2nd Corinthians 2:17, “For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.”
There is the belief in some circles that the written Word of God has become corrupted because it has been translated from the original languages, and is merely a copy of the original manuscripts, which no longer exist. For those that walk in such doubt, we hope this article will reveal the utter absurdity of such vain imaginations.
Is it really true that only the original manuscripts in the original Hebrew language were inspired by God, and the copies and translations were not? Is it correct to call a translation of the scripture "the inspired Word of God"? These questions will be examined.
In 2 Timothy 3:15-17, our brother Paul refers to the Scriptures that Timothy had and called them inspired. If ones belief that only the original manuscripts were inspired, then one must conclude that "all scripture" in 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the original manuscripts only. Let's back up one verse. Timothy knew "the scriptures." Did Timothy know the original manuscripts? Did he have them in his possession? Did he see them somewhere and learn them? We know that Timothy did not have the originals; he had only a copy. It is possible that he had the Old Testament in Hebrew, but it is more likely that he had the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint), since his father was a Greek and he lived in Derbeand/or Lystra, which were definitely Greek-speaking. Every reference in the New Testament to the "scripture(s)" is rendered from copies of the original manuscripts in Hebrew and the translations in Greek. No one had the original manuscripts at that time.
And at Luke 4:21 "…This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." Did this synagogue in Nazareth have the original manuscript of Isaiah? And consider John 5:39 as Jesus told the Jews who had challenged Him to "Search the scriptures..." Was He telling these people to search the original manuscripts? How would anyone know if the "scripture" were fulfilled if the original manuscripts had crumbled into dust centuries earlier? Simply because they had copies and translations of the original manuscripts!
And at Acts 8:32, Philip was sent to meet up with the Ethiopian eunuch. When Philip found him, he was reading something called "scripture". How on earth did this fellow from Ethiopia get his hands on the original manuscript of the book of Isaiah? And why did that synagogue in Nazareth ever give it to him? And consider the Bereans at Acts 17:11. Did the Bereans have all the original manuscripts of the Old Testament? If they had them all, what did the eunuch have; or if the eunuch had Isaiah, the Bereans were deprived of Isaiah?
If "scripture(s)" refers to "original manuscripts," then one would have to say that Jesus was playing a cruel hoax on those to whom He spoke. Examine Matthew 21:42; 22:29; Mark 12:10,24; Luke 24:27; John 2:22; 7:38,42; 19:36-37; 20:9. How could these people read or know the scriptures, if they had crumbled into dust centuries earlier? Because, of course, they had copies of the original manuscripts.
Now, when we go to Luke 24:32, we can see things in a new light. Did Jesus have the original manuscripts with Him? In fact, did he have any book with him?? Or did he simply speak? In verse 45, Jesus opened their understanding so they could understand the scriptures. What scriptures? The original manuscripts? And once these Emmaus fellows understood these original manuscripts, did they mail them up to the Bereans? (Relative to Luke 24:32, see also, Job 32:8).
At John 10:35, we learn that the scripture cannot be broken. But if "scripture(s)" refers to original manuscripts, Jesus was mistaken (but we know He was not). For every original manuscript that was ever written has been broken into dust. Do you see the problem we have here? If 2 Timothy 3:16 says only the original manuscripts were inspired, then how do you explain all the other places where that word "scripture(s)" appears, when they cannot possibly refer to the original manuscripts??
Hebrew 1:8 and 10:5 quote from the Greek translation of the Old Testament scriptures (the Septuagint) authoritatively. Hebrews 3:7 states, "the Holy Ghost said ..." and it was in Greek, not in Hebrew. Why did he not insert Hebrew words at that point? Obviously, because a translation may be correctly called the Word of God!
If only the original manuscripts were inspired, then about 40 verses in the New Testament are not inspired, since they, even in the original manuscripts, were Greek translations of the Hebrew Old Testament.
Is Exodus 5-11 inspired? All those conversations that took place between Moses and Pharaoh were in Egyptian. Yet, when Moses wrote the book of Exodus, all those conversations appeared in Hebrew. They were all "translations." Or we could go back to Joseph in Egypt. He spoke Egyptian to hide his identity from his brothers. Yet, when Moses wrote it down, he wrote it in Hebrew, another "translation". Not inspired?
What about the decrees of Artaxerxes and Darius and Nebuchadnezzar? Those men didn't speak Hebrew, yet what they said appears in Hebrew in Daniel and Esther. Another "translation". Not inspired?
All of the "speaking in tongues" in Acts 2 were translations, for each man heard what Peter was saying in his own language. Not inspired? What about the sign that was nailed on the cross? That consisted of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. At least 2 of those had to be translations. Not inspired? Or how about Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34? Jesus cried out in Aramaic, and in the very same verse, even in the original manuscripts, there was given the Greek translation. Can you honestly say "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani" is inspired, but "Theemou, Theemou, inati me egkatelipes" is not, being a translation?
