it! In spite of difficulties, I am inclined to think it unanswerable. In any case it is a treat to read such a book.”

“But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with … My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable. If so, it opens up a new period.”

I am inclined to think that no such state as Eden (I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adams fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants, as Coleridge justly argues.

“Further I agree with them [Authors of Essays and Reviews] in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology … Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible.”

“I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan. I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the doctrine of a ransom to the father.” (Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter 1:1-2:17, p. 77)

The pure Romanish view seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical.” (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 77)

There is OVERWHELMING evidence from the writings of Westcott and Hort themselves as well as their children they had great veneration for Mary and the church of Rome, had heretical views of the deity of Christ, salvation, the inspiration of Scripture, and yet these men are whom White and Butler consider “good godly evangelical” scholars? Even Butler’s favorite Calvinist, Charles Spurgeon wrote of Westcott & Hort,

“With those who treat the Bible as waste paper, and regard the death of Christ as no substitution, we have no desire for fellowship. After the gospel has been found effectual in the eternal salvation of untold multitudes, it seems rather late in the day to alter it; and , since it is the revelation of the all-wise and unchanging God, it appears somewhat audacious to attempt its improvement. When we call up before our mind’s eye the gentlemen who have set themselves this presumptuous task….. Their gigantic intellects are to hatch out the meanings of the Infinite. Hitherto they have not hatched out much worth reading. Their chickens are so much of the Roman breed, that we sometimes seriously suspect that, after all, Jesuitical craft may be at the bottom of this “modern thought”.

But what about Tischendorf’s own beliefs? Tischendorf admittedly claimed to follow in the footsteps of Karl Lachmann**- who was known to reject the inspiration of the Scriptures and was a German philosophical rationalist- and that Tischendorf was a professor within the German universities of whom applied rationalism to the texts of the Bible. Between Tischendorf’s 7th and 8th editions of the Codex were over 8,000 changes to his own manuscripts. Tischendorf did not believe that any English version extant in his time (let alone the KJV) was based on earlier manuscripts, but were all 15th century productions, and thus he did not believe that any inspired or infallible copies of the Bible existed in any language in any version. Butler himself even admits this stating that,

Tischendorf believed the TR, from which the KJV had been translated, was an inadequate text because it was not based upon the “best” manuscripts of the NT.  He believed better manuscripts were waiting to be discovered and their discovery would only serve to refute the skeptics and critics who wrote those trashy novels about the life of Jesus.

So in other words, God was not capable of preserving His word throughout history, and we must all wait for “better” manuscripts which have not yet been discovered to see if we still have the word of God. This is no different from evolutionary thinking, that somehow new evidence will surface to discredit creation, and therefore Christian scientists must stay apprised of all of the archaeological finds of atheists because God forbid they find something that proves there really is no God. Most logical Christians do not need that kind of “evidence”, they believe by faith that there is an Intelligent Designer behind the creation of the universe. It’s too bad this logic doesn’t apply to most Christians when it comes to the preservation of the word of God that we are told to “preach in season and out of season”. We are expected to “reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” from a plethora of manuscripts that wicked scholars can’t even agree on to verify that we actually have the word of God.

And as Pinto pointed out, and as history attests, Tischendorf was granted quite a liberal audience and attention from not only the Pope of Rome, but many of the Pope’s minions. It doesn’t seem to bother Butler that the Pope would permit such welcome to a supposed Protestant “scholar” all the while burning Protestant “heretics” in the dungeons of Roman monasteries. Why were such exceptions extended to Tischendorf from the Roman Papacy that were CLEARLY not extended to any other Protestant minister?

Ironically, Butler attempts to prove Tischendorf was not “in league” with Rome by citing Rome’s oft attempts to erect a “wall” against Tischendorf’s efforts to peruse the manuscripts more thoroughly. Well then doesn’t that beg the question that if Tischendorf was never able to gain a full examination of the texts that the reliability of his own translations of the Codex should be questionable? The very fact that Codex Sinaiticus has Rome written all over it (in some MSSmss, quite LITERALLY with the Roman Imprimatur stamped on the pages) does not seem to make Butler or any other KJVO critic blink, but then neither does Butler’s own version of events claiming that Tischendorf’s manuscript translation is reliable while at the same time admitting that Tischendorf was not permitted a proper perusal of the underlying texts.

