WHICH VERSION IS THE BIBLE?
Floyd Nolen Jones, Editions 1989-99
Re-arranged, condensed and edited by Russell Earl Kelly, PHD
February 1, 2022 with NAS Preface
| I. | INTRODUCTION | 2 |
| II. | THE BATTLE OVER VARIANTS | 2 |
| III. | EARLIEST COPIES OF THE GREEK BIBLE | 3 |
| IV. | VARIANTS OF THE PAPYRI | 5 |
| V. | CHURCH FATHERS | 8 |
| VI. | GREEK BIBLE VERSIONS | 11 |
| VII. | COMPARING THE TEXTUS RECEPTUR, VATICANUS B AND SINAITICUS ALEPH | 14 |
| VIII. | NON-GREEK BIBLES | 15 |
| IX. | ERASMUS’ GREEK BIBLE: 1517 | 17 |
| X. | HISTORY OF THE 1611 ENGLISH KJB | 19 |
| XI. | CHANGES TO THE KING JAMES BIBLE | 20 |
| XII. | THE 1881 WESTCOTT-HORT GREEK BIBLE | 20 |
| XIII. | OMNISCIENCE AND PRESERVATION | 23 |
| XIV. | SUMMARY | 24 |
| XV. | FRANK LOGSDON (N.A.S. FOUNDER) | 23 |
| XVI. | IMPORTANT DISPUTED TEXTS | 24 |
I. INTRODUCTION
This document rearranges Floyd Nolen Jones’ book, Which Version is the Bible?, into chronological order. It is not for sale. The page numbers from Jones’ book are bracketed at the end of sentences without “p” (—).
Notes in many Bibles often repudiate the very texts they promote. For example, the Old Scofield Reference Bible states at Mark 16:9-20 “This passage is not found in the two most ancient manuscripts.” At John 7:53 to 8:11 the footnote reads “is not found in some of the most ancient manuscripts.” Scofield then says that Augustine (d430) knew of its existence. At First John 5:7 it reads “It is generally agreed that v7 has no real authority and has been inserted.” Westcott and Hort’s horrendous lie is that the Greek Received Text, upon which the King James Bible is translated, did not exist prior to 350 and that Vaticanus B is far superior and far older. This thesis is written to refute that lie.
II. THE BATTLE OVER VARIANTS
The underlying Greek texts of the King James Bible and all modern versions are in almost 93% agreement. The remaining 7% disagreement is totally unacceptable for conservative Christians who believe: a) God can and has preserved His Word, b) He would not allow it to be lost and c) it does not require restoration.
In 1881 Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort secretly replaced the underlying Greek Textus Receptus of the King James Bible. They inserted a new English translation based on a new Greek text upon the Church of England. The Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament altered (often by deletion) the 140, 521-word text of the Erasmus’ Greek Textus Receptus at 5,604 places involving 9,970 Greek words representing 7% of the total word count (D. A. Waite, Defending the King James Bible, 1992, p41-42. Waite personally numbered every word and Jack Moorman personally verified every word. The 7% change in Greek words was accomplished primarily by replacing the Greek Textus Receptus word variants with 90% Vaticanus B variants and 7% Sinaiticus Aleph variants. The remaining 3% variants were from scores of other Alexandrian texts (91).
The battle for the God’s Word is now between the Greek words (7.1%) where the versions disagree — the variants. Far beyond what Westcott and Hort changed, the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Society’s extremely-annotated many-edition Greek Bible lists thousands of variants covering almost every verse. It then ranks them for the most-likely variants to be used in modern versions. It is mind-boggling enough to discourage new believers.
At the end of this thesis, I have used The NKJV Greek-English Interlinear New Testament (According to the Majority Text), Second Edition, 1985. Its footnotes list variants where the Majority Text differs from the Textus Receptus and also the Nestle-United Bible Society Bible. This means the NU Bible has rejected 90% of its own variants!
Floyd Nolen Jones’ book compares variants from the Received Text, Vaticanus B, Sinaiticus Aleph and major papyri. It proves that the Received Text is equally as old as, and often agrees with, the earliest (pre-350 papyri) more than it agrees with the Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph. This evidence exposes Westcott and Hort’s lies which intended to destroy the integrity and age of the Textus Receptus, Received Text in order to justify their manipulated version which has become the basis of almost all modern versions of the Bible. It proves: (1) Early papyri before 350 A. D. either favor the Received Text or are equally present with other texts. (2) Early versions of the Bible either favor the Received Text or are equally present with it. (3) Westcott and Hort deliberately lied to the world in denigrating the Received Test. And (4) the questionable Received Text passages are actually original and legitimate (Westcott and Hort, Introduction, p91 (124, 139).
……
III. EARLIEST COPIES OF THE GREEK BIBLE (50)
THE PAPYRI:
The papyri are newspaper-like interwoven mats of reeds often used for writing before the printing press. Papyri contain the oldest copies of the Bible. Most biblical papyri are small fragments. Very significantly, of the 88 known papyri, only 13 (15%) support the variants of the highly-acclaimed Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph and 75 (85%) support the variants of the Received Text (Textus Receptus) of the King James Bible. This fact is extremely ignored by supporters of modern Bible versions who promote the Vaticanus B as the best (Kurt Aland, The Greek New Testament: Its Present and Future Editions, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol 87, 1968, p184; D. A. Waite, Defending the King James Bible, 1992, p54-55 (50).
UNCIALS (MAJUSCULES) IN CAPITAL LETTERS: MSS
Uncials are portions of the New Testament written on parchment (papyri) or vellum (skins). Of these, 277 partial manuscripts exist. Only 9 (3%) support the Westcott-Hort variants and 268 (97%) support the Received Text (Textus Receptus) variants (50). Again, this fact is extremely ignored by modern liberal scholars who promote the Vaticanus B manuscript as the oldest and best.
CURSIVES/MINUSCULLES: mss
Cursives are New Testament manuscripts written in small fonts mostly on papyri until paper was invented in the 12th century. Minuscules followed majuscule uncials. Of these, 2764 exist. Only 23 (1%) support the Westcott-Hort variants based primarily on Vaticanus B and 2741 (99%) support the Received Text (Textus Receptus) variants (50-51).
LECTIONARIES: GREEK LECTIONARIES:
Lectionaries are portions of Scripture read in churches. Of these 2143 exist. ALL support the Textus Receptus and are evidence of the overwhelming acceptance of the Received Text for many centuries (51).
Generally, one would expect the most important and best manuscripts to be used and copied. On the other hand, the least important and corrupted text would be set aside. Since this is true, there should be no problem identifying the best preferred version. Even when the Vaticanus B was at its height of popularity, the Byzantine Received Text was preferred, copied and circulated around 350 and afterwards.
IV. VARIANTS OF THE PAPYRI:
By the end of the first century, several versions of the Greek Bible appeared. One version had been preserved by God and very carefully copied by godly Greek-speaking men who treated it with much reverence and respect. The variants appeared. Other versions of the Bible were not treated as the Word of God. Those were edited to agree with various personal opinions and were sloppily copied. Again, most corruptions appeared before the 2nd century (155). On the one hand, the Eastern Syrian Greek version was protected by God through the Greek Church. On the other hand, the Western Greek version was further edited by Origen and used by Jerome to translate the Latin Vulgate Bible. Little changed for almost 1500 years until 1881.
…..