If only the original manuscripts are inspired, no one has the inspired scripture. Thus, no one could obey Matthew 4:4, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Did God intend for only those who had the original manuscripts to obey his Word? Did He intend for only those who could read Hebrew and Greek to obey his Word? The answer must be obvious to any child of God. When He spoke this truth, and when Christ reaffirmed it, did He not know that the scripture would be copied and translated many times? Again, if only the original manuscripts are inspired, we cannot obey 2 Timothy 4:2 ("Preach the word"); nor can we obey Revelation 22:18-19 (warnings about adding to and taking away from Scripture). Neither could we have the benefit of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, being instructed and "thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
1 Peter 1:23-25 teaches that "this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you." Note: This is the word ... that which they had heard. They had not heard the original manuscripts, but copies and translations. Yet he stated that they were born again by the incorruptible word of God.
And let's consider this question. Would our Father tell us His Word is the final authority and leave us without His Word? Would He call a man to preach His Word and not give it to him? God calls a man and says, "I'm calling you. Spend your life preaching the truth. Preach the Word!" So, wouldn't He give him a copy of His Word? Would God tell His people to live by the Word and not give it to them?
It is a very sad commentary when people say, "We believe that the scripture, in the original manuscripts, is the Word of God. But the scripture we have today is not the Word of God," If that's true, we have no scripture. Do you understand the implications of that? We have no scripture. Why? Because if God is not the final authority, then man is the final authority. If we have no final authority in God's Word, then man will arbitrarily discern what God says. If man discerns what God says in this way, then man becomes the final authority instead of God.
"Well, in the original manuscript..." sounds scholarly; but nobody in our generation has seen them! If we don't have a scripture that's the Word of God, we've got to go to human reasoning. Those of little faith have to either admit that the written Word of God existing today is inspired by Him, or they have to flee to the Church, or to human reasoning or human experience as being the final authority. If there is no dependable Word of God for them today, they have no other recourse. If God has not given them His Word, then they have to decide what is God's Word. If you decide what is God's Word, and you decide what is good and evil, then "...ye shall be as gods" (Genesis 3:5). That's human reasoning.
By the way, basing a doctrine on human reasoning is idolatry. Basing a doctrine on human experience is idolatry. Basing a doctrine on some Church being the final authority is idolatry. The Church is then the idol, because making the Church the final authority is done so by human reasoning. Letting the Pope or a preacher speak ex cathedra and saying that it is God who is speaking is idolatry. You're making him as God. Following your own heart and saying that it is God who is speaking is idolatry. You're making yourself as God.
So the truth is, you've got one choice of two. Either the written Word handed down to us is the uncorrupted Word of God or we have no other place to turn but to idolatry.
Answers to Questions
1. "Are the italicized words in bibles inspired?"
Answer: When translating from one language to another, it is impossible to give a word-for-word rendering. Inserted words (usually italicized) are necessary. The Greek language omits the verb sometimes and is perfectly correct, according to the rules of Greek grammar. However, in English, this would make an awkward sentence to say the least, and in some cases, would greatly hinder one's understanding of it.
An example is in 2 Timothy 3:16, where the word "is" is in italics, since there is no Greek equivalent for it.
2 Timothy 3:16, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
In addition, it is necessary to re-arrange the order in which some words appear. For example, if we translated John 3:16 in a word-for-word literal rendering, it would read as follows:
John 3:16, "So for loved the God the world that the Son of him the only-begotten he gave, that all the ones believing into him not may perish, but may have life eternal."
There is nothing wrong with the insertion of words, if they be correct. They are necessary for our understanding.
2. "The translators were not consistent; they were wrong to translate one Greek word by several English words."
Answer: We must distinguish between a translator's choice and a translator's error. For example, in Roman 7:7-8 the Greek noun epithumia and its corresponding verb epithumeo are translated by three English words: lust, covet, and concupiscence. We cannot charge them with error here. In their day, the three words meant essentially the same. The same is true of the translation of the definite article from Greek to English. Not all translators agree when it should or should not be done, however, it is not a matter of error, but of personal judgment, as every translator knows. We may disagree with a translator's choice of words, but cannot necessarily call that an error. The English words story, fast, tie, post and watch all have at least two different meanings; sometimes three. This situation exists in any language.
Synonyms may mean the same in one situation, and have different shades of meaning in another. For instance, car and automobile may be referring to the same thing, or differentiating between a railroad car and an automobile. The context must determine.
3. "If the translation is inspired, it would be wrong to have a marginal reading or to suggest another possible word."
