KJV vs other Bibles

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

56 minutes ago, Giller said:

And do compare the modern bible versions with Catholic versions, in respect to certain doctrines, now do they all say the same thing in every verse? Of course not, but do compare.

To steer the ship back on track. 

I don't recall if it's been said or not. I know the KJV was based on the textus receptus. But what manuscripts where used to form the textus receptus. Or what manuscripts have been used to verify the accuracy of the textus receptus. 

[simplejeff]

2 hours ago, Giller said:

Actually of what I read, he was actually proven true ....

Amein and Halleluyah for all those seeking the truth.  Truth stands on YHWH'S authority.   HIS children know.

Too bad for those who like tradition more.....  

[Guest Teditis]

4 hours ago, Judas Machabeus said:

To steer the ship back on track. 

I don't recall if it's been said or not. I know the KJV was based on the textus receptus. But what manuscripts where used to form the textus receptus. Or what manuscripts have been used to verify the accuracy of the textus receptus. 

From what I've read, Erasmus set out to write a "better" Latin version of the Bible than scholars that he deemed unworthy of translating Greek,

and used various sources including Latin (already translated texts) for his source material. Then he decided to "correct" some of the grammar that

was used in the early manuscripts saying, ""It is only fair that Paul should address the Romans in somewhat better Latin."

So, it seems to me that the KJV is a translation of Latin works into English... that would mean that it's a translation of a translation, twice removed

from the earliest texts.

Feel free to correct me if that's wrong...

[TheMatrixHasU71]

On ‎27‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 11:25 AM, Judas Machabeus said:

Interesting comparison with the Muslims, I think it's very different but I can kinda see how you got there. 

Heres my take on the translation inspired or not conversation  

I believe the original autographs where 100% inspired and infalliable.  We no longer have the autographs so it doesn't matter what language you read the bible in... it's either a copy or translation. So the Muslim thing is out.

i believe that the Holy Spirit guides us in everything we do. So it would not be any different for a group trying to be as dedicated to producing the best translation. 

But there is a difference between being inspired by the Holy Spirit and guided. I'm not sure how to articulate it. 

I believe our English translation is an accurate representation of the original autographs. Thus I believe our English translations is the word of God. I however do not believe that any translation carries the same authority as the original autographs.

this is just my never to be humble opinion

Cheers and God Bless 

 

I just realised there was some misunderstanding between my use of the word "originals" and your using "autographs"

When I say 'originals" I merely meant the texts in the original languages, not merely the original autographs penned by the hand of their authors directly. I would agree that the autographs were quite likely flawless (though one cant necessarily account for stupid stuff like imperfect spelling). Again only God is perfect

Just my two cents here

[TheMatrixHasU71]

On ‎27‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 0:47 PM, Judas Machabeus said:

ill let Matrix speak for herself, but when I read her line about "original text" I don't think she meant the autographs. I read it as meaning the original Greek texts. I know she didn't say Greek but given the context of the thread the word "original" has been used in conjunction with "Greek text". 

Yeah that is it exactly.

[TheMatrixHasU71]

On ‎28‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 10:08 AM, Deborah_ said:

It's hard to get worked up about most of these. The word 'sodomite' isn't in the NIV because it's no longer used in everyday English. Instead, we have 'men who have sex with men'. Different words, but the same people being referred to. And a lot of other 'familiar' KJV words (like 'begotten') have been 'changed' for the same reason. What's the point of having a modern translation if you don't use modern English?

And most of the "removed" verses and phrases are to be found elsewhere in the New Testament; in other words, they were duplications.

BTW "Sodomite" is still used in English today; or else we would not have "sodomy" laws......

[TheMatrixHasU71]

On ‎26‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 10:59 AM, Judas Machabeus said:

My RSV is a digital copy from a phone app. I believe is it pretty current though. 

There are many words that fall into that category. Bishop is a common one as well. The Greek word can be translated as overseer or Bishops. So many churches that don't have bishops would have a hard time with those verses. So modern versions like the ESV have replaced bishop with overseer. 

I can understand the debate of "young woman" vs "virgin" because it can point a reader in a  certain direction.  Like the bishop vereses. Why are there Bishops in the bible and some churches have bishops but most Protestant church don't and some go so far as to deny any heiarchy of any kind. 

 

You know an odd thing. I was looking through stuff at a bookstore yesterday and saw an NRSV bible. Out of curiosity I looked for Isaiah 7:14 and it still uses "young woman".

