WESTCOTT
AND HORT AND THE GREEK TEXT This
content is only online in forums in bits and pieces.
Thus,
appreciation needs to go to those who contributed. Editor:
Steve Van Nattan
My comments in the paper below are
in
an alternate color and noted. |
THE
PERVERTING OF THE WORD OF GOD Westcott
and Hort didn't just pick up the Alexandrian Codices by accident, they used them
for a purpose which they tried to hide but is obvious if you check their letters
and contacts and associates which influenced them.
What they did can
be shown in this simple allegory: A
man by the name of Benjamin goes seeking for the most authentic clock, trying
to find the most original measure of time. He has heard rumors of time having
changed over the years, and wishes to lay such theories to rest. Knowing that
many good and famous clocks were made in Switzerland, he travels to Switzerland
and visits numerous clock shops.
Some naysayers have touted claims
that time has been changed, and that the modern minute is no longer equal to the
minute used in times past. To settle the matter, Benjamin assays to compare several
thousand of the world's finest antique clocks, and he checks their measurement
of time against a finely-calibrated modern atomic clock. Imagine his surprise
to find that there was some truth in the naysayers' arguments! In fact, as
he studies, he finds one particular small line of clocks whose minutes deviated
from the modern measure so that they were more than a second longer than 60 seconds!
All
other clocks in Switzerland, France, and Europe which Benjamin timed were within
a tenth of a second of the standard time--with the vast majority of those deviating
less than two-hundredths of a second per minute.
To solve the conundrum,
Benjamin has just a few facts to go on, for the clocks, along with the shops from
which they came, date back beyond any living memory or record. Here are the facts:
1)
The clocks which are all timed within a couple hundredths of a second of the modern
minute are in the majority. In fact, over 95% of all clocks are of this line.
2)
The line of clocks with the longer minute, apart from being fewer in number, are
also less widespread in origin, and seem to originate from one of about three
major places, all of which may have been associated at an earlier point in time.
3)
The standard-minute clocks have been considered the standard by many people in
all walks of life for centuries, and are frequently referenced in government documents,
private letters, and other ancient records--all of which agree with the modern
time.
Who has the "original" time?
If
Benjamin had but two watches on his wrist, both of which differed from the other,
would he have any way of knowing which of the two were more accurate? Of course
not. But suppose Benjamin had three watches on his person, two of which agreed
while the third differed...which time would he trust? Would he not trust the two
which showed the same time?
Now, in the case that there are 20 clocks,
and only one is different while 19 all show the identical same time-- which time
would a wise person trust?
That is exactly the situation with the Bible
manuscripts. The "Majority Text" is a subset of all known copies of
the Bible manuscripts comprising about 95% of them. Only 1 in 20 manuscripts differs,
and is part of the Alexandrian text, or "Neutral Text" as it was christened
by Westcott and Hort-- after they had edited and revised the original copies.
The
King James Bible was printed in 1611 and by 1640 the King James Bible was clearly
the Bible of the English people and was picked up across the continent and was
becoming the standard for all Christians. The Church of England used the King
James Bible exclusively and it was the Bible of the Puritans, Presbyterians, the
Congregationalists, the Quakers, the Baptists and became the Bible the Pilgrims
began to use and of the English colonies across the Atlantic Ocean. The King James
Bible was the Bible of evangelicals in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland.
The
only religious group of any size or importance in England that didn�t use the
King James Bible was Roman Catholicism. In America, the Roman Catholic minority
objected to the King James Bible and tried to keep their members from reading
and even developed their own school system to use their own version. With the
exception of the Catholics, the Christians in the United States used the King
James Bible as their standard.
 Then
there was the Great Awakenings in the late 1700's and early 1800's,
as people got access to the King James Bible's coming off the printing press.
But all of a sudden there came a rise of Darwinism and Humanism by the 1870's,
and a challenge arose in the English world to the primacy of the King James Bible.
This challenge came from men who were officially Protestants: Church of England
Bishop Brooke Foss Westcott and Cambridge University Professor Fenton John Anthony
Hort.
