Why the KJV is used by Adventist

[reddogs]

The King James Version has been a tried and true text that shows the truths of Adventism and if you go into a Adventist church, on the whole you will find this is the Bible of preference as most other versions have issues. Take a look at this comparison of a few verses on key doctrines in the King James Version versus the RSV and NIV....


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.

The Textus Receptus or Majority Text (the vast majority of copies from original, and what the King James is based on) has been attacked with changes, amendments, deletions, and to diminish Gods truth but yet it still stands. Many of the new versions are based on a few corrupted manuscripts and deletions which form the basis of the Minority Text.


Lets look deeper into the background on the Textus Receptus or Majority Text versus the Minority Text:

 

[reddogs]

We find if we look in history, that the Majority Text (Textus Receptus), also called the Byzantine Text is based on the vast majority of manuscripts still in existence. The manuscripts were brought together by various editors such as Lucian (AD 250-312), Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza and the Elzevir brothers to form the text known as Textus Receptus. When the Protestant Reformers decided to translate the scriptures directly from Greek into the languages of Europe, they selected Textus Receptus as their foundation Greek document.

Important points on the Majority Text (Textus Receptus):

· Textus Receptus is based on the vast
majority
(90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the
Majority
Text.
· Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text.
· Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Pesh*tta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc.
· Textus Receptus agrees wih the vast
majority
of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers.
· Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the Saviour's miracles, his bodily resurrection, his literal return.

Now lets look a the Minority Text which are based on previously unknown or unrecognized Alexandrian manuscripts. These were called Vaticanus & Sinaiticus since they were somehow 'found' in the Vatican Library & a monastery in the Sinai respectively. Neither was in the original Greek language, but in a Coptic translation, an early Egyptian language. Coptic placed the origin of these two texts in the region of Alexandria, Egypt the center of the gnosticism heresy. Hence they became known collectively as the Alexandrian Codices.

The Gnostic heresy was a Greek line of thought which came to be known as Gnosticism. We find it specially in the background of the Pastoral Epistles, the Letter to the Colossians and the Fourth Gospel. This Gnostic line of thought had certain characteristics which appear all through the Pastoral Epistles as the characteristics of those whose heresies were threatening the Church and the purity of the faith. It had serious moral and ethical consequences. Its basic belief was that matter was essentially evil and spirit alone was good. That issued in two opposite results.

If matter is evil, the body is evil; and the body must be despised and held down. Therefore Gnosticism could and did issue in a rigid asceticism. The Gnostic looked on creation as an evil thing, the work of an evil god; the Christian looks on creation as a noble thing, the gift of a good God. The Christian lives in a world where all things are pure; the Gnostic lived in a world where all things were defiled.(Titus 1:15)

But Gnosticism could issue in precisely the opposite ethical belief. If the body is evil, it does not matter what a man does with it. Therefore, let him sate his appetites. These things are of no importance, therefore a man can use his body in the most licentious way and it makes no difference. So the Pastorals speak of those who lead away weak women until they are laden with sin and the victims of all kinds of lusts.(2 Timothy 3:6) Such men profess to know God, but they deny him by their deeds.(Titus 1:16) They used their religious beliefs as an excuse for immorality.

Gnosticism tried to blend the new religion but ultimately was against traditional Christian beliefs and attempted to combine Paganism with Christianity. Some Gnostic groups had beliefs that often contradicted the beliefs of other Gnostic groups. The one thing thay all had in common was that all of these groups departed from the orthodox Christian faith, but the Gnostic mixed their beliefs into the manuscripts they made of the scriptures, putting changes of their particular beliefs or taking out what disagreed with it.

The Alexandrian Codices that Westcott & Hort's version used, the Vaticanis & the Sinaiticus reflect this and are unique in their reading in toto. In fact many, if not all of the passages altered or missing from these codices were in fact quoted by the early church fathers as far back as the late 1st century. For instance, if one reads Irenaeus' Against Heresies 3.10.5-6, he states, "Furthermore, near the end of his Gospel, Mark says:'thus, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God.'" quoting Mark 16:19. Irenaeus wrote this in AD180, some 200 years before the Alexandrian Codices, yet he quotes word for word all the verses from the missing part of Mark which were supposedly not to have been added until the 4th or 5th centuries.

 

[reddogs]

Westcott & Hort undertook the translation of these Coptic Greek copies back into their original Greek language and differences began to suddenly appear. Gone was the resurrection story in the book of Mark (the last twelve verses of the KJV). Gone was Acts 8:37 where the Ethiopian eunuch confesses Jesus as the Son of God along with many other passages. All the modern translations which were written during this time are based on the Westcott & Hort Coptic Greek text including the American Standard Version (ASV), the New International Version (NIV), the New World Translation (NWT) & even the New KJV (NKJV) But since the Alexandrian Codices were considered older than any document in the Textus Receptus, it was believed that these verses did not exist in the original manuscripts that the apostles wrote & were added by eager scribes & priests sometime between the 3rd century & the 5th. This was the prevailing theory for many years.

