An Understandable History of The Bible by Samuel C

2/16/2017 An
Understandable History of the Bible by Samuel C. Gipp
An Understandable History
of the Bible

Holy Bible by Samuel C. Gipp Essential Reading
Sections
Introduction
Time Trip
Where Do We Go From Here?
The Ground Rules
The 100 Year War
The Localities
The Witnesses
The Enemy
Westcott and Hort
The Authorized Version
Vindicated
Bibliography
Footnotes

Introduction

There are just two kinds of Christians. (Are all saved or not? We cannot tell; only God knows the heart.)
One kind is that earnest, honest number who are ever anxious to have the FACTS of a vital issue so
they may talk intelligently and stand for the TRUTH.
The second kind are that multitude of Christians (fundamentalists for the most part) who just do not
wish to be confused by the FACTS.
Lenin, one of the founders of communism, for once

told the truth when he said, "Facts are stubborn
are
things." Indeed they . There are so many plain FACTS favoring the King James Version as being
nearest by far IS
to the originals (which it ) and far, FAR more accurate and authoritative than of the all
modern versions combined (which it ), IS that it is indeed
a riddle wrapped up in a puzzle how so many
http://www.seawaves.us/na/web4/biblehistory.html 1/96
2/16/2017
modern versions combined IS that it is indeed
(which it An Understandable History of the Bible by Samuel C. Gipp
), a riddle wrapped up in a puzzle how so many
truly born again, blood bought Christians, when presented with the FACTS, become angry or sarcastic
and just do not wish to be confused by the FACTS.
IF, kind reader, you are the latter, may I be so bold as to suggest, if not urge, that you waste no time
reading further. This book is filled from end to end with FACTS that are fully documented and they bring
the whole Bible version issue into clearcut focus. There are no "gray" sections to it, it is all black and
white.
I confess there was a time in my ministry when I extolled, read from, and recommended from the pul
pit some Bible version that had just been published, solemnly stating, "This is the nearest to the
originals...easier to read...clarifies difficult phrases that are weighed down with archaic words which
need to be eliminated so the sense will be better under stood." When the Holy Spirit convicted me of
this sin, I asked His forgiveness, and He gave it.
RE
I keep always in mind, and mind as many as possible, that we face as of NOW
the most vicious and
malicious attempted assassination of the character, the name, the Word of God ever done on planet
Earth since those blasphemous words were first uttered in Eden, "YEA, HATH GOD SAID?"
I have spoken to many in meetings in this country and Canada and have stated flatly that 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."
I also keep issuing a friendly warning IF you SEE

this issue and take your stand openly and
unashamedly for the King James Version as being your final, absolute Authority, the true Holy Word of
THEN
God, you will lose friends and make enemies. I gladly add that I keep on finding the NEW friends
FOR
I have made because of this issue, I would not exchange for the old friends I may have lost
ANYTHING!
Some fifty years ago or more when I entered the ministry, I knew THEN
as I know NOW
I had the final
absolute Authority from God Himself to guide me through this dark tunnel called LIFE, beset on every
side by Satanic traps. If I had not known this for sure, I NEVER
would have been a minister. I refuse to
play the hypocrite.
Without God's true, inerrant Word and His eternal Son the Lord Jesus Christ, "GOD MANIFEST IN THE
FLESH" Who has saved me by his grace and has done so much for me, and still does, and will do
throughout the long reaches of eternity, I say without these two ironclad, lifegiving FACTS, THEN
the
Bard of Avon would be absolutely right when he defines LIFE in one of his plays;
"LIFE IS A TALE TOLD BY AN IDIOT,
FULL OF SOUND AND FURY,
SIGNIFYING NOTHING!"
Dr. David Otis Fuller

Time Trip

Imagine for a moment that we are in a different time period. We have gone back thousands of years.
There are no cars. There are no airplanes. There are no modern conveniences. We are in primitive
times.
2/16/2017 An Understandable History of the Bible by Samuel C. Gipp
We take a look around us. There is no Bible. We know nothing about the universe around us. We have
no knowledge of God. We don't know how mankind got here.
top
Then we look again. We see a seed fall from a tree and from the of the soil, plant itself, tend to its
self, raise itself up into a seedling and mature into a tree, only to repeat the cycle all over again. And we
wonder.
Then we go to the ocean. We study the tides and discover that they are used to clean the waters,
making it impossible to support life without them. We look and ask ourselves, "Was this planned?"
We look beneath the surface of the water, to the depths below. We find life.
Strange creatures! Some
which breathe water and some which breathe air like us. Some that spawn eggs. Some that give birth
to living young. We see creatures of all different shapes and sizes. Some are very small. Some are so
huge that they weigh many tons. Some go fishing with a worm attached to their own fishing pole. Some
have no eyes. Some have their eyes out on stalks. Some carry lights with them. Some move very
slowly. Some dart about almost too fast for our eyes to follow. Again, we wonder. How did this come
into being?
Then we look overhead. We see the birds. They fly yet are never taught. They move through the air
with grace and precision. Their bones are hollow to give them the light weight suitable for flight. Their
feathers all grow in the right places. They migrate to the same place every year. They possess innate
abilities and characteristics required for their survival. And again we wonder. Could this "just happen?"
Then we look at ourselves, at our bodies. We study the intricacies of the eye and how it works. We
examine the complex mechanisms of the ear. We marvel at our ability to keep our balance; to speak; to
walk. We look at the heart, that marvelous muscle whose valves know when to open and when to close.
It starts functioning without our help and stops itself in spite of all we can do to prevent it. We look to
the nervous system and the brain. How
did all of this come about? Was it created by accidents?
We put forth our questions to our contemporaries. They have no satisfactory answers.
Where is God?
IS there a being greater than we are? One who made all of these marvelous things that we have looked
at? If there were a being greater than we, where would He be? We look to the ground. No, He is not
there. We scan the ocean. He is not there either, for both of these are limited, and they could not
contain so great a Being. Anything that could create the marvelous works that we find all around us
could only come (and we look upward) from the seemingly unlimited sky!
We look to the sky. Is there Something up there? Something that is watching us even now? Something
that created this whole universe and set it in motion?
But wait. If there is Something up there, if there is a Supreme Being, He must know us! He must know
what is happening on this earth. He must know our problems and have the answers for them. And if
this is so, and He sees our helpless state, He is indebted to us, His creatures. As our Creator, He must
help us with our troubles, assist us through this life, and see to it that we find a way to reach Him. He
must communicate.
The Communication!
We can call to the heavens. We can climb the mountains in an attempt to be nearer. We can pray. But
He
in all of this, we can only send words in one direction. must communicate He must send with us!
words to us.
He must establish reliable communications with us. But how? Suddenly it happens. As we
walk down the road toward home, far down in the distance we see a figure. That figure is shouting and
causing a stir. He has an air of excitement about him. As we draw nearer we can hear him shouting,
and as we get closer still we can make out what he is saying.
"Make straight the way of the Lord!" We stop him. "What did you say?"
"Make straight the way of the Lord!"
"Who is the Lord?" we ask.
"The Lord, the Lord God of heaven..."
Of Heaven! Quickly we glance up. He has sent someone! We must find out more!
"Tell us more about this 'Lord'," we ask.
"The Lord God of Heaven! The Creator of the Universe!"
We look to the heavens again. We fall on our knees. God has communicated! We grasp this figure!
"Tell me! Tell me of this God! Tell me of this Creator!"
"Tell you? You have no need that I tell you, for it is written right here in this Book. For if all you ever
knew about God was what I said, there would be no way to verify it. But if God is God, He must put His
Word in writing, so that we may have it long after His prophets are gone."
Then he pulls from his belongings a volume of a book. We look at it. Writing! Our God writes!
"How did these things come to be?" we ask.
"Holy men of God wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," he replies.
Now we hold in our hands communication from our Creator. He has spanned time and space and
worked through men. He has communicated! He had a message for us but did not keep it locked in
heaven, for He sent it to earth. He has sent that message in plain black and white so that we could
keep it and study it. His obligation was to communicate. Our obligation is to accept
that communication;
to read
that communication; to obey that communication. Without that communication, we have no
connection to this God Who is the Creator of the universe. If these are not His words, we have no hope.
We have known that He existed for so long. But now we hold in our hand His Word. He has
communicated!
The Questioner
But wait! No sooner do we acquire this precious communication than a shadowy figure arrives on the
scene.
"Yea, hath God said? That isn't
the Word of God. That only contains the words of God. That only holds
His thoughts, not His very words. Oh there may be a few fundamental doctrines that you can pretend to
believe. But surely you don't believe that these are God's very words? Don't be a fanatic. Settle for just
a few accurate passages."
We find ourselves shocked. Our new found faith assailed! Our confidence shaken! Then our true
prophet explains.
"He is an unbeliever. He does not believe that God has the power to write this Book perfectly. And, even
worse, he is struck with fear when he discovers anyone who does, so he tries to destroy their faith in
it."
"Why doesn't he just give in and believe it?" we ask.
"Pride," explains our prophet.
Back Home
Now we are transported back to our present day. Times and surroundings have changed. The tattered
old volume we held in our hand has become a black, leather covered book with giltedged pages and
two precious words printed on the cover, "Holy Bible."
Our prophet now stands before us. A look of determination on his face. He speaks.
"This is the Bible. This is God's Word and God's words. Believe it. Read it. Practice it. This Book will lead
you; strengthen you; impower you. It is God's Word."
We open it up and look gratefully at its pages. It is so easy to read now. So orderly. The Word of God.
My, how He must love us to have written all of this. My, what power He must have to have brought it
through a history that has always been hostile to it, preserve it perfectly, and put it here in our hands!
The Questioner Returns
Suddenly someone speaks.
"Yea hath God said?"
"What?" We look up. He is a fine looking man, well dressed and obviously quite educated.
"I hate to disillusion you, but actually that is not
God's word. That only contains a mere translation of
the Word of God, and a poor one at that. Oh, you can find the fundamentals in it, but surely you don't
believe that those are God's very words? Please, your lack of proper education is showing. Don't be a
fanatic. Settle for a few accurate passages, but don't be a fool and hurt the cause of Christ by saying
that God preserved His very words. Grow up."
We find ourselves shocked. Our faith is being assailed. But wait a minute. As our verbal intruder walks
away, the lesson that we learned earlier strikes home.
"Wow! Those unbelievers are everywhere," we say to our prophet with a sigh of relief.
"They certainly are quick to try to destroy a person's faith in the Bible. I hope he gets saved someday."
"What do you mean?" replies our prophet. "That guy was a Christian, a college graduate. He believes
that God wrote this Book perfectly a few thousand years ago, but he doesn't believe that God had the
power to preserve it through the centuries and give it to you and me perfectly in English. What's worse
yet, he is struck with fear when he finds someone who does, so he tries to destroy their faith in it."
"But why doesn't he just give in and believe it?"
"Pride."

Where Do We Go From Here?

There is a controversy raging today across America and around the world. Where is the Word of God?
Answers to that question come in all shapes and sizes. Some say that we do not have the Word of God
anywhere in this world. Others say that it is found in the Bible but is only that portion that "speaks" to
the individual. Some say it lies hidden, locked up in the ancient languages in which it was originally
written. Some say we have every word wrapped up in one volume. Still others say that our English
translations are reliable but faulty at best. Where is the Word of God?
This is an age of change and confusion. The world without Christ is lost in a turmoil of fear and
indecision. Yet to this world, we Christians who have trusted Christ as our personal Saviour, are taking,
and have been taking for many centuries, a message of hope, Jesus Christ.
We make many claims for this Saviour of all mankind. We claim that He was all man, and yet He was
every bit God. We claim that He was begotten by God through a virgin. We claim that he lived among
men for over thirty years but never once committed a sin. We all know of His death on the cross. It is
we Christians, however, who claim that His death was not a symbolic gesture of a rebel dying for a
"cause," but instead we say that it was part of a masterful plan by God Himself through which He could
make us acceptable in His presence. We claim that the blood shed by Jesus Christ on that terrible, old,
wooden cross was God's own blood, and that it made the divine and complete atonement for the sins of
all the world. But our seemingly outlandish claims do not stop at the cross. We claim still further that
this same Jesus Christ was removed dead from that cross and then buried, only to raise Himself from
that grave three days and three nights later. Then we claim that this supposed "dead" man walked this
earth for an additional forty days. This visit was climaxed, we say, when He, in plain view of His
disciples, rose bodily into Heaven to be seated at the right hand of God.
We bold sounding Christians don't stop there, for on top of all this, we claim that Jesus Christ has not
left this world without a hope. We say that He is calling out a people to Himself in this generation. We
claim that through faith in His atonement, by simply "calling upon the name of the Lord," we shall be
saved. Not to be stopped yet, we go on to say that we can predict future world events including what
we call the rapture of the believers. Still later we say that this same Jesus Christ will return bodily to
Jerusalem to set up His kingdom and reign one thousand years.
The Questioner
"Wild claims! Outrageous! Unfounded superstitions!" shout our critics. Our critics are quick to attempt to
disqualify our claims to disprove them for these claims are completely contrary to the humanistic
philosophy through which mankind is attempting to "bring in the kingdom." Our critics continue, "If the
claims of these peculiar people these Christians are correct, then there is no excuse for not
accepting them and repudiating the misguided philosophies of all the humanists, the politicians, and the
socioreligious community. They can't be right! There is too much to lose." So they seek to discredit our
claims.
We Have Proof!
Wild claims? Seemingly. Outrageous? No more than some of the theories put forth by scientific
"freethinkers" of our day. Unfounded superstitions? Never!
And this is where the battle has raged for
centuries and will continue to rage. If all we had to back up our claims was our multiplied words
expressing nothing more than our opinions, then we are no better than our "scientific" adversaries. No,
these are not vain words or trumped up theories. We have a Book!
Oh, what a Book! Every claim that
we make is contained in it. We open it and let the arguments of our critics do battle against it with
spears made of rubber on horses with feeble legs. They are repulsed; defeated; humiliated. They
regroup and send in artillery, mortars, and missiles only to find that the Word of God is better fortified
than a concrete bunker. Then suddenly it cuts them to ribbons, and they retreat wounded, grumbling,
and fearbound. What was it about this Book that so aptly handled them and remains unharmed? Its
words! For this is not a novel. This is not a fiction thriller. This is not a "science" book which must be
rewritten every few years to "keep up with the changing times." No, this is God's
Book, the Bible. This is
God's Book, filled with God's words

. Immortal, indestructible, infallible, immovable and unchanging.
What a marvelous Book! What power! What an awful enemy to the silly theories of mankind.
The Bible. It stands tall, towering high above its enemies. And it is ours!
My Conversion
I shall never forget the day I trusted Jesus Christ as my own personal Saviour. I was twenty years of
age. I was wild, rebellious and unhappy. I was lost and on my way to Hell. I knelt at an altar where a
great man of God took the Bible and leafed through it, showing me the truths of salvation. Just before
he led me in prayer, he, in his wisdom, played a trick on me, a trick that God used to set the course for
my life. He looked over at me and asked, "Do you believe that Jesus Christ paid for all your sins?"
I replied, "Yes."
"Do you believe that He will save you if you ask Him to?" "Yes."
Then the trick! "How do you know it?"
"Because you told me!" I replied somewhat impatiently and a little put out. I had come to get saved,
and I felt like I was getting the run around. I saw no need at all for that last question.
"NO"
What! No? What was going on here? I had come to get saved, and now I was being made to look like a
fool. I had been intentionally set up just so that I would give the wrong answer! I was angry! I was
embarrassed! If his telling me how to be saved wasn't how I knew it, then how was I supposed to
know? I looked him dead in the eye and blurted out my response almost demandingly, "Then, why?"
His next action took me completely off guard, but it plainly answered my question. He held that open
Bible up in front of me with one hand, tapped its open pages, and said with grave finality, "Because this
Book says so!"
I was shocked! I remember looking at that precious open Bible, and while trying to fathom this great
truth that had just been expounded before me, I said to myself, "You mean that Book has that much
power?" I knew the answer was yes. Then I humbly bowed my head and my heart and put my faith and
trust in Jesus Christ, accepting His payment as my own. But I have never forgotten the lesson taught to
me so powerfully on the day of my salvation.
The Bible. What a powerful Book! It needs no man's approval to assert its authority. The Bible. The
Book that no man can conquer. The Bible. That faithful message from God. Never changing; never
weakening. Standing defiantly as perfect, as authoritative, in a world that claims nothing can be perfect
and that rebels at the thought of any authority, especially that of a book.
The Bible. It is God's Book.

The Ground Rules

Anyone who has ever played a game, been involved in any kind of competition, or conducted any type
of scientific investigation knows that "ground rules" must be established at the beginning. It is far better
to know the rules before beginning the investigation rather than to try to establish them as you go.
If we are going to make a study of the preservation of the Word of God, the rules we shall follow must
be established now.
The rules we establish now
will have a direct effect on the conclusion reached at
2/16/2017
be established now. now
An Understandable History of the Bible by Samuel C. Gipp
The rules we establish will have a direct effect on the conclusion reached at
the end of our investigation. We must be cautious as we seek to found these rules. We must free
ourselves from prejudice. We must establish rules which, firstly, will not contradict each other and,
secondly, rules that can and will be applied fairly to all evidence examined.
As in any issue with two sides, the conclusion can not please all. Those to whom the conclusion is
favorable will commend the investigation for its fairness, while those to whom the conclusion is
unfavorable will obviously seek to discredit the method used in arriving at such a conclusion. With this
in mind, the most important portion of our investigation will not be what evidence we examine, but the
rules by which we interpret that evidence.
Much of the material to be examined is not new but holds huge amounts of truth which have been
locked up and unusable due to the previously unfair method by which its testimony was evaluated. To
insure that this testimony will be thoroughly heard in an unprejudiced court room, this writer seeks to
establish plain, unprejudiced, and spiritually sound rules by which to judge the witnesses. The voices of
some learned men will no doubt be heard to protest, while the voices of others, equally as learned, will
be heard to agree. The writer will not appeal to either of these voices for approval but will seek to
establish rules which even those who disagree with the conclusion must admit are fair. These rules will
judge all the evidence fairly and completely so as to wring every bit of worthwhile testimony from them.
We must deal in facts and deal with the facts fairly. As one scholar so aptly put it, "My leading principle
is to build solely upon facts upon real, not fanciful facts not upon a few favorite facts, but upon all
that are connected with the question under consideration."
First and above all in importance, it must be remembered that the Bible is a spiritual book. If we divorce
this fact from our minds, it will be impossible to arrive at a valid conclusion. Let me explain.
First, God had His hand in its inception. The passage that so quickly comes to the mind of all
fundamentalists is II Peter 1:1921:
19 "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto
a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they
were moved by the Holy Ghost."
Note that Peter is stating that the written Word is more sure than God speaking from heaven, a voice
which Peter himself heard (vs. 17, 18).
There are many "sideshow evangelists" that would have us believe that God "spoke to me last night."
Peter says that God's verbal commands and precepts are not as sure as His written words. Verbal
statements are not binding. They cannot be proven. But written
words are not so fluid. When God
chose to put His words down in writing, He made an irreversible decision. We can now hold Him to His
words. Once those words have been written, they are irrevocable. A God who would bind Himself to us
so inescapably must love us and truly desire for us to have His words and to be sure of them.
Peter also states that the writers of Scripture did not write under their own power, but "holy men of God
spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
Why Inspire a Book?
God wants us to see that He had His hand in it from the beginning. The words of those original
autographs were not the thoughts of God, but His very words, which brings to mind a question. Why did
God inspire His word perfectly? Obviously the answer comes back, "So that man could have every word
of God, pure, complete, trustworthy, and without error." Amen! That statement touches the heart of
any fundamental, Biblebelieving Christian. And yet, what if God gave those precious words only to
those early writers, then lost them in history, diluted them with heretical teachings, and then locked
them up in prison where few could visit them and none
could trust them? What if these words and
manuscripts, which have long passed off the scene, were the only perfect words God ever gave us?
What if it was impossible
for us ever to obtain those words for ourselves, in this present generation?
Why did God inspire them? Why write a perfect Book and then lose it? Why provide those closest to
Christ with a perfect Book but us, 2,000 years later, with a book that is only a shadow of truth at best?
A book filled with mistakes, spurious passages, and doubtful readings! This is inconsistent with God's
nature.
The question is: Could God, who overcame time (about 1,700 years transpired from the writing of the
oldest Old Testament book to the closing of the New Testament in 90 A.D.1) and man's human nature
to write the Bible perfectly in the first place, do the same thing
to preserve it?
Let us look to see what the authority says about such a thing happening.
Psalm 12:6, 7 "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 for ever."
Note verse seven! "THOU shalt keep them O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for
ever."
The Bible, God's Word, says that God will preserve His words. Verse six mentions the "words of the
LORD" and the "them" of verse seven is referring to those "words." No, apparently the allpowerful God
of creation will not preserve His "thoughts" or "ideas," but He will preserve His very words!
Is He capable of that?
Jeremiah 32:17, 27 "Ah Lord GOD, behold thou has made the heaven and the earth by thy great power
and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee:... Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all
flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?"
Is a miracle
too hard for the God of miracles? Was the creation too hard for God? Was the flood too
hard for God? Was the parting of the Red Sea too hard for God? Was the 40 years of manna too hard
for God? Was the virgin birth of Christ too hard for God? Was the collection of the 66 books of the Bible
written over a period of 1,700 years too hard for God? Was overcoming the human nature of the sinful
writers too hard for God? Is preserving the words of those writers too hard for God?
I think that inspiration would be far harder to believe than preservation.
Why is it that men of faith sound out their convictions so loudly on the above mentioned doctrines (and
others) in which their faith cannot be pressed to the limit, but they suddenly shrink from the thought
that God, who could write
His Book perfectly, could preserve
it? Why is it so easy to believe that God's
great miracles are all in the past, but He cannot work one now? Where are those "words" that Peter
spoke in II Peter 1:1921? Where are those "words" which David spoke of in Psalm 12:6, 7? Where are
those "words" which Jesus Christ Himself spoke of in Matthew 24:35 when He said, "Heaven and earth
shall pass away, but my words
shall not pass away."
Have those precious and perfect words from the pens of Moses, David, Isaiah, Daniel, Matthew, Peter,
Paul, Luke, John and others been cast into oblivion? Have they fallen to the ground to be trampled
not not
under foot of men, only to be replaced by something as pure, as perfect, as reliable, which not
we 'Biblebelievers' are forced to pretend
is the Word and the words of God when we are in the pulpit,
but in the quietness of our studies or in our private conversations we let our infidelity and fear show as
we check off "mistake" after "mistake?"
God's Mistake?
Is this God's method? I trow not. For if God wrote the Bible perfectly in the "originals," but we cannot
have those same words in a volume of that Book today, then it would seem that He wasted His time
inspiring it perfectly in the first place. We who are so far removed from the New Testament times need
His every perfect word far more than Matthew, Luke, John, or Peter or the others who saw Jesus Christ
in the flesh! They had their memories. They had His touch still on their brow. They had His words still
ringing in their ears. All we have is the Book
. All we have is the words bound between those black
covers. It is essential that they be His every word,
for they are we have! all
So well has Wilbur Pickering put it when he said:
"If the scriptures have not