66 A. D., Papyrus P64 (207)
P64, the Magdalen Papyrus, the oldest existing Bible fragment, contains quotations from the Textus Receptus from Mathew 26:23 and 26:31. Since variants of these particular verses differ from other versions, it is evidence that the Received Text is far older than the Vaticanus B circa 350 A. D. (207).
…..
125 A. D., Papyrus P52
P52, the John Rylands Papyrus fragment, consists of John 18:31-33 and 18:37-38. Again, comparing the variants with variants from other versions proves that the Textus Receptus of the King James Bible is far older than other versions.
…..
100-150 A. D.; 200 A. D.; or 350 A. D., Papyrus P66:
P66 is a well-preserved papyrus with much of the Gospel of John. Herbert Hunger says the handwriting style places it in the early or mid-second century (100-150 A. D.). Its first editor placed it around 200. And Brent Nongbri placed it around 350. None place it after 350 A. D. (142-143, 150-151, 157-158, 161).
When P66, P45 and P75 all contain the same passages and Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph disagree — the variants of P66 agree with the variants of the Received Text 33 times, which is more often than they agree with the variants of Vaticanus B (29x) or Sinaiticus Aleph (14x) (Klign, A Survey of the Researches into the Western Text, p45-48). Again, this proves that Vaticanus B and the Received Text are at least equally old (150).
Gordon Fee compared the variants of 663 texts of P66, P45 and P75 (and others) and reported:
47.5% contained variants identical to Received Text.
50.4% contained variants identical to Vaticanus B and
44.6% contained variants identical to Sinaiticus Aleph.
Gordon Fee, Papyrus Bodmer II, p56 (150-151).
E. C. Colwell, a liberal modern scholar, wrote that P66 “editorializes and is very poor and sloppy with over 200 nonsensical readings and over 400 mis-spellings (E C Colwell, Scribal Habits in Early Papyri, 378-379, 387 (159). Though very early, P66 is not used in modern versions.
…..
200 A. D., Papyrus P45
P45 is part of the Chester Beatty Library and is dated early 3rd century (circa 200). It contains Matthew 20-21, 25-26; Mark 4-9; Luke 6-7, 9-14; John 4-5, 10-11 and Acts 4-17 (150, 159).
Modern liberal scholar E. C. Colwell listed 90 P45 Greek mis-spellings and 245 singular readings found nowhere else, of which 10% make no sense. At least 50 times P45 shortens the text. (E. C. Colwell, Scribal Habits in Early Papyri, p374-376) (158).
Again, when P45, P66 and P75 all contain the same passages and Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph disagree — the variants of P45 agree with the variants of Textus Receptus more times (32x) than they agree with Vaticanus B (24x) or Sinaiticus Aleph (19x) (Klign, A Survey into the Researches of the Western Text, p45-48) (150).
…..
100-300 A. D., Papyrus P47 (143)
P47 is a second-third century Alexandrian text-type papyrus manuscript of Revelation 9:10 thru 11:3; 11:5 thru 16:15 and 16:17 to 17:2. It is comparable to Sinaiticus Aleph. However, this oldest manuscript of Revelation is so corrupted that it is not used for any modern versions of the Bible.
Kurt Aland, a liberal scholar, said that P47 is “by far the oldest of the manuscripts containing the Apocalypse, but it is certainly not the best.” Therefore, the argument that “oldest is best” does not apply (143). (Kurt Aland, The Significance of the Papyri, p333 (158).
…..
175-225, Papyrus P75 (150)
P75 contains Luke 3-24 and John 1-15.
As discussed above with P45 and P66, when all three contain the same passages and Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph disagree —
the variants of P75 agree with the variants of Textus Receptus (29x), with the variants of Vaticanus B (33x) and with the variants of Sinaiticus Aleph (9x) (Klign, p45, 48) (150).
Again, these comparisons prove beyond question that the Textus Receptus is as old as any other text version.
E. C. Colwell, modern liberal scholar, wrote that P75 has over 400 mistakes of which 145 were mis-spellings and 257 were singular to other documents — and 25% of them were nonsense (E. C. Colwell, Scribal Habits in Early Papyri, p374-376 (158).
…..
200-300 A. D. (142)
Significantly, Henry A. Sturz provided 200 Textus Receptus readings from the pre-200 papyri which were NOT found in the later Alexandrian and Western uncials. He produced another 170 TR texts not found in Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph. The total pre-200 texts favor the Textus Receptus two to one. Sturz, The Byzantine Text Type and New Testament Criticism, p61-62, p141-142, p145-159). Gunther Zuntz. Coldwell, Hills, Moorman and Burgon concurred (142-143). Gunther Zuntz wrote “Most of its Byzantine (Textus Receptus) readings existed in the 2nd century (100-200 A. D.).”
…..
Comparing the variants of 2764 total older Greek cursive manuscripts (small letters), 2741 support the Received Text and only 23 support the Vaticanus B. Also, 100% of Greek lectionaries support the Received Text used for the KJV (p51). Lectionaries are as early as the 4th century (A. D. 300). Finally, 5262, or 99% of all current late Greek manuscripts support the Received Text. Waite, Defending the King James Bible, p54-55 (50-51). The best possible reason for the great dominance of the Received Text over the Vaticanus B must be that the Vaticanus B was rejected as corrupt and not copied.
However, ignoring all the evidence from the early papyri, most modern English Christians continue using Bibles translated primarily from unused and unvalidated Vaticanus B (92%) and Sinaiticus Aleph (7%). Instead of learning the definition of about 200 archaic words, they prefer the easier-to-read versions which delete thousands of Greek words and diminish the Deity of Jesus Christ.
……
V. CHURCH FATHERS
Westcott and Hort unscrupulously simply declared that there were no Greek Syrian/Byzantine Received Text readings in the Church Fathers’ quotes prior to 350 A. D. Without any evidence whatsoever, they claimed that Chrysostom (d407) was the first church father who habitually quo0ted it (Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, p36; Westcott and Hort, Introduction, p91 (124, 139-140).
Edward Miller, Dean Burgon’s editor, exposed Westcott and Hort’s lie by proving in his exhaustive study that the early Church Fathers quoted the Received Text variants 460 times and the related Nestorian text-type variants 491 times. He said Church Fathers before 400 quoted the Received Text 3 to 2 times more than others (Burgon, The Traditional Text, p94-122) (140-142).
130-202 A. D., IRENAEUS (139-141)
Over 150 years before the appearance of Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph in 350, Irenaeus (d202) quoted the Received Text 63 times. This fact refutes Westcott and Hort’s lie that there was no Syrian Received Text of the Bible prior to Chrysostom before 350 (Westcott and Hort, Introduction, p91 and p124 (139-141).
253, ORIGEN ADAMANTUS OF ALEXANDRIA (d253) (92-97)
Origen was head master of a school in Alexandria, Egypt whose students made copies of the Bible. He had been taught by the founder of Neo-Platonism, Saccas (d243) (93-94). Origen compiled the six-column Hexapla in 245. The first was a Hebrew Old Testament. The following three O. T. columns were from heretical Ebionites who rejected the deity of Christ (92). A fifth column is thought to be a revision of the Greek Old Testament called the LXX, or Septuagint (93). Origen’s 6th column was a “corrected” Greek New Testament considered by many scholars to be the original Vaticanus B (Elgin S. Moyer, Who Was Who in Church History, p98-103; Fuller, Which Bible?, p163; A. T. Robertson, Introduction to Textual Criticism, p80 (93, 105).
Origen, Westcott and Hort are men who changed the Protestant church’s use of the Received Text towards the modern church’s use of the Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph. The following described the man, Origen:
(1) Believed in soul sleep (comparable to Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventism) (95).