However, since Westcott & Hort's version, some reavealing scholarship & textual discoveries have taken place anthere now exist over 24,000 fragments & complete texts of the New Testament, many dating to even earlier than the Alexandrian Codices. There is even fragments of the Gospel of Matthew dating to AD 50 a mere twenty or so years after the crucifixion of Christ. From this assemblage of 24,000 documents, scholars have constructed what is now called The Majority Text, with each book, passage & quote rated with a percentage of how many of the 24,000 agree with each reading. By & large, with 90%+ certainty, the Textus Receptus & therefore the KJV has been vindicated as the more authoritative text.

With the discovery of a Gnostic Library called the Nag Hammadi, it became clear that the sect known as the "Gnostics" did not believe in the deity of Jesus Christ. Nor did they really believe in His humanity either. They believed He was a "guiding spirit" sent to earth by the "True God" (not the YHWH of the Old Testament, incidently, whom they considered to be a blind, insane angel who created the material world against Sophia's or "Wisdom" i.e. the True God's will). Jesus' mission according to the Gnostics, was to impart special knowledge or "Gnosis" to spirits trapped in this material world seeking release. Thus, Jesus never died on the cross, was never resurrected, was not God, nor was He human. Mysteriously, but rather conveniently, all the altered or missing texts in the Alexandrian Codices always happen to involve one or a combination of these subjects.

Now, the pieces fall into place. All these "missing" verses were in the original texts written by the apostles. The older manuscripts & the many quotes from the 1st and 2nd century church fathers more than confirm that as fact. However, since these verses did not agree with the theology being taught by the Gnostics, when they made their own Alexandrian copies of the Greek originals, they conveniently altered or deleted them to suit their own ideas of what God should say. Westcott & Hort picked up on these corrupted Alexandrian texts as they were caught up in the views prevalent from Darwinism & secular humanist questioning of the validity of orthodox Christianity, if just a few verse could be altered or brought into question, it would serve their purpose. These corrupted Alexandrian texts easily appealed to Westcott & Hort's own sensibilities (as testified to by their surviving correspondence with each other). They in my opinion from the letters they exchanged, knowingly made a Greek translation of what was a changed or heavily edited & thus corrupted Alexandrian translation of a Greek original.

 

[reddogs]

Adventist theologian Benjamin G. Wilkinson writes in his book Truth Triumphant: 'The Protestant denominations are built upon that manuscript of the Greek New Testament sometimes called Textus Receptus, or the Received Text. It is that Greek New Testament from which the writings of the apostles in Greek have been translated into English, German, Dutch and other languages. During the dark ages the Received Text was practically unknown outside the Greek Church. It was restored to Christendom by the labours of that great scholar Erasmus. It is altogether too little known that the real editor of the Received Text was Lucian. None of Lucian's enemies fails to credit him with this work. Neither Lucian nor Erasmus, but rather the apostles, wrote the Greek New Testament. However, Lucian's day was an age of apostasy when a flood of depravations was systematically attempting to devastate both the Bible manuscripts and Bible theology. Origen, of the Alexandrian college, made his editions and commentaries of the Bible a secure retreat for all errors, and deformed them with philosophical speculations introducing casuistry and lying. Lucian's unrivalled success in verifying, safeguarding, and transmitting those divine writings left a heritage for which all generations should be thankful.'

In his book Which Bible? David Otis Fuller says this about Textus Receptus, that all churches fall into one of two basic study categories:
Those who use a variety of Bibles influenced by the Minority Text (the Nestle/Aland Text). Those who only study Bibles based on the Majority Text, from which came the Received Text - Textus Receptus.
Fuller continues: "First of all, the Textus Receptus was the Bible of early Eastern Christianity. Later it was adopted as the official text of the Greek Catholic Church. There were local reasons which contributed to this result. But, probably, far greater reasons will be found in the fact that the Received Text had authority enough to become, either in itself or by its translation, the Bible of the great Syrian Church; of the Waldensian Church of northern Italy; of the Gallic Church in southern France; and of the Celtic Church in Scotland and Ireland; as well as the official Bible of the Greek Catholic Church.
All these churches, some earlier, some later, were in opposition to the Church of Rome and at a time when the Received Text and these Bibles of the Constantine type were rivals. They, as represented in their descendants, are rivals to this day. The Church of Rome built on the Eusebio-Origen type of Bible; these others built on the Received Text. Therefore, because they themselves believed that the Received Text was the true apostolic Bible, and further, because the Church of Rome arrogated to itself the power to choose a Bible which bore the marks of systematic depravation, we have the testimony of these five churches to the authenticity and the apostolicity of the Received Text."

Rev. Samuel C. Gipp comments on this issue:
"The Majority Text has been known throughout history by several names. It has been known as the Byzantine text, the Imperial Text, the Traditional Text and the Reformation Text as well as the Majority Text. This text culminates in the TEXTUS RECEPTUS or Received Text which is the basis for the King James Bible, which we know also as the Authorized Version....We describe this text with the term "Universal," because it represents the majority of extant MSS which represent the original autographs. Professor Hodges of Dallas Theological Seminary explains, "The manuscript of an ancient book will, under any but the most exceptional conditions, multiply in a reasonable regular fashion with the result that the copies nearest the autograph will normally have the largest number of descendants."