It occurred to me to that with "bishops" and "overseers" well, the difference there is just semantics. There really is no difference. But "young woman" vs "virgin" is totally different. What is meant to be seen as "virgin" should always be translated that way.

[TheMatrixHasU71]

16 minutes ago, Giller said:

Here is interesting info, if someone cares to read it, and no it is not by Chick, but by this guy Doug Stauffer.

Now I know some will reject this info., but if you look at the word itself, of what it says of Antioch, which is were the documents, that eventually brought about the KJV came from, and were most modern translations got their documents from, which is Alexandria, that itself can tell us a story.

Not much good was said of Alexandria, but good stuff was said of Antioch, which brought forth a great witness.

Act 11:25-27
(25)  Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul:
(26)  And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
(27)  And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch.

So down below is the stuff from Doug.
 

(The Bible’s Family Tree – Simplified

The “original autographs” refer to the actual manuscripts penned by the writers of each of the 66 books of the Bible. They were written in manuscript form by one of God’s apostles or prophets. The original autograph was given to the nation of Israel (Old Testament) or a local New Testament church. Some New Testament epistles were sent to individuals such as Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. God, in His infinite wisdom and foreknowledge, primarily chose the Hebrew and Koine Greek languages to be used for the originals of the Old and New Testaments, respectively. Both of these tongues became “dead languages” within several hundred years after each respective canon was established. The words actually became “frozen in time.” Thus, the words and their meanings could not change. They became, as Latin, dead languages with fixed properties of meaning.

In contrast, English is a living language.  As such, new words are constantly being added to the English language, and old words remain in a state of flux. ⁴  For instance, the fourth edition of The American Heritage Dictionary, released in the year 2000, advertises its product with the following quote: “This edition has nearly 10,000 new words and senses that reflect the rapid pace of change in the English language today.” ⁵  Unlike the modern versions, the King James Bible was translated at a time when English was in its purest form. Since that time, the English language has progressively degenerated from what it was in 1611 to what it is today. Should God’s word be forced to embody the degeneration of our language?

These original manuscripts (autographs) penned by the authors wore out from use. When certain other tribes, synagogues, churches, etc. desired a copy of a sacred writing, a copy was made for them. These copies are called “manuscripts” because they were written with pen and ink (prior to the advent of the printing press and typesetting).

Frequently, scribes were known to have destroyed old, worn manuscripts after the new copies had been made (a process analogous to our disposal of a weathered flag). These scribes were not concerned with holding onto the originals because they had faithfully copied the text. This faithful copying resulted in the faithful promulgation of God’s word to subsequent generations. The only alternative explanation of the history of the Bible is that God’s promise has failed and the words of God have indeed passed away (Matthew 24:35).

Other tribes, synagogues, churches, etc. made copies of these manuscripts until, eventually, copies of the sacred writings had been distributed all over the world. The written word of God spread in much the same way as the verbal word of God spread in the first century.

Acts 6:7 And the word of God increased…

     

Acts 12:24 But the word of God grew and multiplied.

 

      Acts 13:49 And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region.

Warning: Satan’s henchmen were busy creating and copying some manuscripts at this time, too. Church history and the Bible warn about early corruption of the words of God. For instance, the Apostle Paul warns Christians in the first century of Satan’s devices: “For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ” (II Corinthians 2:17). Nelson Floyd Jones’ apt description of the early days of New Testament corruption contradicts the standard Bible critic’s position.

Hort said there were no signs of deliberate altering of the text for doctrinal purposes, but the Scriptures and the church ‘Fathers’ disagree with him. Again, II Corinthians 2:17 says that ‘many’ were corrupting the Scriptures during the time of Paul. From the letters and works of the Fathers, we know of Marcion the Gnostic who deliberately altered the text for doctrinal purposes as early as 140 A.D. Other corrupters of Scripture were named by the mid-second century by these church Fathers. For example, Dionysius (Bishop of Corinth from A.D. 168 to 176) said that the Scriptures had been deliberately altered in his day. Many modern scholars recognize that most variations were made deliberately.⁶ 
 

God’s Line of Manuscripts versus Satan’s Line of Manuscripts

The copies that were proven to be good copies were “received” by the synagogues and local churches and became known as the “Received Text.” Of the 5,262 Greek witnesses to the text of the New Testament, 80% are in full agreement with the true text; a full 90% of the witnesses agree 97% of the time! ⁷  In addition, ALL 2,143 Greek lectionaries support the Received Text underlying the King James Bible. (Lectionaries are manuscripts containing scripture lessons read publicly in the churches. In other words, the churches that utilized the lectionaries ALL used the text that gave birth to the King James Bible!!!!!)