(2) Believed that baptismal-water effected regeneration (95).
(3) Believed that the Father God created Jesus. This is called Arianism similar to Jehovah’s Witnesses (95).
(4) Believed that purgatory existed and was necessary to purity souls before they went to heaven (95).
(5) Believed that the literal blood and body of Christ are in the wafer and wine of mass like that of Roman Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans (95).
(6) Believed in transmigration (reincarnation) of the soul similar to Buddhism (95).
(7) Believed that non-baptized infants were hell-bound (95).
(8) Believed that Jesus was not literally tempted (95).
(9) Believed the Bible was to be interpreted allegorically (95).
(10) Believed that Genesis 1-3 was not literal — no literal Adam or fall (96).
(11) Believed that Matthew 19:12 teaches castration and castrated himself (96).
(12) Believed Christ only enters those who understand deeper doctrines similar to some modern charismatics (96).
(13) Believed physical resurrection was an allegory (96).
(14) Believed in eventual universal salvation, including Satan (95).
(15) Far from being an orthodox Christian, Origen’s Hexapla contained three Greek Old Testaments written by Ebionites who rejected the deity of Christ and Paul.
(16) Origen admitted to “correcting” the New Testament.
Helvetius, a contemporary of Origen, accused him of using corrupted texts.
…..
288-337 A. D., EMPEROR CONSTANTINE AND EUSEBIUS (97-104)
Constantine was an Arian. Like Jehovah’s Witnesses, Arians did not accept the full deity of Christ and taught that the Father created the Son. Arianism was strong in Constantinople’s Eastern Roman Empire Which Christianized northern Gaul and Germanic tribes. After 200 A. D. those Arian-Christian Germanic tribes began invading Western Rome and eventually conquered Western Rome, most of Europe and North Africa (97-104).
From 325 to 625 most Western Roman Christians were Arian and Western Rome was ruled by Germanic Arians (Broadbent, The Pilgrim Church, p21-22 (103). In 325 the Council of Nicaea was called to combat Arianism. As Arians, Constantine, Eusebius and Arius temporarily failed (102-103).
In 331 Constantine ordered Eusebius to obtain 50 copies of the Bible. One would expect an Arian view in Bibles produced by Origen sources. Eusebius highly regarded Origen and ordered those 50 Bibles from Origen-sources. Today, both liberal and conservative theologians believe that the Vaticanus B, Sinaiticus Aleph and other Alexandrian versions of the Greek Text were used to produce those 50 copies sent to Constantinople. Fuller, Which Bible?, p163, A. T. Robertson, Introduction to Textual Criticism, p80 (103-105). History does not record any sudden change towards using the Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph-influenced Bible. In fact, the Byzantine and Syrian Received Text were dominant and remained dominant until Westcott and Hort’s influence in 1881.
…..
VI. EARLY GREEK BIBLE VERSIONS
GREEK RECEIVED TEXT, TEXTUS RECEPTUS
THE EASTERN GREEK ORTHODOX BIBLE (171)
The Greek Textus Receptus had been the Bible of the Greek Church, Syrian Christianity, the Waldensian Church of northern Italy, the Gallic Church of France and the Celtic Church in Scotland and Ireland since the second century (100-200 A. D.). When Papal Rome sent missionaries to the British Isles after 250 A. D., they already had a Bible (Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, p23-29 (171).
The Eastern Greek Orthodox adopted the Textus Receptus as its official Bible. Its monasteries meticulously protected and preserved the Received Text throughout history. There was no reason to keep old worn-out copies. As many new copies were constantly being made, worn-out copies were destroyed. Although, Minuscule 1495 (15th century) is the most official version today, Minuscule 1495 is the product of God-preserved meticulous re-copying for many centuries (171).
While liberals do not ask themselves why there is only one copy of Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph, they highly criticize Received Text supporters by repeating the lie that it did not exist prior to 350. Yet, if Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph had been accepted, they would certainly have been copied, widely distributed and worn-out copies would also have been destroyed. And, if Vaticanus B had not been copied on very expensive vellum, it may have not been preserved in the Vatican Library. The lack of other copies argues against its acceptability and importance. On the other hand, many thousands of existing copies of the Received Text strongly indicate no need to retain worn-out copies.
Westcott and Hort were liars when they said the Received Text was not old. Today, even many fellow liberals disagree with them. Sturz and von Soden, defenders of the Alexandrian text-type, both concluded that the Byzantine was both early and independent of the Alexandrian text-type and should be treated as equals. Sturz concluded that the Byzantine text dates from the middle of the 2nd century (Sturz, The Byzantine Text-type, p64, p96, p156; Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, p112) (152-156).
…..
350 A. D., VATICANUS B (106)
Vaticanus B was literally discovered in 1481 inside the Vatican Library (92). It is thought to be one of the 50 copies obtained by Eusebius for Constantine (Fuller, Which Bible?, p165; A. T. Robertson, Introduction to Textual Criticism, p80 (105). Reverse-translation from Latin to Greek proves that Jerome had used it in 384 to update the Old Latin into the Latin Vulgate. Since the Roman Catholic Church uses Latin instead of Greek, there is no need to mass produce the Vaticanus B Greek manuscripts after 384.
Except for the New King James Version and the Modern English Version, since 1881, almost all Protestant and Roman Catholic versions of the Bible are based predominantly on the Greek text of Vaticanus B. Therefore, serious Bible students should know where and how this version originated.
(1) Conservatives believe that most of the Greek of Vaticanus B is seen in corrupted and edited writings of the post-100 papyri alongside, or opposite, the un-corrupted Received Text.
(2) Vaticanus B is a Greek manuscript on very expensive vellum (animal skins). The vellum may be the reason it was kept. It dates around 350 which is soon after Eusebius ordered 50 copies of the Bible (106).
(3) It contains the Apocrypha (106).
(4) It is missing Genesis 1:1 to 46:28; Ps 105:27 to 137:6; Matthew 5:44; 10:37b; 15:6; 20:23; Mark 10:7; 10:19; 16:9-20; Luke 9:55-56; 11:4; 23:34; John 7-8; Hebrews after 9:14; 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon; 1 Jn 5:7-8 and Revelation (106).
(5) Vaticanus B has a blank space the same size required for missing Mark 16:9-20 (107).
(6) In 1515 Erasmus knew about Vaticanus B and hundreds of other variants and rejected them (107).
(7) Vaticanus B is 90% of modern texts (163).
(8) Though younger than the pre-200 papyri such as P45, P46, P47, P66 and P75, Vaticanus B is preferred contrary to Westcott and Hort’s own assertion that older is better (159).
(9) Ezekiel of Vaticanus B is the Received Text not used in modern versions (Wikipedia).
(10) The Isaiah text of Vaticanus B is so poor that it is not used in modern versions (Wikipedia).
(11) Judges in Vaticanus B agrees with the Old Latin (Wikipedia).
(12) The remainder of its Old Testament is believed to be Origin’s 5th column (Wikipedia).
(13) Westcott and Hort taught that, where Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph agree, the oldest text is present. Yet they DIFFER from each other 3036 times in the Gospels alone! In fact, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph agree LESS than they disagree. Since the variants of Vaticanus B are in 90% of the modern text and the variants of Sinaiticus Aleph are in only 7% of it, they do not agree that much (Herman C. Hoskier, Codex B and Its Allies, a Study and an Indictment, 1914, Vol 2, p1) (153).