Continuing from page 66 in Gipp's book: "Professor Hodges concludes, 'Thus the Majority text, upon which the King James Version is based, has in reality the strongest claim possible to be regarded as an authentic representation of the original text. This claim is quite independent of any shifting consensus of scholarly judgment about its readings and is based on the objective reality of its dominance in the transmissional history of the New Testament text.' "

In his book God Wrote Only One Bible, Jasper J Ray pens the following testimony about Textus Receptus: "Wonder of wonders, in the midst of all the present confusion regarding manuscripts, we still have a Bible we can trust. The writing of the Word of God by inspiration is no greater miracle than the miracle of its preservation in the Textus Receptus. All criticism of this text from which was translated the King James Bible, is based upon an unproved hypothesis: i.e. that there are older and more dependable copies of the original Bible manuscripts. No one in nineteen hundred years, has been able to prove that one jot or tittle has been inserted or taken out."

In his book Final Authority, William P Grady provides further interesting details about Textus Receptus, the Received Text:
"For instance, over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament exist today ranging from small fragments containing two or three verses to nearly entire Bibles. Their ages vary from the second to the sixteenth century; the manuscripts are ending with the arrival of printing. By comparison, there exist only ten quality manuscripts of Caesar's Gallic War composed between 58-50BC… "Once again, the outstanding features of the Received Text is its high percentage of agreement among so many thousands of independent witnesses. This agreement is often placed at about 90 percent; in other words, 90 percent of all existing manuscripts agree with one another so miraculously that they are able to form their own unique text… If the critic of your King James Bible is correct in his rejection of the underlying Textus Receptus, then he is also under the greatest pressure to account for its existence. To complain of fabrication is one thing, but to account for its universal prevalence is quite another. Whenever a large body of ancient documents are seen to be in agreement, this inexplicable harmony becomes their greatest evidence for legitimacy. Simple arithmetic confirms that the nearer a particular reading is to the original, the longer the time span will be for descendants to follow. The longer the family is, the older the original source must be."

 

[reddogs]

The Majority text keeps any one person or group of persons from making changes that can obscure or drastically change the meaning but if they take it out completely then that causes a real problem as one doesnt even have words to check. Here is what having such large numbers of the Textus Receptus does..

"THE MAJORITY TEXT PRINCIPLE

If one will place all the texts along side each other and then see the most common words, he will see the truth through the error. One error by one man can never outnumber the truth presented by the majority. Remember that God promised that He would preserve His Word. This is a Biblical principle, as shown in Deuteronomy 19:15, Matthew 18:16 and II Corinthians 13:1.

The Bible way to determine truth is to collect all the witnesses and examine the facts that each one has and trust the things that the majority agree upon. All men at the beginning had the truth. As error began to creep in, a need appeared to find the truth again. As far back as the Syriac text in A. D. 150, this majority text principle was used as the common way to find the truth.

All of the texts were put together and the agreeing words were recorded, and God's Word was considered complete. Textus Receptus is a Latin term meaning: "Text Received", or "Text Approved", or "Text Accepted". This name was placed on the text in 1624 by the first men who put it into print in one volume. In 1624 this was the text that had long been accepted. Prior to that time it was called: The Majority Text. In the preface to the Greek text the publishers wrote: "The text which is now received by all, in which we give nothing altered or corrupt....."

Now here is a good explanation by Marion H. Reynolds, Jr. and Dennis W. Costella of how some of the modern translations have picked up corruption..

"...In 2 Corinthians 2:17, the Spirit of God warned against the "many which corrupt the word of God " Therefore, it is not surprising in studying church history to discover that such attempts to corrupt the Word of God were clearly evident in the altered, polluted and revised manuscripts purporting to be the Word of God that have existed through the centuries....

It is impossible in such limited space to trace the history and preservation of the true Word of God down through the centuries. However, in the providence of God, two very important things happened in the 15th and 16th centuries for which we should all be eternally grateful. First, was the invention of the printing press and second, the Protestant Reformation. It was the combination of these two developments that made possible the translation and publication of the Authorized King James Version of the Bible in 1611. From then until now, this wonderful gift of God and its subsequent translation into every known major language in the world has changed the course of history and we enjoy its benefits today.

In the latter part of the 19th Century......Theories and methods of "higher criticism" and "textual criticism" were developed and couched in such scholarly language that most people failed to recognize that these were actually attacks upon the Word of God - even though carefully disguised as an effort to "supply the English reader with a more correct text of the New Testament" and to "render the New Testament more generally intelligible." The rush toward new versions was on and though the early progress was slow, we are seeing the results today..... In 1881, influenced by and sympathetic to the Darwinian theory of evolution, two men, Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton J. A. Hort brought forth a different version of the Greek New Testament - one which differed from the Textus Receptus (the underlying Greek text of the KJV) in over 5,700 places.

This Westcott-Hort Greek Text was later to become the basis for the English Revised Version and the American Standard Version. It gave great weight to two corrupted manuscripts-the Vaticanus (Codex B) which was found in the Vatican Library in 1481 and was known to the KJV translators but was not used by them, and the Sinaiticus (Codex Aleph) which was found in a monastery wastebasket at the foot of Mt. Sinai in 1844....

Tischendorf, who discovered the Sinaiticus manuscript, noted at least 12,000 changes that had been made on this manuscript by others than the original copyist. It is difficult to understand why such documents as these could lead one to ignore the simple fact that the Greek text underlying the King James Version, the Textus Receptus, agreed with 90-95% of all known Scripture- related manuscripts..."