Butler proposes that a few scant quotes cited by James Bentley quoting Tischendorf prove his “orthodoxy”. Tischendorf has never published any clear indication that he was a born again Christian, and there are no clear writings extant of just exactly what his beliefs were which is quite odd for anyone claiming to be Protestant. As prolific a writer as Tischendorf was regarding the Codex, one would think he would have produced a clear treatise on his beliefs. Yet Butler relies on Bentley attempts to use a mere scintilla of quotes from Tischendorf which are no different from the professions of any modern Roman priest to prove Tischendorf was a believer. Butler in defending the “orthodoxy” of Tischendorf, offers only the following quote,

He was passionately determined to refute those who were destroying the faith of the Christian world. Many Christians desperately longed for such a refutation. In a pamphlet published in March 1864 Tischendorf wrote, ‘May my writing serve this end: to make you mistrust those novel theories upon the Gospels — or rather, againstthem — which would persuade you that the wonderful details which the Gospels give of our gracious Saviour are founded upon ignorance and deceit.’ [Bentley, 37]

What Catholic priest or even a Jehovah’s Witness would not claim that the Bible contains the “wonderful details which the Gospels give of our gracious Saviour”? Is this a full-proof evidence of fundamental Christian belief? Hardly. Note that Bentley asserts that “Many Christians desperately longed for such a refutation”. A refutation of what? If Tischendorf was a Protestant, then the only refutation “many Christians” were seeking for would be a refutation AGAINST ROME.  Butler claims that Tischendorf was an “evangelical apologist” with absolutely ZERO evidence for such an absurd claim. Tischendorf has absolutely no recorded documentation of refuting any of the heresies extant in his day and thus accordingly, none of these apologetic works are cited by Butler. The only “refutations” that were extant regarding textual evidences were Rome’s disdain over the Textus Receptus and King James Bible. Somehow, Tischendorf supposing to be a Protestant minister, questions the validity of the Protestant Bible from he would naturally have derived any of his Protestant beliefs, begins his search for the “better manuscripts” coincidentally at a CATHOLIC monestary? Also, something that Pinto nor any of his critics have observed, is that not only is it clear that Tischendorf altered the manuscripts, but that monks themselves could have done so in the 15 years between Tischendorf’s initial discoveries, and his return to the monastery on which he obtained the remaining manuscripts wrapped in red cloth. There is clear evidence that that which was wrapped in the red cloth was obtained from the pile of scraps that Tischendorf did not make off with. It begs the question as to why the monks burned any manuscripts at all, and had others wrapped in a red cloth only to remain stagnant and unutilized in a monastery. It is likely that the monks did not know what they were burning, but then once Tischendorf published his first discoveries, and knowing the reception and adulation it was given by the Pope, took the remaining copies, altered them, and then placed them in the red cloth expecting Tischendorf’s return.

Butler’s defense of Tischendorf is inadequate, defies logic and common sense, is often contradictory and often cites as evidence facts not only missing from his own articles but wholly absent from history. The real question is why skeptics such as Butler and White are so quick to vilify Chris Pinto and any other person defending the Textus Receptus or King James Bible over a video that was created that is not specifically in defense of the King James Bible (although Butler MUST paint this label on Pinto in order to classify him as a KJVO so that he can by proxy attach all of his other ridiculous anti- KJVO arguments against anyone that dares lift a hint of criticism against the venerable Tishcendorf, Westcott or Hort). Why go to such extreme lengths to defend such a shady history that follows Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort? Butler dances with sparklers that Pinto can not give absolute proof of a conspiracy, but neither can Butler nor those he cites offer any logical explanation as to why the Roman Catholic Church was so receptive to Tischendorf. Considering that the preponderance of evidence is in favor of the involvement of Rome than against it, it certainly casts great doubt upon the credibility of Butler and his ilk in proffering such a vigorous defense of a “church” they claim to oppose.

I’ll offer my own “conspiracy theory”. Jesuits are known for joining the ranks of their enemies even to the tune of slandering their own religion (Catholics) if it means a greater victory in the long run. Critics like White and Butler will gladly quip “We debate Catholics so we couldn’t possibly be pro-Catholic” as evidence that they would not be likely candidates for Jesuit infiltrators. Their positions on the Catholic church while appearing to cast some of their doctrines in a negative light, are a far cry from labeling the Catholic church for what it really is: a beast from the horns of the dragon straight out of the pits of hell (Revelation 17), that has made every effort to destroy belief in the word of God as the inerrant and preserved revelation of God’s instructions to His church. Just as the Catholic church adopted the “if you can’t kill them [Christians] join them” and made Christianity the state religion of Rome, so too, has the Catholic church maintained that if they can’t destroy the Bible by burning it along with those who translated any anti-Vatican texts, they may as well “join” the legitimate copies of the Bible with amalgamations of corrupted texts, and encourage critics like Butler, White, Nestle, Aland, Norris, Kutilek, Carson, Bryce, Wallace, et al, to help promote their validity. If they are not somehow directly involved with the RCC, they are certainly guilty as co-conspirators in her treachery.