In 1382, John Wycliffe gave his people their first English translation of the Bible. He became known as the “Morning Star of the Reformation.” Regretfully, because of his lack of knowledge in Greek and Hebrew, he based his work primarily on the Latin manuscripts, such as the Latin Vulgate. The Latin Vulgate was derived from Adamantius Origen’s corrupted Greek Hexapla, commonly referred to as the Septuagint – LXX. Foxe confirms Wycliffe’s use of the Latin in his comments about William Tyndale. Tyndale was the first individual to return to the original languages of Hebrew and Greek. All of the English versions before Tyndale were translations of a translation, all derived from the Vulgate or older Latin versions. ⁸ 

Wycliffe was hated for his attempt to give the common people the words of God in the English language. In 1415, he was posthumously condemned for heresy by Pope Martin V at the Council of Constance. The Council ordered his bones exhumed and burned. The orders were carried out in 1428 when they unearthed them, burned them to ashes, and threw them into the river Swift.

In 1516, a scholar named Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) was led of God to produce the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament. Although he did not have a complete text, he used the manuscripts available to him to produce a Greek New Testament, which later became known as the Textus Receptus. Some claim that his work was inferior because he was supposedly ignorant of the competing text types. This is simply not true. Documentation exists to prove that he did in fact have knowledge of the Vaticanus manuscript and had regular correspondence with Professor Paulus Bombasius, the Papal librarian, concerning it. ⁹  Furthermore, a Catholic priest named Juan Sepulveda sent extracts of the Codex Vaticanus to Erasmus, in an attempt to convince him of its superiority. ¹⁰  After considering the material provided him, Erasmus rejected the Vaticanus as a variant text type. (Vaticanus is discussed further under Satan’s line of manuscripts.) Thus, Erasmus knew of the text used by modern bible critics almost 100 years prior to the King James Bible, but considered Vaticanus, as well as the other Alexandrian texts to be variants.

Erasmus was the most unlikely candidate to be used of God. Yet, he was uniquely qualified. Who better to expose the fallacies of the Roman Catholic Church than one completely familiar with its ways? Although Erasmus had been raised and trained by Catholic monks, he was a true man of character. He spent his life writing about and protesting the false doctrines of the Roman Catholic system. His true friends were the Protestant scholars among whom he lived and died.

Cambridge historian Owen Chadwick said he was an “ex-monk…a Protestant pastor preached his funeral sermon and the money he left was used to help Protestant refugees.” ¹¹  He was buried at a Protestant church in Basel. Erasmus shows up on Sebastian Frank’s list of heretics of the Roman Catholic Church. ¹²  The Council of Trent condemned Erasmus’ translation of the Bible because it did not match their corrupt Vulgate translation, but rather the text of true Christianity. In 1559, the pope placed Erasmus’ writings on The Index of Forbidden Books, just as the word of God had been placed on that list in 1229. ¹³  The Council of Toulouse, which met in November of 1229 about the same time as the crusade against the Albigensians, set up a special ecclesiastical tribunal, or court, known as the Inquisition to search out and try heretics. Twenty of the 45 articles decreed by the Council dealt with heresy. It ruled in part:

Canon 2 - The lords of the districts shall carefully seek out the heretics in dwellings, hovels, and forests, and even their underground retreats shall be entirely wiped out.

Canon 14 - We prohibit the permission of the books of the Old and New Testament to laymen, except perhaps they might desire to have the Psalter, or some Breviary for the divine service, or the Hours of the blessed Virgin Mary, for devotion; expressly forbidding their having the other parts of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue. ¹⁴ 

No matter how much the Roman Catholic Church fought against those that tried to spread the word of God throughout the world, truth still prevailed. The Textus Receptus was eventually translated into other languages, including French, Dutch, Danish, and Czech. Other well-known Bibles were also produced from Erasmus’ work. These included the Swedish Uppsala Bible, the Spanish Reyna, the Italian Diodati version, and Martin Luther’s German Bible.

.......