Let me give you some books and sites to go over which gives a good historical background and or explanation of how the corruptions came about or were rejected and why.

Modern Bible Translations Unmasked By Russell R Standish

or LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE by Barry Burton which gives a easy to understand explanation...

"...There Are Two Kinds of Manuscripts:

Accurate Copies

These manuscripts represent the manuscripts from which the "Textus Receptus" or Received Text was taken.

They are the majority of Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by Bible believing Christians down through the centuries. It is from these manuscripts that the King James Bible was translated in 1611.

Corrupted Copies

These manuscripts represent the corrupted copies of the Bible, also known as the Alexandrian manuscripts. These manuscripts, many times, do not even agree with each other. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are part of this group. These are the manuscripts on which Westcott and Hort and the modern versions rely so heavily.

There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% account for the differences between the King James and the modern versions.

The modern versions had to use the Textus Receptus, since it contains the majority of the surviving Greek manuscripts. The problem is that, when the Textus Receptus disagreed with the Alexandrian manuscripts, such as the Vaticanus or the Sinaiticus, they preferred these corrupted manuscripts over the Textus Receptus the Majority Text.

 

[reddogs]

Now lets take a closer look a the Minority Text, also known as the Alexandrian Texts because they were from the few manuscripts produced in Alexandria in Egypt.

"..The Minority Texts were rejected by the early Christians and also by all the Protestant Reformers of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries. The Reformers, who were well aware of the existence of
the Minority Texts, considered them unfit for translation purposes.

It is believed that the Minority Texts were butchered by Egyptian gnosticism with many changes, which are mostly deletions. The gnostics were a group that did not believe:
In the virgin birth, that Jesus was the Son of God, that Jesus was resurrected to heaven, that Jesus was the Creator, or that Jesus made atonement for our sins. There are many alterations in the Minority Texts, often a single manuscript being amended by several different scribes over a period of many years.

The Minority Texts omit approximately 200 versus from the Scriptures. This is equivalent to omitting First and Second Peter. The Minority Texts contradict themselves in hundreds of places...."

http://endtimeoutreach.com/whichbible.html
Here is some more background on the corruption of the Minority Text from another site....

"...almost all modern English bibles translated since 1898 are based on the Minority Text (this includes the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, the Living Bible, the New Revised Standard Version, the New World Translation, the New Century Version, the Good News Bible, etc.). These bible versions are only supported by about five of the over 5,000 manuscripts in existence, or about .1% of all manuscripts, which is why it's also known as the "Minority text.".

The two most prominent manuscripts of the Minority Texts are the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus....These Minority Texts frequently disagreed with each other as well as with the Majority Text, and also contained many obvious and flagrant mistakes. Up until the late 1800s, the Minority Texts were utterly rejected by Christians.

The fact that these two manuscripts may have been older does not prove they are better. More likely it indicates that they were set aside because of their numerous errors....

The Vaticanus, which is the sole property of the Roman Catholic Church, and the Sinaiticus, are both known to be overwhelmed with errors. Words and whole phrases are repeated twice in succession or completely omitted, while the entire manuscript has had the text mutilated by some person or persons who ran over every letter with a pen making exact identification of many of the characters impossible...."

"...One of the manuscripts that make up the Minority Text is the Vaticanus. The Vaticanus was found in 1481 in the Vatican library. The other manuscript is the Sinaiticus. The Sinaiticus was found in 1844 in a trash pile at Saint Catherine's monastery, and rescued from a long (and well-deserved) obscurity. It has a great number of omissions and has many words and phrases marked out and re-written. Both of these manuscripts are from Roman Catholic origin...."


http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/nt_manuscripts.html


and it just goes on and on....

"...The Vaticanus Manuscript (B)
The Vaticanus manuscript was found in the Vatican library in 1481. It was rejected by the King James Translators because it was very corrupt and unreliable. The following portions of Scripture are missing from the Vaticanus: Genesis 1:1-46; 28; Psalms 106-138; Matthew 16:2-3; Mark 16:9-20; The Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus) and everything after Hebrews 9:14. These were intentional omissions because the manuscript was found in excellent condition with no pieces missing. In the Gospels it leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses, and 748 whole sentences. These omissions were intentional since there was room left on pages to write these in. The Vaticanus manuscript was written on expensive Vellum and was in good condition when found which means that the missing areas were not due to missing sections but intentional omission.

The Sinaiticus Manuscript (a) Aleph
The major characteristic of this manuscript is that it is a literary mess. There are mistakes, erasures, sentences written on top of other sentences plus many words are omitted. It contains nearly all the New Testament, the Apocryphal Books plus two other false books, “The Shepherd of Hermes...."

 

[reddogs]

So how do you find out if your Bible version is based on the corrupted Alexandiran manuscripts or Minority Text, simple.
Look for Acts 8:37, if your version is missing it, then it is from the Gnostic Alexandiran manuscripts who tried to wipe out the divinity of Christ in their corrupted text.


37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

 

[reddogs]

I came across a site that showed which version was based on what...



American Standard Version

Modern English 1901 Masoretic Text, Westcott and Hort 1881 and Tregelles 1857


American King James Version

Modern English 1999 Revision of the King James Version


Amplified Bible

Modern English 1965 Revision of the American Standard Version


An American Translation

Modern English 1935 Masoretic Text, various[which?] Greek texts.


