Return to the Main Menu

WARNING

This paper was not intended for use as a reference book. The Chapter Headings were not in the original essay. They have been added to make finding things easier. THIS ESSAY WAS WRITTEN TO BE READ STRAIGHT THROUGH.

Chapter Headings
1. Introduction
   1. The Beginning
   2. Conflicting Statements
   3. Do Many Translations Help?
   4. Questions for Publishers of the NIV
   5. Bondage to Westcott and Hort
2. Manuscripts
   1. Sinaiticus
   2. Vaticanus
   3. Translators
   4. Well Guarded Secrets
3. The Men Behind the Manuscripts
   1. Tischendorf
   2. Lachmann
   3. Tregelles
4. Westcott and Hort
   1. Hort and the Occult
   2. Hort's Plan of Deception
5. Sincerely Deceived Men
6. Biblical Precedent for Manuscript Mutilation
7. Scholars Reject Their "Best" Readings.
8. 1 Timothy 3:16
9. Codex D
10. Bad Manuscripts = Good Bible?
11. John Burgon Comments
12. Can Souls be Saved?
13. The Supreme Questions

In order for the new Bible versions to gain acceptance in the eyes of professing Christians, it is essential that there be first of all, a subtle downgrading of the one they hope to replace in the affections of the Church of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Under the guise of claiming "Academic Freedom", the work of undermining the authority of the "Textus Receptus" and the King James Authorized Version, which is based upon it, has gone on in seminaries, Bible schools, missions, churches, and assemblies for many years.

The specious flattering remarks concerning the K.J.V. which often appeared in the "Preface" or advance publicity of the new versions, utterly fails to hide the actual hostility of the spirit of higher or lower criticism which holds sway over the great majority of that which is designated as "scientific scholarly research". This was anticipated by the Holy Spirit, Who gave adequate warning. 1 Timothy 6:20 - "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called" Let no one therefore point the finger of accusation against those who rise up, claiming that same "Academic Freedom", to expose the corrupt nature of the manuscripts; to which a totally false authority and pre-eminence has been given; and the Bible versions which are based upon the Greek texts, which in their turn, rest on the "sandy foundation", of the "Oldest and Best" manuscripts; the principle ones being known as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

The design of this essay is, as the Lord enables, to expose the working of forces seeking to destroy the Church, by replacing its Biblical foundation with mutilated versions and to lay bare the world wide preparation of millions of professing Christians for the acceptance of the "antichrist" and his New Age lie; which denies the deity of the Son of God, even our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, while at the same time attributing deity to poor, wretched, sinful men and women. Briefly let us trace this flood of corrupted version of the Word of God back to its source. We find the earliest revision of God's Word took place in the Garden of Eden. The attack was aimed by the serpent against the first mother of humanity.

Introducing The world's first revision of the Word of God by The "Yea hath God said?" "Ye shall not surely die" "Ye shall be as gods" society. (Genesis 3:1-8)

President

That old serpent, called the Devil and Satan (Revelation 12:9).

Original membership

Eve, the wife of Adam, and mother of Cain and Abel.

Adam was not a member. 1 Timothy 2:13-14 "For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

THE OCCULT METHOD A doubt - regarding the very words of God. "Yea hath God said?" A denial - "Ye shall not surely die" A delusion - "Ye shall be as gods".

The writer of this essay maintains that the unbelief that has simmered in most seminaries for many years, has been brought into the pulpits and pews of formerly Bible believing churches, missions, assemblies, and Bible schools by means of the great number of marginal notes and footnotes, as found in the new Bible versions. In this manner a multitude of scriptures are questioned on the authority of corrupted manuscripts. This is nothing else but the "Yea hath God said" of the "Old Serpent", the Devil. At the end of the age the erring theologians have extended their personal delusions into the minds of millions of Bible readers and students.

The inevitable result of this questioning of God's Word has now resulted in world wide denial of:-

(a) The Divine inspiration of the Bible. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

(b) The virgin birth of the Son of God. Matthew 1:21-23 "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."

(c) The blood atonement. cf. Hebrews 9:22 "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."

(d) The reality of hell (and much more). Matthew 10:28 "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

"Ye shall be as gods" - The New Age blasphemy. Almost 2,000 years ago, the disciples questioned the Lord Jesus as follows; "What shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" Matthew 24:3 Our Lord's answer has puzzled Christians for many years.

Matthew 24:4-5 "And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many." I have at times wondered at this scripture, praying to this effect; "Lord Jesus no word of Thine shall ever fail to come to pass, but where are the "many that shall come in Thy Name, saying, I am Christ?"

Suddenly the New Age delusion burst upon a dark and sinful, Christ rejecting world. Many millions of lost souls began chanting the New Age "World Healing Meditation", in which deity is claimed by millions who are on the broad road that leads to destruction.

A small portion of the blasphemy - "I begin with me. I am a living soul, and the Spirit of God dwells in me, as me I and the Father are one, and all that the Father has is mine. In Truth, I am the Christ of God."

Here is the strong delusion of 2 Thessalonians 2:7-12.

"For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

Here is a people being prepared to receive "the mark of the beast".

Revelation 14:9-11 "And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name."

This "prayer" of the Dec. 31/86 World Instant of Co-operation or "World Healing Day" is not really a prayer, but it is a self declaration of Deity, Satanically inspired. It is the awesome outcome of beginning to listen to the "Yea hath God said?" of the modern bible versions with their, deceiving marginal notes.

With exceedingly beautiful format, including very readable type set on fine quality paper, with wide margins, and flowery introductory remarks, together with the thunderous applause of professional evaluators of new versions, its little halo just shining, the NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION of the Bible made its debut in 1973, in so far as the New Testament was concerned.

This remarkable version shows signs of displacing the famous New American Standard Version, in the fierce conflict that exists between the great proliferation of modern versions, which strive so desperately to capture the mind and the money of the modern professing Christian.

While the battle has not yet turned into a rout, yet as one sees the various groups that are now rejecting The New American Standard Version in favour of The New International Version, we are reminded of the words found in the preface of the NASV by which it sought to justify its existence.

"Perhaps the most weighty impetus for this undertaking can be attributed to a disturbing awareness that The American Standard Version of 1901 was fast disappearing from the scene....The Lockman foundation felt an urgency to rescue this noble achievement from an inevitable demise."

See Luke 21:33 "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away."

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

Can it be that the NASB, described by some as "The version that would supercede all others", is now going the way of its ancestor the American Standard Version of 1901? Will it soon be necessary for some one to rise up and rescue the "noble achievement" from "inevitable demise"? Only time will tell.

If such a "catastrophe" should occur, the reader may rest assured that there are those who will delve mightily into the junkheap of the manuscript universe, known as "the oldest and best" manuscripts, and will come up with another version which will be just as good as the former, and one that will last about the same length of time in the favour of a version hungry generation. Furthermore, there will always be renowned scholars who will praise the new effort, no matter how the precious Word of God may be mutilated in the process of scholarly research. We shall now proceed to examine the introductory remarks of the NIV and the text itself.

N.I.V. Illustrated Children's edition 1974. Even the children are not spared. Our Lord's solemn warning goes unheeded. Matthew 18:6 "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."

By means of "mischief in the margins", they do not hesitate to direct their poisoned arrows of doubting God's Word, into the trusting hearts of little children. Remarks, "About the Bible" page 6:- "Today we can be thankful that we have many modern translations to help us understand God's Word."

The NIV Questions and Answers booklet page 1, states:- "One of the basic reasons, (That the Bible is not being read and understood by any significant number of people) is believed to be THE LACK OF A FAITHFUL TRANSLATION IN MODERN ENGLISH". "NIV is designed to fill this need."

There appears to be a startling contradiction between the above remarks. If my readers will write in to the publishers, they may be able to sort the matter out for you. On thing is crystal clear. The NIV consigns all other modern English versions to the waste paper basket, and properly brands them as not being "faithful" translations. To this statement thousands of God's children will say a hearty "Amen". Some of us have been sounding this warning for years.

However, a little further on in the booklet, the writer reverses himself again, or at least modifies his opening salvo. On page 5 he admits that there are several good modern translations, but he does not tell us which ones may be considered exceptions to the blanket condemnation of page one. He intimates that the "good" versions are usually not designed for public use. One wonders just where does this leave the RSV, NEB, NASV, Berkeley, New World: Living Bible etc..?

"As for the omission of the pronouns "thou", "thee", and "thine", in reference to the Deity, the translators remind the reader that to retain these archaisms...would have violated their aim of faithful translation". (Preface NIV page 10)

While appreciating the desire of the translators to abide by principles of "faithful translation", it might be well if their readers, "reminded" them, that according to Webster's Dictionary, the word, "archaic" applies to terms in language which are "passing out, or nearly out of use".