Answer: When suggesting another translation of a word or phrase, there is no thought of correcting the translators or the scripture. Such suggestions are given because of the changes in the English language in the past 300 plus years. Also, various false doctrines which are popular today, but were unknown at the time the translation was written, have confused the understanding of many people. Hence, it is often necessary to resort to Greek and Hebrew to clear up such misunderstandings.
New Testament writers sometimes paraphrase Old Testament scripture. Examples: Matthew 12:17-21 (from Isaiah 42:1-3); Romans 3:10-18 (from Psalm 14:1-3; Psalm 5:9; Psalm 140:3; Psalm 10:7; Psalm 59:7-8; Psalm 36:1).
Therefore, different words may be used when teaching the same truth. Hence, an honest translation in English from uncorrupted texts would be equally inspired as an honest translation in Spanish from the same texts. Also, two English translations that say the same truths, though using different words to do so, would be equally inspired in the scriptures which agree. It is in the places where there is a different teaching, or an omission, that we must choose.
If God was not involved in the making of copies or translations, then how does one advancing the theory that "only the original manuscripts were inspired and man took it from there," avoid the charge of anthropolatry? They are saying that man is more powerful than God, and God is not powerful enough to keep his promises to preserve his Word.
4. "Only the original writings were inspired of God; therefore, only the original writings were inerrant, or without error."
Answer: To answer honestly, a question must first be asked: which copy of the originals? For instance, in Jeremiah 36:2 an "original" is made, and in verse 23 it is burnt. Then in verse 32 Jeremiah makes another "original" and in this one he adds some words to it (at the direction of God). Then this second copy is tossed into the Euphrates river in at 51:63! Which one was the original? Was the first one, or the second one the correct copy? If it was the first, then why didn't God save it from the fire? If it was the second, then God must not think much of the originals, for He had them thrown into the river!
Conclusion
This is a life and death matter, for if we do not have an infallible, pure, inerrant Holy Word of God now, (not in the originals which have been lost forever, centuries ago) to rest our weary souls upon for time and eternity, then we have but one alternative or option: Let's eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die and go to hell. For the child and servant of Almighty God, that is not an option.
Let us look at some undisputed facts about the originals.
First: there never was a book of 66 originals of the scripture.
Second: there never was a book of the 39 originals of the Old Testament.
Third: there never was a book of the 27 originals of the New Testament.
Fourth: no one living or dead ever saw the 66, 39 or 27 originals.
Fifth: each of the originals was lost, worn out, destroyed or gone within 100 to 150 years of their writing.
Sixth: the originals were written over a period of about 1600 years from the first book of Job to the last one Revelation.
Seventh: the originals (from the Old to the New Testament) were written from as much as 2000 miles apart from each other.
Eighth: the originals were written in at least three different languages.
Ninth: the originals were written on any number of kinds of materials, with any number of kinds of writing fluid.
Tenth: the originals under God's will and guidance incorporate many kinds of culture and background.
Eleventh: no version in existence today was or is translated from any original.
Twelfth: no one living today would know or recognize any one of the 66 originals if they saw one.
And on and on and on. Therefore, in the light of the above, to flee to the supposed sanctuary of the originals is unreal, hypocrisy, a fetish, and worse than the proverbial ostrich hiding its head in the sand and thinking it is covered and out of sight.
The first thing we observe is that our Father in Heaven promised to preserve both His word and words.
"The word of God…abideth for ever " (1 Peter 1:23).
"The word of the Lord endureth for ever" (1 Peter 1:25).
"My words shall not pass away" (Luke 21:33).
"Thou shalt preserve them" (Psalms 12:6-7).
"For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven" (Psalms 119:89).
"Concerning thy testimonies…thou hast founded them for ever" (Psalms 119:152).
"Thy word…endureth for ever" (Psalms 119:160).
"The word of our God shall stand for ever" (Isaiah 40:8).
"My words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth…saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever" (Isaiah 59:21).
Has our Father kept His promises? Yes, He has preserved His Word and it endures even unto today, because His Power, Wisdom, and Spirit transcend the error of men!
Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb? Are you fully trusting in His grace this hour? Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb? Not according to the new Bible Per-Versions! Not according to the New International Version (NIV), New American Standard Version (NASV), New Living Bible, New Revised Standard Versions (NRSV), Revised Standard Version (RSV), The Living Bible (TLB), Today's English Version, Contemporary English Version (CEV), International Standard Version: (ISV) and the other Per-Versions! Revelation 1:5 clearly reads in the King James Bible: And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, (KJB) But you are NOT "washed in the blood" in the New Per-Versions . . . American Standard Version (ASV) reads: and from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loveth us, and loosed us from our sins by his blood; Amplified Bible reads: and from Jesus Christ the faithful and trustworthy Witness, the First-born of the dead [first to be brought back to life] and the Prince (Ruler) of the kings of the earth. To Him Who ever loves us, and has once [for all] loosed and freed us from our sins by His own blood. Contemporary English Version (CEV) reads: May kindness and peace be yours from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness. Jesus was the first to conquer death, and he is the ruler of all earthly kings. Christ loves us, and by his blood he set us free from our sins. Good News for Modern Man reads: and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn Son who was raised from death, who is also the ruler of the kings of the earth. He loves us, and by his death he has freed us from our sins International Standard Version (ISV) reads: and from Jesus Christ, the witness, the faithful one, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To the one who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood; Living Bible (TLB) reads: and from Jesus Christ who faithfully reveals all truth to us. He was the first to rise from death, to die no more. He is far greater than any king in all the earth. All praise to him who always loves us and who set us free from our sins by pouring out his lifeblood for us. New American Standard Version (NASV) reads: and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood New Century Version (NCV) reads: and from Jesus Christ, Jesus is the faithful witness, the first among those raised from the dead. He is the ruler of the kings of the earth. He is the One who loves us, who made us free from our sins with the blood of his death. New International Version (NIV) reads: and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, New Living Bible reads: and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness to these things, the first to rise from the dead, and the commander of all the rulers of the world. All praise to him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by shedding his blood for us. New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) reads: and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and freed us from our sins by his blood New Testament in Modern English (J.B. Phillips) reads: and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, firstborn of the dead, and ruler of kings upon earth. To him who loves us and has set us free from our sins through his own blood Revised Standard Version (RSV) reads: and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the first-born of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood Today's English Version reads: and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the first to be raised from death and who is also the ruler of the kings of the world. He loves us, and by his sacrificial death he has freed us from our sins The shocking FACT is that NOWHERE in the new Per-Versions do they read "you are washed in the blood"! I repeat NOWHERE do the new Per-Versions read "you are washed in the blood"! What can wash away my sins? Oh Happy day when Jesus washed my sins away! Not according to the NIV, NASV, NCV, CEV, at al! According to the NIV, NASV, NCV, CEV and other Per-Versions Jesus Christ did not wash your sins away! Why don't we "update" our "archaic", "hard to understand" song books? Have you been to Jesus for the loosing power? Isn't it irreverent and sacrilegious that these new Per-Version people will "update" the words of God — without "batting an eye" — and yet would not dare even consider "messing with" the song "Are You Washed In the Blood"! Aren't you glad Brother Elisha Hoffman, the author of "Are You Washed in the Blood", still read and believed the "updated" and "archaic" King James Bible? He might have come out with some silly occultic nonsense like Stephen Curtis Chapman's "Lord of the Dance", or Carman's blasphemous "Holy Ghost Hop", et al. Consider the following wonderful, Christ-uplifting hymns that are contrary to the NIV, NASV, NLB, NRSV, RSV ASV, NCV, CEV, and the other "legions" (Mark 5:9) of Per-Versions! Jesus paid it all, I don't know about you — but thank God (and no thanks to the new Per-Versions) — "I'm Washed in the Blood of the Lamb"! The most popular Bible version on the market is the New International Version (NIV), and it is terrible, removing the name above every other name, JESUS, in 38-places. Why would the NIV translators do that? Could it be because multiple NIV translators were homosexuals? Certainly, that is likely the reason why the word “sodomite” has been completely removed from the NIV. The NIV translators butchered Philippians 2:6 so badly that it actually teaches Jesus is not God. For a deeper look at the serious problems with the NIV, please read: Why Would Anyone Use the NIV? Numerous well-known Baptist preachers have publicly stated that a person cannot be saved apart from the King James Bible. 1st Peter 1:23, “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” The “Seed” by which we are born-again is the Word of God. Now if that Seed is corrupted, perverted or changed, then it becomes a false gospel, and a person cannot be saved from it. This is what those preachers mean when they say that a person cannot be saved from a corrupt version of the Bible. In the year 1611 A.D., King James I of England was influenced to provide a common Bible for the English speaking world. Hence, he authorized a translation of the Bible into English that came to be known as the Authorized Version or as it is more commonly known, the King James Version. King James selected a committee of Greek and Hebrew scholars from the Church of England. These men were "low church" individuals with ties to the Puritans and later the Pilgrims who emigrated to America. They worked from the text of the Greek and Hebrew testaments that had been received" or accepted by virtually all branches of gospel preaching, Bible believing Christians from the apostolic era to that time. Their product, the King James Version of the Bible, has been, until just recently, the universal standard for Bible believing Christians of the English speaking world.