ArtScroll Tanakh (Old Testament)

Modern English 1996 Masoretic Text


An American Translation

Modern English 1976 Masoretic Text, various[which?] Greek texts.


Berkeley Version

Modern English 1958


Bible in English

Modern English 1949


The Bible in Living English

Modern English 1972


Bishops' Bible

Early Modern English 1568 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus


Catholic Public Domain Version

Modern English 2009 Sixtus V and Clement VIII Latin Vulgate


Children's King James Version

Modern English 1962 Revision of the King James Version.


Christian Community Bible, English version

Modern English 1986 Hebrew and Greek


Clear Word Bible

Modern English 1994


Complete Jewish Bible

Modern English 1998 Paraphrase of the Jewish Publication Society of America Version (Old Testament), and from the original Greek (New Testament).


Contemporary English Version

Modern English 1995


Concordant Literal Version

Modern English Restored Greek syntax. A concordance of every form of every Greek word was made and systematized and turned into English. The whole Greek vocabulary was analyzed and translated, using a standard English equivalent for each Greek element.


A Conservative Version

Modern English 2005


Coverdale Bible

Early Modern English
1535 Masoretic Text, the Greek New Testament of Erasmus, Vulgate, and German and Swiss-German Bibles (Luther Bible, Zürich Bible and Leo Jud's Bible)


Darby Bible

Modern English 1890 Masoretic Text, various critical editions of the Greek text (i.a. Tregelles, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort)


Douay-Rheims Bible

Early Modern English
1582 (New Testament)
1609–1610 (Old Testament) Latin, Greek and Hebrew manuscripts


Douay-Rheims Bible (Challoner Revision)

Modern English 1752 Clementine Vulgate


EasyEnglish Bible

Modern English 2001 Wycliffe Associates (UK)


Easy-to-Read Version

Modern English 1989 Textus Receptus, United Bible Society (UBS) Greek text, Nestle-Aland Text


Emphasized Bible

Modern English 1902 Translated by Joseph Bryant Rotherham based on The New Testament in the Original Greek and Christian David Ginsburg's Massoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew Bible (1894)


English Jubilee 2000 Bible

Modern English 2000 Reina-Valera (1602 Edition)


English Standard Version

Modern English 2001 Revision of the Revised Standard Version. (Westcott-Hort, Weiss, Tischendorf Greek texts)


Ferrar Fenton Bible

Modern English 1853 Masoretic Text and the Westcott and Hort Greek text


Geneva Bible

Early Modern English
1557 (New Testament)
1560 (complete Bible) Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus


God's Word

Modern English 1995


Good News Bible

Modern English 1976 United Bible Society (UBS) Greek text


Great Bible

Early Modern English 1539 Masoretic Text, Greek New Testament of Erasmus, the Vulgate, and the Luther Bible.


Holman Christian Standard Bible

Modern English 2004 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Text.


The Inclusive Bible

Modern English 2007 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek


International Standard Version

Modern English 2011


Jerusalem Bible

Modern English 1966 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, with influence from the French La Bible de Jérusalem.


Jesus' Disciples Bible

Early Modern English 2012 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus, Tyndale 1526 NT, some Erasmus manuscripts, and Bezae 1598 TR.


Jewish Publication Society of America Version Tanakh (Old Testament)

Modern English 1917 Masoretic Text


Judaica Press Tanakh (Old Testament).

Modern English1963 Masoretic Text


Julia E. Smith Parker Translation

Modern English 1876 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus


King James 2000 Version

Modern English 2000 Revision of the King James Version.


King James Easy Reading Version

Modern English 2010 Revision of the King James Version. The Received Text.


King James Version

Early Modern English 1611 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus, Tyndale 1526 NT, some Erasmus manuscripts, and Bezae 1598 TR.


King James II Version

Modern English 1971 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus


Knox's Translation of the Vulgate

Modern English 1955 Vulgate, with influence from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.


Lamsa Bible

Modern English 1933 Syriac Pesh*tta


A Literal Translation of the Bible

Modern English 1985 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus (Estienne 1550)


Leeser Bible, Tanakh (Old Testament)

Modern English 1994 Masoretic Text


The Living Bible

Modern English 1971


American Standard Version (paraphrase)


The Living Torah and The Living Nach. Tanakh (Old Testament)

Modern English 1994 Masoretic Text


Matthew's Bible

Early Modern English1537 Masoretic Text, the Greek New Testament of Erasmus, the Vulgate, the Luther Bible, and a French version[which?].


The Message

Modern English 2002


Modern King James Version

Modern English 1990 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus


Modern Language Bible

Modern English 1969


Moffatt, New Translation

Modern English 1926


James Murdock's Translation of the Syriac Pesh*tta

Modern English Syriac Pesh*tta


New American Bible

Modern English 1970


New American Standard Bible

Modern English 1971 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Text


New Century Version

Modern English 1991


New English Bible

Modern English 1970 Masoretic Text, Greek New Testament


New English Translation (NET Bible)

Modern English 2005 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society Greek New Testament


New International Reader's Version

Modern English 1998 New International Version (simplified syntax, but loss of conjunctions obscures meanings)


New International Version Inclusive Language Edition

Modern English 1996 Revision of the New International Version.