…..
350-400, SINAITICUS ALEPH (107)
(1) Similar to their opinion of Vaticanus B and other papyri, conservatives believe that Sinaiticus Aleph is another corrupted text which appeared after the first century and was edited often rather than being preserved by God.
(2) Sinaiticus Aleph is a Greek New Testament manuscript discovered by Tischendorf in 1844 in a monastery at the foot of Mount Sinai and dated 350-380 (107).
(3) It adds the Shepherd of Hermas and Barnabas (107).
(4) It deletes Matthew 16:2-3, Mark 16:9-20, John 5:4; 8:1-11, Acts 8:37, Romans 16:24 and 1 John 5:7 and approximately 12 other verses (107).
(5) Jn 1:18 reads “only begotten God” instead of “Son” (107-108).
(6) Although Mark 16:9-20 is missing, the font size increase and new handwriting covers the space needed for those verses.
(7) It is a New Testament manuscript second in importance to Vaticanus B.
(8) Its variants contribute 7% to modern versions (163).
(9) Although as old as Vaticanus B, its Revelation was rejected as corrupted.
……
300-400 A.D., ALEXANDRINUS A (108)
Alexandrinus A is dated 5th century:
(1) It is an odd mixture. While it often reads like the Received Text in the Gospels, it reads like Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph in Acts and the Epistles.
(2) It adds the Epistles of Clement which teaches:
a) salvation by works
b) no new bodies at the resurrection
c) Clement called himself a prophet
d) Clement spiritualized scripture (108)
e) The Phoenix bird’s reincarnation was real.
…..
VII. COMPARING VATICANUS B,
SINAITICUS ALEPH AND TEXTUS RECEPTUS (161)
When compared to the Received Text, in only the Gospels Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph differ 3036 times with the Received Text, 656 in Matthew, 567 in Mark, 791 in Luke and 1022 in John. Five old Uncials (Aleph, A, B, C, D) often disagree with the Textus Receptus and also each other (Burgon, The Revision Revised, p16-18, p30-31; The Traditional Text, p34; (Hoskier, Codex B and Its Allies, Vol II, p1) (161). Note: The Nestle-United Bible Society reduced its preferred variants from 1022 to 177 in John.
..
Again, the fact that Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph did not become dominant after 350 indicates that the church rejected them. (Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Church, p127 (162). This might explain why Jerome’s Latin Vulgate from Vaticanus B was not formally accepted until 1545.
…….
VIII. NON-GREEK EARLY BIBLES: (164-177)
90 A. D. THE OLD TESTAMENT (112)
The Old Testament was canonized by Rabbis and Pharisees in Jamnia, Israel. Jesus quoted and approved of the Hebrew canon in existence in His day (Jn 17:17; “It is written” 80 times). Modern liberals do not accept this and have changed the O. T. many times (112).
…..
120-157 A. D., THE ITALA (WALDENSIAN) LATIN BIBLE (165-169)
According to Beza, the Vaudois (later called Waldensians) of northern Italy date back to 120 A. D. and had their own Latin Bible, the Itala, or Italic. This was essentially the first Old Latin Bible and followed the Received Text when reverse-translated into Greek. Tertullian mentioned it in 157 before it was revised as the Old Latin Bible in 190 A. D. Remarkably, 50 copies of the first Old Latin Bible still exist. Jerome’s revised Latin Vulgate is the Itala with the Received Text readings removed. Frederick Nolan and W. S. Gilley agree that its Received Text can be traced back to 120 A. D. The Waldensians have been thoroughly researched by Allix, Beza, Comba, Gilly, Hills, Kenyon, Nolan, Scrivener and Wilkenson. (Peter Allix, The Ecclesiastical History of the Church of Piedmont, p177; Ernesto Comba, History of the Waldenses of Italy, 1889, p190-192; Hills, The King James Bible Defended, p103; Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, p139-144, 169-170, 238-243); Nolan, An Inquiry, xvii-xviii, 320-321. W. S. Gilly, Waldensian Researches During a Second Visit to the Vauldois of Piedmont, p118-119; Scrivener, A Plain Introduction, Vol 2, p43; Wilkenson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, p34-40) (166-170).
…..
153-172 A. D., THE DIATESSERON (165-166)
The Diatessaron is an early harmony of all four gospels and reflects the Received Text. It was compiled by Tatian of Syria who was a disciple of Justin Martyr (d165). It may have been in Greek, but was probably in Syriac. Theodoret (d458) found over 200 copies of the Diatessaron circulating in his day which had been circulating in Asia Minor and Syria since before 170 A. D. (Price, The Ancestry of the English Bible, p189). This proves that the Textus Receptus-type Old Syriac predates Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph by 200 years (165-166).
…..
100-200, THE OLD PESHITTA (164-165)
The Old Peshitta Syriac agrees with the Greek Syrian Received Text. History says it originated in the second century (100-200 A. D.). When Hort attempted to reassign its creation to Lucian in the fourth century, Arthur Voobus countered that there was not a shred of evidence to support his invented claim. Burgon and Hills state that it must be much older since both sides of a Syrian civil war used it. (Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to Saint Mark, 56; Hills, The King James Version Defended, p174; (Voobus, Early Versions of the New Testament, p100-102) (164-165).
…..
384-405 A. D., JEROME’S LATIN VULGATE (167)
In 384 Pope Damasus commanded Jerome, the hermit of Bethlehem, to update the Old Latin Bible. It is almost certain that he used the first four columns of Origen’s Hexapla for the Hebrew Old Testament. He used Origen’s “corrected” 6th column of his Hexapla (now called Vaticanus B) for the new Latin Vulgate. Completed in 405, it is noteworthy that the Roman Catholic Church did not formally accept Jerome’s Latin Vulgate until 1546 during the Protestant Reformation (Westcott and Hort, Introduction, p187-188; ISBE, 1937, Vol 3, p1841; ISBE, Vol 4, 1979, p972; Ruckman, The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, p78; Post Nicene Fathers, Vol 6, p338; Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible, p19-44) (105, 167).
…..
400-500 A. D., THE SYRIAC PESHITTA BIBLE (164)
The (second) Old Peshitta Syriac was revised in the early 5th century (400) to reflect the Vaticanus B text-type. It is now the standard translation used by the Syriac Christian Churches. However, its Old Testament reflects the Hebrew of the 2nd century (100-200 A. D.). Second Peter, Second and Third John and Revelation were added in 616 A. D. (164-166).
Where Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph disagree, the modern Peshitta of Matthew 1-14 agrees with the Received Text 108 times and Vaticanus B only 65 times. In 137 places it still agrees with the Old Syriac and Old Latin.
…..
350, The Gothic Bible I (171)
The first Gothic Bible (Wulfila Bible) of Eastern Germany was translated from the Greek by Wulfila/Ulfilas in the 4th century using the Received Text. Goths reigned in southern France, Italy and Spain for two hundred years. Reverse-translating the Gothic Bible back into Greek reveals its underlying Received Text. This should also prove that the Received Text is as equally old as that of Vaticanus B (171).
…..
521-597 A. D., THE CELTIC BIBLE (171)
Columba (d597) founded the Celtic Church of Scotland and Ireland on Iona in northern Scotland with a seminary using texts from Asia Minor which, when reverse-translated back into Greek, reflect the Received Text (171).
…..
