VI. In 1870 AD. there was a revision made of God's Word!
In 1870 ADBible Scholars in the Church of England decided that something should be done to bring the English reader nearer to the original language. (Sounds like today!) It was during this time that Westcott and Hort joined the Revision Committee.[46] and introduced a NEW Greek Text[47] which dated back to the time of the "notorious corruption" of the 2nd. Century AD.[26]
Their claim was that Erasmusdid not know about these manuscripts when he put God's Word back into the Greek language. The fact is Erasmus DID know and rejected them because of their corruption.[57] Compton Interactive Encyclopedia, 1996 "Erasmus"
This "radical Greek New Testament, (the Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus)[5] deviated (departed the fartherest) 2,288 times[49] from the established ReceivedText / The Textus Receptus"[48] / the Greek Text of theReformation[34] This is evident in footnotesof theRevised Version (1881 AD) and every translation that followedunto our present day.
The King James Version was the last Bible to be translated from the Textus Receptus, the Greek Text of the Reformation.
A. This is how they convinced the Revision Committee
Westcott and Hort convinced the Revision Committee (using the "Family Tree Method") that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were older than what Erasmus used making them more reliable and closer to the original scriptures. This convinced many British scholars that the Textus Receptus was a late and inferior text and that therefore a revision of the King James Version was highly necessary"[52]
The Family Tree Method
1. However there was "falsification" and "notorious" corruption
Westcott and Hort chose to ignore the "falsification" and insisted on their "Family Method of interpretation which (according to them) proves that their Greek Text is the closest to the original manuscripts, making their text the most accurate.[56]
Note: History records for us that "...corrupted copies were so prevalent that agreement between them was hopeless."[59]
There was no fear of the Lord that they were CHANGING GOD'S WORD! (Deut.12:32, Prov.30:6, Rev.12:18) By "their own published statements they acted on the basis of the natural man's view of the New Testament text, priding themselves on treating the text of the New Testament as they would any other ancient book making little or nothing ofinspiration and providence." [53] This reveals the foolish arrogance (conceit, self importance, pompousness) of man's wisdom. (1Cor.1:19-31; 2:1-14)
B. Look at their "so-called" revision
In 1870 AD when the Bible Scholars in the Church of England decided that something should be done to bring the English reader nearer to the original language[46] they stipulated that no changes were to be made to the Greek Text.
Note: John had already establish the canon of scripture,[7] all that we needed was "to bring the English reader nearer to the original language[46] Not change the Words / Language! But they were NOT faithful to the purpose. This is evident in the footnotes in our modern day Bibles today because the translator using the NEW Greek text of Westcott and Hort which dates back to the time when there was notorious corruption happen of the Manuscripts.
1. Mark.16:9-20 a.Revised Standard Version(1881 AD) "Some of the most ancient authorities bring the book to a close at the end of verse 8."
(2) New American Standard Bible (NASB 1901 AD) A few late mss and versions contain this paragraph, usually after v 8; a few have it at the end of ch (3) Amplified Bible (1965 AD) Some of the earliest manuscripts do not contain verses 9-20. (4) New International Version (NIV) (NIV) [The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.] (5) The Living Bible Verses 9-20 are not found in the most ancient manuscripts, but may be considered an appendix giving additional facts. (6) The Message Bible Note: Mark 16:9-20 [the portion in brackets] is contained only in later manuscripts.
2. 1John.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.
The NIV says this is "not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth Century. (i.e. meaning Sinaiticus and Vaticanus)
3. Acts.8:37 And "Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
The RSV / Earle / NAS says "this "is not found in the oldest Greek MSS and so will not be found in the scholarly versions today." (Word meanings in the New Testament - The LB says, many manuscripts omit verse 37 wholly or in part. Other ancient authorities add all or most of verse 37."
a. Mark.16:9-20, John.7:53 - John.8:1-11 The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have... (NIV) What they really mean, it is not in Siniaticus and Vaticanus.