New International Version

Modern English 1978 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (based on Westcott-Hort, Weiss and Tischendorf, 1862).


New Jerusalem Bible

Modern English 1985 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, with influence from the French La Bible de Jérusalem.


New Jerusalem Bible

Modern English 1985 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, with influence from the French La Bible de Jérusalem.


New Jewish Publication Society of America Version. Tanakh (Old Testament)

Modern English 1985 Masoretic Text


New King James Version

Modern English 1982 Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 1983), Majority text (Hodges-Farstad, 1982)


New Life Version

Modern English 1986


New Living Translation

Modern English 1996


New Revised Standard Version

Modern English 1989 Revision of the Revised Standard Version.


New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures

Modern English 1950 (New Testament)
1960 (single volume complete Bible)
1984 (reference edition with footnotes)
Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament, Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, Hebrew J documents, as well as various other families of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts


The Orthodox Study Bible

Modern English 2008 Adds a new translation of the LXX to an existing translation of the NKJV in a single volume.


Quaker Bible

Modern English 1764 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus


Recovery Version of the Bible

Modern English1985 Revision of the American Standard Version and Darby Bible.


Revised Version

Modern English1885 Revision of the King James Version, but with a critical New Testament text: Westcott and Hort 1881 and Tregelles 1857


Revised Standard Version

Modern English 1952 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament.


Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

Modern English 1966 Revision of the Revised Standard Version.


Revised English Bible

Modern English 1987 Revision of the New English Bible.


The Scriptures

Modern English & Hebrew (Divine Names) 1993, revised 1998 & revised 2009 Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica), Textus Receptus Greek text
Popular Messianic Translation by the Institute for Scripture Research


Simplified English Bible

Modern English.


The Story Bible

Modern English 1971 A summary/paraphrase, by Pearl S. Buck


Taverner's Bible

Early Modern English 1539 Minor revision of Matthew's Bible


Thomson's Translation

Modern English 1808 Codex Vaticanus (according to the introduction in the reprint edition by S. F. Pells) of the Septuagint (but excluding the Apocrypha) and of the New Testament


Today's New International Version

Modern English 2005 Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 1983), Nestle-Aland Greek text Revision of the New International Version.


Third Millennium Bible

Modern English 1998 Revision of the King James Version.


Tyndale Bible

Early Modern English 1526 (New Testament) 1530 (Pentateuch) Masoretic Text, Erasmus' third NT edition (1522), Martin Luther's 1522 German Bible. Incomplete translation. Tyndale's other Old Testament work went into the Matthew's Bible (1537).


Updated King James Version

Modern English 2004


A Voice In The Wilderness Holy Scriptures

Modern English 2003 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus


Webster's Revision

Modern English1833 Revision of the King James Version.


Westminster Bible

Modern English 1936 Greek and Hebrew


The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible[4]

Modern English 2010 Revision of the Challoner Revision of the Douay-Rheims Bible. Released into the public domain by The Work of God's Children (nonprofit corporation)


Wycliffe's Bible (1380)

Middle English 1380 Latin Vulgate


Wycliffe's Bible (1388)

Middle English 1388 Latin Vulgate


Young's Literal Translation

Modern English 1862 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus

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 asNestle-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.

 

[reddogs]

As Jerome completed his translations of each book of the Bible, he recorded his observations and comments in an extensive correspondence with other scholars; and these letters were subsequently collected and appended as prologues to the Vulgate text for those books where they survived. In these letters, Jerome described those books or portions of books in the Septuagint that were not found in the Hebrew as being non-canonical: he identified them as apocrypha which infuriated the Roman church leaders. Jerome's views did not, however, prevail; and all complete manuscripts and editions of the Vulgate include some or all these books which he clearly tried to keep out. He knew the true text from the corrupted ones, and fought to keep only the true text, it was important to him as it should be to us......Now lets look at another issue which most people have not come across. The "Septuagint" and its origin, I came across some interesting things that I want to give everyone here to go over and comment.

The Septuagint is a ancient Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures, and it is claimed that Jesus and His apostles used this Greek Bible instead of the Hebrew text of the Jewish scriptures. So they seek to give the Septuagint legitamcy from Christ himself, but the Septuagint wasnt even around when Christ and the Apostles were spreading the Gospel so how could that be. Well lets back up a bit and see what is its origin. The Septuagint is claimed to have been translated between 285-246 BC during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Alexandria, Egypt. His librarian, supposedly Demetrius of Phalerum, persuaded Philadelphus to get a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures and translate into Greek for the Alexandrian Jews. This part of the story comes from early church historian Eusebius (260-339 AD). Scholars then claim that Jesus and His apostles used this Greek Bible instead of the preserved Hebrew text.

Here is a description given online:

"At this time, during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 BC), the ruler of Ptolemaic Kingdom, sent a request to Eleazar, the chief priest in Jerusalem. He wanted him to send translators, to translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, for his library at Alexandria. The letter known as the Letter of Aristeas describes how Ptolemy II requested translators and Eleazar sent 72 scribes, who translated the Septuagint in 72-days. Hence, the name Septuagint, means Seventy from the Latin septuaginta,“70”, seventy-two translators translating the scriptures in seventy-two days. This account in the letter is not completely accepted by many because of circumstances surrounding the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures....The translation had a profound influence on the Jewish Greek speaking community. Greeks could now read and comment on the Hebrew Scriptures without having to learn Hebrew."

