Westcott and Hort and their purpose.

I dont want to bog down the discussion on the KJV, so I am making this specific to Westcott and Hort and what IMHO was their purpose in coming out with their version.

The King James Bible was printed in 1611 and by 1640 the King James Bible was clearly the Bible of the English people and was beginning to be picked up in Europe. The Geneva and Matthew’s Bible, once greatly used, went out of print as there was simply no demand for them anymore with the King James Bible coming out.

The Church of England used the King James Bible exclusively and it was the Bible of the Puritans, Presbyterians, the Congregationalists, the Quakers, the Baptists and became 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. 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 but it found little acceptance, even among Methodists. Over one hundred fifty English translations were produced between 1611 and 1880, however, they found no audience. In America, it was 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 and American public schools were built around the King James Bible.

The only religious group of any size or importance in England that didn’t use the King James Bible was Roman Catholicism. In America, 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.

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 translated the Bible into 760 languages from the King James Bible.

Then there was a rise of Darwinism and Humanism by the 1870's, and a challenge arose in the English world to the primacy of the King James Bible. 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 crux of Westcott and Hort's theory was that the New Testament was preserved in almost perfect condition in two manuscripts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. (The Sinaiticus was discovered in a wastebasket in St. Catherine’s Momentary near Mt. Sinai in 1844 and the Vaticanus was first documented in the Vatican library in 1475 and was 'rediscovered' in 1845.)

Westcott and Hort, abhored the King James Bible and even after its widespread use now declare it an inferior translation. Westcott and Hort determined to replace the King James Bible and the Greek Textus Receptus. In short, their theory was 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.

Hort showed 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. So this supposedly created an unreliable text of Scripture which formed the Textus Receptus. This was called the Lucian Recension Theory.

Hort did not have a single historical reference to support taht the Lucian Recension took place. He simply theorized that it must have taken place so the Textus Receptus must be discarded. In spite of the fact that there is not a single historical reference to the Lucian Recension, but it became held as fact.

The great textual scholar of the time, 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...". More later..

Now here is some of the ideas that show the bent of these men:

Hort:

1. Was a follower of Darwin...in other words, he believed in Evolution.

2. Did not believe in blood atonement. What a surprise that the NIV removes “through his blood” in Col.1:14.

3. Doubted angels were for real.

4. Was pondering several degrees of salvation. That’s why the newer versions always say “are being saved” or “were saved”, but unlike the KJB which says we “ARE SAVED”.

5. Rejected an eternal hell. Maybe that’s why “hell” is taken out 40 of the 53 times in the NIV.

Wescott:

1. Did not believe in a literal heaven...much like the pope today.

2. Said there is no second coming of Christ. My friends, Titus 2:13 says, “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”

3. He believed the writings of mystics was profitable to read.

4. Thought the first three chapters of Genesis could not possibly have given a literal history.

5. Rejected the infallibility of scriptures.

6. Claimed it was improbable that the miracles of the Bible really occurred.

Wescott went on to say that he could not speak of the Old Testament with adequate knowledge. Hort even admits his ignorance of the Hebrew and Greek. He said, “I have all but discarded them.” Can you people HONESTLY tell me that these are the kind of men we are to trust in translating the Bible truthfully. Does not 2 Tim.2:2 instruct that the word should be committed unto “FAITHFUL MEN”?

Here is comment from Wescott, quote: “As far as I could judge, the idea of La Salette was that of God revealing Himself now, and not in one form but many.”

( La Salette is the place in France where two young children ssaid they saw and talked with an apparition of the Weeping Virgin)

From their letters:

Westcott: "After leaving the monastery we shaped our course to a little oratory...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)...I could not help thinking on the grandeur of the Romish Church, on her zeal even in error, on her earnestness and self-devotion, which we might, with nobler views and a purer end, strive to imitate. Had I been alone I could have knelt there for hours." (Life, Vol.I, p.81).



1848 July 6th - Hort: "One of the things, I think, which shows the falsity of the Evangelical notion of this subject (baptism), is that it is so trim and precise...no deep spiritual truths of the Reason are thus logically harmonious and systematic...the pure Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the Evangelical...the fanaticism of the bibliolaters, among whom reading so many 'chapters' seems exactly to correspond to the Romish superstition of telling so many dozen beads on a rosary...still we dare not forsake the Sacraments, or God will forsake us...I am inclined to think that no such state as 'Eden' (I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants" (Life, Vol.I, pp.76-78).

Aug. 11th - Westcott: "I never read an account of a miracle (in Scripture?) but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it." (Life, Vol.I, p.52).



Hort writes to Rev. Rowland Williams, October 21, 1858, "Further I agree with them [Authors of "Essays and Reviews"] in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology ... Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible."

We must also confront Hort's disbelief that the Bible was infallible: "If you make a decided conviction of the absolute infallibility of the N.T. practically a sine qua non for co-operation, I fear I could not join you." He also stated:

"As I was writing the last words a note came from Westcott. He too mentions having had fears, which he now pronounces 'groundless,' on the strength of our last conversation, in which he discovered that I did 'recognize' 'Providente' in biblical writings. Most strongly I recognize it; but I am not prepared to say that it necessarily involves absolute infallibility. So I still await judgment."

And further commented to a colleague:

"But I am not able to go as far as you in asserting the absolute infallibility of a canonical writing."

Some strange comments for supposedly Christian scholars....

Indeed. Regarding Hort's fascination with Darwin, the following quote sheds some light.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Now what is interesting is the unique Catholic beliefs or doctrines which they subscribed to...

Hort was a very real believer in the Roman Catholic doctrine of "purgatory." To Rev. John Ellerton he wrote in 1854:

"I agree with you in thinking it a pity that Maurice verbally repudiates purgatory, but I fully and unwaveringly agree with him in the three cardinal points of the controversy: (1) that eternity is independent of duration; (2) that the power of repentance is not limited to this life; (3) that it is not revealed whether or not all will ultimately repent. The modern denial of the second has, I suppose, had more to do with the despiritualizing of theology then almost anything that could be named."

and in another letter to others.....

The idea of purgation, of cleansing as by fire, seems to me inseparable from what the Bible teaches us of the Divine chastisements; and, though little is directly said respecting the future state, it seems to me incredible that the Divine chastisements should in this respect change their character when this visible life is ended.

"I do not hold it contradictory to the Article to think that the condemned doctrine has not been wholly injurious, inasmuch as it has kept alive some sort of belief in a great and important truth."

Hort seem to think we all need to do the Catholic style severe self-afflicted penances or suffering in his rejection of Christ's atoning death for the sins of all mankind.

"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."


Hort also believed that the Roman Catholic teaching of "baptismal regeneration" was more correct than the "evangelical" teaching.

"...at the same time in language stating that we maintain 'Baptismal Regeneration' as the most important of doctrines ... the pure 'Romish' view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the Evangelical." (Life, Vol.I, pp.76-78).


He also states that, "Baptism assures us that we are children of God, members of Christ and His body, and heirs of the heavenly kingdom."

Here we find Hort assuring his eldest son, Arthur, that his infant baptism was his salvation:

"You were not only born into the world of men. You were also born of Christian parents in a Christian land. While yet an infant you were claimed for God by being made in Baptism an unconscious member of His Church, the great Divine Society which has lived on unceasingly from the Apostles' time till now. You have been surrounded by Christian influences; taught to lift up your eyes to the Father in heaven as your own Father; to feel yourself in a wonderful sense a member or part of Christ, united to Him by strange invisible bonds; to know that you have as your birthright a share in the kingdom of heaven."

Hort said he saw no difference between Jesus worship or Mary worship, and said, “They have much in common in there causes and results.”

Hort seemed almost intent on taking down the beliefs held from the Textus Receptus and Antiochian text in the Authorized Version: "Further I agree with them in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology as, to say the least, containing much superstition and immorality of a very pernmicious kind...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" (Life, Vol.I, p.400).

Here comes what I think was behind what drove Hort (with 'substantial Church' I take as meaning the Catholic chuch): "I believe Coleridge was quite right in saying that Christianity without a substantial Church is vanity and dissolution; and I remember shocking you and Lightfoot not so very long ago by expressing a belief that 'Protestantism' is only parenthetical and temporary. (Life, Vol.II, p.30,31).

As for Westcott, here are some of quotes and review of his beliefs which give you an idea of his bent: "After leaving the monastery we shaped our course to a little oratory...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)...I could not help thinking on the grandeur of the Romish Church, on her zeal even in error, on her earnestness and self-devotion, which we might, with nobler views and a purer end, strive to imitate.

Westcott did not believe that Genesis 1-3 should be taken literally. He also thought that "Moses" and "David" were poetic characters whom Jesus Christ referred to by name only because the common people accepted them as authentic. Westcott states:

"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history - I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did - yet they disclose to us a Gospel. So it is probably elsewhere. Are we not going through a trial in regard to the use of popular language on literary subjects like that through which we went, not without sad losses in regard to the use of popular language on physical subjects? If you feel now that it was, to speak humanly, necessary that the Lord should speak of the 'sun rising,' it was no less necessary that he would use the names 'Moses' and 'David' as His contemporaries used them. There was no critical question at issue. (Poetry is, I think, a thousand times more true than History; this is a private parenthesis for myself alone.)"

Westcott believed that the second coming of Jesus Christ was not a physical coming but a spiritual coming and in 'other comings' which I can only think of as manifistations such as the virgin Mary appearing or as such events: "As far as I can remember, I said very shortly what I hold to be the 'Lord's coming' in my little book on the Historic Faith. I hold very strongly that the Fall of Jerusalem was the coming which first fulfilled the Lord's words; and, as there have been other comings, I cannot doubt that He is 'coming' to us now."

So if you look at the Wescott La Salette quote again. “...the idea of La Salette was that of God revealing Himself not in one form but many.” Now you see what he believed.



Westcott, denied the existance of Heaven and believed Heaven to be a state and not a literal place: "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.'"

Westcott accepted and promoted prayers for the dead as both believed it possible to communicate with the dead. Wescott and Hort even went into the occult and started a society to investigate ghosts and the supernatural.

They slowly fed others the changes they were making and so were ready when the Revision Committee of 1871-1881 met and steered it away from the Textus Receptus and Antiochian text and into the Alexandria codices and its changes.

They had compiled their own Greek text from Alexandrian manuscripts, which, though unpublished and inferior to the Textus Receptus, they secreted little by little to the Revision Committee. The result being a totally new 'Alexandrian' English Bible instead of a "revision" of the Authorized Version or KJV, as it was claimed to be.

In Samuel Gipps book, An Understandable History of the Bible, we read:“In 1870 the…church of England commissioned a revision of the Authorized Version. A gleam of hope shone in the eye of every Roman Catholic. An eager anticipation filled every Jesuit inspired Protestant scholar…although it was meant to correct a few supposed “error” in the Authorized Version, the textual critics of the day assured themselves that they would never again have to submit to the divine authority of the Universal Text.”