been preserved then the doctrine of Inspiration is a purely academic
matter with no relevance for us today. If we do not have the inspired words or do not know
precisely which they be, then
the doctrine of Inspiration is inapplicable." 2
Yes, if God has not preserved His words as He said that He would (Psalm 12:6, 7), then He has done
something which He has never done before. He has wasted His time! The inspiration of the original
manuscripts was in vain if we do not have those very same words in English today.
So then we see that it is important to any seeker of truth to always keep in mind that the Bible is
different from all other books, in that God had His hand in it. It is a spiritual book.
Anyone undertaking
a study of the evidence of the New Testament, or any other portion of Scripture, who does not take this
into consideration cannot possibly arrive at the correct conclusion.
Rule #1
Ground rule number one is: It is always to be remembered that the Bible is a spiritual book which God
exerted supernatural force to conceive, and it is reasonable to assume that He exert that same could
supernatural force to preserve.
The Great Counterfeiter
This brings us to our next logical step. If God was active in the conception and preservation of the Bible,
then the supreme negative force in nature must
be active against it.
This Book has an adversary. Satan is against it!
The Bible is a tangible item. Like most books, it is printed on paper with ink. As mentioned above,
however, it must remembered
be that it is a spiritual book in which God has had a positive and an
active part. It must also be remembered that there exists in the world a supreme negative power,
Satan.
One general truth that we all know concerning Satan is that he at one time had a position in Heaven.
Iniquity was found in him, and he was cast out. What was his offense? He wanted to be worshipped as
God! Remember that. The Bible records in Isaiah 14:13, 14, "For thou hath said in thine heart, I will
ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the
congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the
most High."
He wanted to be worshipped as God! Satan has not changed his goals. He still desires to be worshipped
as God. To be worshipped as God, he must imitate God. Satan is the great counterfeiter. From
beginning to end, the Bible records Satan's constant efforts to imitate and replace God. In Genesis
chapter three, we find Satan implying that he knows more than God, and from this point, he influences
mankind into obeying him. When Moses displays the miracles of God through the plagues of Egypt,
Satan's magicians counterfeit as many plagues as they possibly can.
Monasteries, mosques and huge cathedrals cover the globe as a testimony to his religious fervor and as
clear evidence of his ability to extract worship from his followers. Call him Lucifer, Baal, Ashteroth, Mary
or any other name, but allow him the liberty, and he will take a portion
of truth and twist it in such a
deceitfully convincing way that if possible he could "deceive the very elect" (Matthew 24:24).
In Matthew chapter four, we find Satan's last desperate plea to Jesus Christ was that He "fall down and
worship me."
Satan is the great counterfeiter. For every genuine manifestation of God, Satan produces hundreds of
carbon copies. Look at the record:
One God many "gods"
One Christ many "christs"
One Gospel many "ways to heaven"
One following, Christianity many religions, denominations, cults
One Bible ?
Whenever God manifests His power through some positive action resulting in a miracle, Satan manifests
his power in a counterfeit, but deceiving, way in an attempt to "steal" God's deserved reverence.
Note in Revelation chapter 13 how many times the word "worship" occurs in reference to Satan in the
form of the AntiChrist. Notice also that this worship comes as a direct result of Satanic, counterfeit
miracles which are all imitations of similar true miracles performed by God, by His prophets, or by Jesus
Christ, which resulted in God being worshipped.
God's Warning
God knew of Satan's "standard operating procedure" and tried to warn Israel of his ability to counterfeit
God's miracles.
Deuteronomy 13:13 "If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth
thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee,
saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou has not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt
not harken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God
proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your
soul."
Notice that God is aware of the false miracles and is awaiting the outcome. To resist Satan's false
miracles is to turn your heart
toward God. This is what happened with Job. This is what would have
happened with Eve if she had rejected his counsel.
Satan's Desires
Satan wants to be worshipped. This is Satan's motive. Let us look briefly at a scriptural record of the
method he used in dealing with his archenemy, Jesus Christ.
1. Satan makes a direct approach to achieve his goal. Matthew 4.
2. He produces many "christs" to God's one Christ. Matthew 24:23, 24.
(Christ had many witnesses. Even after death there were over 500 witnesses at His resurrection
appearance. I Cor. 15:16). ( 1Cor. 15:6 )
3. Satan can produce only two false witnesses to refute the testimony of many, and their witness does
not agree. Matthew 26:60, Mark 14:50.
4. He produces a lie attempting to prove that the original Christ has been lost and is nowhere to be
found. This leaves the field open for his antichrists. Matthew 28:13, 14.
Now remember, Satan desires to be worshipped as God. Remember he is "the great counterfeiter."
God's Three Gifts
Now look at the three most important things God has given to the world:
1. Jesus Christ
through Jesus Christ, God's plan of salvation has been wrought, and God has displayed
to the world the coming King. Jesus Christ is now in heaven.
2. Christianity
The born again believers regenerated by the power of God, upon their accepting Christ's
payment for their sins. The Christians reside on earth, physically separated from their Saviour.
3. Bible
The crowning work of the Holy Spirit. It is the lifeline of the earthbound Christians to the
Heavenseated Saviour.
If heaven were real, and it is; if Jesus Christ died for our sins, and He did; if salvation were free, and it
is; if Jesus Christ is coming back to get His church, and He is; if He will someday rule on a throne in
Jerusalem, and He will; but if we have no Bible to tell us these things, we would not know them!
Truth
does no good if we do not know about that truth! The Bible is God's medium through which He tells us
all that we know about Him.
If Satan can eliminate the Bible, he can break our lifeline to Heaven. If he can only get us to doubt its
accuracy, he can successfully foil God's every attempt to teach us. The Holy Spirit will lead us into all
in
truth, but every truth He leads us to will be the Bible. If Satan is going to be consistent with his
nature, he must attack the Bible, the Word of God.
Rule #2
Our second rule to keep in mind, then, is: Satan desires to be worshipped. He has the ability to
counterfeit God's actions and definitely will be involved actively in attempting to destroy God's Word
and/or our confidence in that Word, while seeking to replace it with his own "version."
The Rules Reviewed
The two rules which we must keep in mind at all times are:
1. It is always to be remembered that the Bible is a spiritual book which God exerted supernatural force
to conceive; and it is reasonable to assume that He could
exert that same supernatural force to
preserve.
2. Satan desires to be worshipped. He has the ability to counterfeit God's actions, and definitely will be
involved actively in attempting to destroy God's Word and/or our confidence in that Word, while seeking
to replace it with his own "version."

The 100 Year War

For approximately one hundred years now, a battle has been raging over the question, "Where is the
Word of God?"
Surely we Christians cannot expect a Christrejecting world to accept our Book as its authority. We can,
of course, expect rebellion. We can expect the world to make attempts to discredit the Bible's reliability.
The battle of the lost theologians against the Bible has been waged since the Garden of Eden.
not
But the war that I am referring to is the war between the lost world and born again Christians. For
the last one hundred years the same kind of war has been raging within Christian ranks! Up until the
late 1800's there was, generally speaking, only one Bible, the Authorized Version. There had been
others, but the translation instituted by King James I in 1603 A.D. and published in 1611 A.D. had
become known not just in England, but throughout the entire world as the "Authorized" Version. It is a
historical fact that the King James Bible had become known as the "Authorized" Version due to its
universal acceptance among Christians of the world, and not due to a proclamation from King James
himself.
Hills states: "Although it is often called the 'Authorized Version,' it actually was never authorized
by any official action on the part of the Church or State. On the contrary, it's [sic] universal
reception by the common people of all denominations seems clearly to be another instance of the
providence of God working through the Godguided usage of the Church."3
Ruckman points out: "As anyone knows, the A.V. 1611 had no royal backing, no royal promoting, no act
of Parliament behind it, and the University Press was allowed to print any other version of the Bible
along with it." 4
McClure states concerning the King James Bible: "Its origin and history so strongly commended it,
that it speedily came into general use as the standard version, by the common consent of the
English people; and required no act of parliament nor royal proclamation to establish it's [sic]
authority."5
As well, the footnote from the above reference in McClure's book reads as follows:
Says Dr. Lee, Principal of the University of Edinburgh: "I do not find that there was any canon,
proclamation, or act of parliament, to enforce the use of it. 'The present version' says Dr.
Symonds, as quoted in Anderson's Annuals, 'appears to have made its way, without the
interposition of any authority whatsoever; for it is not easy to discover any traces of a
proclamation, canon or statute published to enforce the use of it.' It has been lately ascertained
that neither the King's private purse, nor the public exchequer, contributed a farthing toward the
expense of the translation or publication of the work."
Then in the mid to late 1800's a theory was initiated by two scholars of the names Brooke Foss
Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort. This is the theory that the Traditional Text was a "conflate"
text produced by editors and not merely by scribes. Their theory has remained over the years, as
Darwin's theory of evolution has remained, just a theory. It has never been proven and has in fact lost
support over the years. Fuller confirms this when he records Martin's statement that "the trend of
scholars in more recent years has been away from the original WestcottHort position."6
Their theory will be looked at in depth in a later chapter of this book.
Revolution
By 1870 England was ripe for Westcott's and Hort's radical ideas, and their Greek Text was used by the
Revision Committee of 1871 and by every revision and version ever since.
The battle began! Which text is closest to the "originals?" And, of course, the ultimate question: "Do we
have a perfect Bible in English today?"
Today, threequarters of the way through the Twentieth Century, Christianity is still divided over the
question, "Do we have a perfect Bible in English today?" This battle will probably continue for the
remainder of this century and well on into the next, if the Lord tarries His coming.
Do we have a perfect Bible in English today? This is not an amazing question at all. In fact, it is quite a
natural question that comes to every Christian at one time or another. Surely a naive babe in Christ
would never approach an unbelieving scholar with this question and then lay the Bible in his hands so
that he may do with it as he pleases. Surely he would not lay God's book at man's mercy. If he would,
he should not be surprised when the scholar's answer, flowing in terms not easily understood, comes
back, "No."
Unbelieving scholarship is its own authority. It does not need any competition from a book!
Unregenerate man goes about believing a theory
that man has evolved and was not created. Yet when
this theory is examined scientifically
and logically, cannot be proven to be true.
it Does this upset the
unbeliever? No. He just sets about to believe his theory, for he knows that believing it allows him to be
his own final authority. He also knows that to reject the theory of evolution means he must accept
creationism as true, and this he has avowed in his heart not to do. He does not want to be associated
with a few fanatics!
Why is it that this type of reaction is found when dealing with Christian scholarship concerning the
Bible? Ask a Christian scholar to tell you where the Word of God is, and he will tell you, "in the Bible."
Yet, hand him any English Bible, and he will reply, "It's not there." How can we as fundamental Bible
believers tell people from our pulpits that the Bible is "infallible, without error, the very words of God"
and then step out of the pulpit and allege to be able to find a mistake in it? This would not seem so
serious if "the infallible Word of God" was not one of the doctrines that separates us from the world. We
not
take pride in thundering forth that we are as the unregenerate world, without an absolute guideline.
We have
a guideline. We have guideline, the the Word of God!
Then we hold our open Bible up for all to
see and shout, "This is God's Word! It's perfect, infallible, inerrant, the very words of God!" Yet in our
hearts we are saying, "I believe all this about the original; this is just a mistakefilled translation."
Most fundamentalists today vehemently reject the thought that God has preserved His words in English.
We have "the Bible" they say, but it isn't in any one English version. Most fundamentalists never truly
realize the weight of their statements when they say that we have no perfect English Bible. Anyone who
has studied even a little about Greek manuscripts knows that the Word of God isn't found in of the any
Greek texts when translated literally.
What has started this controversy? From whence has this division of the brethren come?
The Problem?
The first answer that comes to the mind of some Christians is that this division has been caused by a
small group of fanatics who think that only the King James Bible is the Word of God, and who refuse to
face the facts that the oldest and best manuscripts support the new translations flooding Christianity.
Strangely enough, history points to just the opposite being true. The text used by the Authorized
Version has been used from the time of the early church until today by true Christians. It is supported
not only by the vast majority of manuscripts existent today but also by those of the highest quality and
oldest reading. It has been used throughout history with the blessing of God among His born again
believers.
The Problem!
It is only a recent occurrence that Biblical Christianity has begun to use the inferior Roman Catholic
manuscripts and asserted that they are better.
This is the mistake garnered by the errant "scholarship"
of Wescott and Hort. These people are the new young sect of Christianity who will not accept the oldest
and best. Usually unsuspectingly, they put their support to manuscripts which are decidedly Roman
we
Catholic in doctrine and history. It is who are sure we hold the true words of God brought down
through the centuries by the blood of our martyred Christian brethren.
Ironically, those that take up the "new" versions, with their "better" Greek text, are voluntarily taking up
the Bible which their early Christian brethren refused to use, a refusal that brought the Roman Catholic
Church, the historic enemy of the Truth, crashing down on them. That same Roman Catholic Church is
still active against the Truth today, only now many Christians are using her Bible.
I know that these are strong statements. I intend throughout this work to prove their truth, but I state
now, that I do not intend to bring railing accusations on those brethren who do not agree with me. I will
state that they are wrong, prove that they are wrong, and attempt to point out their position in regard
not
to God's revealed Word. I do intend however, to forget that they are my brethren (those who have
trusted Jesus Christ as their own personal Saviour) and will treat them as beloved.
The Shot Heard 'Round the World
This one hundred year war of words started back when the supporters of the Oxford Movement
(apostates) realized that they must discredit the Reformers and Fundamental theologians in order to
support their Roman Catholic Greek Text in place of the Received Text. Their salvo was returned by
men like Burgon, Wilson, Scribener, Mauro, Hoskier, Cook, Salmon, Beckett, Malan and Wilkenson, and
continues today with many of our modern day scholars.
Blind Rage!
On both
sides of the issue, men are called fanatic, heretic, cultist, Biblerejecter, demonpossessed and
more. These two sides have fought until the facts
about which they fight are obscured by the dust of
the battle. They call each other names until the student of Scripture finds reputable men on both
sides
of the controversy damaging their potential influence by using some adjectives which, indeed, are very
descriptive but totally unnecessary. I am not a soft city gentleman who thinks we should all sit around
and talk in quiet tones while sipping tea and eating "brunch." I am a militant Biblebeliever who hates
the devil, sin, heresy, and apostasy. Yet, I think it is time that we who claim to be "fundamentalists"
step back and look to see who our enemy is! really
The True Enemy
The subtle Roman Catholic Church has assumed the position of the lad who told two of his enemies,
"You he
and fight ... I'll hold the coats!" After all, is not "divide and conquer" one of the oldest military
strategies known to men? The fundamentalists have laid their coats at the feet of "Holy Mother Church"
and for the past 100 years proceeded to "knock each others' block off." Is it any wonder that the Pope
smiles so much? Who is our enemy
? Let's find
him and fight him. Today it seems, on both sides, that
we are concerned more with finding fault with the people that we disagree with rather than what they
teach. Let me make this statement: If what I believe about the King James Bible can be disproved, I will
gladly trade it in for the "right" Bible.
We have an enemy, and I believe we should be verbal and active against that enemy, but I feel it is
time that we realize that our enemy is not our brother. It is the one holding his coat!
The part of the Roman Catholic Church in the affair is similar to that of a soldier leaping into the foxhole
of the enemy, only to find that all of the enemy soldiers have strangled each other!
Occasionally on either side we will be forced to face a railer, but instead of "writing him off" we will
have to be charitable and look past his railing to see what his facts say. If we can disprove his facts, we
need not worry about his mouth!
"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" Galatians 4:16.
The Test
What we must do as men of understanding is look into these statements and the questions which they
naturally provoke.
"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were
moved by the Holy Ghost." II Peter 1:21.
Did God inspire His Word perfectly in the original autographs?
"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 for ever." Psalms 12:6, 7.
Has God preserved His words?
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Matthew 24:35.
Do we have Christ's words, or have they "passed away?"
The first verse, II Peter 1:21, guarantees that God was active in originating His Word in the first place.
"Inspired" we call it. Inspired perfectly, without any error. God was the allpowerful agent in seeing to it
that sinful man wrote down His Word flawlessly.
The second verse, Psalms 12:6, 7, claims that God is not only the agent in writing His words (verse 6)
but is also the primary agent in preserving His words. Note that the subject is God's not His words,
"thoughts."
In the third verse, Matthew 24:35, Jesus Christ, God in the flesh reinforces what Psalm 12:7 has already
said. Christ said that His words would not pass away before heaven or earth. Heaven is still above us,
and I am relatively sure that the earth is still beneath our feet, so the words of God must be here,
within our grasp. Somewhere.
If His words are only in Greek, then he has restricted their usage to an
elite number of scholars. This, however, was never Jesus Christ's method when He was on this earth.
He always went past the religious, scholarly minority and took His words to the common people.
Until
then, only the Pharisees had possessed God's words in the form of the completed, accepted Old
Testament books, and although they were well educated and very religious, they were found to be
taking advantage of the common people. Christ eliminated this problem by going directly to the
common people of His day.
The Gospel is to all. God gave His Word to every person and gave the Holy Spirit as a guide to all truth
(John 16:13) in spite of the Roman Catholic teachings that only the "clergy" are allowed to interpret the
Scripture.
If God's words are locked up in the "Greek Text," then once again education is a prerequisite to having
the Word of God and knowing what it says. This type of philosophy would have eliminated Peter and
John from the ministry, for they were "unlearned and ignorant men." They were unlearned, and the
Bible states that they were ignorant as though incapable of learning.
Yet, "they had been with Jesus"!
(Acts 4:12, 13). Jesus Christ made the difference, giving Peter a great understanding of Scripture!
Notice his delivery in Acts 1:1522, 2:1436, 4:812. He understood, though unlearned and ignorant.
not
Education, though beneficial, is a necessity for being used of God. I am not antieducation or anti
college, but the first requirements are that a person has "been with Jesus" (Acts 4:13) and that they
realize and believe that the written Word which they have in hand is "more sure" than God's spoken
Word.
Now today we know that it is easy to "be with Jesus." The Bible says in Romans 10:9, "That if thou
shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him
from the dead, thou shalt be saved." In John 14:20 it says, "At that day ye shall know that I am in my
Father, and ye in me, and I in you."
But what about the second half? What about a written Word that we can believe is "more sure" than
God speaking from heaven? A Word which the Bible claims God has exalted above all of His name?
(Psalms 138:2). Can we have God's words today in our common language?
The Common Language
While on the subject of a common language, let me point out that many opponents of the infallibility of
the Authorized Version say that if God put a perfect Bible in English, He is also obligated to furnish such
a translation in every other language. There must be a perfect Bible in German, French, Japanese and
all of the other languages of the world. Unfortunately for them, this argument will not stand. There
were many languages on this earth at the time that God chose to put it in Hebrew. There were
hundreds of languages on this earth also, when God chose Greek for his New Testament. Matthew
13:18, Acts 13:46, 28:28, and Romans 11:11 show that God this time was going to be taking His
message to the Gentiles, so He furnished it in the common language of the day Greek.
Question: When would the two Testaments be combined into one perfect Book?
Answer: As soon as God chose a language to become common to the entire world. Germany, Spain,
France and most of Europe were soon to be overly influenced by Rome. No language there. There have
been great Latin and Syrian translations, but these languages never became common to the entire
world. God needed an island of purity, a nation not shackled by Romanism, and a language so
descriptive and simple that it could best deliver His message. These needs were satisfied in England.
Here was a people who threw off the bondage of Rome and a young language which was to creep into
every corner of the world, from the Arctic to the Antarctic, and from England and America to Moscow
and Peking. English is the language of this world!
English is taught to Russian pilots, because it is universal.
It is learned by Oriental businessmen,
because it is universal.
It was the first language spoken on the moon!
English is spoken the world over.
This is the language God would use. Being a God of purity, He would want to use it in its purest form.
The English of the King James Bible has been known to be the finest form of the language ever used.
McClure praises the Authorized Version in this manner:
"The English language has passed through many and great changes, and had at last reached the
very height of its purity and strength. The Bible has ever since been the great English classic. It is
still the noblest monument of the power of the English speech. It is singularly free from what used
to be called 'inkhorn terms' that is, such words as are more used in writing than in speaking, and
are not well understood except by scholars."7
The English language was, in the 17th Century, just solidifying. It had been a fluid language, made up
of elements of Danish, Old Norse, Latin, Greek, French, and many other dialects.
In about 1500, major changes in vocal pronunciation, inflection, and spelling simplified and helped
solidify the language.8 This was all in preparation for the ultimate English work, the Authorized Version
of 1611.
Many claim today that since the Authorized Version was printed in the common English of that day, that
the Bible should be retranslated into the common English of today, but this is not a valid claim. It must
be remembered that the English used in the Authorized Version was not only the common language, but
it was also the English language in its purest form. The English language has degenerated from what it
was in 1611 to what it is today. Those claiming to put the Bible in "modern English" are actually, though
possibly not intentionally, trying to force the pure words of God into the degenerated vocabulary of
today! What a disgrace to God's Word! What a shame to those who propose such a thing!
The Archaic Con Job
A charge often brought against the Authorized Version is that it is full of "archaic" words. But are we to
make the Bible pay the penalty of our own irresponsibility in not keeping our language pure and
descriptive? Would we not be richer to learn the meaning of those nasty, old, "archaic" words and add
them back into our own vocabulary? Would we not be making the Bible poorer by depriving it of its
descriptive style? Are these words truly "archaic?" I have seen stores today that still advertise "sundry"
items. Perhaps the store owner didn't realize that it was supposed to be archaic. Perhaps it is like the
fish caught off the Atlantic Coast a few years ago which was supposed to have been extinct for over one
million years. Of course
it was extinct! It just didn't know
it! Science said it was extinct, so it must be.
(They first
had better prove that the world was here
one million years ago.)
Let us look at the word "conversation" in Philippians 1:27 and see how God chose the most descriptive
words He could. Is not "conversation" a much
more descriptive term than "life?" When we realize that
our life speaks live
to people then we must our Christianity, not talk
it. The Authorized Version obviously
gives us a deeper
meaning.
What about words whose usage has definitely been dropped from modern English? Those words which
are just not used anymore? What shall we do with them? In answer to this question, let us remember
The Word of God.
that the Bible is We "Bible people" claim to accept its authority in all matters of faith
and practice. But do we? Do we accept the Biblical practice of how to deal with situations today? Would
we be willing to accept the Biblical example
of how to deal with words whose meanings have changed?
Let us look and learn and follow the Bible example of handling "archaic" words. Surely the Bible, God's