Enter Textual Criticism Textual criticism is an academic discipline in which scholars study existing Greek and Hebrew biblical manuscripts. Prior to the advent of the moveable type printing press in 1455 by Gutenberg, all copies of the Bible were hand copied by scribes and were called manuscripts. Because they were individually produced by human hands, they were prone to mistakes in manual copying. Textual critics study the various extant (existing) manuscripts and note any discrepancies that may have occurred between different copies. Then, by comparing them, a majority consensus is established. Should a misspelled word be found, or should a word have been accidentally added or omitted from a given manuscript, the textual critic endeavors to by consensus establish the correct reading. A major theory of textual criticism is that some later manuscripts were copied from earlier ones, therefore, the earlier manuscripts are presumed to be a more accurate source of the Scriptures. (The presumption is that scribal errors would accumulate in later copies). Hence, textual critics give much more credence to early manuscripts than to later copies even if the later be greater in number. The problem with this theory is that the early church had great reverence and respect for their "accepted" or "received" manuscripts of the Scriptures. Accordingly, when a given copy of the Scriptures became tattered and worn, it was carefully copied and then burned Hence, there are virtually no copies of me earliest manuscripts used by the churches. However, there is evidence that certain cults and sects within early Christians followed the opposite practice. They preserved their manuscripts regardless of condition. Therefore, the crucial premise of textual criticism - that the oldest manuscripts are always to be preferred to more recent copies is critically flawed.
Manuscripts Aleph and B ln the latter half of the 19th century when textual criticism perhaps was at its zenith, two ancient manuscripts were found in the Mediterranean world that would come to revolutionize the work of the textual critics. A manuscript was "found" in a Roman Catholic monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai in the Sinai desert. It came to be known as Manuscript Aleph and it also was known as Codex Sinaticus ("codex" being a Latin word for a bound volume). About the same time another ancient manuscript was "found" in the library of the Vatican. It became known as Manuscript B or Codex Vaticanus. Both of these manuscripts were determined to have come from the 4th century A.D. and are considered the oldest basically complete copies of the New Testament to exist. Hence, they were considered by the textual critics to be the mother lode of ancient Bible manuscripts. It is noteworthy that both of these manuscripts were "found" in Roman Catholic libraries. (The Roman Catholic Church historically has never given great credence to the Scripture or its teachings). Moreover, the Codex Sinaticus had been produced by scribes of the Alexandrian sect in early church history. The Alexandrians were a heretical cult similar to the modern Jehovah Witnesses. They held major doctrinal deviations pertaining to the person of Jesus Christ. Notwithstanding the questionable source of Codex Sinaticus, it became the premiere source for future textual criticism.
Drs. Westcott and Hort Two British textual critics championed these newly found manuscripts. Their names were Dr. B. F. Westcott and Dr. F. J. A. Hort. They represented a branch of the Church of England which was enamored with the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. Westcott and Hort in their writings showed a keen friendliness to Roman Catholic theology, occult spiritism and German Rationalism otherwise known as modernism. They, by no stretch of the imagination, could he considered fundamentalists s the term was later coined and used. Rather, if they lived today, their theology and philosophy (as evidenced by their writings) would be called liberal, humanistic, sacramental and even have occult overtones. Drs. Hort and Westcott together collated and Text o f the New Testament. The "new" Greek text was in contrast with and in distinction to the text mat had been received by virtually all Bible believing . churches for the preceding 19 centuries. In the last 100 years it has been re-edited by Nestle, Aland and others, and today is generally referred in as the critical text. 11 represents less than 1% of existing manuscripts. From this critical text and its direct predecessor, the Westcott and Hort Text, virtually all modern translations and versions of the Bible have been translated into English. WE BELIEVE THAT THE CRITICAL TEXT IS CORRUPT! Not only are its origins and associations suspect, the actual text itself is full of deletions and dilutions of the time honored Scripture received by translations based upon the critical text have diluted reference to the blood of Jesus Christ (e.g. Romans 3:25, Colossians 1:14, Revelation 1:11, Luke 22:20 et al), the Deity of Christ (e g Jude 4, Revelation 1:11). the inspiration of the Scriptures (e.g. 11 Timothy 3:16), and salvation by faith (e.g. John 3:36) to mention a few. Space does not allow us to list the numerous instances of serious dilution or deletions of major doctrinal truth in modern versions, but it is lengthy. There are thousands of textual changes If a survey benchmark has been moved or altered, all surveying after that point will be distorted. And because the critical text is in our view corrupt. any version of the Bible translated from it is suspect.