While many hundreds of thousands of Christians continue to address Deity as "Thee" or "Thou", it is quite out of order for anyone to refer to these terms as archaic. Scholars, especially, should be careful in these matters.

According to the NIV publishers "About the Bible" page 6, they do help. "Today we have many modern translations to help us understand God's Word".

AN ILLUSTRIOUS EXAMPLE OF THAT HELP

ZECHARIAH 13:5-6 Taken from translations ancient and modern.

"But he shall say, I am no prophet, I am an husbandman; for man taught me to keep cattle from my youth. And one shall say unto him, what are these wounds in thine hands? Then shall he answer, those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends".

Let us now keep in mind that Zechariah 13:7 is definitely stated by the Lord Jesus as referring to Himself. Matthew 26:31. We shall now proceed to illustrate the way in which the multiplicity of versions, old and new help us to understand the word of God.

Standard Roman Catholic Version of 1582 "I am an husbandman; for Adam is my example from my youth". "...what are these wounds in the midst of thy hands?"

"I am a tiller of the ground; for I have been made a bondman from my youth. What are these wounds between thine arms?"

"The land has been my possession since my youth". What are those wounds on thy back?"

"I am a tiller of the ground, for a man sold me as a slave in my youth". "...these wounds between your arms?"

"...the soil has held me down from my youth". "What are these wounds between your hands?"

"...because an earthling man himself acquired me from my youth." "...what are these wounds (on your person) between your hands?" "Those with which I was struck in the house of my intense lovers."

"...I have been made a bond servant from my youth." "...what are these wounds on your breast-between your hands?" "Those with which I was wounded (when disciplined) in the house of my (loving) friends."

"The soil has been my livelihood from earliest youth." "Then what are these scars on your chest and your back?" "...I got into a brawl at the home of a friend."

"I am a tiller of the soil who has been schooled in lust from boyhood.. What someone will ask, are those scars on your chest? ...I got them in the house of my lovers."

A crowning indignity to the Lord Jesus Christ is accomplished at this point. Zechariah 13:7 which our Lord positively identified as being Messianic, (see Matthew 26:31), and in so doing gives us the clue to understanding the "wounds in His hands", of vs. 6: is removed from its place accorded it by the Holy Spirit, and is appended to the last verse of Zechariah 11:17. This equates the "Good Shepherd" of our redemption with the "Idol Shepherd" of vs. 17, who is justly punished for his own wickedness.

Since the scripture clearly states that "God is NOT the author of confusion", (1 Cor. 14:33), just who IS responsible for the obvious confusion of the scholars? Did the modern and older translators find all of these variant readings in the manuscripts which they love to refer to as the "oldest and best" or did they not?

If they did not, they are deceivers of the very worst sort drawing from their darkened intellects that which they blasphemously call the Word of God. On the other hand, if they did find the manuscript authority for these many weird and wonderful distortions, in that which they call the "oldest and best manuscripts", we must draw a final conclusion as follows.

The manuscripts which they use to challenge the readings of the King James Version are in such disagreement among themselves that their united testimony against the K.J.V. is null and void. They negate the testimony of each other.

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

Biblically, witnesses which contradict one another are valueless. Herman Hoskier in his "Codex B. and its Allies" lists over 3,000 points of difference between the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in the four Gospels. These two manuscripts being the chief opponents of the Textus Receptus.

Now we must ask the publishers of the New International Version how the scandalous, even blasphemous, diversity of reading on this one tiny portion of Scripture helps us to understand the true meaning?

The N.I.V. introduction to the Gospel of Mark, (illustrated children's edition), informs our precious children that, "Mark worked for many years as a missionary with Paul Barnabus".

The record of John Mark's association with Paul and Barnabus is contained in 9 verses of scripture found in Acts 13:5-13; with one simple notation in Acts 12:25. The time period for John Mark's association with Paul and Barnabus would not have been more than a few months and conceivably only a few weeks. Later, the record of scripture reveals that the defection by John Mark from his position of assistant, (or helper N.I.V. not a missionary), was the immediate cause of the breakup of the Paul and Barnabus joint ministry. Acts 15:36-51.

QUESTION - How do you manage to stretch a few weeks or months into a time period of many years?

QUESTION - Why do you call an assistant to the Apostles a missionary, when it is obvious that the young man was at that time not ready to face the difficulties and dangers of missionary life?

The Preface abounds with statements that require clarification. For example, we are told that the N.I.V. translation was examined for its faithfulness to the original Greek. Most of the young people reading this meaningless and misleading statement will have no way of knowing the "original Greek", referred to consists mainly of the hopelessly depraved Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and other manuscripts of similar character.

IN WHAT WAY, THEN, DOES THE N.I.V DIFFER FROM THE MANY ENGLISH VERSIONS THAT IT CONDEMNS?

Careful investigation reveals a remarkable similarity to the versions which it very properly condemns and hopes to supplant. As in all the other new versions apart form a few feeble efforts to 'improve' the K.J.V. Authorized Version; we hear the ominous clank of the scholarly chains that bound the thinking, and blinded the minds of Westcott and Hort and the majority of their team of wreckers who undertook the revision of 1881.

This research of the N.I.V. reveals the tragic fact that the scholars who produced it were bound by mysterious forces that locked them in step with their predecessors, as they lead their readers into the same ditch, into which they have fallen. The cause of this tragic fate was and is the superstitious, blind reverence given to the undeserved authority of the Vaticanus and Sinaitic manuscripts.

In a vain effort to distance themselves from the thoroughly discredited theories of Drs. Westcott and Hort, the cry of many Bible Societies today is, "the Greek text" used in this translation is an eclectic one."

"In effect, the translators choose any reading from virtually any manuscript which may secure the approval of the board for that particular reading. In this way Westcott & Hort, who are being more and more thoroughly discredited do not appear in the picture.

The careful reader of the new "eclectic" text translations will not have read far, before hearing the unmistakable clank of the chains of Westcott & Hort. Obviously "Vaticanus", rescued from the obscurity of the Vatican, and "Sinaiticus", rescued in part from a waste paper basket in the monastery of St. Catheine on the slopes of Mt. Sinai, still dominate the thinking of the scholars who claim to be set free from the thinking of Westcott and Hort.

We have not far to look for the answer. The Textus Receptus, from which we derive our English King James Version, reliably represents the readings of the vast majority of all Greek manuscripts. Any new Bible version has nowhere else to go for manuscript support, except to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, plus a very small number of manuscripts which constitute the principal basis for the new versions. At this point we come face to face with the preferences and thinking of Westcott & Hort. There is no escape." (The Thinking, Theories, and Theology of Drs. Westcott & Hort P.20)

THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION NEW TESTAMENT OMITS 17 FULL VERSES OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.

Interestingly, we find that these are the identical verses relegated to the margin of the Revised Version of 1881, by the Westcott - Hort demolition crew. This monstrous evil is continued in the American Standard Version of 1901 which exactly follows the R.V. of 1881. The New American Standard Version, which appears on the scene, ostensibly to rescue its ignoble ancestor, by means of Herculean efforts manages to omit only sixteen verses from God's Word. This is almost identical with the N.I.V. omissions.

LET THE N.A.S.V. PUBLISHERS SPEAK

"Perhaps the most weighty impetus for this undertaking can be attributed to a disturbing awareness that the American Standard Version of 1901 was fast disappearing from the scene. As a generation "which knew not Joseph" was born, even so a generation unacquainted with this great and important work has come into being. Recognizing a responsibility to posterity, THE LOCKMAN FOUNDATION felt an urgency to rescue this noble achievement from an inevitable demise, to preserve it as a heritage for coming generations, and to do so in such a form as the demands of passing time dictate." (Preface To The New American Standard Bible A.D. 1963 Page 6,7)

Obviously the Editorial Board of the Lockman Foundation, were oblivious to the words of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as found in Luke 21:33 - "Heaven and earth shall pass away; but my words shall not pass away." Or else they realized that their, "Rock of Biblical Honesty" was not the Word of God. The Apostle Peter informs us that the Word of God abideth forever. 1 Peter 1:23 "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."

The American Standard Version of 1901, footnote to John 9:38, belies its claim to the dignified title of "The Rock of Biblical Honesty" and brands its footnote as the "Rock of Biblical Blasphemy".

"And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him." Footnote "The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature (as here) or to the Creator."