 The
crux of Westcott and Hort's theory was that the New Testament was preserved
in almost perfect condition in two manuscripts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus.
(The Sinaiticus was discovered in a wastebasket in St. Catherine�s Momentary
near Mt. Sinai in 1844 and the Vaticanus was first documented in the Vatican library
in 1475 and was 'rediscovered' in 1845.) These were two of the Alexandrian
codices, which we shall see had been altered extensively by the Gnostic sects
that arose in Egypt.
Westcott and Hort, abhored the King James Bible
and even after its widespread use, made clear their distaste and 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 theory was called the Lucian Recension Theory.
Hort did not have
a single historical reference to support that 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."
But first lets go back into history
to see what was the source of the Canon, to understand how we got the King James
Version that Westcott and Hort had such a vitriol dislike. Let us first
consider certain Greek texts from which all New Testament translations are derived.
Foremost amongst these is the Traditional Received Text (Textus Receptus), also
called the Byzantine Text or the Majority Text because it is based on the vast
majority of manuscripts still in existence. These extant manuscripts (MSS) 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, the name
given to the Majority Text in the 17th century. When
the early Protestant Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries decided to translate
the scriptures directly from Greek into the languages of Europe, they selected
manuscripts of the Textus Receptus as their foundation Greek document. It is vitally
important to understand why they did so. In the book Truth Triumphant bible
scholar Wilkinson writes : Quote:
"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..." Editor:
Steve Van Nattan-- Westcott and Hort were obsessed with the Roman Catholic Church,
were personal friends of Cardinal Newman, and they both attended Mass and visited
Catholic grottoes to pray and participate in veneration of Mary idols. They hated
the Church of England for using the western form of worship in which the celebrant
faces the people from behind the altar. They wanted the celebrant with his back
to the people. They basically hated the common people. Their motive for a new
Greek text was pure arrogance and a lust for fame.
In
his Which Bible? Dr. David Otis Fuller, graduate of Princeton, says this
about Textus Receptus, Quote:
"First of all, the Textus Receptus was the Greek text of the Bible of early
Eastern Christianity. Later it was adopted as the official text of the Greek (Eastern)
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. Editor:
Steve Van Nattan-- The Greek Church ancient texts were highly prized in Byzantium
(Constantinople). In 717 AD the Muslim mad conquerors laid siege on Constantinople
for a year. The Greek Church monks finally arranged a secret flight to the north.
If you have been in a Greek church you will know that they are loaded with brass,
silver, and gold sacred vessels of all sorts. They also have many icons which
they venerate. What did the Greek monks and patriarchs carry along with them under
their robes. Grab hold please, for you will learn much. They carried all of the
Greek manuscripts they had from the Eastern churches such as Antioch. They knew
very well that a Gnostic family of Greek texts was laying in Rome in the lap of
old Mother Whore, and they had no intention of leaving the destiny of the Bible
to the Pope. These Greek monks went into eastern and central Europe and deposited
their Greek manuscripts in universities and in churches with little of no loyalty
to Rome. If you do not see the hand of God in this, you are a devil. I
sat in a Discount Tire store one day in Arizona. I was getting new tires. A young
man about thirty was sitting next to me, and he had his shirt open and a gold
cross hanging around his neck. I asked him what his heritage was, and he said
he was Greek. I asked if he were in the Greek Orthodox church, and he affirmed
with pride. After some chatting, I asked what Bible the Greek church used when
they used English. He said with fire in his eyes, "The King James Bible is
all we allow." He knew and boldly stated that the Roman Catholic bibles were
wicked, and he proceeded to kick the Pope for a while as I fed him loaded questions.
It was a rodeo, and the whole room of people were either grinning or frowning.
After 1300 years, the battle is still raging, and the Word of God is not at stake. The
sad thing here is that these defenders of the Word of God are steeped in icon
worship today, and I fear that, after they have fought for the Word, they may
have missed the Lord of the Word. I do hope to have the privilege of giving the
ancient Christian kiss of greeting to those Greek monks who did find faith in
Christ and are in heaven now.
All
of 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 Gnostic 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."