Modern Versions The venerable King James Version of the Bible is not copyrighted. It is considered a public domain publication of the Word of God. However, virtually all modern versions are copyrighted. As any author or publisher knows, a copyright is for protection of commercial rights. It means that no one else may market their Bible without paying the publisher or at the least receiving written permission to do so. Does not the Apostle Peter refer to some in the last days "making merchandise of you" regarding the things of God (II Peter 2:3)? Moreover, a number of the modem versions (based upon the critical text) have used less than precise methods for translation. Some have used a literary device known as "dynamic equivalence". This is a fancy term that essentially means some translators have taken the liberty to come up with what they think are modern equivalents for specific words in the manuscript text rather than precisely translating the specific words of the text. In effect, this is a running commentary on the part of the translators, injecting into the translation what they think a given passage means, rather than rendering a precise translation of what the scriptural writers actually wrote. There is nothing wrong with Bible commentaries. However, to insert personal bias under the guise of translation is not only Iess than a faithful rendering of the text, it is deceptive. In at least one case, a popular version bas bad the honesty to indicate m its subtitle mat it is a paraphrase. Unfortunately, unwary minds often look at such a Bible paraphrase as the Bible nevertheless. Some versions have used vulgar and crude terms m their translations They have seemed oblivious to the unique purity of purpose of the Scripture. As mentioned above, cardinal New Testament doctrine such as the shed blood of Jesus Christ, the Deity of Christ and the inspiration of Scripture is routinely diluted m recent translations based upon -me critical text. That should give pause for concern!
The Godly Heritage of the KJV
In viewing the distortions, deletions, corruptions, dilutions, changes and questionable associations of the critical text and its resultant modernist translations, we will stick to the venerable King lames Version of the Bible that our forebearers so faithfully used. It is an ancient landmark Down through the centuries, it has been the Bible used for every major revival to sweep across portions of the English speaking world. It was the Bible of tbe Pilgrim forefathers of this nation. And. it has been God blessed wherever it bas been used. It is based upon the ancient text which bas been, until just recently, the universally accepted text of the Scriptures from the time of the apostles. Modern versions bave been marketed extensively as being easier to read than the archaic, old fashioned KJV Bible. However, recent computerized document analysis programs have objectively revealed that the King James Version of the Bible is in far easier to read than the NIV or the NASB. The Fleisch-Kincaid research firm has, through computerized analysis, sbown that the KJV vocabulary has fewer syllables per word than the NIV or the NASB. Furthertmore, the KJV has less complex sentences than the NIV or NASB. In reality, the KJV is easier to read than its modern counterparts in the manner of vocabulary and syntax. There is undisputed eloquence and beauty in the King James Version. Moreover, the English language was at its zenith in the early 17th century for poetic beauty and eloquence. Interestingly, one of the major criticisms of the King James Version is actually a strength. People unacquainted with proper English complain about the use of "thee" and "thou" etc. in the King James text. However, as anyone who knows linguistics will attest, many languages have at one time had a common level which was spoken on the street and a higher or formal level that was used in reference to royalty and God. The usage of "thee" and "thou" etc. in old English is a form of higher English that no longer is commonly used. It originally was used in formal situations where deference and respect to nobility, royalty and Deity were appropriate. Unfortunately, our contemporary American English usage of "you" and "yours" etc. makes no allowance for such deference and brings all of our Ianguage back to the lower level. The King James Version respectfully and appropriately refers to God and other notables as "tbee" or "thou" in accordance with their due respect. Most modern language translations have diluted that deference.
Dr.Frank Logsdon Dr. Frank Logsdon was the Co-founder of the New American Standard Bible (NASB). He since has renounced any connection to it.
"I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord . . . We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface . . . I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; it's wrong, terribly wrong . . . The deletions are absolutely frightening . . . there are so many . . . Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this? Upon investigation, I wrote my dear friend, Mr. Lockman, (editor's note: Mr. Lockman was the benefactor through which the NASB was published) explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV (editor's note: this is the same as the NASB). You can say that the Authorized Version (KJV) is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct . . ." Dr. Frank Logsdon Modern Bibles are Producing a Corrupt Generation of Churchgoers I want you to notice something important about the NIV, which was first published in 1973. The first generation of preachers and Christians who adopted the NIV had been raised up on the trustworthy King James Bible, so they were doctrinally sound BEFORE they began using the NIV. They weren't fooled. However, it's a different story today. Preachers and churchgoers today have been raised up on the NIV and are doctrinally corrupt. A Christian who read Philippians 2:6 from the NIV in 1973 knew that Jesus was God, because they had learned that truth from the King James Bible. However, Bible students and churchgoers today who read Philippians 2:6 from the NIV sincerely believe that Jesus is not God.
Do you see how the NIV misleads people? Any thinking person would conclude that Jesus is NOT God after reading Philippians 2:6 from the NIV? The translators of the NIV have horribly perverted the Words of God. I've actually had web visitors write to me, trying to prove that Jesus is not God by quoting Philippians 2:6 from the NIV. The preachers who say that we shouldn't be fighting over which version of the Bible, were taught in seminary that Jesus is God or by a doctrinally sound Christian. Unfortunately, most people who read the NIV don't have such privileges and are led to believe that Jesus is not God. This is one reason why we should fight over which version of the Bible. Another horrible problem with the NIV is it's perversion of Romans 10:9...