In May 1844 a German critical scholar thought he had rescued a portion of the Word of God from a waste paper basket in St. Catherine's monastery, on the slopes of Mt. Sinai.

"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 these, moldered 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 parchment, or about forty-three sheets, all the more readily as they were destined for the fire." (Re Tischendorf's report - Codex Sinaiticus Page 23 -24)

Did the monks know the value of the manuscript they were burning? Prebendary Scrivener in his "Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the Received Text of the New Testament" reports 15,000 alterations in the text.

"It is no slight proof of the early date of Codex Sinaiticus, that it is covered with such alterations, brought in by at least ten different revisers, some of them systematically spread over every page, others occasional or limited to separate portions of the manuscript, many of them being contemporaneous with the first writer, far the greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh century, a few being as recent as the twelfth." (Collation of The Codex Sinaiticus - Introduction Page xix)

Obviously the owners of one of the "Oldest and Best" manuscripts felt it needed 15,000 changes in order to give it even a slight value.

Generally our new version readers are not informed that many thousands of the Sinaitic reading are of the sixth and seventh century; a very few of them being as late as the twelfth; but the great majority to the seventh. To cover up this vital information is at the best misleading and at the worst downright deception. WHY ARE WE NOT TOLD? Did the scholars not know? Let them plead ignorance.

True scholars would be ashamed to allow the note, "Not in the Oldest and Best manuscripts", to disgrace the margins of the new versions. Precious souls for whom Christ died are entrusting the eternal welfare of their souls to versions that have been corrupted in the text and in the margins.

Scrivener's collation of Sinaiticus with the Textus Receptus, reveals the astonishing, but well kept secret that the seventh century corrector of Sinaiticus, who was responsible for the greatest number of these thousands of changes, laboured diligently to conform his manuscript to one that was "far nearer to our modern Textus Receptus."

"Far the greater part of the changes throughout the whole manuscript belong to C, of about the seventh century, before breathings and accents became habitual. The frequent repetition of the note (C cum Steph.) in the ensuing collation will prove that one object of this corrector was to assimilate the Codex to manuscripts more in vogue in his time, and approaching far nearer to our modern Textus Recptus." (A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the Received Text of the New Testament Page xxiii Introduction)

VATICANUS (!) is set before us in the battle for the Bible as the powerful, heavily armoured adversary of the K.J.V. Authorized Version and the Textus Receptus. Before this majestic manuscript a multitude grovel with their faces to the ground. Its oracular utterances must be received as the Word of God. The scholar who dares to reject it is cast into the fearful burning, fiery furnace of being scorned as "unscholarly". When the thunderous applause of those who evaluate manuscripts and the versions derived from them has died out, all must worship this "golden image", that has been set up as an idol by Drs. Westcott and Hort.

Let us, like David, run toward this Philistine giant. To our amazement we find Vaticanus is a scarecrow (!) or like an Egyptian mummy, very dignified, but with no life in it.

As we draw near to the giant we discover Vaticanus is hopelessly mutilated. Missing from his record are:

(a) Everything from Genesis 1: to 46:28

(b) Psalms 106 - 139

(c) All of First Timothy

(d) All of Second Timothy

(e) All of Titus

(f) All of Revelation

(g) All of Hebrews after chapter 9:14 to the end

(h) The Lord's agony in the Garden of Gethsemane. Luke 22:43-44

(i) Our Lord's prayer for His adversaries. Luke 23:34 "Father forgive them; for they know not what they do."

(j) The last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark. A significant blank space sufficient to include them cries out for the inclusion of the missing verses (see photostat on next page)

(k) The woman taken in adultery. John 7:53- 8:11

The Westcott and Hort team of revisers in the course of undermining the authority of the K.J.V. by means of their Revised Version of 1881, worked on the principle supposition, that where Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were agreed on a reading that was contrary to the K.J.V. that a revision was in order at that point.

Herman Hoskier speaks out. "Dr. Hort follows B. (Vaticanus) and B. Alone! It is often disputed that Hort does this. I wish it to be clearly understood that he does especially in a difficulty like the present." (Codex B. And It's Allies - Vol. 2 Page 12)

The Champions Call Each Other Liars

In the four Gospels the 3,036+ differences between the "Oldest and Best" manuscripts listed by Hoskier have nothing to do with spelling or punctuation. They are places where Greek words with different meanings meet in a collision course. In every case one of the manuscripts is in serious error. In many cases they both err. This is made evident by the framers of the Greek New Testaments often rejecting the readings of both manuscripts. Would any of my readers trust the salvation of his soul and the souls of his wife and children, or of his Bible class or congregation to versions of the Bible that derive their authority and readings from these two principal manuscripts?

While the Revised Version of 1881 omits at least 17 verses of scripture, the A.S.V., N.A.S.V., and N.I.V. slavishly fall into step in the downward march to the apostasy of the New Age. The Revised Standard Version of 1952 using basically the same authority omit almost three times as many. Evidently the R.S.V. translators felt they had found authority to delete many more portions of God's Word.

Why is the Revised Standard Version so vicious in this hatchet job on the K.J.V.?

It is past the time to drag the translators out into the open.

"The Congressional hearings on the much smeared Air Reserve Training Manual cited the names of a few leading fellow-travelers in the ministry. They included: Walter Russell Bowie who has affiliated with 33 communist fronts and causes, Henry J. Cadbury, with nine, George Dahl with 18, Leory Waterman with 20, and Fleming James with verified total of 25 affiliations with communist fronts and causes.

These five men, and 25 others with records of support for communist causes, served on the committee of 95 Bible scholars, translators, and theologians who produced the Revised Standard Version of the Holy Bible. While less than three percent of Protestant ministers have affiliated in any way with communist fronts and causes, on this one important project nearly 30% of the participants have been so affiliated." ("None Dare Call It Treason" by John A. Stormer Page 127-128)

Standing close to but slightly behind the "giant(?)" Vaticanus is his right hand man and fellow attacker of the Textus Receptus and the King James Version. He is called SINAITICUS. From a distance he also is an imposing sight. Like his venerable fellow soldier the contents of Sinaiticus are bound up on pages of "vellum of outstanding quality". Vaticanus is described as being, "bound in a book (a codex) and embraces 759 leaves of the finest vellum"; but aged, worn, and faded.

In drawing near to Sinaiticus, we find, as we did with Vaticanus, his glory and beauty is only in the exquisite vellum that holds the Greek Text. To our amazement we find that Tischendorf, the German critical scholar, who "discovered" Sinaiticus or Aleph, as he named it, found that 15,000 surgical operations had been performed on Sinaiticus.

It would appear that over a period of several hundred years a series of ten scribes had altered the beautiful face of Sinaiticus, 15,000 times. Generally the alterations leaned toward the text of that which in more recent times has been called the Textus Receptus. (See reference page 6 of this essay). Sometimes the later scribes corrected the corrections of their earlier "Plastic surgeons".

"It will readily be imagined how vastly the labour and anxiety of a critical editor must be enhanced by so extensive a mass of alterations, many of them being corrections of corrections, in such different hands and spread over the course of many centuries." (A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the Received Text of the New Testament by F.H. Scrivener Page 25 Introduction)

(a) Amazingly we discover that the original scribe displayed a very shoddy style of work with almost unbelievable ignorance.

"It must be confessed, indeed, that the Codex Sinaiticus abounds with similar errors of the eye and pen, to an extent not unparalleled, but happily rather unusual in documents of first-rate importance; so that Tregelles has freely pronounced that "the state of the text, as proceeding from the first scribe, may be regarded as very rough" (N.T. Part ii p.2). Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled: while that gross blunder technically known as Homoeoteleuton, whereby a clause is as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the N.T., though the defect is often supplied by a more recent hand." (A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the Received Text of the New Testament by F.H. Scrivener Page 15 Introduction)

The evidence reveals that many thousands of the Sinaitic readings are not at all contained in the "oldest" writings of the original scribe. So that the vaunted "Oldest and Best", begins to ring in our ears with a hollow sound. We must ask, "Why is this fact not made known more widely?" Will our modern scholars plead ignorance again?

(b) Then those who have been led to trust the "authority" of these two main weapons of assault on the K.J.V. are dismayed that their two "authorities" are definitely at variance with each other.

Herman Hoskier

The learned Hoskier says, "Our little study would be quite incomplete without a further account of the idiosyncrasies of (Sinaiticus or Aleph). From Tischendorf's apparatus, which is not now up to date, we might conclude that many of these omissions by Sinaiticus were mere errors, yet I can state that over fifty percent of them have support from Old Syriac, Sah, Boh, Aeth or Latin which so far has not been made clear... I have tabulated the major part of these differences between Aleph & B. (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) In the Gospels....."