Hort sais, "You Christians added to the Word of God" (The identifying of the New Testament Text - Pickering, p.37-38) Erasmus was placed the verses that had been removed. Hot reads this as adding to, instead of restoring.
Remember: This all to create doubt (i.e. "Yea hath God said...") the The Lord Jesus Christ is no Deity (i.e. God manifest in the flesh
2. There is an older witness than Sinaiticus and Vaticanus
It is called the "Peshitta,"(150 AD) the Bible of the Syrian Church. Also the "Italic Version" (157 AD) Both of these translations are in harmony with the Greek Text that the King James Bible is based on.[53] (The Textus Receptus) Wescott and Horts response to this was to place the Peshitta in the 4th. Century instead of the 2nd. Century
B. Westcott and Hort's world view
By "their own published statements they acted on the basis of the natural man's view of the New Testament text, pridingthemselves on treating the text of the New Testament as they would any other ancient book making little or nothing of inspiration and providence."[53] This reveals the foolish arrogance (conceit, self importance, pompousness) of man's wisdom. (1Cor.1:19-31; 2:1-14)
1. God's response to Westcott and Hort and those that honor them This would be Tischendorf, Tregelles, British scholars,[5] modern day revision committees, Liberial Seminaries.
The "natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1Cor.2:14-15) For "to becarnally (naturally) minded is death; (Prov.12:15; 14:12 i.e. to treat the text of the New Testament like any other ancient book) but to be spiritually minded (i.e. respect the New Testament text as the very God breathed inspired Word of God) is life and peace. Because the carnal (natural) mind is enmity (it is hostile) against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God." (Rom.8:6-8)
2. Here are some example of their "priding themselves" (Note: Chart below)
This should be no surprise because Origen and his multiple scribes fearlessly changed the Greek (the inspired, God-breathed Words concerning Christ's Deity) Origen did not believe that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh. Origen believed that Jesus was a created being. [58] Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, "polluted" (Neh.7:63-65) the Holy things of God's Word and should be "put from the Priesthood." (Neh.7:64, 1Peter.2:5,9)
b.
Note: Every translation after the King James Version (KJV) has a footnote saying it not really in the Bible. The New King James (NKJV) has an "honest" footnote. It says, "Verses 9–20 are bracketed in NU-Text as not original. They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other manuscripts of Mark contain them."
The bottom line is (blow all the smoke screen away) the root is that according to Westcott and Hort Christ is not Deity.
a. Some say what's the difference Jesus was "God manifest in the flesh"
This is true, Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. (2Tim.3:15-16)However He did not become God when He was (begotten) born. (Matt.1:18-25) The "Word" (God) became the "only begotten Son" at birth!
b. If Jesus became God a birth, He would be a created being
The next step would be to discredit the virgin birth, which most modern translations do. (Note: Matt.1:25) They leave out "firstborn." They say Mary had a son, a baby. Firstborn further establishes that Mary was a virgin, as Isaiah prophesied. "The Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." God with us. (Matt.1:23, Isa.7:14) c. Jesuswas always God. (Matt.1:17-25)
For by Him (Jesus, The Word) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." (Col.1:16-17) Jesus "is before all things, and by him all things consist." (Col.1:16-17) How can He be a "begotten God?"
D. The Text of Westcott and Hort is like a "tare" among the "wheat"
This has "had a tremendous influence on translators...published since (their) time."[55] In Germany, (1898 AD) Dr. Eberhard Nestle and his son, Dr. Erwin Nestle and later Dr. Kurt Alan published a Greek Text that followed principally what Westcott and Hort established. The American Bible Society were the next to publish a Greek Text, 1966 AD with a second edition in 1968 AD and a third edition in 1970 ADThis is the Greek Text of Liberal Seminaries today! It is no wonder that the Church is producing ministries that do not believe the Bible is God's Word.