Word, cannot be wrong! Let us look at I Samuel chapter 9.
1. "Now there was a man of Benjamin, whose name was Kish, the son of Abiel, the son of Zeror,
the son of Bechorath, the son of Aphiah, a Benjamite, a mighty man of power.
2. And he had a son, whose name was Saul, a choice young man, and a goodly: and there was
not among the children of Israel a goodlier person than he: from his shoulders and upward he was
higher than any of the people.
3. And the asses of Kish Saul's father were lost. And Kish said to Saul his son, Take now one of
the servants with thee, and arise, go seek the asses." (I Sam. 9:13)
These verses give us the circumstances involved. After searching fruitlessly for his father's asses, Saul
decided to give up, fearing that his father, Kish, may begin to worry about Saul and his servant.
6. "And he said unto him, Behold now, there is in this city a man of God, and he is an honourable
man; all that he saith cometh surely to pass: now let us go thither, peradventure he can shew us
our way that we should go.
7. Then said Saul to his servant, But, behold, if we go, what shall we bring the man? for the bread
is spent in our vessels, and there is not a present to bring to the man of God: what have we?
8. And the servant answered Saul again, and said, Behold, I have here at hand the fourth part of
a shekel of silver: that will I give to the man of God, to tell us our way.' (I Sam. 9:68)
Now let us watch very carefully, for an "archaic" word is about to make its appearance in the next
verse. But before it can, God inserts a note to the reader!
"(Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to enquire of God, thus he spake, Come and let us go
9.
to the seer: for he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer.)" (I Sam. 9:9)
God knows that the word "seer" is no longer in common usage; it is archaic. He defines it so that we
will better understand His choice of words. Is this changing the text? No! Look at the following two
verses.
"Then said Saul to his servant, Well said; come, let us go. So they went unto the city where
10.
the man of God was.
11. And as they went up the hill to the city, they found young maidens going out to draw water,
and said unto them, Is the seer here?" (I Sam. 9:1011)
Notice in verse 11 God leaves the "archaic" word in the text! He does not change it to "prophet." He
does not change the text. God gives us a definition of the word which He chose to use in the text, but
He does not give us a "modern" or "updated" edition. This is the Biblical example of how God handles
an "archaic" word without rewriting the text.
God's Method
"We fundamentalists accept the authority of the Bible in all matters of faith and practice
." I suggest we
practice this method. Define what a word, whose definition has become cloudy through the changes in
the English language, really means. I am not advising "running to the Greek." I am advising "running to
the dictionary" and letting the text stand as it reads without the derogatory remarks about "archaic"
words and "out of date usage." Let us respect God's text more than that.
God has given us every word; we do well to accept them from Him as they are and not attempt to
"improve" on them. As one great preacher said, "The Bible doesn't need to be rewritten, it needs to be
reread." I concur. Born again Christians are intended to be "Bible people." Are we not expected to read
the Book we claim so loudly to believe?
Upon receiving a lengthy letter from home, does a lonely soldier proceed to the third page to begin his
reading? After page 3 does he "speed read" page 4, skip page 5, and read half of page 6? Does he
attempt to understand the last page and then proceed to the first? Ridiculous isn't it? Yet it describes
the Bible reading habits of many of God's people. Obviously, our soldier, so far away from the home he
loves and the writer of his letter, is going to devour every word of this letter and upon finishing it, he
read it again every word.
will
God sent us, His homesick soldiers, a "letter from home," yet we steadily refuse to read it. He didn't
give us the whole Book just so that we could read the Psalms. We are expected to read Leviticus,
Numbers, and Deuteronomy as well as John, Acts, and Romans. The same author who inspired I and II
Corinthians placed every bit as much inspiration into I and II Chronicles. We are to read Malachi as well
as Revelation. God has given us every word
of the Bible. We are to start at the beginning and read
every word! Upon reaching Revelation 22:21, we are not expected to quietly lay the Bible aside as if our
work has been done. We are to begin afresh at Genesis 1:1. There are only two events that should stop
a Christian from reading through his Bible continuously, cover to cover: death and the rapture. All other
"reasons" are really weak excuses. We are to read the Book!
Many exclaim, "But I can't understand it! There are portions with deep and difficult meanings." They
find a difficult passage, give God approximately five minutes to deliver the answer, and then turn to a
"better translation" or a Bible commentary for the answer. They are like the fouryearold child who
wishes to drive a car. He sincerely wants to drive a car. His motive for wanting to drive may be pure. He
believes that he can handle the job, and he wants the answer now.
He will not only be refused
permission to drive the car, but he as yet won't even be allowed on a bicycle. He cannot handle
anything larger than a tricycle. As he matures, he will "graduate" to bigger and more complicated
things.
This is true with our English Bible. We begin to read through it for the first time and ask God a question,
the answer of which we just cannot handle until our fourth or fifth or sixth time through. We sincerely
want the answer. Our motive may be pure. We believe that we can handle the answer, and we want it
now. God will not show us on our first
time through the Bible what He has ready for us on our tenth or
no
eleventh time through. We must grow, and there are shortcuts. A shelf full of Bible commentaries
and other translations is an attempt at a shortcut, but it will not work. I am not opposed to Bible
commentaries. I am opposed to their deemphasizing the Bible and replacing the Holy Spirit. I am in
favor of intensifying our reading time in the only authority we have, the Authorized Version!
But why the Authorized Version? Who says we have to use only this particular translation? Why couldn't
some other version be perfect in English instead of the Authorized Version?
To get the answers to these questions, we will have to take our hands off each other's throats long
enough to examine the evidence which has come down to us through history. First, let's study where
the manuscripts came from.

The Localities

Family Feud
The manuscripts and their classifications and readings will be studied in later pages. What we shall do
now is closely scrutinize the primary centers from which our extant manuscripts have originated. It will
be revealed in later study that Biblical manuscripts (MSS) are divided into two general groups. These
two groups have been found to disagree with each other in many areas. Every English Bible in existence
today will be found to proceed more or less from one of these two groups. The fact that there is one
God plainly tells us that there can be only one
correct reading concerning any given discrepancy
between these two groups.
Obviously, prior to comparing readings, it will be beneficial to investigate the ancient centers from which
our two basic groups proceed.
Earlier, we established two "ground rules." It will be relevant to our study to review those rules at this
point, and to keep them in mind as we continue. Firstly, we established that the Bible is a spiritual book
which God exerted supernatural force to conceive, and it is reasonable to assume that He could exert
that same supernatural force to preserve it. Secondly, that Satan desires to be worshipped. He has the
ability to counterfeit God's actions and definitely will be involved actively in attempting to destroy God's
Word and/or our confidence in that Word, while seeking to replace it with his own "versions."
The fact that the disagreement between these two families is centered around points of deity or
doctrine tells us that one of them must
be the preserved text, as found in the original MSS, while the
other is a Satanic forgery. Satan attacked Jesus Christ (Matthew 4:111) and will try to replace Him in
the future (Revelation 13:18).
Are we to believe that Satan, a sworn enemy of Truth, is not going to attempt to disrupt the travel of
God's Word through history? Would he dare let the only tangible item which God has left us remain
unattacked? No, Satan cannot afford to allow the Holy Scriptures to be unmolested. He will obviously be
heard to be its loudest textual critic and will attempt to eliminate God's true
Word while replacing it with
his own Satanic counterfeit.
With this in mind, we shall begin with the original autographs and trace the history of these two families
of MSS.
The Beginning
Jesus Christ always worked through His followers. It is only logical that He would look to His followers
as instrumental in the preservation of His words.
The New Testament was a paradox. It was completely foreign to anything that the world had ever
known. Until the time of Christ, the world was Biblically divided into two groups.
One was the Jews. They were known as God's "chosen people." Their religious practices were founded
on the teachings of the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (thirtynine books which comprise our
present Old Testament). They awaited their Messiah, the ruler who was expected at any time to come
to earth and set up a Jewish kingdom based in Jerusalem.
The other group spoken of in Scripture is the Gentile population of the world. The Gentiles are also
referred to as a group by the term "Greeks." They were very religious, but heathenistic in practice. This
is noted by the Apostle Paul. When in Athens he mentioned that the city was "wholly given to idolatry"
(Acts 17:16). After seeing them carry out their religious duties, he concluded, "I perceive that in all
things ye are too superstitious" (Acts 17:22). The Gentile world was caught up in the fantasies of
Christless education, philosophy, and religion.
Another location of pagan religious practices was Rome. In Rome were found temples built for the
worship of many pagan gods and goddesses. A few of these are Jupiter, Apollo, and Minerva.
Still another pagan city known for its education and philosophy was Alexandria, Egypt. Famed for its
library and school, it was a center of education during the centuries prior to the New Testament era. It
was known to have received much of its philosophy from Athens about 100 B.C.
When the Christian church appeared, made up of born again believers, it was looked upon as a rather
strange group of people. The Jews rejected it because its patrons claimed that Jesus Christ was the
Jewish Messiah. The Gentiles rejected Christianity because of the Christians' claims that salvation was
complete and that one could know
that they had eternal life. This ran contrary to the teachings of
pagan philosophy that nothing can be known for sure. It also made their heathen religious practices
worthless, not to mention all of their beautiful temples.
The New Testament church needed a place to grow. It needed a location that was far away from the
prejudices of the Jewish religious community centered in Jerusalem and the Gentile philosophical
community. It needed a location that would be advantageous to the spreading of the gospel. Such a
location was realized when, after the death of Stephen, the believers traveled to Phenice, Cyprus, and
Antioch (Acts 11:19). But it was Antioch that the Holy Spirit chose for the base of Christian operations.
Antioch was founded by Seleucus I about 300 B.C. Its location was of prime importance to the gospel
since it was built at the crossroads of ancient trade routes from Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean and
from western Arabia to Asia Minor. It also has a seaport on the Orontes River.
In addition to the secular history of these two areas, let us examine what the Bible says concerning
them.
The law of first mention is important, as the first mention of a subject usually sets the light in which
that subject shall reside in the Bible narrative.
Egypt
Since one of the two families of MSS originated in Alexandria, Egypt, we shall first look at Egypt. Egypt
is first mentioned in Genesis 12:10. "...Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there...." but verse 12
says, "Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his
wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive." (Genesis 12:12). Immediately we find a
negative air about Egypt in the Bible. Notice that Abram's fear concerns the line of Christ, Satan's first
enemy.
"And the Midianites sold him into Egypt unto Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh's, and captain of the
guard." (Genesis 37:36). Here we find Joseph sold into slavery in Egypt. This also is negative.
"Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for
Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses." (Exodus 1:11). In this verse we see Israel, the people of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, persecuted in Egypt, a type of the world. Verses 15 and 16 show that
Satan's attack was once again on the seed through which the Lord Jesus Christ would come. In Exodus
20:2, Egypt is called "the house of bondage." In Deuteronomy 4:20, God calls Egypt "the iron furnace."
God forbids Israel to carry on commercial activities with Egypt in Deuteronomy 17:16. "But he shall not
multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply
horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way."
Notice this final sentence gives the solemn warning, "Ye shall henceforth return no more that way."
In Jeremiah 46:25 we find God promising punishment on Egypt. "The LORD of hosts, the God of Israel,
saith; Behold, I will punish the multitude of No, and Pharaoh, and Egypt, with their gods, and their
kings; even Pharaoh, and all them that trust in him:"
Look at Ezekiel 20:7. "Then said I unto them, Cast ye away every man the abominations of his eyes,
and defile not yourselves with the idols of Egypt: I am the LORD your God." Here we find that God
commanded Israel not to be associated with Egypt's idolatry.
The last of our references compares Jerusalem in apostasy to Sodom and Egypt. "And their dead bodies
shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord
was crucified." (Revelation 11:8).
This is only a small cross section of the Biblical references to Egypt, but I believe we see that God's
attitude towards Egypt is positive.not
Now let's zero in on the city of Egypt which will concern our study, Alexandria.
Alexandria
Alexandria is first mentioned in Acts 6:9. "Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the
synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia,
disputing with Stephen." Here we find that Jews from Alexandria were partially responsible for the
stoning of Stephen.
Also in Acts 18:24 we find Apollos was from Alexandria. Although he was later saved and became a
great disciple of Christ, he was first associated with inadvertently misleading the people of Ephesus in
Acts 19:13.
We have now looked at what the Bible has to say concerning Egypt in general and Alexandria in
particular.
Since we accept the Bible in all matters of "faith and practice," we should take care to remember that
God takes a negative approach to Egypt. Do we have any right to ignore God's displeasure and
approach Egypt in a "positive" manner? Solomon was by far wiser than we are, yet he ignored God's
clear warnings. For example, I Kings 3:1 says, "And Solomon made affinity with Pharoah king of Egypt,
and took Pharoah's daughter, and brought her into the city of David, until he had made an end of
building his own house, and the house of the LORD, and the wall of Jerusalem round about." Also, I
Kings 10:28 says, "And Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt, and linen yarn: the king's merchants
received the linen yarn at a price." (cf. Deuteronomy 17:16). We find that ignoring God's Word led to
the heart being turned away from the Lord and after other gods (I Kings 11:3, 4). This resulted in
abominable acts on his part (I Kings 11:5, 8)and finally brought God's judgment in I Kings 11:943.
Certainly, if wise Solomon could fall by accepting Egypt in spite of God's clear condemnation, we would
do well to take care before we buy any "horses out of Egypt." God may not be pleased with such
actions.
Antioch
Now let us see what the Bible says about the city of Antioch.
Antioch is first mentioned in Acts 6:5 when Nicolas, a Christian from Antioch, was chosen to be one of
the first deacons. So we see that the first time Antioch is mentioned, it is in a light. positive
Antioch is mentioned again in Acts 11:19. Here, it is a refuge for Christians from persecution. In the
Scripture Antioch represents a "type" of the new life given to believers after having accepted Jesus
Christ as their personal Saviour.
To fully understand the light in which the Bible presents Antioch in Acts 11, we must look at the context
in which chapter 11 is written. In the preceding chapter (Acts 10) God plainly shows that He is calling
out a following from among the Gentiles. In the following chapter (Acts 12) God shows that He is not
going to use Jerusalem as the center of the New Testament church (Acts 12:14).
Our Antioch
Antioch, the new center, is away from the Gentile centers of Alexandria, Athens, and Rome and the
Jewish center of Jerusalem. Antioch symbolizes the Christian's new life, apart from the heathenism of
the Gentiles and ritualism of Judaism. II Corinthians 5:17 says, "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is
a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." When a Gentile is
saved, he is to leave his heathenistic lifestyle for a new spiritual location in Christ. Likewise, when a Jew
is saved, he is to leave his ritualism for a new spiritual location in Christ. In Galatians 3:28 Paul states
that, "There is neither Jew nor Greek...for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." In I Corinthians 10:32 he
divides mankind into three groups, "Jews...Gentiles...the Church of God." As God gives born again man
a new spiritual location, He also gave His new young church a new physical location.
Please notice that after Acts chapter 12, the other apostles are left alone at Jerusalem and are
mentioned only one last time in the narrative. This is in Acts 21:18 where they briefly rejoice in Paul's
report and then get preoccupied with the law!
Paul in Galatians 2:11 had to rebuke Peter of this very
thing when he came to Antioch and tried to exercise the same legalistic teaching of Judaism on the New
Testament church there. Obviously God was using Antioch and Antiochian Christians to forge a new
practice of worshipping Him, different from the Old Testament Judaism and the Gentile mythology and
heathenism.
God's Move
Acts 11:20 shows the beginning of God's settlement in Antioch. "And some of them were men of Cyprus
and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord
Jesus." In Acts 11:22, Barnabas, one of the most important figures of the New Testament, moves from
Jerusalem to Antioch. He is the man who is responsible for Paul being in the ministry. It was Barnabas
who went to Tarsus to get Paul, then named Saul, in Acts 11:25. Upon finding him, Barnabas brought
him back to Antioch, not Jerusalem (Acts 11:26). So we see that the primary figure of the New
Testament church actually began his ministry in Antioch. Paul had visited Jerusalem in Acts 9:2629 and
had even preached there, but his ministry to the Gentiles really began when he departed from Antioch
in Acts 13:13 with Barnabas.
We must also notice that it was at Antioch that the disciples were called "Christians" for the first time
(Acts 11:26). In verse 27 of Acts 11 we find that the prophets from the Jerusalem church left it to settle
in Antioch. In verse 29 of Acts 11, we even see that it was necessary for the Christians at Antioch to
send relief down to their brethren in Jerusalem.
As we mentioned before, Paul's first missionary journey originated from Antioch in Acts 13:13. The
Bible states in verse 2 that the Holy Ghost "called" them. It was in Antioch
that God chose these men.
Upon returning from their trip (Acts 14:2628) they came back to Antioch,
not Alexandria; not
Jerusalem.
When some "Christian" Judaizers came up to Antioch from Jerusalem and began to teach the believers
there that, "Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1), Paul
and Barnabas confronted them. Afterwards, Paul and Barnabas went down and spoke with the apostles
concerning this. They formed a council and returned to their beloved Antioch with a written statement
to the effect that Judaism had no hold over the New Testament church.
Upon returning to Antioch, Paul and Barnabas took with them chosen men of the Jerusalem church,
Silas being one of them (Acts 15:22). They all returned to Jerusalem but Silas (Acts 15:33,34), and he is
the only one whom we find recorded in New Testament history. After Acts chapter 11 and the move to
the only one whom we find recorded in New Testament history. After Acts chapter 11 and the move to
Antioch, God used only those who left Jerusalem and settled in Antioch! Such is the case with Paul,
Barnabas, Silas, and Mark. Paul and Barnabas reside at Antioch (Acts 15:35) and depart from there
again in verse 40.
Notice that Paul sets his mind to go back to Jerusalem in Acts 20:22, knowing that it is against God's
will as we find in Acts 20:23; 21:4, and again in 21:1012. He goes to Jerusalem in spite of God's
warning against it and is seized in Acts 21:30, thus beginning the end of his ministry! This plainly
teaches that a Christian is not to return to his "old" life in any way, shape, or form and should stand
firm in his "new location" in Christ. It also shows that if there will be any center for New Testament
Christianity, it will be found in Antioch.
It may well be that many of the "originals" that we have heard so much about were written right there
in Antioch!
Egypt is a type of this world. Antioch is a type of a Christian's new life in Christ. Which one do you think
that God would use to preserve His Word?
God will not do anything contrary to His nature. It would not be consistent with God's nature to use
Alexandria, Egypt to preserve His Word when He paints such a dismal picture of it in Scripture. In fact,
there is no record of any of the New Testament Christians ever visiting there.
Antioch, on the other hand, was greatly used by God as the center of New Testament Christianity. Paul
never took up residence in Jerusalem, but always returned to Antioch. Looking from the spiritual and
practical aspect, Antioch would obviously be the logical location of the true Bible text.