Perhaps Butler’s motivation is the promise of the latest Darth Vader action figure in a package signed by the Pope that he can add to his collection of Star Wars paraphernalia. How any supposed God-fearing Christian could have such adoration for  blatantly occultic Hollywood trash is bewildering.

Edited and Updated by Dr James A, PhD

_____________________________________________________

* From The Forged Origins of the New Testament, Tony Bushby writes,

The revelations of ultraviolet light testing


In 1933, the British Museum in London purchased the Sinai Bible from the Soviet government for £100,000, of which £65,000 was gifted by public subscription. Prior to the acquisition, this Bible was displayed in the Imperial Library in St Petersburg, Russia, and “few scholars had set eyes on it” (The Daily Telegraph and Morning Post, 11 January 1938, p. 3). When it went on display in 1933 as “the oldest Bible in the world” (ibid.), it became the centre of a pilgrimage unequalled in the history of the British Museum.


Before I summarize its conflictions, it should be noted that this old codex is by no means a reliable guide to New Testament study as it contains superabundant errors and serious re-editing. These anomalies were exposed as a result of the months of ultraviolet-light tests carried out at the British Museum in the mid-1930s. The findings revealed replacements of numerous passages by at least nine different editors.

Photographs taken during testing revealed that ink pigments had been retained deep in the pores of the skin. The original words were readable under ultraviolet light. Anybody wishing to read the results of the tests should refer to the book written by the researchers who did the analysis: the Keepers of the Department of Manuscripts at the British Museum (Scribes and Correctors of the Codex SinaiticusH. J. M. Milne and T. C. Skeat, British Museum, London, 1938).

**

Tischendorf’s first find contained 43 leaflets which he dubbed the Codex Frederico-Augustanus, in dedication to Frederick Augustus of Saxony, a Roman Catholic, married to a Roman Catholic, and buried at Katholische Hofkirche, a Roman Catholic cemetary.

Tischendorf also notes in his first chapter of “When Were Our Gospels Written” (1874) that,

At the same time, the committee of the Religious Tract Society of
Zwickau expressed a desire to circulate this pamphlet, provided it were
recast and adapted for popular use. Although I had many other
occupations, I could not but comply with their request, and without
delay applied myself to the task of revising the pamphlet. I was glad
of the opportunity of addressing in this way a class of readers whom my
former writings had not reached; for, as the real results of my
researches are destined to benefit the church at large, it is right
that the whole community should participate in those benefits.

This popular tract, in the shape in which I now publish it, lacks, I
admit, the simple and familiar style of the usual publications of the
Zwickau Society; but, in spite of this fault, which the very nature of
the subject renders inevitable, I venture to hope that it will be
generally understood. Its chief aim is to show that our inspired
gospels most certainly take their rise from apostolic times, and so to
enable the reader to take a short but clear view of one of the most
instructive and important epochs of the Christian church.

In sitting down to write a popular version of my pamphlet, the Zwickau
Society also expressed a wish that I should preface it with a short
account of my researches, and especially of the discovery of the
Sinaitic Codex, which naturally takes an important place

The “Zwickau prophets,” i.e., Nicholas Storch, Thomas Drechsel, and Mark Stübner, etc., claimed to be prophets of God and to have received revelations directly from God. They were leading an anti-Protestant, anti-Catholic, spiritualistic attempt at communism and anarchy based on a view of taking the millennium by force as prophets. Thomas Münzer (1490–1525) was a radical figure in the Reformation who became a leader in the Peasants’ Revolt of 1524–1525. From this man we get a clear window into all of his associates:

By Will Kinney

Is James White right about Westcott and Hort and the modern “Vatican Versions”?

Are the modern versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET,  Holman Standard etc. still based on the Westcott and Hort Revised Greek critical Text?

The short answer is an absolute and unequivocal Yes, they are.

Some proponents of today’s new Vatican Versions like  James White try to distance themselves from Westcott and Hort because so much information has come out documenting the beliefs and apostasy of these two men who are primarily responsible for the critical Greek text that underlies such modern versions as the ESV, NIV, NASB.

In his book, the King James Only Controversy, James White makes some interesting and contradictory statements regarding Westcott and Hort. On page 33 Mr. White writes: “Westcott and Hort used Sinaiticus and Vaticanus  to produce their New Testament, a work that displaced the text used by the KJV, later known as the Textus Receptus, in scholarly studies.”