When they finished, the pure text was changed in 36,191 places. The result of all these changes is confusion in the diety of Christ for new readers or mistrust by others of the scriptures, so in my opinion their purpose was accomplised in one form or the other.

Now I feel from their quotes and ideas that they were being influenced towards Catholic doctrine and traditions and since during this period there was a stiring of Jesuit or Catholic ideas in England and that Westcott and Hort became entagled with them. I cant find evidence for Hort but Westcott was deeply involced with John Newman. Lets take a look at who he is...


John Henry Newman, D.D., C.O. (21 February 1801 – 11 August 1890[2][3]), also referred to as Cardinal Newman and Blessed John Henry Newman, was an important figure in the religious history of England in the 19th century. He was known nationally by the mid-1830s.[4]

Originally an evangelical Oxford academic and priest in the Church of England, Newman was a leader in the Oxford Movement. This influential grouping of Anglicans wished to return the Church of England to many Catholic beliefs and forms of worship traditional in the medieval times to restore ritual expression. In 1845 Newman left the Church of England and was received into the Roman Catholic Church where he was eventually granted the rank of cardinal by Pope Leo XIII.....

Interesting to say the least, a Jesuit hiding in plain sight, seems posible.

It seems that many things were unleashed after 1844 as evil sought to push back with diverse philosophies and theories rejecting God, and I wont even go into the religious movements stirring and appearing with strange doctrines...

Now this is interesting but it makes sense if they were into the occult....Westcott and Hort were big fans of Madame Blavatsky - a necromancer, and the "queen" of Theosophy. Let's just put that in English: she was a new ager..."The New Age movement is based on mysticism (contact with demons) and Westcott and Hort were close friends with a woman, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, who was at the forefront of that occult revival in that she produced some of the texts books for such while in a trance state under the influence of Satan. Hort was himself a practicing psychic who while acting as a medium produced a number of letters. He even circulated those articles among his inner circle of mystics which society later produced a major center for modern studies and research into psychic phenomena and paranormal experiences. Both Westcott and Hort were involved in séances hosted by Helena Blavatsky, a famous Satanist, and founder of Theosophy; that mystic philosophy being a resurgence of ancient Egyptian Gnosticism.

The production of the Westcott and Hort text was a New Age project designed to compromise Christians in the direction of the New Age movement in that the spirit behind the Gnostic corruptions is not of God and is indeed slowly moving people away from New Testament faith based on God's word and into New Age mysticism. With believers tied into falsified bibles their faith can also be undermined and transformed into a mystical, counterfeit Christianity; that is but one facet of the New Age movement."- http://lol.witnesstoday.org/New-Wine-Babylon.htm

I suppose you may find some good everywhere. I searched the source you give and found some interesting statements.

This authority seems to be very much against the headship doctrine entertained by some on this forum.



<http://www.thywordistruthkjv.com/ONE%20HEAD-Biblical%20Authority%20in%20the%20church%202.htm>

If you really believe the KJV is the word of God, you will also reject any other headship in the church but Jesus Christ, seems to be his message.

Johann,

The world can say whatever it likes. Many people claim to "divide the word" to us properly. We have a more sure word of prophecy.



That doesn't sound like Christ is the head of the church without assistance. But He certainly is the Head of the church.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

None of this makes your male headship doctrine prime

Quite frankly, Johann, the question for this thread is not about headship at all. It's about the preservation of God's Word, and whether or not our doctrines have been corrupted. Obviously, headship may be one of those doctrines, but let us address first the lineage of the manuscripts of scripture and the facts surrounding who has tampered with them before we even think to know which of our present Bibles can have the purest truth.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

But the references given deal with headship and several other subjects. What are they tampering with since you are not satisfied?

Study it out and you'll soon see--if you're open to seeing it.

There are those who already reject some of the Bible's gems who would quite readily agree with Westcott and Hort for having toned down some of the Bible's "rhetoric." But are we supposed to preach to "itching ears?" Or are we supposed to speak the full truth and nothing but the truth? What should be in our Bible--the full truth, or just a part of it?

The last chapter of the Book tells us what will happen to Westcott and Hort and all who, like them, dare to alter the Word of God. I do not envy their fate.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

It appears you are straining at gnats....

Where are you going? Where is your thinking? I was "quoting" one of your great sources against W&H to give an idea of their general thinking. Now you switch your attack. What are you fighting for?

What's wrong with testing your own source? Are you in agreement with everything else he proclaims?

That's a bit extreme, I posted what I came across that someone else had with his source, and then you try to make it mine. Your reaching, for what appears for all intents and purposes to be a misdirection or feint.

It appears this thread has taken a sharp turn off the subject.

It started out interesting enough.

Westcott and Hort were both intelligent men who made a tremendous impact on Christianity by their scholarly work in putting together a new revised Greek New Testament which has become the bases of most modern translations.

But is intelligence, learning, and access to scholarly matter enough to form such an important document?

http://bibleready.org/Westcott_and_Hort.html

"It is quite appropriate to examine the character, beliefs and practices of Westcott and Hort as opposed to strictly looking at their linguistic abilities. This is not an ad hominem attack on them. All the logic and ability in the world cannot overcome a faulty premise, since premise alone can render the most sound arguments and logical construction of textual theories false. And of course, premises are related to, or are revealed by a person's character and practices."

So what were Westcott's and Hort's premises?
Could these premises influence their work?

Do we trust secondary sources?

You can get plenty from what I would call "primary" sources. If you trust those. Sometimes people want to believe what they like, as opposed to what is true. Opinions are dangerous. We might actually come to believe they are true, deceiving ourselves.

Westcott and Hort did not merely put their opinions in their own minds. They put them out for all of Christendom.

Why should we not scrutinize their actions more closely before simply accepting the word of "secondary sources" or even "tertiary sources" that what they did was "scholarly" or "good?"

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I think their premise is the same that Satan has always used against Christ, to deny He is the Son of God. If you take a look at this comparison of a few verses on this and other key doctrines in the King James Version versus the RSV and NIV, you can see what the purpose was....

1 John 5:7
Removal of the Trinity
KJV---For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:and these three are one.
RSV---For there are three that testify the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost
NIV---( missing )


Romans 1:3
Systematic removal of the divinity of Jesus Christ
KJV---Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
RSV--- concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh,
NIV---regarding his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David,


Acts 22:16
Systematic removal of the divinity of Jesus Christ
KJV---wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord
RSV---and wash away thy sins, calling on his name.
NIV---wash your sins away, calling on his name.
The problem is that some of these new versions are not just a 'different translation', they basically have done editing to actually change doctrines or take out whatever they disagree with or doesnt fit with a doctrine they hold or someones traditions. Some have taken out whole chapters out or like the Mormons have done away and written their own... and eventually you get to a point which the proffessor brings up where 'You cannot prove the Trinity in the NIV...'

So its not just a 'different translation'....

In the new RSV/ NIV the following is missing so its message or meaning it gave has just been wiped out:

Matt 17:21
Matt 18:11
Matt 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 9:46
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37
Acts 15:34
Acts 28:29
Romans 16:24

Also, look at Rev 1:11, which I have always memorized as: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end." That phrase is also missing from the NRSV.

There are only 2 streams of Bible versions, the true text of the Textus Receptus (Majority Text) or those which picked up the Alexandrian manuscripts (Minority Text). Jerome was a true believer and when he wrote the Vulgate tried to use only the original Hebrew text (or Masoretic Text) or Greek text from the Textus Receptus (Majority Text) but the Roman church leaders forced the Apocrypha and some text from the Septuagint which was really from the Alexandrian codices which were in Greek, but its source was well hidden. Jerome spent the rest of his life exiled from Rome, defending his use of the true text and indirectly condeming the corrupted text or non Canon, the Apocrypha forced on him. So the Vulgate allowed some of the partial corruption of the Alexandrian codices and of course the non Canon of the Apocrypha, and you see how the Roman Catholic church used it to allow many false beliefs and doctrines including idol worship. So if it says Textus Receptus (Majority Text) it is true to the many manuscripts that Christians used over the centuries, if it has Vulgate, Septuagint, Wescott and Hort (or its many variants such as Nestle-Aland text, editions of Tischendorf, etc..), then it uses the Minority Text or allows partial text from it, which comes from the corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts.

Now I came across a poster who asked me about the claimed Trinity text insertion in the KJV in 1 John 5:7, which he said should read, "For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement" (1 John 5:7-8 NASB).

Also the NIV has, "For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement" (1 John 5:7-8 NIV).

Here is my answer I gave him...

I don't think it is a insertion, just because the early manuscripts wore out or more likely destroyed by persecution or invasion doesn't mean the later Alexandrian influenced African manuscripts or Latin ones have the correct text. Then we have the following...

Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Which lines right up...

1 John 5:7
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

The Bible has to be read precept upon precept; line upon line, here a little, and there a little then we get to the whole truth, and God is glorified.

Now lets look at what history shows, we find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is references to this verse:
200 AD Tertullian quoted the verse in his Apology, Against Praxeas
250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)
350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]
350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]
350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione
398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism
415 AD Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)
450-530 AD Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"
B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]
C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]
500 AD Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]
550 AD Old Latin ms r has it
550 AD The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]
750 AD Wianburgensis referred to it
800 AD Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]
1000s AD miniscule 635 has it
1150 AD minuscule ms 88 in the margin
1300s AD miniscule 629 has it
157-1400 AD Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse
1500 AD ms 61 has the verse
Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r.

Now lets look at the Vaudois and how they fit in this issue..

Here is the line of the various versions which followed the reading of the Textus Receptus and you can see why the Waldensians were persecuted and their Bibles and manuscripts burned as they showed that the Roman church was not following the truth.

These versions include: The Pesh*tta Version (AD 150), The Italic Bible (AD 157), The Waldensian (AD 120 & onwards), The Gallic Bible (Southern France) (AD177), The Gothic Bible (AD 330-350), The Old Syriac Bible (AD 400), The Armenian Bible (AD 400 There are 1244 copies of this version still in existence.), The Palestinian Syriac (AD 450), The French Bible of Oliveton (AD 1535), The Czech Bible (AD 1602), The Italian Bible of Diodati (AD 1606), The Greek Orthodox Bible (Used from Apostolic times to the present day by the Greek Orthodox Church). [Bible Versions, D.B. Loughran]
http://home.sprynet.com/~eagreen/kjv-3.htm

THE OLD TESTAMENT

The Masoretic Text

1524-25 Bomberg Edition of the Masoretic Text also known as the Ben Chayyim Text

THE NEW TESTAMENT

All dates are Anno Domini (A.D.)