The Witnesses

It would be extremely beneficial at this point if we could simply produce the original autographs for
examination. This would greatly simplify the operation of establishing correctly the New Testament text.
But this simply cannot happen. It has long been acknowledged by scholars that we no longer have the
"originals." They have long since passed from the scene. This is due to the fact that scribes were known
to have destroyed worn out MSS after they had copied them. Apparently the early church valued the
words of the original more than the original itself. Therefore, the readings of the originals must be
preserved with us somewhere, or else God's words have "passed away" which we surely know, from the
Scriptural record, cannot happen. (Psalms 12:6, 7 and Matthew 24:35). We must review the witnesses
of the Bible record which have come to us through history. We will be required to keep two things in
mind:
1. There is a marked disagreement between the two basic families of readings.
2. Due to the truth above, we must remember our spiritual considerations as well as historical.
Remember, the Bible is like no other book. All other books are written and then cast adrift on the
sea of time; this is not the case with the Bible. We must remember that God
had His hand in its
inception and will be seen to have His hand in its journey through history to the present. It must
also be remembered that just as God will be active in its preservation, Satan
will be active in
attempting to disrupt or destroy it.
The "hard" evidence at hand today available for our examination consists of three groups:
The Copies
1. Copies Since there are no originals, every record of Scripture will be a copy. Copies are
divided into three groups:
A. Miniscules These are by far the most numerous of extant copies which we possess. Miniscules
in Greek are like the lower case letters of our alphabet. The oldest copies of this type are papyrus
MSS which were sewn together into a roll or scroll. Papyrus was an inexpensive paper somewhat
like newsprint. Some were also written on vellum scrolls. Vellum is made from animal skins. This
was used because of its durability although it was more expensive than papyrus.
In early copies the words were written end to end with no space in between. Words like God, Son,
Father were abbreviated in this manner: God gd, Son sn, Father ftr. Later MSS separated the
words for ease of reading. An example is shown here: "Nomanhathseengdatanytimethe
onlybegottensn
whichisinthebosomoftheftrhehathdeclaredhim." (John 1:18).
Some miniscules were composed in book form instead of a scroll. These are known as codice
(plural). Codex is the singular form. These also were written on either papyrus or vellum. In some
cases, all that remains of a scroll or codex are fragments.
B. Majuscules or Uncials These are equivalent to the upper case letters of our alphabet. In the
same verse as above, John 1: 18, letters of our alphabet would appear in this manner in an uncial
MSS:
NOMANHATSEENGDATANY
TIMETHEONLYBEGOTTEN
SNWHICHISINTHEBOSOMOFTHE
FTRHEHATHDECLAREDHIM.
Majuscules MSS exist in fewer numbers than miniscules and do not appear until the 4th Century.
C. Lectionaries These are equivalent to the "responsive readings" found in the back of today's
hymnals. Due to the shortage of copies of Scripture, lectionaries were used to put key verses into
the hands of the people. In many cases their readings are very early, i.e., closer to the originals.
The Versions
2. Our second group of Biblical witnesses are the ancient versions.
God chose to write the New
Testament in Greek, but He did not choose to keep it in Greek only. The early Greek MSS were
translated into other languages in order that the true Word of God could be put into the hands of
people in other lands. Some versions such as the Peshitto (or Peschito), a Syrian translation, and
the Old Latin Vulgate (vulgate means "vulgar," i.e., "common") are actually older than our oldest
uncial MSS. The Peshitto was translated from the Greek in about 150 A.D. The Old Latin Vulgate
was translated about 157 A.D.
Other well known versions are the Gothic, Sahidic, Bohairic, and Coptic.
The Church Fathers
3. Our third group is the early church fathers.
These are the men who led the Christians in the
first few centuries after the New Testament was completed. We have record of their early
sermons, books, and commentaries. They will be able to provide us with much information on
disputed passages. Many may have seen the original autographs.
Here we now have our three sources of information. They are and copies, versions, church fathers.
These three groups combined to give us in excess of 5,250 witnesses.9 Over 3,000 of these are Greek
MSS.10 With this many extant MSS, versions, and the fathers for reference, we should have little trouble
determining the Greek text of the original New Testament autographs.
Taking Sides
These surviving witnesses of the Greek New Testament text which we now possess are found to
generally fall into two groups, or "texts." This is where we begin to find some major problems. We find
that these two texts disagree consistently concerning the major doctrines of the Bible. They are found
to disagree on readings concerning the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, the blood atonement, Christ's second
coming, the deity of Christ, and many other fundamental Christian doctrines. It is for this reason that
we must examine our witnesses to determine if their testimony is accurate (God's text) or if they are
fraudulently misleading (Satan's text). Remember our ground rules!
The Good Guys
The first of these two texts which we will examine is the Majority Text. This is the text which will be
found to uphold the major Christian doctrines which are so vital to our fundamental beliefs.
The Majority Text has been known throughout history by several names. It has been known as the
Byzantine Text, the Imperial Text, the Traditional Text, and the Reformation Text, as well as the
Majority Text. This text culminates in the Textus Receptus or "Received Text" which is the basis for the
King James Bible, which we know also as the Authorized Version.
I do not desire to add one more name to the list, but in the interest of finding the most accurate term
to describe this text, and due to its universal reception by orthodox Christians through history, we shall
refer to this text as the "Universal Text."
Dr. Hills justifies this choice: "There is now greater reason than ever to believe that the Byzantine Text,
which is found in the vast majority
of the Greek New Testament manuscripts and which was used well
nigh universally throughout the Greek Church for many centuries, is a faithful reproduction of the
original New Testament and is the divinely appointed standard by which all New Testament manuscripts
and all divergent readings must be judged."11 (Emphasis mine.)
We describe this text with the term "Universal," because it represents the majority of extant MSS which
represent the original autographs. Professor Hodges of Dallas Theological Seminary explains, "The
manuscript tradition of an ancient book will, under any but the most exceptional conditions, multiply in
a reasonably regular fashion with the result that the copies nearest the autograph will normally have the
largest number of descendants."12
Even Dr. Hort is forced to admit this as Professor Hodges points out in his footnote, "This truism was
long ago conceded (somewhat grudgingly) by Hort. A theoretical presumption indeed remains that a
majority of extant documents is more likely to represent a majority of ancestral documents at each state
of transmission than vice versa."13
Professor Hodges concludes, "Thus the Majority text, upon which the King James Version is based, has
in reality the strongest claim possible to be regarded as an authentic representation of the original text.
This claim is quite independent of any shifting consensus of scholarly judgment about its readings and is
based on the objective reality of its dominance in the transmissional history of the New Testament
text."14
Any corruption to the New Testament text would obviously
have to begin after the original autographs
were completed, or there would be no originals
to corrupt! If the originals and the first corruptions of
those originals multiplied at the same rate, the correct text would always be found in the majority of
MSS. Add to this the fact that the orthodox Christian Church would reject the corruptions and refuse to
copy them, and we would find that the correct text would be in the vast majority, universally accepted
as authentic, while the corrupt text would be represented by an elite minority. These are exactly the
circumstances which exist in the MS evidence available today! Fuller records, "Miller has shown that the
Traditional Text predominated in the writings of the Church Fathers in every age from the very first."15
The Universal Text is that which travels north from Jerusalem to Antioch, the "gateway to Europe,"
heading for England. Upon arrival in England it would be ready for translation into the language through
which God has chosen to spread His Gospel English.
From Antioch (remember our study of Antioch), the Universal Text was sent up into Europe. From there
it spread through Syria and Europe through its translation into the Syrian Peshitto version and the Old
Latin Vulgate. There are still 350 copies of the Peshitto in existence today as a testimony to this
widespread usage in the years since 150 A.D.
The "Original" Vulgate
The Old Latin Vulgate was used by the Christians in the churches of the Waldenses, Gauls, Celts,
Albigenses, and other fundamental groups throughout Europe. This Latin version became so used and
beloved by orthodox Christians and was in such common use by the common people that it assumed
the term "Vulgate" as a name. Vulgate comes from "vulgar" which is the Latin word for "common." It
was so esteemed for its faithfulness to the deity of Christ and its accurate reproductions of the originals,
that these early Christians let Jerome's Roman Catholic translation "sit on the shelf." Jerome's
translation was not used by the true Biblical Christians for almost a millenium after it was translated
from corrupted manuscripts by Jerome in 380 A.D. Even then it only came into usage due to the death
of Latin as a common language, and the violent, wicked persecutions waged against true believers by
Pope Gregory IX during his reign from 1227 to 1242 A.D. 16
Crooked Tactics
The Old Latin Vulgate had come into existence no later than 157 A.D. The Latin version of Jerome,
translated by order of the Roman Catholic Church, was published in about 380 A.D. It was rejected by
real Christians until approximately 1280 A.D. The Roman Catholic Church chose the name "Vulgate" or
"Common" for Jerome's translation in an attempt to deceive loyal Christians into thinking that it was the
true common Bible of the people. This is the same tactic used by the New Scofield Reference Bible
(1967) and the Common Bible (1973). The former claims to be an Authorized King James Version, when
in fact it is not (check the margin). The latter's name falsely implies that it is the Bible in "common" use,
when in fact the Bible in common
use is the Authorized Version of 1611! It would seem that such
deception lacks a little in Christian ethics, if not honesty.
It is plain to see that the Universal Text has not only been universally accepted by the faithful Christians
down through the centuries, but it was responsible for keeping the Roman Catholic Church contained to
southern Italy for years. It was not until the Roman Catholic Church successfully eliminated this Book
through persecutions, torture, Bible burnings, and murder that it could capture Europe in its web of
superstitious paganism.
Perhaps we should learn a lesson. Where the Universal Text of the King James Bible reigns, God
blesses. Once it is eliminated for a less "clean" text, God withdraws His blessing. Oh, that America could
but look at what has happened to England since the corrupt Revised Version was published! Perversion
has been the father of every "revision" since, on either side of the Atlantic. Yes, the sun began to set on
the British Empire in 1904, when the British Foreign Bible Society changed from the pure Textus
Receptus to the Egyptian
text collated by Eberhard Nestle.17
The Bad Guys
The other text which we must investigate is the Minority Text. This is the text which is found to be
untrue to the beloved doctrines of Scripture such as the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, the blood
atonement, the Trinity, and others. This is also the text which is used in every translation of the Bible
since the Revised Version of 1881.
Its two outstanding trademarks in history are that orthodox Christianity has used it and that the never

Roman Catholic Church has militantly (read that "bloodily") supported it. We shall say more about this
matter later.
The Minority Text is also known as the Egyptian Text, (remember our study of Egypt), the Hesychian
Text, and the Alexandrian Text (remember our study of Alexandria), which was the basis for the critical
Greek Text of Brooke Foss Wescott and Fenton John Anthony Hort. The Wescott and Hort Text of 1881
was collated with Weymouth's third edition and Tischendorf's eighth edition by Eberhard Nestle in 1898
to become what is known as the Nestle's Greek New Testament.18 This is the text used in all "modern"
translations.
The most notable MSS in the text consist of a handful of uncial MSS of the 4th and 5th Centuries. These
uncials have been found to be error ridden and untrustworthy and found even to disagree among
themselves.
One of these MSS is called Sinaiticus and is represented by the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet,
Aleph. This MS from all outward appearances looks very beautiful. It is written in book form (codex) on
vellum. It contains 147 1/2 leaves. The pages are 15" by 13 1/2" with four columns of 48 lines per
page. It contains many spurious books such as the "Shepherd of Hermes," the "Epistle of Barnabas,"
and even the "Didache."19 This MS has survived time well, but being in good physical shape by no
means makes its contents trustworthy.
The great Greek scholar, Dr. Scrivener, points this out in his historic work A Full Collation of the Codex
Sinaiticus.
He speaks concerning correctional alterations made to the MS: "The Codex is covered with
such alterations...brought in by at least ten different revisors, some of them systematically spread over
every page, others occasional or limited to separated portions of the MS, many of these being
contemporaneous with the first writer, but for the greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh
century."20
Dr. Alfred Martin echos this, "Aleph shows the works of ten different correctors down through the
centuries."21
The corrections are so obvious as to induce Dr. Burgon to comment therefore on Dr. Tischendorf's
willingness to exalt this badly marred MS: "With the blindness proverbially ascribed to parental love,
Tischendorf follows Aleph, though the carelessness that reigns over that manuscript is visible to all who
examine it."22
May I note here that Dr. Tischendorf was the discoverer of Codex Sinaiticus. He found it in St.
Cathrine's Monestary on Mt. Sinai in February of 1859. It was, of all places, in the 23 wastebasket!"
Since this MS was of the 4th Century, Tischendorf, deceived by the outmoded philosophy "older is
better," immediately altered his 7th edition of the Greek New Testament in over 3,500 places. He had
claimed that this 7th edition (185659) had been perfect and could not be superceded. His 8th edition
(186572), based primarily on Aleph, was apparently 3,500 times more perfect!
False Witness from Rome
Another MS belonging to this family is called Vaticanus. It is often referred to by the letter "B." As its
name implies, it is in the Vatican library at Rome (remember our enemy). No one knows when it was
placed in the Vatican library, but its existence was first made known in 1841. This MS is also in the form
of a book and written on vellum. It contains 759 pages which are 10" by 10 1/2" with three columns of
41 lines per page.
This Codex omits many portions of Scripture vital to Christian doctrine. Vaticanus omits Genesis 1:1
through Genesis 46:28; Psalms 106 through 138; Matthew 16:2, 3; Romans 16:24; the Pauline Pastorial
Epistles; Revelation; and everything in Hebrews after 9:14.24
It seems suspicious indeed that a MS possessed by the Roman Catholic Church omits the portion of the
book of Hebrews which exposes the "mass" as totally useless. (Please read Hebrews 10:1012). The
"mass" in conjunction with the false doctrine of purgatory go handinhand to form a perpetual money
making machine for Rome. Without one or the other, the Roman Catholic Church would go broke! It
also omits portions of Scripture telling of the creation (Genesis), the prophetic details of the crucifixion
(Psalms 22), and, of course, the portion which prophesies of the destruction of Babylon (Rome), the
great whore of Revelation chapter 17.
Vaticanus, though intact physically, is found to be of very poor literary quality. Dr. Martin declares, "'B'
exhibits numerous places where the scribe has written the same word or phrase twice in succession."25
Dr. J. Smythe states, "From one end to the other, the whole manuscript has been traveled over by the
pen of some...scribe of about the tenth century."26
If Vaticanus was considered a trustworthy text originally, the mass of corrections and scribal changes
obviously render its testimony highly suspicious and questionable.
The corrupt and unreliable nature of these two MSS is best summed up by one who has thoroughly
examined them, John W. Burgon: "The impurity of the text exhibited by these codices is not a question
of opinion but fact...In the Gospels alone, Codex B (Vatican) leaves out words or whole clauses no less
than 1,491 times. It bears traces of careless transcriptions on every page. Codex Sinaiticus abounds
with errors of the eye and pen to an extent not indeed unparalleled, but happily rather unusual in
documents of firstrate importance. On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very
carelessness. Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun and
immediately cancelled; while that gross blunder whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end
in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament."27
If we are to be thorough and discriminatory in our evaluation of the true New Testament text, then we
must not we cannot
overlook these facts.
How did these MSS come into being? How did it happen that they should be beautiful to the eye, yet
within contain such vile and devastating corruptions? It seems that these uncial MSS along with the
papyrus MSS included in this category all resulted from a revision of the true, or Universal Text. This
revision was enacted in Egypt
(remember our study of Egypt) by Egyptian scribes!
Prior to documenting this statement, it will be needful to identify several of the uncial and papyrus MSS
which will be referred to in the documentation. These are uncial manuscripts A, B, C, D, and Aleph. Also
included are the Chester Beatty Papyri, designated as P45, P46, P47, and the Bodmer Papyri,
designated as P66 and P75.
The Local Mess
It seems that this type of text was a local text
of Alexandria, Egypt (remember our study of Alexandria)
of which Eusebius made fifty copies to fulfill a request by Emperor Constantine. Unfortunately Eusebius
turned to the education center in Egypt and got a "scholarly revision" instead of turning to Antioch for
the pure text which was universally accepted by the true Christians.
Why would Eusebius choose Alexandria over Antioch? Primarily because he was a great admirer of
Origen, an Egyptian scholar. Origen, though once exalted by modern day Christianity as a trustworthy
authority, has since been found to have been a heretic who interpreted the Bible in the light of Greek
philosophy (remember our study of Athens). He propagated the heresy that Jesus Christ was a
"created" God.28 This is a false doctrine clung to by Jehovah's Witnesses of our day, who strangely
enough get their teaching from the corrupt Alexandrian Text's rendition of John 1:15 and John 3:13, a
corruption which Origen is responsible for when he revised the Universal Text to read in agreement with
his personal heresy!
Origen himself said, "The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are
written."29 Which explains Bishop Marsh's statement, "Whenever therefore grammatical interpretation
produced a sense which in Origen's opinion
was irrational or impossible, in other words was irrational or
impossible according to the philosophy which Origen had learned at Alexandria, he then departs from
the literal."30 (Emphasis mine.) Dr. Adam Clarke claims also that Origen was the first person to teach
purgatory. 31
Total Corruption
Where did this "Local Text," from which all new Bible translations since 1881 are rendered, originate?
Let us see what evidence scholars have unearthed in a search to discover its source.
Kurt Aland "proposes that the text of P75 and B represent a revision of a local text of Egypt which was
enforced as the dominant text in that particular ecclesiastical province."32
Professor Hodges assures us, "Already scholars are willing to concede a common ancestry for P75 and
B. We can postulate here that this common ancestor and P66 meet even further back in the stream of
transmission...It is quite possible, then that all three manuscripts go back ultimately to a single parent
manuscript in which this emendation was originally made."33
Dean Burgon remarks, "As for the origin of these two curiosities, it can perforce only be divined from
their contents, that they exhibit fabricated texts is demonstrable. No amount of honest copying
preserved in for any number of centuries could by possibility have resulted in two such documents.
Separated from one another in actual date by 50, perhaps by 100 years, they must needs have
branched all from a common corrupt ancestor, and straightway become exposed to fresh depraving
influence."34
Dr. Edward Hills concludes, "The best way to explain this situation is to suppose that it represents an
intentional neglect of the Traditional Text on the part of those ancient Alexandrian scribes who kept
revising the text of Paprus 75 until finally they created the B text."35
He also states Aland's opinion: "Aland thinks it possible that the Chester Beatty Papyri also came from
this same place."36
That tedious lawyer and former Supreme Court Justice, Philip Mauro, has aptly determined, "It should
be observed, before we proceed with this question, that the agreeing testimony (where they do agree)
of the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS cannot be properly regarded as having the force of two independent
witnesses; for there are sufficient evidences both internal and external to warrant the conclusion that
these two Codices are very closely related, that they are, in fact, copies of the same original, itself a
very corrupt transcript of the New Testament."37
He also states, "It is admitted on all hands that the Text used as the basis of the Authorized Version
correctly represents a Text known to have been widely (if not everywhere) in use as early as the second
century (for the Peschito and Old Latin Versions, corroborated by patristic quotations afford ample proof
of that). On the other hand, it is now known that the two Codices we are discussing represent anything
but copies of a bad original, made worse in the copying."38
It also seems generally agreed that this Local Text was used for a basis of the 50 Bibles which Eusebius
supplied to Constantine.
The noted Greek scholar, A.T. Roberson, states, "Constantine himself ordered fifty Greek Bibles from
Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, for the Churches of Constantinople. It is quite possible that Aleph and B
are two of these fifty, though the actual copying was probably done in Egypt or by Egyptian scribes."39
Gregory adds, "This manuscript (Vaticanus) is supposed, as we have seen, to have come from the same
place as the Sinaitic Manuscript. I have said that these two show connections with each other and that
they would suit very well as a pair of the fifty manuscripts written at Caesarea for Constantine the
Great."40
To which Burgon and Miller testify, "Constantine applied to Eusebius for fifty handsome copies, amongst
which it is not impossible that the manuscripts B and Aleph were to be actually found."41
Dr. David Fuller finalizes, "Age alone cannot prove that a manuscript is correct. B and Aleph probably
owe their preservation to the fact that they were written on vellum, whereas most other documents of
that period were written on papyrus. Many students, including Tischendorf and Hort, have thought them
to be two of the fifty copies which Eusebius had prepared under the order of Constantine for use in the
churches of Constantinople. They are no doubt beautiful manuscripts, but their texts show scribal
carelessness. B exhibits numerous places where the scribe has written the same word or phrases twice
in succession. Aleph shows the marks of ten different correctors down through the centuries. Burgon's
excoriation of Wescott and Hort's method cannot be considered too strong in the light of the facts
concerning the character of these two manuscripts."42 Who could be responsible for the corruption of
the universally accepted text of the New Testament?
Wilkenson reports, "Beginning shortly after the death of the apostle John, four names stand out in
prominence whose teaching contributed both to the victorious heresy and to the final issuing of
manuscripts of a corrupt New Testament. These names are: 1. Justin Martyr; 2. Tatian; 3. Clement of
Alexandria; and 4. Origen."43
The Local Alexandrian text fell into disuse about 500 A.D. while the original Universal Text was
spreading true Christianity throughout Europe.
Hoskier reports this in his statement: "Those who accept the Wescott and Hort text are basing their
accusations of untruth as to the Gospellists upon an Egyptian revision current 200 to 450 A.D. and
abandoned between 500 to 1881, merely revised in our day and stamped as genuine."44
So we see that once a pure copy of the Universal Text had been carried down into Egypt, it was
recopied. During the process of this recopying, it was revised by men who did not revere it as truly the
Word of God. This text was examined by the critical eye of Greek philosophy and Egyptian morals.
These men saw nothing wrong with putting the Book in subjection to their opinion instead of their
opinion being in subjection to the Book.
This process produced a text which was local to the educational
center of Alexandria, Egypt. This text went no farther than southern Italy where the Roman Church
found its unstable character perfect for overthrowing the true Word of God which was being used
universally by the true Christians.
At this point, I believe it will be helpful to study the ruthless Roman Catholic Church to more clearly
understand her part in all new translations of the Bible since 1881.

