End Times and Current Events

General Category => Bible Study => Topic started by: Mark on November 05, 2010, 03:43:32 pm

Post by: Mark on November 05, 2010, 03:43:32 pm


This message was given at the 33rd Annual Meeting and Conference of the GraceWay Bible Society meeting, Saturday, October 27th, 2001, held at Brampton Ontario, Canada.


I. The King James Only Controversy.
II. The Primacy of the King James Bible
III. The Westcott and Hort Theory.
IV. Westcott and Hort Only?
V. What You Have to Believe to Accept the Westcott and Hort Theory
VI. Were Westcott and Hort Infallible?
VII. Who Were Westcott and Hort?
VIII. The Doctrine of Westcott and Hort.
IX. Were Westcott and Hort Saved Men?
X. The Work of the English Revision Committee.
XI. Were Westcott and Hort Secret Practitioners of the Occult?
XII. The Fundamentalist Defenders of Westcott and Hort!
XIII. In Conclusion.

I. The King James Only Controversy.

You don’t have to read very much in contemporary, fundamentalist, Baptist literature to come across warnings about the "King James only controversy."

Dr. Jerry Falwell announces that he is hiring Dr. Harold Rawlings to "refute the ‘King James Only’ cultic movement that is damaging so many good churches today."
Dr. Robert Sumner warns about the "veritable fountain of misinformation and deceptive double talk on the subject of ‘King James Onlyism’."
Dr. J. B. Williams refers to those who advocate the King James Only as "misinformers" and as "a cancerous sore."
Dr. Robert Joyner calls King James Bible loyalists, "heretics".
Dr. James R. White warns about King James Bible proponents "undercutting the very foundations of the faith itself".

Such references to the King James Only Controversy are very common. Some refer to loyal supporters of the King James Bible as the "King James Only Cult". Another common term is the sneering reference to the "King Jimmy Boys."

However the use of the "King James Bible only" wasn’t always so controversial.

II. The Primacy of the King James Bible

God was doing a great work in England in the early 1600's. The preaching of the gospel of Christ out of the Matthew’s Bible and the Geneva Bible was leading to multitudes of conversions. Evangelicals and Puritans were becoming a stronger and stronger force in the Church of England and in English culture.

Yet many were concerned that the final translation work into the English language had not been done. King James was persuaded to authorize a new translation. The King James Bible was printed in 1611.

At first there were questions and concerns about this new Bible translation. This was as it should be. No one should accept a Bible translation lightly. By 1640 however, the King James Bible was clearly the Bible of the English people. The Geneva and Matthew’s Bible, once greatly used of God, went out of print. There was simply no demand for them anymore.

The Church of England, with its official evangelical doctrinal statement, used the King James Bible exclusively. It was the Bible of the Puritans, both inside and outside the Church of England. In fact the Puritans began to use the distinctive Biblical English of the King James Bible in the day to day speech.

The King James Bible was the Bible of the Presbyterians, the Congregationalists, and the Quakers. It was clearly the Bible of the Baptists. By 1640 it was the Bible of the Pilgrims (some had used the Geneva Bible earlier).

The King James Bible was the Bible of evangelicals in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. It became the Bible of the English colonies across the Atlantic Ocean. The only religious group of any size or importance in England that didn’t use the King James Bible was Roman Catholicism. All non-Catholics could have been referred to as "King James only people." When the Methodist Revival stirred England in the 1700's, it did so with the preaching of the King James Bible. John Wesley, one of the founders of the Methodists, made his own translation of the New Testament. However, it found little acceptance, even among Methodists. Only the King James Bible was in common use.

When English colonies flourished in Australia and New Zealand, the King James Bible was the common Bible of the settlers. When President George Washington took the first presidential oath of office in the new United States of America, he did so with his hand on a King James Bible. Every American president since, with the exception of Franklin Pierce, has done the same.

Over one hundred fifty English translations were produced between 1611 and 1880. However, they found no audience except in a few cults. Most went out of print quickly. The English speaking, Christian world was truly "King James only".

Baptist preachers produced a Baptist translation of the Bible. They replaced the word baptism with the word immersion. They replaced the word church with the word assembly. However, they found no audience, not even among Baptists. Their translation was soon out of print. The Baptists were truly "King James only".

As hard as it may be for the liberals and secularists to admit, the American public schools were built around the King James Bible. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, (not exactly a religious right publication), describes the early public schools this way, "Public schools had a distinctly Protestant flavor, with teachers leading prayers and scripture reading from the King James Bible in their lessons". The Roman Catholic minority objected to the King James Bible and so they developed their own school system. With the exception of the Catholics, the United States was clearly King James only.

Russell Kirk (a Roman Catholic historian) describes the influence of the King James Bible on the United States, "The book that was to exert a stronger influence than any other in Americas was not published until 1611, a few years after the first Virginian settlement: the ‘King James’ translation of the Bible, the Authorized Version, was prepared by English scholars for King James I. Read from American pulpits and in the great majority of American households during colonial times, the Authorized Version shaped the style, informed the intellect, affected the laws, and decreed the morals of the North American Colonies." Truly the early United States was King James only.

According to Winston Churchill, ninety million copies of the King James Bible had been printed by the mid-twentieth century.

The King James Bible was the Bible of the great modern missions movement of the 1700's and 1800's. The missionaries from England and the United States were saved, called to the mission field, and trained under the preaching of the King James Bible. They traveled around the world, introducing the gospel of grace to millions. Many of these missionaries knew little or no Greek and Hebrew. They translated the Bible into 760 languages from the King James Bible. Truly the modern missions movement was a King James only movement.

III. The Westcott and Hort Theory.

In the 1870's, a challenge arose in the English world to the primacy of the King James Bible. There had always been a challenge from Roman Catholicism, but this challenge came from men who were officially Protestants: Church of England Bishop Brooke Foss Westcott and Cambridge University Professor Fenton John Anthony Hort.

The heart of the Westcott and Hort theory was that the New Testament was preserved in almost perfect condition in two Greek texts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. Sinaiticus was discovered in a wastebasket in St. Catherine’s Momentary (near Mt. Sinai) in 1844 by Constantin von Tischendorf. The Vaticanus was found in the Vatican library in 1475 and was rediscovered in 1845.

The King James New Testament was translated from a different family of Greek texts. To Westcott and Hort, the King James Bible was clearly an inferior translation. It must be replaced by a new translation from texts that they considered to be older and better. They believed that the true work of God in English had been held back by an inferior Bible. They determined to replace the King James Bible and the Greek Textus Receptus. In short, their theory suggests that for fifteen hundred years the preserved Word of God was lost until it was recovered in the nineteenth century in a trash can and in the Vatican Library. [Editor RAB: that's where they belong.]

Hort clearly had a bias against the Textus Receptus, calling it "villainous" and "vile". Hort aggressively taught that the School at Antioch (associated with Lucian) had loosely translated the true text of Scripture in the second century A. D. This supposedly created an unreliable text of Scripture which became the Textus Receptus. This was called the Lucian Recension Theory.

Hort did not have a single historical reference to support the idea that such a recension took place. He simply theorized that it must have taken place. In spite of the fact that there is not a single historical reference to the Lucian Recension, many Bible colleges teach it as a historical fact. [Editor RAB: sad but true. One of my professors was one of the contributing editors to the NIV, he did one of the minor prophets. I was not even a year old in Christ when I went off to seminary. I was not brought up in church, and never owned a Bible until my girlfriend gave me one as a gift before I went to seminary. The night I was saved I borrowed a Bible from a Muslim, (THAT IS ANOTHER STORY}. What was so disturbing to me was my professor. I felt he was trying to undermine my faith in the Bible and I told him so. By the way, my girlfriend gave me a King James Bible and told me it was the Word Of God. I married her while I was in seminary. Praise the Lord for a godly wife with godly convictions concerning the Bible. AMEN.]

IV. Westcott and Hort Only!

It is clear that the modern movement to revise the English Bible is based completely on the works of Westcott and Hort.

K.W. Clark writes, "...the Westcott-Hort text has become today our Textus-Receptus. We have been freed from the one only to become captivated by the other...The psychological chains so recently broken from our fathers have again been forged upon us, even more strongly."

E.C. Colwell writes, "The dead hand of Fenton John Anthony Hort lies heavy upon us. In the early years of this century Kirsopp Lake described Hort’s work as a failure, ...But Hort did not fail to reach his major goal. He dethroned the Textus Receptus. ...This was a sensational achievement, an impressive success. Hort’s success in this task and the cogency of his tightly reasoned theory shaped - and still shapes - the thinking of those who approach the textual criticism of the New Testament through the English language."

Zane Hodges, a long time professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, writes, "Modern textual criticism is psychologically addicted to Westcott and Hort. Westcott and Hort in turn, were rationalists in their approach to the textual problem in the New Testament and employed techniques within which rationalism and every other kind of bias are free to operate."

Alfred Martin, former Vice-President at Moody Bible Institute, wrote in 1951, "The present generation of Bible students having been reared on Westcott and Hort have for the most part accepted this theory without independent or critical examination. ...if believing Bible students had the evidence of both sides put before them instead of one side only, there would not be so much blind following of Westcott and Hort." The two most popular Greek manuscripts today, Nestles-Aland and UBS (United Bible Society), differ very little from the Westcott and Hort text.


You have to believe that people who believed in the Deity of Christ often corrupt Bible manuscripts.
You have to believe that people who deny the Deity of Christ never corrupt Bible manuscripts.
You have to believe that people who died to get the gospel to the world couldn’t be trusted with the Bible.
You have to believe that their killers could be trusted.
You have to believe that the Celtic Christians, Waldenses, Albigenses, Henricians, Petrobrussians, Paulicians, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Protestant churches, the Anabaptists and the Baptists all did not have the pure word of God.
You have to believe that the Roman Catholics and the nineteenth century rationalists did have the pure word of God.


Even though many evangelicals treat the Westcott and Hort Theory as proven fact, there have always been serious textual scholars that challenged it.

The brilliant textual scholar, Dean John Burgon, referred to Westcott and Hort’s "violent recoil from the Traditional Text" and "their absolute contempt for the Traditional Text". He refers to their theory as "superstitious veneration for a few ancient documents."

Another famed textual scholar and contemporary of Westcott and Hort, F.H.P. Scrivener wrote, "Dr. Hort’s system therefore is entirely destitute of historical foundation. He does not so much as make a show of pretending to it; but then he would persuade us, as he persuaded himself...".

It is a phony claim to scholarship to simply parrot the ideas of Westcott and Hort and pretend that you are superior to those who don’t accept their ideas. Those who wish to change the King James Bible, so long greatly used of God and cherished by the English speaking people, need to give clear reasons why!

How do you know that the "older" Vaticanus and Sinaticus manuscripts aren’t corrupt manuscripts? How do you know that the Lucian Recension ever took place? Why do you believe that the evangelicals throughout the centuries were using a corrupt text? Why would you trust Westcott and Hort only?


B.F. Westcott was born in 1825. F.J.A. Hort was born in 1828. They were members of the Broad Church (or High Church) Party of the Church of England. They became friends during their student days at Cambridge University. They worked for over thirty years together on the subject of the Greek text of the New Testament.

Westcott went on to become the Bishop of Durham (England) and served for a while as chaplain to Queen Victoria. Hort is best remembered as a Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University.

Both men wrote several books. They are best remembered for their edition of the Greek New Testament entitled, "The New Testament in the Original Greek". They are also remembered for being the two most influential members of the English Revised Version committee which produced a new English translation. Scrivener thought that they exercised too much influence on this committee.

Westcott died in 1901. Hort passed away in 1892. Both men had sons who collected their personal correspondence and who wrote biographies about them.


The Scripture

It is clear that neither Westcott nor Hort held anything even faintly resembling a conservative view of Scripture. According to Hort’s son, Dr. Hort’s own mother (a devout Bible believer) could not be sympathetic to his views about the Bible. Westcott wrote to Hort that he overwhelmingly rejected the "idea of the infallibility of the Bible". Hort says the same thing, the same week, in a letter to Bishop Lightfoot.

When Westcott became the Bishop of Durham, the Durham University Journal welcomed him with the praise that he was "free from all verbal or mechanical ideas of inspiration."


Hort called the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement "immoral". In doing so he sided with the normal doctrine of the High Church Party of the Church of England. The Low Church Party was generally evangelical, teaching salvation through personal faith in Jesus Christ. The High Church Party taught salvation by good works, including baptism and church membership.

Westcott and Hort wrote many commentaries that include references to classic passages about salvation. Repeatedly their commentary is vague and unclear. Westcott taught that the idea of "propitiating God" was "foreign to the New Testament." He taught that salvation came from changing the character of the one who offended God. This is consistent with his statement that, "A Christian never is but is always becoming a Christian."

Again and again, Westcott’s vague comments about salvation are easy to interpret as teaching universal salvation.

The Doctrine of Christ

It was common in the days of Westcott and Hort for those in the Church of England who denied the Deity of Christ to speak in vague terms! To clearly deny the Deity of Christ was to jeopardize your position in the Church of England. Many High Church modernists learned to speak of the Deity of Christ in unclear terms as a way to avoid trouble.

Many statements by both Westcott and Hort fall into that category of "fuzzy" doctrinal statements about Christ. Westcott and Hort were brilliant scholars. Surely they were capable of expressing themselves clearly on the doctrine of Christ if they wanted to. At best they are unclear; at worst, they were modernists hiding behind the fundamental doctrinal statement of the Church of England.

Other Teachings of Westcott and Hort

There are many other areas that cause fundamental Bible believers to have serious questions about Westcott and Hort. Westcott denied that Genesis 1 through 3 were historically true. Hort praised Darwin and his theory of evolution. Both Westcott and Hort praised the "Christian socialist" movement of their day. Westcott belonged to several organizations designed to promote "Christian socialism" and served as President of one of them (the Christian Social Union).

Both Westcott and Hort showed sympathy for the movement to return the Church of England to Rome. Both honored rationalist philosophers of their time like Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Dr. Frederick Maurice, and Dr. Thomas Arnold. Both were serious students of the Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle.

There is much about the teaching of Westcott and Hort to deeply trouble any objective Bible believer.


The evangelical defenders of Westcott and Hort are quick to assert that they were saved men even if some of their ideas seem a little strange in our day. They remind people that both were ordained preachers in the evangelical Church of England.