But where did this manuscript really come from, lets look closer look at the 'Letter of Aristeas':

The whole argument that the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek before the time of Christ so he would have used it rests upon a single document. All other historical evidence supporting the argument either quotes or references this single letter, the so-called Letter of Aristeas. In it the writer presents himself as a close confidant of king Philadelphus and claims that he persuaded Eleazar, the high priest in Jerusalem, to send with him 72 scholars from Jerusalem to Alexandria, Egypt where they would translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, forming what we now call the Septuagint.

Lets see what is verifiable:

Aristeas, the writer of this letter, claims to have been a Greek court official during the time of Philadelphus' reign and to have been sent by Demetrius to request in Jerusalem the best scholars to bring a copy of the Hebrew scriptures to Alexandria to start the Septuagint translation. In the story, Aristeas even goes so far as to give names of Septuagint scholars, yet many of the names he gives are from the Maccabean era, some 75 years too late and others are Greek names, definitely not the names of Hebrew scholars. It appears that this letter from Aristeas is from a different time period, and writer is trying to make the translation appear older than when it was written, but why.

Looking furhter, the supposed "librarian," Demetrius of Phalerum (345-283 BC) served in the court of Ptolemy Soter. Demetrius was never the librarian under Philadelphus and letter quotes the king telling Demetrius and the translators, when they arrived, how they came on the anniversary of his "naval victory over Antigonus" (Aristeas 7:14). But the only such recorded Egyptian naval victory occurred many years after Demetrius death.

So why would someone go through the trouble to make such a obvious fraud or forgery. It seems one much like the forged Donation of Constantine (Latin, Donatio Constantini) which was a forged Roman imperial decree by which the emperor Constantine I supposedly transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the Roman Bishop or Pope. Well lets look at the claim again, if this the Bible that Jesus and His apostles used instead of the preserved Hebrew text, someone was trying to give this Greek Text legitimacy. But why is this important to them...

This so called Letter of Aristeas is a obvious forgery that doesn't even fit the time period in which it claims to have been written. Even critical textual scholars admit that the letter doesnt add up and yet people persist in quoting the Letter of Aristeas as proof of the existence of the Septuagint before Christ. Many claim that Christ and his apostles used the Septuagint, preferring it above the preserved Hebrew text found in the temple and synagogues. But if the Greek Septuagint was the Bible Jesus used, he would not have said,

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)

Because the jot is a Hebrew letter, and the tittle is a small mark to distinguish between Hebrew letters. If Jesus used the Greek Septuagint, His scriptures would not have contained the jot and tittle. He obviously used the Hebrew scriptures!

In addition, Jesus only mentioned the Hebrew text as "The Law and the Prophets" and "The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms":

"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." Luke 24:44

The Hebrews divide their Bible into three parts: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. Jesus clearly referred to this. The Septuagint had no such division as the Hebrew text, so it was not the Septuagint Christ was refering to.

So what is it, and why the fraud or forgery. Well someone was trying to hide something and now we will see what it was..

The supposed text of the Septuagint is found today only in certain manuscripts. The main ones are: Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph); Codex Vaticanus (B); and Codex Alexandrinus (A) or as they are called, the Alexandrian Codices. You can see now the origin, the Alexandrian manuscripts are the very texts that are in the Septuagint. In his Introduction to The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English (1851) Sir Lancelot Brenton describes how some critical scholars have attempted to call the Septuagint by its real name, the Alexandrian Text, it is nothing but the corrupt Gnostic text used to support the gnosticism heresy, and picked up by those who reject the true manuscripts of the thousand manuscripts of the TEXTUS RECEPTUS or Received Text.

The story of the Septuagint was just a cover to make people believe that it was something older that Christ used, when in reality it is just as later corrupted Gnostic text that has many alterations and changes and not for the better. We have textual critics who try to force these corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts against more than 5,000 copies favoring the Textus Receptus. They use these few codices with their alterations and deletions to translate the new revisions of modern versions of the Bible. But these Alexandrian manuscripts not only put in the Greek line of thought which came to be known as Gnosticism, but also include the Septuagint Old Testament (with the Apocrypha) picking up Gnosticism phoilisophies and changes and alterations and in addition pagan mysteries and beliefs of the Apocrypha.

Now some textual critics argue the following: If you accept the Alexandrian text (which modern scholars use as the basis for all new translations) for your New Testament, then you also have to accept the rest of the Alexandrian text (Septuagint), which includes the Apocrypha. But do we really need any of the corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts?

Now the Alexandrian manuscripts which the Septuagint shows itself to be, makes it the same basic text as the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus which are part of a group of texts which are considered the "Minority" Texts, because they were not accepted into the mainstream as the texts were not in agreement with the manuscripts used by the majority of Christians and even these two texts do not even agree with one another. So they were considered unusable or corrupted text by Christians, yet in the 1800's two men, Westcott and Hort put together their version of the Greek New Testament text from the Minority Text which included Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. Since Westcott and Horts version another revision was created called the Nestle/Aland. Nearly all of the new translations of the Bible are based upon one of these two Greek New Testaments and not the Textus Receptus. That means that the newer versions of the Bible are based on 5% of the manuscripts in stark contrast to 90% of the manuscripts which the KJV and older Bibles are based on.