The Enemy

"It is necessary to salvation that every man should submit to the Pope." (Boniface VIII Unum Sanctum,
1303.)
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works,
lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:8, 9.
Here lie two totally contradictory statements. They cannot both be correct. The one which you believe
will depend on which authority you accept.
The Roman Catholic Church has long been antagonistic to the doctrine of salvation by grace. If salvation
is by grace, who needs "mass?" If salvation is by grace, who needs to fear purgatory? If Jesus Christ is
our mediator, who needs the Pope? If the Pope cannot intimidate people into obeying him, how can he
force a nation to obey him?
The true Bible is the archenemy of the Roman Catholic Church. Rome can only rule over ignorant, fear
filled people. The true Bible turns "unlearned and ignorant" men into gospel preachers and casts out "all
fear."
Rome must find a way to supplant the true gospel with "another gospel." The only way to do this is to
eliminate our faith in the Word of God.
Rome received the corrupted Local Text of Alexandria, Egypt and further revised it to suit her own
needs. Some scholars call this revision the "Western" text. This, of course, makes it part of the already
corrupted text and, therefore, still contains the Local Text readings. This text suited the Roman Catholic
Church well, since it attacked the doctrines of the Bible. Rome is wise. To attack salvation by grace
directly would expose her plot to all. So instead she used subtly. The Roman Catholic Church strips
Jesus Christ of His deity, separates the divine title "Lord" and "Christ" from the human name Jesus,
having the thief on the cross address Him as "Jesus" instead of "Lord" (Luke 23:42). It also removes the
testimony to His deity in Acts 8:37, and it eliminates the Trinity in I John 5:7.
You may ask, "Would not a weakening of the place of Jesus Christ weaken the Roman Catholic Church's
reason for even existing?" The answer is "No." The Roman Catholic Church does not even claim to
represent the gospel of Jesus Christ. Romanist Karl Adam admits this: "We Catholics acknowledge
readily, without any shame nay with pride that Catholicism cannot be identified simply and wholly
with primitive Christianity, nor even with the Gospel of Christ."45
The vacancy left by the removal of Christ would be easily filled by Mary and other "saints" along with a
chain of ritualism so rigid that no practitioner would have time to really "think" about the true gospel.
Invasion
The true gospel was fast spreading all over Europe due to the Old Latin translation of the Universal Text
into the "vulgar" or "common" language. This Bible became known as the "Vulgate" since it was used so
commonly all over Europe.
Rome enlisted the help of a loyal subject by the name of Jerome. He quickly translated the corrupt Local
Text into Latin. This version included the Apocryphal books, fourteen books which no Biblebelieving
Christian accepts as authentic. To insure its success over the Old Latin, the Roman Catholic Church gave
it the name "Vulgate," meaning "common." There was one problem which the Roman Catholic Church
same
did not anticipate, the problem which the businessmen publishing new versions cannot seem to
avoid. The common people recognized the true Word of God because the Holy Spirit bears witness to it!
They refuse
to accept other versions!
True, many versions have been sold in the past and are being sold now. Yet, this is primarily due to the
media "blitz" by which EVERY new Bible has been introduced since 1881. This is the same tactic used by
Satan in Genesis chapter 3. Notice his first recorded words. Do you believe that Satan just walked up to
Eve and asked, "Yea, hath God said?" No! In Genesis 3:1 we are picking up in the of amiddle
Eve and asked, "Yea, hath God said?" No! In Genesis 3:1 we are picking up in the of a middle
conversation, possibly one of many. Satan paved the way for his attack on God's Word by a little
"softening up" publicity. Christians today do not realize that they "need a better translation" until they
are told so by the Bible salesman a few times. Suddenly
, they "realize their need" for a translation which
is "closer to the originals." ( Most
of these Christians have never even read the one they have.) The next
thing they know, they have eaten the fruit, and God's blessing is gone.
To get God's blessing back,
obviously, they need the next "thoroughly reliable" translation.
This is not an overstatement. An example of the "Bible business" is revealed by Dr. Edward Hills. He
speaks in reference to the committee of the American Standard Version promising
not to publish their
translation at the same time as the English Revised Version. He points out, "They promised not to
publish their own revised edition of the Bible until 14 years after the publication of the English Revised
Version (R.V.), and in exchange for this concession were given the privilege of publishing in an appendix
to this version a list of the readings which they favored but which the British revisers declined to
adopt."46 It was obvious to these "contenders for the faith" that two
new Bibles hitting the market at
the same time just would not be conducive to good profits.
These men are obviously "led by the spirit"
but I am not entirely sure it is "Holy." It is a sad thing when men make merchandise of the Word of
God.
The name "Vulgate" on the flyleaf of Jerome's unreliable translation did little to help sales. The Old Latin
Bible, or "Italic" as it is sometimes called, was held fast by all true Christians who upheld the authority
of the Bible over the authority of education.
Dr. Wilkenson informs us in reference to the Old Latin, "Not only were such translations in existence
long before the Vulgate was adopted by the Papacy, and well established, but the people for centuries
refused to supplant their old Latin Bibles by the Vulgate." He records Jacobus' words, "The old Latin
versions were used longest by the western Christians who would not bow to the authority of Rome
e.g. the Donatists; the Irish in Ireland, Britain, and the Continent; the Albigenses: etc;"47
Dr. Wilkenson also records the words from the "Forum" of June 1887, "The old Italic version, into rude
Low Latin of the second century, held its own as long as Latin continued to be the language of the
people. The critical version of Jerome never displaced it, and only replaced it when the Latin ceased to
be a living language, and became the language of the learned.
The Gothic version of Ulfilas, in the same
way, held its own until the tongues in which it was written ceased to exist."48
So we see that the Vulgate of Jerome was unused and unwanted by the true Christians for over nine
hundred years. This caused the Roman Church much grief. There was only one remedy to the situation,
eliminate the "other" old, archaic Bible. If it was necessary to violently the people who used eliminate
this faithful translation, then they it. did
The Plot
The Roman Catholic Church has long been known for its persecution of true New Testament Christians.
Beginning in about 600 A.D., persecution hounded these Christhonoring, Bibleloving people. Pope
Gregory I went so far as to systematically destroy and alter historical records pertaining to these
Christians. Concerning one group, the Waldenses (or Waldensians), Dr. Gilly reports, "It is a singular
thing, that the destruction or rapine, which has been so fatal to Waldensian documents, would have
pursued them even to the place of security, to which all, that remained, were consigned by Morland, in
1658, the library of the University of Cambridge. The most ancient of these relics were ticketed in seven
packets, distinguished by letters of the alphabet, from A to G. The whole of these were missing when I
made inquiry for them in 1823."49
Gilly also enlightens us with this report of the actions of Rome: "The agents of the Papacy have done
their utmost to calumniate their character, to destroy the records of their noble past and to leave no
trace of the cruel persecution they underwent. They went even further they made use of words
written against ancient heresies to strike out the name of heretics and fill the blank space by inserting
the name of the Waldenses. Just as if, in a book written to record the lawless deeds of some bandit, like
Jesse James, his name should be stricken out and the name of Abraham Lincoln substituted. The Jesuit
Gretserin a book written against the heretics of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, put the name
Waldenses at the point where he struck out the name of these heretics."50 We find that Rome's wicked
persecutions of the Waldenses culminated in a devastating massacre of their number in 1655.51 They
were hounded as "heretics" until the mid 1800's when their persistence paid off and the vile actions
against them ceased.52
Counterattack
A major blow to the authority of Rome came in 1517, when a young Catholic priest by the name of
Martin Luther nailed his historic 95 theses on the church door in Wittenburg. The nail drove deep into
the hearts of truly bornagain Christians who had for centuries been laboring under the tyranny of the
Roman Catholic Church. The people flocked to their new, brave leader. From this, Lutheranism was
established, but even more important, the fires of the Reformation were kindled.
The tide of the Reformation soon came sweeping across all of Europe until it washed the very shores of
England. The already weakened authority of Rome was devastated by the onslaught of truth. Two
thirds of Europe was swallowed up in what can probably be referred to as the greatest spiritual
awakening of all time. The Reformation was vital to the then future translation of the King James Bible.
England, too, had been shackled to the hierarchy of Rome. It was the removal of these superstitious
bonds that created the spirit in England of the supremacy of the Scripture which was prevalent at the
time of the translation of the King James Bible. This would not have been the case had Luther not
sparked the Reformation.
The most vital and immovable weapon in Luther's arsenal came in the form of his German translation of
the New Testament of 1522. This put the pure words of the Universal Text back into the hands of
"Biblestarved" Christians. The Reformation ran wild across the continent, fueled by this faithful
translation. Rome at this point was totally helpless to stop it. The Papacy needed something with which
to fight this dreaded scourge of truth. It turned in desperation to two different sources.
In 1545 the Roman Catholic Church formed the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent systematically
denied the teachings of the Reformation. The Council decreed that "tradition" was of equal authority
with the Bible. It decreed also that justification was not by faith alone in the shed blood of Jesus Christ.
In fact, it stated that anyone believing in this vital Bible doctrine was cursed. The Council's exact words
are: "If anyone saith that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits
sins for Christ's sake or that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified, let him be
anathema. "53 (Emphasis mine.)
We now see that the Roman Catholic Church is guilty of officially cursing Jesus Christ! Would God use
this
church to preserve His Words?
The Council of Trent was viewed by the Protestants as somewhat of a "paper tiger." It certainly did not
hold any authority over them. The barn door appeared securely locked, but the horse was triumphantly
roaming all over the countryside! Yet there was to be an enemy much more feared than the boisterous
Council of Trent the Jesuits!
The Diabolical Jesuits
The Society of Jesus was founded in 1534 by a Spaniard by the name of Ignatius Loyola. Loyola was
born don Inigo Lopez de Racalde, in the castle of Loyola in the province of Guipuzcoa in 1491. He was
known as a youth to be treacherous, brutal and vindictive. He was referred to as an unruly and
conceited soldier. Loyola was wounded at the siege of Pampeluna in 1521. Crippled by a broken leg and
plagued by a limp the rest of his life, he sought "spiritual" conquests.54
Loyola produced an elite force of men, extremely loyal to the Pope, who would set about to undermine
Protestantism and "heresy" throughout the world. Their training would require fourteen years of testing
and trials designed to leave them with no will at all. They were to learn to be obedient. Loyola taught
that their only desire would be to serve the Pope.
The head of the Jesuits is called the "Black Pope" and holds the title of General, just as in the military.
That they were to be unquestionably loyal to this man and their church is reflected in Loyola's own
words, "Let us be convinced that all is well and right when the superior commands it," also, "...even if
God gave you an animal without sense for master, you will not hesitate to obey him, as master and
guide, because God ordained it to be so." He further elaborates, "We must see black as white, if the
Church says so."55
The Devil's Plainclothesmen
What would be the method used by the Jesuits to achieve their goals? Would it be military might?
Would it be acts of daring? Would it be a violent revolution to install a Roman sympathizer as ruler? No,
these actions would all have their day of usefulness, later.
The Jesuits were to be the Vatican's "plainclothesmen." They were founded to be a secret society, a
society that was to slide in behind the scenes and capture the positions of leadership.
The Jesuits knew
that to capture the leaders of any particular country or organization is to conquer the entire body.
Edmund Paris, the noted French author and leading authority on the Roman Catholic Church, has
written many books exposing the true
spirit and goals of the Vatican. He points out, "Politics are their
main field of action, as all the efforts of these 'directors' concentrate on one aim: the submission of the
world to the papacy , and to attain this the 'heads' must be conquered first."56
The Jesuit priests were not required to dress in the traditional garb of the Roman Catholic priests. In
fact, their dress was a major part of their disguise. They presented themselves to the world in a variety
of manners. They passed themselves off in a number of ways. Paris asserts that this is still true today,
"It is the same today: the 33,000 official members of the Society operate all over the world in the
capacity of her personnel, officers of a truly secret army containing in its ranks heads of political parties,
high ranking officials, generals, magistrates, physicians, faculty professors, etc., all of them striving to
bring about, in their own sphere, 'Opus Dei,' God's work, in reality the plans of the papacy."57
They have often been known to join the religious persuasion which they wish to destroy. Having done
this, they would manifest all of the destructive force at their hands to weaken and tear down their
sworn enemy of "Protestantism." Paris again reports just such an event which took place in Scandinavia
in the late 16th Century, "In 1574 Father Nicolai and other Jesuits were brought to the recently
established school of technology where they became fervent Roman proselytizers, while officially
assuming Lutheranism."58 Dr. Desanctis points out, "Despite all the persecution they (the Jesuits) have
met with, they have not abandoned England, where there are a greater number of Jesuits than in Italy;
there are Jesuits in all classes of society; in Parliament; among the English clergy; among the Protestant
laity, even in the higher stations. I could not comprehend how a Jesuit could be a Protestant priest, or
how a Protestant priest could be a Jesuit; but my Confessor silenced my scruples by telling me, omnia
munda mundis, and that St. Paul became a Jew that he might save the Jews; it is no wonder therefore,
if a Jesuit should feign himself a Protestant, for the conversion of Protestants."59
Holy Murder
Murder is not above the "means" which might be necessary to reach the desired "end." The General of
the Jesuits will forgive any sins which are committed by the members of this Satanic order. In reference
to the Jesuit General it is stated, "He also absolves the irregularity issuing, from bigamy, injuries done to
others, murder, assassination ... as long as these wicked deeds were not publickly known and this cause
of a scandal."60
That the Jesuit priests have such liberties as murder is reflected in the following lengthy quote from
Paris' book The Secret History of the Jesuits.
"Amongst the most criminal jesuitic maxims, there is one which roused public indignation to the
highest point and deserves to be examined; it is: 'A monk or priest is allowed to kill those who are
ready to slander him or his community.'
So the order gives itself the right to eliminate its adversaries and even those of its members who,
having come out of it, are too talkative. This pearl is found in the Theology of Father L'Amy.
There is another case where this principle finds its application. For this same Jesuit was cynical
enough to write: 'If a Father, yielding to temptation, abuses a woman and she publicizes what has
happened, and because of it, dishonours him, this same Father can kill her to avoid disgrace!'"61
In 1572, the Jesuits, with the help of Prince Henry III were responsible for the St. Bartholomew's Day
Massacre. At this infamous event, which took place on August 15, 1572, the Jesuits murdered the
Huguenot (Protestant) leaders gathered in Paris for the wedding of Princess Margaret, a Roman
Catholic, and Henry of Navarre, a Huguenot. The murders inspired Roman Catholics to slaughter
thousands of Huguenot men, women, and children. Henry of Navarre was not killed but was forced to
renounce Protestantism, although his renounciation was insincere, and he remained a Protestant until
1593. The number of victims in this Jesuit conspiracy is estimated to be at least 10,000.62 In 1589,
when Henry III was no longer useful to the Roman Catholic Church, he was assassinated by a monk by
the name of Jacques Clement.63 Clement was called an "angel" by the Jesuit priest, Camelet.64 Another
Jesuit priest by the name of Guigard, who was eventually hanged, taught his students that Clement did
nothing wrong. In fact, he voiced his regrets that Henry III had not been murdered earlier at the St.
Bartholomew's Day Massacre. He instructed them with lessons such as this: "Jacques Clement has done
a meritorious act inspired by the Holy Spirit. If we can make war against the king, then let us do it; if
we cannot make war against him, then let us put him to death ... we made a big mistake at the St.
Bartholomew; we should have bled the royal vein."65
The Jesuits' murderous ways were not yet completed in the history of French Protestants! When Henry
III was murdered, Henry of Navarre a Huguenot, came to power. A hope for Catholic rebellion never
materialized, and Henry IV was allowed to reign. In 1592, an attempt was made to assassinate the
Protestant king by a man named Barriere. Barriere admitted that he had been instructed to do so by a
Father Varade, a Jesuit
priest.66 In 1594, another
attempt was made by Jean Chatel who had been
taught by Jesuit teachers and had confessed to the Jesuits what he was about to do.67 It was at this
time that Father Guigard, the Jesuit teacher previously mentioned, was seized and hanged for his
connection with this plot.68
In 1598, King Henry IV issued the Edict of Nantes, granting religious freedom to the Huguenots. They
were allowed full civil rights and the right to hold public worship services in towns where they had
congregations.
This was the last straw! Henry IV had to be eliminated! This time the Jesuits would allow for more
careful planning. Edmund Paris details the assassination of King Henry IV:
"On the 16th of May, 1610, on the eve of his campaign against Austria, he was murdered by
Ravaillac who confessed having been inspired by the writing of Fathers Mariana and Suarez. These
two sanctioned the murders of heretic "tyrants" or those insufficiently devoted to the Papacy's
interests. The duke of Epemon, who made the king read a letter while the assassin was lying in
wait, was a notorious friend of the Jesuits, and Michelet proved that they knew of this attempt. In
fact, Ravaillac had confessed to the Jesuit Father d'Aubigny just before and, when the judges
interrogated the priest, he merely replied that God had given him the gift to forget immediately
what he heard in the confessional."69
THIS is the spirit of our enemy! THIS is the ruthlessness of the Roman Catholic Church against those
who will not bow their knee to Rome! Would God use this church to preserve His Word?
Wherever there is a conspiracy against God's people or God's Word, there seems always to be the
shadow of a Jesuit priest near. Often they present themselves as seemingly innocent to the proceedings
around them when, in fact, they are the driving force behind such plots against God's work.
It is often said that you can tell a lot about a man by taking a close look at his enemies. If a man is
disliked by Communists, then that shows that he is a nonCommunist and considered dangerous to their
cause. If a man is disliked by the Roman Catholic Church, then this shows that he is not useful in
spreading the Roman Catholic dogma.
This same thing is true of the Bible. What did the Jesuits, the sworn enemy of truth, think of the
Authorized Version?
The Gunpowder Plot
To show the hatred of the Roman Catholic Church against King James for initiating a translation which
would not use the corrupt Latin Vulgate or the Jesuit Bible of 1582, we must quote from Gustavus
Paine's book, The Men Behind the King James Version. The account recorded took place in 16051606.
"The story is too involved to give detail here, but on October 26, the Lord Chamberlain,
Monteagle, received an unsigned letter begging him to stay away from Parliament on the day it
opened. He took the letter to Robert Cecil, who on November 1 showed it to the king at a
midnight meeting. The King shrewdly surmised a good deal of what it meant.
Monday, November 4, an agent of the royal party found in a cellar beneath the House of Lords a
man named Guy Fawkes, disguised as a servant, beside piles of faggots, billets of wood, and
masses of coal. The agent went away. Shortly Monteagle and one other came and talked, but
gave no heed to Fawkes, who was still on guard until they were about to go. He told them he was
a servant of Thomas Percy, a wellknown papist. Still later, at midnight, soldiers found Fawkes
booted and spurred and with a lantern outside the cellar door. He had taken few pains to conceal
his actions. They dragged him into an alley, searched him, and found on him a tinderbox and a
length of slow match. In a fury now, they moved the faggots, billets and coal and came upon
barrel after barrel of powder, thirtysix barrels in all. Fawkes then confessed that he meant to
blow up the House of Lords and the king.
On November 6, Percy, with others, rushed into an inn at Dunchurch, Warwickshire, with the news
that the court was aware of their plan. By the 8th the whole attempt had dearly failed. When
Parliament met a week after the stated day, the King, calm, gracious, and splendid told what had
happened and then adjourned the meeting. At first Fawkes refused to name any except Percy
who, with others, was killed in the course of a chase. In time he gave the names of all, who would
have blown up the House of Lords 'at a clap.'
Guy Fawkes was baptized at St. Michael le Belfrey, York, April 16, 1570, son of Edward Fawkes, a
proctor and advocate in the church courts of York. The father died and the mother married a
Papist. In 1603 Guy Fawkes went to Madrid to urge that Philip III invade England. Thus he was a
confirmed traitor, though egged on and used by more astute plotters.
Some of these men had been involved in the rising of the Earl of Esses. A number were former
members of the Church of England. Most of them had some land and wealth. They were all highly
disturbed beings, throwbacks, who meant to subvert the state and get rid of King James. Church
and state, they were sure, must be at one, with fealty to the Pope.
For nearly a year, the plotters had been digging a tunnel from a distance, but had found the wall
under the House of Lords nine feet thick. They had then got access to the cellar by renting a
building. They had planned to kill the King, seize his children, stir up an open revolt with the aid
from Spaniards in Flanders, put Princess Elizabeth on the throne, and marry her to a Papist.
Though all but one, Sir Everard Digby, pleaded not guilty, the court, such as it was, condemned
them all to death. That same week they were all hanged, four in St. Paul's churchyard where John
Overall, the translator, could have looked on and four in the yard of the old palace.
Three months later came the trial of Henry Garnet, a Jesuit, thought to be head of the Jesuits in
England. Brought up a Protestant, he knew of the plot but had shrunk in horror from it, though he
left the chosen victims to their fate. The court condemned him also to die.
All this concerned the men at work on the Bible. At Garnet's hanging, May 3, in St. Paul's
churchyard, John Overall, Dean of St. Paul's took time off from his translating to be present. Very
gravely and Christianily he and the Dean of Winchester urged upon Garnet 'a true and lively faith
to Godward,' a free and plain statement to the world of his offense; and if any further treason lay
in his knowledge, he was begged to unburden his conscience and show a sorrow and destination
of it. Garnet, firm in his beliefs, desired them not to trouble him. So after the men assigned to the
gruesome duty had hanged, drawn, and quartered the victim Dean Overall returned to St. Paul's
and his Bible task."70
Thus the "Gunpowder Plot" failed. As usual, where there was treachery there was a Jesuit.
Did the failure of this plan stop the Jesuits? Of course not. Garnet had allowed this drastic plan to be
carried out too soon. He had forgotten the Jesuit rule to act a little at a time "surtout, pas trop de zele"
(above all, not too much zeal).
A New Plan
Let it be remembered, Jesuits do not give up.
They would have to bide their time. They would once
again resort to undercover activities as they had so many times before. Their task would be a difficult
one, yet for the unfaltering Jesuits, not impossible. They would have to discredit the Reformation. They
would have to dislodge the Universal Greek Text from the firm position it held in the minds and hearts
of English scholarship. They would have to "wean" Protestantism back into the fold of Rome. To do this
they would use the same plan as they had in similar situations: captivate the minds of scholarship.
Men have long been worshippers of education. If an educator makes a claim, the "common" people will
follow, because they have convinced themselves that anyone with that
much education can't be wrong.
Evolution has been accepted as a fact by the average American because educators
claim that it is true.
The fact that they can produce no evidence to substantiate their theory is incidental. says it is Education
so!
The Jesuits' task was to entice Protestant scholarship back to Rome. They knew that they could not
wean the leaders of Protestantism back into Rome as long as the stubborn "heretics" clung to the pure
text of the Reformers. This Bible would have to be replaced with one which contained the proRoman
Catholic readings of Jerome's Vulgate and the Jesuit translation of 1582. It would be necessary to
"educate" the Protestant scholars to believe that their Reformation Text was unreliable and that their
Authorized Version was "not scholarly." Once thus programmed, the egotistical scholars would
spontaneously attack their own Bible and believe that they were helping God.
The most important objective to be realized would be to replace the Bible as the final authority.
The Authorized Version had become a mightier foe than Rome had anticipated as Dr. McClure points
out: "The printing of the English Bible has proved to be by far the mightiest barrier ever reared to repel
the advance of Popery, and to damage all the resources of the Papacy. Originally intended for the five
or six millions who dwelt within the narrow limits of the British Islands, it at once formed and fixed their
language, till then unsettled; and has since gone with that language to the isles and shores of every
sea."
The Dreaded Happening
What the Roman Catholics had always dreaded had come to pass. The Word of God
was translated
from the true text into the clearest form of the common language, English. Protestants had long refuted
and neutralized Roman Catholicism by the phrase, "The Bible says so." The Roman Catholic Church had
been built on about 10% twisted Scripture and 90% superstition. Where men were ignorant, it could
rule by playing on their fears. But, when the "ignorant and unlearned" people received Christ as
personal Saviour and clung faithfully to the King James Bible, they were not only immovable but could
easily refute any
heresy, be it Catholic or otherwise.
Aiding The Enemy
The job of the Jesuits would be aided by the natural process of time. Every major religious persuasion
follows a natural pattern which is nearly impossible to avoid. They begin in the form of a not a revival,
week long revival meeting, but a spiritual awakening which leads its followers away from the world
system and into Bible literalism. The Reformation is a good example. People drew nearer to the Bible,
believed it literally, and the end result was a revival which swept Europe and drew people of the out
Roman Catholic system.
The next step is education.
The infant Reformation had nowhere to send its converts to learn the Bible.
It certainly could not allow them to return to the Roman school of philosophy for their education. So the
second step is to build your own schools and train your own preachers and teachers.
The third step is culture.
Once a movement has established itself, it forms its own culture. This process
takes from 50 to 100 years. After this period of time, the movement has proved to the world that it is
not a "fly by night" outfit but is a force to be reckoned with. This was true of Lutheranism, as it is now
true of Fundamentalism.
Fifty years ago, a Fundamentalist preacher was considered a backwoods "hick" with no education and
was able to preach nothing more than "hell, fire, and damnation." Today, the world has awakened to
the fact that Fundamentalism is a powerful force. Fundamental churches are found to be the largest and
fastest growing in the country. Television and magazines are producing special stories concerning the
Fundamental movement. The election of 1980 showed the amount of influence that Fundamentalism
could have. Fundamentalism has proven that it is here to stay.
This acceptance produces a kind of "homegrown" arrogance. This is not a derogatory comment, but is
true.
When the preachers of the Reformation graduated from basements and dungeons to the pulpits of the
largest, fastest growing churches in Europe, they realized that they had fought their way to victory. As
they saw their colleges grow and multiply, they prided themselves in the job they had done. But the
newfound ease of life began to make a subtle change. They found themselves beginning to appreciate
the "finer" things of life. A pastor who had been satisfied in the early days of the Reformation with a
basement and one candle for light to preach by, twentyfive years later found himself in a fine, clean,
functional building. As his congregation grew and space was needed, the church built bigger buildings,
but the new buildings passed from functional simplicity to a "touch of elegance." The chandeliers
became more ornate. The ceiling became higher. The pews were more comfortable. The windows saw
the use of stained glass, a Roman Catholic custom. The pastor found social acceptance in the
community. Each succeeding building was "bigger and better" with more elaborate masonry. The
preachers and people began to find time to "appreciate" the arts and sciences. The Christians soon had
a culture which was separate from but parallel to that of the world. This left the door open for the next
and final step, apostasy.
The preachers became "clergy." Their separated lives and Biblical education led to Phariseeism. Their
colleges expanded from just training ministers to covering a wider spectrum of occupations. Basic Bible
courses were supplemented by a study of "the arts."
Revival is from God. Education is necessary to the training of God's ministers, but culture is a product
that appeals to the flesh. Once the flesh is allowed to offer its preferences, apostasy sets in. Standards
become a little more lax. College professors are hired according to their academic abilities first and the
spiritual convictions second. Statements like "We must have the best" and "I want to be firstclass" are
used to comfort the fears of anyone who feels that the churches and schools seem a little worldly. Of
course, a school administrator might find himself thinking, "The average Christian doesn't understand
our minute changes. They aren't educated like we are."
There suddenly appears a Christian with an open Bible,
who points out Scripture
which may condemn
the new found "culture" of a church or school. The school amazingly finds itself in the same position as
the Roman Catholic Church, refuted
by an ignorant Christian
who believes the Bible. Which is to be the
final authority, the school or the Bible? Time after time, education has found that it has come too far to
turn back. "We are!" came the answer from Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminister in England. "We are!"
came the answer from Harvard, Princeton, and Yale in America. Education has conceived culture and
given birth to apostasy!
Ripe for Conquest
England in the early 1800's was ripe for apostasy. The Reformation had come a long way since Luther
nailed his theses on the door of Wittenburg. It had traversed Europe with the truth, leaving in its wake
churches and schools that represented the pure text of Scripture. The educational foundation had been
laid, upon which culture was built. Gone
were the attempts to blow up Parliament. Gone was the fear of
ending up like Tyndale for believing "the Book." Gone was the reign of terror inflicted by "bloody" Mary.
The churches built around the Authorized Version were rich and prosperous. The colleges, from their
meager beginnings, had become great universities, pressing on with higher education. There were a
few "common" people who still feared Rome, but the "educators" knew that their fears were
"unfounded." England was ripe for a transfer of authority from the Bible education, Rome was
to and
willing to supply the education. The absolute reign of the Authorized Version would soon end.
Operation "Undermine"
The Authorized Version had withstood countless attacks, but it would now be subject to a systematic
campaign to exhalt several
authorities to a position equal to it. These perverted "authorities" would then
join forces to portray the Authorized Version as weak, unreliable, inaccurate, outmoded, and generally
untrustworthy. Once the Authorized Version had been successfully dethroned, education would be free
to exalt whatever authority it desired to. The Roman Catholic Church, of course, would be close at hand
to see to it that the authority which was to be exalted would be in agreement with its own corrupt Latin
Vulgate.
The authorities to be exalted as equal with the Authorized Version came from several different quarters,
but all with the same intent. Replace the Universal Text of the Authorized Version with the Local Text of
Alexandria, Egypt.
Science "Falsely SoCalled"
One of the authorities which would be used to discredit the Authorized Version was "textual criticism."
Textual criticism is known as a "science." By being called a science, it will be accepted by the educated
mind. It is a process which looks at the Bible as it would look at the uninspired writings of any secular
writer. This one fact alone means that the power of God to preserve His Word is ignored in favor of the
naturalistic method of evaluating the "chance" of God's Word being preserved. Textual criticism allows
God to "inspire" His originals, but seeks to replace
God as the active agent in His Word. preserving
Earlier we established that the Bible was a spiritual
book, that God was active in its conception, and that
it would be reasonable to assume that God could be just as active in its preservation.
One might ask at this point if textual criticism could not be the method which God used to preserve His
Words? The answer is unequivocably, "No." Here are the reasons why:
Textual critics look at the Bible today
through the same eyes as the Egyptian scribes did who perverted
the Universal Text to construct the Local Text centuries ago. Those welleducated scribes thought that
the Bible was subject to them
instead of them being subject to the Bible.
This outlook allowed them to
eliminate the power of God from their minds and make whatever changes they deemed necessary to
reach a conclusion which seemed logical
to them. They
were the Holy Spirit in their minds!
Today textual critics do the same, in that, before they ever start their work, they are convinced that God
cannot preserve His Word without their assistance. Scholars today believe that God inspired but words
preserved thoughts.
Another reason why textual criticism could not be the method God used to preserve His Word is that it
comes from Rome.
The Catholic Encyclopedia states, "A French priest, Richard Simon (16381712), was the first who
subjected the general questions concerning the Bible to a treatment which was at once comprehensive
in scope and scientific in method. Simon is the forerunner of modern Biblical criticism ... The use of
internal evidence by which Simon arrived at it entitles him to be called the father of Biblical criticism"72
The same source also mentions the Catholic scholar Jean Astruc:
"In 1753 Jean Astruc, a French Catholic physician of considerable note published a little book,
Conjectures sur les memoires originaux dont il parait que Moise s'est servi pour composer le livre de la
Genese, in which he conjectured, from the alternating use of two names of God in the Hebrew Genesis,
that Moses had incorporated therein two preexisting documents, one of which employed Elohim and
the other Jehovah. The idea attracted little attention till it was taken up by a German scholar, who,
however, claims to have made the discovery independently. This was Johann Gottfried Eichhorn ...
Eichhorn greatly developed Astruc's hypothesis."73
The same source also speaks of yet another Roman Catholic infidel:
"Yet, it was a Catholic priest of Scottish origin, Alexander Geddes (17371802), who broached a theory
of the origin of the Five Books (to which he attached Joshua) exceeding in boldness either Simon's or
Eichhorn's. This was the wellknown 'Fragment' hypothesis, which reduced the Pentateuch to a
collection of fragmentary sections partly of Mosaic origin, but put together in the reign of Solomon.
Geddes' opinion was introduced into Germany in 1805 by Vater."74
Dr. Benjamin Wilkenson records how the naturalistic, unsaved Roman Catholic scholars judged in favor
of the perverted Egyptian manuscripts: "Some of the earliest critics in the field of collecting variant
readings of the New Testament Greek were Mill and Bengel. We have Dr. Kenrick, Catholic Bishop of
Philadelphia in 1849, as authority that they and others had examined these manuscripts recently exalted
as superior, such as the Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Beza, and Ephraem, and had pronounced in favor of
the Vulgate, the Catholic Bible."75
Stop and think! Naturalistic as opposed to spiritual. Unsaved as opposed to saved. Roman Catholic as