Back

Matthew.....................656+

Mark..........................567+

Luke..........................791+

John........................1,022+

Total: 3,036

The New International Version owes its very existence largely to the authority of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Without these demonstrably depraved manuscripts there could be no N.I.V., N.A.S.V., or R.S.V.

The former we have found to be so hopelessly mutilated that the marginal note "not found in the oldest and best" manuscripts becomes meaningless. The latter, with its 15,000 corrections, is about as useful as an old automobile that had been repaired 15,000 times; or as a very old man who had undergone 15,000 surgeries, would do as minister of health and fitness. This together with the fact that the two manuscripts are in constant conflict with one another to the tune of 3,036 times in the four Gospels, with a possible 7,000 times in the New Testament, renders their testimony against the Textus Receptus and the King James Version, null and void.

If you are observant and have had studies in the Authorized King James Version, you will have noticed, not only the fact that a goodly number of verses have been omitted in their entirety, but scores of verses have been mutilated. The portions deleted upon the authority of the manuscripts we have discussed seriously alter the teachings of Holy Scripture.

Count them carefully and you will find many more than 150 verses have been emasculated, in this manner.

The N.I.V. still has provided nothing new to warrant its name. Once again the preceding version beat N.I.V. in this devastating attack on Holy Scripture. Your version is almost identical in the portions excised by Westcott and Hort's revision of 1881 and those that follow after.

Plus a veritable host of lesser versions.

J.N. Darby's "New Translation" 1950.

NOT REALLY! J.N.D. repeatedly falls into the same ditch as his modern counterparts but not nearly so often. The influences created by his personal study of the "Vatican" manuscript are clearly seen.

Is there not one Bible that has completely escaped the terrible bondage of the darksome theories of Westcott and Hort?

Surely the beloved "Scofield Reference Bible" will give us some relief from the scorching heat of their blighting unbelief. Surely the Scofield Bible with its many excellent notes will be to us as: "The shadow of a great rock in a weary land." Isaiah 32:2b

Here we can find rest from the endless funeral dirge of the scholars.

"Not found in the oldest and best manuscripts."

"Some manuscripts omit."

"Some manuscripts add."

"Not found in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus" etc. Ad nauseum.

Before shattering this illusion let us consider -

Galatians 2:11-13 "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation."

If the Apostles, Peter and Barnabus, who were filled with the Holy Spirit, and worked miracles in the name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, could be "carried away" out of the will of God, by the hypocrisy of the Jewish religious leaders, need we be overly surprised to discover that many loved and trusted teachers have been deceived by the massive deceptions that have accompanied the new version which are based on the corrupted Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

C.I. Scofield was not an exception.

Trustingly, this greatly loved scholar writes: "The discovery of the Sinaitic MS, and the labours in the field of textual criticism of such scholars as Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Winer, Alford, and Westcott and Hort, have cleared the Greek Textus Receptus of minor inaccuracies, while confirming in a remarkable degree the general accuracy of the Authorized Version of that text. Such emendations of the text as scholarship demands have been placed in the margins of this edition, which therefore combines the dignity, the high religious value, the tender associations of the past, the literary beauty and remarkable general accuracy of the Authorized Version, with the results of the best textual scholarship." (Introduction Page 4)

Here is a master piece of understatement by a sincere godly scholar. The "textual critics" mentioned by Dr. Scofield did not, "clear the Greek Textus Receptus of minor inaccuracies". Their's was a resolute attack on the major doctrines of the New Testament, a veritable deadly demolition crew, determined to alter the Word of God. I cannot in this essay deal individually with all of the textual critics in whose judgment and integrity Dr. Scofield fully trusted, but we shall let Tischendorf speak for himself.

"Learned men have again and again attempted to clear the sacred text from these extraneous elements. But we have at last hit upon a better plan even than this, which is to set aside this textus receptus altogether, and to construct a fresh text, derived immediately from the most ancient and authoritative sources." (Codex Sinaiticus Page 20)

At last the devil's plan to subvert the Word of God and destroy the souls of men, women, and children, lies open before us. Here is no benevolent desire to clear the Textus Receptus of minor inaccuracies, as Dr. Scofield believed, but a hidden plan to replace the pure Word of God with his infamous, depraved Sinaiticus.

"Tischendorf insists on the general depravity ("universa vitiositas") of Codex B; (Vaticanus) on which Drs. Westcott and Hort chiefly rely, - regarding it as unique in its pre-eminent purity." (Revision Revised Page 380)

Thousands of Christians agree with Tischendorf in his charge of depravity against Codex B (Vaticanus). At the same time they suffer strong revulsion towards Tischendorf's glorification of the sickly Sinaiticus.

A strange fascination gripped Tischendorf in it's power.

"It was at the foot of Mount Sinai, in the Convent of St. Catherine, that I discovered the pearl of all my researches." (Codex Sinaiticus Page 23)

"There by myself I could give way to the joy which I felt. I knew that I held in my hand the most precious Biblical treasure in existence - a document whose age and importance exceeded that of all the manuscripts which I had ever examined. I cannot now, I confess, recall all the emotions which I felt in that exciting moment with such a diamond in my possession." (Codex Sinaiticus P. 28) Tischendorf's "pearl" turns out to be artificial. His "diamond" is certainly only a zircon at best.

"Claiming to be an attempt to determine the truth of scripture on scientific principles, the work before us may be regarded as the latest outcome of that violent recoil against the Traditional Greek Text, - that strange impatience of its authority, or rather denial that it possesses any authority at all, - which began with Lachmann just 50 years ago (viz. In 1831), and has prevailed ever since; its most conspicuous promoters being Tregelles (1857-72) and Tischendorf (1865-72)." (Revision Revised Page 242)

"Lachmann's ruling principle then was exclusive reliance on a very few ancient authorities - because they are ancient. He constructed his text on three or four - not unfrequently on one or two, Greek Codices.

We venture to think his method irrational." (Revision Revised Page 242)

Hort and the Textus Receptus

This is the Greek Text underlying the King James Authorized Version, and the one chosen for the Scofield Reference Bible.

"After mature reflection it was determined to use the Authorized Version. None of the many revisions have commended themselves to the people at large. The Revised Version, which has now been before the public for twenty-seven years, gives no indication of becoming in any general sense the people's Bible of the English-speaking world." (C.I. Scofield Introduction Page 3)

"I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, AND DRAGGED ON WITH THAT VILLAINOUS TEXTUS RECEPTUS....THINK OF THAT VILE TEXTUS RECEPTUS LEANING ENTIRELY ON LATE MANUSCRIPTS: IT IS A BLESSING THERE ARE SUCH EARLY ONES.." (Life and Letters F.J.A. Hort Vol. 1 Page 211)

To this writer the statement which IMMEDIATELY follows Hort's describing the sacred text as "vile" is most revealing.

"Westcott, Gorham, C.B. Scott, Benson, Bradshaw, Luard, etc. and I have started a society for the investigation of ghosts, and all supernatural appearances, and effects, being all disposed to believe that such things really exist, and ought to be discriminated from hoaxes and mere subjective delusions; we shall be happy to obtain any good accounts well authenticated with names. Our temporary name is THE GHOSTLY GUILD." (Letters F.J.A. Hort Page 211)

The connection of this statement with Hort's declamation against the word of God is of very great significance.

Here we have the hidden background for the modern spreading rejection of the King James Version. The followers of Westcott and Hort are following the lead of men who are at the instigation of seducing spirits, have departed from the faith. In some cases this departure is openly manifested by a strictly forbidden prying into the occult. These having received from the world of spirits a hatred for the true Word of God, are swiftly and surely leading multitudes into the same Satanic pitfall.

Scholars hail Hort as the man who slew the Textus Receptus. Colwell, succinctly states, "Hort did not fail to reach his major goal. He dethroned the Textus Receptus."

In order to accomplish his design, Hort, conspiring with Westcott brought forth their new Greek Text. This Greek Text and Nestle's enthroned the two manuscripts that we have seen to be utterly unfit to be authorities representing the Word of God.

Our brief survey of the scholars who were trusted by Dr. C.I. Scofield, reveal that every one of them was a deadly enemy of the Textus Receptus and the K.J.V. Authorized Version on which he had chosen to write his commentary.

The last named, Dr. Hort having that dubious reputation of having slain the Textus Receptus.