The corrupt and unreliable nature of these two MSS (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) is best summed up by one who has thoroughly examined them, John W Burgon:
"The impurity of the text exhibited by these codices is not a question of opinion but fact...In the Gospels alone, Codex B(Vatican) leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of careless transcriptions on every page…"

In the world today, there only really exists two classes of Bibles; those based upon the Textus Receptus and those based upon the Westcott/Hort, Nestle/Aland Greek New Testaments. If a person has a New International Version, New American Standard Version, or Revised Standard Version, he is reading from the Westcott/Hort, Nestle/Aland Greek New Testaments that are only supported by 5% of the existing manuscripts since they use as their basis the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus or the Alexandrian codices.

When we understand the differences between the texts, all we have left to do is decide which source we find to be the most trustworthy--the Majority Text, from which the Kings James Bible comes and the scribes who did the text did a word for word translation, or the corrupted Alexandrian/Minority texts, which is the source material for almost every new Bible version since Westcott/Hort came out with their version....

 

[reddogs]

Now lets go back to give a explanation of who Westcott and Hort were, then go into Wescott's and Hort's Greek translation of the Bible and how Hort and Westcott persuaded scholars of the Revision Committee to switch to the corrupted Alexandrian text for the new version which became the basis of many Bibles now being used.

Westcott 12 January 1825 – 27 July 1901) and Hort (23 April 1828 – 30 November 1892) were Anglican theologians who exerted influence on the members of the Bible commitee for revising the translation being done at that time which forms the basis of most modern versions.The Church of England used the King James Bible exclusively which was based on the Textus Receptus and had done so almost from when it first came out.The King James Bible was the Bible of evangelicals in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. It also became the Bible of the English colonies across the Atlantic Ocean.The only religious group of any size or importance in England that didn’t use the King James Bible was Roman Catholicism. 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 and by extension the Textus Receptus it was based on. 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..."

 

[reddogs]

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.


http://www.angelfire.com/mn/discernment/hort.html


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.”
Catholics hold La Salette as special as the place in France where two young children said 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."

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

Hort:

"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. . . . My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable. If so, it opens up a new period."

These are not words from true Christian scholars, but more of one who has turned to fables.

 

[reddogs]

Now what is interesting is the beliefs or doctrines which they seemed to have taken up or held...

Hort belived in "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).

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."- The New Wine of Mystery Babylon

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.

 

[reddogs]

Now on another issue that touches on the King James Version. 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]
Home - EarthLink Mobile

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.

 

[reddogs]

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 possible.

 

[Castaway57]

The King James Version has been a tried and true text that shows the truths of Adventism and if you go into a Adventist church, on the whole you will find this is the Bible of preference as most other versions have issues. Take a look at this comparison of a few verses on key doctrines in the King James Version versus the RSV and NIV....


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 )

While I agree that KJV is one of the best to use in terms of accuracy; I also think that many other of the versions do have great value in today's culture. In many of our churches, I do see other versions - and I myself, when I first started to study the Bible with others, as a literature evangelist, used mostly the NIV.

I dont think there was any sinister plot to systematically remove the trinity doctrine; for it is all there, just couched in different words. Although some words or phrases in most Bible versions do have flavorings from the various doctrinal bents of individuals doing the translating; I would still need to see better evidence for secret, sinister plots to systematically change the truths therein.

A couple of exceptions, of course, would be the NWT, and The Book of Mormon, which I do not consider Bibles at all.

But the other versions can be good for initial study with people who are more "modern" than us, and would be turned of by the archaic language of the KJV. I know that when I gave several family members a KJV Bible; it sat on the shelf collecting dust, because they had so much trouble understanding it, yet when given an NIV, they began to read regularly.

 

[ricker]

I was at a home Adventist Bible study a couple years ago and noticed almost all of the 10 or so people there were using the NIV.

I usually use the NIV or NKJ for normal reading, but check other translations online sometimes for specific passages.

 

[reddogs]

I was at a home Adventist Bible study a couple years ago and noticed almost all of the 10 or so people there were using the NIV.

I usually use the NIV or NKJ for normal reading, but check other translations online sometimes for specific passages.

Many people including Adventist are using the NIV and when the changes are pointed out, they are very surprised to say the least.

 

[taikachanz]

Why is it then that the Sabbath Lessons have mostly anything but KJV texts in them?

Vieth has a good study on this issue. AmazingDiscoveries.Org... Battle of the Bibles

 

[Castaway57]

Why is it then that the Sabbath Lessons have mostly anything but KJV texts in them?

Vieth has a good study on this issue. AmazingDiscoveries.Org... Battle of the Bibles

In doing so; I dont think there is any intention to state one way or the other about which Bible version is "best."

 

[taikachanz]

I dont think there was any sinister plot to systematically remove the trinity doctrine; for it is all there, just couched in different words. Although some words or phrases in most Bible versions do have flavorings from the various doctrinal bents of individuals doing the translating; I would still need to see better evidence for secret, sinister plots to systematically change the truths therein.

There may not have been any "sinister plot to systematically remove the trinity doctrine", as Westcott and Hort were trinitarians, but there was a plot to eradicate the Protestant Bible. Watch the videos and learn.