E. Every translation since the KJV has followed this Greek text
1. Here is one example(Mark.16:9-20)
The Modern translations since the King James Version (1611 AD) say that these verses (Mark.16:9- 20) should not be in the Bible. Their footnotes say, that these verses are not of "superior quality." They say that "Verses 9-20 not in the two earliest manuscripts." What they really mean that these verses are not in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, therefore not the Word of God.
b. The New King James (NKJV) has a honest footnote. They say, "9-20 are bracketed in NU (the modern eclectic, or "critical," text of the Greek New Testament, published in the twenty-sixth edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (N) and in the third edition of the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament) as not in the original text. They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other mss of Mark contain them."
2. Compare each translation for yourself Note how they play "follow-the-leader," because they are following Westcott and Hort. One translation says that they followed that Greek Text of Westcott and Hort with "meticulous care." F. To conclude: "This is why I use the King James Bible" Many of God's people still it is a matter of translation of the Greek into today's English. This is a "smoke- screen" of our adversary, the Devil to hide his deletions and changes. Today he is doing the same thing as he did in the Garden of Eden. The Serpent (Devil, Lucifer, Satan) is provoking Eve (2Cor.11:1-3, Gen.3:1-3) The Church) into changing God's Word. We need to "submit ourselves" to God's Word (The Textus Receptus)" and resist the Devil and he will flee." (James.4:7-8)
The problem is, that within the Church we would rather submit ourselves to man's intellect, 1Cor.1:19-29; 2:1-14) and allow ourselves to be dominated over by those who are "polluting" the Holy things of God. (Col.2:8- 9, Neh.7:63-65, Deut.17:18; 24:18; 31:9-11, 2Chron.15:3; 34:15, Neh.8:2, Mal.2:7, 1Peter.2:5-9, Rev.1:6: 5:10)
Personal note: I have several translations sitting on my desk, and I refer to them from time to time because sometimes their modern day translation of the Greek into English is helpful. Having an updated English translation is not the problem! However, changing the Greek is the problem! (Deut.12:32, Prov.30:5, Rev.22:18-19)
As in the parable of the wheat and the tares we can identify the "tares," yet we need to leave judgement in God's hands. (Matt.13:24-30, 36-43) "The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn."
NOTES
1. The Amplified Bible - Explanation of Arbitrary Punctuation. Italics 2. God Only Wrote One Bible, J.J. Ray, p.23 / English Revised Version, Preface, pp.9-10 / Westscott. History of the English Bible, pp.321- 325 3. Evaluating Versions of the New Testament, E.W. Fowler, p.13 4. Samuel Hemphill - History of the Revised Version, p.54-55 / Evaluating Versions of the New Testament, p.4 5. The King James Defended - E. F. Hills, Chap.8,6.(a),p.225 Also note: Tischendorf Tregelles 6. Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia, Vol.21, p.288 7. Eusebius. Ecclesiasstical History, Book 3, Chap.24 8, 9, 10. Funk & Wagnalla, Vol.19. p,441 11. Encyclopedia Britannica, (Origen) 12. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol.1, pp.434-435 13. Present day Truths - Iverson, p.14-15 14. Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia, "Constantine" 15. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book 5, Chap.8 / Encycloptian Tatian 16. Encyclopedia Britannica. "Arius" Arius was a ascetical, moral leader of a Christian community in the area of Alexandria, and attracted a large following through a message integrating Neoplatonism, which accented the absolute oneness of the divinity as the highest perfection, with a literal, rationalist approach to the New Testament texts. 