However, there is no doubt that there were many Church of England preachers that were not true evangelicals. The High Church party was well known to teach salvation by works. Within the Church of England there was a vigorous debate between true evangelicals and those who taught baptismal regeneration or some other system of works for salvation. In their lengthy writings, neither Westcott nor Hort ever give an account of their own conversion. They never identified with the evangelicals in the Church of England. They were never accepted by the evangelicals in the Church of England. They were associated with various occult figures, but never with evangelicals.

While Westcott and Hort praised evolutionists, socialists, and modernists, they were bitterly critical of evangelical soulwinners. Westcott criticized the work of William Booth and the Salvation Army. Hort criticized the crusades of D.L. Moody. Hort criticized the soulwinning Methodists.

Both criticized evangelicals. Neither gave anyone any reason to believe that he had ever trusted Christ as his personal Saviour.


In 1870, the English Parliament authorized a revision of the King James Bible. Two teams of translators were hired. Most translators were from the Church of England but there were also seven Presbyterians, four Congregationalists, two Baptists, two Methodists and one Unitarian. The translators were instructed to make as few alterations to the King James Bible as possible.

A similar committee was developed in the United States at the same time. The two committee’s exchanged copies of their work. Several thousand Church of England preachers signed a petition protesting the inclusion of a Unitarian, Dr. Vance Smith, on the Revision Committee. They felt that only saved men should be involved in translating the Bible. Proper translation required the illumination of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Both Westcott and Hort defended Smith and lobbied for his presence on the committee. Westcott threatened to quit if Smith was not included. Westcott and Hort supplied everyone working on the committee with a private copy of their new Greek text. Hort lobbied (some would say intimidated) committee members to follow the Westcott and Hort text. Westcott, Hort, and Bishop Lightfoot pressured the committee to go beyond their mandate for doing a revision of the King James Bible. Dr. Frederick Scrivener opposed many of the changes to be made on the basis of the new Westcott and Hort Greek Text. Committee meetings were referred to as "... a kind of critical duel between Dr. Hort and Dr. Scrivener".

Arthur Hort described his father’s method for describing the right reading of the text as "to settle the question by the light of his own inner consciousness". Dean Burgon spoke of Hort’s method as deciding by "the ring of genuiness". Hort was far more concerned about his feelings than he was about the textual debate over any passage. Westcott referred to the debate over textual readings as "hard fighting" and "a battle royal".

The original chairman, Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, resigned after referring to the project as "this most miserable business".

Westcott and Hort eventually won most of the debates. After the new English Revision was published, both Scrivener and Burgon published lengthy refutations of the Revision. Burgon attacked the Revision strongly, calling it "excursions into cloud land" and "blowing smoke". The people of England largely rejected the new translation. Attempts to make it the new Authorized Version of the Church of England met with such protest that Queen Victoria abandoned the idea.

Neither the English nor the American Revision sold very well. They were both soon replaced by other versions. However, the multitude of new English versions were all based upon the same Westcott and Hort Greek text and upon the theories of Westcott and Hort. Their English translation failed but their principles won the day. Even though vangelicals rejected the English Revision and the Westcott and Hort text, it did find supporters. Modernists and rationalists, both within and without the Church of England, praised their work. Theosophy founder, Helen Blavatsky, wrote at great length in praise of the new Greek text.

The defenders of Westcott and Hort claimed that the evangelicals were too simple-minded and unlearned to understand the work of Westcott and Hort and other English "scholars". Evangelicalism was presented as unscholarly. After a generation, many evangelicals began to feel uncomfortable at always being labeled as unscholarly and uneducated. Some evangelical leaders began to look for ways to reconcile the historic Christian faith with the theories of Westcott and Hort.

These theories and the Greek text of Westcott and Hort began to find their way into evangelical seminaries and Bible colleges on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean.

Two generations after the failure of the English Revision, the theories of Westcott and Hort had become majority opinion in evangelical Bible colleges and seminaries in both the United States and England. Their theories were universally accepted in modernist seminaries. The Jehovah’s Witnesses and other cults bragged about having Bible translations based upon the Westcott and Hort theory.

Compromising evangelicals were suddenly proud of having "scholarship" accepted by the world. They used the same Greek text as the Roman Catholic Church, the modernists and the cults.

A relative handful of Bible believers refused to accept the Greek text and theory of Westcott and Hort. Such holdouts became an irritation to the "scholarly" evangelicals. As study of the issue increased, opposition to the Westcott and Hort theory grew. "Westcott and Hort only" no longer seemed an adequate reason for abandoning the King James Bible. The "scholarly evangelicals" began to react harshly to their "King James only" critics.


In 1993, Gail Riplinger published New Age Bible Versions. In this book, she alleges that Westcott and Hort were practitioners of the occult. It is indicated that they provide a bridge between apostate Christianity and the occult and the New Age Movement.

This charge created a sensation and generated a tremendous amount of criticism for Mrs. Riplinger. It is, of course, a very important charge. An objective look at the evidence for such a charge is important.

Along with Bishop Edward White Benson, Westcott and Hort founded the Ghostly Guild. This club was designed to investigate ghosts and supernatural appearances. The club was based upon the idea that such spirits actually exist and appear to men. According to The Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, the members of the Ghostly Club would "relate personal experiences concerned with ghosts.

This club would eventually become the Society for Psychical Research. According to James Webb in The Occult Underground and W.H. Solter, The S.P.R. - An Outline of It’s History, this club became a major factor in the rise of spiritualism among the elite of English society in the late 1800's. Many leading occult figures belonged to the Society.

Along the way, Westcott and Hort dropped out of the Ghostly Guild. However, they had plenty of opportunity to be exposed to the occult and demonism before they withdrew.

Westcott’s son refers to his father’s life long faith in spiritualism (Archbishop Benson’s son referred to Benson in the same way). Communion with spirits became quite fashionable in the late 1800's in British society. Even Queen Victoria, who normally led a responsible Christian life, dabbled in spiritualism. However, it was considered unseemly for Church of England clergymen, and Wescott had to keep his ideas quiet. According to Wescott’s son, Arthur, Dr. Wescott practiced the Communion of the Saints. This was a belief that you can fellowship with the spirits of those who died recently.

Bible translator J. B. Phillips also believed in the Communion of Saints. He believed that the spirit of C.S. Lewis visited him after his death. According to Arthur Wescott, Bishop Wescott also had such experiences with spirits. His son writes, "The Communion of Saints seems particularly associated with Peterborough. He had an extraordinary power of realizing this Communion. It was his delight to be alone at night in the great Cathedral, for there he could meditate and pray in full sympathy with all that was good and great in the past. . . There he always had abundant company." Wescott’s daughter met him returning from one of his customary meditations in the solitary darkness of the chapel at Auckland castle. She said to him, " I expect you do not feel alone?" "Oh, no," he said, "It is full."

Either Dr. Wescott’s children lied about him or Dr. Wescott was used to meeting with spirits. Bible believers recognize these spirits as demons. Wescott and Hort both joined a secret society called, The Apostles. It was limited to 12 members. One of the other members Henry Sidgwick. He was also stated to have led several professors at Trinity College into secretly practicing the occult. Wescott, his close friend, was also a professor at Trinity College. Strange company for a Christian teacher and Bible translator.

In 1872 Wescott formed a secret society, the Eranus Club. Members included Hort, Sidgwick, Arthur Balfour (future prime minister of England), Archbishop Trench and Dean Alford. Both Trench and Alford would be involved in Bible revision work. Balfour became famous for his seances and practice of spiritualism. The Eranus Club would eventually become known as an occult secret society.

Wescott’s defenders point out that Wescott also eventually dropped out of Eranus. Still he was certainly allied with practioners of the occult in a secret society for a period of time.

Balfour and Sedgwick were involved in several occult organizations, socialism and Theosophy. How many Christians have so many friends prominent in the practice of the occult?

Balfour would also be involved in the founding of the League of Nations and in forming a secret society with Cecil Rhodes (the Round Table and the Council on Foreign Relations).

The evidence for Mrs. Riplinger’s assertions is strong. Would Westcott and Hort’s defenders accept anyone today who had such connections? They were clearly in contact with people who were "familiar" with spirits. There is every reason to suspect that they might also have been in contact with spirits. Based upon their associations, there is no clear reason to reject the suggestion that they were involved in the occult. The balance of evidence creates, at the very least, a strong suspicion of occult influence on both Wescott and Hort (especially Dr. Wescott).


There are fundamentalists who refuse to accept the characterization of Westcott and Hort as liberals (much less occultists)! J. B Williams writes, "I have three of Westcott's commentaries in my library, and I challenge anyone to find one sentence that would be a departure from Fundamentalist doctrine."

Keith Gephart writes, "In reality, Westcott had made clear statements affirming orthodox doctrines such as the deity of Christ, in no way was he guilty of heresy and apostasy." In responding to a critic of Westcott and Hort, Gephart wrote this, "I cannot help but suspect that . . . some blinding presupposition . . .drives you to prove him a heretic at any cost."

Dr. Stewart Custer writes, "Especially when these men have written in their mature years book after book defending the conservative interpretation of scripture, it is unjust to characterize their whole ministries by a few misinterpretations that they may have been guilty of."

Evangelist Robert Sumner admits that Westcott and Hort were liberal in theology but he still believes that they were trustworthy to "restore the original text."

It would be easy to ask at this point if everyone is reading from the same books. How can there be such a difference of opinion about what these men believed and wrote?

It is true that these men (especially Westcott) wrote commentaries in which they used the great doctrinal terms of the Christian faith in a positive way. They used terms that were part of the official doctrinal position of the Church of England (in which they both held prominent positions).

Almost all denominational liberals use the terms expected of them. This is important in maintaining their income, position and influence. The important thing is how they explain those doctrinal terms (or fail to explain them).

Unless you are determined not to see it, it is clear from their commentaries that they put a liberal interpretation on many Christian doctrines. Both of their sons admit that they were accused of heresy because of their books. This understanding of these statements in their commentaries are supported by several external facts.

Westcott and Hort identified with the High Church Party (Broad Party) within the Church of England. In contrast with the more evangelical and conservative Low Church, modernism found it’s home in the High Church Party.

Westcott and Hort constantly praised theological liberals, socialists and other radicals like Coleridge and Darwin.

No similar praise is found for evangelicals or fundamentalists, either in or out of the Church of England. They are normally ignored! When they are mentioned at all, like D. L. Moody, it is with disdain!

Their private correspondence reveals their liberal drift much more clearly then their commentaries. Of course, it was safer for them to admit what they really believed in this forum. Their correspondence also shows that they had concerns that they could not afford to have all of their beliefs known by the general public.

The biographies of Westcott and Hort written by their sons clearly reveal that they were not in harmony with the official positions of the Church of England. Their sons had no reason to lie about them. Certainly their sons had no King James only bias.

It is interesting that some men can’t face the real record about Westcott and Hort. In fact, some who are quick to attack even minor differences with living preachers, take a blind eye to Westcott and Hort.

However, this is easy to understand. Their campaign to replace the King James Bible has been based upon the work of Westcott and Hort only. To admit these men were not trustworthy would be to admit that they have been wrong in a major premise of their entire ministry.

Perhaps we must be forced to suspect that some blinding presupposition drives them to prove that Westcott and Hort were not heretics at any cost. It appears that "scholarship" requires only a shallow reading of Westcott and Hort and ignorance of their personal letters and correspondence. Their defenders do not spend anytime quoting their personal correspondence or the biographies written by their sons.

Their defenders never recount the testimonies of their conversion because no such testimonies exist.


Dean John Burgon was a contemporary and acquaintance of both Westcott and Hort. He was a firm opponent of the Westcott and Hort theory, their new Greek text and the revision of the English Bible that they so heavily influenced. In an article entitled "The Secret Spanking of Westcott and Hort" Burgon wrote: "the text of Drs. Westcott and Hort is either the very best which has ever appeared or else it is the very worst; the nearest to the sacred autographs or the furthest from them. There is no room for both opinions, and there cannot exist any middle view." In other words things that are different are not the same.

Millions of professing evangelicals have never heard of Westcott and Hort. None the less, their approach to the Scripture is based upon the theory of Westcott and Hort — Westcott and Hort only. No matter how many books, professors, colleges and denominational leaders these theories are filtered through, they are still the work of Westcott and Hort only.

Those who challenge the primacy of the King James Bible in the English speaking world depend on the work of Westcott and Hort.

Westcott and Hort are not a sufficient basis to reject the Textus Receptus or the King James Bible. Their objectivity, scholarship and doctrine are all at best "suspect." There is no reason to believe that they were saved men. There is more reason to believe that they were influenced by the occult than there is to believe that they were influenced by the Holy Spirit.

Perhaps the "King James Only Controversy" is misnamed. It is really a "Westcott and Hort Only" controversy.

Are you willing to abandon the historic contributions of the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible for Westcott and Hort, Westcott and Hort Only.


Post by: Mark on November 13, 2010, 08:47:44 am

". . . ye have PERVERTED the words of the living God. . ."
Jeremiah 23:36

This generation has a hunger for perversion. What was perversion just a few years ago, is now "normal". What was "hiding" in the closet is now "parading" in our streets. Perversion has found a welcome home - from the living room, to the White House; from our churches - to even the word of God!
Our friend Webster, defines "pervert" as 1. to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true... 2. to twist the meaning or sense of: misinterpret (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1977, p.856).

A perfect definition of The New International Version (NIV): "to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true" and "to twist the meaning or sense of". If you doubt that, before you start reading this tract - get the NIV and check it as you read this tract!

The NIV perverts the deity of Jesus Christ!
I TIMOTHY 3:16: The clearest verse in the Bible proclaiming that Jesus Christ was God. The King James Bible (KJB) reads, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH. . ." The King James says, plainly, "GOD was manifest in the flesh". The NIV reads, "HE appeared in a body". The NIV "twists" "GOD" to "HE". "HE appeared in a body"? So What? Everyone has "appeared in a body"! "He" is a pronoun that refers to a noun or antecedent. There is no antecedent in the context! The statement does NOT make sense! The NIV subtilty (see Genesis 3:1) perverts I Timothy 3:16 into utter nonsense!