Note: Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are the so called “oldest and best manuscripts” by those who promote the UBS, Nestle-Aland Critical Greek text that underlies the N.T. of such modern versions as the ESV, NIV, NASB and the modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 as well.

Then on page 99 Mr. White writes: “KJV Only advocates love to hate B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort. Westcott and Hort’s work on the Greek New Testament is seen as a focal point of the attempt to “dethrone” the KJV and its underlying Greek text, the Textus Receptus. While modern Greek texts ARE NOT IDENTICAL to that created by Westcott and Hort, one will still find defenders of the AV drawing in black and white, saying that all modern versions are based on their work.”

James White further mixes truth with error when he writes on page 122 – “In the sense that Westcott and Hort correctly identified the need to examine the relationships of manuscripts, and demonstrated that it is simply not enough to COUNT manuscripts, but instead we must WEIGH manuscripts (some manuscripts being more important than other witnesses to the original text), one can say that MODERN TEXTS ARE BASED UPON THEIR WORK. [Caps are mine]  However, modern textual criticism HAS GONE FAR BEYOND Westcott and Hort, and has in MANY INSTANCES corrected imbalances in their own conclusions.” [Caps are mine].

James White is on the one hand admitting that the W.H. text “displaced the text used by the KJV (his own words) but is now trying to make it sound as though the modern versions are “in many instances” different from the W.H. text.  This is simply not true.  The Westcott Hort critical Greek text is virtually the same as that of the present day UBS/ Nestle-Aland critical Greek texts.  They have only changed in very minor ways.   The same 45 to 50 entire verses of the New Testament are either omitted from the text or called into question, and about 2000 additional words that are either omitted, changed or added are virtually the same as the Westcott Hort critical text that appeared in the English Revised Version of 1881.  Mr. White is most definitely fudging the truth here.


David Cloud writes: “While today’s textual scholars do not always admit that they follow Westcott and Hort, many of the more honest ones do admit that they are powerfully influenced by the these men.

Bruce Metzger is probably the most influential textual critic alive. He is one of the editors of the United Bible Societies Greek New
Testament and the author of many widely-used books on textual criticism. In his 1981 book The Westcott and Hort Greek New
Testament-Yesterday and Today, Metzger makes the following plain admission: “The International committee that produced the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, NOT ONLY ADOPTED THE WESTCOTT AND HORT EDITION AS ITS BASIC TEXT, BUT FOLLOWED THEIR METHODOLOGY IN GIVING ATTENTION TO BOTH EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL CONSIDERATION” (Metzger, cited by James Brooks, Bible Interpreters of the 20th Century, p. 264).


In light of this admission by such a prominent textual authority, James White needs to explain for his readers why he condemns King James Bible defenders for claiming that Westcott-Hort are still followed.


Brooks further states, “There is nothing unique about Metzger’s theory of textual criticism. It is simply a refinement of Westcott
and Hort’s theory in the New Testament in the Original Greek (1881). . . this theory is dominant today in part because of Metzger’s great influence. It was the theory employed in producing the United Bible Societies Greek text. It is the theory lying behind the Greek text used by most modern versions: The Revised Standard, the New Revised Standard, the New English Bible, the Revised English Bible, the New American Bible, the New American Standard, the Good News Bible, the New International Version, and to a lesser extent, also the Jerusalem Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible” (Ibid.)

In the introduction to the 24th edition of Nestle’s Greek New Testament, editors Erwin Nestle and Kurt Aland make the following
admission:  “Thus THE TEXT, BUILT UP ON THE WORK OF THE 19TH CENTURY, HAS REMAINED AS A WHOLE UNCHANGED, particularly since the research of recent years has not yet led to the establishment of a generally acknowledged N.T. text” (Erwin Nestle and Kurt Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 24th edition, 1960, p. 62).

James White is failing to acknowledge a fact that modern textual authorities such as Metzger, Colwell, and Nestle do acknowledge-that Westcott and Hort are key, pivotal men in the modern history of textual criticism and that the current “eclectic” Greek New Testaments continue to reflect, for the most part, the decisions made by Westcott and Hort. To deny their influence is similar to denying the influence of Darwin on contemporary evolutionary thought.” (End of quotes by David Cloud)

Rather than just mere allegations, you can see for yourself the textual changes made by Westcott and Hort and then compare them to the modern Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB and the modern Catholic Versions.  They are all based on the same UBS/Nestle-Aland Critical Greek text that is the result of a formal agreement with the Vatican to create an “interconfessional” text for the New Testament. (More about this later)

See Westcott and Hort’s Magic Marker Binge Parts One and Two. And then compare the W.H. text to today’s new Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB and the modern Catholic Versions.  Does this look like Mr. White is being truthful when he says: “modern Greek texts ARE NOT IDENTICAL to that created by Westcott and Hort.”?

http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html

Now on to Westcott and Hort’s Magic Marker Binge!  Here are just some of the textual changes (usually omissions) that Westcott and Hort made to the Reformation text of the King James Bible. Compare the modern UBS/Nestle-Aland critical text versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB and the modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and New Jerusalem bible 1985  to this list and see if they are not virtually the same.

