(Continued from from Page.2)

   

In 1870 AD. there was a revision made of God's Word!
In 1870 AD. Bible Scholars in the Church of England decided that something should be done to bring the English reader nearer to the original language. (Sounds like today!) It was during this time that Westcott and Hort joined the Revision Committee.46  and introduced a new Greek Text47 to the committee. This "radical Greek New Testament, deviating the fartherest from the Received Text." (i.e. Textus Receptus)48  2,288 times!49  This "radical Greek Text was the Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.5
             

2. Westcott, Hort and the Revision Committee
      Westcott and Hort convinced the Revision Committee that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were older than what Erasmus  
      used, therefore more reliable and closer to the original scriptures. This convinced "many British scholars that the  
      Textus Receptus was a late and inferior text and that therefore a revision of the King James Version was highly  
      necessary"52
      a. This is the "root" (foundation) of the tree  (Note: Matt.7:15-19)
             Today modern scholars and editorial committee's are convinced that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are the original 
           scriptures because (according to them) they are the oldest manuscripts and there is no there witness between
           them and the writings of the apostles.                

                                                    (Click here for more information concerning "Family Tree Method")          
     b. The facts are there is an older witness that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus
           It is called the "Peshitta," (150 AD) the Bible of the Syrian Church. Also the "Italic Version" (157 AD) Both of
           these translations are in harmony with the Greek Text that the King James Bible is based on.53  (The Textus
           Receptus)
               
      c.  Westcott and Hort's own statement           
            "...by their own published statements they acted on the basis of the natural man's view of the New Testament
            text, priding themselves on treating the text of the New Testament as they would any other ancient book
            making little or nothing of inspiration and providence."53
            (1)  God's statement
                   The "natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither
                   can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1Cor.2:14-15)
           (2)  God's statement
                    For "to be carnally (naturally) minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the
                    carnal (natural) mind is enmity (it is hostile) against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither
                    indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God." (Rom.8:6-8)
       d.  Here is just one example of their "priding themselves"              
              This should be no surprise because Origen and his multiple scribes changed the Greek because Origen did
            not believe that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh. (Deity / The God-man) Origen believed that Jesus was a 
            created being. Encyclopedia Britannica - Origen
                                  .
          (1)  Some say what's the difference Jesus was "God manifest in the flesh"
                  This is true, Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. (2Tim.3:15-16) However He did not become God when
                  He was born. (Matt.1:18-25) The "Word" (God) became the "only begotten Son" at birth!
                  (a)  If Jesus became God a birth, He would be a created being
                         The next step would be to discredit the virgin birth, which most modern translations do. (Note:
                         Matt.1:25) They leave out "firstborn." They say Mary had a son, a baby. Firstborn further establishes
                         that Mary was a virgin, as Isaiah prophesied. "The Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin
                         shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isa.7:14)
                  (b)  He became the only begotten Son. He was always God. (Matt.1:17-25)
                         "For by him (Jesus, The Word) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth,
                         visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things
                         were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."
                             (Col.1:16-17)
         
                    Jesus "is before all things, and by him all things consist." (Col.1:16-17)
                    How can He be a "begotten God?" (Col.1:16-17)
 
             (2)  The Bible (The Textus Receptus, KJV) says
                In "the beginning was the Word, (Jesus - John.1:14-15) and the Word was with God, and the Word
                  was God." (John.1:1-2) "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, (Jesus)
                  and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit,
                  and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (1John.5:7-8)
                     (a) The Word is Jesus.
                         The "Word (God - John.1:1) was made flesh, and dwelt among us. "Hereby know ye the Spirit of
                         God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God. And every spirit that
                         confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist,
                         whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."
                         (1John.4:2-3)
                  (b)  The only begotten of the Father
                         We "beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
                         (John.3:16, 1John.4:9)

                       Note: Since the Reformation (1517 AD) until the time
                          of the Revised Version, (1881 AD) the truths of
                          Justification in Christ's blood (Luther 1517 AD) and
                          Water Baptism by immersion. (Ana-Baptists 1800's
                              AD)  This was accomplished in spite of the corruption
                          of Church of the "decline" and "dark ages."

                          Now here is another attempt of man trying to
                          corrupt the Word of God and destroy these two
                          truths. They delete Acts.8:37 and "through his blood"
                          in Col.1:14, and say with a footnote, that Acts.8:37
                          and "through His blood" in Col.1:14 are the results of
                          "late" and "inferior" manuscripts. This is in agreement
                          with Westcott and Hort who said the the Textus
                          Receptus Greek Text of the Reformation, was "vile"
                          and "villainous" leaning entirely on late manuscripts.51


3. The Greek Text of Westcott and Hort is like a "tare" among the "wheat"

      This has "had a tremendous influence on translators...published since (their) time."55  In Germany, (1898 AD)
       Dr. Eberhard Nestle and his son, Dr. Erwin Nestle and later Dr. Kurt Alan published a Greek Text that followed
      principally what Westcott and Hort established. The American Bible Society were the next to publish a Greek Text,
       1966 AD. with a second edition in 1968 AD. and a third edition in 1970 AD. This is the Greek Text of Liberal
      Seminaries today! It is no wonder that the Church is producing ministries that do not believe the Bible is God's
      Word.