By this time Dr. Hort knows that he did not slay the Textus Receptus. It is highly probable that the Textus Receptus will slay Hort and his co-conspiritors. Jesus said "The Word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." John 12:48b

"The errors and prejudices which we agree in wishing to remove, can surely be more wholesomely and also more effectually reached by individual efforts OF AN INDIRECT KIND THAN BY COMBINED OPEN ASSAULT. AT PRESENT VERY MANY ORTHODOX BUT RATIONAL MEN ARE BEING UNAWARES ACTED ON BY INFLUENCES WHICH WILL ASSUREDLY BEAR GOOD FRUIT IN DUE TIME, IF THE PROCESS IS ALLOWED TO GO ON QUIETLY: BUT I CANNOT HELP FEARING THAT A PREMATURE CRISIS WOULD FRIGHTEN BACK MANY INTO THE MEREST TRADITIONALISM. AND AS A MERE MATTER OF PRUDENCE, IT SEEMS TO ME QUESTIONABLE TO SET UP A SINGLE BROAD CONSPICUOUS TARGET FOR THE PHILISTINES TO SHOOT AT, UNLESS THERE IS SOME VERY DECIDED ADVANTAGE TO BE GAINED." (Vol. 1 Page 400 Life & Letters - Hort)

There we have a very plain statement to the effect that Hort was deliberately leading orthodox believers into the same diabolical trap into which he and Westcott had already fallen.

May every Christian person who had been led to trust the theories of Westcott. & Hort ponder prayerfully the implications of this hiding of their purpose. Please keep in mind also that the new Bible versions are all greatly influenced by the conniving and deliberate deception of these men. Very, very occasionally we find an exception, but usually that exception is a very weak effort to "improve" the K.J.V.

Let my reader who has abandoned the Textus Receptus ask himself prayerfully before the Lord, if he is not one of those who follow in the train of sincere orthodox men that are being worked on by forces or influences of which they are not aware? What a horrible way to lead souls astray! Truly Satanic in every respect. The twentieth century has seen a flood of orthodox men and women fall into this trap." (The Thinking , Theories and Theology of Westcott and Hort Page 18)

These then are the men whose emendations Dr. Scofield partially accepted Hort's indirect method of deceiving "orthodox but rational men" involved many hundreds of marginal emendations, all of which were based on very depraved manuscripts.

EMENDATION:

WEBSTER:

An alteration for the better.

A correction of an error or fault.

Emendation is a misnomer for the depravation of the text by the insertion of grave error into the margins and texts of the modern versions.

One cannot read the writings of men like Dr. C.I. Scofield, without sensing their deep personal love for our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. His writings have encouraged multitudes; yet the doubt cast upon the scriptures by the textual critics, whose scholarship he acknowledged in his introduction has done harm to the cause of Christ.

If Satan can deceive sincere men into believing his lie concerning Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, he has achieved a great advantage over the souls of men. The very genius and honesty of such men compels them to translate thoughts that conflict with their deepest convictions. Eventually, and it is amazing how quickly, they believe the lie they have translated, because they have been convinced that these ghostly caricatures, with their purposely excised portions, and multi-thousand corrections, and awesome contradictions of each other are really the "oldest and best" manuscripts.

Millions of untaught, professing Christians have been led astray by this occult strategy.

Will my readers please remember that for a very short time, Peter and Barnabus were carried out of the will of God by the hypocrisy of the religious leaders of Israel. The apostle Paul, recognizing the danger to his fellow apostles, and to the millions that would one day read Peter's epistles, "withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." (Gal. 2:11 cff. to vs 18)

This illustrious scholar, after nodding approval to the subversive textual critics in his introduction virtually slams the door in their faces. He makes no mention at all of the vast majority of their pitiful emendations or corrections of the K.J.V. A few, but very few make their way into his marginal notes. Regrettably, this gives a measure of recognition to the evil work of the critics.

In acknowledging that these enemies of the Textus Receptus have provided emendations that are acceptable to him, this well loved commentator is in danger of leaving his students with the impression that he finds no fault with their outrageous attacks on the Word of God; and their efforts to substitute depraved Greek texts in place of the Textus Receptus.

No note of warning is given to those who find the names of the enemies of the King James Version honoured in the introduction to the Scofield Reference Bible.

Dr. Scofield's unqualified recognition of the work of the destructive critics; and his failure to recognize that their enmity against the Authorized Version, was hiding behind the lie of "clearing the Greek Textus Receptus of minor inaccuracies", serves to cover up their real objective, and to unintentionally provide them with a respectability that they in no way deserve. Dr. Scofield's (original) Reference Bible is not here classed with the modern versions. His error appears to be that of a great lover of the Word of God, who was unaware of the treacherous nature of the work of radical destructive critics.

This trail of the serpent with his "Yea hath God said?" of Genesis 3:1, unto the latest and most widely accepted of the new Bible versions is clearly traced out for us in a previous essay, "The Thinking, Theories, and Theology of Drs. Westcott and Hort" by Cecil J. Carter.

For an extensive review of the great jewel robbery, accomplished by the textual critics, listing many of the precious portions of God's Word, now eliminated by the new versions, see "The Oldest And Best Manuscripts. How Good Are They?" by Cecil J. Carter.

Born August 21, 1812 -- At rest 1888

Matriculated with high honours at Oxford in 1841.

He earned his B.A. there in 1845.

He earned his M.A. there in 1848.

During his days at Oxford the tractarian controversy flamed furiously. This diabolical attack on the Holy Scriptures aroused him to profound studies of the ancient manuscripts. He examined Biblical manuscripts on every possible occasion. He personally discovered many manuscripts during his many years of unwearying search for the truth, in the realm of textual criticism. He authored a brilliant defense of the last 12 verses of Mark's Gospel in 1871.

In 1860, while temporary Chaplain of the English congregation at Rome, he made a personal examination of Codex B. (Vaticanus).

In 1862, he inspected the manuscripts in St. Catherine's Monastery (Convent) on Mt. Sinai. He made several tours of European libraries examining every manuscript, and collating the New Testament manuscripts.

He compiled in 36 volumes, which are now in the British Museum, over 80,000 quotations from the early church fathers.

John Burgon, in a masterful manner, revealed the hypocritical manner in which some scholars, while loudly contending for the supremacy of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, constantly rejected readings in one or the other, and not infrequently rejected the authority of both manuscripts in order to save their Greek texts from ridiculous errors. The result was devastating to the credibility of the Westcott Hort Revised Version of 1881.

The authority for statements concerning the content of the various manuscripts is that of that "giant among scholars," Dean John William Burgon. His personal examination of the Biblical manuscripts qualified him to speak with great authority on the subject.

I have sought to give my readers an adaptation of his exposure of the Westcott-Hort Greek text and the Revised Version of 1881, which was based upon it.

As the Lord enables I shall apply his scholarship to the N.I.V. of 1974. Other authorities will be noted. To the best of my knowledge no writer has applied this form of criticism to the modern Bible version, in order to demonstrate the vacillating nature of the scholars as they vainly attempt to make sense out of the conflicting readings in the vile Vaticanus and the sickly Sinaiticus.

In the book of the Prophet, Jeremiah 36:23, the reader meets with an awesome statement concerning the wicked behaviour of Jehoiakim, King of Judah. When several pages or leaves of the Word of God were read in his hearing we find that he "cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth."

The crime of mutilating the manuscripts of the Word of God did not cease with the death of this wicked king. In the early years of the church age, heretics worked energetically to corrupt the Word of God. We find frequent references to the baneful work of these early corrupters and mutilators in the writings of a number of the church Fathers and in the scriptures.

2 Corinthians 2:17 - "For we are not many, which corrupt the word of God; but as sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ."

2 Thessalonians 2:2 - "That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand."

2 Thessalonians 3:17 - "The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write."

2 Peter 3:16 - "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

Repeatedly the heretics are named and charged with corrupting the scriptures in order to give credence to their erroneous teaching. Gaius, writing before the end of the second century A.D. accuses the heretics of "audaciously corrupting the scriptures under the guise of correcting them." Does this sound familiar? If it does not, just read the introductions in the various new Bible versions, and then check the translation. You will soon find that the problem which so concerned Gaius in the second century is the identical problem that is stirring the hearts of Bible lovers today.

Prebendery Scrivener, who powerfully opposed many of the changes introduced by Westcott and Hort in the Revised Version of 1881 wrote -

"It is no less true to fact that paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subject, originated within a hundred years after it was composed: that Irenaeus (A.D. 150), and the African Fathers and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens thirteen centuries later, when molding the Textus Receptus.