 

Satan’s Line of Manuscripts

In 1475, a manuscript was logged into the Vatican library known as Codex Vaticanus. It was “rediscovered” almost four centuries later (in 1845) and has become instrumental in influencing modern scholarship. It dates to around A.D. 350.

In 1844, a second Alexandrian manuscript, called Codex Sinaiticus, was discovered in a monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai. This manuscript also dates to about A.D. 350. Many scholars believe that these copies are two of the 50 copies that the Emperor Constantine instructed Eusebius to prepare for the new churches he planned to build in Constantinople. Thus, Origen (the Gnostic) influenced Eusebius (his favorite student); Eusebius influenced the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts; and – in turn – every modern version taken from these two manuscripts was corrupted!  Neither the Vaticanus nor the Sinaiticus was accepted as a “received” text. Thousands of changes have been noted within their pages by many different scribes throughout history.

In 1853, two men named Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort set out to write a Greek text based on these two Alexandrian texts (Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Sinaiticus). Since these two texts by then disagreed with each other in some 3,036 places in the four Gospel books alone, the two men had to come up with a completely subjective text influenced by their heretical views. Consequently, they wrote an “eclectic” text, meaning they preferentially picked and chose certain portions of scripture from the Vaticanus manuscript and other portions from the Sinaiticus manuscript until they produced a rendering that satisfactorily conveyed their doctrines. (BUT “…no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” II Peter 1:20.).

Scrivener reported 15,000 alterations in the text of Sinaiticus “brought in by at least ten different revisers, some of them systematically spread over every page, others occasional or limited to separate portions of the manuscript, many of them being contemporaneous with the first writer, far the greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh century, a few being as recent as the twelfth.” ²³ 

Therefore, it stands to reason that no matter how closely Vaticanus and Sinaiticus once agreed, with so many alterations these witnesses could no longer agree. Regarding the thousands of changes in the seventh century, Scrivener wrote: “The one object of this corrector was to assimilate the Codex to manuscripts more in vogue in his time, and approaching far nearer to our modern Textus Receptus.” ²⁴ 

In 1898, a revision of Westcott and Hort’s Greek Text was made and called “Nestle’s Greek Text.” The majority of Bible colleges today use Nestle’s Greek text (the Aland-Nestle²⁶ or the UBS³) although it differs greatly from the Textus Receptus. Despite this fact, the new versions arise from these corrupted texts, while the King James Bible stands alone in its use of the Textus Receptus and its rejection of the readings from the corrupt texts. (Note: UBS³ stands for the third edition of the United Bible Society.)

Westcott and Hort had an unusual rule of thumb for determining which Greek text to choose when there was a variant reading. They chose the “neutral” approach. Basically, this meant that the variant (the difference between the Greek texts) was approached from the perspective that the reading that should be chosen would be the one that reflects the least doctrinal bias (i.e. the one that is most neutral). For instance, they chose to use the word who or he in I Timothy 3:16 rather than God (used in the Textus Receptus) because they hypothesized that some well-meaning scribe inserted God into the passage. According to their theory, the variants were caused by God’s people, rather than those who had set out to corrupt the scripture (II Corinthians 2:17). This is preposterous and anti-scriptural!

Typical of this philosophy, James White justifies the changes in the modern versions using various unproven hypotheses such as: “scribal expansion,” ²⁵  “parallel passage corruption,” ²⁶  “scribal harmonization,” ²⁷  “parallel corruption,” ²⁸  and “parallel influence.”²⁹  Johann Jakob Griesbach concurs with this theory that the corrupted text is the one that contains a dogmatic position on doctrine. Read the illogical conclusions for yourself:

When there are many variant readings in one place, that reading which more than the others manifestly favors dogmas of the orthodox is deservedly regarded as suspicious.  ³⁰ 

If the subject were not so serious, this absurd position would be humorous. Such a theory certainly has no basis in the spiritual realm. We are not talking about just any book. We are discussing a book that Satan hates! Ignorance of the truth has always been his greatest ally. To attribute the changes to “well-meaning godly men,” rather than to satanic influence borders on lunacy. Dr. Samuel Gipp succinctly speaks from the Bible believing, spiritual perspective.