17. "Constantine" - Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia, 1996 18. Sir Robert Anderson, L.C.B.L.D. p.48, The Church and the Bible / E. H. Broadbent - The Pilgrim Church, pp.21-22 19. Dr. Ira M. Price - Ancestary of the Englisah Bible, p.70 / God Only Wrote One Bible- J.J. Ray, p.18 20. Encyclopedia Britannica, "Eusebius" 21. Dr. Ira M. Price - Ancestry of the English Bible, p.70 / Hurst - History of the Christian Church, Vol.1 pp.36-37 / God Only Wrote One Bible J.J. Ray, p.18 22. The Facts of the New Testament Criticism. The King James Defended, Edward F. Hills, p.119 23. Hort's Introduction, p.138 24. Dr. Fredrick Nolan - Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, pp.17-18 25. The King James Defended - E.F. Hills, Chap.5, p.119 / Thompson chain reference Bible, #4220, p.181 26. Burgon and Miller - The Traditional Text, p.163 / Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol.4, -.86 / Gregory - The Cannon and Text of the New Testament, p.345 / Dr. Ira M. Price - Ancestry of the English Bible, p.70 / A.T. Robinson - Introduction to the New Testament, p.180 / Dr. Phillip Scahff - Companion to Greek Testament, p.115 / Dr. Scrivener - Introduction to New New Testament, Vol.pp.36-37 27. Interpreting the Scriptures - K. J. Conner / K. Malmin 28. Thompson Chain Ref. Bible - The origin and Growth of the English Bible, English Versions. p.181 29. Interpreting the Scriptures - K. J. Conner / K. Malmin, p.31 30. Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia, 1996 31. Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia Jan Hus, 1996 32. Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia, 1996 33. Interpreting the Scriptures - K. J. Conner / K. Malmin, p.34 34. The King James Defended, Chap.8, p.199 / Works of Luther - Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1932 Vol.6, pp.476-89 35. The King James Defended - E.F. Hills, Chap.8, p.203 36. The King James Defended - E.F. Hills, Chap.,8 (e), p.198 37. The King James Defended - E.F. Hills, Chap.8, p.202 38. The Priesthood belongs to the people, the Body of Christ, NOT the Scholar. (1Peter.2:5-9, Rev.1:6; 5:10, Deut.31:9-11) 39. Thompson Chain Ref. Bible , F.C. Thompson, D.D., Ph.D 40. The King James Defended - E.F. Hills, Chap.8 (f), p.199 41. The Catholic Counter Reformation - Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia, 1996 42. The Catholic Counter Reformation - Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia, 1996 43. The Catholic Counter Reformation - Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia, 1996 44. The History of Roman Catholicism, New Religious Order - Encyclopedia Britannica 45. The Catholic Counter Reformation - Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia, 1996 46. The History of the Revised Version - Samuel Hemphil, pp.54-55 47. Wescott and Hort in their theory of the text built the work of several earlier men, such as Griesbach, Lachman, and Tischendorf, who around 1775 AD published texts differing in many places from the Received Text. - E.W. Fowler. Evaluating Versions of the New Testament, p.4 48. The History of the Revised Version - Samuel Hemphil, pp. 54-55 / Evaluating Versions of the New Testament - E.W. Fowler, p.28 49. Evaluating Versions of the New Testament - E.W. Fowler, p.9 50. Core, New Commentary, Part.3, p.721 51. The Life and letters of Fenton John Hort - 2 Vols; London: MacMillan and Co. Ltd., 1896, 1211 52. The King James Defended, E.F. Hills, Chap.8,6, (a), p.225 53. The Traditional Text - Burgon Miller, p.163 / Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol.4, p.86 / The Cannon and text of the New Testament, p.345 / The Ancestry of the - Dr. Ira M. Price, p.70 / A.T. Robertson, Intro of the New Testament, p.180 / Dr. Phillip Schaff. Companion to Greek Testament, p.115./ Intro to the New Testament - Vol.2, p.270 54. Evaluating Versions of the New Testament, E.W. Fowler, p.4 / B.F. Westcott and F.J. Hort. The New Testament in the original Greek, Vol.ii, Introduction and Appendix (New York Harper and Brothers, 1882, p.277 / The King James Defended - E.F. Hills. Chap.3,p.66 55, Evaluating Versions of the New Testament, E.W. Fowler, p.4-5 56. Lie - (Liar) 1 John 2:21-23King James Version (KJV) "I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also." This what our modern translation are doing when they place the footnotes based on Westcott and Horts Greek Text that question the Deity of Christ! 57. Erasmus did know - The King James Defended - Edward F. Hills, Chap.8, p.194-196 / Compton Interactive Encyclopedia, 1996 "Erasmus" 58. Encyclopedia Britannica - Origen 59. Eusebius, Ecclestical History, Book 5, Chapter 28