IX. 1517 DESIDERIUS ERASMUS’ GREEK
NEW TESTAMENT (52-53, 60-63, 154)
Beginning with Alexander the Great, the Greek Empire had forced all of its conquered subjects to learn the Greek language. Therefore, the Greek language had been common in the land of the Bible for over 250 years when Rome conquered Greece, Egypt and Syria with Judea. Believing the Bible to be preserved and inspired of God, devout early Christians very carefully copied it with exact rules for many centuries. However, others mis-handled and changed portions. Having new copies available, there was no need to preserve worn-out copies.
In 1516 Erasmus was commissioned by the Church to edit the Greek New Testament. He was a famous Dutch Roman Catholic priest and monk who had taught Greek over much of Europe and at Cambridge University in England from 1510 to 1514. Erasmus’ presence and services had been requested by many popes and kings of his time.
Being a personal friend of the head-librarian at the Vatican Library, Erasmus was well-aware of Vaticanus B discovered there in 1481. He had traveled widely and was familiar with many variant manuscripts. Rejecting most manuscripts as being corrupted, Erasmus chose 5-7 Greek manuscripts from the 11th to 15th centuries. Erasmus selected manuscripts he was convinced had been properly preserved by devout Greek Christians of the Greek Orthodox Church since the time of Jesus. Conservative Christians believe that God providentially placed those manuscripts into the hands of Erasmus.
Unlike Origen, Jerome, Westcott and Hort, Erasmus believed that the Bible was the true Word of God and treated it as such. He hoped that a Bible in every hand would reform the Roman Catholic Church. He believed that Jerome’s Latin Vulgate was a corrupted version of the older Latin Bible which had been translated from Greek. A year after Erasmus finished his new Greek translation, Martin Luther used it to translate the German Bible. The term, Textus Receptus (Received Text), was later given to Erasmus’ Greek translation. (Hills, The King James Version Defended, p198; Nolan, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, p413-415) (52-53, 60-63, 154).
…..
HOW ERASMUS’ GREEK TEXT WAS CHANGED.
From 1550 to 1624 there were only 287 changes to Erasmus’ Greek New Testament and all were only spelling changes! Stephanus in 1550 added verses; Beza in 1598 and the Elzevir brothers in 1624 only made spelling changes to Erasmus’ Greek text. The Elzevir brothers’ version began the name of Textus Receptus (Received Text). From 1550 to 1624 the Elzevir brothers differed from Stephanus in the book of Mark with 19 spelling changes. The 1624 Elzevir text reads almost the same as Erasmus’ last version. The highly esteemed A. T. Robertson said all 9 of Beza’s editions were basically reprints of Stephanus. In contrast, Vaticanus B‘s Gospel of Mark differs from Sinaiticus Aleph’s Gospel of Mark 652 times and it differs with uncial manuscript D 1944 times. (A. T. Robertson, An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, p18-20); George Ricker Berry, The Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament, p77 (65). These few changes demonstrate the providence of God.
Egypt was a land of many heresies. It is illogical to base modern versions predominantly from manuscripts from Egypt. While the Alexandrian text-type is solely from Africa, the Byzantine text-types have been found in Greece, Asia Minor, Constantinople, Syria, Africa, Gaul (France/Germany), southern Italy, Sicily, England and Ireland (Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, p105; Hills, Believing Bible Study, p77-78) (157).
…..
X. HISTORY OF THE 1611
ENGLISH KING JAMES BIBLE (64-93)
Conservative Christians believe that the Greek text upon which the King James Version is based has been miraculously preserved by an Omnipotent God (Who cannot lie or err) as He promised in His Word. (Psalm 12:6-7; Mark 8:38; 13:31; John 5:39-40; 10:35; 17:17; 2 Tim 3:14-17; I Peter 1:25; 2 Pet 3:15-16) (8-20).
William Tyndale was a Roman Catholic priest who studied Greek at Cambridge under Erasmus. Fluent in seven languages, in 1526 he used 99% of Erasmus’ 3rd edition to translate the Greek Bible into the first English Bible. Because of this he was martyred by the Holy Roman Emperor in 1536 for heresy (64). Other English versions followed: Coverdale 1535, Matthew 1537, the Great Bible 1539, the Geneva Bible 1560 and the Bishops’ Bible 1568 (69).
The King James Bible began when almost a thousand Puritan ministers and theologians from the Church of England petitioned the king for a revision. In 1604 they chose John Renyolds of Corpus Christi College at Oxford as their leader. Bishop Bancroft (later Archbishop of Canterbury) assembled scholars from Westminster, Oxford and Cambridge. These selected forty-seven of the best scholars in England (66-68). Their qualifications:
(1) All believed in the inspired infallible Word of God.
(2) None were paid; they worked on free time.
(3) All worked openly so the public could watch.
(4) Erasmus’ underlying Greek Bible of 1517 was to be foundational.
(5) The 1568 Bishops Bible would be used with as little change as possible.
(6) No marginal notes were allowed except explanations of Greek and Hebrew words and cross referencing. This was a very major change from the huge (Great) Geneva Bible.
(7) Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, the Great Bible and the Geneva Bible were to be used when they agreed better than the Bishops’ Bible (68).
(8) The Apocrypha was in the first 1611 printing, but not others. It was intended to be “between” the Testaments and not part of them.
(9) Tyndale’s first 1526 English Bible was 90% retained in the final.
(10) Eventually, each Scripture was translated 14 times (69).
…..
XI. CHANGES TO THE
KING JAMES BIBLE: (70-83)
The first printed edition of the 1611 King James Bible had been rushed, was full of typesetting errors and was soon corrected. In 1629, 1638, 1762 and 1769 more printing, spelling and punctuation errors were corrected. The only doctrinal error in the 1611 inserted “seek good” instead of “seek God” in Psalm 69:32. The King James Bible was the official Bible of the Church of England from 1611 until 1881 (71-74).
…..
XII. THE 1881 WESTCOTT-HORT
GREEK BIBLE
1870-81, THE WESTCOTT AND HORT REVISION (49-62, 109-116)
Critics of the Textus Receptus rejected the idea that God can and has preserved His Word. They began collecting variant texts which disagreed with the Textus Receptus. Theories to restore a lost Bible emerged. In 1707 John Mill printed a Textus Receptus Bible with 30,000 variants from 82 Greek manuscripts in the footnotes. Mill was challenged by Daniel Whitby. In 1725 Johann Bengel divided variant versions into families and taught “the more difficult reading is the stronger.” In 1731 Johann Wettstein organized variants by letters and numerals. Griesbach (d1812) combined Bengel and Wettstein’s ideas, but was opposed by Matthaei. Karl Lachmann (d1851) was the first to openly break with the Textus Receptus. He began the lie that Vaticanus B was older than the Textus Receptus and influenced Westcott and Hort. (Wikipedia)
In 1881 the southern branch of the Church of England wanted to update the King James Bible with its underlying Greek Textus Receptus of Erasmus from 1517. Because the northern branch wanted no change, the southern branch proceeded on its own. Most important, changes were to be minor and limited to spelling, punctuation, outdated words and outdated grammar (49).
However, that is not what resulted. The committee produced an entirely different Bible based primarily from Vaticanus B instead of Erasmus’ Greek Bible. Although Bishop Wilberforce had been assigned to be in charge, he quickly left because of the dominance asserted by B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort. (119-120). And, today, most of the Christian world has blindly followed the anti-Textus Receptus deceptions introduced by Westcott and Hort (49). The following is the character descriptions of the two men most responsible for changes which have given the world its modern Bibles:
(1) In disobedience, the committee replaced Erasmus’ Greek Bible with radically different Greek manuscripts collected by Westcott and Hort (49, 119).