Satan has infiltrated many of America's Bible colleges, churches and religious institutions with the damnable heresy of Lordship Salvation, i.e., the teaching that a lost sinner MUST surrender his or her life to Christ to be saved, committing to live a life of obedience and to forsake sinful habits. Moody Bible Institute now teaches this hellish heresy. This false doctrine is taught in the NIV. Romans 10:9 in the NIV says that to be saved, a person must confess, “Jesus is Lord.” That's not Biblical. The King James Bible simply says to confess the Lord Jesus Christ. Confess what? We find the answer in Matthew 16:16, “And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” A lost sinner need only confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and believe on Him from the heart. The teaching that a person must make Christ the Lord of their life to be saved, committing to live a transformed life for God, is a doctrine of devils. Moody Bible Institute requires sinners to make a commitment to Christ to be saved. That is heresy! This is another clear reason why we ought to fight over which version of the Bible to use. The Fight Over the Bible is Really a Fight Over Doctrines The NIV changes or removes over 64,000 words from the King James Bible. Thus, there are thousands of doctrinal differences. When we fight over which Bible, we are really fighting over which doctrines? I've just addressed the NIV, but there are HUNDREDS of false bibles on the market and circulating throughout the world's churches today. Many false prophets like to point out that the word “Trinity” is not found in the Bible, and they are correct; however, the word “Godhead” is found in the King James Bible in 3-places. Tragically, the NIV translators have completely removed the word Godhead. Why would they pervert the Scriptures and attack the Godhead? The answer is that Satan is the god of this world and uses the love of money to control carnally-minded people. For men, it's all about making money. For Satan, it's all about blinding the minds of unbelievers to prevent them from being saved (2nd Corinthians 4:4). The apostate Arkansas pastor that I mentioned at the beginning of this article is horribly wrong. He reasons that faith in Christ is all that matters and so there is no need to fight over which Bible. But the NIV and other modern perversions of the Scriptures require sinners to do more than simply trust Christ, they also require a submission to Christ's Lordship. Modern apostates teach that sinners who are unwilling to stop living in sin cannot be saved. This goes 100% contrary to the plainest teachings of the Word of God. Romans 4:6 wonderfully states, “Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works.” Salvation is of the Lord, a gift from God, which does NOT require any self-righteous works on our part. We are saved by HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS! Pastors and Christians who say that we ought not fight over which version of the Bible to use, are in effect also saying that we ought not contend for the Christian faith. The doctrines of the NIV are very different from the doctrines of the King James Bible. I don't like to call the King James a “version,” I call it the Bible. Something's Missing! The word “Calvary” is mentioned once in the King James Bible, and yet it is so much a part of many old hymns (such as AT CALVARY) and the writings of mighty Christian authors. The NIV removes the word entirely. Thus, contemporary religious literature which is based upon the NIV is horribly lacking in Biblical character and richness. Hundreds of important Biblical words have been removed from the NIV:
Need I go on? The differences between the King James Bible and the New International Version are staggering—the difference between day and night, white and black, salvation and damnation. In every place where the precious King James Bible says that people came and “worshipped” Jesus, the NIV changes the word “worship” to “knelt.” You can kneel before a king without worshipping him. The King James Bible teaches that those people all came to WORSHIP the precious Lord Jesus Christ. How dare the NIV translators pervert the true meaning of the Scriptures and diminish the deity of Jesus Christ. Do you see how malicious those translators were? What do you expect from homosexuals? They hate the Bible! They hate Jesus Christ! I could go on-and-on. I have given you just a handful, amongst hundreds of doctrinal conflicts between the different Bible versions, of WHY we ought to fight over which Bible to use. I hope and pray earnestly that you will only use the proven and trustworthy King James Bible, which has been used by mighty men of God and soulwinners for the past four centuries to win lost sinners to the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen and amen!
EARLY HERESIES STILL WITH US TODAY
Perhaps this is why both the RV (which Westcott and Hort helped to translate) and the American edition of it, the ASV, translated 2nd Timothy 3:16 as, "Every scripture inspired of God" instead of "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (KJV).
Perhaps this is why their Greek text makes Jesus a created god (John 1:18) and their American translation had a footnote concerning John 9:38, "And he said, Lord I believe and he worshipped him," which said, "The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature, as here, or to the Creator" (thus calling Christ a creature).
Perhaps this is why their Greek text adds to salvation in 1st Peter 2:2. And why their English version teaches universal salvation in Titus 2:11, "For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men" (ASV).