And Codices, B, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus are, demonstrably, nothing else but specimens of the depraved class thus characterized." (Revision Revised Page 317)

Many consider the evidence for the above statement to be incontestable. Granted that this is the case, it follows that no one has the right to assume that because a manuscript is very old, it is therefore very accurate, yet so often when we study the margins of the new versions we see those deceiving words, "Not in the oldest and the best manuscripts." We then notice that some precious portion of Holy Scripture is either bracketed, indicating questionable manuscript authority, or relegated to the margin or entirely deleted from text and margin. In this manner the modern penknife of modern destructive criticism does its infernal work of cutting up the scriptures.

It is wise to keep in mind that the very oldest manuscripts probably owe their continued existence to the fact that Christians recognized their defects and deficiencies. Not being used as often as the reliable manuscripts, they were laid aside to finally gather dust in the Vatican library, and in the monastery of St. Catherine on the slopes of Mt. Sinai. Then naturally, the vellum on which the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts were written would out last those that were written on much less durable materials. No less an authority than Professor Millar Burrows (Chairman of the Old Testament Board of Revisors of the R.S.V.), confesses that,

"An old manuscript is not necessarily a good manuscript. A copy made in the ninth or tenth century A.D. may more accurately reproduce the original text than one made in the first or second century B.C. As a matter of plain fact, the St. Mark's Isaiah manuscript is obviously inferior at a great many points to the medieval manuscripts. This does not, however, deprive the ancient scroll of all importance." (Dead Sea Scrolls, Page 303)

This amazing acknowledgment concerning the superiority of the despised, "medieval manuscripts", is followed by an equally astonishing pronouncement concerning the self contradictory nature of the ancient manuscripts which are so often erroneously referred to as "the oldest and best manuscripts".

Just what do we know about the handful of ancient manuscripts which are erroneously referred to as "the Oldest and Best"? Upon their authority our King James Version of the Bible has been criticized, revised, and slandered. Many precious portions of God's Word, inspired by the Holy Ghost, have been changed or eliminated altogether. In the light of the great judgments pronounced in Rev. 22:18,19 against those who add or take away from the words of the prophecy of this book, every person should give careful and prayerful consideration to just what amount of personal guilt is involved in the translation, production, distribution and use of the new mutilated version of the Bible.

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

It is quite true that scholars are in possession of readings from very ancient manuscripts which radically differ from those from which we get the Textus Receptus, which is the basic text of the unexcelled King James Version. Modern translators make much of the fact that this is so. What the average Bible reader or Bible school student is not told, is that this little group of ancient manuscripts not only differ from the Received Text, but they differ radically themselves. This greatly weakens the strength of their testimony against the Textus Receptus. Consequently the strength of the testimony against the King James Bible, by the versions which are derived from these self contradictory manuscripts is nullified. (See earlier in this essay)

Nor do the new versions have any real significance nor validity when it comes to a major disagreement with the Textus Receptus, which, incidentally, sets forth an exceedingly accurate representation of the vast majority of the Greek manuscripts.

As already demonstrated Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, though differing violently from each other, are the major foundation stones upon which rest the authority for the vast majority of all the modern versions of the Bible. A very unstable foundation as we shall soon see. With the exception of the Revised Standard Version, and the New English Bible, and Goodspeed's Version, it is doubtful if any version exhibits the mutilated character of the parental Greek texts much more than that which is commonly known as the N.I.V. It well could be that when its deficiencies are fully revealed and the import of its numerous omissions understood, that the verdict of history upon this pathetic version and the translators will be, "THE GREAT MUTILATORS AND THEIR MUTILATIONS."

The fact to remember is, that the translators, not daring to incorporate many of the reading into the text, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are aware that they are using texts that are dreadfully corrupted. If Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were worthy of the superstitious reverence given to them by many modern scholars, there would be no need to frequently forsake their reading for other manuscripts. The marginal readings in the new versions seldom if ever, mention this remarkable fact.

It is only right to mention at this point, that although the translators of the N.I.V. are accountable to God for the terrible travesty that they have produced, they are not the ones originally responsible for the mutilations and corruptions that abound in it. Theirs is the awesome error of accepting a corrupt text and translating it as if it truly were the word of God. In order to properly assess the situation that exists today in the realm of Bible versions, it is necessary to see how translators who are flooding the market with great numbers of widely varying translations, manipulate the evidence in line with their own erroneous theology and thinking. In many cases the manuscript evidence is made to conform to a predetermined theology.

In the Authorized King James Version Matthew 11:19b reads:

"Wisdom is justified of her children."

The N.A.S.V. reads:

"Wisdom is vindicated by her deeds." (So does the R.S.V. and others).

The N.I.V. reads:

"But wisdom is proved right by her actions".

One of those defending the change admits that there are literally thousands of copies of manuscripts and versions which read, "children" (as in the K.J.V. - CJC), and only a handful that read "works." He indicated that the authority of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus accounts for the acceptance of the change by so many of later translators. The rejection of the witness of thousands of manuscripts and versions which read "children" and the acceptance of reading found in two very old, but self contradictory manuscripts, are held up by Lightfoot, as an example of the "unchallenged supremacy" of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. (Page 50 How We Got Our Bible Lightfoot)

At this point some one will ask, "Of what importance is the change?" or "How does this apparently slight alteration affect the value of a version?" This is a fair question. My answer is that at this time, the point in view is not so much the importance of the change, but rather the tragic principle involved in the change, namely the rejection of all other manuscript evidence and authority because of the fancied accuracy of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

This blind and unreasoning subservience to these two old and corrupted manuscripts, has led translators into many pitfalls, with disastrous results in the new versions, and in the thinking and theology of those who are so unfortunate as to trust them.

A simple illustration of the rather grotesque results of this type of scholarship is found in Mark 1:2. Here the N.A.S.V. and N.I.V. along with a very great company of other modern versions follow their blind guides right into the pit, and attribute to Isaiah the prophet, that which was written by Malachi. The quotation in Mark 1:2 is taken from Malachi 3:1, the one found in Mark 1:3 is from Isaiah 40:3. The K.J.V. beautifully and accurately renders the reading of vs. 2 "As it is written in the prophets", then follows the two quotations from Malachi and Isaiah. The N.A.S.V. following as it does the Nestle Greek text and the N.I.V. from its eclectic text, lamely and erroneously translate it as "It is written in Isaiah the prophet." Isaiah did not write Mark 1:2. A Sunday School child would know better than this.

The intention of the original mutilator of the text at this point, is open to question. The results of the mutilation are not open to question. First of all the change in the text makes each version that follows it, and there are many that do, declare a statement that is manifestly not true. Secondly, it provides a point of vantage for unbelievers to argue against the authority and accuracy of the Word of God. Thirdly, the attention of the Bible student is drawn away from the true source of this great prophecy to a book, where search as he may, he will not find the statement. Fourthly, the context in Malachi plainly reveals the Deity of the One that John Baptist shall introduce to the nation. The modern versions break the connection and a great revelation of Christ's Deity is in danger of being lost.

Let us keep in mind that John the Baptist introduced the Lord Jesus to the world as "The Son of God" (John 1:34) not "A son of God" as we find in the N.A.S.V. New Testament 1963 edition, Matthew 27:54. This same edition carries a shameful marginal note which reads, "possibly the Son of God, or a son of a god." In keeping with the "weather vane" antics of many modern translators, later editions of N.A.S.V. reverse themselves and we find in Matthew 27:54, that "The Son of God" has somehow mysteriously found its way back into the text from which it was eliminated in 1963; while the substituted "A son of God" is in the margin, along with "possibly a son of a god" (N.A.S.V. 1971). No wonder modern Christianity is in the mess it is today.

The N.I.V. of 1974 allows the proper reading in the text, but creates uncertainty and confusion in the minds of immature students by means of a footnote which seems to suggest uncertainty: "Or a Son." This is scholarship?

To allow the scriptures to witness strongly to the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ is repugnant to the thinking and theology of a great number of modern religionists. A very striking feature of modern versions is the great many times that a clear teaching of the Deity of our Lord Jesus is greatly watered down, or even eliminated by the alteration of a very few words. The N.A.S.V. and the Jehovah Witness New World Translation, abound in very similar corruption of these particular statements. The words substituted are not always the same, but the effect is identical so far as casting doubt upon the Deity of our Lord is concerned.

Before the publication of the Revised Version of 1881, the church leaders discovered that Drs. Westcott and Hort had included an Unitarian minister, Dr. George Vance, on the translation board. When his resignation was demanded, several of the leading members of that board threatened to resign if Dr. Vance was rejected. Dr. Vance stayed on, and expressed himself as being "very well pleased" with the Revised Version rendering of 1 Timothy 3:16, which changed "God was manifest in the flesh" to "He who was manifested in the flesh." The New American Standard Version does nothing to remedy this great error. The discerning Bible student will see at a glance that the change of but two or three words has eliminated one of the most powerful attestations to the Deity of our Lord Jesus that is to be found anywhere in the Bible.