PHILIPPIANS 2:6: The KJB again, clearly declares the deity of Jesus Christ: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD" The NIV reads, "Who, being in very nature God, DID NOT CONSIDER EQUALITY WITH GOD something to be grasped,". The NIV again subtitly perverts the deity of Jesus Christ!

The NIV perverts the virgin birth!
LUKE 2:33: The King James Bible reads, "And JOSEPH and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." The NIV reads, "The CHILD'S FATHER and mother marveled at what was said about him." The "CHILD'S FATHER"? Was Joseph Jesus's father? Not if you believe the virgin birth! Not if you believe John 3:16, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God! A subtil, "perversion" of the virgin birth. See also Luke 2:43.

The NIV removes the blood of Jesus Christ!
COLOSSIANS 1:14: The KJB reads, "In whom we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD, even the forgiveness of sins:" The NIV reads, "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." The NIV rips out the precious words "THROUGH HIS BLOOD"! Friend, redemption is ONLY "THROUGH HIS BLOOD". Hebrews 9:22, reads, ". . . without shedding of BLOOD is no remission." That old song says, "What can wash away my sins, NOTHING BUT THE BLOOD OF JESUS!"

The NIV perverts John 3:16 into a LIE!
JOHN 3:16: The NIV reads, "For God so loved the world that he gave his ONE AND ONLY SON, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" Jesus was NOT "the one and only son" - Adam is called the "son of God" in Luke 3:38, there are "sons of God" in Job 1:6 and Christians are called "sons of God" in Phil 2:15, I John 3:2- but Jesus was the "ONLY BEGOTTEN SON"! By removing the critical word "BEGOTTEN" - The NIV perverts John 3:16 into a LIE! The NIV does the same in John 1:14, 1:18, and 3:18.

The NIV perverts TRUTH into LIES!
The NIV perverts Mark 1:2,3 into a LIE! The NIV reads "It is written in Isaiah the prophet: I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way-a voice of one calling in the desert, Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him." It is NOT written in Isaiah! "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way" - is found in Malachi 3:1! The King James correctly reads: "As it is written in the PROPHETS, . . ." A better translation! Easier to read - BY A LIE!

Psalms 119:160 says, "Thy word is TRUE. . ." John 17:17 says, ". . . thy word is TRUTH." Titus 1:2 clearly says, ". . . God that CANNOT LIE" How could the God of Titus 1:2 be the God of Mark 1:2,3 in the NIV!? IT IS IMPOSSIBLE! For Hebrews 6:18 clearly declares, ". . . it was IMPOSSIBLE for God to LIE" It is impossible for the LIES in the NIV to be the words of GOD! Whose words are they? I'll give you a hint - Jesus Christ calls him "A LIAR, and the father of it" in John 8:44!

The NIV again openly LIES in 2 Samuel 21:19, ". . . Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod." What 8-year-old doesn't know that David killed Goliath?

Romans 1:18-32 describes the "path to perversion" and verse 25, describes their decline, "Who changed the TRUTH of God into a LIE. . ."! Not surprisingly, The NIV perverts Romans 1:25 from "CHANGED the truth of God INTO a lie" to "EXCHANGED the truth of God FOR a lie"!

The NIV and sexual perversion!
Romans 1:26-32 also shows the "fruits" of "sowing" ". . . the TRUTH of God into a LIE. . ." Verses 26-27 says "FOR THIS CAUSE (vs 25 for "changing the TRUTH of God into a LIE") God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, . . ."

The last few years homosexuality and sexual perversion have "exploded" into the mainstream. Legislation is now pending making same-sex marriages legal. Books such as Heather Has Two Mommies and Daddy's Roommate, promoting homosexuality, are in our schools. According to The Washington Post, bisexuality and homosexuality, are the "in thing" in our public schools. And even churches are now welcoming homosexuals and are even ordaining them in the ministry!

A literary critic on the NIV translation was homosexual author Dr. Virginia Mollenkott. In Episcopal, Witness (June 1991, pp. 20-23), she admits, "My lesbianism has ALWAYS been a part of me. . ." To no surprise, "sodomite" is completely removed from the NIV. (Deut. 23:17, I Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46, II Kings 23:7) And of course, I Cor. 6:9, ". . . effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. . ." is replaced with the non-offensive ". . . nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders. . ." Notice the NIV in I Cor. 6:9 does NOT condemn "homosexuals" or the "act of homosexuality" - but ONLY "homosexual OFFENDERS".

The NIV & Zondervan
A little known fact: In 1988 Zondervan and the NIV was purchased by Harper & Row, Publishers (now HarperCollins Publishers). HarperCollins publishes "pro-homosexual" books such as Making Out, The Book of Lesbian Sex and Sexuality described as "Beautifully illustrated with full-color photography,. . . Making Out is the complete illustrated guide to lesbian sexuality and relationships. . .the intricacies of love play. . ." and many other pro-homosexual books!

HarperCollins is a subsidiary of the global media empire, The News Corporation, owned by Rupert Murdock. The News Corporation empire include Fox Broadcasting, Twentieth Century Fox, and more than 128 newspapers. Fox Broadcasting produces some of the most sexually lewd shows on television. Murdock also publishes the British newspaper, the Sun, notorious for its **** pin-ups.

VERY IMPORTANT! For the REAL PROOF Check out this link to HarperCollins

Now where is Don Wildmon when we really need him? Don was quick to boycott Kmart because subsidiary, Waldenbooks sold Playboy and Penthouse. Kmart can't "hold a candle" to the "filth" spewed by The News Corporation. Why isn't Don boycotting Zondervan and the NIV? Friend, every time you purchase the NIV you are giving to people who produce pro-homosexuality, pornographic material — AND THE SATANIC BIBLE! "Can two walk together, except they be AGREED?" Amos 3:3

Jesus Christ plainly said in Matthew 7:17-18:

Even so every GOOD tree bringeth forth GOOD fruit; but a CORRUPT tree bringeth forth EVIL FRUIT. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a CORRUPT tree bring forth GOOD FRUIT. (Matthew 7:17-18)

Do you think Jesus Christ was LIEING?

Do you really believe God would ALLOW His HOLY word to be "owned" by that group? ". . .for what fellowship hath RIGHTEOUSNESS with UNRIGHTEOUSNESS? and what communion hath light with darkness?"2 Cor. 6:14

Do you actually believe God would ALLOW His Holy Word to published by the same ungodly people who publish the Satanic Bible?

Being born again, not of CORRUPTIBLE seed, but of INCORRUPTIBLE, by the WORD OF GOD, which liveth and abideth for ever. (1 Peter 1:23)

Isn't it EQUALLY amazing that the King James Bible is the ONLY Bible that is not OWNED by men?

That's right! The King James Bible has no COPYRIGHT ownership! It's copyright is the CROWN COPYRIGHT which ALLOWS it to be published by ANYONE, ANYTIME! Without asking ANYBODY for permission!

". . .but the word of God is NOT BOUND." 2 Timothy 2:9

The NIV robs Jesus Christ of worship!
In Matt. 8:2, 9:18, 15:25, 18:26, 20:20, Mark 5:6, 15:19 "worshipped him" is removed in the NIV! Why doesn't the NIV want Jesus Christ to be worshipped? Hint: see Luke 4:7, Matt. 4:9.

The NIV perverts Jesus Christ into Lucifer!
Isaiah 14:14 reveals Satan's grandest desire, "I will be like the most High." And with a little subtil perversion - the NIV in Isaiah 14:12 grants Satan's wish!

ISAIAH 14:12: The KJB reads, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!. . ." The NIV PERversion reads, "How you have fallen from heaven, O MORNING STAR, son of the dawn. . ." The NIV change "Lucifer" to "MORNING STAR".

BUT WAIT. . . I thought the Lord Jesus Christ was the MORNING STAR?

Doesn't Revelation 22:16 say, "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and MORNING STAR".

The NIV CLEARY AND BLATANTLY makes LUCIFER -- The Lord Jesus Christ! WHAT BLASPHEMY! WHAT PERVERSION! And Christians claim the NIV is a "better translation"!

ISAIAH 14:15: The King James Bible condemns Lucifer to hell: "Yet thou shalt be brought down to HELL . . ." The NIV does NOT condemn Lucifer to HELL! The NIV reads, "But you are brought down to the GRAVE. . ." We all go to the GRAVE! Why doesn't the NIV want Satan in hell?

The NIV removes and perverts the place of hell!
The word "hell" occurs 31 times in the Old Testament in the King James Bible. In the Old Testament of the NIV it occurs - ZERO! The word "hell" is NOT in the Old Testament of the NIV!

And what do they do with "hell"? Take PSALM 9:17 for example: The King James reads, "The wicked shall be turned into HELL. . ." The NIV, reads, "The wicked return to the GRAVE. . ." We ALL "return to the GRAVE"! By removing "hell" the NIV perverts Psalm 9:17 into nonsense!

In the New Testament the NIV zaps out "hell" 9 times. And what "clearer" "easier to understand" word does the NIV "update" hell with? Five times they use - HADES! (Matt 16:18, Rev 1:18, 6:8, 20:13,14) What "common person" understands HADES? Everybody knows what HELL is! Do you know what HADES is? Hades is not always a place of torment or terror. The Assyrian Hades is an abode of blessedness with silver skies called "Happy Fields". In the satanic New Age Movement, Hades is an intermediate state of purification! Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines HADES: "the underground abode of the dead in Greek MYTHOLOGY". The NIV perverts your Bible into MYTHOLOGY!

The NIV perverts The Lord's Prayer into The Devil's Prayer!
LUKE 11:2-4: The KJB reads, ". . .Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil." The NIV removes everything that refers to a Holy God in heaven -"WHICH ART IN HEAVEN. . . Thy will be done, AS IN HEAVEN, so in earth. . . but DELIVER US FROM EVIL." Everything that distinguishes God from the Devil is REMOVED! "OUR FATHER" of the NIV is "NOT IN HEAVEN" and "DOES NOT DELIVER FROM EVIL!" I wonder who it could be? (hint: see John 8:44)

The Bible warns against taking away and adding to the words of God!
Deuteronomy 4:2 reads: "YE SHALL NOT ADD unto the word which I command you, NEITHER SHALL YE DIMINISH ought from it . . ."

Proverbs 30:6, reads, "ADD THOU NOT unto his words . . ."

And just in case you missed it, GOD'S LAST WARNING is Revelation 22:18,19, ". . . If any man SHALL ADD unto these things. . . 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 Jesus Christ, in Luke 8:12, gives a clear aim of Satan, ". . . then cometh the devil, and TAKETH AWAY the word . . ."

The NIV completely "TAKETH AWAY" 17 verses!
Wonderful and precious verses like:
MATTHEW 18:11: "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.".
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 NIV PERversion completely "TAKETH AWAY" Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14, Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:28, Romans 16:24 and 1 John 5:7!

After Mark 16:8 the NIV says, "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20." ZAP-There goes another 12 verses! And by the way, that is absolutely untrue! The book, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel of Mark, by Dean Burgon contains over 400 pages of documented evidence for Mark 16:9-20, that has never been refuted, nor ever will!

After John 7:52, the NIV, reads, "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11" ZAP-There goes another 12 verses!

Matt. 12:47, 21:44, Luke 22:43 and 22:44 are all removed in the footnotes!

That's 45 complete verses the NIV removes from the text or in the footnotes!

The NIV "TAKETH AWAY" 64,576 words!
Don't look for the "mercyseat" in the NIV - GONE!
Don't look for "Jehovah" in the NIV - GONE!
Don't look for the "Godhead" in the NIV - GONE!

The NIV removes wonderful Bible "terms" like remission, regeneration, impute, propitiation, new testament and many others!

Despite God's clear warnings about "taking away" from His words - the NIV removes 64,576 words! Over 8 percent of God's word is "TAKETH AWAY"!

That equals REMOVING the books of Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Malachi, Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, James, I Peter, II Peter, I John, II John, III John, Jude and more - COMBINED!!! The equivalence of ripping out OVER 30 BOOKS of the Bible!

In case you think it's insignificant words like "thee" and "thou"? The NIV removes major portions of at least 147 verses!

Here's a small (very small) sampling of words removed in the NIV!

Matt. 6:13, "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."
Matt. 15:8, "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth"
Matt. 19:9, "and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."
Matt. 20:7, "and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive."
Matt. 20:16, "for many be called, but few chosen."
Matt. 20:22, "and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with"
Matt. 25:13, "wherein the Son of Man cometh."
Matt. 27:35, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet They parted my garments among them and upon my vesture did they cast lots"
Mark 6:11, "Verily I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city."
Mark 10:21, "take up the cross."
Luke 1:28, "blessed art thou among women"
Luke 4:4, "but by every word of God"
Luke 4:8, "get thee behind me Satan"
Luke 4:18, "he hath sent me to heal the broken hearted"
Luke 11:2-4, "Our ... which art in ... Thy will be done, as in heaven so in earth... but deliver us from evil"
John 1:27, "is preferred before me"
John 3:13, "which is in heaven"
John 3:15, "should not perish"
John 11:41, "from the place where the dead was laid"
John 16:16, "because I go to the Father"
Acts 10:6, "he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do"
Acts 15:18, "Known unto God are all his works"
Acts 20:24, "But none of these things move me"
Acts 23:9, "let us not fight against God"
Rom. 8:1, "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit"
Rom. 13:9, "Thou shalt not bear false witness"
I Cor. 6:20, "and in your spirit which are God's"
I Cor. 11:24; "Take eat... broken"
II Cor. 10:4, "but mighty through God"
Gal. 3:1, "that you should not obey the truth"
Eph. 5:30, "of his flesh, and of his bones"
Phil. 3:16, "let us mind the same thing"
I Tim. 6:5, "from such wthdraw thyself"
Heb. 7:21, "after the order of Melchisedec"
I Pet. 1:22, "through the Spirit"
I Pet. 4:14, "on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified"
I John 4:3, "Christ is come in the flesh"
I John 5:13, "and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God"
Rev. 1:11, "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last"
Rev. 5:14, "him that liveth for ever and ever"
Rev. 14:5, "before the throne of God"
Rev. 21:24, "of them which are saved"

Jesus Christ says, in Luke 4:4, ". . . It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD of God." But not according to the NIV! In fact, the NIV even "TAKETH AWAY" the last half of Luke 4:4 - "BUT BY EVERY WORD OF GOD"! And Jesus Christ was quoting Deuteronomy 8:3 to Satan! Does the NIV PERversion seriously think the Lord Jesus Christ does NOT know Duet. 8:3???