Matthew

1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, 
bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
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.
6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom 
of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
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.
12:35 A good man out of the good treasure 
of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
13:51 
Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord.
15:8 This people 
draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
16:3 And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. 
O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?
16:20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was 
Jesus the Christ.
17:21 
Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
18:11 
For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: 
and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, 
that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
20:7 They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; 
and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive.
20:16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: 
for many be called, but few chosen.
20:22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, 
and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.
23:14 
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
25:13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour 
wherein the Son of man cometh.
27:35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: 
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.
28:9 
And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

Mark

1:14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
1:31 And he came and took her by the hand, and lifted her up; and
 immediately the fever left her, and she ministered unto them.
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.
6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. 
Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
6:16 But when Herod heard thereof, he said, It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen
 from the dead.
7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, 
as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
7:16
 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
9:24 And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears,
 Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.
9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe 
in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
9:44 
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
9:46 
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
9:49 For every one shall be salted with fire, 
and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.
10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, 
take up the cross, and follow me.
11:10 Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh 
in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest.
13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, 
spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:
13:33 Take ye heed, watch 
and pray: for ye know not when the time is.
14:68 But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch; and the cock crew.
15:28
 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
16:9-20 
Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

(typically marginalized or set in brackets. The RSV completely omitted these verses from the text. The NIV 2011 now sets them apart from the rest of the chapter and puts them in smaller italicized print.)

Luke

1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
4: And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone,
 but by every word of God.
4:8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, 
Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
4:41 And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art 
Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ.
7:31
 And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like?
9:54-56 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them,
 even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.
11:2-4 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father 
which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.
11:29 And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas 
the prophet.
17:36 
Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
21:4 For all these have of their abundance 
cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had.
22:31
 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
22:64 And when they had blindfolded him, 
they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?
23:17 
(For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)
23:38 And a superscription also was written over him 
in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
23:42 And he said unto Jesus, 
Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
24:6
 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,
24:40 
And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city 
of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.
24:51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, 
and carried up into heaven.

John

1:27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man 
which is in heaven.
3:15 That whosoever believeth in him
 should not perish, but have eternal life.
4:42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed
 the Christ, the Saviour of the world.
5:3-4 In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, 
waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth
 on me hath everlasting life.
6:69 And we believe and are sure that thou art 
that Christ, the Son of the living God.

7:53-8:11 And every man went unto his own house.
8:1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
(Westcott and Hort put all 12 verses in Double Brackets, indicating they did not consider them to be inspired Scripture. The UBS/Nestle-Aland text does the same.  The liberal RSV omitted these verses from the text. The ESV, NASB and St. Joseph NAB bracket them and the NIV 2011 now sets them apart by lines from the rest of the text and puts them in smaller italicized print.)

11:41 Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.
16:16 A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, 
because I go to the Father.
17:12 While I was with them 
in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

Acts

2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins,according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
7:30 And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sina an angel 
of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush.
7:37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me;
 him shall ye hear.
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.
9:5-6 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? 
And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him,Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
10:6 He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: 
he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.
16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus 
Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
17:26 And hath made of one
 blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
20:25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom 
of God, shall see my face no more.
20:32 And now, 
brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.
23:9 And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees’ part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him,
 let us not fight against God.
24:6-8 Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, 
and would have judged according to our law. But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands, Commanding his accusers to come unto thee: by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him.
24:15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection 
of the dead, both of the just and unjust.
28:16 And when we came to Rome, 
the centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard: but Paul was suffered to dwell by himself with a soldier that kept him.
28:29 
And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.

Romans

1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, 
fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, 
who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
9:28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short 
in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.
10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel 
of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. 
But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, 
Thou shalt not bear false witness,Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
14:21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, 
or is offended, or is made weak.
15:29 And I am sure that, when I come unto you, I shall come in the fulness of the blessing 
of the gospel of Christ.
16:24
 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

1 Corinthians

5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, 
and in your spirit, which are God’s.
7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to
 fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
10:28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake:
 for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof:
11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, 
Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the 
Lord’s body.
15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is 
the Lord from heaven.
16:22-23 If any man love not the Lord 
Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christbe with you.

2 Corinthians

4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by 
Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
11:31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus
 Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.