30-95------------Original Autographs
95-150----------Greek Vulgate (Copy of Originals)
120---------------The Waldensian Bible
150---------------The Pesh*tta (Syrian Copy)
150-400--------Papyrus Readings of the Receptus
157--------------The Italic Bible - From the Old Latin Vulgate used in Northern Italy
157--------------The Old Latin Vulgate
177--------------The Gallic Bible
310--------------The Gothic Version of Ulfilas
350-400-------The Textus Receptus is Dominant Text
400--------------Augustine favors Textus Receptus
400--------------The Armenian Bible (Translated by Mesrob)
400--------------The Old Syriac
450--------------The Palestinian Syriac Version
450-1450------Byzantine Text Dominant (Textus Receptus)
508--------------Philoxenian - by Chorepiscopos Polycarp, who commissioned by Philoxenos of Mabbug
500-1500------Uncial Readings of Receptus (Codices)
616--------------Harclean Syriac (Translated by Thomas of Harqel - Revision of 508 Philoxenian)
864--------------Slavonic
1100-1300----The Latin Bible of the Waldensians (History goes back as far as the 2nd century as people of the Vaudoix Valley)
1160------------The Romaunt Version (Waldensian)
1300-1500----The Latin Bible of the Albigenses
1382-1550----The Latin Bible of the Lollards
1384------------The Wycliffe Bible
1516------------Erasmus's First Edition Greek New Testament
1522------------Erasmus's Third Edition Published
1522-1534----Martin Luther's German Bible (1)
1525------------Tyndale Version
1534------------Tyndale's Amended Version
1534------------Colinaeus' Receptus
1535------------Coverdale Version
1535------------Lefevre's French Bible
1537------------Olivetan's French Bible
1537------------Matthew's Bible (John Rogers Printer)
1539------------The Great Bible
1541------------Swedish Upsala Bible by Laurentius
1550------------Stephanus Receptus (St. Stephen's Text)
1550------------Danish Christian III Bible
1558------------Biestken's Dutch Work
1560------------The Geneva Bible
1565------------Theodore Beza's Receptus
1568------------The Bishop's Bible
1569------------Spanish Translation by Cassiodoro de Reyna
1598------------Theodore Beza's Text
1602------------Czech Version
1607------------Diodati Italian Version
1611------------The King James Bible with Apocrypha between Old and New Testament
1613------------The King James Bible (Apocrypha Removed) (2)

There was a school in Antioch of Syria in very early Christian times that had the ancient manunscripts pf the Scriptures. Preachers like Chrysostom held to the Syrian Text that agrees with our KJV.

This Received Text as the Majority Text (Textus Receptus) was also known, was soon translated into a old Latin version before Jerome’s Latin Vulgate and was called the Italic Bible. The Vaudois (later called Waldensians) of northern Italy used the Italic Bible.

The Vaudois (Waldenses) the Albigenses, the Reformers (Luther, Calvin and Knox) all held to the Received Text.

Now the "Waldensian," or "Vaudois" Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s AD. The fact is, according to John Calvin's successor Theodore Beza, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s AD and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD. This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc. This Bible carries heavy weight when finding out what God really said. John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards believed, as most of the Reformers, that the Vaudois were the descendants of the true Christians, and that they preserved the Christian faith for the Bible-believing Christians today.

The evidence of history shows us that the Roman Catholic religion was relentless in its effort to destroy the Vaudois and their Bible which kept on until the 1650s, by which time the Reformation had come full force on the scene. So the Vaudois were successful in preserving God's words to the days of the Reformation.

Now we have to ask ourselves a question: Who had the most to gain by adding to or taking away from the Bible? Did the Vaudois, who were being killed for having their Bibles, have anything to gain by adding to or taking from the words of God? Compromise is what the Roman religion wanted! Had the Vaudois just followed the popes, their lives would have been much easier. But they counted the cost. This was not politics; it was their life and soul. They above all people would not want to change a single letter of the words they received from Antioch of Syria. And they paid for this with their lives.

What about the "scholars" at Alexandria, Egypt? We already know about them. They could not even make their few 45 manuscripts agree. How could we believe they preserved God's words?

The Reformation itself owes a lot to these "Waldensian," or "Vaudois" in the French Alps. They not only preserved the Scriptures, but they show to what lengths God would go to keep his promise in Psalms...


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

Rick,

You are doing valiantly in putting forward some of the documentation from which many would choose to avert their eyes. It's so sad that people get so readily caught up in what they want to believe that they miss seeing the truth.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Well GH, it seems some wont see what their eyes show them no matter what......as they say don't shoot the messenger, I cant change what history shows.
God Bless
Rick

Now I came over the connection of the corrupted text in regards to the GodHead in the KJV in 1 John 5:7, which these versions read, "For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement" (1 John 5:7-8 NASB). Which the NIV has, "For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement" (1 John 5:7-8 NIV).

The theory has been that the KJV and other versions that follow the true text insert words which are absent from the Greek manuscripts. Here is their assertion:

"Johannine Comma (also called the Comma Johanneum) is a sequence of extra words which appear in 1 John 5:7-8 in some early printed editions of the Greek New Testament. In these editions the verses appear thus (we put backets around the extra words):
ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.

The King James Version, which was based upon these editions, gives the following translation:

For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

These extra words are generally absent from the Greek manuscripts....it is not included in modern critical editions of the Greek text, or in the English versions based upon them."

But what they don't say is that the "Greek manuscripts" and "critical editions of the Greek text" that they are using to support this idea that the words were inserted is none other than the Alexandrian codices and its false Arian influenced text which was picked up in the Latin versions in North Africa and spread by the so called "older" Septuagint version which was nothing but a copy of the Alexandrian manuscripts and misrepresented as the text Jesus and the Apostles had.

The truth is the words were taken out by those who sought to wipe out that text which showed the deity of Christ, and who do we know was doing this but the supporters of the Alexandrian manuscripts and the Arian influenced scribes.

The facts show that were many of the early manuscripts which we don't have as they wore out from constant use and many more were destroyed by persecution or invasion, so it doesn't mean the later Alexandrian influenced African manuscripts or Latin ones have the correct text. Then we have the following...

Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Which lines right up...

1 John 5:7
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

So they assert that the words "Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost" were inserted, but they are comparing it to corrupted 'critical' text which is from the Minority Text of the Alexandrian codices.

Now lets look at what history shows, we find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is references to this verse:
200 AD Tertullian quoted the verse in his Apology, Against Praxeas
250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)
350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]
350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]
350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione
398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism
415 AD Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)
450-530 AD Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"
B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]
C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]
500 AD Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]
550 AD Old Latin ms r has it
550 AD The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]
750 AD Wianburgensis referred to it
800 AD Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]
1000s AD miniscule 635 has it
1150 AD minuscule ms 88 in the margin
1300s AD miniscule 629 has it
157-1400 AD Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse
1500 AD ms 61 has the verse
Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r.

Now the "Waldensian," or "Vaudois" Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s AD. The fact is, according to John Calvin's successor Theodore Beza, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s AD and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD. This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc. This Bible carries heavy weight when finding out what God really said. John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards believed, as most of the Reformers, that the Vaudois were the descendants of the true Christians, and that they preserved the Christian faith for the Bible-believing Christians today.

The evidence of history shows us that the Roman Catholic religion was relentless in its effort to destroy the Vaudois and their Bible which kept on until the 1650s, by which time the Reformation had come full force on the scene. So the Vaudois were successful in preserving God's words to the days of the Reformation.

Now we have to ask ourselves a question: Who had the most to gain by adding to or taking away from the Bible? Did the Vaudois, who were being killed for having their Bibles, have anything to gain by adding to or taking from the words of God? Compromise is what the Roman religion wanted! Had the Vaudois just followed the popes, their lives would have been much easier. But they counted the cost. This was not politics; it was their life and soul. They above all people would not want to change a single letter of the words they received from Antioch of Syria. And they paid for this with their lives.

What about the "scholars" at Alexandria, Egypt? We already know about them. They could not even make their few 45 manuscripts agree. How could we believe they preserved God's words?

The Reformation itself owes a lot to these "Waldensian," or "Vaudois" in the French Alps. They not only preserved the Scriptures, but they show to what lengths God would go to keep his promise in Psalms...


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

Here are the quotes..
TERTULLIAN:

"Ita connexus, Patris in Filio, et Filii in Paracleto tres efficit cohaerentes, alterum ex altero, qui tres unum sunt, - non unus; quomodo dictum est, 'ego et Pater unum sumus'. ad substantie unitatem, non ad numeri singularitatem" (adv. Praxeam. c.25)

CYPRIAN:

"Dicit Dominus, Ego et Pater unum sumus: et iterum de Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto, scriptum est, Et tres unum sunt" (De Unitate Ecclesiae. Op. p,109)

Tertullian's quote, in English, says :

"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These three are one [thing], not one [Person], as it is said, 'I and my Father are One,' in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number."


Now, the Alexandrian codices since they 'somehow' survived the burnings and destructions of the older manuscripts, safely tucked away in the Vatican and Sinai monastery are then held up as evidence against the verse. Here is what I came across in this respect:

"..the earliest Greek manuscript for 1 John, the Codex Sinaiticus, does not contain this verse as in the KJV. Nor do the other three or four principal Greek manuscripts, which date in the fourth and fifth centuries, have this reading. But, does this cause a problem with the evidence for this reading then? I think not!

I should point out here, that the two principal Greek manuscripts, the Codex Sinaiticus, and the Codex Vaticanus, which also dates from the middle of the fourth century. It is my opinion, for good reason, that far too much weight is placed upon these two manuscripts, as witnesses for the text of the Greek New Testament. There are certain facts from history, which I shall present here, that should be conclusive on the credibility of these two manuscripts.

The earliest Greek manuscripts, known as Papyrus manuscripts (as they were written using the papyrus plant), were written in “rolls” (libri) of Papyrus. We know from the evidence of Eusebius, the Church historian, that in about the year A.D. 331, the Emperor Constantine, ordered that fifty manuscripts of the Greek New Testament be made on “vellum”, in “Codex” format, for his new capital. (See, Frederic Kenyon; Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, p.41). We then have the words of Bruce Metzger, who writes,

“The suggestion has been made by several scholars that the two oldest parchment manuscripts of the Bible which are in existence today, namely codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus, may have been among those ordered by Constantine. It has been pointed out that Eusebius’ curious expression, ‘volumes of threefold and fourfold forms’, agrees with the circumstances that these two codices have respectively three columns and four columns on each page” (Metzger, ibid, p. 7)


We further know from St Jerome (4th century), “that the (papyrus) volumes in the library of Pamphilus at Caesarea were replaced by copies on vellum through the efforts of Acacius and Euzoius (circ. 350)” (Kenyon, ibid). The year for this work of copying from payyrus to vellum by these two men, are the time most scholars give for the codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Of Acacius, we are told, that “he became the head of the courtly Arian party” (H Wace, and W Piercy, A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature, p.2; one volume edition). And of Euzoius, “Arian bishop of Antioch, the companion and intimate friend of Arius form an early age” (ibid, p.358). Arius, for the record..Among other blasphemies, denied the Holy Trinity, Deity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit! Can we trust any “copies” of the Scriptures made by these men? You, the reader must judge.