(2) Westcott and Hort had planned this move for many years. As far back as 1851 they had called the Textus Receptus “villainous and vile” and had secretly been using Vaticanus B (49, 54, 105, 119).
(3) Neither believed that the Bible was the inspired infallible Word of God (53).
(4) They rejected the literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 (56).
(5) The fall of man was an allegory following a long period of evolution (56).
(6) Westcott wanted all women to be named “Mary” and renamed his own wife “Mary” (56).
(7) Both taught that Mary-worship is as important as Jesus-worship (56).
(8) Both rejected the doctrine of the priesthood of every believer (57).
(9) Both accepted the theory of evolution (58).
(10) Westcott denied miracles (58).
(11) Both denied the vicarious death of Christ for sinners (58).
(12) Both denied the inspiration or existence of the autographs (59).
(13) Both believed in spiritism (59).
(14) Both were Roman Catholic in doctrine (55).
(15) Their Greek New Testament altered (often by deletion) the 140, 521 word text of the Erasmus’ Greek Textus Receptus at 5,604 places involving 9,970 Greek words representing 7% of the total word count (D. A. Waite, Defending the King James Bible, p41-42. Jack Moorman personally counted every word and Waite personally numbered every word (91).
(16) Unlike the KJV revisers, Westcott and Hort’s committee worked in secret (91, 119).
(17) Both insisted that Unitarian Vance Smith be on the committee (91).
(18) As early as 1851 Hort falsely wrote that the Received Text “leaned entirely on late manuscripts” (91).
(19) Both believed that water baptism saves (92).
(20) Both lied many times attempting to deny the antiquity of the Textus Receptus-stye text behind the King James Version.
(21) Westcott and Hort taught that, as a rule, shorter texts are more accurate because scribes tend to ADD their own thoughts when copying. A. C. Clarke, Professor of Latin at Oxford proved that Westcott and Hort lied; the opposite was true — scribes tend to DELETE when copying. (Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, p80 (125).
(22) Hort invented a false story that Lucian of Antioch in 312 A. D. created the Byzantine Received Text with the consent of the Greek Orthodox Church. However, since the Byzantine Textus Receptus was so widespread and predominant throughout history, it must have been known for over 200 years prior to 400 A. D. Since Westcott and Hort had absolutely no historical proof for any portion of their theory, it is dismissed by both conservative and liberal scholars today (119, 125-126, 144-148, 151-152).
(23) During the 1881 revision, Bishop C. J. Elliott, the second chairman of the 1881 Revision Committee disagreed with Hort and wrote in a pamphlet “The first ancestor to the Received Text was at least contemporary with the oldest of our existing manuscripts, if not older than any one of them.” Burgon, The Revision Revised, p390 (197). (A. F. Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol II, p211 (91).
Footnotes on page 92 (J. P. Green, Sr, Unholy Hands on the Bible, 1992, Vol II, p454; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol 1, Bk 3, chap 27; Foy E Wallace, A Review of the New Versions, 1973, Addenda, 3rd and 4th sections (92)
………
XIII. OMNIPOTENCE,
OMNISCIENCE AND PRESERVATION
The Psalmist said that God would preserve His words forever (Ps 12:6-7). Jesus clearly stated “Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away” (Mark 13:31). He also said “The Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). Peter and Isaiah wrote “But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you” (1 Peter 1:25; Isaiah 40:8). In 2nd Peter 3:16 Peter equated the writings of Paul with inspired Scripture. And Revelation ends with a curse on those who add to or subtract from it (Revelation 22:19).
Many conservative Christians believe that God, in His Omnipotence and Omniscience, has preserved His inspired Word in the Greek Textus Receptus. They also believe that the King James Version is the preserved Word of God in English. An Omnipotent God would not inspire an original and then allow it to be lost and not copied accurately (5-19, 218).
On the other hand, Westcott and Hort taught that God’s Word has not been preserved and requires restoration. They taught that their work was a process of restoring the lost Word of God. Today, Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Society claim to be continually restoring God’s Word by replacing the Textus Receptus with Alexandrian variants. Yet, the very existence of revised Bibles declares that God is not capable of preserving His Word. To deny that God is capable of preserving His word is to believe that His Word has truly been lost for over 1700 years from 100 A. D. to 1881 A. D. Therefore, it must be recovered and its recovery began through Westcott and Hort — men who did not even believe in inspired inerrant originals.
The new versions appeal by placing the ability to communicate over and above the actual words of God (88, 91).
…..
XIV. SUMMARY
There is a great difference between the Greek of Erasmus and the Greek of Westcott and Hort. D. A. Waite says they differ from the Textus Receptus in 5604 places and 9970 Greek words (91). And Kenyon says they differ 5788 times Waite, Defending the King James Bible, p41-42; Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, p312-313 (91, 109).
Most of the changes to the Greek Bible occurred before 200. Origen (d250) added more changes to the New Testament. Eusebius (d340) received 50 copies of Origen’s work. Jerome used Vaticanus B to produce the Latin Vulgate in 384. 1500 years passed from 384 to 1881. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate from Vaticanus B dominated in the West and the Greek Orthodox Church’s Textus Receptus dominated in the East.
Vaticanus B was found in the Vatican Library in 1481. And, in 1881 Westcott and Hort used Vaticanus B to replace Textus Receptus in the Anglican Church of England. It became the Revised Version, the English Revised Version and the American Standard Version. This change eventually affected almost all Bible versions afterwards.
……
XV. FRANK LOGSSON
Frank Logsdon was Co-Founder of the 1971 New American Standard Version of the Bible. The NASV rejected the Textus Receptus in favor of the new Nestle Greek mixture which has as its major contributor Vaticanus B.
In 1992 Logsdon renounced all association with the NASV in favor of the King James Version. He wrote “I’m afraid I’m in trouble with the Lord.” Unable to refute criticisms, he wrote “The deletions are absolutely frightening.” He said that he was “easily deceived by the corrupted Greek text.” “You can say the Authorized Version (KJV) is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct.” (D. W. Cloud, From the NASV to the KJV, O Timothy Magazine, Vol 1 Issue 1, 1992, p1-14; G. A. Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions, 1993, unnumbered intro (62).
A LIE OF LIES:
PREFACE TO THE NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE:
“This (KJV) time-honored version of 1611, itself a version of the Bishop’s Bible of 1568, became the BASIS for the English Revised Version appearing in 1881.”
XVI. NOTABLE DISPUTED TEXTS
John, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians and Philippians have been thoroughly researched by myself . The majority of less important variants are not listed. Notice how many of the changes diminish the deity of Jesus Christ.
PSALM 8:4-5 replaces “a little lower than the angels” with “made him a little lower than God” (46).
PSALM 90:2 deletes “from everlasting to everlasting” (42). This diminishes the deity of Christ.
ISAIAH 7:14 replaces “virgin” with “young woman.” It is not a miracle for a young woman to become pregnant. Even though “almah” can mean “young woman,” context demands “virgin” and it is translated “virgin” in the other six of seven appearances (22-23). This diminishes the miraculous birth of Christ.
MICAH 5:2 replaces “from everlasting” with “origin … ancient days” which teaches that Christ had an origin and “ancient days” does not mean “from everlasting” (42). This diminishes the deity of Christ.
Matthew 5:44 has a long deletion at the end
Matthew 6:13 deletes “for thine is the kingdom and power forever” (26)
Matthew 9:13 deletes “to repentance”
Matthew 9:18 replaces “worshipped him” with “bowed down” (25). This diminishes the deity of Christ.