If Satan can eliminate the Bible, he can break our lifeline to Heaven. If he can only get us to doubt its accuracy, he can successfully foil God’s every attempt to teach us.  ³¹ 

Westcott and Hort’s theory of corruption has been proven false by unquestionable evidence. Dean Burgon dedicated 84 pages of evidence to support the KJB rendering of I Timothy 3:16 “God was manifest in the flesh” and to invalidate the modern version rendering of “He who was manifest in the flesh.” Out of 254 manuscripts and translations in other languages personally examined by Dean John Burgon, 252 contained the reading supporting the KJB. ³²  This equates to greater than 99% agreement with the King James reading and less than 1% siding with the readings found in the modern versions.

Compare the magnitude of evidence from the correct reading with the typical footnote found in most modern versions: “Some manuscripts read God.” The modern version editors fail to tell you that the two manuscripts supporting the corrupt reading are the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. According to the critic’s theory, these two manuscripts should be given precedence because they do not contain as dogmatic a doctrinal stand. Here is the standard line of the liberals and neo-fundamentalists as excerpted from the book, From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man.

The discovery of some ancient Greek manuscripts late in the nineteenth century produced a revolution in the understanding of the Greek New Testament. These discoveries have changed the editing of Greek texts into a new quest to define the original text. These texts are based on new witnesses not previously known and new approaches to interpreting the variations. Beginning in the 1880s, printed Greek New Testaments were developed with significant differences from the traditional Textus Receptus Greek Text.³³ 

According to this modern philosophy, God’s promise of providential preservation of the scriptures failed until Tishendorf, Tragelles, and Westcott and Hort “providentially” discovered it in the mid-nineteenth century. Consider the dire implications – the text used by the church for 1,500 years and the same one that aided the cause of the Protestant Reformation was really not the preserved text. Instead, infidels rediscovered it during a time of great unbelief – the time of evolution, liberalism, Freud, and Marx. True biblical historians trace the great confusion and discord among believers today back to this period of uncertainty and unbelief.)

Love the info here. Good post.

[Deborah_]

19 minutes ago, TheMatrixHasU71 said:

BTW "Sodomite" is still used in English today; or else we would not have "sodomy" laws......

But we don't have "sodomy laws" any more. The term has been consigned to history (in the UK, anyway).

[simplejeff]

1 hour ago, Giller said:

Here is interesting info, if someone cares to read it, and no it is not by Chick, but by this guy Doug Stauffer.

Now I know some will reject this info., but if you look at the word itself, of what it says of Antioch, which is were the documents, that eventually brought about the KJV came from, and were most modern translations got their documents from, which is Alexandria, that itself can tell us a story.

Not much good was said of Alexandria, but good stuff was said of Antioch, which brought forth a great witness.

Act 11:25-27
(25)  Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul:
(26)  And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
(27)  And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch.

So down below is the stuff from Doug.
 

(The Bible’s Family Tree – Simplified

The “original autographs” refer to the actual manuscripts penned by the writers of each of the 66 books of the Bible. They were written in manuscript form by one of God’s apostles or prophets. The original autograph was given to the nation of Israel (Old Testament) or a local New Testament church. Some New Testament epistles were sent to individuals such as Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. God, in His infinite wisdom and foreknowledge, primarily chose the Hebrew and Koine Greek languages to be used for the originals of the Old and New Testaments, respectively. Both of these tongues became “dead languages” within several hundred years after each respective canon was established. The words actually became “frozen in time.” Thus, the words and their meanings could not change. They became, as Latin, dead languages with fixed properties of meaning.

In contrast, English is a living language.  As such, new words are constantly being added to the English language, and old words remain in a state of flux. ⁴  For instance, the fourth edition of The American Heritage Dictionary, released in the year 2000, advertises its product with the following quote: “This edition has nearly 10,000 new words and senses that reflect the rapid pace of change in the English language today.” ⁵  Unlike the modern versions, the King James Bible was translated at a time when English was in its purest form. Since that time, the English language has progressively degenerated from what it was in 1611 to what it is today. Should God’s word be forced to embody the degeneration of our language?

These original manuscripts (autographs) penned by the authors wore out from use. When certain other tribes, synagogues, churches, etc. desired a copy of a sacred writing, a copy was made for them. These copies are called “manuscripts” because they were written with pen and ink (prior to the advent of the printing press and typesetting).

Frequently, scribes were known to have destroyed old, worn manuscripts after the new copies had been made (a process analogous to our disposal of a weathered flag). These scribes were not concerned with holding onto the originals because they had faithfully copied the text. This faithful copying resulted in the faithful promulgation of God’s word to subsequent generations. The only alternative explanation of the history of the Bible is that God’s promise has failed and the words of God have indeed passed away (Matthew 24:35).

Other tribes, synagogues, churches, etc. made copies of these manuscripts until, eventually, copies of the sacred writings had been distributed all over the world. The written word of God spread in much the same way as the verbal word of God spread in the first century.

Acts 6:7 And the word of God increased…

     

Acts 12:24 But the word of God grew and multiplied.

 

      Acts 13:49 And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region.

Warning: Satan’s henchmen were busy creating and copying some manuscripts at this time, too. Church history and the Bible warn about early corruption of the words of God. For instance, the Apostle Paul warns Christians in the first century of Satan’s devices: “For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ” (II Corinthians 2:17). Nelson Floyd Jones’ apt description of the early days of New Testament corruption contradicts the standard Bible critic’s position.

Hort said there were no signs of deliberate altering of the text for doctrinal purposes, but the Scriptures and the church ‘Fathers’ disagree with him. Again, II Corinthians 2:17 says that ‘many’ were corrupting the Scriptures during the time of Paul. From the letters and works of the Fathers, we know of Marcion the Gnostic who deliberately altered the text for doctrinal purposes as early as 140 A.D. Other corrupters of Scripture were named by the mid-second century by these church Fathers. For example, Dionysius (Bishop of Corinth from A.D. 168 to 176) said that the Scriptures had been deliberately altered in his day. Many modern scholars recognize that most variations were made deliberately.⁶ 
 

God’s Line of Manuscripts versus Satan’s Line of Manuscripts

The copies that were proven to be good copies were “received” by the synagogues and local churches and became known as the “Received Text.” Of the 5,262 Greek witnesses to the text of the New Testament, 80% are in full agreement with the true text; a full 90% of the witnesses agree 97% of the time! ⁷  In addition, ALL 2,143 Greek lectionaries support the Received Text underlying the King James Bible. (Lectionaries are manuscripts containing scripture lessons read publicly in the churches. In other words, the churches that utilized the lectionaries ALL used the text that gave birth to the King James Bible!!!!!)

In 1382, John Wycliffe gave his people their first English translation of the Bible. He became known as the “Morning Star of the Reformation.” Regretfully, because of his lack of knowledge in Greek and Hebrew, he based his work primarily on the Latin manuscripts, such as the Latin Vulgate. The Latin Vulgate was derived from Adamantius Origen’s corrupted Greek Hexapla, commonly referred to as the Septuagint – LXX. Foxe confirms Wycliffe’s use of the Latin in his comments about William Tyndale. Tyndale was the first individual to return to the original languages of Hebrew and Greek. All of the English versions before Tyndale were translations of a translation, all derived from the Vulgate or older Latin versions. ⁸ 

Wycliffe was hated for his attempt to give the common people the words of God in the English language. In 1415, he was posthumously condemned for heresy by Pope Martin V at the Council of Constance. The Council ordered his bones exhumed and burned. The orders were carried out in 1428 when they unearthed them, burned them to ashes, and threw them into the river Swift.

In 1516, a scholar named Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) was led of God to produce the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament. Although he did not have a complete text, he used the manuscripts available to him to produce a Greek New Testament, which later became known as the Textus Receptus. Some claim that his work was inferior because he was supposedly ignorant of the competing text types. This is simply not true. Documentation exists to prove that he did in fact have knowledge of the Vaticanus manuscript and had regular correspondence with Professor Paulus Bombasius, the Papal librarian, concerning it. ⁹  Furthermore, a Catholic priest named Juan Sepulveda sent extracts of the Codex Vaticanus to Erasmus, in an attempt to convince him of its superiority. ¹⁰  After considering the material provided him, Erasmus rejected the Vaticanus as a variant text type. (Vaticanus is discussed further under Satan’s line of manuscripts.) Thus, Erasmus knew of the text used by modern bible critics almost 100 years prior to the King James Bible, but considered Vaticanus, as well as the other Alexandrian texts to be variants.

Erasmus was the most unlikely candidate to be used of God. Yet, he was uniquely qualified. Who better to expose the fallacies of the Roman Catholic Church than one completely familiar with its ways? Although Erasmus had been raised and trained by Catholic monks, he was a true man of character. He spent his life writing about and protesting the false doctrines of the Roman Catholic system. His true friends were the Protestant scholars among whom he lived and died.

Cambridge historian Owen Chadwick said he was an “ex-monk…a Protestant pastor preached his funeral sermon and the money he left was used to help Protestant refugees.” ¹¹  He was buried at a Protestant church in Basel. Erasmus shows up on Sebastian Frank’s list of heretics of the Roman Catholic Church. ¹²  The Council of Trent condemned Erasmus’ translation of the Bible because it did not match their corrupt Vulgate translation, but rather the text of true Christianity. In 1559, the pope placed Erasmus’ writings on The Index of Forbidden Books, just as the word of God had been placed on that list in 1229. ¹³  The Council of Toulouse, which met in November of 1229 about the same time as the crusade against the Albigensians, set up a special ecclesiastical tribunal, or court, known as the Inquisition to search out and try heretics. Twenty of the 45 articles decreed by the Council dealt with heresy. It ruled in part:

Canon 2 - The lords of the districts shall carefully seek out the heretics in dwellings, hovels, and forests, and even their underground retreats shall be entirely wiped out.

Canon 14 - We prohibit the permission of the books of the Old and New Testament to laymen, except perhaps they might desire to have the Psalter, or some Breviary for the divine service, or the Hours of the blessed Virgin Mary, for devotion; expressly forbidding their having the other parts of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue. ¹⁴ 

No matter how much the Roman Catholic Church fought against those that tried to spread the word of God throughout the world, truth still prevailed. The Textus Receptus was eventually translated into other languages, including French, Dutch, Danish, and Czech. Other well-known Bibles were also produced from Erasmus’ work. These included the Swedish Uppsala Bible, the Spanish Reyna, the Italian Diodati version, and Martin Luther’s German Bible.

.......

 

Satan’s Line of Manuscripts

In 1475, a manuscript was logged into the Vatican library known as Codex Vaticanus. It was “rediscovered” almost four centuries later (in 1845) and has become instrumental in influencing modern scholarship. It dates to around A.D. 350.

In 1844, a second Alexandrian manuscript, called Codex Sinaiticus, was discovered in a monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai. This manuscript also dates to about A.D. 350. Many scholars believe that these copies are two of the 50 copies that the Emperor Constantine instructed Eusebius to prepare for the new churches he planned to build in Constantinople. Thus, Origen (the Gnostic) influenced Eusebius (his favorite student); Eusebius influenced the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts; and – in turn – every modern version taken from these two manuscripts was corrupted!  Neither the Vaticanus nor the Sinaiticus was accepted as a “received” text. Thousands of changes have been noted within their pages by many different scribes throughout history.

In 1853, two men named Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort set out to write a Greek text based on these two Alexandrian texts (Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Sinaiticus). Since these two texts by then disagreed with each other in some 3,036 places in the four Gospel books alone, the two men had to come up with a completely subjective text influenced by their heretical views. Consequently, they wrote an “eclectic” text, meaning they preferentially picked and chose certain portions of scripture from the Vaticanus manuscript and other portions from the Sinaiticus manuscript until they produced a rendering that satisfactorily conveyed their doctrines. (BUT “…no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” II Peter 1:20.).

Scrivener reported 15,000 alterations in the text of Sinaiticus “brought in by at least ten different revisers, some of them systematically spread over every page, others occasional or limited to separate portions of the manuscript, many of them being contemporaneous with the first writer, far the greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh century, a few being as recent as the twelfth.” ²³ 

Therefore, it stands to reason that no matter how closely Vaticanus and Sinaiticus once agreed, with so many alterations these witnesses could no longer agree. Regarding the thousands of changes in the seventh century, Scrivener wrote: “The one object of this corrector was to assimilate the Codex to manuscripts more in vogue in his time, and approaching far nearer to our modern Textus Receptus.” ²⁴ 

In 1898, a revision of Westcott and Hort’s Greek Text was made and called “Nestle’s Greek Text.” The majority of Bible colleges today use Nestle’s Greek text (the Aland-Nestle²⁶ or the UBS³) although it differs greatly from the Textus Receptus. Despite this fact, the new versions arise from these corrupted texts, while the King James Bible stands alone in its use of the Textus Receptus and its rejection of the readings from the corrupt texts. (Note: UBS³ stands for the third edition of the United Bible Society.)