I must bring to the readers attention an important case on textual criticism, which will shed more light on the evidence of the Greek manuscripts.
I refer to the famous passage in the Gospel of St. John, of the woman who is caught in adultery. The oldest Greek Manuscript that contains this passage, is the Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis, which is of the 5th century. All the Greek papyri and Codex manuscripts before this time that have come down to us, omit this passage, or mark it as doubtful. What, then are we to make of the words of Jerome, the author of the Latin Vulgate, who died in A.D. 420? Jerome, in his work, Contra Pelagium, says that the passage of the woman taken in adultery, is found in “many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin” (ii, 17). Many Greek Manuscripts? Where, then are these manuscripts? Augustine, who lived at the same time of Jerome, complains that people of little faith removed the passage! Then, how come the earliest Greek Manuscript that we have containing the passage, dates from the fifth century? It is clear, that from a very early time, the passage was removed from John’s Gospel! The first Greek father to refer to this passage as part of John’s Gospel, was Euthymius, who was from the 12th century! Is not at all more than probable, that our text from 1 John would have also have been removed at a very early time?
The Passage from Cyprian which shows he read 1 John 5:7

“Dicit Dominus, ego et Pater unum sumus, et iterum de Patre, et Filio et Spiritu Sancto, scriptum est, et tres unum sunt” (De Unitate Ecclesiae, Op.p.109)

“The Lord said, I and the Father are one, and again of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, it is written: and these three are one”

The first quotation is from John 10:30, where our Lord is speaking of the essential unity of Himself and the Father. “I and the Father”, two Persons, which is further shown by the use of the masculine, plural “sumus” (lit. “We are”. It is then followed by the neuter “hen” (lit “one thing”; not the masculine “heis “ ”one person”).

Cyprian then goes on to say, “et iterum...scriptum est”, that is, “and again...it is written”. It must be mentioned here, that whenever Cyprian was referring to, or quoting from a Scripture passage. Where else, besides 1 John 5:7 in the entire Bible do words even similar to these appear?

Now, how can anyone get around these plain words of Cyprian, where he no doubt quotes from 1 John 5:7? We do have a few work a rounds for this passage. Some say that the words are a “gloss”, that it, they were originally written in the margin of a New Testament, and then eventually some zealous Trinitarian scribe decided to include the words into the main text of John’s first Epistle. This is nothing but conjecture, as not a single copy of Greek manuscript, or ancient version in any language has been found where these words are written anywhere but the text itself! Then, we have those who suppose, like Facundus (Pro. Defens, iii.1,3), the Bishop of Hermiane (6th century), that Cyprian had before him the reference to “the Spirit, the water and the blood” in verse eight, and supposed that John was speaking of the Holy Trinity! Plausable, but not probable. There is indeed a passage in Cyprian’s writings, where he does mention a reference that “symbolises” the Trinity in a passage dealing with the three men in Daniel, who spent the third, sixth and ninth hour in prayer. So the passage runs;

“We find that the three children with Daniel, strong in faith and victorious in captivity, observed the third, sixth, and ninth hour, as it were, for a sacrament of the Trinity, which in the last times had to be manifested. For both the first hour in its progress to the third shows for the consummated number of the Trinity, and also the fourth proceeding to the sixth declares another Trinity; and when from the seventh the ninth is completed, the perfect Trinity is numbered every three hours (Dom. Orat. 34)”

However, it is one thing to comment upon a passage, but another to use the formula “it is written”, which Cyprian ONLY uses for an actual Scripture passage, and then to refer to something completely different! He is not commenting on 1 John 5:8, where, if he were, then, like he does in the above passage, would mention the words of verse eight, and then say that he sees a reference to the Holy Trinity in them. This would be acceptable. Dr John Ebrard, who rejects the words in 1 John 5:7 as being an “interpolation”, has this to say on the theory proposed by Facundus.

“Facundus, indeed (pro Defens 111.1,3), supposed that Cyprian had here in view only the words to pneuma kai to hudôr kai to haima hoi treis eis to hen eisin; having understood by pneuma the energy of the Holy Spirit in the Church, by the hudor the energy of the Father, and by the haima that of the Son. But, although it might be possible that Cyprian so understood the words ( and though, further, the Vulgate has translated eis to hen eisin by unum sunt), yet between possibility and probability there is a difference, and Cyprian’s words may be explained by the fact that in manuscripts which he had (of an old Latin version) the interpolation was already to be found. Thus was Cyprian’s sentence viewed by Fulgentius Ruspensis (Responsio ad Arianos); and, what is more important, Fulgentius himself quotes the critically-questionable words as St John’s, and therefore must have read them in his New Testament. (Fulgentius died A.D. 533)” (Biblical Commentary on the Epistles of St John, pp-325-326)

There can be no question that the words were known to Cyprian, and even did form part of His New Testament.. We shall now look at the testimony of Tertullain (160-220), who was also from Carthage in North Africa, where Cyprian had been Bishop, who used to refer to Tertullian as “his master”. The importance of Tertullian’s testimony here, especially in connection with Cyprian, will become clearer as we proceed.

Tertullian, in his work “Against Praxeas”, (who taught a Trinity where the Father actually suffered on the cross, where He identified the Father with the Son, and therefore failed to separate the Persons in the Godhead.) has a passage which says;

“And so the connection of the Father, and the Son, and of the Paraclete makes three cohering Persons, one in the other, which three are one (qui tres unum sunt) [in substance ‘unum’, not ‘one’ in number, ‘unus’]; in the same manner which it was said, ‘I and the Father are one’, to denote the unity of substance, not the singularity of number” (Ad Prax. C.25).

Some observations need to be made here. Firstly, it is interesting that, like Cyprian, Tertullian also uses John 10:30 with 1 John 5:7. Secondly, where, if not from 1 John 5:7, does Tertullian get the phrase, “qui tres unum sunt”? Thirdly, what does Tertullian mean with the phrase, “quomodo dictum est” (in the same manner which it was said)? And then quote from John 10:30? Fourthly, though, like Cyprian, Tertullian was of the Latin Church, yet we know that he “wrote particularly in Latin, but also in Greek. He also sometimes used a Latin Bible, sometimes a Greek, probably oftener the former than the latter. It is improbable that his Greek Bible was very different in text from the Greek text underlying his Latin Bible” (A Souter; The Text and canon of the New Testament, p.79). Frederic Kenyon adds, that Tertullian “seems often to have made his own translations from the Greek” (The Text of the Greek Bible, p.136)...."

As for the Septuagint LXX it was picked up and became known simply as the 'Septuagint', but Jerome quickly saw it for what it was, a defective if not outright corrupted text. So did Jesus and the apostles quote from the Septuagint? Lets take a closer look on this...

"There are absolutely NO manuscripts pre-dating the third century A.D. to validate the claim that Jesus or Paul quoted a Greek Old Testament.

Quotations by Jesus or Paul in new versions’ New Testaments may match readings in the so-called Septuagint, because new versions are from the exact same corrupt fourth and fifth century A.D. Eusebius/Origen manuscripts which underlie the document sold today and called the Septuagint.

These manuscripts are Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus.

According to the colophon on the end of Sinaiticus, it came from Origen’s Hexapla. The others likely did also. Even church historians of questionable character and faith like Jerome, Hort, and Carson, agree that this is probably true.

Origen wrote his Hexapla two hundred years after the life of Christ and the apostles. Yes, the source is at least 200 years AFTER Christ! NIV New Testament and Old Testament quotes may match occasionally because they were both penned by the same hand, Eusebius/Origen. Origen rewrote both Old and New Testament to suit his antichrist and strange Gnostic leanings. New versions take the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus manuscripts, which are in fact, Origen’s Hexapla, and change the traditional Masoretic Old Testament text to match these. Origen’s Hexapla is a very unsafe source to use to change the historic Old Testament. The preface of the Septuagint marketed today points out that the stories surrounding the B.C. (before Christ) creation of the Septuagint (LXX) and the existence of a Greek Old Testament are based on FABLES.

ALL of the Septuagint manuscripts cited in its concordance were written after A.D. 200 and represent Origen’s Hexapla. The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics elaborates, calling "the letter of the pseudo- Aristeas, a manifest forgery and the fragments of Aristobulus highly suspect." It also points out many of the LXX’s Gnostic and antichrist heretical readings.

The fable of the Septuagint arose from the counterfeit and obvious hoax letter intended to deceive, of pseudo-Aristeas. That hoax and perfect deception said that seventy-two scholars were called, around 250 B.C., by Ptolemy, king of Egypt, to create a Greek Old Testament. This Egyptian ruler supposedly asked them a number of questions related to pagan philosophy and pagan theology. If they could answer these questions, they could be on the Septuagint "committee." The fable further states that six Jews from each of the twelve tribes were involved. The word Septuagint means seventy, however, not seventy-two.

The easily verifiable HOAX of the letter of pseudo-Aristeas proves that the Septuagint (LXX) cannot be the word of God for several reasons:

1. Only the tribe of Levi was permitted by God to write the scriptures (1 Chron. 16:4).

2. Any Jew living in or returning to Egypt was in direct disobedience to God’s command in Deuteronomy 17:16. "But he shall not... cause the people to return to Egypt... forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way."

3. It contains apocryphal books such as Tobit, The Prayer of Manasses, 2 Esdras, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees; there are also additions to Esther and Daniel. SOME OF WHICH HAD NOT YET BEEN WRITTEN AT THE TIME OF ARISTEAS. Jesus never quoted the Apocrypha and the Jews rejected it also. (Corrupt manuscripts followed by the NIV and NASB contain these false books within the Old Testament text itself!)

4. Origen’s six-column Old Testament, the Hexapla, parallels O.T. versions by Theodotian, Symmachus, and Aquilla. All three were Gnostic occultists.

5. The Septuagint can be traced no farther back in time than to its obvious source of Eusebius and Origen’s Hexapala.

The Stewarton Bible School of Scotland says the following about the Septuagint:
The Septuagint is an ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament. It is not inspired. Tradition has it that the Septuagint (known also as the LXX because 70 scribes were involved in its production) was written some 250 years before the Christian era. But this is not the case. WAS THERE A PRE-CHRISTIAN SEPTUAGINT? In his book Forever Settled (published by The Bible For Today: 900 Park Avenue, Collingswood. N.J. 08108 USA) Jack Moorman writes that "Paul Kahle ( a famous O.T. scholar) who has done extensive work in the Septuagint does not believe that there was one original old Greek version and that consequently the manuscripts of the Septuagint (so-called) cannot be traced back to one archtype..."

Anyone notice the culprits which seem to have their hand at each point........."These manuscripts are Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus."