The question now before us is this, shall we accept the change? The American Standard Version referred to "As the rock of Biblical honesty", by those who are ignorant of the facts has a footnote to 1 Timothy 3:16. It reads "The word "God," in place of 'He who,' rests on no sufficient ancient evidence".

The American Standard Version, obviously follows the lead of the Westcott - Hort Revised Version of 1881, using an almost identical misleading footnote. In turn we find the Westcott - Hort team continued the attack on the Deity of our Lord, which was launched by the Roman Catholic scholars, who were responsible for the Douay-Rheims Version.

The N.I.V., in company with the vast majority of new version, with slavish obedience to custom, deletes one of the great biblical testimonies to the Deity of our Lord. Its footnote, in a masterpiece of understatement, simply reads, "Some MSS. read God".

SOME OF THE EVIDENCE FOR "GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH"

All the Uncial copies except two.

(1) The sickly Sinaiticus

(2) The depraved "D"

All the cursives except one. (viz 17)

All the Church lectionaries, by universal consent. 5th century.

At least 18 of the Church Fathers - quoting directly.

At least 6 of the Church Fathers - quoting indirectly.

The British Museum.

Out of 300 manuscripts and versions, personally examined by John Burgon, 293 contain the reading, "God was manifest in the flesh." Dean Burgon in the Revision Revised gives us a total of 84 pages filled with incontrovertible evidence in favour of "God was manifest in the flesh"; at the same time invalidating the evidence for "He who was manifest in the flesh".

The Codices which are known to witness to the reading, "God was manifest in the flesh" amount to exactly three hundred. (Burgon's Revision Revised Page 528)

Of the two lone Uncials claimed as authority for deleting "God," we find that the chief MSS., Sinaiticus speaks with a divided voice. A later scribe, correcting Sinaiticus has written, "God" over the word "Who" of the original scribe. Perhaps I should say, "scribbler," for such he obviously was.

"Who" is not found for certain, in one single ancient Father nor for certain in one single ancient version.

Re three cursives usually cited for "Who:" 17, 73, 181. Number 73 proves to be merely an abridgment of Oecumenius, who certainly read, "God". Number 181 is non-existent.

So transparent, in fact, is the absurdity of writing, ('the mystery who') that copyists promptly substituted (which): thus furnishing another illustration of the well known property of a fabricated reading, viz; sooner or later to become the parent of a second. (Revision Revised Page 99-100)

Codex Clarmontanus - the only surviving MSS. - 6th century.

Gelasius of Cyzicus - (A.D. 476) the only Church Father.

An unknown author of a homily.

The Versions - for they invariably make the relative pronoun agree in gender with the word which represents mystery, which immediately precedes it.

The Georgian and Slavonic versions agree with the Received Text. (Revision Revised Page 100).

The Romanist Jesuit Douay-Rheims Version.

The more modern versions flee from the Jesuit scholar's "which" in all directions. They do well to abandon this reading.

Against a mighty Niagara of evidence from the voices of ancient Uncials, Cursives, Lectionaries, and Church Fathers, the New International Version chooses to align itself with the pitiful evidence which enables it to greatly weaken this testimony to the Deity of Christ. This decision of the translators is more than ever to be rejected outright as biased when we consider the character of the only other Uncial Mss., which apart from Sinaiticus, deletes "God". That MSS. Is Codex D.

"But by far the most depraved Text is that exhibited by Codex D. No known manuscript contains so many bold and extensive interpolations. Its variations from the sacred Text are beyond all other example." (Scrivener's Plain Introduction Page 118)

"It (Codex D) is thought (not without reason) to exhibit a second century text. When we turn to the Acts of the Apostles,' (says the learned editor,Dr. Scrivener, of the codex in question,) 'we find ourselves confronted with a text, the like to which we have no experience of elsewhere. It is hardly an exaggeration to assert that Codex D reproduces the Textus Receptus much in the same way that one of the best Chaldee Targums does the Hebrew of the Old Testament: so wide are the variations in the diction, so constant and inveterate the practice of expounding the narrative by means of interpolations which seldom recommend themselves as genuine by even a semblance of internal probability." (The Revision Revised Page 13)

"Though a large portion of the Gospels is missing, in what remains (tested by the same standard) we find 3704 words omitted: no less than 2213 added, and 2121 substituted. The words transposed amount to 3471: and 1772 have been modified: the deflections from the Received Text thus amounting in all to 13, 281.---Next to D, the most untrustworthy codex is Sinaiticus, which bears on its front a memorable note of the evil repute under which it has always laboured: viz. it is found that at least ten revisers between the IVth and the XIIth centuries busied themselves with the task of correcting its many and extraordinary perversions of the truth of Scripture. --- Next in impurity comes Vaticanus." (The Revision Revised Page 13, 14)

Please check your version at 1 Timothy 3:16.

If it reads "He", or "He who", or "Which" instead of "God was manifest in the flesh," rest assured that you are trusting a dangerously corrupted version which contains error in a wide variety of its readings. You have been deceived in the greatest matter of life. If you are a Bible teacher, minister, or evangelist, using such a version, you are leading those who love you and trust your ministry, in the wrong direction.

I urge you to lay aside these tools of the evil one and ask God to forgive you for your error; stand before your Bible class or congregation and ask them to forgive you for causing them to trust in a version which owes its existence to such polluted manuscripts. God will forgive you (1 John 1:9), and so will every right thinking member of your congregation. Many will love you for your obvious sorrow and honesty.

The Bible answers our question.

"WHO CAN BRING A CLEAN THING OUT OF AN UNCLEAN? NOT ONE. Job 14:4

"What is so new about the N.I.V.?"

We have seen that the omission of complete verses of Scripture and the mutilating of well over 150 verses in the New Testament, with misleading marginal notes, are forced to the conclusion that its manuscript authority of necessity must be almost identical. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus still exert their baneful influence over N.I.V.

In Matthew 13:35 the N.I.V. escapes a translation pitfall by forsaking one of its idol's (Sinaiticus). At this point it cleaves to its other "early MS", Vaticanus.

The great company of translators of the New English Bible were not so fortunate. These scholars who represented the most of the old line churches of Britain, and the British and Foreign Bible Society, as well as the National Bible Society of Scotland, and others, following the will of the wisp authority of Sinaiticus, end up in an inglorious heap at the bottom of the pit.

Matthew 15:14 "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."

What is the problem?

Sinaiticus attributes our Lord's words in Matthew 13:35 to the prophet Isaiah. In reality Jesus Christ is quoting Psalm 78:2.

N.I.V. does well to evade this pitfall, but we search in vain for a marginal note to the effect that "one of the earliest," or "Oldest and Best," manuscripts reads "the prophet Isaiah." May we be forgiven for asking why the N.I.V. scholars did not sound a warning at this point? Did they not know this, or did they not want their readers to know?

It would appear that either ignorance or deception prevailed at this point. The very best that we can say of this situation is that a new version that abounds with useless and often harmful marginal notes, which often come from the most obscure and unreliable manuscripts, did not see fit to inform its readers of the terrible "faux pas" found in their highly exalted Sinaiticus.

In the case of Matthew 13:35, the translators of the New International Version, forsake Sinaiticus, and cleave to their other idol, Vaticanus.

In Luke 23:34 a gigantic switch of affection takes place.

Vaticanus utterly ignores this great and glorious prayer of our Lord and Saviour, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." We would search in vain for it. One wonders if the consciences of the N.I.V. scholars, forgetting their brief honeymoon with "Vaticanus," completely forsake her and cleave now to the formerly rejected "Sinaiticus," which does contain that prayer.

A brief footnote informs us, Some early MSS. Omit 34A, but the awesome secret, that the "Oldest and Best manuscript," Vaticanus, completely ignores those precious, wonderful words of the Son of God, as He is about to offer Himself as, "One sacrifice for sins forever" (Hebrews 10:12), is not revealed to us.

The scholarly cover up of error in Sinaiticus is now extended to the serious omission of Vaticanus. N.I.V. readers are left in ignorance of the feet of clay of the twin idols of the new version movement.

Why does the N.I.V. scholars favour us with this misleading footnote? Why do they point out that, "some early MSS. Omit verse 34a"; thus indicating there is some doubt of this lovely prayer, uttered by the Lord of glory, the Redeemer of a dark and sinful world, on behalf of His executioners? Surely this is the "yea hat God said?" of that old serpent the devil, still questioning the Word of God.