Westcott and Hort had an unusual rule of thumb for determining which Greek text to choose when there was a variant reading. They chose the “neutral” approach. Basically, this meant that the variant (the difference between the Greek texts) was approached from the perspective that the reading that should be chosen would be the one that reflects the least doctrinal bias (i.e. the one that is most neutral). For instance, they chose to use the word who or he in I Timothy 3:16 rather than God (used in the Textus Receptus) because they hypothesized that some well-meaning scribe inserted God into the passage. According to their theory, the variants were caused by God’s people, rather than those who had set out to corrupt the scripture (II Corinthians 2:17). This is preposterous and anti-scriptural!

Typical of this philosophy, James White justifies the changes in the modern versions using various unproven hypotheses such as: “scribal expansion,” ²⁵  “parallel passage corruption,” ²⁶  “scribal harmonization,” ²⁷  “parallel corruption,” ²⁸  and “parallel influence.”²⁹  Johann Jakob Griesbach concurs with this theory that the corrupted text is the one that contains a dogmatic position on doctrine. Read the illogical conclusions for yourself:

When there are many variant readings in one place, that reading which more than the others manifestly favors dogmas of the orthodox is deservedly regarded as suspicious.  ³⁰ 

If the subject were not so serious, this absurd position would be humorous. Such a theory certainly has no basis in the spiritual realm. We are not talking about just any book. We are discussing a book that Satan hates! Ignorance of the truth has always been his greatest ally. To attribute the changes to “well-meaning godly men,” rather than to satanic influence borders on lunacy. Dr. Samuel Gipp succinctly speaks from the Bible believing, spiritual perspective.

If Satan can eliminate the Bible, he can break our lifeline to Heaven. If he can only get us to doubt its accuracy, he can successfully foil God’s every attempt to teach us.  ³¹ 

Westcott and Hort’s theory of corruption has been proven false by unquestionable evidence. Dean Burgon dedicated 84 pages of evidence to support the KJB rendering of I Timothy 3:16 “God was manifest in the flesh” and to invalidate the modern version rendering of “He who was manifest in the flesh.” Out of 254 manuscripts and translations in other languages personally examined by Dean John Burgon, 252 contained the reading supporting the KJB. ³²  This equates to greater than 99% agreement with the King James reading and less than 1% siding with the readings found in the modern versions.

Compare the magnitude of evidence from the correct reading with the typical footnote found in most modern versions: “Some manuscripts read God.” The modern version editors fail to tell you that the two manuscripts supporting the corrupt reading are the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. According to the critic’s theory, these two manuscripts should be given precedence because they do not contain as dogmatic a doctrinal stand. Here is the standard line of the liberals and neo-fundamentalists as excerpted from the book, From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man.

The discovery of some ancient Greek manuscripts late in the nineteenth century produced a revolution in the understanding of the Greek New Testament. These discoveries have changed the editing of Greek texts into a new quest to define the original text. These texts are based on new witnesses not previously known and new approaches to interpreting the variations. Beginning in the 1880s, printed Greek New Testaments were developed with significant differences from the traditional Textus Receptus Greek Text.³³ 

According to this modern philosophy, God’s promise of providential preservation of the scriptures failed until Tishendorf, Tragelles, and Westcott and Hort “providentially” discovered it in the mid-nineteenth century. Consider the dire implications – the text used by the church for 1,500 years and the same one that aided the cause of the Protestant Reformation was really not the preserved text. Instead, infidels rediscovered it during a time of great unbelief – the time of evolution, liberalism, Freud, and Marx. True biblical historians trace the great confusion and discord among believers today back to this period of uncertainty and unbelief.)

JOYOUS NEWS of YHWH'S WORD,   as YHWH always guards HIS WORD.

One word oddly stood out after reading ,  looking back highlighted to quote :  "regretfully"...

As somewhere in PROVERBS it is written 'do not look back on days of your life,  and wonder , think, or wish it could have been different, it could have been better,  if only something different had happened (so it would be better) ' as that cannot be changed and might or does presume YHWH lacked somehow in orchestrating all things -  we as men cannot have produced nor come up with something different/better of something already past,  we can't (or shouldn't, since evil men do, as the church has) re-write history to our liking .   We may not see or know how YHWH'S WISDOM , HIS PERFECT KNOWLEDGE of all things ,  could even have permitted something in the past,  like the latin mis-use of YHWH'S WORD to oppress and abuse people, and a multitude of other atrocities both subtle and glaring,  but

as it is written,  YHWH orchestrates ALL THINGS to the GOOD of those who love YHWH, who are called according to HIS  PURPOSE, PLAN, and SALVATION in Y'SHUA.