Here's an updated list of omissions now known to be accidental errors, which have crept into the copying streams of Codex Vaticanus (B)and Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph), which are the basis for most modern critical Greek texts (i.e., Westcott/Hort and Nestle/Aland):

Most modern versions follow the critical texts in either omitting or placing in a footnote these verses and half-verses, which are a part of the Traditional (Byzantine) text, and are found in most copies round the world, from the 4th century onward.
Homoeoteleuton (Aleph/B)

MATTHEW
5:44h.t. x2  (1) ...ς υμας / (2) ...οντων υμας
12:46h.t.  (...λαλησαι, ...λαλησαι)
15:6h.t.  (...αυτου, ...αυτου)
15:8 h.a.  (ΤΩΣ..., ΤΟΙΣ...)
17:20-22 h.a.  (ΤΟΥΤΩ/ΕΤΑΙ..., ΤΟΥΤΟ/ΕΤΑΙ...)
18:11 h.t.  (...-οις, ...-ος)
20:7 h.a.  (και..., και... )
20:16h.t.  (...-τοι, ...-τοι)
20:22 h.t./h.a. (και...-εσθε, και..-εσθε)
21:44h.t.  (θησεται...αυτ-...και, θησεται...αυτ-...και)
23:4h.t.  (...και, ...και)
23:14 h.t.  (...γραμματεις και φαρισαιοι, ..." " " ")
26:3 h.t.  (...και, ...και)
27:35h.t.  (... κληρον, ... κληρον)

MARK
6:33-34 h.t.  (...και, ...και)
8:26-27 h.a.  (MHΔΕ Ε..., MHΔΕ Ε... )
9:49-50 h.t.  (...I ΑΛIΣΘHΣΕTΑI, ...I ΑΛIΣΘHΣΕTΑI )
10:7 h.t.  (...και, ...και)
11:8 h.t.  (...ΩN KΑI, ...ΟN KΑI)
11:25-26 h.t.  ( ...τα παραπτωματα υμων, ..."" "" )
12:33 h.t.  (...και, ...και)
14:19 h.t.  ( ...Σ MHTI ΕΓΩ, ...Σ MHTI ΕΓΩ)
14:68 h.t.  (...ON KΑI, ...ΕN KΑI)
15:27-29  h.t.  (...και, ...και)

LUKE
4:5 h.t.  ( ...-ον, ...-ον )
5:38-39 h.t.  (α...και, α...και)
6:45 h.t.  ( ...-ου, ...-ου )
8:48 h.t.  ( ...Θ, ...Θ )
9:55-56 h.t.  ( ...και ε, ...και ε )
11:54 h.t.  ( ...αυτου, ...αυτου)
12:39 h.t.  (...-ται, ...και)
17:9 h.t.  ( ...-ω ου, ...-ω ου )
17:24 h.t. ( ...ωπου, ...αυτου )
17:36 h.t. ( ...παραληφθησεται και η ετερα/ος αφεθησεται, ..."" "" )
19:45 h.t. ( ...ουντας , ...οντας )
20:30 h.t. ( ...-ος, ...-ος )
22:68 h.t. ( ...η απο---ητε , ...η απο---ητε )
23:17 h.t. ( ...-αν, ...-αν )
23:23 h.t. ( ...αι--ωνα---ων, ...αι--ωνα---ων )
24:42-43 h.t. ( ...ου --οσ και, ...ου --ου και)
24:51 h.t. ( ...ωνκαια, ...ονκαια )

More:
5:20...ειπεν αυτω ανθρωπε...
6:15 ...Ιακωβον τον του αλφαιου...
7:28 ...Ιωαννουτου βαπτιστου ουδεις...
8:27 ...-σεν αυτω ανηρ τις...
10:27 ...εξ ολης της καρδιας...
10:32 ...λευιτης γενομενος κατα...
11:4 ...πειρασμοναλλα ρυσαι ημας απο του πονηρου και...
11:48 ...οικοδομειτεαυτων τα μνημεια δια...
13:2 ...αποκριθεις ο Ιησους ειπεν... (prob. Nom. Sacra: EIS O IS)
16:21 ...απο των ψιχιωντων...
17:9 ...ου δοκω ουτω...
19:5 ...ειδεν αυτον και ειπε
23:8 ...πολλα περι...
23:11 ...περιβαλων αυτον εσθητα...
23:35 ...αρχοντες συν αυτοις λεγοντες..
24:12 ...oθονιακειμενα μονα...
24:32 ...ην εν ημιν ως...
24:36a ...αυτος ο Ιησους εστη...(probable Nomina Sacra )
24:36b ...αυτων και λεγει αυτοις ειρηνη υμιν πτοηθεντες...
24:46 ...γεγραπται και ουτως εδει παθειν τον ...

JΟΗΝ
3:13 h.a./h.t.   (ο υς του ανου , ο ωνεν τω ορω )
5:16 h.a.  (και..του..ον..., και..του..ον... )
5:44b h.t.  ( ΜΟΝΟΥΘΥΟΥΖΗΤΕΙΤΕ... )
6:11 h.t.  ( ...τοις, ...τοις )
6:22 h.t.  ( ...ν . οι. μαθηται. αυτου , ...ν . οι. μαθηται. αυτου )
8:59-9:2 h.t. ( ...ου και, ...ως και )
10:12-13 h.a. (ο'δε μισθωτος..., οτι μισθωτος... )
11:41 h.t. ( ...νος , ...ους )
13:31-32 h.t. ( ...ο Θς εδοξασθη εν αυτω, ...ο Θς εδοξασθη εν αυτω )
17:12 h.t. ( ...εντω, ...εγω )
19:16-17 h.t. ( ...ουν και, ...ον και )

ACTS
2:30 h.a. (κα..., κα... )
15:24 h.t. ( ...μων, ...μον )
15:32-35 h.t. ( ...τας αυτους, ...ναι αυτου )
20:15 h.a./h.t. (κατ...ου τη, και...ιω τη )
21:22 h.t. ( ...ι ουν --ιν π--ως, ...ι συν--ιν π--ος )
22:9 h.t. ( ...αντο, ...οντο )
26:29-31 h.t. ( ...ουτων, ...αυτου )

Romans:
9:27-29 h.t. ( ...συντεμνων, ...συντετμημενον)
11:6 h.a. (ει δε...επει ...ουκετι..., ει δε...επει ...ουκετι... )
13:9 h.a./h.t. (ου...-εις, ου...-εις )
14:6 h.t. ( ...φρονων την ημεραν κυριω ... φρονει και ο , ..."" "" )
14:21 h.t. ( ...τει, ...νει )
15:24 h.t. ( ...νιαν, ...υμας )
15:29 h.t. (...του, ...του)

Others:
1st Cor. 10:28 h.a. (και..., και... )
1st Cor 15:52-54 h.a. (το ----τον τουτο ενδυσηται..., "" ""... )
Gal. 3:1 h.a. (τα----μα..., τη----ια... )
Eph. 3:14-15 h.t. ( ...του, ...-του )
Eph. 5:30 h.a./h.t. (εκ...αυτου, εκ...αυτου )
Phil. 3:15-17 h.t. ( ...τω αυτω...-ειν, ...τω αυτω...-ειν )
1st Thess. 3:2 h.a. (και...ον..., και...ον... )
1st Tim. 6:7 h.t. (...ον, ...ον )
Heb. 1:8-9 h.a./h.t. ( τον αιωνα, του αιωνος )
Heb. 7:21-22 h.a. (κατα τ..., κατα τ... )
1st Pet. 4:14 h.t. ( ...υμας ...-εται, ...υμας ...-εται )

Here h.t. stands for homeoteleuton (similar ending causing an eye-skip) and h.a. stands for homeoarchton (a similar beginning of a line).
The notes in brackets show the similar letters/words at each end of an omission. Typically, a modern translation will put the verse or half-verse in the margin or a footnote, with a terse comment that gives no inkling of the nature of the evidence which shows these are accidental deletions. Sometimes a translation will just delete the passage without even a note or clue for the reader that it is now missing.

Notice the culprits always seem to be the same when it comes to deletions or half deletions or outright changes, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus

Well that didnt come through too good..

This is a great explanation.......'ARE THE OLDEST MANUSCRIPTS WE HAVE TODAY THE BEST?

How important are "early Greek manuscripts"? How do we know we have the "Perfect Law of Liberty"? Can we consider translations as the Word of God, or preserved ancient manuscripts (MSS), or were only the original autographs God's Word? Is the Bible complete?

According to Norman Geisler and William Nix in their book General Introduction to the Bible (pg. 406), the earliest portion of Scripture we have is called p52 (John Rylands Fragment). This fragment was found in Egypt, and it contains portions of John 18:31-33, 37-38. It is a piece of fragment 2 1/2 x 3 1/2 inches and dates from around 117-138 AD, although a fellow named Adolf Deissmann argues that it may be even earlier.

This may be the oldest Greek manuscript. But it is important to consider the oldest translations that were accurately translated from very early Greek MSS. The oldest translations follow the Received Text (TR) of the KJV:

1. The Old Latin Vulgate (AD 157) was used by the Waldenese in N. Italy. Shortly afterwards the French Waldenese received their Gallic Bible (AD 177). The Reformers held that the Waldenese church was formed around AD 120. They gave much blood to protect the True Bible. (Which Bible, pg. 208; The Bible Version Manual, pg. 19; Defending the King James Bible, pg. 45)

2. The Syriac Version (The Peshitta) of AD 150. Called the "Queen of Versions" because of it's beauty and simplicity. There are 177 of these MSS, most in the British Museum. (The Bible Version Manual, pg. 19) This was the translation used by the church at Antioch. It is the Word of God.

God promised to preserve the original letters of Scripture down to the smallest stroke of the pen (Matt 5:18), but He also said, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable..." (2 Tim 3:16) If the original was "given by inspiration of God" does not common since dictate that the final ancestor would retain that inspiration. Notice in the verse it says, "IS [not was] given by inspiration", and that it says, "ALL Scripture". That would indicate that every correctly translated word is "given by inspiration of God". So we have the inspired Word of God both in the originally given languages (Hebrew and Greek), and we have it in many other different languages also.

After the Rylands Fragment (p52) the next earliest collection of NT papyri is in the Beatty Museum near Dublin p45, p46, p47. It was written around 250 AD and contains most of the NT. p45 is made up of pieces of 30 leaves of a papyrus codex: 2 from Matt.,2 from John, 6 from Mark, 7 from Luke, and 13 from Acts. The original codex consisted of some 220 leaves. The type of text in Mark is nearer to the Caesarean family. This collection is Alexandrian and Western text-types.

Kurk Aland, however, says, "...the fact [is] that the oldest manuscript does not necessarily have the best text. P47 is, for example, by far the oldest of the manuscripts containing the full or almost full text of the Apocalypse, but it is certainly not the best." (Which Bible, pg. 27) It is a myth that the oldest MSS are best. I can see the logic in thinking the oldest is best, because it is closer to the original autograph. However, this logic does not hold up when we take the early Bible corrupters into account. The most notorious corrupters were Origen (Alexandrian Text) and Eusebius (Western Text).