opposed to Biblical. These men conceived and developed theories which attacked the reliability of
Scripture and judged in favor of the perverted Egyptian manuscripts.
Are these men and methods worthy of fellowship? Would a perfect and righteous God use such a
hodgepodge of infidelity to preserve His hallowed Words?
Some may say that textual criticism is good if
carried on by good, godly Christian men. This cannot be true. The "mass" is a invention Roman Catholic
contrived to prevent people from knowing the truth.
Would the mass be "good" if performed by good,
Biblebelieving scholars? Of course not! Elisha
took poison and made it fit to eat, (II Kings 4:3841). We
cannot! Neither can we take a method instigated by the Roman Catholic Church in order to overthrow
the Bible and filled with the poison of Romanism and miraculously
make it fit to use! Textual criticism is
a "science" (falsely socalled I Timothy 6:20) whose authority we cannot
accept in place of the Bible.
The Greek Game
Another authority by which to judge and downgrade the absolute authority of the Authorized Version is
to change the meaning of the translation and the words used in Scripture.
First the student is taught that he must not accept a word as it is in the Authorized Version. He is told to
study the Greek or Hebrew words to see if there is another way the word could be translated. The
student, with the purest of motives, proceeds to a lexicon or a Greek or Hebrew dictionary and
discovers to His horror that the translators of the Authorized Version have translated the word
improperly! truth,
In the exact opposite
has happened. The lexicon and/or dictionary has defined
the
word improperly! The poor, naive, wellmeaning student does not know it, but he has been "headed off
at the pass."
Years before this poor student ever turned the first page of his lexicon, Roman Catholics provided the
pages he would turn! Let me explain. If the student can be taught to doubt the accuracy of the
translation of any given word in the Bible, then we will turn to a lexicon or dictionary to find the "'true"
meaning. He does not realize it, but in doing this, he removes the Bible
from its position as final
authority and bestows that honor upon an uninspired lexicon or dictionary. All this leaves Satan to do, is
to provide that student with a lexicon or dictionary which reads the way he (Satan) wants it to! This is a
subtle and dangerous precedent. Most often, it is taught in complete, innocent sincerity.
This is much like the phrase used to explain the Communist's takeover of many countries which were
once thriving with many missionaries: "The missionaries taught us to read,
but the Communists gave us
the books." (The Communists do not argue about the proper translation of Marx.)
Many unsuspecting colleges teach their students to accept the lexicon or dictionary as an authority
above the Bible, but the lexicons and dictionaries are provided by the infidels.
John R. Rice points out the result of such "authority switching" while discussing Isaiah 7:14 in the
Revised Standard Version: "The most active opposition to the Revised Standard Version has been about
changing the translation of Isaiah 7:14 from, 'Behold, a virgin shall conceive,' to 'Behold, a young
woman shall conceive and bear a son.' Dr. Luther Weigle, chairman of the translators, said that in the
Hebrew English lexicon the word 'alma' means simply 'young woman,' not necessarily 'virgin' and he
said that the word for 'virgin' in the Hebrew is 'bethulah.'" He did not tell you, however, that the lexicon
he uses was prepared by unbelieving critics.
Gensenius, the German orientalist and biblical critic, is described in the Encyclopedia Britannica in these
words:
"To Gensenius, who was an exceptionally popular teacher, belongs in a large measure the credit
of having freed Semitic philosophy from theological and religious prepossession, and of
inaugurating the strictly scientific (and comparative) method.
His chief work, Hebraisches u. Chaldais ches Handworterbuch
(18101812), has passed through
several editions (Eng. ed.: Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English
Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1907).
Gensenius, a notorious liberal, specialized in changing the theological terminology of the Bible into
that of liberals. Brown, Driver, and Briggs, translators of the lexicon in English were, all three of
them, radical liberals, and two of them were tried in the Presbyterian church for outrageous
infidelity."76
Wilkenson reports that two of the infamous Roman Catholic scholars previously mentioned also entered
into the practice of providing definitive works. "Simon and Eichhorn were coauthors of a Hebrew
Dictionary."77
Such infidelic works are accepted because they are produced by "great scholars." They are then used by
good, godly men who do not realize the price of bowing to unbelieving scholarship.
Griesbach
Another important step in subtlety removing the authority of the Authorized Version is to exalt the
unreliable MSS of the Local Text of Egypt. This will be commented on later. Let it suffice for now to
reveal the man who laid the groundwork for just such a move. His name was J.J. Griesbach (1745
1812).
Griesbach divided the extant MSS into three groups. One was called the "Constantinopolitan" family
which is our Universal Text. The other two were known as "Western" and "Alexandrian."
As can be expected, Griesbach was not a Bible believer. In fact, he stated, "The New Testament
abounds in more glosses, additions, and interpolations purposely introduced than any other book."78 He
was also antagonostic to any verse which taught the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith.
Whenever possible he devised means to cast doubt on such passages. He said, "the most suspicious
reading of all, is the one that yields a sense favorable to the nourishment of piety (especially monastic
piety). When there are many variant readings in one place, that reading which more than the others
manifestly favors the dogmas of the orthodox is deservedly regarded as suspicious."79
It is strange indeed that Dr. Griesbach should expect orthodox Christians to manipulate the book which
they truly believe to be from God, in order to teach Christianity more fervently. He never mentioned any
apprehension that heretics might delete and alter doctrinal passages. What kind of scholarship is it that
naturally suspects bornagain Christians of an act bordering on sacrilege, but never doubts the integrity
of infidels? Is this
God's method?
Whatever it was that possessed Griesbach to suspect Christians of such criminal acts also possessed two
of his followers. Hill explains:
"Westcott and Hort professed to 'venerate' the name of Griesbach above that of every other
textual critic of the New Testament. Like Griesbach they believed that the orthodox Christian
scribes had altered the New Testament manuscripts in the interest of orthodoxy. Hence like
Griesbach, they ruled out in advance any possibility of the providential preservation of the New
Testament text through the usage of believers. But at the same time they were very zealous to
deny that heretics had made any intentional changes in the New Testament text. 'It will not be out
of place,' they wrote, 'to add here a distinct expression of our belief that even among the
numerous unquestionably spurious readings of the New Testament, there are no signs of
deliberate falsification of the text for dogmatic purposes.' The effect of this onesided theory was
to condemn the text found in the majority of the New Testament manuscripts and exonerate that
of B and Aleph."80
Thus the Local Text, supported by the Roman Catholic Church, became an authority equal to or higher
than the Universal Text of the Authorized Version in spite
of the many doctrinal changes. After all,
Griesbach, Westcott, and Hort had already established that heretics never falsify Scriptureonly
Christians do!
As the infidelity of men such as this is accepted as authorative, Christians begin to look to their Bible
with more and more skepticism. What more could Satan desire?
Are these men to be blamed for their failure to accept the Bible as infallible, or have they been
unsuspecting dupes of a plan much bigger and far more serious than they could have ever suspected?
Let us see.
The Puppeteer
One man who became greatly responsible for the fall of England to a sympathetic acceptance of Roman
Catholic ideas was Cardinal Wiseman (18021865).
Wiseman was the prime mover in installing the Roman Catholic Church back on the shore of England.
He was born and raised in England. He went to Rome to study under Cardinal Mai, the editor of the
Vatican Manuscript.
Wiseman had a desire to see England return to the fold at Rome. One of the major obstacles to this was
the supremacy which the Authorized Version held there. Where the Authorized Version prevails, Rome
cannot.
The Puppets
While in Rome, he was visited by several NeoProtestants. He was instrumental in "weaning" these men
back into subjection to the Pope. One of his visitors was William Gladstone (18091898),who was to
become prime minister of England. He was a man known for his change from being a Conservative to a
Liberal.
Another visitor was Anglican Archbishop Trench, who returned to England to promote a revision of the
Authorized Version and even joined the Revision Committee of 1871.
Still another was John Henry Newman. Newman was the brilliant English churchman who was a leader
of Oxford University and the English clergy.
Newman was close friends with Herrell Froude. Froude, Wilkenson tells us, was the son of a High
Churchman, "who loathed Protestantism, denounced the Evangelicals, and brought up his sons to do
the same."81
These two, Newman and Froude, joined affinity with John Keble. Keble, like Froude, was of High Church
background. He was strongly antiProtestant and antiEvangelical.82
Newman and Froude visited Wiseman in Rome in 1833. Having been taken in by the beautiful
architecture of Rome's cathedrals and the solemn grandeur of the high masses, the two Oxford
professors inquired of Wiseman as to what terms the Roman Catholic Church would require to accept
the Church of England back into the Roman Church. Wiseman's reply was cold and clear: The Church of
England must accept the Council of Trent. At this, Newman left Rome stating, "I have a work to do in
England," a work indeed, in which he, Froude, Keble, and Edward Pusey joined forces to swing England
back to Rome and to remove their primary adversary, the hated King James Bible.
Newman, brilliant man that he was, provided the strong intellectual leadership needed. Pusey was the
moralist, and Keble spoke through the delicate words of the poet and captivated the hearts and minds
of many an unsuspecting young scholar. Any who lacked a strong stand on Bible principles would be
easy prey for these apostates.
Newman, in fact, was so taken in by the spell of Rome that he, in 1845, left the Church of England and
formally joined the Roman Catholic Church, following a similar apostate, named Ward, who had written
a book teaching the worship of Mary and "mental reservation." Mental reservation is the act, condoned
by the Roman Catholic Church, of lying
to keep from revealing your ties to Rome.
Wilkenson records Newman's betrayal:
"Public sentiment was again aroused to intensity in 1845 when Ward, an outstanding Tractarian,
published His book which taught the most offensive Roman views, Mariolatry, and mental
reservation in subscribing to the Thirtynine Articles. When Oxford degraded him from his
university rights, he went over in September to the Church of Rome. It became very evident that
Newman soon would follow. On the night of October 8 Father Dominic, of the Italian Passionists,
arrived at Newman's quarters in a downpouring rain. After being received, he was standing before
the fire drying his wet garments. He turned around to see Newman prostrate at his feet, begging
his blessing, and asking him to hear his confession. Thus the author of Lead Kindly Light
passed
over to Rome, and within one year 150 clergyman and eminent laymen also had joined the
Catholic Church."83
Where was Wiseman through all of this? He was naturally close at hand. In 1836, three years following
Newman and Froude's visit, he had moved to Ireland to supervise the Oxford Movement through his
paper, the "Dublin Review." Wiseman was described as, "a textual critic of the first rank, and assisted
by the information seemingly passed on to him from the Jesuits,
he was able to finish the facts well
calculated to combat confidence in the Protestant Bible.
" 84 (Emphasis mine.)
England had graduated from "revival" to "education," and her "education" had developed into her own
unique "culture." From there, the Roman Catholic Church was willing to supply the . apostasy
Where We Stand
Today in colleges and churches across America and around the world, truly good, godly men who love
the Lord Jesus and sincerely desire to serve Him, are unsuspectingly propagating the Roman Catholic
method of textual criticism. The result is that Christian soldiers who go out to fight Rome, either with a
perfect Bible which they have been taught to doubt, or else an unreliable translation of the Rome
supported Local Text, which is worthy of all suspicion.
Education in America has come to the place of either having to swallow its pride, admit it has been
wrong, and return to the true Bible; or else make another more vehement attack on the Authorized
Bible in hopes of finally silencing it and its supporters, in the hope of hiding its mistake. Christians be
warned! The Revised Version did not ring the death note for the King James Bible. It rang the death
note for England!
All of the translations before and after 1881 which were going to replace the Authorized Version lie
silently in the "grave" right now. Those which do not, shall soon join their ranks in the halls of the
"improved," "thoroughly reliable," "truly accurate," and "starters of a new tradition," dead. They have
failed to start one revival. They have failed to induce Christians back to reading their Bibles, and have
only succeeded in casting doubt on the true Word of God. The question is, can we repair the damage
already done and proceed from here? The answer is YES!