So
why did Protestant Reformers of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries choose Textus
Receptus in preference to the Minority Text?
The answer is simply
because the Textus Receptus is based upon the vast majority (90%) of the 5000+
Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.
The Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150)
Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced
some 200 years before the minority Egyptian Alexandrian codices. The Textus Receptus
is untainted with Egyptian/Greek philosophy and unbelief of the Ghostic sects. Editor:
Steve Van Nattan-- You need to ask your pastor if he knows about these facts regarding
the two families of texts. If he says he has not studied it, you need to challenge
him to find out for himself. If he is belligerent, you need to rebuke him in private.
I do not give a fig now many theological degrees he has, nor how big his pulpit
is, a lazy slob who claims to know which is the best Bible in English but will
not seek to inform himself of the history of the Bible is an hireling and unworthy
of your respect. Now,
if he claims he knows all about the Greek textual history, you need to ask him
why he chose the Greek text family of only two manuscripts (Vaticanus and Siniaticus)
and ignored the 5000 other manuscripts. He will tell you that Vaticanus and Siniaticus
are older and more reliable. At this point you need to tell him he is a liar and
he knows it. Rebuke him for burping up the lies of Westcott and Hort. You also
need to understand that, after reading only this one paper on the issue, you are
highly likely to know more about this discussion than your pastor. Even the majority
of "King James Only" pastors never studied this. They are only following
their preachers' club position. Stupid is not noble, especially when it comes
to the voice of God.
The
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 and the
cleansing power of his blood!
So Wescott and Hort rejected the Textus
Receptus and instead picked a corrupted Alexandrian Gnostic Codices to avoid using
the Textus Receptus and try to destroy the truths it contained. 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...". Editor:
Steve Van Nattan-- Hort knew vastly more about metaphysics and spiritualism and
occult practices than he did about the origins of the Greek texts. This is well
documented by Hort's son's biography of his father in which he said Hort was the
personal friend of Madam Blavatsky, who was the consort of Albert Pike, the Freemason
patriarch who wrote Morals and Dogma, a system of Masonic doctrine which
makes Jehovah into the male organ and Jesus Christ into the divine vagina. Hort
was so obsessed in seances and occult activities that he seldom slept during one
period of his life. He was up all night trying to make contact with the dead with
friends of university heritage. Hort was in bad company all his life, and some
of you idiots believe his opinion of the Greek texts.
Now
take a look at the letters and ideas that show the bent of these men:
Hort:
1.
Was a follower of Darwin and we can say believed in Evolution.
2. Did not
believe in blood atonement. Thus, it is no surprise that the NIV removes �through
his blood."
Beliefs or doctrines which Westcott and Hort subscribed to... Editor:
Steve Van Nattan-- Some slow bellies will tell you that, indeed, Hort was a twisted
man, but Westcott was more godly and restrained. BAH! Westcott and Hort were very
close to a perverted personal relationship with one another. They confided to
each other their most delicate issues of life. To try to make one more pure than
the other is mad hatter stuff. We are clearly told in the Scriptures. "Ephesians
5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather
reprove them." Stop trying to clean up a couple of hogs. Hort
was a very real believer in the Roman Catholic doctrine of "purgatory."
To Rev. John Ellerton he wrote in 1854:
"I agree with you in thinking
it a pity that Maurice verbally repudiates purgatory, but I fully and unwaveringly
agree with him in the three cardinal points of the controversy: (1) that eternity
is independent of duration; (2) that the power of repentance is not limited to
this life; (3) that it is not revealed whether or not all will ultimately repent.
The modern denial of the second has, I suppose, had more to do with the despiritualizing
of theology then almost anything that could be named."
And
in another letter to others..... "The
idea of purgation, of cleansing as by fire, seems to me inseparable from what
the Bible teaches us of the Divine chastisements; and, though little is directly
said respecting the future state, it seems to me incredible that the Divine chastisements
should in this respect change their character when this visible life is ended."
"I
do not hold it contradictory to the Article to think that the condemned doctrine
has not been wholly injurious, inasmuch as it has kept alive some sort of belief
in a great and important truth."