Principals to note:

1.The oldest manuscripts are not necessarily carefully written.
3.The oldest manuscripts were subject to the greatest corruption.
4.The oldest manuscripts are in perpetual disagreement with each other.
2.The oldest manuscripts extant are not necessarily copied from oldest manuscript master.
(http://www.hutch.com.au/~rlister/bible/mvam1.htm)

The next earliest is called the Bodmer Papyri p66, p72, p75 and dates around 200 AD and is a mixture of Alexandrian and Western text-types.

Here again oldest is not best:

P66 contains portions of the Gospel of John. It has:

* 200 nonsense readings.
* 216 careless readings
* 269 corrections
* 482 singular readings
* 54 leaps forward, 22 backwards
Pickering notes it has "Roughly two mistakes per verse."

P75 contains portions of Luke and John. It has:

* 275 singular readings
* 57 careless readings
* 27 leaps forward, 10 backwards
Pickering notes, "...scarcely a good copy."
(New Age Bible Versions, pg 582)

The next earliest are Uncial codices Codex Vaticanus 325-350 AD.; Codex Sinaiticus 340 AD.; Codex Alexandrinus 450 AD.; Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus 345 AD.; Codex Bezae 450 or 550 AD.

A Uncial Codice is a capital letter Classical Greek manuscript. The best manuscripts were the lower case (cursives) Koine Greek of the common people. The Koine Greek MSS are the ones that are in 99% agreement: the Received Text (TR). The original autographs were Koine, not Classical.

Codex Sinaititus (Aleph) (4th Century) "From the number of errors, one cannot affirm that it is very carefully written. The whole manuscript is disfigured by corrections, a few by the original scribe, very many by an ancient and elegant hand of the 6th Century whose emendations are of great importance, some again by a hand a little later, for the greatest number by a scholar of the 7th Century who often cancels the changes by the 6th Century amender, others by as many as eight (8) different later writers. " (Scrivener, Pg 93, Vol. I.)

Codex Vaticanus (B) (4th Century) "One marked feature is the great number of omissions which induced Dr. Dobbin to speak of it as an abbreviated text of the New Testament. He calculates that whole words or clauses are left out no less than 2556 times." (Scrivener, Pg 120, Volume I.)

Codex Bezae Graeco-Latinus (D) (5th or 6th Century) "The manuscript has been corrected, first by the original penman and later by 8 or 9 different revisors." And again: "No known manuscript contains so many bold and extensive interpolations (600 in ACTS alone) countenanced, where they are not absolutely unsupported, chiefly by the Old Latin and Curetonian Syriac Version." (Scrivener, Pgs 128,130, Volume I.) ....'

'.....THE ANCIENT BIBLE CORRUPTERS

Vaticanus, and Sinaitcus are the two main manuscripts that almost all of the new translations are based on. They are indirectly the result of the work of Origenes Adamantius (AD 184-254).

Some feel that we should not bring up the errors and apostasy of the early and later Textual critics who corrupted the Bible. I beg to differ! It helps us see the problem much more clearly. Satan is clearly the head of this conspiricy, and he uses men.

Matthew 7:16-20 "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 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. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

The below indicated men deleted words and phrases that honored the Lord Jesus Christ, and affected about every important doctrine of the Bible including it incarnation, deity, and resurrection of Christ.

Origenes Adamantius (or Origen for short) was the third in a line of heretics that corrupted the Word of God. Tatian, a pupil of Justin Martyr (AD 100 -165), was a Gnostic (see note #1). "...Tatian wrote a Harmony of the Gospels...called the Diatessaron....The Gospels were...notoriously orrupted by his hand..." (Which Bible, pg. 191) Clement of Alexandria, Egypt (AD 150-217), was Tatian's pupil. "Clement himself claimed the...title of Gnostic often." (Church Leaders In Primitive Times, pg. 286; cf. The Revision Revised, pg 336) Clement established a school there in Alexandria. "[He] expressly tells us that he would not hand down Christian teachings, pure and unmixed, but rather clothed with preceptsof pagan philosophy." (Which Bible, pg. 191) "Clement and Origen used concepts of Platonism and Pythagoreanism..." (Eerdmans' Handbook To The History Of Christianity, pg. 109) (see note #2) "All the writhigs of the outstanding heretical teachers were possessed by Clement, and he freely quoted from their corrupt manuscripts as if they were the words of Scripture." (Which Bible, pgs. 191-192) Origen was Clement's pupil and took over the apostate school that he started. Origen originated the Christ denying Arian heresy (see note #3) Origen also believed in the reexistence of the soul (i.e. reincarnation); baptismal regeneration; purgatory; etc.

Eusebius (AD 260-340) and Constantine the Roman Emperor (AD 306-337): "Eusebius worshipped at the altar of Origin's teachings. He...used Origen's six column Bible...in his Biblical labors....As the Emperor Constantine embraced Christianity, it became necessary for him to choose...(which Bible text to sanction. He had 3 to choose from: the Constantinoplitan [TR], the Hesychian, or the Eusebio-Origen)....[The Emperor] preferred the one edited by Eusebius and written by Origin...[who] combined Christianity with Gnostisticism [see note #1] in his philosophy, even as Constantine himself was the political genius that was seeking to unite Christianity with pagan Rome." (Which Bible, pg. 192, 194, 195) Eusebius like Origen also leaned toward Arianism, [see note #3] as did the Emperor. Constantine, the new "Christian" Pontifex Maximus, commissioned Eusebius to prepare 50 copies of the bible. These are the main source for the corruptions we see today.

FIRST JOHN 5:7

First John 5:7 is perhaps the weakest link in the chain for the TR. Origen did not believe in the Deity of Christ nor the Trinity so he or one of his followers excised it from the Greek text early in Church History. However, the Latin speaking church preserved it from the earliest time of Church History.

One that I once debated concerning the superiority of the KJV said, "Tischendorf's New Testament which compares Codex [A] Alexandrinus, Codex [B] Vaticanus, and Codex [Aleph] Sinaiticus with the KJV omitts 1 John 5:7 is from these 3 MSS. My understanding is that 2nd century Greek copies don't exist."

True, 2nd century Greek copies don't exist. However, as has already been shown, 2nd century translations do exist in Latin and Syriac. It has also been shown that Aleph and B are of the corrupt Alexandrian family of MSS. It can be clearly seen that A also is a member of this family although the corruptions in it are fewer. If we had the original copies some might be worshipping them. However, we can be sure that God is faithful to keep His word to preserve His Word. We have it. What every Christian needs to decide is this: Is it the Origin's Alexandrian Family of MSS, or is it the Received Text of the Waldenses? The answer is so simple! But many textual critics continue to make the issue difficult.

There is much confusion concerning the MSS evidence. For example, Evangelicals consistently state that there are, for example, no Scholars that believe that 1 John 5:7 were in the original text of the Bible. This statement excludes at least 40 Fundamentalist scholars that I know of. I am not a scholar, just study their teachings. Some of God's people are confused. A few wolves are destroying the faith of many. That does not mean that all the evangelical scholars are wolves or are not sincere. For example, I have great respect for, Dr. Norman Geisler.

My debater, "As far as 1 John 5:7-8 reading in the KVJ, they say that Erasmus omitted this reading from his first 2 editions of his Greek NT (1516, 1519) and was challenged for this omission. He replied that he would include it in his next edition if anyone could produce even one Greek manuscript that included that reading. One 16th century Greek minuscule was found, a 1520 manuscript…so he inserted it into his 1522 edition.

Dr. Thomas Holland answers this charge, "The Comma [1 John 5:7-8] did not appear in the first two editions of Erasmus' Receptus but was added to his third. Some have stated that Erasmus added the Comma reluctantly. Erasmus had been criticized for his earlier editions which did not contain the passage. Metzger writes, 'In an unguarded moment Erasmus promised that he would insert the Comman Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was found--or was made to order!' (Metzger, The Text Of The New Testament, p 101.) This statement, however, is in question. Others have shown that Erasmus did not add the verse aversely, but was in fact searching for a Greek text which supported what was already in the Old Latin texts. (Donald L. Brake indicates this in his thesis present to Dallas Theological Seminary and reprinted in the book Counterfeit Or Genuine, edited by Dr. David Otis Fuller..., p 205. This is further verified by both Dr. Fuller and by Dr. Edward F. Hills in his book The King James Version Defended, p 209)." (MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE, lessons given by Dr. Thomas Holland)

The "three heavenly Witnesses" (1 John 5:7) is contained in practically all of the extant Latin Vulgate MSS. Although not included in Jerome's original edition, around the year 800 it was taken into the text of the Vulgate from the Old Latin MSS. (Hills, Jones) This historic usage of the text in the Western Church lay behind its final inclusion in the Greek Text of Erasmus.

There is an abundance of evidence for 1 John 5:7's inclusion in the Bible. Today we know of at least ten Greek MSS that contain it (Dr. Kurk Aland names at least 6, and Dr. D.A. Waite an additional 4). It is cited by several sources prior to 500AD. Among them Tertullian (AD 200) (Gill, "An exposition of the NT", Vol 2, pp. 907-8); and Cyprian (AD 250), who writes, "And again concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: 'and the Three are One'" (Vienna, vol. iii, p. 215)

In addition to the significant Greek and Latin MSS evidence, there is an abundance of Historical, Theological, and Greek Grammatical evidences that prove that 1 John 5:7 is inspired Scripture.

Floyd Jones says, "Finally, it cannot be overly stressed that the successive editors of the TR could have omitted the passage from their editions. The fact that Stephens, Beza, and the Elzevirs retained the Pericope, despite the reluctance of Erasmus to include it, is not without significance. The learned Lutheran text critic J.A. Bengel ("Gnomon", published in 1742) also convincingly defended its inclusion29 as did Hills in this century. The hard fact is that, by the providence of God, the Johannie comma obtained and retained a place in the Textus Receptus. We emphatically declare that the most extreme caution should be exercised in questioning its right to that place." "Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set." (Proverbs 22:28) ...http://kjv.landmarkbiblebaptist.net/corruptions.html'

and this is right to the heart of the fallacy of using a few corrupted manuscripts Codex Vaticanus 325-350 AD.; Codex Sinaiticus 340 AD.; Codex Alexandrinus 450 AD, against the vast majority that have the true text.......

osh McDowell says in his book "A Ready Defense" that there are more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the NT in existence (5255 Greek manuscripts of NT; 10,000 Vulgate; 9,300 other early versions).

Many of the 10,000 Vulgate MSS referred to here are the pure Old Latin Vulgate, not Jerome's, and the 9,300 other early MSS include the Syriac and other reliable ancient MSS. The Word of God has been translated into various languages in order for the people to understand in their heart language from the earliest times of the church.

The vast majority of the Greek NT MSS follow the TR (5,210 out of 5255 MSS or 99%) (Defending the King James Bible, pg. 46) The KJV is based on the TR.