Galatians

3:1  O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God 
in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
4:7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God 
through Christ.
6:15 For
 in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
6:17 From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of
 the Lord Jesus.

Ephesians

3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
3:14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father 
of our Lord Jesus Christ,
5:30 For we are members of his body, 
of his flesh, and of his bones.
6:1 Children, obey your parents
 in the Lord: for this is right.
6:10 Finally, 
my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.

Philippians

3:16 Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.

Colossians

1:2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
1:14 In whom we have redemption 
through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
1:28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ
 Jesus:
2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of 
the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
3:6 For which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh 
on the children of disobedience:

1 Thessalonians

1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
2:19 For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus
 Christ at his coming?
3:11 Now God himself and our Father, and our Lord Jesus 
Christ, direct our way unto you.
3:13 To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus 
Christ with all his saints.

2 Thessalonians

1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

1 Timothy

1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth 
in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: 
God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
4:12 Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, 
in spirit,in faith, in purity.
6:5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: 
from such withdraw thyself.

2 Timothy

1:11 Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.
4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the
 Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
4:22 The Lord
 Jesus Christ be with thy spirit. Grace be with you. Amen.

Titus

1:4 To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.

Philemon

1:6 That the communication of thy faith may become effectual by the acknowledging of every good thing which is in you in Christ Jesus.
1:12 Whom I have sent again: 
thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels:

Hebrews

1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
2:7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, 
and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession,
Christ Jesus;
7:21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever
 after the order of Melchisedec:)
10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, 
saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
10:34 For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have 
in heaven a better and an enduring substance.
11:11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, 
and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.

1 Peter

1:22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered 
for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
4:14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: 
on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.
5:10-11 But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ 
Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you. To him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

2 Peter

2:17 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.

1 John

1:7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
2:7 Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had 
from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.
4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus 
Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
4:19 We love 
him, because he first loved us.
5:7-8 
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, 
and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Jude

1:25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

Revelation

1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
1:11 Saying, 
I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
2:13 I know 
thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan’s seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.
5:14 And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped 
him that liveth for ever and ever.
6:1 And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come
 and see.
11:17 Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, 
and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.
12:12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to 
the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.
12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus 
Christ.
14:5 And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault 
before the throne of God.
16:17 And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple 
of heaven,from the throne, saying, It is done.
20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from 
God out of heaven, and devoured them.
21:24 And the nations 
of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

And these are only PARTS of the words that have been omitted or added to the texts that underlie the King James Bible. You can see a more complete list here –

”Is it true that all Bible versions are 99.5% the same?”

http://brandplucked.webs.com/arebibles995same.htm

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE BELIEFS OF WESTCOTT AND HORT?

Once again, in his book, The KJV Controversy, James White makes a feeble attempt to defend the character and beliefs of Westcott and Hort.  Mr. White writes on page 244-245 “Question: Weren’t Westcott and Hort occultists (evil men, heretics, closet Roman Catholics, and any number of other accusations)?”

“Answer: B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort were not fundamental Baptists. Then again, neither were any of the KJV translators…Both were professing Christians. Both professed faith in the deity of Christ, His saving death, His resurrection.  Were they perfect men? No, they were not. Neither were the KJV translators….But were they terrible evil men, plotting with others in a grand conspiracy to overthrow God’s truth and lead everyone down the path to destruction? Such is utterly ridiculous….They are remembered as men who, while not perfect, recognized particular truths about the transmission of the New Testament text that have been verified by many who have come after them.  They are not idolized or worshiped, but are treated as all other scholars: their work is appreciated, reviewed, and where necessary, corrected.”  James White.

So, in spite of Mr. James White’s glowing recommendations of his fellow “scholars” and their textual work, let’s take a look at some hard facts about what these men actually believed.  These documented quotes are readily available all over the internet and in hard print in several books.


In 1896, a collection of Hort’s letters was published by his son in two volumes. The book entitled “Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort” by his son Arthur Fenton Hort.

In Vol. 1 on page 76 we read:  “The pure Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the Evangelical”

On page 148, Hort said:  “…the ordinary confused evangelical notions, tho’ I would on no account alter the prayer book of catechism to make them more palatable to them.”

On page 400, Hort admits that: “The positive doctrines even of the evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible,”

On page 445, Hort says: “I have a sort of 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 already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy, will have great difficulties 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 shows his hatred for the TRUE Greek Text on page 211, were he states: “I had no idea till last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus.Westcott recommented me to get Bagster’s Critical, which has Scholz’s Text, and is most convenient in small quarto, with parallel Greek and English, and a wide margin on purpose for notes. This pleased me much; so many little alterations on good MS. authority made things clear not in a vulgar, notional way, but by giving a deeper and fuller meaning. But after all Scholz is very capricious and sparing in intorducing good readings; and Tischendorf I find a great acquisition, above all, because he gives various readings at the bottom of his page, and his prolegomena are invaluable. Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS; it is a blessing there are such early ones…”

In a letter to Westcott, Hort says on Page 430: “Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ’s bearing our sins and suffering to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresey.