Matthew 19:9 has a long deletion at the end
Matthew 19:17 deletes “Why callest me good?” with “Why are you asking me about what is good?” (27)
Matthew 20:16 has a deletion at the end
Matthew 20:20 replaces “worshipping him” with “bowing down” (25). Diminishes the deity of Christ.
Matthew 23:14 is deleted
Mark 1:2-3 replaces “it is written in the prophets” erroneously with “it is written in Isaiah the prophet.” The change is wrong; verse 2 is from Isaiah 40:3 but verse 4 is from Malachi 3:1 (26).
Mark 5:6 replaces “worshipped him” with “bowed down” (25). Diminishes the deity of Christ.
Mark 9:43-44 deletes “where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched”; this deletes the warning (29).
Mark 10:21 deletes “take up the cross” (29)
Mark 11:26 deletes the entire verse
…..
MARK 16:9-20 (30-31)
Mark 16:9-20 is either omitted or footnoted as “not found in the oldest, best, and most reliable Greek manuscripts.” Even Scofield reads “This passage from verse 9 to the end is not found in the two most ancient manuscripts, the Sinaitic and Vatican, and others have it with partial omissions and variations. But it is quoted by Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the second or third century.” Therefore, exclusion by Vaticanus B or Sinaiticus Aleph, circa 350 cancels the testimony of Church Fathers Irenaeus and Hippolytus 150 years earlier (30).
In defense of retaining Mark 16:9-20 (30-31):
(1) Even Roman Catholics accept it as canonical. Footnotes in the New American Version read “This passage termed the Longer Ending of the Marcan Gospel by comparison with a much briefer conclusion found in some less important manuscripts, has traditionally been accepted as a canonical part of the Gospel and was defined as such at the 1545 Council of Trent. Early citations of it by the Fathers indicate that it was composed by the second century.”
(2) Dean Burgon, a defender of the Textus Receptus and a member of Wescott and Hort’s 1881 revision committee, said that Mark 16:9-20 was quoted by Papias (c100), Justin Martyr (c150), Irenaeus (c180), Tertullian (c195) and Hippolytus (c200) — but the lying footnotes remain (Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to Saint Mark, 1871, p71; The Revision Revised, 422-423 (31).
(3) Burgon stated that, in 1871, 620 manuscripts had it and only Vaticanus B and B omitted it. (Burgon, ibid (31, 111).
(4) Mark 16:9-20 is currently found in 8000 Latin, 1000 Syriac and 2000 Greek Lectionaries (Pickering, 1992, taped sermon, Dallas Texas) — but the lying footnotes remain.
(5) Since Papias, Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Hippolytus were quoting Scripture which existed over 150 years before Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus A existed, it is evident that the passage has been deliberately removed rather than never existing (Burgon, The Revision Revised, 1883, p422-423) (31).
(6) Only one Latin, Syriac and Coptic manuscript omit Mark 16:9-20.
(7) Both Protestant and Roman Catholic sources agree that Vaticanus B has a blank space exactly the size required for Mark 16:9-20.
(8) Both Protestant and Roman Catholic sources agree that Sinaiticus Aleph hides a similar space (31).
(9) Sinaiticus Aleph has a larger font and different handwriting to cover a spot exactly the size needed for verses 9-20 (31).
(10) It is inconceivable that Mark would conclude his inspired life of Jesus narrative with defeat rather than resurrection. Ending the Gospel (good news) in verse 8 with “afraid” is totally inconsistent with the goal of the accomplishment of Jesus Christ (31).
…..
LUKE 1:34 replaces the KJV “I know not a man” with the RSV “I am not married.” In reality, the RSV text says nothing miraculous because one does not have to be married in order to be pregnant. This change diminishes the deity of Christ.
Luke 2:14 deletes “peace good will toward men” (32)
LUKE 2:33 replaces the KJV “Joseph” with “His father.” The KJV does not teach that Joseph was Jesus’ father (33). This change diminishes the deity of Christ.
Luke 4:4 deletes “but by every word of God” which deletes a major doctrinal teaching about the Word (33).
Luke 9:54 NAS and NIV deletes “even as Elias did” (34).
Luke 9:55 NAS and NIV delete “and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of” (34).
Luke 9:56 NAS and NIV delete “For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them” (34).
LUKE 22:64 deletes Micah 5:1 “they struck him on the face” (34).
(John has 117 variants in the NKJ Majority Text Interlinear)
JOHN 1:8 replaces “only begotten Son” with “only begotten God.” The makes Jesus a begotten god (35, 107).
John 1:51 deletes “hereafter”
JOHN 3:36 replaces “he that believeth not” with “who does not obey.” Obedience is not the same as believing (38).
John 5:3 deletes “waiting for the moving of the water”
John 5:16 deletes “and were seeking to kill him”
JOHN 6:35 replaces “never hunger” with “not hunger.” “Not hunger” is not the same as “never hunger” (38).
John 6:11 deletes “disciples, and the disciples”
John 6:22 deletes “except that one in which His disciples had embarked”
John 6:35 replaced “shall never hunger” with “shall not hunger”
JOHN 6:47 replaces “believeth on me” with “believes” (39). The object of faith is removed.
John 6:51 deletes “which I shall give”
…..
JOHN 7:53 to 8:11. See Appendix A (219-230)
The story of the woman caught in adultery is either deleted or footnoted as not belonging in the Bible.
Von Tischendorf lists nine 9th century manuscripts which contain the verses and one possibly of the 8th century (Hills, The King James Version Defended, p156, 157 (226-227).
(1) Jerome (c415) knew of its existence and wrote “in the Gospel according to John in many manuscripts both Greek and Latin is found the story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord” (Hills, The King James Version Defended, p151, 159) (229).
(2) Augustine (d430) knew the verses and suggested they were left out deliberately (Hills, ibid, p151 (227).
(3) Burgon suggested the verses were omitted because they were not publicly read to the congregation; they were not suitable to be read in the Lectionaries for Passover. (Burgon, The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, p257 (227).
(4) It was omitted from the Pentecost reading because it was not appropriate to the context (Hills, ibid, p157-158) (228).
(5) John 7:53 to 8:11 was chosen to be read publicly yearly on Saint Pelagria’s Day, October 8th (Burgon, ibid, p259-260) (228-229).
(6) Hills pointed out that the verses explain why the Pharisees were so angry in chapter eight (Hills, ibid, p159) (229).
(7) Maurice Robinson’s recheck of 1665 Greek manuscripts revealed that 81% of them DID contain the passage (Robinson, Preliminary Observations Regarding the Pericope Adulterae Based Upon Fresh Collations of Nearly All Continuous-Text Manuscripts and Over One Hundred Lectionaries, 1998, at the 50th meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society.
…..
John 8:38 “what you have seen” become “what you have heard”
John 8:50 deletes “going through the midst of them and so passed by”
John 9:11 deletes “the pool of”
John 10:26 deletes “as I said to you”
John 11:41 deletes “where the dead man was living”
ACTS 8:36-37 Philipp’s well-known reply to the Ethiopian eunuch in verse 37 is deleted (39).
ACTS 9:6 deletes Paul’s famous question “What wilt thou have me to do?” (46)
ACTS 20:28 replaces “with his own blood” with “with his own Son” (40).
(Romans has 61 variants in the NKJ Majority Text Interlinear)
Romans 1:31 deletes “implacable/unforgiving”
Romans 3:4 “might overcome” become “will overcome”
ROMANS 4:19 “not” is in the KJV. The two statements are opposites.