Here is a good article on why 1 John 5:7, has a deletion rather than a insertion....

'.... For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." (1 John 5:7, KJV)

"οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν" (1 John 5:7, 1894 Scrivener Textus Receptus)


This is the Johannine Comma (or Comma Johanneum), a clause that is omitted in most modern Bible translations. This article upholds the theory that the Johannine Comma is authentic. In proposing this theory, this article accepts the undeniable premise that the Comma has weak Greek manuscript and Greek Church father support. The evidence is stronger from the Latin stream, but there are some problems there as well. Thus the primary question answered in this article is, "How could one accept the Johannine Comma as Scripture in the face of much evidence against its inclusion?" The following arguments are made to answer this question:

The manuscripts of 1 John show that the epistle underwent early corruption, so there is a real possibility that the Comma could have been omitted at a very early stage.
The internal evidence for the Comma is strong.
There is not a lot but some external evidence for the Comma.
There are reasonable explanations as to how the Comma was omitted and why church fathers neglected it.....

There is proof throughout 1 John that omissions of important words happened. 1 John has its fair share of early textual corruptions to demonstrate that passages were indeed altered for reasons of carelessness or infidelity.

The omission of 1 John 2:23b
Did you know?
1 John 2:23b is proof that the Vulgate can sometimes be more reliable than the majority of Greek manuscripts.
The omission of 1 John 2:23b is proof of two things. First, it is proof that a Trinitarian clause could indeed be expunged from 1 John in the majority of manuscripts. Second, it is proof that the Vulgate can sometimes be more reliable than the majority of Greek manuscripts. 1 John 2:23 in the King James Bible says:

"Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also."

"πας ο αρνουμενος τον υιον ουδε τον πατερα εχει ο ομολογων τον υιον και τον πατερα εχει" (Textus Receptus, Beza 1598)

This reading is supported by the Vulgate, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi, Porphyrianus and about 40 other Greek manuscripts (Aland, Tischendorf). Most modern translations (e.g. NIV, ESV, NASB) follow this reading.

(Tischendorf's critical apparatus to 1 John 2:23b)

But with there being about 517 extant Greek manuscripts of 1 John and with just over 40 manuscripts having 1 John 2:23b, the clause is a minority reading. Accordingly, the Byzantine Majority Text does not include the clause. The Majority Text says:

"Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father."

"πας ο αρνουμενος τον υιον ουδε τον πατερα εχει" (Byzantine Majority Text)

The Geneva Bible in 1557 followed the majority of manuscripts here and left out the latter clause. The situation in 1 John 2:23 is proof that a verse which establishes a strong relationship of the Godhead could have been deleted in the majority of manuscripts. 1 John 2:23 is also proof that the Vulgate can preserve the authentic reading even while the majority of Greek manuscripts are corrupt. The only difference between 1 John 2:23b and the Comma is that the deletion of the Comma in manuscripts was earlier and more thorough than the deletion of 1 John 2:23b....

The corruption of 1 John 5:6
Did you know?
Early Greek manuscripts of 1 John 5:6, the verse preceding the Comma, are corrupt.
We can look even closer to the place of the disputed passage. 1 John 5:6 is the verse immediately preceding the Comma. This verse is corrupt in the early manuscripts. The earliest witnesses of the passage are Codices Sinaiticus (4th century), Vaticanus (4th century), Alexandrinus (5th century) and 0296 (6th century). Uncial 048 (5th century) is lacunae. There are already significant discrepancies among these early witnesses at 1 John 5:6....

The corruption of 1 John 5:13
1 John 5:13 is proof that a clause in a parallel construction (such as that in the Comma) could drop out of some early manuscripts. The proof of 1 John 5:13 may not be convincing to an Alexandrian text proponent, but it should be convincing to a Byzantine text proponent. The verse in the KJV says:

"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God."


The clause, though appearing to be redundant at first, makes perfect sense. The present-tense subjunctive phrase "that ye may believe..." expresses a wish that the action continue. John is wishing that those who currently believe on the name of the Son of God would continue to do so. However, the underlined words are not found in the three earliest witnesses of the verse. Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus, essentially say:


"ταυτα εγραψα υμιν ινα ειδητε οτι ζωην εχετε αιωνιον τοις πιστευουσιν εις το ονομα του υιου του θεου"

The Textus Receptus and the Byzantine Majority Text, in agreement with the fourth, fifth, and sixth earliest witnesses of the verse in its entirety, K (9th century), L (9th century), P (9th century), say:

"ταυτα εγραψα υμιν τοις πιστευουσιν εις το ονομα του υιου του θεου ινα ειδητε οτι ζωην αιωνιον εχετε και ινα πιστευητε εις το ονομα του υιου του θεου"


Text of 1 John: Conclusion
The examples of 1 John 2:23b, 1 John 5:6, 1 John 4:3 and 1 John 5:13 show that the transmission of 1 John is marked by demonstrable corruptions. These examples are related to the Comma in one way or another. Some of these examples concern the Trinity. Others concern the omission of a clause in a parallel construction. One thing is certain: the text of 1 John underwent corruption long before the alleged "fabrication" of the Comma. With there being these other demonstrable examples of early textual corruptions, it is reasonable to suppose that the omission of the Comma was also an early textual corruption...."
http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57



Although the earliest Greek witnesses do not have the Comma at 1 John 5:7, we see that these witnesses had scribes who tampered with the text in this general portion of the chapter. By 350 AD this portion of 1 John 5 was already corrupt in the Greek tradition. Since verse 6 is corrupt in Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, and verse 7 in 0296 does not have "εισιν," there are only two manuscripts (Vaticanus and 048) from before the 7th century which read exactly as the Byzantine/Majority Text or the Nestle-Aland from verse 6 to 7:

"ουτος εστιν ο ελθων δι υδατος και αιματος ιησους χριστος ουκ εν τω υδατι μονον αλλ εν τω υδατι και εν τω αιματι και το πνευμα εστιν το μαρτυρουν οτι το πνευμα εστιν η αληθεια οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες" (Nestle-Aland 27)

"ουτος εστιν ο ελθων δι υδατος και αιματος ιησους χριστος ουκ εν τω υδατι μονον αλλ εν τω υδατι και τω αιματι και το πνευμα εστιν το μαρτυρουν οτι το πνευμα εστιν η αληθεια οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες" (Byzantine/Majority Text 2000)

Critics of the Comma are almost always silent regarding this corruption of 1 John 5:6, a corruption that may have been theologically motivated. When there is clear proof of a theologically motivated corruption at verse 6 in so many early witnesses, it is reasonable to suspect that the corruption extended into verse 7.....

The text just isnt being picked up, but it shows in the article...http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57

So lets look at these Manuscripts containing the corrupted Greek New Testament text, the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus from the 4th century and 1 Codex Alexandrinus from the 5th century and see how they are connected.

Contents of Codex Vaticanus: “Vaticanus originally contained a complete copy of the Septuagint ("LXX") except for 1-4 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasseh. Genesis 1:1 - 46:28a (31 leaves) and Psalm 105:27 - 137:6b (10 leaves) are lost and have been filled by a recent hand. 2 Kings 2:5-7, 10-13 are also lost due to a tear in one of the pages. The order of the Old Testament books is as follows: Genesis to 2 Chronicles as normal, 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras (which includes Nehemias), the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Judith, Tobit, the minor prophets from Hosea to Malachi, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle of Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel.

The extant New Testament of Vaticanus contains the Gospels, Acts, the General Epistles, the Pauline Epistles and the Epistle to the Hebrews (up to Heb 9:14, καθα[ριει); thus it lacks 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon and Revelation. These missing pages were replaced by a 15th century minuscule supplement (no. 1957).

The Greek is written continuously with small neat writing, later retraced by an 11th century scribe. Punctuation is rare (accents and breathings have been added by a later hand) except for some blank spaces, diaeresis on initial iotas and upsilons, abbreviations of the nomina sacra and markings of OT citations.

The manuscript contains mysterious double dots (so called "umlauts") in the margin of the New Testament, which seem to mark places of textual uncertainty. There are 795 of these in the text and around another 40 that are uncertain.”

“Codex Vaticanus is one of the most important manuscripts for Textual criticism and is a leading member of the Alexandrian text-type. It was heavily used by Westcott and Hort in their edition of the Greek New Testament (1881).”

We see the Septuagint ("LXX") which is a based on the Alexandrian text.

Then on Codex Sinaiticus: “Codex Sinaiticus was found by Constantin von Tischendorf on his third visit to the Monastery of Saint Catherine, on Mount Sinai in Egypt, in 1859. The first two trips had yielded parts of the Old Testament, some found in a basket of manuscript pieces, which Tischendorf was told by a librarian that "they were rubbish which was to be destroyed by burning it in the ovens of the monastery".[2] The emperor Alexander II of Russia sent him to search for manuscripts, which he was convinced were still to be found in the Sinai monastery. In May 1975 during restoration work, the monks of St. Catherine's monastery at Sinai discovered a room under the St. George chapel which contained many parchment fragments. Among these fragments, twelve missing leaves from the Sinaiticus Old Testament were found.
Von Tischendorf reached the monastery on January 31; but his inquiries appeared to be fruitless. On February 4, he had resolved to return home without having gained his object.

On the afternoon of this day I was taking a walk with the steward of the convent in the neighbourhood, and as we returned, towards sunset, he begged me to take some refreshment with him in his cell. Scarcely had he entered the room, when, resuming our former subject of conversation, he said: "And I, too, have read a Septuagint"--i.e. a copy of the Greek translation made by the Seventy. And so saying, he took down from the corner of the room a bulky kind of volume, wrapped up in a red cloth, and laid it before me. I unrolled the cover, and discovered, to my great surprise, not only those very fragments which, fifteen years before, I had taken out of the basket, but also other parts of the Old Testament, the New Testament complete, and, in addition, the Epistle of Barnabas and a part of the Pastor of Hermas.[3]

After some negotiations, he obtained possession of this precious fragment, and conveyed it to Emperor Alexander, who fully appreciated its importance, and caused it to be published as nearly as possible in facsimile, so as to exhibit correctly the ancient handwriting. However, the tsar sent 9000 roubles to the monastery as a compensation.

Regarding Tischendorf's role in the transfer to Saint Petersburg, there are several views. Although when parts of Genesis and Book of Numbers were later found in the binding of other books, they were amicably sent to Tischendorf, the Codex is currently regarded by the monastery as having been stolen, a view hotly contested by several scholars in Europe. In a more neutral spirit, New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger writes: "Certain aspects of the negotiations leading to the transfer of the codex to the Czar's possession are open to an interpretation that reflects adversely on Tischendorf's candour and good faith with the monks at St. Catherine's. For a recent account intended to exculpate him of blame, see Erhard Lauch's article 'Nichts gegen Tischendorf' in Bekenntnis zur Kirche: Festgabe für Ernst Sommerlath zum 70. Geburtstag (Berlin, c. 1961); for an account that includes a hitherto unknown receipt given by Tischendorf to the authorities at the monastery promising to return the manuscript from St. Petersburg 'to the Holy Confraternity of Sinai at its earliest request'.