The LIES used to promote the NIV. . .
LIE 1) The NIV "just" updates the "archaic" words and makes it "easier to understand". Nothing is "really changed.
FACT: The NIV denys the deity of Jesus Christ; the virgin birth; glorifies Satan; openly lie; removes 17 complete verses and 64,576 words!

LIE 2) The NIV is easier to read and understand.
FACT: According to a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level research study, The King James Bible is by far the easiest! Out of 26 different categories - the King James graded easier in a whopping 23! In selected analysis, the KJB average grade level was 5.8 - the NIV was 8.4! (New Age Bible Versions, Riplinger, pp.195-209)

LIE 3) Older and more reliable manuscripts have been discovered since the King James Bible.
FACT: Dr. Sam Gipp writes, "The fact is, that the King James translators had ALL OF THE READINGS available to them that modern critics have available to them today." (The Answer Book, Gipp, p.110) And furthermore, it is a well documented fact that 90 - 95 per cent of all readings agree with the King James Bible!

LIE 4) The NIV is more accurate.
FACT: The KJB is a literal word for word translation. When the translators had to add words for sentence structure they are in italics. The NIV uses "dynamic equivalence". Rather than a word for word translation, they add, change and subtract to make the verse say what they "thought" it should! The Preface to the NIV even says, ". . .they have striven for more than a word-for-word translation. . ."


". . . ye have PERVERTED the words of the living God. . ."
Jeremiah 23:36

The New International


"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt KEEP them, O LORD, thou shalt PRESERVE them from this generation FOR EVER."
Psalms 12:6, 7

Post by: Mark on November 13, 2010, 08:56:29 am


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

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

CHRISTIANS BELIEVE THAT GOD’S WORD IS THE TRUTH, divinely inspired and inerrant. Attempts to destroy it under the pretext of clarifying its meaning have accelerated over the past one hundred years. This paper documents an investigation into the domain of Bible scholarship which, having evaluated the evidence found therein and within the various Bible translations, has determined:

The Greek Textus Receptus, from which the King James Version and New King James Version were translated, is the true Word of God.

The New Greek Text, from which modern versions (Revised Version, New International Version, New American Standard Version) are derived, is a corrupted Greek text.

The reader will find in these pages historical information concerning the translation of the KJV and modern versions, evidence which discredits the translators of the New Greek Text and the Revised Version of 1881 (ERV or RV), and Tables which compare selected Scriptures in the KJV, ERV (RV), NASB, NIV, and NKJV. The negative impact of numerous changes in modern translations upon Christian doctrine and also upon the Church will become apparent. This treatise will deal primarily with alterations to the New Testament.

The reader should take into consideration that not all editions and printings of each modern translation are the same. For this paper, the 1881 ERV, 1973 NASB, 1978 NIV, and the 1982 NKJV were used for the Tables of Comparison of Selected Scriptures. All other Bible references are from the Authorized King James Version.

~ Robert M. Baker



For more than ten years I was a faithful reader of the New International Version, believing that it was the Word of God. In 1993, I read several books which documented the Greek and Hebrew texts, translators, translation techniques and theology of various Bible versions. As I read these books, I compared verses in different versions and found to my dismay that the NIV, NASB and other modern translations omitted or changed key words, phrases and whole verses. In some instances, they relegated verses or passages to a foot or marginal note. It was also significant that the NIV, NASB and other new versions often disagreed with each other. Individually, these changes might not have seemed to be cause for concern. However, taken collectively, it was apparent to me that the intent was to change essential doctrine.

Bible Preservation

Psalm 12:6,7 and other Scriptures declare that God will preserve His Word unto all generations. However Kenneth Barker, author of The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, posited that according to man’s ability, "No translation can be a perfect reproduction of the original." 1.   The Translators of the original King James Version also attested to the impossibility of a perfect translation:

“No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?” (Preface, 1611 King James Version)

It is true that the original Autographs are no longer in existence. Also, copies of the originals, which passed through the hands of many early saints, either perished from overuse or were destroyed during the persecutions. 2. How can we be assured that God’s Word has been preserved? Psalm 119:89,90 declares, "Forever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. Thy faithfulness is unto all generations." We may infer from these and other Scriptures that God has promised that He would preserve His Word, according to the heavenly pattern, in the Greek Received Text.

Bible Transmission

Which Bible? by David Otis Fuller mentions only two streams of Bible transmission that have competed for preeminence throughout Church history.

“The first stream which carried the Received Text in Hebrew and Greek, began with the apostolic churches, and reappearing at intervals down the Christian Era among enlightened believers, was protected by the wisdom and scholarship of the pure church in her different phases: precious manuscripts were preserved by such as the church at Pella in Palestine where Christians fled, when in 70 A.D. the Romans destroyed Jerusalem;…These manuscripts have in agreement with them, by far the vast majority of copies of the original text. So vast is this majority that even the enemies of the Received Text admit that nineteen-twentieths of all Greek manuscripts are in this class…

“The second stream is a small one of a very few manuscripts. These last manuscripts are represented: (a) In Greek: The Vaticanus MS., or Codex B, in the library at Rome; and the Sinaitic, or Codex Aleph, its brother… (b) In Latin: The Vulgate or Latin Bible of Jerome. (c) In English: The Jesuit Bible of 1582, which later with vast changes is seen in the Douay, or Catholic Bible. (d) In English again: In many modern Bibles which introduce practically all the Catholic readings of the Latin Vulgate which were rejected by the Protestants of the Reformation; among these, prominently, are the Revised Versions.” 3.

There is a third stream of manuscripts which originated in Antioch of Syria. An Aramaic translation, the Syriac Peshitta, has been recognized by many fundamentalist scholars mentioned in this report, including David Otis Fuller, as having been based on the Textus Receptus. However, the Peshitta has significant variations. Doctrines of Jesus Christ were modified in the Peshitta similar to the alterations in modern versions listed in the Tables of Comparison in the next section of this report. The Peshitta is promoted as one of the Semitic New Testaments promoted by Messianic organizations that have rejected the Greek origins of the New Testament, claiming that the original gospels were written in Aramaic or Hebrew. To address this subject, a separate report has been published on The Semitic New Testament which identifies 109 variations from the Textus Receptus. 4.

Part II of The Semitic New Testament reveals that that Syrian Church at Antioch birthed a number of heretical cults primarily involved in Gnosticism, i.e., a synthesis of the Babylonian mystery religion and Greek philosophy produced by Kabbalist Jews in Alexandria, Egypt. There is ample proof in his epistles to the early churches that the Apostle Paul confronted the Gnostic heresy on a regular basis. (II Cor. 2:17, II Cor. 11:13, Gal. 2:4, Acts 20:29-30)

While the Antiochan stream of manuscripts found a home in the heretical churches of the East, the Alexandrian stream of manuscripts also began a covert mission to replace the copies of the original manuscripts in the West. It is from the Alexandrian stream of manuscripts that our modern English versions ultimately derive. Fifty years after John the Apostle died (circa 100 A.D.), Justin Martyr and his disciple Tatian began to introduce heretical doctrines into the Christian churches. Tatian’s pupil, Clement of Alexandria, founded a school at Alexandria, Egypt, for the dissemination of Gnosticism. But it was Clement's pupil, Origen, who Fuller states, “did the most of all to create and give direction to the forces of apostasy down through the centuries.” As a Gnostic philosopher, Origen scorned the historical basis of Scripture, and maintained that: “The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written.” Dr. Phillip Schaff observed, “His predilection for Plato (the pagan philosopher) led him into many grand and fascinating errors.” 5. Origen had also studied under Ammonius Saccas, a Greek philosopher of Alexandria who founded a Neoplatonic school.

Origen produced a six-column Bible, the Hexapla, which he subtly permeated with Gnostic doctrine. Diocletian (302-312), the last in an unbroken line of pagan emperors, had furiously sought to destroy the Christian sect and pursued every copy of the Scriptures to destroy them also. Constantine succeeded him as Roman emperor and, desiring to bring peace to the Roman Empire, commissioned a Bible which would facilitate the amalgamation of pagan religion and Christianity. “Quite naturally he preferred the one edited by Eusebius and written by Origen, the outstanding intellectual figure that had combined Christianity with Gnosticism in his philosophy, even as Constantine himself was the political genius that was seeking to unite Christianity with pagan Rome… Eusebius in publishing the Bible ordered by Constantine, had incorporated the manuscripts of Origen… The Church of Rome built on the Eusebio-Origen type of Bible.” 6.

Origen had been pronounced a heretic by a number of general synods in the early Church period. The Church also recognized that the Alexandrian manuscripts produced by Origen had altered the Apostles’ doctrine and rejected them as heretical. Early Christians chose not to use them and they were abandoned in Rome in 500 A.D. However, Origen's influence extended to the Roman Catholic religion during the Middle Ages: “One of the greatest results of his life was that his teachings became the foundation of that system of education called Scholasticism, which guided the colleges of Latin Europe for nearly one thousand years during the Dark Ages. Origenism flooded the Catholic Church through Jerome. ‘I love…the name of Origen,’ said the most distinguished theologian of the Roman Catholic Church since 1850. [John Henry Newman]” 7.

The Renaissance brought radical and comprehensive changes in European culture during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. It was during this period, in 1517, that the Protestant Reformation commenced:

“From one point of view, what had occurred during the Renaissance/Reformation was roughly this: what might be called the Establishment culture of Western Europe, based entirely upon Christian values as defined by Rome, had at last yielded up its monopoly of jurisdiction -- never in theory, of course, but certainly in practice… The Renaissance represents the cultural release from the papal strait-jacket; the Reformation, the same release expressed in religious terms.” 8.

Desiderius Erasmus is generally acknowledged as a pioneer of learning during this epic period in Church history:

“The Revival of Learning produced that giant intellect and scholar, Erasmus. It is a common proverb that ‘Erasmus laid the egg and Luther hatched it.’ The streams of Grecian learning were again flowing into the European plains, and a man of caliber was needed to draw from their best and bestow it upon the needy nations of the West… Erasmus, during his mature years in the earlier part of the sixteenth century, was the intellectual giant of Europe… Europe was rocked from end to end by his books, which exposed the ignorance of the monks, the superstitions of the priesthood, the bigotry, and the childish and coarse religion of the day. He classified the Greek manuscripts and read the early Fathers… But his crowning work was the New Testament in Greek. At last after one thousand years, the New Testament was printed (1516 A.D.) in the original tongue. Astonished and confounded, the world, deluged by superstitions, coarse traditions, and monkeries, read the pure story of the Gospels.” 9.

Desiderius Erasmus divided all of the Greek manuscripts into two classes: those which agreed with the Received or Traditional Text and those which agreed with the corrupt Vaticanus manuscript. 10. He then presented the Reformation Christians a Greek New Testament based on the Received Text. Even the members of the later 19th century English Revision Committee would acknowledge the pedigree of the Greek Text issued by Erasmus:

“’The manuscripts which Erasmus used, differ, for the most part, only in small and insignificant details from the bulk of the cursive manuscripts -- that is to say, the manuscripts which are written in running hand and not in capital or (as they are technically called) uncial letters. The general character of their text is the same. By this observation the pedigree of the Received Text is carried up beyond the individual manuscripts used by Erasmus to a great body of manuscripts of which the earliest are assigned to the ninth century’…This remarkable statement completes the pedigree of the Received Text. That pedigree stretches back to a remote antiquity. The first ancestor of the Received Text was…at least contemporary with the oldest of our extant manuscripts, if not older than any one of them.” 11.

Erasmus restored the Textus Receptus to its previous exalted status in Western Europe and Luther translated the New Testament into German using Erasmus’ second edition. From Erasmus’ Greek Text also came many other translations, such as the Zurich (Swiss) Version (1529), LeFevre’s (French) Bible (1534), the Olivetan (French) Bible (1535), Laurentius (Swedish) Bible (1541), the Christian (Danish) Bible (1550), Biestken’s (Dutch) Bible (1558), de Reyna’s (Spanish) Bible (1569), the Czech Version (1602) and Diodati’s (Italian) Bible (1607). 12.

William Tyndale was the hero of the English Reformation. Tyndale studied Greek under Erasmus at Cambridge University from 1510-1514. Fluent in seven languages, he translated two-thirds of the Bible into English using Erasmus’ Greek text. Tyndale, who wished to place the Scriptures in the hands of the common people, was martyred for his labors.


The Authorized Version (King James Version)


From the 2nd through the 17th century, copies of the original New Testament manuscripts were preserved and were compiled by Erasmus as the Greek Received Text. The Textus Receptus, the text traditionally used as the basis for translation of the Bible into various languages, is derived from the overwhelming majority of ancient Bible manuscripts which comprised the Traditional Text of the early Church. These 5,210 manuscripts (99% of extant or existing manuscripts) agree with each other, as opposed to only 45 (1% of extant) texts which form the basis of the Revised Version and other modern translations. 13.

In 1604, one thousand ministers petitioned the English monarch, King James I, “that there might be a new translation of the Bible, without note or comment.” 14. The Translation Committee for an Authorized Version was composed of fifty-four scholars of the highest qualifications. No secrecy shrouded the work of the translators, who were accountable to one another and to the Church of England clergy and bishops. These learned men possessed all of the extant manuscripts which had been made available through the industry of Erasmus. Although counterfeit documents of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus families of manuscripts were available to the translators, these were rejected.  Rev. Terence H. Brown, formerly Secretary of the Trinitarian Bible Society of London wrote of the fifty-four translators of the KJV:

“No reasonable person imagines that the translators were infallible or that their work was perfect, but no one acquainted with the facts can deny that they were men of outstanding scholarship, well qualified for their important work, or that with God's blessing they completed their great task with scrupulous care and fidelity... They were indeed ‘learned men’ - and their scholarship was recompensed by a deep conviction of the divine origin of the records which they were translating. Learning and faith went hand in hand to open the storehouse of God's word of truth for the spiritual enrichment of millions from generation to generation, over a period of more than three hundred years.” 15.