4. Every translation since the KJV has followed the Text of Westcott and   
    Hort, except the New King James Version

          a. Here is one example. (Mark.16:9-20)
           (1) The Modern translations 
                 The modern translations since the KJV (1611 AD) say that these verses (Mark.16:9-20) should not be in
                 the Bible. Their footnotes say, that these verses are not of "superior quality." They say that "Verses 9-20
                 not in the two earliest manuscripts." What they really mean that these verse are not in Sinaiticus and
                 Vaticanus, therefore not the Word of God.
           (2) The New King James (NKJV) has a honest footnote.
                 They say, "9-20 are bracketed in NU (the modern eclectic, or "critical," text of the Greek New Testament,
                 published in the twenty-sixth edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (N) and in the third edition
                 of the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament) as not in the original text. They are lacking in Codex
                 Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other mss of Mark contain them."               
       b.  Compare each translation for yourself          
            Note how they play "follow-the-leader," because they are following Westcott and Hort. One translation says
            that they followed that Greek Text of Westcott and Hort with "meticulous care."      

5  To conclude: "This is why I use the King James Bible"
     Many of God's people still it is a matter of translation of the Greek into today's English. This is a "smoke-screen"
     of our adversary, the Devil to hide his deletions and changes. Today he is doing the same thing as he did in
     the Garden of Eden. The Serpent (Devil, Lucifer, Satan) is provoking Eve  (2Cor.11:1-3, Gen.3:1-3 - The Church)
      into changing God's Word. We need to "submit ourselves" to God's Word (The Textus Receptus)" and resist the
     Devil and he will flee." (James.4:7-8)

     The problem is, that within the Church we would rather submit ourselves to man's intellect, 1Cor.1:19-29; 2:1-14)
      and allow ourselves to be dominated over by those who are "polluting" the Holy things of God. (Col.2:8-9,
      Neh.7:63-65, Deut.17:18; 24:18; 31:9-11, 2Chron.15:3; 34:15, Neh.8:2, Mal.2:7, 1Peter.2:5-9, Rev.1:6: 5:10)
               
              Personal note: I have several translations sitting on my desk, and I refer to them from time to time because
              sometimes their modern day translation of the Greek into English is helpful. Having an updated English translation
              is not the problem!

        However, changing the Greek is the problem!
              (Deut.12:32, Prov.30:5, Rev.22:18-19)

                                 

           As in the parable of the wheat and the tares we can identify the "tares," yet we need to
            leave judgement in God's hands. (Matt.13:24-30, 36-43) "The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that
            we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with
            them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye
            together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn."

     (Now to Phase.2)


Notes
____________________________________________________________________________________________


5.    The King James Defended - E. F. Hills, Chap.8,6.(a),p.225
46.  The History of the Revised Version - Samuel Hemphil, pp.54-55
47.  Westcott and Hort in their theory of the text built the work of several earlier men, such as Griesbach, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, who from around 1775  
       published texts differing in many places from the Received Text." - E.W.Fowler. Evaluting Versions of thye New Testament, p.4
48.  The History of the Revised Version - Samuel Hemphil, pp54-55 / Evaluating Versions of the New Testament - E.W.Fowler, p.28
49.  Evaluating Versions of the New Testament - E.W.Fowler, p.9
50.  Core, New Commentary, Part.3, p.721
51.  The Life and Letters of Fenton John Hort - 2 Vols; London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd., 1896, 1211
52.  The King James Defended, E.F. Hills, Chap.8, 6, (a), p.225
53.  The Traditional Text - Burgon Miller, p.163 / Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol.4, p.86 / The Cannon and Text of the New Testament, p.345  / The Ancestry of the    
        - Dr. Ira M. Price, p.70 / A.T.Robertson , Intro of the New Testament, p.80 / Dr. Phillip schaff. Companion to Greek Testament, p.115. / Intro. to the New  
        Testament - Vol.2, p.270
54.  Evaluating Versions of the New Testament, E.W.Fowler, p.4 / B.F.Westcott and F.J.Hort. The New Testament in the original Greek, Vol.ii, Introduction and    
       Appendix (New York Harper and Brothers, 1882, p.277 / The King James Defended - E.F.Hills. Chap.3, p.66
55.  Evaluating Versions of the New Testament, E.W.Fowler, p.4-5