Notice again the the Septuagint ("LXX") of the Alexandrian text comes into the picture.

Codex Alexandrinus- “The Codex Alexandrinus (London, British Library, MS Royal 1. D. V-VIII; Gregory-Aland no. A or 02) is a 5th century manuscript of the Greek Bible, containing the majority of the Septuagint and the New Testament. Along with the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus, it is one of the earliest and most complete manuscripts of the Bible. It derives its name from Alexandria where it resided for a number of years before given to the British in the 17th century.”

(From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Alexandrinus).


Notice Codex Alexandrinus is from the 5th century again HUNDREDS of years after the disappearance of Jesus (PBUH) and again Codex Alexandrinus is ALL in Greek, Jesus (PBUH) did NOT speak Greek, Jesus (PBUH) spoke the language of ARAMAIC.



Contents of Codex Alexandrinus: “The text in the codex is written in two columns in uncial script, with between 46 and 52 lines per column and 20 to 25 letters per line. The beginning lines of each book are written in red ink and sections within the book are marked by a larger letter set into the margin. Words are written continuously in a large square uncial hand with no accents and only some breathings (possibly added by a later editor).

It contains a complete copy of the LXX, including the deuterocanonical books 3 and 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151 and the 14 Odes. The "Epistle to Marcellinus" attributed to Saint Athanasius and the Eusibian summary of the Psalms are inserted before the Book of Psalms.

The codex also contains all of the books of the New Testament, in addition to 1 Clement (lacking 57:7-63) and the homily known as 2 Clement (up to 12:5a).

There is also an appendix marked in the index, which lists the Psalms of Solomon, and probably contained more apocryphal/pseudepigraphical books but has been torn off. The pages containing these books have also been lost.

Due to damage and lost folios, various passages are missing or have defects:

Lacking: 1 Sam 12:18-14:9 (1 leaf); Ps 49:19-79:10 (9 leaves); Matt 1:1-25:6 (26 leaves); John 6:50-8:52 (2 leaves); 2 Cor 4:13-12:6 (3 leaves)

Damaged: Gen 14:14-17, 15:1-5, 15:16-19, 16:6-9 (lower portion of torn leaf lost)

Defects due to torn leaves: Gen 1:20-25, 1:29-2:3, Lev 8:6,7,16; Sirach 50:21f, 51:5

There are 773 vellum folios (630 in the Old Testament and 143 in the New Testament). The manuscript measures 12.6 by 10.4 inches. Most of the folios were originally gathered into quires of 8 leaves each. However, in modern times it was rebound into quires of 6 leaves each. The only decorations in the manuscript are decorative tailpieces at the end of each book (see illustration). It also shows a tendency to increase the size of the first letter of each sentence.”

Again as in the 2 previous Oldest Greek manuscripts notice all the errors, and addition and subtraction of numerous books. Codex Alexandrius contain the “Epistle of Marcellinus” and in it’s Corrupted New Testament it contents parts of books called “1 Clement” and “2 Clement”.

All 3 are based on the same corrupted text and the source hidden so Christians who already knew the corruption of the Alexandrian manuscripts would be fooled, but the true text of the Textus Receptus unveils the false corrupted one, their subterfuge notwithstanding, but we must see with eyes that see and understand what happened.

Now the corrupted Alexandrian text was allowed to creep into the church and led to the spread of a new theology which divided the church, confused even true followers, and is with us to this day. Arius, parish priest of the church of Alexandria, promulgated his doctrine to the world, occasioning so fierce a controversy in the Christian church that a general council was called at Nicaea, by the emperor Constantine in A.D. 325, to consider and rule upon its teaching. Arius maintained "that the Son was totally and essentially distinct from the Father; that He was the first and noblest of those beings whom the Father had created out of nothing, the instrument by whose subordinate operation the Almighty Father formed the universe, and therefore inferior to the Father, both in nature and dignity." This opinion was condemned by the council, which decreed that Christ was of one and the same substance with the Father. For ages it continued to agitate the Christian world, as the Arians spread the false teaching of Arianism among the people of the Roman Empire and beyond. We can look at the changes and deletions of the Alexandrian text and its derivatives and see the results in this view held by Arians, it almost destroyed the faith of Christian believers.

And yet here we are today, with the same text in the NIV and other new versions, and Christians pick it up and don't understand what it is......as the old saying goes..

"Those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it. Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors are destined to repeat them."

Here is a false statement planted by Satan to undermine the confidence of people in the Word of God.

Who has claimed that all the books contained in Codex Alexandrius are part of the Bible? Or are such claims true?

Point out the doctrinal mistakes in 1 Clement compared with the teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

What part of the Alexandrian text contains this corruption? Be specific.

I think Rick has been very specific, but it's so hard to read and understand many of his posts that it isn't clear. Referring to the last several posts -- ll those numbers and # signs really don't mean anything to me. I take it they are the numbers of words in Strong's concordance, but who has the time and commitment to look up all those thousands of numbers?

I wonder if Rick himself has looked them all up or if he is just cut and pasting from some source?


I guess I'm admitting this is getting to be way above my head, and probably many other heads as well.

You cannot prove or disprove anything with Strong unless you know the languages involved and how the grammar works. Anything else is just child's play that means nothing.

When I worked in Nigeria as a Bible teacher and pastor of the Ile-Ife SDA Mission Hospital a representative from the Bible Society brought me a whole box full of TEV New Testaments straight from the press. Students, staff and church members, who had been using the KJV, were delighted to read the Gospels of Jesus and the Apostles in clear English, and there never was a question about any of our doctrines.

In two other countries where I have worked as a minister in the SDA church for decades, we have never had a KJV Bible, and there has never been a conflict in doctrines with our world church.

It must be Satan himself who is stirring up this unreasonable distrust in Scripture just before the return of Jesus.

NO - those numbers are not Strong's numbers. They are Unicode code points for non-ASCII (think mainly English) characters. That is Greek. The forum editor shows them correctly, but the forum software trashes them when they are displayed.

Those like the KJV which are based on the Textus Receptus are Gods Word, those based on the Alexandrian manuscripts such as the NIV have always been and will always be a changed and deviated text as history clearly shows, it is undisputable. The only questions is why, and I think I have shown in this study the answer to that and the purpose of those who did it.

You have quoted some opinions which prove nothing. My questions have not been answered. All you are doing is undermining the confidence people have in the Word of God.

No, I have put forth facts which anyone can check if they chose to take the time and effort to see what is there, and brought them together to form a opinion which all can take or leave, that is their choice. But it clearly shows what is the true text and why.

Philip W. Comfort, Editor. THE ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE, Tyndale House, 1992 - 2012.

The above book, the latest edition was published in December 2012, may be of value to you in a study of the history of the Bible.

It comes from a conservative background with contributions from F.F. Bruce, Carl R.H. Henry, J. I. Packer and others. I do not consider it to be perfect. But, I do consider it to be of value and it clearly does not reflect a liberal approach.

I do not have the latest edition. But, in the older edition that I am looking at, it has the following sections with chapters in each section:

1) The Authority & Inspiraiton of the Bible.
2) The Canon of the Bible.
3) The Bible as a Literary Text.
4) Bible Texts & Manuscripts.
5) Bible Translation.

It is currently sold on Amazon and in other places. If you purchase it make certain that you know what edition your are buying.

For further information click on the following:

http://files.tyndale.com/thpdata/FirstChapters/978-0-8423-8367-7.pdf

Yes, I will have to look for it. I have come across many new critiques including one on the New York 'bestsellers' list, and all are basically just promoters of the Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus, and throw disdain and show what can only be called hate on the true text given in the Textus Receptus.

Thank you and God Bless.
Rick

The mode of the Lord’s existence on earth was truly human, and subject to all the conditions of human existence; but He never ceased to be God. ~ B.F. Westcott

But the assumption of humanity, not for a time, but for ever, by the Word, who is God, was a truth undreamt of till it was realized. ~ B.F. Westcott

Christ the Incarnate Word is the perfect revelation of the Father: as God, He reveals God. ~ B.F. Westcott

I apologize for only now catching this. I have enabled HTML in several of those posts now, so take a look at the Greek alterations that Rick was posting about again, and you should now be able to see it better.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Just need to put a few changes in the recipe and cover it with honey and people will taste the honey and miss the poison it hides.

I've taken a brief look at the list of "changes," and many of them consist in the omission of unimportant pronouns or of the conjunction kai ("and"). In others, like in John 5:16, "And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day," the omitted part is "and sought to slay him." It's interesting that the phrase was omitted in v. 16, but left in v. 18. So those who wished to make the "changes" did a very poor job.

Let's do a comparison study that makes a BIG DIFFERENCE in our doctrinal understanding of the Sabbath being the Sabbath of Gentiles as well as the Jews.





NIV


Now let's list the outright differences

KJV.................................NIV....................................R.T GREEK................V.GREEK
42. The Jews...............Paul and Silas................... Ioudaios(Jew)............autos(they/he)
42. The Gentiles...........the people...................... ethnos(Gentiles)........ ( -x-x- omitted)
42. These words...........further ...........................tauta rhema...............houtos rhema

The rest has only minor changes, but it is verse 42 that completely changes the meaning of the story.
The KJV (based on the RT) gives the following picture:

We realize Paul and Silas were preaching to the Jews and Gentile proselytes in their synagogue on Sabbath. Then the Jews go out, and the Gentiles come up to Paul and beg him to come preach the SAME words to them (to the Gentiles) the NEXT SABBATH.

A week goes by and Paul honors there request by NOT going into a synagogue but going where the Gentiles have gathered and preaches to them – the whole city practically coming to listen.
In this picture it becomes clear that Paul doesn’t say to the Gentiles – hey, tomorrow is the Gentile’s day to celebrate the resurrection, we’ll honor the Gentile Sabbath tomorrow, Paul is holding the Gentiles to the same Sabbath. For the NEXT SABBATH he speaks to the Gentiles. The Jews are jealous.....

In the NIV this emphases on the Sabbath for the Gentiles is lost.

In the NIV the picture is as follows:
Paul and Silas were preaching to the Jews and Gentile proselytes, Paul and Silas leave the synagogue the people invite him to come back next Sabbath and speak further to them. Apparently a huge crowd gathered at the synagogue the next Sabbath and Jews were jealous....

But you see in this version Paul is still catering to the Jews and meeting with them in their synagogue to which many from the city had gathered. It isn’t till verse 46 that Paul himself goes to the Gentiles and the impact of the Sabbath for the Gentiles has been wiped out from scripture.

There's no question that many of the changes made in the NIV are frivolous and insignificant. But, as Dedication has so well pointed out, there are also changes which are hugely significant. Those changes are rarely for the better.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Rick H., this is a very thorough and thus a very good study.