The Translators' Preface to the 1611 AV describes the intent of the translators, their method of translation and presents much valuable background information. 16.  Unfortunately, the Preface has been removed from King James Bibles for the past one hundred years which has given rise to the Ruckmanite Heresy that the KJV is superior to the Greek Textus Receptus.  For this reason, manuscript scholar Professor Edgar J. Goodspeed wrote a Thesis on the Preface and endeavored during his lifetime to restore the Preface to the King James Bible, but to no avail. 17. 

It is important to acknowledge that the Authorized Version of 1611 contained the Apocrypha, as did all of the English Bibles which preceded it: Tyndale's Bible (1525 A.D.), Coverdale's Bible (1535 A.D.), Matthew's Bible (1537 A.D.), Taverner's Bible (1539 A.D.), the Great Bible, (1539 A.D.), the Geneva Bible (1560 A.D.) and the Bishop's Bible (1568 A.D.). Apocryphal books were omitted from the AV in 1629 and by 1827 the Apocrypha was excluded permanently. Landmarks of English Bible: Manuscript Evidence by Robert Sargent provides additional information about the Apocrypha with the following explanation for its inclusion in the Reformation Bibles:

“Many of the early English versions contained the Apocrypha for two basic reasons – because of the general acceptance of the Apocrypha during the Dark Ages, and/or (in case of the Authorized, King James Version) for Scriptural analysis. In each case, the Apocrypha were delineated either in an appendix and/or with an explanation showing them to be non-canonical.” 18.

Revision of the English Bible


In 1816, The American Bible Society was founded by a group of New York philanthropists 19. whose stated objectives included revision as well as circulation of the Bible. “The dissemination of the Scriptures in the received versions where they exist, and in the most faithful where they may be required.”  The American Bible Society was financially supported by the British and Foreign Bible Society of London 20. which had high level connections with the United Grand Lodge of England. 21.

Dr. Thomas J. Conant of the University of Rochester envisioned that the Bible should be thoroughly revised. In 1827, Dr. Conant introduced the issue of translating the Greek word “baptizein” as “immersion” instead of transferring it as the AV translators had done. 22. In 1835, when the American Bible Society rejected any foreign version not consistent with the Authorised Version, the Baptist Board of Foreign Missions formed the American & Foreign Bible Society to circulate the Bengali New Testament and other versions that would translate “baptize/baptism” as “immerse/immersion.”

In 1838, the President of the American & Foreign Bible Society, Dr. Spencer H. Cone, sought to thoroughly revise the English Scriptures, but the AFBS voted against this proposal. Dr. Cone’s plan was thwarted for 14 years during which time much pressure for revision was exerted on the society and a revised Bible was published. 1849, the AFBS removed the restriction to use common version (AV) and an impassioned debate ensued among the Baptists. Drs. Cone and William Wyckoff published “The Bible Translated” to defend their revision and issued sample revised New Testament. Those who were opposed to Bible revision called for Baptists to “rebuke this metropolitan power” to crush revisionist movement forever. 23. On May 22, 1850, the American & Foreign Bible Society voted against revision of the English Scriptures and, following an intense debate, Dr. Cone resigned as AFBS president. 24.

On May 27, 1850, twenty-four revisionists including Dr. Cone and Thomas Armitage met to plan a new Bible revision society. Armitage created the resolutions’ wording, which denied the divine preservation of Scripture and established no spiritual qualifications for Bible revisers.

“‘Resolved. That it is our duty to form a voluntary association for the purpose of procuring and circulating the most faithful version of the sacred Scriptures in all languages.

“‘Resolved. That in such an association we will welcome all persons to co-operate with us, who embrace the principles upon which we propose to organize, without regard to their denominational principles in other respects.’” 25.

On June 10, 1850, the American Bible Union was organized, with Dr. Cone as president, for the purpose of revising English Bible. 26. Most members and directors of the American Bible Union were American Baptists 27. although some of the Bible revisers had come to the U.S. from Great Britain: “Next to Dr. Cone, the three men who did more to promote the revision of the English Bible than any others, were Drs. Archibald Maclay, William H. Wyckoff, and Deacon William Colgate.” Archibald Maclay, D.D., was born in Scotland in 1778, and was a Congregational pastor there; but after his emigration to New York he became a Baptist. Deacon William Colgate was born in Kent, England in 1783. 28.

In 1850, scholars on both sides of Atlantic collaborated to produce a preliminary revision of Bible. Once again, protest to revision of the Bible arose in the United States as Dr. Conant began translating the Old Testament.

“While many men of learning and nerve espoused the movement, as storm of opposition was raised against it from one end of the land to the other. … After considerable correspondence with scholars in this country and in Europe, the following general rules were adopted, and many scholars on both sides of the Atlantic commenced their work on a preliminary revision of the Bible…
“‘3. Translations or revisions of the New Testament shall be made from the received Greek text, critically edited with known errors corrected. The following common English version must be the basis of the revision; the Greek text, Bagster & Son’s octavo edition of 1851.’” 29.

Serving as liaison between the European and American revision committees was Phillip Schaff 30. who would become a professor at the Rockefeller-founded Union Theological Seminary 31. as well as the “Father of Ecumenical Movement.” According to Rouse's History of the Ecumenical Movement,

“Shortly before his death, Philip Schaff made a now famous address on ‘The Reunion of Christendom’ before the World Parliament of Religions, in...1893. In this address, Schaff urged a ‘federal or confederate union’ resembling the ‘political confederation of Switzerland, the United States, and the modern German Empire. This federation would be a ‘voluntary association of different Churches in their official capacity, each retaining its freedom and independence in the management of its internal affairs, but all recognizing one another as sisters with equal rights, and cooperating in general enterprises, such as the spread of the gospel at home and abroad, the defense of the faith against infidelity, the elevation of the poor and neglected classes of society, works of philanthropy and charity, and moral reform’. This farewell address of the aged ecumenical leader was thus prophetic of the Federal Council [of Churches] of the 20th century, and even more of its successor, National Council of Churches.” 32.

To the American New Testament committee would be added, in 1873, Timothy Dwight, a member of the Order of Skull and Bones (1849). 33. Timothy Dwight was the grandson of Rev. Timothy Dwight (1752-1817), also a member of the Order of Skull and Bones, who was the grandson of Rev. Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), who was a personal friend of President George Washington, a high-level Freemason. Both Timothy Dwights were presidents of Yale.


The British Revisers


Meanwhile in Great Britain, a Cambridge professor, Fenton John Antony Hort, Anglican clergyman, Brooke Foss Westcott 34. and the future Archbishop of Canterbury, Edward White Benson, founded the Cambridge Ghost Society in 1851. 35. The Ghost Society would become the parent of the Society for Psychical Research, which was directed by Dr. Hort’s student, Henry Sidgwick and his wife, Eleanor Balfour. The latter was the sister of Arthur Balfour, who would become Prime Minister of Great Britain.

“Among the numerous persons and groups who in the middle of the nineteenth century were making enquiries into psychical occurrences may be mentioned a society from which our own can claim direct descent. In the Life of Edward White Benson, Archbishop of Canterbury, by his son, A. C. Benson, will be found, under the year 1851-2, the following paragraph:

“‘Among my father's diversions at Cambridge was the foundation of a ‘Ghost Society,’ the forerunner of the Psychical Society…for the investigation of the supernatural. Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort were among the members... The S.P.R. has hardly lived up to the standard of ecclesiastical eminence set by the parent society.” 36.

Also in 1851, F.J.A. Hort joined the Cambridge Company of the Apostles, a covert organization of which Westcott and Sidgwick would also become members:

“[Hort] found time to attend the meetings of various [Cambridge] societies and in June joined the mysterious Company of the Apostles… He remained always a grateful and loyal member of the secret Club, which has now become famous for the number of distinguished men who have belonged to it. In his time the Club was in a manner reinvigorated, and he was mainly responsible for the wording of an oath which binds members to a conspiracy of silence.” 37.

“[The] Apostles had hoped that developments in the social sciences would before long make possible an equitable and frictionless society.” 38.

Roland Perry’s expose, The Fifth Man, revealed that a member of the powerful House of Rothschild which directs the worldwide network of Masonic societies, was a member of the Cambridge Apostles Club.

“The Fifth [man] provided Stalin almost on a daily basis with what Churchill and Roosevelt were saying about the USSR. The spy also had particular links to the US military and intelligence during and after the war… The Fifth Man was Nathaniel Mayer Victor Rothschild (1910 to 1990), better known as the third Lord Rothschild. He was the British head of the famous banking dynasty, which apart from prolific achievements in art, science, wine and charity, had shaped recent history by such acts as the financing of the British army at the Battle of Waterloo and the purchasing of the Suez Canal for Great Britain and Prime Minister Disraeli…[Anthony] Blunt made much play towards the end of 1932 about his efforts to have Rothschild and Burgess elected to the Apostles... On 12 November 1932 Burgess and Victor were both voted in.” 39.

It is noteworthy that, as British Foreign Minister, Arthur Balfour would issue the Balfour Declaration – which authorized the return of the Jews to Palestine – to Lord Lionel Rothschild, and that Balfour and Rothschild were members of Cecil Rhodes’ Circle of Initiates. 40. The extensive connections between the British and American revision committees and the secret societies are further documented in “The Unauthorized History of Bible Revision.” 41.

Secular historians as well as the Life and Letters of both B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, have documented the unorthodox doctrines and occult affiliations of these two clergymen during the 30-year period they edited the Greek New Testament Text and guided the English revision Committee. Excerpts from the correspondence of Westcott and Hort are included in the Appendix of this report to demonstrate the heretical beliefs of these men who served as Bible revisers.




In 1853, F.J.A. Hort and B.F. Westcott, who later became an Anglican bishop, proceeded to create, not a revision, but an altogether New Greek Text of the New Testament. 42. According to Dr. Hort, their intention was to radically alter the Traditional or Majority Text for future generations. “Our object is to supply clergymen generally, schools, etc., with a portable Greek Text which shall not be disfigured with Byzantine corruptions.” 43. The correction of “Byzantine corruptions” by Hort and Westcott was, in fact, the substitution of corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts for the Textus Receptus which underlies the Authorised Version – the text which agrees with the majority of manuscripts extant today.

Wrote Dr. Hort: “He (Westcott) and I are going to edit a Greek text of the New Testament some two or three years hence, if possible. Lachmann and Tischendorf will supply rich materials, but not nearly enough; and we hope to do a good deal with Oriental versions.” 44. Karl Lachmann (1793-1851) was professor of Classical and German Philology in Berlin, and also a German rationalist and textual critic who produced modern editions of the New Testament in Germany in 1842 and 1850. Lachmann began to apply to the New Testament Greek text the same rules that he had used in editing texts of the Greek classics which had been radically altered over the years. Having also set up a series of several presuppositions and rules which he used for arriving at the original text of the Greek classics, he then began with these same presuppositions and rules to correct the New Testament which he assumed was hopelessly corrupted. 45.

Lachmann’s theories laid the foundation for the German school of higher criticism which rejected the authenticity of the Gospels, particularly the miracles, and also the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith. The widespread acceptance of Lachmann’s work furnished the critical authority for Drs. Westcott and Hort in their formulation of a method of Textual Criticism, known as the Westcott and Hort Textual Theory. Drs. Westcott and Hort hypothesized that that the original New Testament text had survived in near perfect condition in two manuscripts other than the Received Greek Text and that the early church used these manuscripts to edit the Textus Receptus. The Westcott-Hort Theory, which maintains that the true text of Scripture was lost by the true Church for approximately 1600 years, has since been discredited for lack of historical evidence. 46.

Constantin Tischendorf (1815-74) was a German textual editor whom Dr. Frederick Scrivener of the English Revision Committee ranked “the first Bible Critic in Europe.” Tischendorf traveled extensively in search of ancient documents and was responsible for finding the two manuscripts most relied upon in the Westcott-Hort Greek Text, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Tischendorf discovered (c. A.D. 1844) the Vaticanus B manuscript in the Vatican Library and Sinaiticus Aleph in a waste basket in a Catholic convent at the base of Mt. Sinai. 47. Psalm 108:5 promises that God will preserve His Word “unto a thousand generations.” For this reason, He would never allow it to be suppressed or withheld from His people as the Roman Catholic hierarchy did for 1400 years. It is reasonable to assume that God removed these manuscripts from circulation because they were not His Word.

Westcott and Hort used the Codex Vaticanus (B) and the Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) manuscripts as the basis for their New Testament Greek Text, which in turn was the basis for the 1881 text adopted by the ERV revisers. 48. Dean John Burgon, the brilliant textual scholar and Anglican clergyman who led the opposition to the English revision, described for his English readers the corrupt character of the manuscripts primarily used by Westcott and Hort – not to revise the Textus Receptus – but to create an altogether new Greek Text.

“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… We venture to assure [the reader] without a particle of hesitation, that Aleph, B, D, are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant: – exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with: – have become, by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of Truth, – which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of God.” 49.

The English Revised Version


In 1857, liberal churchmen petitioned the Government to revise the Authorized Version but were refused permission. A general distrust of revising the sacred text was prevalent and Archbishop Trench, later a member of the Revision Committee called the issue, “A question affecting…profoundly the whole moral and spiritual life of the English people …(with) vast and solemn issues depending on it.” 50. Nonetheless, Dr. Trench led the movement for revision in Great Britain and called for better revision than Baptists since they ‘interpret’ rather than ‘translate.’ In other words, the American Baptists were limited to translating from the Textus Receptus and the English revisionists planned to use New Greek Text compiled by Westcott and Hort for the English Revised Version.

At length, the Southern Convocation of the Church of England was appealed to and consented to a revision. The Revision Committee was divided from its beginning in 1871, the majority of two-thirds being those in favor of applying German methods of higher criticism to the revision process. The first chairman, Bishop Wilberforce resigned, calling the work a “miserable business” and protesting the presence of a Unitarian scholar who had been elected to the committee. 51.  Dr. G. Vance Smith, who denied the Divinity of Christ, had nevertheless participated in a communion service at Westminster Abbey upon the invitation of Bishop Westcott just prior to the first committee meeting. Dean John Burgon reported that committee members were bound to a pledge of silence having received each a copy of the New Greek Text created by Westcott and Hort, which altered the Textus Receptus in 5,337 places: “…a ‘confidential’ copy of their work having been already entrusted to every member of the New Testament Company of Revisionists to guide them in their labours, -- under pledge that they should neither show nor communicate its contents to any one else.” 52.