COME NOW AND LET US REASON TOGETHER

Obviously our list of corruptions, errors, and contradictions found in the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts could be extended into the thousands. It is not possible nor desirable to enlarge this essay to book length.

The fact of corruption has been established by well documented facts which are recorded for us by brilliant scholars who by personal observation noted the amazing contradictory nature of the manuscripts, that are set before us as oldest and best.

With reference to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus:-

"It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two MSS differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they agree."

With reference to MSS. C. + D., used to strongly support the feeble claims of the Sinaitic and Vatican MSS. Burgon writes:-

Singular to relate, the first, second, fourth, and fifth of these codices (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, C, and D) but especially Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, have within the last twenty years established a tyrannical ascendancy over the imagination of the critics, which can only be fitly spoken of as a blind superstition. It matters nothing that all four are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant MSS. besides, but even from one another. This last circumstance, obviously fatal to their corporate pretensions, is unaccountably overlooked. And yet it admits of only one satisfactory explanation: viz. that in different degrees they all five exhibit a fabricated text. (Page 11-12 The Revision Revised.)

Collation with the Textus Receptus, which was the almost universal standard reveals these astonishing facts.

"And be it remembered that the omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, are by no means the same in both." (Revision Revised Page 12)

If proper investigation reveals such confusion between the manuscripts basic to the new version, N.I.V. being no exception, let us stop and consider how many thousand cases of such tampering with the everlasting Gospel would have been revealed if Burgon had extended his research to include the entire New Testament. The total must be astounding!

Of necessity, the Greek Texts of Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf, Nestle, and the United Bible Societies must fluctuate continually between these depraved manuscripts. The result must be confusion. And we know that,

"God is not the author of confusion." 1 Cor. 14:33

According to the scripture, there are times when the addition of one letter to a word destroys the teaching and turns the truth of God into a lie.

Galatians 3:16 "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."

1 Kings 4:32 with reference to Solomon.

"His songs were a thousand and five."

Delete one letter from songs, and it reads, "his sons"; a very different and erroneous reading.

2 Thessalonians 3:5 "And the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God"

Add one letter, the truth is destroyed and it reads, "The love of Gold."

According to 1 Timothy 6:10 this is the root of all evil.

TRANSPOSE ONE LETTER:

And Louise becomes lousie

Santa becomes Satan

REVERSE WORDS:

live becomes evil

lived becomes devil

THE RESULT - Doctrines of devils.

1 Timothy 4:1-2 "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron."

In its effort to provide "a faithful translation in modern English," the N.I.V. sends its roots deep down into the cesspool of depraved manuscripts, to drink at the same foul fountain of polluted waters, as did the Westcott and Hort text, Nestle's, and the United Bible Society's. There is so little difference between the complete verses of scripture omitted and the verses mutilated and the marginal notations of the Westcott and Hort Revision of 1881, and the N.I.V., that one cannot be blamed for demanding to know what is so new about the New International Version.

What is this modern practice of continually revising the new versions but an unconscious acknowledgment that the original translators were not capable of the work they undertook.

Incidentally, it is the means of greatly enriching the publishers, who without compunction seem to glory in the steady stream of new versions by which they delve into the pockets of a version hungry generation that is never satisfied with any one or all of the vastly different books, which lay claim to be the Word of God.

Is it possible that the revisions of the N.I.V. may change it into a true copy of the Word of God?

No matter how energetically later revisions may seek to patch up the tattered image of the N.I.V., the result is bound to resemble the basic manuscripts from which they derive their existence, namely the mutilated Vaticanus and the 15,000 times corrected Sinaiticus.

Do you, my reader, really believe for one moment that the vile Vaticanus and the sickly Sinaiticus, described in this essay, upon the authority of scholars who were vastly more knowledgeable than their modern counterparts, can by any remote possibility be:-

The incorruptible seed of the Word of God which liveth and abideth for ever? (1 Peter 1:23)

Can souls be truly born again by the use of modern version?

Granted, the possibility that our merciful God might use the twisted instrument to save a soul, and still judge the scholars who have added to and taken from the Word of God, we now would have a new thing.

Undoubtedly there have been times when taxi drivers, rushing an expectant mother to hospital have had to stop the taxi and assist the mother in delivering a new little life into the world. This is undeniably true.

However, in the event that a young woman found that she was about to become a mother, she normally would not use the services of a taxi driver to care for her during the pregnancy. Much less would the mother, whose child was delivered by a taxi driver, call for him if the child needed medicine or surgery.

Even so, these versions might be used of the Lord to bring a soul to Christ, but most certainly that child could not be nourished spiritually by the product of corruption.

The proof of this is seen in the way that the modern churches are falling a ready prey to apostasy and all the evils of the day, including the ordination of persons who are biblically not acceptable for the ministry. The majority of churches today are far astray from the "old paths" of the early and true Church.

Jeremiah 6:16 "Thus said the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein."

Is this the word of prophecy of which the Bible says;

"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: But HOLY MEN OF GOD SPAKE AS THEY WERE MOVED BY THE HOLY GHOST"? 2 Peter 1:21 (Emphasis mine.)

Are the "Five Old Uncials", headed up by Vaticanus and Sinaiticus with their hoarse, discordant voices, really the very word of our glorious God?

Is this the best that He could do to preserve His precious Word? Perish the thought!

The Holy Spirit spoke through David, the "man after God's own heart," and said;

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

Is this scum that has floated to the surface as a result of mixing the readings from the "Five Old Uncials", and presented to the Church as the Word of God, that of which we read in Paul's epistle to Timothy?

2 Timothy 3:15 "And that from a child thou has known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."

Do these witnesses against the Textus Receptus, who habitually thoroughly contradict each other, thus biblically, disqualifying themselves as witnesses, actually constitute reliable copies of the Word of God, described by the Holy Spirit through the Apostle Paul as follows?

2 Timothy 3:16-17 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

Mark 14:55-56 "And the chief priest and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none. For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together." (Emphasis mine)

Can the plague of new versions derived from them possibly be those by which the "man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works"?

The unbelief which for years seethed in the apostate churches and seminaries, now is solidly entrenched in Bible schools, missions, churches, and assemblies. It came in under the guise of "scientific criticisms," in the margins of their Bibles: and from there to the pulpits and pews. These deceitful marginal notes have been accepted as "scientific" methods of Bible study by unsuspecting Christians who have failed to heed the warning of scripture concerning, "oppositions of science falsely so called."

1 Timothy 6:20-21 "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen."

The result of this unholy tampering with the Word of God is a spiritual famine of understanding the Bible. This catastrophe will cover a vast area of the world. It is a judgment of the LORD ON ALL THE NATIONS THAT FORGET GOD.

Amos 8:11-12 "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD: And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it."

And so it has come to pass that in nations that abound in scores of corrupted English versions of the Bible, and are cursed with pagan influences in the churches, men and women are seeking desperately for some one to counsel them concerning their spiritual problems which are beyond the understanding of their teachers.

The attack on the true English Bible has succeeded in blinding the minds of multitudes to the truth.

In nations that abound with seminaries, Bible schools, evangelists, T.V., and radio gospel (?) broadcasts, and religious helps innumerable, the world is rushing madly into a religious darkness that is greater far than the "Dark Ages."

The destructively critical scholars and ministers who have laid the sandy foundation for the present state of empty profession, love to be called "Liberal."

Isaiah 32:5-6 "The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful. For the vile person will speak villainy, and his heart will work iniquity, to practice hypocrisy, and to utter error against the LORD, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail."

No wonder the attack on the Bible continues.

2 Corinthians 2:17 "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ."

(a) Are the so called oldest and best manuscripts faithful representatives of that which the Bible records?

Hebrews 1:1-2 "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;"

Or are they hopelessly marred and mutilated perversion of God's glorious truth?

(b) In the light of the fearful judgments pronounced in Revelation 22:18-19, what should the scholars, publishers, preachers, and Bible teachers who use any of the new versions, which add to and take away from the words of God's book of self revelation do in order to escape the threatened judgment?

The answer is clear.

1 John 1:9 "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

"Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the LORD thy God." Jer. 3:13

Kneel at the throne of grace, confessing your error, and receive the mercy God has promised. Hebrews 4:16

Then stand before your congregations and tell them how you have been deceived.

Present your evidence against the new versions. Tell them that God has forgiven you and ask them also to forgive you for unintentionally leading them astray. Some will protest. Your decision will be costly but every right thinking person will love you and your conscience will be clear before God and man.

"I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say." 1 Corinthians 10:15

---

Return to top