Westcott and Hort

Brooke Foss Westcott (18251903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (18281892) have been highly
controversial figures in biblical history.
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.
I have no desire to "sling mud" nor a desire to hide facts.
I believe it is essential at this time that we examine what we know about these men and their theories
concerning the text of the Bible.
I long sought for copies of the books about their lives. These are The Life and Letters of Brooke Foss
Westeott , by his son, Arthur, and The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, written by his son.
After literally months of trying, I was able to acquire copies of them both for study. Most of the material
in this section will be directly from these sources so as to prevent it from being secondhand.
We cannot blindly accept the finding of any scholar without investigating what his beliefs are concerning
the Bible and its doctrines. Scholarship alone makes for an inadequate and dangerous authority,
therefore we are forced to scrutinize these men's lives.
A Monumental Switch
Westcott and Hort were responsible for the greatest feat in textual criticism. They were responsible for
replacing the Universal Text of the Authorized Version with the Local Text of Egypt and the Roman
Catholic Church. Both Wescott and Hort were known to have resented the preeminence given to the
Authorized Version and its underlying Greek Text. They had been deceived into believing that the
Roman Catholic manuscripts, Vaticanus and Aleph, were better because they were "older." This they
believed, even though Hort admitted that the Antiochian or Universal Text was equal in antiquity. "The
fundamental text of the late extant Greek MSS generally is beyond all question identical with the
dominant Antiochian or GraecoSyrian Text of the second half of the Fourth Century."85
Vicious Prejudice
In spite of the fact that the readings of the Universal Text were found to be as old, or older, Westcott
and Hort still sought to dislodge it from its place of high standing in biblical history. Hort occasionally let
his emotions show, "I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of text, having read so little
Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus ... Think of the vile Textus
Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS; it is a blessing there are such early ones."86
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!
Burgon exposed Dr. Hort's confession, "Even Hort had occasion to notice an instance of the concordia
discourse." Commenting on the four places in Mark's gospel (14:30, 68, 72, a, b) where the cock's
crowing is mentioned said, "The confusion of attestation introduced by these several cross currents of
change is so great that of the seven principal MSS, Aleph, A, B, C, D, L, no two have the same text in all
four places."87
A Shocking Revelation
That these men should lend their influence to a family of MSS which have a history of attacking and
diluting the major doctrines of the Bible, should not come as a surprise. Oddly enough, neither man
believed that the Bible should be treated any differently than the writings of the lost historians and
philosophers!
Hort wrote, "For ourselves, we dare not introduce considerations which could not reasonably be applied
to other ancient texts, supposing them to have documentary attestation of equal amount, variety and
antiquity."88
He also states, "In the New Testament, as in almost all prose writings
which have been much copied,
corruptions by interpolation are many times more numerous than corruptions by omission." (Emphasis
mine.)89
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
all
from other writings. Why did these men not believe so?
Blatant Disbelief
Their skepticism does, in fact, go even deeper. They have both become famous for being able to deny
scriptural truth and still be upheld by fundamental Christianity as biblical authorities! Both Westcott and
Hort failed to accept the basic Bible doctrines which we hold so dear and vital to our fundamental faith.
Hort denies the reality of Eden: "I am inclined to think that no such state as 'Eden'(I mean the popular
notion) ever existed, and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants,
as Coleridge justly argues."90
Furthermore, he took sides with the apostate authors of "Essays and Reviews."
Hort writes to Rev. Rowland Williams, October 21, 1858, "Further I agree with them [Authors of "Essays
and Reviews"] in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology ... Evangelicals
seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on
the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible."91
We must also confront Hort's disbelief that the Bible was infallible: "If you make a decided conviction of
the absolute infallibility of the N.T. practically a sine qua non for cooperation, I fear I could not join
you." He also stated:
"As I was writing the last words a note came from Westcott. He too mentions having had fears,
which he now pronounces 'groundless,' on the strength of our last conversation, in which he
discovered that I did 'recognize' 'Providente' in biblical writings. Most strongly I recognize it; but I
am not prepared to say that it necessarily involves absolute infallibility. So I still await judgment."
And further commented to a colleague:
"But I am not able to go as far as you in asserting the absolute infallibility of a canonical
writing."92
Strange Bedfellows
Though unimpressed with the evangelicals of his day, Hort had great admiration for Charles Darwin! To
his colleague, B.F. Westcott, he wrote excitedly: "...Have you read Darwin? How I should like to talk
with you about it! In spite of difficulties, I am inclined to think it unanswerable. In any case it is a treat
to read such a book."
And to John Ellerton he writes: "But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be
thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with ... My feeling is strong that the
theory is unanswerable. If so, it opens up a new period."93
Dr. Hort was also an adherent to the teaching of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. His son writes: "In
undergraduate days, if not before, he came under the spell of Coleridge."94
Coleridge was the college dropout whose drug addiction is an historical fact. "The opium habit, begun
earlier to deaden the pain of rheumatism, grew stronger. After vainly trying in Malta and Italy to break
away from opium, Coleridge came back to England in 1806."95
One of Coleridge's famous works is Aids to Reflection
. "Its chief aim is to harmonize formal Christianity
with Coleridge's variety of transcendental philosophy. He also did much to introduce Immanual Kant and
other German philosophers to English readers."96
This man, Coleridge, had a great influence on the two scholars from Cambridge.
Forsaking Colossians 2:8
Hort was also a lover of Greek philosophy. In writing to Mr. A. MacMillian, he stated: "You seem 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."97
Lost in the Forest
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's "Devil"
Concerning existence of a personal devil he wrote:
"The discussion which immediately precedes these four lines naturally leads to another enigma
most intimately connected with that of everlasting penalties, namely that of the personality of the
devil." It was Coleridge who some three years ago first raised any doubts in my mind on the
subject doubts which have never yet been at all set at rest, one way or the other. You yourself
are very cautious in your language.
"Now if there be a devil, he cannot merely bear a corrupted and marred image of God; he must be
wholly evil, his name evil, his every energy and act evil. Would it not be a violation of the divine
attributes for the Word to be actively the support of such a nature as that?"98
Hort's "Hell"
Rev. Hort also shrunk from the belief in a literal, eternal "hell."
"I think Maurice's letter to me sufficiently showed that we have no sure knowledge respecting the
duration of future punishment, and that the word 'eternal' has a far higher meaning than the
merely material one of excessively long duration; extinction always grates against my mind as
something impossible."99
"Certainly in my case it proceeds from no personal dread; when I have been living most godlessly,
I have never been able to frighten myself with visions of a distant future, even while I 'held' the
doctrine."100
Hort's "Purgatory'
Although the idea of a literal devil and a literal hell found no place in Hort's educated mind, he was a
very real believer in the fictious Roman Catholic doctrine of "purgatory." To Rev. John Ellerton he wrote
in 1854:
"I agree with you in thinking it a pity that Maurice verbally repudiates purgatory, but I fully and
unwaveringly agree with him in the three cardinal points of the controversy: (1) that eternity is
independent of duration; (2) that the power of repentance is not limited to this life; (3) that it is
not revealed whether or not all will ultimately repent. The modern denial of the second has, I
not revealed whether or not all will ultimately repent. The modern denial of the second has, I
suppose, had more to do with the despiritualizing of theology then almost anything that could be
named."101
Also while advising a young student he wrote:
"The idea of purgation, of cleansing as by fire, seems to me inseparable from what the Bible
teaches us of the Divine chastisements; and, though little is directly said resecting the future
state, it seems to me incredible that the Divine chastisements should in this respect change their
character when this visible life is ended.
"I do not hold it contradictory to the Article to think that the condemned doctrine has not been
wholly injurious, inasmuch as it has kept alive some sort of belief in a great and important
truth."102
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.
Hort's "Atonement"
There was also his rejection of Christ's atoning death for the sins of all mankind.
"The fact is, I do not see how God's justice can be satisfied without every man's suffering in his
own person the full penalty for his sins."103
In fact, Hort considered the teachings of Christ's atonement as heresy!
"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."104
The fact is, that Hort believed Satan more worthy of accepting Christ's payment for sins than God.
"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."105
Hort's "Baptism"
Dr. Hort also believed that the Roman Catholic teaching of "baptismal regeneration" was more correct
than the "evangelical" teaching.
"...at the same time in language stating that we maintain 'Baptismal Regeneration' as the most
important of doctrines ... the pure 'Romish' view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to,
the truth than the Evangelical."106
He also states that, "Baptism assures us that we are children of God, members of Christ and His body,
and heirs of the heavenly kingdom."107
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:
"You were not only born into the world of men. You were also born of Christian parents in a
Christian land. While yet an infant you were claimed for God by being made in Baptism an
unconscious member of His Church, the great Divine Society which has lived on unceasingly from
the Apostles' time till now. You have been surrounded by Christian influences; taught to lift up
your eyes to the Father in heaven as your own Father; to feel yourself in a wonderful sense a
member or part of Christ, united to Him by strange invisible bonds; to know that you have as your
birthright a share in the kingdom of heaven."108
Hort's Twisted Belief
Along with Hort's unregenerated misconceptions of basic Bible truths, there were his quirkish and
sometimes quackish personal beliefs.
One such example is his hatred for democracy, as he asserts in a letter to Rev. Westcott dated April 28,
1865:
"...I dare not prophesy about America, but I cannot say that I see much as yet to soften my deep
hatred of democracy in all its forms."109
In fact, Hort's hope, during the years of the American Civil War, was that the South would win. This
desire was fostered by the hope that such a victory would destroy both
countries to eliminate America's
threat to England's domination of the world. His own words betray this in a letter which he wrote to
Rev. John Ellerton in September of 1862:
"I care more for England and for Europe than for America, how much more than for all the niggers
in the world! And I contend that the highest morality requires me to do so. Some thirty years ago
Niebuhr wrote to this effect: 'Whatever people may say to the contrary, the American empire is
standing menace to the whole civilization of Europe and sooner or later one or the other must
perish.' Every year has, I think, brought fresh proof of the entire truth of these words. American
doctrine (only too well echoed from Europe itself, though felt to be at variance with the
institutions of Europe) destroys the root of everything vitally precious which man has by painful
growth been learning from the earliest times till now, and tends only to reduce us to the gorilla
state. The American empire seems to me mainly an embodiment of American doctrine, its leading
principle being lawless force. Surely, if ever Babylon or Rome were rightly cursed it cannot be
wrong to desire and pray from the bottom of one's heart that the American Union may be shivered
to pieces.
"I do not for a moment forget what slavery is, or the frightful effects which Olmsted has shown it
to be producing on white society in the South; but I hate it much more for its influence on the
whites than on the niggers themselves. The refusal of education to them is abominable; how far
they are capable of being ennobled by it is not clear. As yet everywhere (not in slavery only) they
have surely shown themselves only as an immeasurably inferior race, just human and no more,
their religion frothy and sensuous, their highest virtues, those of a good Newfoundland dog."110
Hort also had no respect for prominent Americans, be they politician or preacher. Concerning President
Abraham Lincoln he wrote: "I cannot see that he has shown any special virtues or statesmanlike
capacities."111 The great preacher D.L. Moody impressed him as follows:
"Think of my going with Gray yesterday afternoon to hear 'Moody and Sankey' at the Haymarket. I
am very glad to have been, but should not care to go again. All was much as I expected, except
that the music was inferior, and altogether Sankey did not leave a favourable impression. Moody
had great sincerity, earnestness, and good sense, with some American humour which he mostly
keeps under restraint, but in matter is quite conventional and commonplace. Much the most
remarkable thing is the congregation or rather audience."112
Hort's distaste for America may not be solely attributed to patriotism as much as to a tainting of his
thinking by a touch of Communism. These facts are brought out in his continued correspondence with
Rev. John Ellerton, circa 1850:
"I have pretty well made up my mind to devote my three or four years up here to the study of this
subject of Communism."113
113
"I can only say that it was through the region of pure politics that I myself approach
Communism."114
"To be without responsibility, to be in no degree our 'brother's keeper,' would be the heaviest
curse imaginable."115
"Surely every man is meant to be God's steward of every blessing and 'talent' (power, wealth,
influence, station, birth, etc. etc.) which He gives him, for the benefit of his neighbours."116
Also suspect is Hort's delving into the supernatural along with his good friend, Brooke Foss
Westcott, and others in what was called the 'Ghostly Guild' (more on this later).
"Westcott, Gorham, C.B., Scott, Benson, Bradshaw, Luard, etc., and I have started a society for
the investigation of ghosts and all supernatural appearances and effects, being all disposed to
believe that such things really exist, and ought to be discriminated from hoaxes and mere
subjective delusions; we shall be happy to obtain any good accounts well authenticated with
names. Westcott is drawing up a schedule of questions. Cope calls us the 'Cock and Bull Club;' our
own temporary name is the 'Ghostly Guild.' "117
Then again, it is possible that the learned doctor was influenced by more than mere philosophy, as we
see in his description of a hotel in the Alps where he often vacationed:
"Pontresina, Hotel Krone; homely, but very clean and comfortable; ... beer excellent."118
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! Dr. Hort was a truly great Greek scholar, yet a great
intellect does not make one an authority over the Bible when they themselves do not even claim to
believe it! Albert Einstein was a man of great intellect, but he rejected Scripture, and so where he
speaks on the subject of Scripture he is not to be accepted as authoritative. Possessing a great mind or
great ability does not guarantee being a great spiritual leader. Dr. Hort was a scholar, but his
scholarship alone is no reason to accept his theories concerning Bible truth.
If fundamental pastors of today enlisted the services of an evangelist and found that this evangelist had
beliefs paralleling those of Fenton John Anthony Hort, I believe that the pastor would cancel the
meeting. Strangely through, when a pastor discovers such to be true about Dr. Hort, he excuses him as
"a great Greek scholar" and presents his Authorized Version to him to be maliciously dissected and then
discarded as Dr. Hort sets himself down in the seat of authority which the Bible once held. Here again I
must assert that most often this is done with childlike faith on the part of the pastor, due to the
education he received while in seminary. The seminary is not really guilty either, for they have simply
and unsuspectingly accepted the authority of two men raised under the influence of a campaign by the
Jesuits to reRomanize England. Wilkenson reports that Hort had been influenced by these Roman
Catholic forces: "Dr. Hort tell us that the writings of Simon had a large share in the movement to
discredit the Textus Receptus class of MSS and Bibles." 119
Problems with Westcott
Unfortunately for the "new Bible" supporters, Dr. Westcott's credentials are even more
antibiblical.
Westcott did not believe that Genesis 13 should be taken literally. He also thought that "Moses" and
"David" were poetic characters whom Jesus Christ referred to by name only because the common
people accepted them as authentic. Westcott states:
"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal
history I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did
yet they disclose to us a Gospel. So it is probably elsewhere. Are we not going through a trial in
yet they disclose to us a Gospel. So it is probably elsewhere. Are we not going through a trial in
regard to the use of popular language on literary subjects like that through which we went, not
without sad losses in regard to the use of popular language on physical subjects? If you feel now
that it was, to speak humanly, necessary that the Lord should speak of the 'sun rising,' it was no
less necessary that he would use the names 'Moses' and 'David' as His contemporaries used them.
There was no critical question at issue. (Poetry is, I think, a thousand times more true than
History; this is a private parenthesis for myself alone.)" 120
He also said "David" is not a chronological but a spiritual person. 121
That the first three chapter of Genesis are all allegory has been believed by liberals and modernists for
years. Do today's fundamentalists realize that those modernists' beliefs were nurtures in the heart of
this Bible critic?
Westcott was also a doubter of the biblical account of miracles: "I never read an account of a miracle
but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover somewhat of evidence in the account of
it." 122 If a great fundamental preacher of our day were to make this statement, he would be called
apostate, but what then of Westcott?
Westcott believed that the second coming of Jesus Christ was not a physical coming but a spiritual
coming: "As far as I can remember, I said very shortly what I hold to be the 'Lord's coming' in my little
book on the Historic Faith. I hold very strongly that the Fall of Jerusalem was the coming which first
fulfilled the Lord's words; and, as there have been other comings, I cannot doubt that He is 'coming' to
us now." 123
Westcott's "Heaven"
Wait! This fundamental doctrine is not the last one to be denied by Bishop Westcott, for he believed
Heaven to be a state and not
a literal place. Note the following quotations from Bishop Westcott: "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.'" 124
"Yet the unseen is the largest part of life. Heaven lies about us now in infancy alone; and by swift,
silent pauses for thought, for recollection, for aspiration, we cannot only keep fresh the influence
of that diviner atmosphere, but breathe it more habitually." 125
"We may reasonably hope, by patient, resolute, faithful, united endeavour to find heaven about us
here, the glory of our earthly life." 126
Westcott's "Newmanism"
Dr. Westcott was also deeply devoted to John Newman, the Roman Catholic defector who took 150
Church of England clergymen with him when he made the change. Those of his disciples who did not
make the physical change to Rome, made the spiritual change to Romanism, though many, like
Westcott, never admitted it.
In writing to his futue wife in 1852, Westcott wrote: "Today I have again taken up 'Tracts for the Times'
and Dr. Newman. Don't tell me that he will do me harm. At least today he will, has done me good, and
had you been here I should have asked you to read his solemn words to me. My purchase has already
amply repaid me. I think I shall choose a volume for one of my Christmas companions." 127
This was written after Newman had defected to Rome!
Wilkenson adds, "By voice and pen, the teaching of Newman changed in the minds of many their
attitude toward the Bible. Stanley shows us that the allegorizing of German theology, under whose
influence Newman and the leaders of the movement were, was Origen's method of allegorizing.
Newman contended that God never intended the Bible to teach doctrines."
Westcott also resented criticism of the Essays and Reviews

. Upon hearing the Bishop of Manchester
deride the apostate authors of these heretical essays, Westcott wrote, "But his language about the
Essays and Reviews roused my indignation beyond expression." 128
These are the convictions of a man greatly responsible for the destruction of Christian faith in the Greek
Text of the Authorized Version. Place Mr. Westcott next to any present fundamental preacher or
educator, and he would be judged a modernist, liberal and heretic. In spite of his outstanding ability in
Greek, a man of his convictions would not be welcome on the campus of any truly Christian college in
America. This is not an overstatement, nor is it malicious. The Christian colleges of today hold very high
standards and simply would not settle for a man of such apostate conviction, no matter how great his
ability to teach a given subject.
Surprising Defense
It is truly amazing that a man who believed things completely contrary to the convictions of today's
fundamental preachers and educators could be exalted and defended by them. Of course, I believe this
is done primarily because our fundamental brethren know little of what either Dr. Westcott or Dr. Hort
really believed and taught.
Westcott's Socialism
This does not completely describe Brooke Foss Westcott, the man. He was a devout socialist and
postmillenialist. Socialism and postmillenialism go hand in hand. Postmillenialism is the belief that we
shall bring in the millenial reign of Christ ourselves, without Christ's help. Socialism is usually the means
of establishing that thousandyear reign of peace.
A postmillenialist would see a spiritual "coming" of Christ at any great event which drew the world closer
to his idea of peace. It is also easy to see why he would believe that a "heaven" was attainable down
here, i.e., Westcott's statement: "We may reasonably hope, by patient, resolute, faithful, united
endeavour, to find heaven about us here, the glory of our earthly life."
These are only two small glimmers of the socialistic light which burned in Westcott's breast. If they
all
were of the evidence available, it would make for a weak case indeed. They are not!
Dr. Westcott's "pacifist" nature shows early in his life. He was known as a "shy, nervous, thoughtful
boy" while attending school. His hobbies were as follows: "He used his leisure chiefly in sketching,
arranging his collections of ferns, butterflies, and moths, and in reading books of natural history or
poetry." 129
He developed an interest in social reform early on. He was known about his school for talking about
things "which very few schoolboys talk about points of theology, problems of morality, and the ethics
of politics." 130
His son, Arthur, describes him with these words: "As a boy my father took keen interest in the Chartist
movement, and the effect then produced upon his youthful imagination by the popular presentation of
the sufferings of the masses never faded. His diary shows how he deserted his meals to be present at
various stirring scenes, and in particular to listen to the oratory of 'the great agitator,' presumably
Feargus O'Connor himself. He would often in later years speak of these early impressions, which served
in no small degree to keep alive his intense hatred of every form of injustice and oppression. He even
later disapproved of his father's fishing excursions, because his sympathies were so entirely on the side
of the fish. On one occasion, being then a little boy, he was carrying a fishbasket, when his father put
a live fish into it, and later in life he used to declare that he would still feel the struggles of that fish
against his back."131
(The Chartist movement was a campaign for social reform in England from 18381848.)
This one paragraph reveals the temperament which could describe Westcott for the rest of his life:
He was ever in favor of any social reform, at any cost, as he himself stated in speaking of the French
Revolution: "The French Revolution has been a great object of interest. I confess to a strong sympathy
with the republicans. Their leaders at least have been distinguished by great zeal and sincerity.
Lamartine, who I fancy you know by name, quite wins my admiration."132
Westcott's Poetical Influences
Westcott was ever a lover of poetry and was deeply influenced by its message. This explains his
admiration of Alphonse de Lamartine. Lamartine was a French poet whose writings helped influence the
French people into revolution. Ironically, but I am sure not coincidentally, Lamartine had studied under
the Jesuits.
He is a fool who thinks a poet's pen is not a mighty weapon!
Westcott's romantic attitude explains why he would make the statement that, "Poetry is, I think, a
thousand times more true than history."
It also explains his susceptibility to the subtle Romanizing influence of the poet Keble. Westcott had a
fondness for poetry and an unusual fondness for Keble's poetry. No poet is mentioned more often in his
writings than Keble.
Westcott writes concerning Keble, "But I intend reading some Keble, which has been a great delight to
me during the whole week, and perhaps that will now be better than filling you with all my dark, dark,
dark gloominess."133
It seems Keble's poetry inspired Westcott to see that the Church of England needed to make a change.
"I have been reading Keble for the day, and though I do not recollect noticing the hymn
particularly before, it now seems to me one of the most beautiful and especially does it apply to
those feelings which so often described to you: that general sorrow and despair which we feel
when we look at the state of things around us and try to picture the results which soon must burst
upon our Church and country."134
Westcott found time to quote Keble to express his feelings.
"On these look long and well, Cleansing thy sight by prayer and faith, And thou shalt know what
secret spell Preserves them in their living death."
"That hymn of Keble's contains very, very much. You have read it again and again now, I am sure,
and understand it."135
Westcott's Romanism
That Keble formed in Westcott a passive attitude toward Christianity's archenemy, Rome, is evident by
his reaction to a sermon condemning Popery: "As for Mr. Oldham's meetings, I think they are not good
in their tendency, and nothing can be so bad as making them the vehicle of controversy. What an
exquisitely beautiful verse is that of Keble's, 'And yearns not her parental heart,' etc. We seem now to
have lost all sense of pity in bitterness and illfeeling. Should not our arm against Rome be prayer and
not speeches; the efforts of our inmost heart, and not the display of secular reason?"136
It has been often stated that "You are