The English revisionists also consulted the translation produced in 1865 by the American Bible Union, whose committee was chaired by ecumenist Philip Schaff. The facts surrounding English-American collaboration on revision of the Bible are documented in Thomas Armitage’s History of the Baptists.

“The revisers commenced their work in June, 1870, and submitted the New Testament complete May 17th, 1881, the work being done chiefly by seventeen Episcopalians, two of the Scotch Church, two dissenting Presbyterians, one Unitarian, one Independent and one Baptist. A board of American scholars had co-operated, and submitted ‘a list of readings and renderings’ which they preferred to those finally adopted by their English brethren; a list comprising fourteen separate classes of passages, running through the entire New Testament, besides several hundred separate words and phrases. The Bible Union's New Testament was published nearly six years before the Canterbury revision was begun, and nearly seventeen years before it was given to the world. Although Dr. Trench had pronounced the ‘installments’ of the American Bible Union's New Testament ‘not very encouraging,’ yet the greatest care was had to supply the English translators with that version. During the ten and a half years consumed in their work, they met in the Jerusalem Chamber at Westminster each month for ten months of every year, each meeting lasting four days, each day from eleven o'clock to six; and the Bible Union’s New Testament lay on their table all that time, being most carefully consulted before changes from the common version were agreed upon. One of the best scholars in the corps of English revisers said to the writer: ‘We never make an important change without consulting the Union’s version.… This was before the Canterbury version was completed, but when it was finished it was found that the changes in sense from the common version were more numerous than those of the Union’s version, and that the renderings in that version are verbatim in hundreds of cases with those of the Union’s version.” 53.

In 1881, the English Revision Committee cast upon the world a New Greek Text and an English Bible which, in the words of one reviser contained “between eight and nine changes in every five verses, and in about every ten verses, three of these were made for critical purposes.” The English Revised Version is generally acknowledged to be the predecessor to the New International Version, the New American Standard Version and other modern translations.


The Nestle/Aland new Greek text


In 1898, Eberhard Nestle published the Nestle Greek New Testament, which underlies the modern versions. He followed the Hort and Westcott New Greek Text used for the English Revised Version and three other editions of the 1800s. In 1950, Kurt Aland assumed ownership and the Nestle Text became the Nestle/Aland Text. The editing committee was comprised of Kurt Aland and Matthew Black, who were unbelievers, Roman Catholic Cardinal Carlo M. Martini and two apostates, Bruce Metzger and Alan Wikgren. 54. Again, the question arises concerning the qualifications of those who translate or edit God’s Word. History provides clear evidence that the divinely inspired Word of God was often altered by men who received their inspiration from a source other than God.


The New American Standard Bible


The Preface to the New American Standard Bible, published in 1963, states that, “In most instances the 23rd edition of the Nestle Greek New Testament was followed.” Dr. Frank Logsdon, former pastor of Moody Memorial Church, along with Dewey Lockman (The Lockman Foundation), laid the groundwork for this modern version. After its publication, questions by friends caused Dr. Logsdon to examine the translation closely. The following is his renunciation of every attachment to the NASB. This renunciation takes on added meaning since the NIV and NASB used the Nestle/Aland Text in the revision process and many changes are common to both.

“I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I’m afraid I’m in trouble with the Lord…We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface…I’m in trouble; I can’t refute these arguments; it’s wrong, terribly wrong; it’s frighteningly wrong and what am I going to do about it…When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended… I used to laugh with others… However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not quite right in the New American Standard Version. I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can’t refute them… the deletions are absolutely frightening… there are so many… Are we so naïve that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?

“Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachments to the NASV. The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times…I don’t want anything to do with it…” 55.

The New International Version


The NIV Story, by Burton Goddard, describes the eclectic method used by the NIV joint committee for this contemporary translation. Webster’s New World Dictionary defines “eclectic” as: “to select, to pick out, to choose – 1. selecting from various systems, doctrines or sources; 2. composed of material gathered from various sources or systems.” According to Goddard, the members of the committee chose not to confine themselves to one printed text of ancient or modern writings, but to privately determine, based on their evidence, what readings are true or genuine. In addition to its primary selections, the NIV committee decided to include alternative readings in footnote form to acquaint the reader with other interpretations. And in some extended portions of Scripture, liberty was taken to introduce verses not well-attested by manuscript evidence. 56.

Although NIV apologists claim that the eclectic method was used in translation, editors of this version have shown in their other writings a preference for the Westcott and Hort Aleph and B manuscripts. 57.  In NIV passages that do not involve fundamental doctrinal issues, the editors used Majority Text readings. This was necessary in order to comply with copyright regulations, which require that new versions contain a larger portion of the Traditional Text in order to be classified as “Bibles.” However, in selected verses containing essential doctrine, “They used random minority text type readings when an opportunity arose to present New Age philosophy or demote God or Christ.” 58.

It seems that the New International Version was translated without much theological restraint in order to convey the private interpretations of men and to appeal to, or not offend, a variety of religious sects. According to one NIV editor, I John 5:7 is “the strongest statement in the KJV on the Trinity.” 59. Yet its omission from this new version reflects its prior omission from the New Greek Text, by F.J.A. Hort’s design. 60. This revision, along with many others of doctrinal importance, probably accounts for the broad application of the Westcott-Hort New Greek Text. Few Christians realize that the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witness cult is based upon this same corrupted text which underlies the NIV and all other modern translations. 61.

Other findings provide convincing evidence that the hidden agenda of the NIV is to alter Bible doctrine. The NIV has 64,098 or 10% fewer words than the King James Version. 62. Careful comparison of Scripture verses, such as those found in the Tables, reveals that these omissions are not random, but selective. Most incredible was the appointment of a homosexual, Dr. Marten Woudstra, as Chairman of the Old Testament Committee of the NIV Committee on Bible Translation 63., and the retainer as a consultant of a lesbian and feminist, Dr. Virginia Mollenkott. 64.


The New King James Version


The Preface of the New King James Version provides the following information concerning this version's translation of the Old Testament and New Testament:

“For the New King James Version the text used was the 1967/77 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica, with frequent comparisons being made with the Bomberg edition of 1524-25. The Septuagint (Greek) Version of the Old Testament and the Latin Vulgate also were consulted. In addition to referring to a variety of ancient versions of the Hebrew Scriptures, the New King James Version draws on the resources of relevant manuscripts from the Dead Sea caves...

“The New King James Version follows the historic precedent of the Authorized Version in maintaining a literal approach to translation, except where the idiom of the original language cannot be translated directly into our tongue.  The King James New Testament was based on the traditional text of the Greek-speaking churches, first published in 1516, and later called the Textus Receptus or Received Text. Although based on the relatively few available manuscripts, these were representative of many more which existed at the time but only became known later. In the late nineteenth century, B. Westcott and F. Hort taught that this text had been officially edited by the fourth century church, but a total lack of historical evidence for this even has forced a revision of the theory...

“In light of these facts, and also because the New King James Version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority Text variant readings in the footnotes...

“The textual notes in the present edition of the New Testament make no evaluation of readings, but do clearly indicate the manuscript sources of readings. They objectively present the facts without such tendentious remarks as 'the best manuscripts omit' or 'the most reliable manuscripts read.'  Such notes are value judgments that differ according to varying viewpoints on the text.” 65.

Although the New Testament of the New King James Version is based on the Textus Receptus, and appears to follow it carefully, the Old Testament was translated from the 1967/77 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia based on Rudolf Kittel's 1937 Biblia Hebraica which departed from the historic Masoretic text used in the King James Version.  66.   The NKJV North American Overview Committee, comprised of many prominent Evangelical leaders known to be apostate, “met at Nashville and Chicago in 1975 to assist in preparing guidelines for the NKJV” and reviewed the work throughout the entire editing process.  They did not, however, participate in the translation process. 67.


Moneychangers in the Temple


Royalties received from each edition, rather than preservation of the text, seems to be an additional underlying motive in the creation of the many new translations as well as revised editions.  From 1898 to 1979, there were twenty-six editions of the Nestle/Aland Greek Text alone. 68. Correspondingly, publishers have produced an average of two new versions of the English Bible each year since 1900.

“They see in the translations of the Bible a chance for millions upon millions of dollars for their publishing houses. This is what sells. How do you account for many of the 135 complete English Bibles and 293 complete English New Testaments (a total of 428 altogether) that have flooded the English speaking world from 1380 through 1991?” 69.

Post by: Mark on November 13, 2010, 08:56:55 am
The Book of Life


Bible revision is an insidious method of destroying the Word of God. Casual reading or study of a new version does not reveal the cumulative effect of thousands of alterations to Scripture, however, the substantial differences between the King James and modern versions represent a change, or at least a weakening of the acceptance, of a minimum of nineteen fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. Deuteronomy 8:3 states, “Man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord.”; Deuteronomy 32:47 states, “it is not a vain thing for you; because it is your life.” Jeremiah 36 records the story of King Jehoiakim who dared to destroy the word of the Lord. God punished his defiance by removing him from the genealogy of Jesus Christ. (Matt. 1:11 records only Josias and Jechonias, the father and son of Jehoiakim.) Revelation 22:19,20 warns that the same judgment will befall others who presume to change the Holy Writ:

“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.”

Another Gospel


Jesus Christ said, “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.” (John 6:63) Removing or adding to God’s words results in preaching "another gospel," which is not the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Apostle Paul implied that preaching another gospel leads people to receive “another Jesus” and “another spirit.” (II Cor. 11:4) I Peter 1:23,25 shows that there is a direct correlation between the preaching of the pure Word of God and spiritual regeneration: “Being born again, not of corruptible seed but of incorruptible, but by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever…and this is the word by which the gospel is preached unto you.”

The prophet Amos spoke of a day in which there would be a famine of hearing the words of the Lord. (Amos 8:11) Today, man-centered messages and experiences have largely replaced the expository teaching of the Word of God. Often missing from the Gospel presentation are vital doctrines of the Christian faith, such as the cross, the blood atonement, genuine faith, repentance, sanctification and judgment.


Examine the Evidence


Throughout the Church Age, the Word of God has been preserved in the Textus Receptus, which is found today in the Authorized King James Version. The glory of our rich inheritance of truth in the Sacred Canon is slowly departing from the Christian churches and doctrinal confusion reigns. These things should not be so… “for God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints” (I Cor. 14:33).

When the Jews at Berea were confronted with the Gospel, “they received the word with all readiness of mind and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11) They were commended by God for examining the Scriptures themselves in order to “prove all things.” (I Thess. 5:21) Like the noble Bereans, those who desire to know the truth today will study the Scriptures to determine which Bible faithfully preserves the doctrines of the Christian faith. The reader is invited to apply the Berean method to the various translations of the Bible by examining the evidence which is presented in the following Tables of Comparison of Selected Scriptures. The comparison of key verses in the King James and the modern versions will prove which Bible version is the true Word of God.


The Life and Letters of
B. F. Westcott & F. J. A. Hort

One of the early pioneers of modern Spiritualist inquiry was the Ghost Society at the University of Cambridge, England. Alan Gauld has recorded in The Founders of Psychical Research the founding and objective of the Ghost Society:

"In 1851 was founded at Cambridge a Society to 'conduct a serious and earnest inquiry into the nature of the phenomena vaguely called supernatural,' and a number of distinguished persons became members." 70.

The Society For Psychical Research directly succeeded the Cambridge Ghost Society. The Society for Psychical Research: An Outline of its History, written in 1948 by the president, W. H. Salter, provides the following record:

"Among the numerous persons and groups who in the middle of the nineteenth century were making enquiries into psychical occurrences may be mentioned a society from which our own can claim direct descent. In the Life of Edward White Benson, Archbishop of Canterbury, by his son, A. C. Benson, will be found, under the year 1851-2, the following paragraph:

"'Among my father's diversions at Cambridge was the foundation of a 'Ghost Society,' the forerunner of the Psychical Society [meaning the S.P.R.] for the investigation of the supernatural. Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort were among the members. He was then, as always, more interested in psychical phenomena than he cared to admit.'

"Lightfoot and Westcott both became bishops, and Hort Professor of Divinity. The S.P.R. has hardly lived up to the standard of ecclesiastical eminence set by the parent society." [parenthesis in original] 71.

The following are excerpts from The Life And Letters Of Fenton John Anthony Hort, published by his son Arthur Hort. These statements are representative of his theological beliefs, personal attitudes, and occult affiliations during his commission with B.F. Westcott to edit the New Greek Text. Many of the letters were written to B.F. Westcott, whose affinity for Roman Catholicism can be seen in the excerpts from his biography, The Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, written by his son, Arthur Westcott. The information revealed in these volumes renders both Hort and Westcott suspect as a qualified Bible translators.


The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort


1851 -- Cambridge: Graduate Life

"In June (F.J.A. Hort) joined the mysterious Company of the Apostles . . . He was mainly responsible for the wording of an oath which binds members to a conspiracy of silence . . . Two other societies. . . were started . . . in both of which Hort seems to have been the moving spirit . . . the other called by its members ‘The Ghostly Guild.' The object was to collect and classify authenticated instances of what are now called ‘psychical phenomena’ . . . the 'Bogie Club' as scoffers called it, aroused a certain amount of derision, and even some alarm; it was apparently born too soon." 72.

July 6, 1848 -- to Mr. John Ellerton -- On Roman Catholicism

" . . . almost all Anglican statements are a mixture in various proportions of the true and the Romish view . . . the pure Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the Evangelical." 73.

November 16, 1849 -- to the Rev. F. D. Maurice -- On Substitutionary Atonement


"Thus there is the question of Substituted Punishment, which, as it seems to me, is quite distinct from the Atonement and reconciliation of the person of sinning man and God. I can at most times thankfully contemplate the fact of God's forgiveness (in the strict sense of the word; that is, removal of estrangement from the offender, irrespective of the non-enforcement of penalties) and His delight in humanity as restored through its Head; but surely this has little to do with the principle that every offence must receive its just recompense. The Father may forgive the child, and yet cannot justly exempt him from the punishment of disobedience;

"'Amen!' says the evangelical, 'the penalty must be paid somehow by somebody. The penalty is tortures to all eternity for each man. Christ, in virtue of the infinity which He derived from His Godhead, was able on earth to suffer tortures to be suffered by all mankind; God must have the tortures to satisfy His justice, but was not particular as to who was to suffer them, -- was quite unwilling to accept Christ's sufferings in lieu of mankind's suffering.'"