Romans 1:29 deletes “fornication”
ROMANS 5:2 “access by faith” becomes “access” only
ROMANS 8:1 deletes the well-known phrase “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” (40).
ROMANS 8:2 “has freed me” becomes “has freed you”
Romans 8:26 “what to pray for” becomes “how to pray”
Romans 10:15 long deletion
Romans 11:6 very long deletion
ROMANS 13:9 MText omits “Thou shalt not bear false witness”
ROMANS 11:6 long deletion at end
Romans 14:6 all deleted
Romans 14:9 “and rose” deleted
ROMANS 14:10b, 12 replaces “judgment set of Christ” with “judgment seat of God” (41).
Romans 14:21 long deletion
Romans 14:24 totally deleted
Romans 15:24 deletes “I will come to you”
1 Corinthians 5:7 deletes “for us”
(Galatians has 27 variants in the NKJ Majority Text Interlinear)
Galatians 1:18; 2:11; 2:14 replaces “Peter” with “Cephas”
Galatians 3:1 long deletion
Galatians 4:7 “heir.. through Christ” become “heir”
Galatians 5:19 deletes “adultery”
Galatians e5:21 deletes “murders”
(Ephesians has 24 variants in the NKJ Majority Text Interlinear)
Ephesians 1:13-14 replaces “spirit who is” with “Spirit which is”
Ephesians 3:14 deletes “our Lord Jesus Christ”
Ephesians 4:17 replaces “walk as other Gentiles” with “walk as the Gentiles walk”
Ephesians 5:9 replaces “fruit of the Spirit” with “fruit of the light”
Ephesians 5:30 long deletion
Eph 6:12 replaces “darkness of this world” with “darkness:
(Philippians has 16 variants in the NKJ Majority Text Interlinear)
Philippians 1:16-17 (verses are transposed)
Philippians 2:30 replaces “not regarding his life” with “not risking”
Philippians 3:10 replaces “being made conformable” with “being conformed”
COLOSSIANS 1:14 deletes “through the blood” (21).
FIRST TIMOTHY 3:16 replaces “God was” with “He who was” creating bad grammar because “who” has no reference noun. Over 300 manuscripts say “God” and only 8 say otherwise (22, 75-77, 154).
1 Timothy 6:5 deletes the final line
SECOND TIMOTHY 3:16 The NAS replaces “all scripture is given by inspiration” with “every scripture inspired by God is profitable.” This could mean that not all scripture is inspired (41).
HEBREWS 1:3 replaces “brightness” with “reflection.” This diminishes the deity of Christ.
HEBREWS 1:3 deletes “by himself purged” with “purged.” This reading allows for others to help Jesus purge sins and diminishes the mission of Jesus (41).
HEBREWS 2:6-7 replaces “a little lower than the angels” with “a little lower thana God” (46-48).
HEBREWS 2:11 The RSV adds “origin” and thus denies the eternal Deity of Christ (42).
*HEBREWS 2:16 replaces “took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham” with “he does not give aid to angels, but he does give aid to the seed of Abraham.” Although the Greek is identical and difficult, the context of verses 14 and 17 make it clear that there is no discussion of giving aid to angels (42-45).
FIRST PETER 2:2 the RSV replaces “desire the sincere milk of the Word that ye may grow thereby” with “long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it ye may grow up to salvation.” Salvation is instantaneous; it is not a process one grows up to (45).
First Peter 4:1 deletes “for us” (45).
…..
FIRST JOHN 5:6-8 (45, 231-240)
5:6 This is he that came by water (n) and blood (n), even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, –the Father (m), the Word (m), and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth— the spirit (n), and the water (n), and the blood (n): and these (m) three (m) agree in one. KJV
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE INCLUSION OF FIRST JOHN 5:7-8 IN SCRIPTURE:
(1) The underlined words are either not in the modern versions or are footnoted as not belonging. Even the arch-conservative Scofield Reference Bible says they do not belong (231).
(2) This passage is missing in every known Greek manuscript except 4 (231).
(3) Those 4 appear to be a late revision of the Latin Vulgate which did not contain it. And 2 of the 4 had it written in the margin (231).
(4) This passage is not quoted by any of the Church Fathers who debated against Arians who opposed the Trinity doctrine (231-232).
(5) The first known Greek version is a 1215 translation of a Latin book (232).
(6) It is NOT found in the early Old Latin, DOES appear in the revised Old Latin and does NOT appear in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (232).
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF INCLUSION OF FIRST JOHN 5:7-8 IN SCRIPTURE:
(1) The Nestle-Aland 26th edition lists 8 (not 4) manuscripts which contain all of 1 John 5:7-8. A ninth is included in the UBS first edition (232-233).
(2) As of 1997, 19 Greek cursive manuscripts, 60 lectionaries and uncials R, F, M and Q contain the missing words (Bouw, The Book of Bible Problems, p232-234 (233).
(3) Concerning the claim that early Fathers did not quote verses 7 and 8 in defense of the Trinity doctrine, there was no such debate about the Trinity in the early church; the Arian debate was over the relationship between Jesus and the Father (Nolan, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, p525-557 (233).
(4) The early Church Fathers are also silent about many other doctrines because much is missing and many doctrines had not been formulated yet (Moorman, ibid, p21). Moorman claims there has not been a serious search for this text in the Church Fathers (234).
(5) Around 800 the missing text was added to Jerome’s Latin Vulgate from the second century revised Old Latin (Hills, The King James Version Defended, p210) (234).
(6) In addition to Irenaeus and Hippolytus, Tertullian (d220), Cyprian of Carthage (d228) and Priscillian (d385) all quoted the missing words (Moorman, When the KJV Departs from the Majority Text, p121-122 (234).
(7) It is incredible that the testimony of five Church Fathers has been erased by Westcott and Hort’s version of the Bible.
(8) It is found in “r,” a fifth century (400-500 A. D.) Old Latin (234).
(9) It first appeared in a fourth century Latin treatise (300-400).
8) It was quoted by fifth-century (400-500 A. D.) LATIN Church Fathers in North Africa and Italy.
(10) It was expressly included in Eugenus’ Confession of Faith in Carthage in 484. Nolan, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, p295-296) (234-235).
(11) It was quoted by Vigilus of Thapsus in 490, Cassiodorus (d5i0) and Fulgentus (d533).
(12) If the text being discussed is removed, the remaining loose ends do not match grammatically: “Spirit,” “water” and “blood” are neuter gender while the final “these three” is masculine (Hills, The King James Bible Defended, p211-212 (235-237).
(13) Leading liberal scholars ignore the mis-matched-genders’ problem altogether. See Metzger, Vincent, Alford, Vine, Wuest and Bruce, The International Critical Commentary, Moorman, ibid, p117-119 (237).
(14) The final “these three” have no predecessor if the missing words are not present (Moorman,
When the KJV Departs from the Majority Text, p117-119) (237).
(15) Hills suggests the words were removed by early Sabellians who opposed the Trinity doctrine around 336 (Hills, The King James Version Defended, p212-213 (238-239).
(16) After Erasmus’ had been forced to leave the disputed passage in his final revision, all of the scholars who handled Greek and English versions left it in until 1881 (240).
(17) Afterwards it appeared in copies of the Old Latin and Vulgate (Moorman, When the KJV Departs from the Majority Text, p115-123 (232).
…..
This essay has been prepared by:
Russell Earl Kelly, PHD