Hort
seemed 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.
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 were using others to place the changes they
wanted and tighten their hold on the Revision Committee to more it from
the Textus Receptus and Antiochian text and into the Alexandria codices.
But
who was pulling the strings, well now it gets interesting. 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 its clear that Westcott and
Hort became entagled with them. I cant find evidence for Hort but Westcott was
deeply involved 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. What
is the motive of these men? Some
people may say, it was just done so there was a better translation, but Wesscot
and Hort brought in changes that most people are not even aware of in the new
versions. If you look at the following verses you see the important beliefs they
destroy with these newer versions:
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.
NIV----For there are three that testify the
Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost
RSV---( 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;
NIV----
concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according
to the flesh,
RSV---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
NIV----and wash away thy sins, calling on his name.
RSV---wash
your sins away, calling on his name.
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. SO,
WHAT WERE THESE ALEXANDRIAN CODICES
which Westcott and Hort picked up? Lets
look at the manuscripts, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus that were used, that were
somehow 'found' in the Vatican Library and a pagan Nestorian monastery
in Mount Sinai respectively. Neither was in the original Greek language, but in
a Coptic translation, an early Egyptian language. Coptic authorities place the
origin of these two texts in 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 especially 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 Gnostics 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) Editor:
Steve Van Nattan-- Gnostic heritage is seen in the late character, Origin, a patriarch
of the Roman Catholic Church in Alexandria, Egypt. He studied at the feet of Pliny,
who was a disciple of Valentinus. Valintinus lived in about 100 AD and was a student
of Basilides, a paganized Greek Hellenist who mixed Christian teaching with Plato's
rubbish. This line of devilment came all the way from Plato, via wandering theological
rebels to be entrenched in the Greek texts and English Bibles of the Roman Whore
of Rome. And, your NIV, and all English Bibles today except the King James Bible,
are infected with Plato and the Gnostics. Your Jesus is, in fact, more of a Greek
god than the Savior of the world. Origin believed Jews were special beings destined
only to damnation.
But
Gnosticism could also run in precisely the opposite ethical direction. 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.
Westcott
and Hort undertook the translation of these Alexandrian Coptic 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 and 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). 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. Editor:
Steve Van Nattan-- Though we call the Greek Church "Orthodox," we need
to understand that the Greek Church had broken with the Alexandrian Gnostics long
before Origin compiled his Greek text for old Mother Whore. Thus, the Greeks were
known and the Eastern Church, and Origin and the Whore of Rome as the Western
Church. For this reason, any old world Bibles today, such as the Ethiopian Orthodox
Bible, are corrupted by the Gnostic heritage, and they also contain apocryphal
ammendations which were not received by the early church in the canon.
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. Editor:
Steve Van Nattan-- I have studied this since 1978, and I have to conclude that
anyone who can learn these facts of biblical textual history, and then stand in
a pulpit and preach or allegedly teach from any of these mongrel bibles since
1900, is damned to hell. To be unlearned in this history lesson is no excuse if
one knows very well that a great controversy is in process. To ignore controversy
in the realm of biblical history is a choice, and it may well send the wimp to
hell. God simply cannot overlook the violence done in violation of this text: Revelation
22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come.
And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of
life freely.
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the
prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto
him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take
away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part
out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are
written in this book. The
whole point of the Word of God is in verse 17. God used men, moved by the Holy
Ghost, to put into written format a story of the divine zeal, from eternity to
eternity, which God possesses to get back the fellowship he once had with Adam
and Eve. Anyone who would willingly, or in alleged ignorance, deform the revelation
God is making it nearly impossible for lost men to find salvation and fellowship
with God. AND, these theological jerks are also making it nearly impossible for
God himself to get back fellowship with lost men. The Gospel is in writing, not
in grottoes, eating a cookie and sipping wine, in zeal and sincerity, etc, etc.
God has only one revelation-- his written Word. Confound that, and he will damn
you to hell. This is a terrifying thought, for all over the world, especially
in the USA, are thousands of pastors and teachers, in what would seem to be Christian
venues, sealing their fate in hell with impunity. All for a mess of pottage. FOOLS,
FOOLS ALL. Will
you, in order to get the rush of feeling like you can decide what is and what
is not the Word of God, continue to feed Satanic rubbish to your students and
the people sitting under your preaching?
The
Alexandrian Codices that Westcott and Hort's version used, the Vaticanis
and the Sinaiticus reflect this (combinations of Gnostic heresies) 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.
NOW,
THE PIECES FALL INTO PLACE All
these "missing" verses were in the original texts written by the apostles.
The older manuscripts and 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
Coptic copies of the Greek originals, they conveniently altered or deleted them
to suit their own ideas of what God should say. Westcott and Hort picked up on
these corrupted Coptic texts as they were caught up in the veiws prevalant from
darwinism and secular humanist questioning of the validity of orthodox Christianity.
If just a few verses could be altered or brought into question, it would serve
their purpose. These corrupted Coptic texts easily appealed to Westcott and 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 and thus corrupted Coptic
translation of a Greek original. Now
if you think that Westcott and Hort were just trying to get a better translation,
take a look at what they took out and it is clear it was not to make it easier
translation or better, instead it detracts. Take a look at Acts 8:37 as most Bibles
based on the Westcott and Hort text skips directly from 8:36 to 8:38 without the
proclamation of the deity of Christ by the Ethiopian believer. Here is a quick
rundown on Acts 8:37 in the versions, note some have 'Footnotes', brackets
and or astorisks, putting doubt to the validity of the text:
Acts
8:36-38 Here
is how the KJV has it- 37And 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.
American Standard Version (ASV)-37 And Philip said, If thou
believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe
that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Darby Translation- No results
found.
Common English Bible- No results found.
Contemporary
English Version (CEV)-36-37 As they were going along the road, they came to a
place where there was some water. The official said, "Look! Here is some
water. Why can't I be baptized?" [a] Footnote:
Acts 8:36 Why can't I be baptized: Some manuscripts add, "Philip replied,
`You can, if you believe with all your heart.' The official answered, `I
believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.'"
English
Standard Version- No results found.
English Standard Version Anglicised-
No results found.
Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)-No results found.
37
[a] Footnote:
Acts 8:37 Some late copies of Acts add verse 37: �Philip answered, �If you
believe with all your heart, you can.� The official said, �I believe that
Jesus Christ is the Son of God.�
- Footnote:
Acts 8:37 Some manuscripts include here Philip said, �If you believe with all
your heart, you may.� The eunuch answered, �I believe that Jesus Christ is
the Son of God.
Editor:
Steve Van Nattan-- The NIV is now dominating the vast majority of churches in
the USA and is taking over the rest of the English speaking world. There was a
sodomite in charge of NIV Old Testament translation, and a proud lesbian on the
New Testament translation team of the NIV. The NIV is owned by Word, one of porn
pusher Rupert Murdock's flagships. This is every bit as perverse and deadly a
translation as the worst Roman Catholic translation every invented.
- Editor:
Steve Van Nattan- Here is the truth. If your pastor or teacher will not discuss
this deletion of the name, Jesus, they have denied the Son of God. The whole point
here is not that "Jesus" was missing in ancient Greek manuscrupts, it
was there. But, this deletion is a classic Gnostic attempt to remove deity from
the man Jesus. If you go along with this instead of finding another Bible and
another teacher, you will go to hell for denying the Lord Jesus Christ.
Matthew
10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father
which is in heaven.
THE
LEGENDARY SEPTUAGINT MYTH Now
some people think that Westcott and Hort are supported by the "Septuagint"
text and say this is what Jesus used. Well lets take a look...
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 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. Then
the Scriptures (at least Genesis to Deuteronomy) were translated into the Greek
language 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.
So 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
rests upon a single document. All other historical evidence supporting the argument
either quotes or references this single letter.
In this so-called Letter
of Aristeas, the writer presents himself as a close confidant of king Philadelphus.
He claims that he persuaded Eleazar, the high priest, to send with him 72 scholars
from Jerusalem to Alexandria, Egypt. There they would translate the Hebrew Scriptures
into Greek, forming what we now call the Septuagint.