"O that Coleridge, while showing how the notion of a fictitious substituted righteousness, of a transferable stock of good actions, obscured the truth of man's restoration in the Man who perfectly acted out the idea of man, had expounded the truth (for such, I am sure, there must be) that underlies the corresponding heresy (as it appears to me) of a fictitious substituted penalty!...Nor, as far as I can recollect, have you anywhere written explicitly upon this point; even on the corresponding subject of vicarious righteousness, I know only of two pages...and they have not been able to make me feel assured that the language of imputation is strictly true, however sanctioned by St. Paul's example. The fact is, I do not see how God's justice can be satisfied without every man's suffering in his own person the full penalty for his sins." 74.

October 15, 1850 -- to B.F. Westcott -- On Evolution

" . . . I do not see why the inconceivableness of a beginning is any argument against any theory of development. The contrary theory is simply a harsh and contradictory attempt to conceive a beginning. That we are in doubt about the early history of organic life arises not from an impotence of conception, but from the mere fact that we were not there to see what, if it were taking place now, we certainly could see. The beginning of an individual is precisely as inconceivable as the beginning of a species...It certainly startles me to find you saying that you have seen no facts which support such as view as Darwin's...But it seems to me the most probable manner of development, and the reflexions suggested by his book drove me to the conclusion that some kind of development must be supposed." 75.

April 19, 1853 -- to Rev. John Ellerton -- On Bible Revision

"One result of our talk I may as well tell you. He (Westcott) and I are going to edit a Greek text of the New Testament some two or three years hence, if possible. Lachmann and Tischendorf will supply rich materials, but not nearly enough; and we hope to do a good deal with Oriental versions. Our object is to supply clergymen generally, schools, etc., with a portable Greek text which shall not be disfigured with Byzantine corruptions." 76.

October 21, 1858 -- to Rev. Dr. Rowland Williams -- On the Authority of Scripture

"Further I agree with them [authors of Essays and Reviews] in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology. . . The positive doctrines even of the Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority and especially the authority of the Bible . . . If this primary objection were removed, and I could feel our differences to be only of degree, I should still hesitate to take part in the proposed scheme. It is surely likely to bring on a crisis; and that I cannot think desirable on any account. 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 upon by influences which will assuredly bear good fruit in due time if is allowed to go on quietly; but I fear that a premature crisis would frighten back many into the merest traditionalism." 77.

April 3, 1860 -- to Rev. John Ellerton -- On Evolution

"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. I must work out and examine the argument more in detail, but at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable. If so, it opens up a new period in -- I know not what not." 78.

May 2, 1860 -- to B.F. Westcott -- On the Inerrancy of Scripture

"But I am not able to go as far as you in asserting the infallibility of a canonical writing. I may see a certain fitness and probability in such a view, but I cannot set up an a priori assumption against the (supposed) results of criticism." 79.

August 14, 1860 -- to B.F. Westcott -- On the Divinity of Man

"It is of course true that we can only know God through human forms, but then I think the whole Bible echoes the language of Genesis 1:27 and so assures us that human forms are divine forms." 80.

August 16, 1860 -- to B.F. Westcott -- On Substitutionary Atonement

"Perhaps we may be too hasty in assuming an absolute necessity of absolutely proportional suffering. I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan though neither am I prepared to give full assent to it. But I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the notion of a ransom paid to the Father."  81.

October 15, 1860 -- to B.F. Westcott -- On Substitutionary Atonement

"I entirely agree--correcting one word--with what you there say on the Atonement, having for many years believed that 'the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself' is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit. But I doubt whether that answers the question as to the nature of the satisfaction. Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy." 82.

April 12, 1861 -- to B.F. Westcott -- On Heresy

"Also -- but this may be cowardice -- I have sort of a craving our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean a text issued by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy, will have great difficulties in finding its way to regions which it might otherwise reach, and whence it would not be easily banished by subsequent alarms." 83.

December 4, 1861-- to B.F. Westcott -- On Greek Philosophy

"My chief impression is a strong feeling of incapacity to criticize, partly from want of knowledge, and still more from not having fully thought out cardinal questions, such as the relation of ‘philosophy’ and ‘faith’; e.g., you seem to me to make (Greek) philosophy worthless for those who have received the Christian revelation. To me, though in a hazy way, it seems full of precious truth of which I find nothing, and should be very much astonished and perplexed to find anything, in revelation…Without condemning anything you have said on the Stoics, I yet feel you have not done them justice. The spiritual need which supported, if it did not originate, their doctrine is, I think, profoundly interesting, above all in the present day." 84.

September 23, 1864 -- to B.F. Westcott -- On Protestantism

"… and I remember shocking you and Lightfoot not so very long ago by expressing a belief that Protestantism is only parenthetical and temporary. In short, the Irvingite [Catholic Apostolic] creed (minus the belief in the superior claims of the Irvingite communion) seems to me unassailable in things ecclesiastical." 85.

NOTE:  Edward Irving, who started the Irvingite movement in the 1800s, which was a precursor of Pentecostalism in the 1800s, appointed twelve apostles. Today the Latter Rain Movement claims to have 35 Apostles.  B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort belonged to the mysterious "Company of Apostles" which was concerned with establishing "an equitable and frictionless society."  In her New Age book, When Humanity Comes of Age, Vera Alder predicted that a Council of Twelve which would reign with the false Christ in the New World Order: "[T]he World Government and its Spiritual Cabinet of 12, headed by 'the Christ' will study all archaeological archives… From it, the Research Panel would develop the 'New' Bible of a World Religion which would be the basis of future education."  86.

April 28, 1865 -- to B.F. Westcott -- On Democracy

"I dare not prophesy about America, but cannot see that I see much as yet to soften my deep hatred of democracy in all its forms." 87.

October 11 and 12, 1865 -- to B.F. Westcott -- On The Cross

"I am very far from pretending to understand completely the ever renewed vitality of Mariolotry. But is not much accounted for, on the evil side, by the natural reverence of the religious instinct to idolatry and creature worship and aversion to the Most High; and on the good side, by a right reaction from the inhuman and semi-diabolical character with which God in invested in all modern orthodoxies -- Zeus and Prometheus over again? In Protestant countries the fearful notion 'Christ the believer's God' is the result." 88.

October 17, 1865 – to B.F. Westcott -- On Roman Catholicism

"I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and ‘Jesus’-worship have very much in common in their causes and results…we condemn all secondary human mediators as injurious to the One, and shut our eyes to the indestructible fact of existing human mediation which is to be found everywhere. But this last error can hardly be expelled till Protestants unlearn the crazy horror of the idea of priesthood." 89.

May 14, 1870 -- to Rev. J.Ll. Davies -- On The Trinity

"No rational being doubts the need of a revised Bible; and the popular practical objections are worthless. Yet I have an increasing feeling in favor of delay. Of course, no revision can be final, and it would be absurd to wait for perfection. But the criticism of both Testaments in text and interpretation alike, appears to me to be just now in that chaotic state (in Germany hardly if at all less than in England), that the results of immediate revision would be peculiarly unsatisfactory… I John 5:7 might be got rid of in a month; and if that were done, I should prefer to wait a few years." 90.

July 7, 1870 -- to a Friend -- On Bible Revision

"It is quite impossible to judge the value of what appear to be trifling alterations merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have often important bearings which few would think of at first . . . The difference between a picture say of Raffaelle and a feeble copy of it is made up of a number of trivial differences . . . We have successfully resisted being warned off dangerous ground, where the needs of revision required that it should not be shirked . . . It is, one can hardly doubt, the beginning of a new period in Church history. So far the angry objectors have reason for their astonishment." 91.

November 12, 1871 -- to the Bishop of Ely -- On Substitutionary Atonement


"But it does not seem to me any disparagement to the sufferings and death of the Cross to believe that they were the acting out and the manifestation of an eternal sacrifice, even as we believe that the sonship proceeding from the miraculous birth of the Virgin Mary was the acting out and manifestation of the eternal sonship. -- So also the uniqueness of the great Sacrifice seems to me not to consist in its being a substitute which makes all other sacrifices useless and unmeaning, but in its giving them the power and meaning which of themselves they could not have... He (Mr. Maurice) may have dwelt too exclusively on that idea of sacrifice which is suggested by Hebrews x. 5 - 10, and he may have failed to make clear that Sacrifice is not the only way of conceiving Atonement..." 92.


The Life and Letters of  Brooke Foss Westcott


January, 1852 -- On Spiritualism

"His devotion with ardour is indicated in a 'Ghostly Circular' authorized by him. 'The interest and importance of a serious and earnest inquiry into the nature of the phenomena which are vaguely called 'supernatural' will scarcely be questioned.' . . . My father ceased to interest himself in these matters not altogether, I believe, from want of faith in what, for lack of a better name one must call Spiritualism, but because he was seriously convinced that such investigations led to no good. But there are many others who believe it possible that the beings of the unseen world may manifest themselves to us in extraordinary ways, and also are unable otherwise to explain in many facts the evidence for which cannot be impeached." 93.

Second Sunday after Epiphany, 1847 -- To His Fiancée -- On Mariolotry

"After leaving the monastery, we shaped our course to a little oratory which we discovered on the summit of a neighboring hill…Fortunately we found the door open. It is very small, with one kneeling place; and behind a screen was a ‘Pieta’ the size of life [i.e., a Virgin and dead Christ]…Had I been alone I could have knelt there for hours.’" 94.

See: Mystery Babylon the Great: The Medici

November 17, 1865 -- To Rev. Benson -- On the Black Virgin

"B.F. Westcott promoted visions of ‘the Virgin’ in LaSalette, France… ‘As far as I could judge, the idea of LaSalette was that of God revealing himself now, and not in one form but in many.’" 95.   

See: The Merovingian Dynasty: Cult of the Black Virgin

May 5, 1860 -- To F.J.A. Hort -- On Infallibility of Scripture

"For I too 'must disclaim settling for infallibility.' In the front of my convictions all I hold is the more I learn, the more I am convinced that fresh doubts come from my own ignorance, and that at present I find the presumption in favor of the absolute truth -- I reject the word infallibility -- of Holy Scripture overwhelming." 96.

June 14, 1886 -- To the Archbishop of Canterbury -- On Heaven

"No doubt the language of the rubric is unguarded, but it saves us from the error of connecting the presence of Christ's glorified humanity with place: heaven is a state and not a place." 97.

March 4, 1890 -- To the Archbishop of Canterbury -- On Creation

"No one now, I suppose holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history -- I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did -- yet they disclose to us a gospel." 98.

November, 1895 -- Address at Manchester to the Christian Social Union -- On Socialism

"The Christian Law, then is the embodiment of the truth for action, in forms answering to the conditions of society from age to age. The embodiment takes place slowly and can never be complete. It is impossible for us to rest indolently in conclusions of the past. In each generation the obligation is laid on Christians to bring new problems of conduct into the divine light and to find their solution under the teaching of the Spirit." 99.

The 19th Century Occult Revival: The Legacy of Westcott & Hort

The Unauthorized History of English Bible Revision   

"Shock & Awe" in the KJV-Only Camp


Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 13, 2010, 10:11:11 am
So it's my understanding that the path of the NIV(that started other "new" bible versions) came from the Vatican, pretty much?

Pt being that no wonder why alot of today's churches and pastors think highly of whoever's the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church - because they're not reading the KJV, and the ones they're reading are from these corrupt manuscripts from this very path...so I guess it's no surprise why most don't see the corruptness of the Pope/RCC.

I mean I've crossed paths with some decent pastors who do their best jobs who've said nice things about John Paul II and saying how you can get salvation at some Catholic school.

Post by: Kilika on February 15, 2011, 12:07:38 pm
This needs sticky too!

Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 22, 2011, 06:33:27 pm

Post by: rosswell on March 03, 2011, 02:55:17 pm
As some are aware, I don't hold the KJV only position. I have respect for the KJV and I usually quote from it. I believe W&H opened the dialogue to considering non-TR sources in translation work. To call modern translations W&H only isn't accurate given that none agree 100% with W&H. Also, the KJV doesn't agree 100% with the TR. The KJV is the product of the Protestant Anglican church. If you believe that there has been no spiritual progress made since the Reformation then the KJV should be your bible but if you believe God has revealed further truth beyond those precious truths recovered in the Reformation then why not consider that the same is true of His written word itself?

Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 08, 2011, 08:19:04 pm
NIV OMITS fasting!



Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 03, 2011, 03:27:39 pm
I am curious - what is everyone's testimony concerning getting witnessed to the truth of the 1611 KJV?

Here's mine - it was roughly 2 years ago on the Prison Planet MB when there was a long discussion(can't remember the thread title) over something that really didn't have anything to do with bible versions, and it was in the middle of the night when XTruthseekerX(most of you here are familiar with him) posted the Isaiah 14:12 passage of the KJV, and how the NIV perverted it by calling Satan the morning star. Then he went on to say how Jesus Christ IS this Morning Star in Rev 22 that the NIV deceptively tried to confuse their readers over. So ultimately, the Lord convicted my heart that night and woke me up to all of these other non-KJV perverted versions.

It was the next night while I was watching a basketball game when I thought I picked up a KJV, and started reading the book of Revelation. However, the reading of it was such a joke, that I had to make double sure that it was the KJV. Guess what, it was actually the NEW KJV that I picked up, which was when the Lord further convicted my heart to discern all the other perverted versions.

Post by: Mark on April 03, 2011, 03:35:14 pm
Cold Fusion.  :D

Post by: Kilika on April 04, 2011, 03:26:20 am
I'm afraid I missed it. What about CF?

Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 10, 2011, 01:06:59 pm
I have an important question for everyone here-

I know we have to take up our cross and serve the Lord, and the Lord only, however...we're throwing a baby shower for a Thai couple, and my mom wanted me to sign my name on an NIV bible we bought her. She didn't want to use the KJV(which is only in the Thai language) that I bought from that American Thai ministry is Houston - so she and my dad kept hounding on me to sign it(saying I was sinning, and that couple needs to be remembered me, etc).

I stood firm for a bit, but it came to a point where push came to shove, and I just gave in just to avoid the conflict that was escalating a bit.

Has anyone ever been in this situation where the other party just kept persistent at you like this, and you felt like you had no choice but to cave in when you felt you were caught b/w a rock and a hard place, and wanted to avoid the conflict on this occassion?

Also - I'm surprised by all the deceptions people are falling for - my dad said that the NIV is good b/c it was made in an easier to read English language. I mean how can people just FALL for this stuff. It was no different from Easter last year when my dad said that this is a legit holiday b/c Constantine was able to use astrology to come up with this date. Again, I couldn't believe what I heard.

Post by: Mark on April 10, 2011, 01:29:21 pm
should have signed it, Burn this and get a real Bible, the KJV.  :D i would have. Ask your dad why, if its in easier english, most words they use are harder to understand and what happened to those missing 40,000 words?

Title: Antioch vs. Alexandria by Dr. Sam Gipp
Post by: Christian40 on April 17, 2011, 10:37:31 pm

Westcott and Hort chose to use texts from Alexandria Egypt (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus which disagree with each other in 17,000 places) and invented their own Greek text that is the foundation for all the modern translations. Every thing you wanted to know about the modern translation issue - http://www.youtube.com/my_videos?pi=0&ps=20&sf=added&sa=0&sq=kjvbible1611&dm=1. The Answer Book by Dr. Sam Gipp http://www.samgipp.com/answer/gipp_answer_index.html We Are Americans 1st Chapter Excerpt By Dr. Samuel C. Gipp http://biblebelievers.com/gipp_we_americans.html

Post by: rosswell on May 13, 2011, 11:21:41 am
It was no different from Easter last year when my dad said that this is a legit holiday b/c Constantine was able to use astrology to come up with this date.

He should love the KJV since it's the only translation that includes Easter, LOL. On a more serious note, we are taught to go against our family members in obedience to God.

Post by: Kilika on May 13, 2011, 01:34:09 pm
47   Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. 
48   But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 
49   And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 
50   For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. 
Matthew 12:47-50 (KJB)

"But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house." Mark 6:4 (KJB)

Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 12, 2011, 02:12:44 pm
Since 1881, when Wescott and Hort came out with the Revised Version, which spawned who knows how many corrupt perversions, look what has happened...(in no particular order)-

2 World Wars
501c3 option on churches
Vietnam war lasting for many years
Federal Reserve system(which ended up pilling up a huge amount of debt)
The gold standard was abolished
USSC kicked prayer and bible reading out of schools
random school shootings for years now
Earthquakes have increased in magnitude AND frequency
US Constitution being demolished at a much faster rate
at least 1 Presidential assassination(JFK, were there any others?)
forced vaccinations causing illnesses
Mind control technology in our 24/7 cable tv sets that almost 2/3 of the US population has now
homosexuality is way out in the open now, and a growing number of churches are embracing it
legalizing abortion
Vatican relations for the first time in 117 years since 1984
Amnesty in the USA(with the NAU imminent)

We can go on and on - while many can rationalize and say "But these things happen in every era...". Can one honestly say it's gotten THIS bad in previous eras since Christ resurrected?

Pt being that this is no coincidence at all since 1881, when God's words got perverted in a very, very, very bad way.

Post by: Psalm 51:17 on July 08, 2011, 12:17:17 am
I think KJV BELIEVERS would be a much better term than KJV-only, why? B/c while the KJV manuscripts are infallible, the MEN who were on the translation committees were just that, MEN, NOT prophets.

Pt being that we have to be careful at the same time and not venture into thinking King James and the rest of the translation teams were infallible men themselves, and end up worshipping them alot like how the Catholic Church worships the Pope.(and for that matter too, get hung up in pride)

But thank the Lord that he used these men to publish his infallible word!

Post by: Christian40 on July 10, 2011, 02:56:58 am
Since 1881, when Wescott and Hort came out with the Revised Version, which spawned who knows how many corrupt perversions, look what has happened...(in no particular order)-

2 World Wars
501c3 option on churches
Vietnam war lasting for many years
Federal Reserve system(which ended up pilling up a huge amount of debt)
The gold standard was abolished
USSC kicked prayer and bible reading out of schools
random school shootings for years now
Earthquakes have increased in magnitude AND frequency
US Constitution being demolished at a much faster rate
at least 1 Presidential assassination(JFK, were there any others?)
forced vaccinations causing illnesses
Mind control technology in our 24/7 cable tv sets that almost 2/3 of the US population has now
homosexuality is way out in the open now, and a growing number of churches are embracing it
legalizing abortion
Vatican relations for the first time in 117 years since 1984
Amnesty in the USA(with the NAU imminent)

We can go on and on - while many can rationalize and say "But these things happen in every era...". Can one honestly say it's gotten THIS bad in previous eras since Christ resurrected?

Pt being that this is no coincidence at all since 1881, when God's words got perverted in a very, very, very bad way.

And evolutionists will say that man is evolving. The last century just shows that man can act like animals.

It got very bad before the worldwide flood and in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. They were supposed to be warnings for mankind in future years but history will repeat itself again, if people dont read the Bible and accept the Lord Jesus as Saviour then they have no hope.

Post by: Mark on July 13, 2011, 08:03:48 am
And evolutionists will say that man is evolving. The last century just shows that man can act like animals.

It got very bad before the worldwide flood and in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. They were supposed to be warnings for mankind in future years but history will repeat itself again, if people dont read the Bible and accept the Lord Jesus as Saviour then they have no hope.

Westcott and Hort were pals with Darwin and believed in his work.

Post by: Mark on January 04, 2012, 08:00:39 pm
Some day they will realize that the KJB is correct, 400 years and still going...

Latest NIV Bible Translation Clearer on Homosexual Sins, Says Theologian

The latest version of the popular NIV Bible translation has had its verses on homosexuality reworded, making them clearer in denouncing the practice, a theologian who helped with the translation says.

These clarifications include the verse in 1 Corinthians 6:9, where the 1984 NIV version uses the phrase “homosexual offenders,” while the 2011 translation changes the phrase to "men who have sex with men."

The Committee on Bible Translation, chaired by Dr. Douglas J. Moo, who also serves as Wessner Chair of Biblical Studies at Wheaton College, released the 2011 New International Version last year.

“Debates among Christians about the teaching of the Bible on homosexuality over the last twenty years sparked considerable scholarly interest in relevant words and texts,” said Moo in an interview with The Christian Post.

“This research showed that two Greek words in this verse referred, respectively, to the passive and active participants in male homosexual activity.”

Moo also explained the problem with the previous translation for a verse like the one in 1 Corinthians 6:9.

Like us on Facebook

“The 1984 NIV rendering … did not make clear whether homosexual activity per se was being condemned or whether only certain kinds of ‘offensive’ homosexual activity was being condemned.,” said Moo.

“The updated NIV makes clear that the Greek words here indicate any kind of homosexual activity. The updated NIV also reflects the fact that the key Greek word here refers to males.”

According to Moo, other verses that were altered due to scholarship and to make the message clearer included Romans 1:26-27 and Leviticus 18:22.

In Romans 1:26, the verse “even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones,” was changed to, “even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.” While in Leviticus 18:22, the verse “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman,” was changed to, “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman.”

One verse that appears to have been changed dramatically was 1Timothy 1:10, where the word “perverts” from the 1984 NIV was changed to “those practicing homosexuality.”

“The same key Greek word used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 occurs here also, and so the reason for the change here was the same as the reason for the change in 1 Corinthians 6:9,” said Moo.

The NIV 2011 version debuted amid controversy, with some Christian groups and individuals criticizing the translation for allegedly having too much “gender inclusive” language, similar to the TNIV translation of the Bible.

Last year, members of the Southern Baptist Convention and the Committee on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood criticized the edition, saying the 2011 NIV “cannot be considered sufficiently trustworthy in its translation of gender language."

According to the Committee on Bible Translation’s website, however, every example of gender inclusive language found in the TNIV was “reconsidered,” especially when compared to the 1984 NIV.

“Some changes were preserved, some were rescinded in favor of the 1984 rendering, and many were re-worded in a third, still different way,” reads an entry from the CBT website’s Frequently Asked Questions page.

“All gender decisions for the updated NIV were subjected to rigorous scrutiny in the light of this data to ensure that the words chosen maximize comprehension of the original meaning,” the committee maintains.


Post by: Kilika on January 05, 2012, 01:42:16 am
Just what we need, another bible commentary!  ::)

Post by: Mark on January 10, 2012, 08:03:50 pm
Texas Megachurch Quits Using NIV Over 'Accuracy Concerns'

The leader of a large Baptist church in Texas has announced that his congregation will no longer be using the NIV due to “accuracy concerns.”

Pastor Gregg Matte of Houston’s First Baptist Church recently made the announcement, deciding that the church would use the Holman Christian Standard Bible instead.

“Upon review of the changes made to the NIV, Pastor Gregg believes that it is no longer as accurate in terms of reflecting the meaning of the original biblical texts,” reads the church’s website.

“Members and guests are welcome to use any translation of their choice – during the worship services, in Life Bible Studies, or for personal study of God's Word.”

As the debate over the effectiveness of the translation continues, some Texas pastors have drawn similar conclusions about the latest NIV translation as Matte.

Andrew Werley, lead pastor for Jersey Village Baptist Church, also located in Houston, told CP that he has also felt that the NIV 2011 has “drifted.”

“I believe the TNIV or the NIV 2011 revision has drifted from what I would consider a true literal translation,” said Werley.

“As a communicator of God’s Word I want the bible I use to be as accurate as possible to the literal intent of the authors.”

Werley, whose church prefers the English Standard Version 2001, felt that pastors must “be sensitive to the Bible translation we use and promote.”

“I believe FBC Houston has incredible pastoral leadership and I know their decision was made in the best interest of their city, congregation and convictions,” said Werley.

“As a partner with them in trying to reach our city for Christ, I am happy to stand with them in their conviction to do what they believe is best for their church and their mission.”

The latest translation of the New International Version was released last year by the Committee for Bible Translation. It sparked controversy over allegations of being too gender neutral, with the Southern Baptist Convention in particular voicing opposition.

CBT claimed that it left 95 percent of the NIV (1984) alone in its changes and also revised many of the initial gender neutral phrases in certain verses.

The NIV 2011 also changed the wording of verses pertaining to homosexuality, with the CBT saying that it was done to clarify certain passages regarding the matter.


Post by: Psalm 51:17 on January 10, 2012, 08:10:14 pm
So they're discarding one perverted version for another perverted version? So they think the version they're discarding is *only a bit worse* than the ones they want to use now?

Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 03, 2012, 09:42:23 am
Was thinking about this passage the other day...

2Co 10:12  For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.
2Co 10:13  But we will not boast of things without our measure, but according to the measure of the rule which God hath distributed to us, a measure to reach even unto you.
2Co 10:14  For we stretch not ourselves beyond our measure, as though we reached not unto you: for we are come as far as to you also in preaching the gospel of Christ:
2Co 10:15  Not boasting of things without our measure, that is, of other men's labours; but having hope, when your faith is increased, that we shall be enlarged by you according to our rule abundantly,
2Co 10:16  To preach the gospel in the regions beyond you, and not to boast in another man's line of things made ready to our hand.
2Co 10:17  But he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord

I have a question - through my experiences being with people, churches, ministries, etc that use the NIV and the other perversions, pretty much there's this mentality that you have to sit down every day(or whenever you get the chance) to read your bible for hours.

Seriously, if anyone just spends a mere 15-30 minutes reading 1-2 chapters(in whatever book of the bible), and then meditate, chew on it, digest it, etc...wouldn't this be much more fruitful than just to sit down for hours in the morning(or afternoon) to read many chapters in it, like you're reading a John Grisham book?

I mean this is GOD'S BOOK we're talking about. This is NOT like you're in college studying for a History exam, and you're required to read many, many pages of your textbook in a couple of days. Jesus Christ says his burden is light, which is why it's rather disturbing that the NIV/NKJV crowd has this mentality.

Also, you can see the fruit of these other bibles - Timothy talks about how they would turn their ears from the truth and heap up to themselves teachers, having itching ears. The fact that they can read the NIV/NKJV for hours on end while having this "cloud 9" mentality should raise a red flag, especially given light what Paul said in the passage posted above.

Post by: Mark on June 03, 2012, 05:40:40 pm
I read what ever the Lord leads me to read.

Post by: Charrington on June 06, 2012, 12:36:18 am
Texas Megachurch Quits Using NIV Over 'Accuracy Concerns'

The leader of a large Baptist church in Texas has announced that his congregation will no longer be using the NIV due to “accuracy concerns.”

Pastor Gregg Matte of Houston’s First Baptist Church recently made the announcement, deciding that the church would use the Holman Christian Standard Bible instead.

“Upon review of the changes made to the NIV, Pastor Gregg believes that it is no longer as accurate in terms of reflecting the meaning of the original biblical texts,” reads the church’s website.

“Members and guests are welcome to use any translation of their choice – during the worship services, in Life Bible Studies, or for personal study of God's Word.”

As the debate over the effectiveness of the translation continues, some Texas pastors have drawn similar conclusions about the latest NIV translation as Matte.

Andrew Werley, lead pastor for Jersey Village Baptist Church, also located in Houston, told CP that he has also felt that the NIV 2011 has “drifted.”

“I believe the TNIV or the NIV 2011 revision has drifted from what I would consider a true literal translation,” said Werley.

“As a communicator of God’s Word I want the bible I use to be as accurate as possible to the literal intent of the authors.”

Werley, whose church prefers the English Standard Version 2001, felt that pastors must “be sensitive to the Bible translation we use and promote.”

“I believe FBC Houston has incredible pastoral leadership and I know their decision was made in the best interest of their city, congregation and convictions,” said Werley.

“As a partner with them in trying to reach our city for Christ, I am happy to stand with them in their conviction to do what they believe is best for their church and their mission.”

The latest translation of the New International Version was released last year by the Committee for Bible Translation. It sparked controversy over allegations of being too gender neutral, with the Southern Baptist Convention in particular voicing opposition.

CBT claimed that it left 95 percent of the NIV (1984) alone in its changes and also revised many of the initial gender neutral phrases in certain verses.

The NIV 2011 also changed the wording of verses pertaining to homosexuality, with the CBT saying that it was done to clarify certain passages regarding the matter.


Some of this is so very interesting because the NIV follows what they call "350 years of king James tradition" and they differ when others call them on it publicly refer back to the KJV - it's really kind of a circlejerk.