Perhaps this is why their Greek text does not have Mark 9:44, and their English translation replaces "everlasting fire" [Matthew 18:8] with "eternal fire" and change the meaning of eternal as cited by Hort in the above quote.
Westcott and Hort talked to Spirits of the dead. On one side, their supporters have heralded them as great men of God, having greatly advanced the search for the original Greek text. On the other side, their opponents have leveled charges of heresy, infidelity, apostasy, and many others, claiming that they are guilty of wreaking great damage on the true text of Scripture.
Hort said: “I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS.; it is a blessing there are such early ones.” (Life, Vol. I, p. 211). Westcott and Hort built their own Greek text based primarily on a few uncial MSS of the Local Text. It has been stated earlier that these perverted MSS do not even agree among themselves. The ironic thing is that Westcott and Hort knew this when they formed their text!
We must consider these things for a moment. How can God use men who do not believe that His Book is any different than Shakespeare, Plato, or Dickens? It is a fundamental belief that the Bible is different from all other writings. Why did these men not believe so?
Furthermore, he took sides with the apostate authors of Essays and Reviews.
We must also confront Hort's disbelief that the Bible was infallible:
He also stated:
And further commented to a colleague:
And to John Ellerton he writes:
Dr. Hort was also an adherent to the teaching of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. His son writes:
This man, Coleridge, had a great influence on the two scholars from Cambridge. Forsaking Colossians 2:8,
In some cases Hort seemed to wander in the woods. In others he can only be described as utterly lost in the forest. Take, for example, his views on fundamental Bible truths...
Hort also shrunk from the belief in a literal, eternal hell.
Thus we see that Dr. Hort's opinions were certainly not inhibited by orthodoxy. Yet his wayward ways do not end here. For, as his own writings display, Dr. Hort fell short in several other fundamental areas.
In fact, Hort considered the teachings of Christs atonement as heresy!
The fact is, that Hort believed Satan more worthy of accepting Christs payment for sins than God.
In fact, Hort's heretical view of baptism probably cost his own son his eternal soul, as we find Hort assuring his eldest son, Arthur, that his infant baptism was his salvation:
It is not an amazing thing that any one man could hold to so many unscriptural and ungodly beliefs. It is amazing that such a man could be exalted by Bible believing preachers and professors to a point of authority higher than the King James Bible!
He also said David is not a chronological but a spiritual person. 121 END Footnotes: 87 Fuller, David, True or False, (Grand Rapids International Publications, Grand Rapids, 1973), p. 261. 88 Hills, Edward, Believing Bible Study, (The Christian Research Press, Des Moines, 1967), p. 122. 89 Fuller, David, True or False, (Grand Rapids International Publications, Grand Rapids, 1973), p. 240. 90 Hort, Arthur Fenton, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, (New York, 1896), Volume I, p. 78. 91 Ibid., p. 400. 92 Ibid., pp. 420-422. 93 Ibid., pp. 414-416. 94 Ibid., p. 42. 95 New Standard Encyclopedia, (Standard Educational Corporation, 1977), p. 450. 96 Ibid., pp. c450-451. 97 Hort, Arthur Fenton, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, (New York, 1896), Volume I, p. 449. 98 Ibid., p. 121. 99 Ibid., p. 149. 100 Ibid., p. 122. 101 Ibid., p. 275. 102 Ibid., Volume II, pp. 336,337. 103 Ibid., Volume I, p. 120. 104 Ibid., p. 430. 105 Ibid., p. 428. 106 Ibid., p. 76. 107 Ibid., Volume II, p. 81. 108 Ibid., p. 273. 109 Ibid., p. 34. 110 Ibid., Volume I, pp. 458,459. 111 Ibid., p. 458. 112 Ibid., Volume II, p. 207. 113 Ibid., Volume I, p. 130. 114 Ibid., p. 138. 115 Ibid., p. 140. 116 Ibid., p. 139. 117 Ibid., p. 211. 118 Ibid., p. 377. 119 Wilkenson, Benjamin, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, (Takoma Park, 1930), p. 104. 120 Westcott, Arthur, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott. (New York, 1903), Volume II, p. 69. 121 Ibid., p. 147 122 Ibid., Volume I, p. 52. 123 Ibid., Volume II, p. 308. 124 Ibid., p. 49. 125 Ibid., p. 253. 126 Ibid., p. 394.
|
The Bible warns that there would be those who would corrupt the word of God (2nd Corinthians 2:17) and handle it deceitfully (2nd Corinthians 4:2). There would arise false gospels with false epistles (2nd Thessalonians 2:2), along with false prophets and teachers who would not only bring in damnable heresies but would seek to make merchandise of the true believer through their own feigned words (2nd Peter 2:1-3).
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment