ANOTHER BIBLE ~ ANOTHER GOSPEL
The words of the LORD are pure words,
As silver tried in a furnace of earth,
purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
Thou shalt preserve them
from this generation forever.
Heaven and earth shall pass away,
But my words shall not pass away.
CHRISTIANS BELIEVE THAT GOD’S WORD IS THE TRUTH, divinely inspired and inerrant. Attempts to destroy it under the pretext of clarifying its meaning have accelerated over the past one hundred years. This paper documents an investigation into the domain of Bible scholarship which, having evaluated the evidence found therein and within the various Bible translations, has determined:
The Greek Textus Receptus, from which the King James Version and New King James Version were translated, is the true Word of God.
The New Greek Text, from which modern versions (Revised Version, New International Version, New American Standard Version) are derived, is a corrupted Greek text.
The reader will find in these pages historical information concerning the translation of the KJV and modern versions, evidence which discredits the translators of the New Greek Text and the Revised Version of 1881 (ERV or RV), and Tables of Comparison of Selected Scriptures which compare selected Scriptures in the KJV, NKJV, ERV (RV), NASB and the NIV. The negative impact of numerous changes in most modern translations upon Christian doctrine and also upon the Church will become apparent. This treatise will deal primarily with alterations to the New Testament.
The reader should take into consideration that not all editions and printings of each modern translation are the same. For this paper, the 1881 ERV, 1973 NASB, 1978 NIV, and the 1982 NKJV were used for the Tables of Comparison of Selected Scriptures. All other Bible references are from the Authorized King James Version.
~ Robert M. Baker
THE WORD OF GOD
For more than ten years I was a faithful reader of the New International Version, believing that it was the Word of God. In 1993, I read several books which documented the Greek and Hebrew texts, translators, translation techniques and theology of various Bible versions. As I read these books, I compared verses in different versions and found to my dismay that the NIV, NASB and other modern translations omitted or changed key words, phrases and whole verses. In some instances, they relegated verses or passages to a foot or marginal note. It was also significant that the NIV, NASB and other new versions often disagreed with each other. Individually, these changes might not have seemed to be cause for concern. However, taken collectively, it was apparent to me that the intent was to change essential doctrine.
Psalm 12:6,7 and other Scriptures declare that God will preserve His Word unto all generations. However Kenneth Barker, author of The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, posited that according to man’s ability, "No translation can be a perfect reproduction of the original." 1. The Translators of the original King James Version also attested to the impossibility of a perfect translation:
“No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?” (Preface, 1611 King James Version)
It is true that the original Autographs are no longer in existence. Also, copies of the originals, which passed through the hands of many early saints, either perished from overuse or were destroyed during the persecutions. 2. How can we be assured that God’s Word has been preserved? Psalm 119:89,90 declares, "Forever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. Thy faithfulness is unto all generations." We may infer from these and other Scriptures that God has promised that He would preserve His Word, according to the heavenly pattern, in the Greek Received Text.
Which Bible? by David Otis Fuller mentions only two streams of Bible transmission that have competed for preeminence throughout Church history.
“The first stream which carried the Received Text in Hebrew and Greek, began with the apostolic churches, and reappearing at intervals down the Christian Era among enlightened believers, was protected by the wisdom and scholarship of the pure church in her different phases: precious manuscripts were preserved by such as the church at Pella in Palestine where Christians fled, when in 70 A.D. the Romans destroyed Jerusalem;…These manuscripts have in agreement with them, by far the vast majority of copies of the original text. So vast is this majority that even the enemies of the Received Text admit that nineteen-twentieths of all Greek manuscripts are in this class…
“The second stream is a small one of a very few manuscripts. These last manuscripts are represented: (a) In Greek: The Vaticanus MS., or Codex B, in the library at Rome; and the Sinaitic, or Codex Aleph, its brother… (b) In Latin: The Vulgate or Latin Bible of Jerome. (c) In English: The Jesuit Bible of 1582, which later with vast changes is seen in the Douay, or Catholic Bible. (d) In English again: In many modern Bibles which introduce practically all the Catholic readings of the Latin Vulgate which were rejected by the Protestants of the Reformation; among these, prominently, are the Revised Versions.” 3.
There is a third stream of manuscripts which originated in Antioch of Syria. An Aramaic translation, the Syriac Peshitta, has been recognized by many fundamentalist scholars mentioned in this report, including David Otis Fuller, as having been based on the Textus Receptus. However, the Peshitta has significant variations. Doctrines of Jesus Christ were modified in the Peshitta similar to the alterations in modern versions listed in the Tables of Comparison in the next section of this report. The Peshitta is promoted as one of the Semitic New Testaments promoted by Messianic organizations that have rejected the Greek origins of the New Testament, claiming that the original gospels were written in Aramaic or Hebrew. To address this subject, a separate report has been published on The Semitic New Testament which identifies 109 variations from the Textus Receptus. 4.
Part II of The Semitic New Testament reveals that that Syrian Church at Antioch birthed a number of heretical cults primarily involved in Gnosticism, i.e., a synthesis of the Babylonian mystery religion and Greek philosophy produced by Kabbalist Jews in Alexandria, Egypt. There is ample proof in his epistles to the early churches that the Apostle Paul confronted the Gnostic heresy on a regular basis. (II Cor. 2:17, II Cor. 11:13, Gal. 2:4, Acts 20:29-30)
While the Antiochan stream of manuscripts found a home in the heretical churches of the East, the Alexandrian stream of manuscripts also began a covert mission to replace the copies of the original manuscripts in the West. It is from the Alexandrian stream of manuscripts that our modern English versions ultimately derive. Fifty years after John the Apostle died (circa 100 A.D.), Justin Martyr and his disciple Tatian began to introduce heretical doctrines into the Christian churches. Tatian’s pupil, Clement of Alexandria, founded a school at Alexandria, Egypt, for the dissemination of Gnosticism. But it was Clement's pupil, Origen, who Fuller states, “did the most of all to create and give direction to the forces of apostasy down through the centuries.” As a Gnostic philosopher, Origen scorned the historical basis of Scripture, and maintained that: “The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written.” Dr. Phillip Schaff observed, “His predilection for Plato (the pagan philosopher) led him into many grand and fascinating errors.” 5. Origen had also studied under Ammonius Saccas, a Greek philosopher of Alexandria who founded a Neoplatonic school.
Origen produced a six-column Bible, the Hexapla, which he subtly permeated with Gnostic doctrine. Diocletian (302-312), the last in an unbroken line of pagan emperors, had furiously sought to destroy the Christian sect and pursued every copy of the Scriptures to destroy them also. Constantine succeeded him as Roman emperor and, desiring to bring peace to the Roman Empire, commissioned a Bible which would facilitate the amalgamation of pagan religion and Christianity. “Quite naturally he preferred the one edited by Eusebius and written by Origen, the outstanding intellectual figure that had combined Christianity with Gnosticism in his philosophy, even as Constantine himself was the political genius that was seeking to unite Christianity with pagan Rome… Eusebius in publishing the Bible ordered by Constantine, had incorporated the manuscripts of Origen… The Church of Rome built on the Eusebio-Origen type of Bible.” 6.
Origen had been pronounced a heretic by a number of general synods in the early Church period. The Church also recognized that the Alexandrian manuscripts produced by Origen had altered the Apostles’ doctrine and rejected them as heretical. Early Christians chose not to use them and they were abandoned in Rome in 500 A.D. However, Origen's influence extended to the Roman Catholic religion during the Middle Ages: “One of the greatest results of his life was that his teachings became the foundation of that system of education called Scholasticism, which guided the colleges of Latin Europe for nearly one thousand years during the Dark Ages. Origenism flooded the Catholic Church through Jerome. ‘I love…the name of Origen,’ said the most distinguished theologian of the Roman Catholic Church since 1850. [John Henry Newman]” 7.
The Renaissance brought radical and comprehensive changes in European culture during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. It was during this period, in 1517, that the Protestant Reformation commenced:
“From one point of view, what had occurred during the Renaissance/Reformation was roughly this: what might be called the Establishment culture of Western Europe, based entirely upon Christian values as defined by Rome, had at last yielded up its monopoly of jurisdiction -- never in theory, of course, but certainly in practice… The Renaissance represents the cultural release from the papal strait-jacket; the Reformation, the same release expressed in religious terms.” 8.
Desiderius Erasmus is generally acknowledged as a pioneer of learning during this epic period in Church history:
“The Revival of Learning produced that giant intellect and scholar, Erasmus. It is a common proverb that ‘Erasmus laid the egg and Luther hatched it.’ The streams of Grecian learning were again flowing into the European plains, and a man of caliber was needed to draw from their best and bestow it upon the needy nations of the West… Erasmus, during his mature years in the earlier part of the sixteenth century, was the intellectual giant of Europe… Europe was rocked from end to end by his books, which exposed the ignorance of the monks, the superstitions of the priesthood, the bigotry, and the childish and coarse religion of the day. He classified the Greek manuscripts and read the early Fathers… But his crowning work was the New Testament in Greek. At last after one thousand years, the New Testament was printed (1516 A.D.) in the original tongue. Astonished and confounded, the world, deluged by superstitions, coarse traditions, and monkeries, read the pure story of the Gospels.” 9.
Desiderius Erasmus divided all of the Greek manuscripts into two classes: those which agreed with the Received or Traditional Text and those which agreed with the corrupt Vaticanus manuscript. 10. He then presented the Reformation Christians a Greek New Testament based on the Received Text. Even the members of the later 19th century English Revision Committee would acknowledge the pedigree of the Greek Text issued by Erasmus:
“’The manuscripts which Erasmus used, differ, for the most part, only in small and insignificant details from the bulk of the cursive manuscripts -- that is to say, the manuscripts which are written in running hand and not in capital or (as they are technically called) uncial letters. The general character of their text is the same. By this observation the pedigree of the Received Text is carried up beyond the individual manuscripts used by Erasmus to a great body of manuscripts of which the earliest are assigned to the ninth century’…This remarkable statement completes the pedigree of the Received Text. That pedigree stretches back to a remote antiquity. The first ancestor of the Received Text was…at least contemporary with the oldest of our extant manuscripts, if not older than any one of them.” 11.
Erasmus restored the Textus Receptus to its previous exalted status in Western Europe and Luther translated the New Testament into German using Erasmus’ second edition. From Erasmus’ Greek Text also came many other translations, such as the Zurich (Swiss) Version (1529), LeFevre’s (French) Bible (1534), the Olivetan (French) Bible (1535), Laurentius (Swedish) Bible (1541), the Christian (Danish) Bible (1550), Biestken’s (Dutch) Bible (1558), de Reyna’s (Spanish) Bible (1569), the Czech Version (1602) and Diodati’s (Italian) Bible (1607). 12.
William Tyndale was the hero of the English Reformation. Tyndale studied Greek under Erasmus at Cambridge University from 1510-1514. Fluent in seven languages, he translated two-thirds of the Bible into English using Erasmus’ Greek text. Tyndale, who wished to place the Scriptures in the hands of the common people, was martyred for his labors.
The Authorized Version (King James Version)
From the 2nd through the 17th century, copies of the original New Testament manuscripts were preserved and were compiled by Erasmus as the Greek Received Text. The Textus Receptus, the text traditionally used as the basis for translation of the Bible into various languages, is derived from the overwhelming majority of ancient Bible manuscripts which comprised the Traditional Text of the early Church. These 5,210 manuscripts (99% of extant or existing manuscripts) agree with each other, as opposed to only 45 (1% of extant) texts which form the basis of the Revised Version and other modern translations. 13.
In 1604, one thousand ministers petitioned the English monarch, King James I, “that there might be a new translation of the Bible, without note or comment.” 14. The Translation Committee for an Authorized Version was composed of fifty-four scholars of the highest qualifications. No secrecy shrouded the work of the translators, who were accountable to one another and to the Church of England clergy and bishops. These learned men possessed all of the extant manuscripts which had been made available through the industry of Erasmus. Although counterfeit documents of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus families of manuscripts were available to the translators, these were rejected. Rev. Terence H. Brown, formerly Secretary of the Trinitarian Bible Society of London wrote of the fifty-four translators of the KJV:
“No reasonable person imagines that the translators were infallible or that their work was perfect, but no one acquainted with the facts can deny that they were men of outstanding scholarship, well qualified for their important work, or that with God's blessing they completed their great task with scrupulous care and fidelity... They were indeed ‘learned men’ - and their scholarship was recompensed by a deep conviction of the divine origin of the records which they were translating. Learning and faith went hand in hand to open the storehouse of God's word of truth for the spiritual enrichment of millions from generation to generation, over a period of more than three hundred years.” 15.
The Translators' Preface to the 1611 AV describes the intent of the translators, their method of translation and presents much valuable background information. 16. Unfortunately, the Preface has been removed from King James Bibles for the past one hundred years which has given rise to the Ruckmanite Heresy that the KJV is superior to the Greek Textus Receptus. For this reason, manuscript scholar Professor Edgar J. Goodspeed wrote a Thesis on the Preface and endeavored during his lifetime to restore the Preface to the King James Bible, but to no avail. 17.
It is important to acknowledge that the Authorized Version of 1611 contained the Apocrypha, as did all of the English Bibles which preceded it: Tyndale's Bible (1525 A.D.), Coverdale's Bible (1535 A.D.), Matthew's Bible (1537 A.D.), Taverner's Bible (1539 A.D.), the Great Bible, (1539 A.D.), the Geneva Bible (1560 A.D.) and the Bishop's Bible (1568 A.D.). Apocryphal books were omitted from the AV in 1629 and by 1827 the Apocrypha was excluded permanently. Landmarks of English Bible: Manuscript Evidence by Robert Sargent provides additional information about the Apocrypha with the following explanation for its inclusion in the Reformation Bibles:
“Many of the early English versions contained the Apocrypha for two basic reasons – because of the general acceptance of the Apocrypha during the Dark Ages, and/or (in case of the Authorized, King James Version) for Scriptural analysis. In each case, the Apocrypha were delineated either in an appendix and/or with an explanation showing them to be non-canonical.” 18.
Revision of the English Bible
In 1816, The American Bible Society was founded by a group of New York philanthropists 19. whose stated objectives included revision as well as circulation of the Bible. “The dissemination of the Scriptures in the received versions where they exist, and in the most faithful where they may be required.” The American Bible Society was financially supported by the British and Foreign Bible Society of London 20. which had high level connections with the United Grand Lodge of England. 21.
Dr. Thomas J. Conant of the University of Rochester envisioned that the Bible should be thoroughly revised. In 1827, Dr. Conant introduced the issue of translating the Greek word “baptizein” as “immersion” instead of transferring it as the AV translators had done. 22. In 1835, when the American Bible Society rejected any foreign version not consistent with the Authorised Version, the Baptist Board of Foreign Missions formed the American & Foreign Bible Society to circulate the Bengali New Testament and other versions that would translate “baptize/baptism” as “immerse/immersion.”
In 1838, the President of the American & Foreign Bible Society, Dr. Spencer H. Cone, sought to thoroughly revise the English Scriptures, but the AFBS voted against this proposal. Dr. Cone’s plan was thwarted for 14 years during which time much pressure for revision was exerted on the society and a revised Bible was published. 1849, the AFBS removed the restriction to use common version (AV) and an impassioned debate ensued among the Baptists. Drs. Cone and William Wyckoff published “The Bible Translated” to defend their revision and issued sample revised New Testament. Those who were opposed to Bible revision called for Baptists to “rebuke this metropolitan power” to crush revisionist movement forever. 23. On May 22, 1850, the American & Foreign Bible Society voted against revision of the English Scriptures and, following an intense debate, Dr. Cone resigned as AFBS president. 24.
On May 27, 1850, twenty-four revisionists including Dr. Cone and Thomas Armitage met to plan a new Bible revision society. Armitage created the resolutions’ wording, which denied the divine preservation of Scripture and established no spiritual qualifications for Bible revisers.
“‘Resolved. That it is our duty to form a voluntary association for the purpose of procuring and circulating the most faithful version of the sacred Scriptures in all languages.
“‘Resolved. That in such an association we will welcome all persons to co-operate with us, who embrace the principles upon which we propose to organize, without regard to their denominational principles in other respects.’” 25.
On June 10, 1850, the American Bible Union was organized, with Dr. Cone as president, for the purpose of revising English Bible. 26. Most members and directors of the American Bible Union were American Baptists 27. although some of the Bible revisers had come to the U.S. from Great Britain: “Next to Dr. Cone, the three men who did more to promote the revision of the English Bible than any others, were Drs. Archibald Maclay, William H. Wyckoff, and Deacon William Colgate.” Archibald Maclay, D.D., was born in Scotland in 1778, and was a Congregational pastor there; but after his emigration to New York he became a Baptist. Deacon William Colgate was born in Kent, England in 1783. 28.
In 1850, scholars on both sides of Atlantic collaborated to produce a preliminary revision of Bible. Once again, protest to revision of the Bible arose in the United States as Dr. Conant began translating the Old Testament.
“While many men of learning and nerve espoused the movement, as storm of opposition was raised against it from one end of the land to the other. … After considerable correspondence with scholars in this country and in Europe, the following general rules were adopted, and many scholars on both sides of the Atlantic commenced their work on a preliminary revision of the Bible…
“‘3. Translations or revisions of the New Testament shall be made from the received Greek text, critically edited with known errors corrected. The following common English version must be the basis of the revision; the Greek text, Bagster & Son’s octavo edition of 1851.’” 29.
Serving as liaison between the European and American revision committees was Phillip Schaff 30. who would become a professor at the Rockefeller-founded Union Theological Seminary 31. as well as the “Father of Ecumenical Movement.” According to Rouse's History of the Ecumenical Movement,
“Shortly before his death, Philip Schaff made a now famous address on ‘The Reunion of Christendom’ before the World Parliament of Religions, in...1893. In this address, Schaff urged a ‘federal or confederate union’ resembling the ‘political confederation of Switzerland, the United States, and the modern German Empire. This federation would be a ‘voluntary association of different Churches in their official capacity, each retaining its freedom and independence in the management of its internal affairs, but all recognizing one another as sisters with equal rights, and cooperating in general enterprises, such as the spread of the gospel at home and abroad, the defense of the faith against infidelity, the elevation of the poor and neglected classes of society, works of philanthropy and charity, and moral reform’. This farewell address of the aged ecumenical leader was thus prophetic of the Federal Council [of Churches] of the 20th century, and even more of its successor, National Council of Churches.” 32.
To the American New Testament committee would be added, in 1873, Timothy Dwight, a member of the Order of Skull and Bones (1849). 33. Timothy Dwight was the grandson of Rev. Timothy Dwight (1752-1817), also a member of the Order of Skull and Bones, who was the grandson of Rev. Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), who was a personal friend of President George Washington, a high-level Freemason. Both Timothy Dwights were presidents of Yale.
The British Revisers
Meanwhile in Great Britain, a Cambridge professor, Fenton John Antony Hort, Anglican clergyman, Brooke Foss Westcott 34. and the future Archbishop of Canterbury, Edward White Benson, founded the Cambridge Ghost Society in 1851. 35. The Ghost Society would become the parent of the Society for Psychical Research, which was directed by Dr. Hort’s student, Henry Sidgwick and his wife, Eleanor Balfour. The latter was the sister of Arthur Balfour, who would become Prime Minister of Great Britain.
“Among the numerous persons and groups who in the middle of the nineteenth century were making enquiries into psychical occurrences may be mentioned a society from which our own can claim direct descent. In the Life of Edward White Benson, Archbishop of Canterbury, by his son, A. C. Benson, will be found, under the year 1851-2, the following paragraph:
“‘Among my father's diversions at Cambridge was the foundation of a ‘Ghost Society,’ the forerunner of the Psychical Society…for the investigation of the supernatural. Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort were among the members... The S.P.R. has hardly lived up to the standard of ecclesiastical eminence set by the parent society.” 36.
Also in 1851, F.J.A. Hort joined the Cambridge Company of the Apostles, a covert organization of which Westcott and Sidgwick would also become members:
“[Hort] found time to attend the meetings of various [Cambridge] societies and in June joined the mysterious Company of the Apostles… He remained always a grateful and loyal member of the secret Club, which has now become famous for the number of distinguished men who have belonged to it. In his time the Club was in a manner reinvigorated, and he was mainly responsible for the wording of an oath which binds members to a conspiracy of silence.” 37.
“[The] Apostles had hoped that developments in the social sciences would before long make possible an equitable and frictionless society.” 38.
Roland Perry’s expose, The Fifth Man, revealed that a member of the powerful House of Rothschild which directs the worldwide network of Masonic societies, was a member of the Cambridge Apostles Club.
“The Fifth [man] provided Stalin almost on a daily basis with what Churchill and Roosevelt were saying about the USSR. The spy also had particular links to the US military and intelligence during and after the war… The Fifth Man was Nathaniel Mayer Victor Rothschild (1910 to 1990), better known as the third Lord Rothschild. He was the British head of the famous banking dynasty, which apart from prolific achievements in art, science, wine and charity, had shaped recent history by such acts as the financing of the British army at the Battle of Waterloo and the purchasing of the Suez Canal for Great Britain and Prime Minister Disraeli…[Anthony] Blunt made much play towards the end of 1932 about his efforts to have Rothschild and Burgess elected to the Apostles... On 12 November 1932 Burgess and Victor were both voted in.” 39.
It is noteworthy that, as British Foreign Minister, Arthur Balfour would issue the Balfour Declaration – which authorized the return of the Jews to Palestine – to Lord Lionel Rothschild, and that Balfour and Rothschild were members of Cecil Rhodes’ Circle of Initiates. 40. The extensive connections between the British and American revision committees and the secret societies are further documented in “The Unauthorized History of Bible Revision.” 41.
Secular historians as well as the Life and Letters of both B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, have documented the unorthodox doctrines and occult affiliations of these two clergymen during the 30-year period they edited the Greek New Testament Text and guided the English revision Committee. Excerpts from the correspondence of Westcott and Hort are included in the Appendix of this report to demonstrate the heretical beliefs of these men who served as Bible revisers.
THE NEW GREEK TEXT
In 1853, F.J.A. Hort and B.F. Westcott, who later became an Anglican bishop, proceeded to create, not a revision, but an altogether New Greek Text of the New Testament. 42. According to Dr. Hort, their intention was to radically alter the Traditional or Majority Text for future generations. “Our object is to supply clergymen generally, schools, etc., with a portable Greek Text which shall not be disfigured with Byzantine corruptions.” 43. The correction of “Byzantine corruptions” by Hort and Westcott was, in fact, the substitution of corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts for the Textus Receptus which underlies the Authorised Version – the text which agrees with the majority of manuscripts extant today.
Wrote Dr. Hort: “He (Westcott) and I are going to edit a Greek text of the New Testament some two or three years hence, if possible. Lachmann and Tischendorf will supply rich materials, but not nearly enough; and we hope to do a good deal with Oriental versions.” 44. Karl Lachmann (1793-1851) was professor of Classical and German Philology in Berlin, and also a German rationalist and textual critic who produced modern editions of the New Testament in Germany in 1842 and 1850. Lachmann began to apply to the New Testament Greek text the same rules that he had used in editing texts of the Greek classics which had been radically altered over the years. Having also set up a series of several presuppositions and rules which he used for arriving at the original text of the Greek classics, he then began with these same presuppositions and rules to correct the New Testament which he assumed was hopelessly corrupted. 45.
Lachmann’s theories laid the foundation for the German school of higher criticism which rejected the authenticity of the Gospels, particularly the miracles, and also the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith. The widespread acceptance of Lachmann’s work furnished the critical authority for Drs. Westcott and Hort in their formulation of a method of Textual Criticism, known as the Westcott and Hort Textual Theory. Drs. Westcott and Hort hypothesized that that the original New Testament text had survived in near perfect condition in two manuscripts other than the Received Greek Text and that the early church used these manuscripts to edit the Textus Receptus. The Westcott-Hort Theory, which maintains that the true text of Scripture was lost by the true Church for approximately 1600 years, has since been discredited for lack of historical evidence. 46.
Constantin Tischendorf (1815-74) was a German textual editor whom Dr. Frederick Scrivener of the English Revision Committee ranked “the first Bible Critic in Europe.” Tischendorf traveled extensively in search of ancient documents and was responsible for finding the two manuscripts most relied upon in the Westcott-Hort Greek Text, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Tischendorf discovered (c. A.D. 1844) the Vaticanus B manuscript in the Vatican Library and Sinaiticus Aleph in a waste basket in a Catholic convent at the base of Mt. Sinai. 47. Psalm 108:5 promises that God will preserve His Word “unto a thousand generations.” For this reason, He would never allow it to be suppressed or withheld from His people as the Roman Catholic hierarchy did for 1400 years. It is reasonable to assume that God removed these manuscripts from circulation because they were not His Word.
Westcott and Hort used the Codex Vaticanus (B) and the Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) manuscripts as the basis for their New Testament Greek Text, which in turn was the basis for the 1881 text adopted by the ERV revisers. 48. Dean John Burgon, the brilliant textual scholar and Anglican clergyman who led the opposition to the English revision, described for his English readers the corrupt character of the manuscripts primarily used by Westcott and Hort – not to revise the Textus Receptus – but to create an altogether new Greek Text.
“It matters nothing that all four are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant MSS, besides, but even from one another. This last circumstance, obviously fatal to their corporate pretensions, is unaccountably overlooked. And yet it admits of only one satisfactory explanation: viz. That in different degrees they all five exhibit a fabricated text… We venture to assure [the reader] without a particle of hesitation, that Aleph, B, D, are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant: – exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with: – have become, by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of Truth, – which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of God.” 49.
The English Revised Version
In 1857, liberal churchmen petitioned the Government to revise the Authorized Version but were refused permission. A general distrust of revising the sacred text was prevalent and Archbishop Trench, later a member of the Revision Committee called the issue, “A question affecting…profoundly the whole moral and spiritual life of the English people …(with) vast and solemn issues depending on it.” 50. Nonetheless, Dr. Trench led the movement for revision in Great Britain and called for better revision than Baptists since they ‘interpret’ rather than ‘translate.’ In other words, the American Baptists were limited to translating from the Textus Receptus and the English revisionists planned to use the New Greek Text compiled by Westcott and Hort for the English Revised Version.
At length, the Southern Convocation of the Church of England was appealed to and consented to a revision. The Revision Committee was divided from its beginning in 1871, the majority of two-thirds being those in favor of applying German methods of higher criticism to the revision process. The first chairman, Bishop Wilberforce resigned, calling the work a “miserable business” and protesting the presence of a Unitarian scholar who had been elected to the committee. 51. Dr. G. Vance Smith, who denied the Divinity of Christ, had nevertheless participated in a communion service at Westminster Abbey upon the invitation of Bishop Westcott just prior to the first committee meeting. Dean John Burgon reported that committee members were bound to a pledge of silence having received each a copy of the New Greek Text created by Westcott and Hort, which altered the Textus Receptus in 5,337 places: “…a ‘confidential’ copy of their work having been already entrusted to every member of the New Testament Company of Revisionists to guide them in their labours, -- under pledge that they should neither show nor communicate its contents to any one else.” 52.
The English revisionists also consulted the translation produced in 1865 by the American Bible Union, whose committee was chaired by ecumenist Philip Schaff. The facts surrounding English-American collaboration on revision of the Bible are documented in Thomas Armitage’s History of the Baptists.
“The revisers commenced their work in June, 1870, and submitted the New Testament complete May 17th, 1881, the work being done chiefly by seventeen Episcopalians, two of the Scotch Church, two dissenting Presbyterians, one Unitarian, one Independent and one Baptist. A board of American scholars had co-operated, and submitted ‘a list of readings and renderings’ which they preferred to those finally adopted by their English brethren; a list comprising fourteen separate classes of passages, running through the entire New Testament, besides several hundred separate words and phrases. The Bible Union's New Testament was published nearly six years before the Canterbury revision was begun, and nearly seventeen years before it was given to the world. Although Dr. Trench had pronounced the ‘installments’ of the American Bible Union's New Testament ‘not very encouraging,’ yet the greatest care was had to supply the English translators with that version. During the ten and a half years consumed in their work, they met in the Jerusalem Chamber at Westminster each month for ten months of every year, each meeting lasting four days, each day from eleven o'clock to six; and the Bible Union’s New Testament lay on their table all that time, being most carefully consulted before changes from the common version were agreed upon. One of the best scholars in the corps of English revisers said to the writer: ‘We never make an important change without consulting the Union’s version.… This was before the Canterbury version was completed, but when it was finished it was found that the changes in sense from the common version were more numerous than those of the Union’s version, and that the renderings in that version are verbatim in hundreds of cases with those of the Union’s version.” 53.
In 1881, the English Revision Committee cast upon the world a New Greek Text and an English Bible which, in the words of one reviser contained “between eight and nine changes in every five verses, and in about every ten verses, three of these were made for critical purposes.” The English Revised Version is generally acknowledged to be the predecessor to the New International Version, the New American Standard Version and other modern translations.
The Nestle/Aland new Greek text
In 1898, Eberhard Nestle published the Nestle Greek New Testament, which underlies the modern versions. He followed the Hort and Westcott New Greek Text used for the English Revised Version and three other editions of the 1800s. In 1950, Kurt Aland assumed ownership and the Nestle Text became the Nestle/Aland Text. The editing committee was comprised of Kurt Aland and Matthew Black, who were unbelievers, Roman Catholic Cardinal Carlo M. Martini and two apostates, Bruce Metzger and Alan Wikgren. 54. Again, the question arises concerning the qualifications of those who translate or edit God’s Word. History provides clear evidence that the divinely inspired Word of God was often altered by men who received their inspiration from a source other than God.
The New American Standard Bible
The Preface to the New American Standard Bible, published in 1963, states that, “In most instances the 23rd edition of the Nestle Greek New Testament was followed.” Dr. Frank Logsdon, former pastor of Moody Memorial Church, along with Dewey Lockman (The Lockman Foundation), laid the groundwork for this modern version. After its publication, questions by friends caused Dr. Logsdon to examine the translation closely. The following is his renunciation of every attachment to the NASB. This renunciation takes on added meaning since the NIV and NASB used the Nestle/Aland Text in the revision process and many changes are common to both.
“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; it’s frighteningly wrong and what am I going to do about it…When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended… I used to laugh with others… However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not quite right in the New American Standard Version. I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can’t refute them… the deletions are absolutely frightening… there are so many… Are we so naïve that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?
“Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachments to the NASV. The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times…I don’t want anything to do with it…” 55.
The New International Version
The NIV Story, by Burton Goddard, describes the eclectic method used by the NIV joint committee for this contemporary translation. Webster’s New World Dictionary defines “eclectic” as: “to select, to pick out, to choose – 1. selecting from various systems, doctrines or sources; 2. composed of material gathered from various sources or systems.” According to Goddard, the members of the committee chose not to confine themselves to one printed text of ancient or modern writings, but to privately determine, based on their evidence, what readings are true or genuine. In addition to its primary selections, the NIV committee decided to include alternative readings in footnote form to acquaint the reader with other interpretations. And in some extended portions of Scripture, liberty was taken to introduce verses not well-attested by manuscript evidence. 56.
Although NIV apologists claim that the eclectic method was used in translation, editors of this version have shown in their other writings a preference for the Westcott and Hort Aleph and B manuscripts. 57. In NIV passages that do not involve fundamental doctrinal issues, the editors used Majority Text readings. This was necessary in order to comply with copyright regulations, which require that new versions contain a larger portion of the Traditional Text in order to be classified as “Bibles.” However, in selected verses containing essential doctrine, “They used random minority text type readings when an opportunity arose to present New Age philosophy or demote God or Christ.” 58.
It seems that the New International Version was translated without much theological restraint in order to convey the private interpretations of men and to appeal to, or not offend, a variety of religious sects. According to one NIV editor, I John 5:7 is “the strongest statement in the KJV on the Trinity.” 59. Yet its omission from this new version reflects its prior omission from the New Greek Text, by F.J.A. Hort’s design. 60. This revision, along with many others of doctrinal importance, probably accounts for the broad application of the Westcott-Hort New Greek Text. Few Christians realize that the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witness cult is based upon this same corrupted text which underlies the NIV and all other modern translations. 61.
Other findings provide convincing evidence that the hidden agenda of the NIV is to alter Bible doctrine. The NIV has 64,098 or 10% fewer words than the King James Version. 62. Careful comparison of Scripture verses, such as those found in the Tables, reveals that these omissions are not random, but selective. Most incredible was the appointment of a homosexual, Dr. Marten Woudstra, as Chairman of the Old Testament Committee of the NIV Committee on Bible Translation 63., and the retainer as a consultant of a lesbian and feminist, Dr. Virginia Mollenkott. 64.
The New King James Version
The Preface of the New King James Version provides the following information concerning this version's translation of the Old Testament and New Testament:
“For the New King James Version the text used was the 1967/77 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica, with frequent comparisons being made with the Bomberg edition of 1524-25. The Septuagint (Greek) Version of the Old Testament and the Latin Vulgate also were consulted. In addition to referring to a variety of ancient versions of the Hebrew Scriptures, the New King James Version draws on the resources of relevant manuscripts from the Dead Sea caves...
“The New King James Version follows the historic precedent of the Authorized Version in maintaining a literal approach to translation, except where the idiom of the original language cannot be translated directly into our tongue. The King James New Testament was based on the traditional text of the Greek-speaking churches, first published in 1516, and later called the Textus Receptus or Received Text. Although based on the relatively few available manuscripts, these were representative of many more which existed at the time but only became known later. In the late nineteenth century, B. Westcott and F. Hort taught that this text had been officially edited by the fourth century church, but a total lack of historical evidence for this even has forced a revision of the theory...
“In light of these facts, and also because the New King James Version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority Text variant readings in the footnotes...
“The textual notes in the present edition of the New Testament make no evaluation of readings, but do clearly indicate the manuscript sources of readings. They objectively present the facts without such tendentious remarks as 'the best manuscripts omit' or 'the most reliable manuscripts read.' Such notes are value judgments that differ according to varying viewpoints on the text.” 65.
The New Testament of the New King James Version is based on the Textus Receptus, and appears to translate it accurately. According to Dr. James D. Price, Chairman of the Executive Review Committee of the Old Testament, the translation philosophy contained “sixteen guidelines, the third of which was ‘Correct all departures from the Textus Receptus.’” 66.
Regarding the Old Testament, the NKJV Preface states, “For the New King James Version the text used was the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of Biblia Hebraica, based on the ben Asher text, while frequent comparisons were made with the Bomberg edition of 1524-25.” According to Dr. Price, there are a mere eight differences between the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and the Bomberg Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text and these are negligible.
“...the Bomberg edition of 1524-25 is the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text. Furthermore, the differences between the Bomberg Ben Chayyim edition and Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1967/77) are microscopic. In the eight places where the difference had an effect on translation, the NKJV followed Ben Chayyim, not Stuttgart.
The NKJV North American Overview Committee, comprised of many prominent Evangelical leaders known to be apostate, “met at Nashville and Chicago in 1975 to assist in preparing guidelines for the NKJV” and reviewed the work throughout the entire editing process. They did not, however, participate in the translation process. 67.
See: The New King James Version Misrepresented
Moneychangers in the Temple
Royalties received from each edition, rather than preservation of the text, seems to be an additional underlying motive in the creation of the many new translations as well as revised editions. From 1898 to 1979, there were twenty-six editions of the Nestle/Aland Greek Text alone. 68. Correspondingly, publishers have produced an average of two new versions of the English Bible each year since 1900.
“They see in the translations of the Bible a chance for millions upon millions of dollars for their publishing houses. This is what sells. How do you account for many of the 135 complete English Bibles and 293 complete English New Testaments (a total of 428 altogether) that have flooded the English speaking world from 1380 through 1991?” 69.
The Book of Life
Bible revision is an insidious method of destroying the Word of God. Casual reading or study of a new version does not reveal the cumulative effect of thousands of alterations to Scripture, however, the substantial differences between the King James and modern versions represent a change, or at least a weakening of the acceptance, of a minimum of nineteen fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. Deuteronomy 8:3 states, “Man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord.”; Deuteronomy 32:47 states, “it is not a vain thing for you; because it is your life.” Jeremiah 36 records the story of King Jehoiakim who dared to destroy the word of the Lord. God punished his defiance by removing him from the genealogy of Jesus Christ. (Matt. 1:11 records only Josias and Jechonias, the father and son of Jehoiakim.) Revelation 22:19,20 warns that the same judgment will befall others who presume to change the Holy Writ:
“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: 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.”
Jesus Christ said, “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.” (John 6:63) Removing or adding to God’s words results in preaching "another gospel," which is not the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Apostle Paul implied that preaching another gospel leads people to receive “another Jesus” and “another spirit.” (II Cor. 11:4) I Peter 1:23,25 shows that there is a direct correlation between the preaching of the pure Word of God and spiritual regeneration: “Being born again, not of corruptible seed but of incorruptible, but by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever…and this is the word by which the gospel is preached unto you.”
The prophet Amos spoke of a day in which there would be a famine of hearing the words of the Lord. (Amos 8:11) Today, man-centered messages and experiences have largely replaced the expository teaching of the Word of God. Often missing from the Gospel presentation are vital doctrines of the Christian faith, such as the cross, the blood atonement, genuine faith, repentance, sanctification and judgment.
Examine the Evidence
Throughout the Church Age, the Word of God has been preserved in the Textus Receptus, which is found today in the Authorized King James Version and the New King James Version. The glory of our rich inheritance of truth in the Sacred Canon is slowly departing from the Christian churches and doctrinal confusion reigns. These things should not be so… “for God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints” (I Cor. 14:33).
When the Jews at Berea were confronted with the Gospel, “they received the word with all readiness of mind and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11) They were commended by God for examining the Scriptures themselves in order to “prove all things.” (I Thess. 5:21) Like the noble Bereans, those who desire to know the truth today will study the Scriptures to determine which Bible faithfully preserves the doctrines of the Christian faith. The reader is invited to apply the Berean method to the various translations of the Bible by examining the evidence which is presented in the Tables of Comparison of Selected Scriptures. The comparison of key verses in the King James and the modern versions will prove which Bible version is the true Word of God.
The Life and Letters of
B. F. Westcott & F. J. A. Hort
One of the early pioneers of modern Spiritualist inquiry was the Ghost Society at the University of Cambridge, England. Alan Gauld has recorded in The Founders of Psychical Research the founding and objective of the Ghost Society:
"In 1851 was founded at Cambridge a Society to 'conduct a serious and earnest inquiry into the nature of the phenomena vaguely called supernatural,' and a number of distinguished persons became members." 70.
The Society For Psychical Research directly succeeded the Cambridge Ghost Society. The Society for Psychical Research: An Outline of its History, written in 1948 by the president, W. H. Salter, provides the following record:
"Among the numerous persons and groups who in the middle of the nineteenth century were making enquiries into psychical occurrences may be mentioned a society from which our own can claim direct descent. In the Life of Edward White Benson, Archbishop of Canterbury, by his son, A. C. Benson, will be found, under the year 1851-2, the following paragraph:
"'Among my father's diversions at Cambridge was the foundation of a 'Ghost Society,' the forerunner of the Psychical Society [meaning the S.P.R.] for the investigation of the supernatural. Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort were among the members. He was then, as always, more interested in psychical phenomena than he cared to admit.'
"Lightfoot and Westcott both became bishops, and Hort Professor of Divinity. The S.P.R. has hardly lived up to the standard of ecclesiastical eminence set by the parent society." [parenthesis in original] 71.
The following are excerpts from The Life And Letters Of Fenton John Anthony Hort, published by his son Arthur Hort. These statements are representative of his theological beliefs, personal attitudes, and occult affiliations during his commission with B.F. Westcott to edit the New Greek Text. Many of the letters were written to B.F. Westcott, whose affinity for Roman Catholicism can be seen in the excerpts from his biography, The Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, written by his son, Arthur Westcott. The information revealed in these volumes renders both Hort and Westcott suspect as a qualified Bible translators.
The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort
1851 -- Cambridge: Graduate Life
"In June (F.J.A. Hort) joined the mysterious Company of the Apostles . . . He was mainly responsible for the wording of an oath which binds members to a conspiracy of silence . . . Two other societies. . . were started . . . in both of which Hort seems to have been the moving spirit . . . the other called by its members ‘The Ghostly Guild.' The object was to collect and classify authenticated instances of what are now called ‘psychical phenomena’ . . . the 'Bogie Club' as scoffers called it, aroused a certain amount of derision, and even some alarm; it was apparently born too soon." 72.
July 6, 1848 -- to Mr. John Ellerton -- On Roman Catholicism
" . . . almost all Anglican statements are a mixture in various proportions of the true and the Romish view . . . the pure Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the Evangelical." 73.
November 16, 1849 -- to the Rev. F. D. Maurice -- On Substitutionary Atonement
"Thus there is the question of Substituted Punishment, which, as it seems to me, is quite distinct from the Atonement and reconciliation of the person of sinning man and God. I can at most times thankfully contemplate the fact of God's forgiveness (in the strict sense of the word; that is, removal of estrangement from the offender, irrespective of the non-enforcement of penalties) and His delight in humanity as restored through its Head; but surely this has little to do with the principle that every offence must receive its just recompense. The Father may forgive the child, and yet cannot justly exempt him from the punishment of disobedience;
"'Amen!' says the evangelical, 'the penalty must be paid somehow by somebody. The penalty is tortures to all eternity for each man. Christ, in virtue of the infinity which He derived from His Godhead, was able on earth to suffer tortures to be suffered by all mankind; God must have the tortures to satisfy His justice, but was not particular as to who was to suffer them, -- was quite unwilling to accept Christ's sufferings in lieu of mankind's suffering.'"
"O that Coleridge, while showing how the notion of a fictitious substituted righteousness, of a transferable stock of good actions, obscured the truth of man's restoration in the Man who perfectly acted out the idea of man, had expounded the truth (for such, I am sure, there must be) that underlies the corresponding heresy (as it appears to me) of a fictitious substituted penalty!...Nor, as far as I can recollect, have you anywhere written explicitly upon this point; even on the corresponding subject of vicarious righteousness, I know only of two pages...and they have not been able to make me feel assured that the language of imputation is strictly true, however sanctioned by St. Paul's example. 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." 74.
October 15, 1850 -- to B.F. Westcott -- On Evolution
" . . . I do not see why the inconceivableness of a beginning is any argument against any theory of development. The contrary theory is simply a harsh and contradictory attempt to conceive a beginning. That we are in doubt about the early history of organic life arises not from an impotence of conception, but from the mere fact that we were not there to see what, if it were taking place now, we certainly could see. The beginning of an individual is precisely as inconceivable as the beginning of a species...It certainly startles me to find you saying that you have seen no facts which support such as view as Darwin's...But it seems to me the most probable manner of development, and the reflexions suggested by his book drove me to the conclusion that some kind of development must be supposed." 75.
April 19, 1853 -- to Rev. John Ellerton -- On Bible Revision
"One result of our talk I may as well tell you. He (Westcott) and I are going to edit a Greek text of the New Testament some two or three years hence, if possible. Lachmann and Tischendorf will supply rich materials, but not nearly enough; and we hope to do a good deal with Oriental versions. Our object is to supply clergymen generally, schools, etc., with a portable Greek text which shall not be disfigured with Byzantine corruptions." 76.
October 21, 1858 -- to Rev. Dr. Rowland Williams -- On the Authority of Scripture
"Further I agree with them [authors of Essays and Reviews] in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology. . . The positive doctrines even of the Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority and especially the authority of the Bible . . . If this primary objection were removed, and I could feel our differences to be only of degree, I should still hesitate to take part in the proposed scheme. It is surely likely to bring on a crisis; and that I cannot think desirable on any account. The errors and prejudices, which we agree in wishing to remove, can surely be more wholesomely and also more effectually reached by individual efforts of an indirect kind than by combined open assault. At present very many orthodox but rational men are being unawares acted upon by influences which will assuredly bear good fruit in due time if is allowed to go on quietly; but I fear that a premature crisis would frighten back many into the merest traditionalism." 77.
April 3, 1860 -- to Rev. John Ellerton -- On Evolution
"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. I must work out and examine the argument more in detail, but at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable. If so, it opens up a new period in -- I know not what not." 78.
May 2, 1860 -- to B.F. Westcott -- On the Inerrancy of Scripture
"But I am not able to go as far as you in asserting the infallibility of a canonical writing. I may see a certain fitness and probability in such a view, but I cannot set up an a priori assumption against the (supposed) results of criticism." 79.
August 14, 1860 -- to B.F. Westcott -- On the Divinity of Man
"It is of course true that we can only know God through human forms, but then I think the whole Bible echoes the language of Genesis 1:27 and so assures us that human forms are divine forms." 80.
August 16, 1860 -- to B.F. Westcott -- On Substitutionary Atonement
"Perhaps we may be too hasty in assuming an absolute necessity of absolutely proportional suffering. I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan though neither am I prepared to give full assent to it. But I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the notion of a ransom paid to the Father." 81.
October 15, 1860 -- to B.F. Westcott -- On Substitutionary Atonement
"I entirely agree--correcting one word--with what you there say on the Atonement, having for many years believed that 'the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself' is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit. But I doubt whether that answers the question as to the nature of the satisfaction. Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy." 82.
April 12, 1861 -- to B.F. Westcott -- On Heresy
"Also -- but this may be cowardice -- I have sort of a craving our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean a text issued by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy, will have great difficulties in finding its way to regions which it might otherwise reach, and whence it would not be easily banished by subsequent alarms." 83.
December 4, 1861-- to B.F. Westcott -- On Greek Philosophy
"My chief impression is a strong feeling of incapacity to criticize, partly from want of knowledge, and still more from not having fully thought out cardinal questions, such as the relation of ‘philosophy’ and ‘faith’; e.g., you seem to me to make (Greek) philosophy worthless for those who have received the Christian revelation. To me, though in a hazy way, it seems full of precious truth of which I find nothing, and should be very much astonished and perplexed to find anything, in revelation…Without condemning anything you have said on the Stoics, I yet feel you have not done them justice. The spiritual need which supported, if it did not originate, their doctrine is, I think, profoundly interesting, above all in the present day." 84.
September 23, 1864 -- to B.F. Westcott -- On Protestantism
"… and I remember shocking you and Lightfoot not so very long ago by expressing a belief that Protestantism is only parenthetical and temporary. In short, the Irvingite [Catholic Apostolic] creed (minus the belief in the superior claims of the Irvingite communion) seems to me unassailable in things ecclesiastical." 85.
NOTE: Edward Irving, who started the Irvingite movement in the 1800s, which was a precursor of Pentecostalism in the 1800s, appointed twelve apostles. Today the Latter Rain Movement claims to have 35 Apostles. B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort belonged to the mysterious "Company of Apostles" which was concerned with establishing "an equitable and frictionless society." In her New Age book, When Humanity Comes of Age, Vera Alder predicted that a Council of Twelve which would reign with the false Christ in the New World Order: "[T]he World Government and its Spiritual Cabinet of 12, headed by 'the Christ' will study all archaeological archives… From it, the Research Panel would develop the 'New' Bible of a World Religion which would be the basis of future education." 86.
April 28, 1865 -- to B.F. Westcott -- On Democracy
"I dare not prophesy about America, but cannot see that I see much as yet to soften my deep hatred of democracy in all its forms." 87.
October 11 and 12, 1865 -- to B.F. Westcott -- On The Cross
"I am very far from pretending to understand completely the ever renewed vitality of Mariolotry. But is not much accounted for, on the evil side, by the natural reverence of the religious instinct to idolatry and creature worship and aversion to the Most High; and on the good side, by a right reaction from the inhuman and semi-diabolical character with which God in invested in all modern orthodoxies -- Zeus and Prometheus over again? In Protestant countries the fearful notion 'Christ the believer's God' is the result." 88.
October 17, 1865 – to B.F. Westcott -- On Roman Catholicism
"I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and ‘Jesus’-worship have very much in common in their causes and results…we condemn all secondary human mediators as injurious to the One, and shut our eyes to the indestructible fact of existing human mediation which is to be found everywhere. But this last error can hardly be expelled till Protestants unlearn the crazy horror of the idea of priesthood." 89.
May 14, 1870 -- to Rev. J.Ll. Davies -- On The Trinity
"No rational being doubts the need of a revised Bible; and the popular practical objections are worthless. Yet I have an increasing feeling in favor of delay. Of course, no revision can be final, and it would be absurd to wait for perfection. But the criticism of both Testaments in text and interpretation alike, appears to me to be just now in that chaotic state (in Germany hardly if at all less than in England), that the results of immediate revision would be peculiarly unsatisfactory… I John 5:7 might be got rid of in a month; and if that were done, I should prefer to wait a few years." 90.
July 7, 1870 -- to a Friend -- On Bible Revision
"It is quite impossible to judge the value of what appear to be trifling alterations merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have often important bearings which few would think of at first . . . The difference between a picture say of Raffaelle and a feeble copy of it is made up of a number of trivial differences . . . We have successfully resisted being warned off dangerous ground, where the needs of revision required that it should not be shirked . . . It is, one can hardly doubt, the beginning of a new period in Church history. So far the angry objectors have reason for their astonishment." 91.
November 12, 1871 -- to the Bishop of Ely -- On Substitutionary Atonement
"But it does not seem to me any disparagement to the sufferings and death of the Cross to believe that they were the acting out and the manifestation of an eternal sacrifice, even as we believe that the sonship proceeding from the miraculous birth of the Virgin Mary was the acting out and manifestation of the eternal sonship. -- So also the uniqueness of the great Sacrifice seems to me not to consist in its being a substitute which makes all other sacrifices useless and unmeaning, but in its giving them the power and meaning which of themselves they could not have... He (Mr. Maurice) may have dwelt too exclusively on that idea of sacrifice which is suggested by Hebrews x. 5 - 10, and he may have failed to make clear that Sacrifice is not the only way of conceiving Atonement..." 92.
The Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott
January, 1852 -- On Spiritualism
"His devotion with ardour is indicated in a 'Ghostly Circular' authorized by him. 'The interest and importance of a serious and earnest inquiry into the nature of the phenomena which are vaguely called 'supernatural' will scarcely be questioned.' . . . My father ceased to interest himself in these matters not altogether, I believe, from want of faith in what, for lack of a better name one must call Spiritualism, but because he was seriously convinced that such investigations led to no good. But there are many others who believe it possible that the beings of the unseen world may manifest themselves to us in extraordinary ways, and also are unable otherwise to explain in many facts the evidence for which cannot be impeached." 93.
Second Sunday after Epiphany, 1847 -- To His Fiancée -- On Mariolotry
"After leaving the monastery, we shaped our course to a little oratory which we discovered on the summit of a neighboring hill…Fortunately we found the door open. It is very small, with one kneeling place; and behind a screen was a ‘Pieta’ the size of life [i.e., a Virgin and dead Christ]…Had I been alone I could have knelt there for hours.’" 94.
See: Mystery Babylon the Great: The Medici
November 17, 1865 -- To Rev. Benson -- On the Black Virgin
"B.F. Westcott promoted visions of ‘the Virgin’ in LaSalette, France… ‘As far as I could judge, the idea of LaSalette was that of God revealing himself now, and not in one form but in many.’" 95.
See: The Merovingian Dynasty: Cult of the Black Virgin
May 5, 1860 -- To F.J.A. Hort -- On Infallibility of Scripture
"For I too 'must disclaim settling for infallibility.' In the front of my convictions all I hold is the more I learn, the more I am convinced that fresh doubts come from my own ignorance, and that at present I find the presumption in favor of the absolute truth -- I reject the word infallibility -- of Holy Scripture overwhelming." 96.
June 14, 1886 -- To the Archbishop of Canterbury -- On Heaven
"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." 97.
March 4, 1890 -- To the Archbishop of Canterbury -- On Creation
"No one now, I suppose holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history -- I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did -- yet they disclose to us a gospel." 98.
November, 1895 -- Address at Manchester to the Christian Social Union -- On Socialism
"The Christian Law, then is the embodiment of the truth for action, in forms answering to the conditions of society from age to age. The embodiment takes place slowly and can never be complete. It is impossible for us to rest indolently in conclusions of the past. In each generation the obligation is laid on Christians to bring new problems of conduct into the divine light and to find their solution under the teaching of the Spirit." 99.
TABLES OF COMPARISON OF SELECTED SCRIPTURES
The 19th Century Occult Revival: The Legacy of Westcott & Hort
The Unauthorized History of English Bible Revision
"Shock & Awe" in the KJV-Only Camp
© Copyright 1997
By Robert M. Baker
Kenneth Barker, The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Zondervan Corp., 1983, p. 18.
G.A. Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions, A.V. Publications Corp., 1993, p. 534.
David Otis Fuller, Which Bible?, Grand Rapids International Publications, 1970, pp. 187-88.
Moser, Janet and Barbara Aho, The Semitic New Testament, http://watch.pair.com/peshitta.html
Fuller, op. cit., p. 192.
Fuller, op. cit., pp. 195, 220, 197.
Fuller, op. cit. p. 193.
James Webb, The Occult Underground, Open Court Publishing Company, 1974, p. 114.
Fuller, op. cit., pp. 225-26.
Fuller, op. cit., p. 215.
Fuller, op. cit., p. 227.
Robert J. Sargent, Landmarks of English Bible: Manuscript Evidence, Bible for Today Press, 1992, pp. 74-75.
D.A. Waite, Th.D., Ph.D., Defending the King James Bible, Bible for Today Press, 1992, pp. 40, 45-49, 54, 57.
Fuller, op. cit., p. 248.
Fuller, op. cit., pp. 13, 23, 24.
Translators' Preface to the 1611 King James Version: http://watch-unto-prayer.org/preface-kjv.html
Edgar J. Goodspeed, THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER, Preface to the King James Version 1611, Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, and reprinted by Meredith Publications, 1030 South Santa Anita Ave., Arcadia, CA. ($1 per copy eons ago). This booklet contains an lengthy plea and justification by E.J. Goodspeed for replacing the Preface into all future printings of the KJV, the modernized version from the Coverdale 400th anniversity appendix and photocopy of the original plates of the Huntington Library original 1611 Preface.
Sargent, op. cit., p. 75.
American Bible Society, http://www.americanbible.org/site/PageServer?pagename=abs_history_of_abs
Princeton University website, http://infoshare1.princeton.edu/libraries/firestone/rbsc/finding_aids/bible.html
Executive Intelligence Review, pp. 58-9; Scottish Rite Journal of Freemasonry
Thomas Armitage, , A History of the Baptists: Traced by their Vital Principles and Practices, from the Time of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to the Year 1886, by Thomas Armitage, D.D., L.L.D., NY: Bryan, Taylor, & Co., Chicago: Morningside Publishing Co., 1887, p. 914.
Armitage, pp. 900-1
Armitage, pp. 902-3
Armitage, pp. 906-7
Armitage, p. 907
Armitage, pp. 912-13
Armitage, Ch. XVII
Armitage, p. 908
Armitage, p. 908-9
Ruth Rouse & Stephen Charles Neill, Editors, A History of the Ecumenical Movement 1517-1948, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954. p. 256.
David Schaff, Life of Philip Schaff, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1897, pp. 362-3ff.
Waite, op. cit., p. 41
Alan Gauld, The Founders of Psychical Research, NY:Schocken Books, 1968, p. 66
W.H. Salter, The Society For Psychical Research: An Outline of its History, 1948, pp. 5,6
Alan Gauld, The Founders of Psychical Research, pp. 317, 49
Arthur Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Volume I, New York Macmillan and Co., 1896, p. 170
Roland Perry, The Fifth Man, London, Sidgwick & Jackson, 1994, pp. 20-21,44-5
Carroll Quigley. The Anglo-American Establishment, NY: Books in Focus, 1981, pp. 40-41.
“The Unauthorized History of English Bible Revision,” http://watch.-unto-prayer.org/revision.html
John William Burgon, The Revision Revised, Dean Burgon Society Press, Box 354, Collingswood, NJ, 08108, p. 509.
Hort, Vol. I, op. cit., p. 250.
Hort, Vol. I, p 250.
David Cloud, Way of Life Encyclopedia, 1219 North Harns Road, Oak Harbor, WA 98277.
New King James Version, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982, Preface, “The New Testament Text.”
Burgon, op. cit., p. 319.
Fuller op. cit., p. 295.
Burgon, op. cit., pp. 11, 12, 16.
Fuller, op. cit., p. 284.
Burgon, op. cit., p. 506.
Burgon, op. cit., p. 24.
Armitage, pp. 910-11.
Waite, op. cit., p. 39.
Riplinger, op. cit, front page.
Burton Goddard, The NIV Story, (Vantage Press, C. 1989), p. 37.
Riplinger, op. cit, p. 548.
Riplinger, op. cit, p. 499.
Riplinger, op. cit, p. 380.
Hort, Vol. II, p. 128.
Riplinger, op. cit, p. 379.
Riplinger, op. cit, p. 28.
Report by Michael J. Penfold, Box 26, Bicester, Oxon, OX6 8PB, England, UK as cited in "Two Homosexuals and the NIV," Dec. 4, 1997, David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, 1701 Harns Rd., Oak Harbor, WA 98277. http://www.whidbey.net/~dcloud/fbns/twohomosexuals.htm
Virginia Mollenkott, Sensuous Spirituality, Out From Fundamentalism, Crossroad Publishing Co., 1992, pp. 12, 26, 144, 115.
New King James Version, Preface.
James D. Price, Chairman of the Executive Review Committee of the NKJV Old Testament, Letter to Gail Riplinger, http://jamesdprice.com/newkingjamesversion.html
NKJV Translators: http://www.dtl.org/versions/misc/translators.htm
Riplinger, Which Bible is God’s Word?, p. 38.
Waite, p. 249.
Alan Gauld, The Founders of Psychical Research, Schocken Books, New York, 1968, p. 66.
W.H. Salter, The Society For Psychical Research: An Outline of its History, London, 1948, pp. 5,6.
Hort, Vol. I, pp. 170-172.
Hort, Vol. I, p. 76.
Hort, Vol. I, pp. 119, 120.
Hort, Vol. I, pp. 430, 431.
Hort, Vol. I, p. 250.
Hort, Vol. I, p. 400.
Hort, Vol. I, p. 416.
Hort, Vol. I, p. 422.
Hort, Vol. I, p. 427.
Hort, Vol. I, p. 428.
Hort, Vol. I, p. 430.
Hort, Vol. I, p. 445.
Hort, Vol. I, p. 449.
Hort, Vol. II, p. 31.
Vera Alder, When Humanity Comes of Age, New York: Samuel Weiser, 1974, p. 39.
Hort, Vol. II, p. 34.
Hort, Vol. II, pp. 49, 50.
Hort, Vol. II, pp. 50, 51.
Hort, Vol. II, p. 128.
Hort, Vol. II, pp. 138, 139.
Hort, Vol. II, p. 158.
Arthur Westcott, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, New York Macmillan and Co., 1896, Vol. I, p. 118, 119.
Westcott, Vol. I, p. 81.
Westcott, Vol. I, p. 251; New Age Bible Versions, p. 123.
Westcott, Vol. I, p. 207.
Westcott, Vol. II, p. 49.
Westcott, Vol. II, p. 69.
Westcott, Vol.II, p. 197