On page 120, Hort declars: “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. I know that it can, for if it could not in the case of some at least, the whole Bible would be a lie; but if in the case of some, why not in the case of all?”

Hort clearly did not believe that the death of Jesus on the cross was not enough to pay for his sins!!!

What about WESTCOTT, what did he believe?

In 1903, Westcott’s son “Arthur Westcott” published his fathers letters in a two volume book entitled, “Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott.”

On pages 228-229, Westcott told Hort what he thought of the Textus Receptus: “I feel most keenly the disgrace of circulating what I feel to be falsified copies of the Holy Scripture, and am most anxious to provide something to replace them.”

On page 52, Westcott said “I never read an account of a miracle but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it.”

In volume 2, on page 49 Westcott gives his view on Heaven, he writes “..it saves us from the error of connecting the presence of Christ’s glorified humanity with place: ‘heaven is a state and not a place.’ I cannot therefore but think that you should require the most exact rending of the whole.”

On page 394, Westcott states: “If Tennyson’s idea of heaven was true, that ‘heaven is the ministry of the soul to soul,’ we may reasonably hope, by patient, resolute, faithful, united endeavour, to find heaven about us here, the glory of our earthly life.”

Westcott shows his love for ROMAN CATHOLICISM on page 81, when he writes: “After leaving the monastery we shaped our course to a little oratory which we discovered on the summit of neighbouring hill, and by a little scrambling we reached it. Fortunately we found the door open. It is very small, with one kneeling–place; and behind a screen was a “Pietà” the size of life (i.e. a virgin and dead Christ). The sculpture was painted, and such a group in such a place and at such a time was deeply impressive. I could not help thinking on the fallen grandeur of the Romish Church, on her zeal even in error, on her earnestness and self-devotion, which we might nobler views and a purer end, strive to imitate. Had I been alone I could have knelt there for hours.”

Occultists, Spiritualist and Satanists commend the textual work of Westcott and Hort and despise the King James Bible.

Many of these quotations can be found on the internet and in their own books.  Brothers Brian Sirois and David Cloud have put many of them together in their articles on this subject.  Here are some of them.

Helena P. Blavatsky was deeply into spiritism and communication with the dead. She was the founder of the Theosophical Society. She also attended the “Ghostly Guild” meetings with Westcott and Hort, along with Charles Darwin. In her books Isis Unveiled Volumes 1 and 2 and The Secret Doctrine Volumes 1 and 2, Blavatsky says: “We have the Bible in truth in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.” And she goes on to say: “Westcott and Hort were true scholars that corrected the errors in previous versions.”

Madame Blavatsky also said: “Now that the ‘Revised Version’ of the gospels has been published by Westcott and Hort, and the most glaring mistranlations of the old version, the King James, are corrected, one will better understand the words. The text of the English Protestant Bible is in disagreement as usual with the Alexandrian text. That which for nearly 1500 years was opposed  on Christianism of a book which every word was written under direct supervision of the Holy Ghost; of which not one syllable or comma could be changed without Sacrilege, but now is being retranslated, revised and corrected and clipped of whole verses, and in some cases almost entire chapters.  And as soon as the new edition is out, its doctors Westcott and Hort will have us accept it as new revelation of the 19th century. And the King James translators have made such a jumble of it, that no one but an occultist can restore the Bible to its original form.” (H.P. Blavatsky, on the Bible, Isis Unveiled.)

Throughout her writings, Madame Blavatsky continually makes comments about the “wonderful scholarship” of Westcott and Hort and seems to take pot shots at the King James Bible whenever she can.  She writes: “the Revised Version does not repeat the mistakes of the Authorized Version.”  – “In the King James version, as it stands translated, it has no resemblance to the original.” (Blavatsky, Isis Unveiled) 

And here is a real whopper of a lie when she writes:  – “Add to this fact that out of the forty-seven translators of the King James Bible, only three understood Hebrew… and one may easily understand what reliance can be placed on the English version of the bible.  Now the Revised Version of the gospels has been published and the most glaring mistranslations of the old version are corrected, one will understand better the words in St. John.” (The Secret Doctrine, 1888)

One has to wonder what an avowed Satanist’s interest would be in the Bible in the first place and why she would so highly praise the likes of Westcott and Hort and so despise the King James Bible. Quite telling, isn’t it.