Jewish historian
Josephus, Jewish mystic Philo (both first century AD), and others add to the story.
Some say the 72 were shut in separate cells and "miraculously" wrote
each of their versions word-for-word the same. They say that this proves "divine
inspiration" of the entire Septuagint.
Thus, the Septuagint is
claimed to exist at the time of Jesus and the apostles, and that they quoted from
it instead of the preserved Hebrew text. But if as we shall see, it was not even
written before Christ and the apotles, how could that be. Editor:
Steve Van Nattan- The implication is that Jesus could not have known exactly what
HE inspired Moses, and Ezra the scribe to compile, so Jesus had to resort to a
Greek translation from just 200 years before his birth. That is a Jesus with a
short memory, but MY Jesus has an eternal memory. AND, this Mother Goose Greek
garbage also implies that Jesus could not translate on the fly and give the divine
will of the Godhead in spoken format. Who is YOUR Jesus?
The
verifiable facts:
The writer of this letter, Aristeas, claims to have
been a Greek court official during the time of Philadelphus' reign. He claims
to have been sent by Demetrius to request the best scholars of Israel to bring
a copy of the Hebrew scriptures to Alexandria to start the Septuagint translation
project. He 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. Many
of them are Greek names, definitely not the names of Hebrew scholars. There are
many other evidences that this letter is from a different time period, and is
thus a fake. The writer is lying about his identity. Editor:
Steve Van Nattan- OR, some old Whore in Rome invented this, as she has done over
and over. I refer to that Whore who has spoken the magic words, "hocus pocus,
sanctus, sanctus, in excelsis rigormortus," and VOILE, bits of wood from
all over the word have been turned into the original cross of Christ. This cross,
if all the sanctified wood of it in Roman Catholic churches around the world,
were to be collected in one place, would make a cross 300 feet high. I suspect
strongly that this letter of Aristeas was forged the same way.
The
supposed "librarian," Demetrius of Phalerum (ca. 345-283) served in
the court of Ptolemy Soter. Demetrius was never the librarian under Philadelphus.
The
letter quotes the king telling Demetrius and the translators, when they arrived,
how wonderful it was that 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 the letter is a obvious
fraud or forgery, much like the forged Donations 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. The
Letter of Aristeas is a fraud that doesn't even fit the time period in which
it claims to have been written. And since the other ancient writers merely add
to this story, it is clear that the story itself of a pre-Christian Septuagint
is a fraud. Even critical textual scholars admit that the letter is a hoax. Yet
they persist in quoting the Letter of Aristeas as proof of the existence of the
Septuagint before Christ.
They 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)
Why would Jesus not have said
this? 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 scripture text in two ways,(1) "The Law
and the Prophets" and (2) "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. CLOSING
REMARKS BY STEVE VAN NATTAN WHAT
WILL YOU DO WITH THIS? What
you decide may well determine where you will spend eternity. Of course, some preachers
in large pulpits, like the one along Roscoe Blvd. in San Fernando Valley, California,
will tell you that you cannot lose your salvation. Well, dear reader, the promise
of the security of the believer DOES NOT allow you to be truly born again and
then blaspheme the Word of God, and violate Revelation 22:18-19. You cannot have
it both ways, born again and a blasphemer. If you cling to a corrupted bible,
knowing it is a Gnostic invention of the Whore of Rome, your alleged salvation
was not genuine in the beginning. James
3:10 Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these
things ought not so to be.
11 Doth a fountain send forth at the same place
sweet water and bitter?
12 Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries?
either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.
13
Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good
conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. You
claim you can bless the Lord Jesus Christ at one time, and then curse his deity
by promoting and teaching from a counterfeit bible. Impossible. You are damned
to hell unless you denounce that Gnostic funnybook you call a bible. You will
certainly be comforted by your manure toting preacher, but do you think God revised
his Word so that your preacher could keep his NIV, or whatever alleged bible he
carries? THINK
IN
DEFESE OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE MENU PAGE BACK
TO ENTRY PAGE OF THE JOURNAL ge |