Brian Sirois documents for us that some of the immediate followers of Madame Blavatsky also claimed to be under the control of spirits through automatic writing and other methods.  He writes: “In 1891, Annie Besant (1847-1933) succeeded Blavatsky as head of the Theosophical Society. From 1889 until Blavatsky’s death in 1891, Besant was a co-editor of the Theosophical Society’s “Lucifer Magazine.”  Besant and her associates hated the King James Bible.  They write: “The English translation (Authorized Version, KJV) is  wretchedly imperfect. Errors abound in it, and some of them are of a most laughable description.  On this account great callss have been made for the new translation” (Charles Bradlaugh, Annie Wood Besant, Charles Watts. The Freethinker’s Text book.)

Brian also documents that later Theosophical writings continued to attack the King James Bible. “…the English translation called the Authorized Version…while it is dear to the English people…yet lacks entirely the proper spirit of the mystical Hebrew original; and the very fact that Englishmen love their King James Version so much distracts their attention away from the original Mystical sense of the Hebrew scriptures.  Go then to the original tongue…” (Lucifer Magazine, January to December, 1930)

The Vatican Connection-


Well, what about today?  What is the true nature of most of these modern versions that NOBODY seriously believes are the infallible words of God. You may be very surprised at what you are about to see, but it is all documented in black and white and there is simply no way to rationally deny it. Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET etc. are in fact the result of a formal agreement with the Vatican to produce an interconfessional text that will ever be in the process of change.  Here are their own words.

http://brandplucked.webs.com/realcatholicbibles.htm


Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET etc. are  the new “Vatican Versions”

“Mystery, Babylon the Great, The Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth..is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit…and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication…Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins” Revelation 17:2-5; 18:2-4

I have a copy of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition right here in front of me. It is the same Greek text as the UBS (United Bible Society) 4th edition. These are the Greek readings and texts that are followed by such modern versions as the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard AND the new Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985.

If you have a copy of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, open the book and read what they tell us in their own words on page 45 of the Introduction. Here these critical Greek text editors tell us about how the Greek New Testament (GNT, now known as the UBS) and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece grew together and shared the same basic text.

In the last paragraph on page 45 we read these words: “The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. This marks a significant step with regard to interconfessional relationships. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text: it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament.”

There it is folks, in their own words. They openly admit that this text is the result of an agreement between the Vatican and the UBS and that the text itself is not “definitive” – it can change, as it already has and will do so in the future, and is not the infallible words of God but merely “a stimulus to further efforts”.

The United Bible Societies Vice-President is Roman Catholic Cardinal Onitsha of Nigeria. On the executive committee is Roman Catholic Bishop Alilona of Italy and among the editors is Roman Catholic Cardinal Martini of Milan. Patrick Henry happily claims, “Catholics should work together with Protestants in the fundamental task of Biblical translation …[They can] work very well together and have the same approach and interpretation … This signals a new age in the church.” – Patrick Henry, New Directions in New Testament Study (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1979), 232-234.

Here is the United Bible Societies own website where they announced in March of 2013 the news of the new Pope Francis’ longtime support of the UBS.

http://www.unitedbiblesocieties.org/news/3575-united-bible-societies-welcomes-pope-francis/ 

United Bible Societies welcomes Pope Francis


MARCH 15, 2013 – “The election of Pope Francis, ‘a long-time friend of the Bible Societies’, is an encouragement to United Bible Societies (UBS) to work even harder to make the Bible available to everyone.”

Read Part One of this study. There is a lot more solid documentation. Then go to Part Two where you can see the actual black and white Verse Comparison Charts – very easy to follow. 

Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, Holman Standard, NET, NASBs are the new “Vatican Versions”  Part TWO  

http://brandplucked.webs.com/esvcatholicpart2.htm


Return to Articles – http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm

“If we would destroy the Christian religion, we must first of all destroy man’s belief in the Bible.”  Voltaire – ex French philosopher and former atheist. 

 “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”  Luke 8:8

“But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.” 1 Corinthians 14:38

[Editor’s Note: James White and many other anti KIng James Only authors have attributed much of the proliferation against the beliefs of Westcott & Hort to Gail Riplinger, author of New Age Bible Versions. But it must be kept in mind that there are many KJVO authors who are not in agreement with Riplinger on many facets of the KJVO debate, David Cloud in particular. Thus it must be emphasized that the views that Cloud and other KJVO proponents hold of Westcott & Hort can not automatically be attributed to the works of Gail Riplinger as White and others would have us believe.