what you read
." Westcott's constant exposure to proRoman
influences set a pattern for his thinking, even though he may not have been aware of it. Westcott even
refused to abandon Keble as his writings became more obviously Popish.
"Keble has lately published some sermons in which, as well as in a preface on 'the position of
Churchmen,' I am afraid he will offend many. I can in some measure sympathize with him."137
Remembering the hatred Westcott had for what he considered "injustice and oppression," and his
submission to the programming poetry of Keble, we find him slipping farther away from a truly biblical
stand after hearing another proRoman speaker, Maurice.
"See Maurice's new lectures, with a preface on development written apparently with marvelous
candour and fairness, and free from all controversial bitterness. He makes a remark which I have
often written and said, that the danger of our Church is from atheism, not Romanism. What a
striking picture is that he quotes from Newman of the present aspect of the Roman Church as
despised, rejected, persecuted in public opinion."138
This constant barrage of Romanizing influences caused Westcott to incorporate many Roman Catholic
practices into his thinking.
In February of 1849 he decided to investigate two favorite subjects of the Romanizers: "Inspiration
Apostolical Succession. May I inquire on all these topics with simple sincerity, seeking only the truth!"139
The result of the first study led to Westcott's believing the Bible to be absolutely true, but he refused to
call it infallible
.
"My dear Hort I am glad to have seen both your note and Lightfoot's glad too that we have had
such an opportunity of openly speaking. For I too must disclaim setting forth infallibility in the
front of my convictions. All I hold is, that the more I learn, the more I am con vinced that fresh
doubts come from my own ignorance, and that at present I find the pre sumption in favor of the
absolute truth I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scripture overwhelming."140
Our good Bishop has now lost the conviction that Scripture is "infallible." We are never told the result of
his study of the Roman Catholic teaching of "Apostolic Succession."
Westcott's Iconism
Westcott also had an affinity for statues since his poetic spirit had the ability to read a great deal into
that which he saw.
"Our Cathedral buildings at Peterborough are far from rich in works of sculpture, but among the
works which we have there are two which have always seemed to me to be of the deepest
interest. The one is a statue of a Benedictine monk, which occupies a niche in the gateway built
by Godfrey of Croyland about 1308; the other is an effigy of an unknown abbot of considerably
earlier date, carved upon the slab which once covered his grave, and which now lies in the south
aisle of the choir. They are widely different in character and significance. The statue of the monk,
which Flaxman took as an illustration of his lectures on sculpture, is one of the noblest of medieval
figures. The effigy of the abbot has no artistic merit whatever. But both alike are studies from life;
and together they seem to me to bring very vividly before us the vital power of early monasticism
in England."141
The Jesuit plan is to introduce the ways of Rome into the minds
of Protestants and familiarize them with
the "High Church" atmosphere. Then, little by little, allow these Roman ideas to intertwine themselves
with the worship service. Dr. Wylie aptly describes the plan:
"Tract 90, where the doctrine of reserves is broached, bears strong marks of a Jesuit origin. Could
we know all the secret instructions given to the leaders in the Puseyite movement, the mental
reservations prescribed to them, we might well be astonished. 'Go gently,' we think we hear the
great Roothan say to them. 'Remember the motto of our dear son, the cidevant Bishop Autun,
"surtout, pas trop de zele"(above all, not too much zeal). Bring into view, little by little, the
authority of the church. If you can succeed in rendering it equal to that of the Bible, you have
done much. Change the table of the Lord into an altar; elevate that altar a few inches above the
level of the floor; gradually turn around to it when you read the Liturgy; place lighted tapers upon
it; teach the people the virtues of stained glass, and cause them to feel the majesty of Gothic
basilisques. Introduce first the dogmas, beginning with that of baptismal regeneration; next the
ceremonies and sacraments, as penance and the confessional; and lastly, the images of the Virgin
and the saints'."142
This trend was quite apparent in the unsuspecting mind of Bishop Westcott. "I do not say that baptism
is absolutely necessary, though from the words of Scripture I can see no exception, but I do not think
we have no right to exclaim against the idea of the commencement of a spiritual life, conditionally from
baptism, any more than we have to deny the commencement of a moral life from birth."143
"Dear Mr. Perrott I had sketched out a plan in my mind for the windows in the chancel at
Somersham which I should have been glad to carry out, but now, as you know, my connection
with the parish has practically ceased, and in a few weeks will formally cease. My wish was to
have a figure of John the Baptist opposite that of the Virgin, to represent the Old Dispensation,
and to have the work executed by Heaton and Butler, who executed the window for Mr.
Mason."144
Westcott's Purgatory
These Romanistic leanings eventually led Westcott into allowing the practice of "prayers for the dead."
In writing to a clergyman in August of 1900 concerning this Roman Catholic practice which had found its
way into an Anglican church, HE STATED, "I considered very carefully, in conference with some other
bishops of large knowledge and experience, the attitude of our church with regard to prayers for the
dead. We agreed unanimously that we are, as things are now, forbidden to pray for the dead apart from
the whole church in our public services
. No restriction is placed upon private devotions."145 (Emphasis
his.)
Notice that the Bishop advised against prayers for the dead in "public service," but he did not even
attempt to discourage the practice in "private devotions!" Would one of today's fundamental preachers
who have such high regard for the Westcott and Hort Greek Text respond in the same manner? Would
we hear one of our Biblebelieving brethren confront the matter with, 'Well, we don't practice prayers
for the dead here in our services, but if you want to do it in your private devotions, it's okay.' NEVER!
We are to hate the garment "spotted by the flesh." (Jude 23.) Dr. Westcott's garment is spotted to the
point of resembling a leopard's skin! Are we to expect an unbiased rendering of the Greek Text by a
man whose convictions would rival Jerome's in loyalty to Roman teaching? I trow not!
But to allow prayers for the dead would be futile if there were only heaven and hell. The "dead" in
heaven would need no prayers, and the "dead" in hell would be beyond hope.
Benjamin Wilkenson provides the missing link in Westcott's chain of Romanism when commenting on
the Revised Version translation of John 14:2:
King James: "In my Father's house are many mansions."
Revised: "In my Father's house are many abiding places." (margin)
"In the following quotation from the Expositor, the writer points out that, by the marginal reading
of the Revised, Dr. Westcott and the Committee referred, not to a final future state, but to
intermediate stations in the future before the final one.
"Dr. Westcott in his Commentary of St. John's Gospel gives the following explanation of the words.
'In my Father's house are many mansions. The rendering comes from the Vulgate mansiones
,
which were resting
places, and especially the stations
on a great road, where travelers found
refreshment. This appears to be the true meaning of the Greek word here; so that the contrasted
notions of repose and progress are combined in this vision of the future.'
"'For thirty years now,' said Dr. Samuel Cox, in 1886, 'I have been preaching what is called the
larger hope , through good and ill report.
"The larger hope meant a probation after this life, such a time of purifying, by fire or otherwise,
after death as would insure another opportunity of salvation to all men. Dr. Cox, like others,
rejoices that the changes in the Revised Version sustain this doctrine. 'Had the new version been
in our hands, I should not have felt any special gravity in the assertion,' he said. Doctors Westcott
and Hort, both Revisers, believed this larger hope
." (This Roman Catholic translation also appears
in the NASV).146
Considering the Romanistic ideals which Dr. Westcott possessed, it is no surprise that his close friend
and companion, Dr. Hort, would compare him to, of all people, the Roman Catholic defector, John
Newman! "It is hard to resist a vague feeling that Westcott's going to Peterborough will be the
beginning of a great movement in the church, less conspicuous but not less powerful, than that which
proceeded from Newman."147
It also seems not surprising that Westcott would call the Jesuit inspired Oxford Movement, "the Oxford
Revival!" "The Oxford Revival in the middle of the century, quickened anew that sense of corporate life.
But the evangelical movement touched only a part of human interest."148
Westcott's Mariolatry
Another Roman Catholic doctrine is the adoration of Mary. Here also Dr. Westcott did not let the Roman
Catholic Church down, as he reveals in a letter to his fiancee Sarah Louisa Whittard.
"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
kneelingplace, 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."149
This condition is also indicated by his son, Arthur, in describing Westcott's reaction to the painting "The
Sistine Madonna:"
"It is smaller than I expected, and the colouring is less rich, but in expression it is perfect. The
face of the virgin is unspeakably beautiful. I looked till the lip seemed to tremble with intensity of
feeling of feeling simply, for it would be impossible to say whether it be awe of joy or hope
humanity shrinking before the divine, or swelling with its conscious possession. It is enough that
there is deep, intensely deep, emotion such as the mother of the Lord may have had."150
The intensity of Westcott's admiration for Christ's mother is best revealed by his desire to change his
fiancee's name to "Mary" as Arthur explains: "My mother, whose name was Sarah Louisa Whittard, was
the eldest of three sisters. She afterwards, at the time of her confirmation at my father's request, took
the name of Mary in addition."151
The above examples illustrate Dr. Westcott's strong Roman Catholic leanings. Again I must say that I do
not believe that if a man lived today with the convictions we have just studied, that he would be
welcome in a fundamental pulpit anywhere in America, be his name Bishop Wescott or Hort or Schuler
or any other.
Westcott's Communal Living
Few of Bishop Westcott's Twentieth Century supporters know the true thoughts and intents of his heart.
If they did, they would know that he was an advocate of communal living! Let the record speak for
itself.
His son, Arthur, stated in his book, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott:
"In later years of his Harrow residence (approximately 1868) my father was very full of the idea of
a 'Coenobium.' (Arthur's footnote for the word 'Coenobium' states simply, 'community life.') Every
form of luxury was to him abhorrent, and he viewed with alarm the increasing tendency amongst
all classes of society to encourage extravagant display and wasteful selfindulgence. His own
extreme simplicity of life is wellknown to all his friends. He looked to the family and not the
individual for the exhibition of the simple life. His views upon this subject are accessible to all who
care to study them. I only wish to put it on record that he was very much in earnest in this matter
and felt that he had not done all he might have for its furtherance."152
On the idea of the Coenobium, Bishop Westcott's socialism bordered very close to communism as we
see by his own description of what a Coenobium was to be.
"It would consist primarily of an association of families, bound together by common principles of
life, of work, of devotion , subject during the time of voluntary cooperation to central control, and
united by definite obligations. Such a corporate life would be best realized under the conditions of
collegiate union with the hall and schools and chapel, with a common income, though not
common property, and an organized government; but the sense of fellowship and the power of
sympathy, though they would be largely developed by these, would yet remain vigorous whenever
and in whatever form combination in the furtherance of the general ends was possible. Indeed,
complete isolation from the mass of society would defeat the very objects of the institution. These
objects the conquest of luxury, the disciplining of intellectual labor, the consecration of every
fragment of life by religious exercises would be expressed in a threefold obligation; an obligation
to poverty, an obligation to study, and obligation to devotion."158 (Emphasis mine.)
Little did the esteemed professor realize that the college students of a hundred years later would be
more than happy to turn his dream into a reality!
Arthur viewed the establishment of the Coenobium with much fear and trembling. They were assured of
its future reality quite often.
"My own recollections of the Coenobium are very vivid. Whenever we children showed signs of
greediness or other selfishness, we were assured that such things would be unheard of in the
Coenobium. There the greedy would have no second portions of desirable puddings. We should
not there be allowed a choice of meats, but should be constrained to take which was judged to be
best for us. We viewed the establishment of the Coenobium with gloomy apprehension, not quite
sure whether it was within the bounds of practical politics or not. I was myself inclined to believe
that it really was coming and that we, with the Bensons (maybe) and Horts and a few other
families, would find ourselves living in a community life. I remember confiding to a younger
brother that I had overheard some conversation which convinced me that the Coenobium was an
event of the immediate future, and that a site had been selected for it in Northamptonshire; I
even pointed out Peterborough on the map."154
In a letter to his old college friend, Dr. E.W. Benson, dated November 24, 1868, Dr. Westcott states his
regrets that the Coenobium had not yet been established, and wonders if he wouldn't have done better
to have pursued the matter further.
"My dear Benson alas! I feel most deeply that I ought not to speak one word about the
Coenobium. One seems to be entangled in the affairs of life. The work must be for those who
have a fresh life to give. Yet sometimes I think that I have been faithless to call which might have
grown distinct if I had listened."155
Two years later he was still promoting the idea through articles in a periodical entitled "Contemporary,"
as he explains in another letter to Benson dated, March 21, 1870:
"...the paper on the Coenobium will appear, I think, in the next number of the 'Contemporary.' It
was a trial to me not to send it to you and Lightfoot and Wordsworth for criticism, but on the
whole I thought it best to venture for myself, and speak simply what I feel. If anything is to come
of the idea it will be handled variously, and something is gained even by incompleteness. On the
true reconciliation of classes I have said a few words which are, I hope, intelligible."156
Young Arthur's naive sounding prediction in 1868 of the establishing of such a Coenobium in
Peterborough, two years later (1870) seemed almost prophetic. In December of 1868, Dr. Westcott
became Examining Chaplain in the Diocese of Peterborough! Just prior to the move, he wrote Benson,
"The Coenobium comes at least one step nearer."157
Arthur's fears seemed somewhat realized.
"The move to Peterborough was a great venture of faith on my father's part. He had a large family
to educate, and yet he exchanged the comparative opulence of a Harrow house master for the
precarious income attached to a canonry in an impoverished Chapter. Our manner of life was
already adapted to the idea of the Coenobium in its strict simplicity, so the only luxury that could
be abolished was meat for breakfast, which however, was retained as a Sunday treat."158
Thus we see a side of Dr. Westcott which is not too publicized by his followers, yet it was there
nonetheless. In addition to his desire to see the Authorized Version replaced, a Romanized Church of
England, and the establishment of college Coenobium, he had one other great driving force, the
abolition of war
Westcott's PeaceMovement
No true Christian loves war. A Bible believer takes the premillenial view and realizes that war is caused
by the sinful nature of mankind James 4:1. He understands that this will all be changed at Christ's
return Philippians 3:21.
A Bible rejector who has chosen the postmillenial viewpoint cannot allow himself to believe that
mankind is bad. He must find a way to show that man is basically good. All men must be brothers
in his
eyes. "Brothers," he assumes, will just naturally work toward peace.
Westcott, a postmillenial socialist, had this to say concerning the "brotherhood" of man in regard to
instituting "peace on earth."
"Christianity rests upon the central fact that the Word became flesh. This fact establishes not only
a brotherhood of men, but also a brotherhood of nations; for history has shown that nations are
an element in the fulfillment of the Divine counsel, by which humanity advances toward its
appointed end."159
What should these "brothers" do to help establish "peace on earth?" We can at once recognize the part
which the Christian society is called upon to take with regard to three great measures which tend to
peace meditation, arbitration, and (ultimately) disarmament and at least silently work for them.160
"Combine action, in any ways possible, for the bringing about of a simultaneous reduction of the
armaments."161
Once again the Cambridge professor is ahead of his time. "Disarmament" has been the cry of liberal,
proCommunist college students for two decades. Strange it is that as the "peace" movement of the
1960's was led by a "minister" with the exact same philosophy about world peace!
Westcott wanted an "arbitration board" made up of the "Christian society" to decide international policy
concerning disarmament quotas. He first envisioned England and the United States submitting to this
idea, assuming then that the rest of the world would be forced to follow.
"The United States and England are already bound so closely together by their common language
and common descent, that an Arbitration Treaty which shall exclude the thought of war a civil
war between them seems to be within measurable distance. When once the general principle of
arbitration has been adopted by two great nations, it cannot but be that the example will be
followed, and then, at last, however remote the vision may seem, disarmament will be a natural
consequence of the acceptance of a rational and legal method of settling national disputes."162
Westcott even felt that world peace would be worth an "Ecumenical Movement."
"Other cognate subjects were touched upon the proposed Permanent Treaty of Arbitration
between the United States and Great Britain, the significance of war as extreme outcome of that
spirit of selfish competition which follows from the acceptance of a material standard of well
being, the desirability of seeking cooperation with the movement on the part of the Roman and
Greek Churches but it seemed best to confine immediate action to a single point on which there
was complete agreement."163
He assumed that "world peace" was of the utmost importance.
"The proposal to work for the simultaneous reduction of European armament is definite, and deals
with an urgent peril. Such a disarmament would secure the lasting and honourable peace which
the leaders of Europe have shown lately, once and again, that they sincerely desire. We are all
sensible of the difficulties by which the question of disarmament is beset, but we cannot admit
that they are insuperable."164
All this was to be done, of course, in the name of Christ. Westcott felt that he was simply trying to bring
to pass Luke 2:14. He truly considered himself a man with whom God was "pleased," as that verse had
been mistranslated in the Revised Version.
"The question of international relations has not hitherto been considered in the light of the
Incarnation, and till this has been done, I do not see that we can look for the establishment of
that peace which was heralded at the Nativity."165
So here we have a man who doubted the miracles which Christ performed.
"I never read an account of a miracle, but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and
discover some what of evidence in the account of it."166
Even though he doubted Jesus Christ's

miracles, he didn't doubt that a Roman Catholic priest could
perform them, as he explains what he saw in France at "Our Lady of La Salette" shrine.
"A written narrative can convey no notion of the effect of such a recital. The eager energy of the
father, the modest thankfulness of the daughter, the quick glances of the spectators from one to
the other, the calm satisfaction of the priest, the comments of look and nod, combined to form a
scene which appeared hardly to belong to the nineteenth century. An age of faith was restored
before our sight in its ancient guise. We talked about the cures to a young layman who had
throughout showed us singular courtesy. When we remarked upon the peculiar circumstances by
which they were attended, his own comment was: 'Sans croire, comment l'expliquer?' (translated:
'Without believing how can it be explained?') And in this lay the real significance and power of the
place."167
We have a man who could read and exalt a Jesuitinspired poet, Keble, but when it came to reading
anything that presented Rome in a negative light, such as Fox's Book of Martyrs
, he said, "I never read
any of Fox's book."168
He was a man who claimed, "I cannot myself reconcile the spirit of controversy and that of Christian
faith."169
Since controversy was "unChristian," he refused to answer John Burgon's arguments concerning the
Local Text of Alexandria which Westcott helped exalt. He simply said, "I cannot read Mr. Burgon yet. A
glance at one or two sentences leads me to think that his violence answers himself."170
It is a sad thing that Westcott's prejudice closed his mind to Burgon's comments. Burgon was harsh, but
Burgon was correct. Time has since proven that. It is a dangerous spirit which ignores a man's FACTS
just because of a "holier than thou" attitude which teaches that "anyone who is right, must be
gentlemanly." Had more people in the late 1800's looked past Burgon's harsh comments and examined
his FACTS, Christianity would be richer today.
We have in Brooke Foss Westcott a man who believed in communal living; a man who believed that the
second coming of Christ was spiritual, heaven was a state of mind, prayers for the dead were
permissable in private devotions, and that Christ came to bring peace through international
disarmament. He believed in purgatory and admiration for Mary, and he thought the Bible was like any
other book. This
is the man who walked into the Revision Committee and sat in judgment of our Bible.
He thought he saw room for improvement in the Authorized Version and offered a proRoman Greek
text with which to correct it. The ironic thing is that Biblebelieving Christian educators and preachers,
who would never agree with his theology, have for years exalted his opinion of the Greek as nearly
infallible. These facts alone should be reason enough to condemn Westcott and Hort, their Greek Text
and the MSS which they used to arrive at such a text. But let us look at their actions concerning the
molesting of the pure words of the King James Bible, in favor of Rome. Saddest of all, we have in
Brooke Foss Westcott a man who neither believed in salvation by grace nor ever experienced it. There is
no record in his "Life and Letters" that he ever accepted Christ as his personal Saviour. In a letter to his
then future wife, he stated strongly his feelings concerning "baptism."
"My dearest Mary I quite forget whether we have ever talked upon the subject alluded to in my
last note Baptismal Regeneration but I think we have, for it is one of the few points on which I
have clear views, and which is, I am sure, more misunderstood and misrepresented than any
other. Do not we see that God generally employs means. I will not say exclusively, that He has
appointed an outward Church as the receptacle of His promises, and outward rites for admission
in to it, and thus for being placed in a relation with Him by which we may receive His further
grace; for till we are so connected by admission into His outward Church, we have no right to
think that he will convey to us the benefits of his spiritual Church, when we have neglected the
primary means which He provides. It does not, of course, follow that the outward and spiritual
churches are coextensive, that all who have been placed in relation with God by Baptism, and so
made heirs of heaven conditionally, will avail themselves of that relation to fulfill those conditions
and here lies the ambiguity: because a child is born again into the Church of God, as he has been
born into the world before, people seem to conclude that he must discharge all the duties of his
new station, which in temporal matters we know he does not. By birth he may, if he will, truly live
here; by baptism he may if he will, truly live forever. I do not say that Baptism is absolutely
necessary, though from the word of the Scripture I can see no exception, but I do think we have a
right to exclaim against the idea of the commencement of a spiritual life, conditionally from
Baptism, any more than we have to deny the commencement of a moral life from birth."171
As has already been established, both Drs. Westcott and Hort were hostile to the true Greek text of the
King James Bible. Dr. Westcott has been unconsciously influenced into a proRoman Catholic attitude. It
must also be pointed out that earlier Dr. Hort had been a student of Dr. Westcott's, as Arthur Westcott
points out: "Another of Westcott's private pupils was F.J.A. Hort."172
The meticulous care with which he taught his pupils is noted by Dr. Whewell, Master of Trinity at the
time, "The pains he bestows upon his pupils here (private pupils) is unparalleled, and his teaching is
judicious as well as careful."173
The common desire of these two Cambridge scholars was to eliminate the authority of the Universal
Greek Text of the King James Bible. Scholars had long sought to do this, but were baffled by the
obvious evidence testifying that the Universal Text was indeed the true text of the Bible, and in that, a
preservation of the original autographs. These scholars, subtly influenced by Rome, knew that their duty
was to overthrow this pure, Protestant, Christhonoring text and replace it with the Local Text of
Alexandria, Egypt, but the overwhelming evidence was always weighted in God's favor. No one, even
the Roman Catholic Church, could find a way to explain why 95% of all extant MSS belonged to the
Universal Text. "Textual criticism" was at a standstill until this roadblock could be circumvented.
Hort's Fiction
It was the genius of Fenton John Anthony Hort which rode to the rescue of the forlorn Roman Catholic
text. This man used the same method to overthrow the authority of the Universal Text that Charles
Darwin used to overthrow the fact of creation. He used a THEORY!
His theory was that the "originals" agreed with the Local Text, and that this Local Text was "edited" by
the Syrian church at Antioch in the Fourth Century to become what we know as the Universal Text, and
then forced upon the people by the church council.
Just as was true for Darwin, common sense, all available facts, and the nature of God testified against
his theory. Just as Darwin did, he collected minute scraps of evidence, then twisted and magnified his
evidence, and theorized that he was right. Just as Darwin did, his theory was manufactured in his head,
and INDEPENDENT of historical facts and evidence.
Just as Darwin, his theory was overwhelmingly accepted by the overeducated men of his day who were
looking for a way of overthrowing God's authority. The theory of evolution was music to the ears of
scientists, biologists, and college professors who resented the thought of creation. The sound of "God
did it; that settles it" just naturally mustered all of the animosity and rebellion that is resident in the
human flesh (Romans 7:18). When Darwin issued his theory to the world, the world was happy to
believe the lie.
The same thing was true of Christian scholarship. They had long resented the thought that God could or
would preserve His Word without their help. Like the lost scientists, they begrudgingly had to
acknowledge that the evidence and facts of history were in favor of the Authorized Version. The issuing
of Hort's theory, with the backing of Dr. Westcott, was heralded as the "liberation" of textual criticism.
Dr. Alfred Martin explains the delight of liberals which existed upon learning of Hort's theory:
"Men who had long denied the infallibility of the Bible and there are many such in the Church of
England and in the independent churches eagerly acclaimed a theory which they thought to be in
harmony with their position.
"At precisely the time when liberalism was carrying the field in the English churches the theory of
Westcott and Hort received wide acclaim. These are not isolated facts. Recent contributions of the
subject that is, in the present century following mainly the WestcottHort principles have been
made largely by men who deny the inspiration of the Bible."174
Like Darwin's theory, different viewpoints using his theory arrived at different conclusions. This, Dr.
Martin records, Hort knew: "Hort freely admits this and concedes that 'in dealing with this kind of
evidence equally competent as to the same variations'."175
Of course, the fact of different conclusions did not hamper Hort's followers. They were not interested in
establishing a new conclusion. They were interested in abolishing an old one, i.e., that the King James
Bible is the Word and the words of God.
A textual critic is not like a man driving an automobile to a destination which only he knows. He is more
like a little child standing behind the wheel who doesn't particularly care where he goes, just as long as
HE is doing the driving. Dr. Martin exposed this tendency: "Their principle method, an extreme reliance
upon the internal evidence of readings, is fallacious and dangerous, because it makes the mind of the
critic the arbiter of the text of the Word of God."176
The feeling of power, to be the judge of God's Word, coupled with the old nature which exists in the
flesh of all men, even in Christian scholars, becomes overwhelming to the mind. As Paul stated in
Romans 7:18, "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh), dwelleth no good thing; for to will is present
with me, but how to perform that which is good I find not." Jeremiah concluded in chapter 17, verse 9,
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?" Even a saved man
has bad flesh. Give this flesh the authority to change God's Word, and he will soon plant himself on
God's throne. As it has been said "Put a beggar on horseback, and he will ride off at a gallop."
Scholarly Prejudice
Another similarity between Hort's theory and Darwin's theory is that it is still held in high esteem long
after it has been disproven
. Darwin's theory has long ago suffered irreparable damage by historical
evidence, the Word of God, and of course common sense. Yet, scientists have doggedly upheld it as
reliable. This is not done because they feel that Darwin's theory will ever lead them to the truth, but
because Darwin's theory leads them away from the authority they so detest, the Bible.
Hort's theory has been just as illhandled by the truth, as Dr. Kurt Aland points out:
"We still live in the world of Westcott and Hort with our conception of different recensions and
texttypes, although this conception has lost its raison de'etre, or, it needs at least to be newly
and convincingly demonstrated. For the increase of the documentary evidence and the entirely
new areas of research which were opened to us on the discovery of the papyri, mean the end of
Westcott and Hort's conception."177
Dr. Jacob Geerlings, who has extensively studied the manuscript evidence of the New Testament, states
concerning the Universal Text:
"Its origins as well as those of other socalled texttypes probably go back to the autographs. It is
now abundantly clear that the Eastern Church never officially adopted or recognized a received or
authorized text and only by a long process of slow evolution did the Greek text of the New
Testament undergo the various changes that we can dimly see in the few extant uncial codices
identified with the Byzantine (i.e. Majority) Text."178
Dr. David Otis Fuller concludes, "Thus the view popularized by Westcott and Hort before the turnof
thecentury, that the Majority Text issued from an authorative ecclesiastical revision of the Greek text, is
widely abandoned as no longer tenable."
As previously quoted, Dr. Martin has stated, "The trend of scholars in more recent years has been away
from the original WestcottHort position."179
In spite of new evidence, historical facts, and God's continued blessing of the Authorized Version,
Christian scholars still exalt the theory as though it were the truth. This is not done because they feel
that Hort's theory will eventually lead them to the true Word of God. Any honest, "Christian" scholar
today who upholds Hort's outmoded theory will be glad to tell you that there is no perfect translation of
"the Bible" in English today. They will admonish each new translation as "a step in the right direction,"
but even the newest translation is not without errors. This attitude is due to the fact that man's human
nature resents the idea that God could preserve His words without the help of "good, godly Christians,"
and from the natural resistance of men to be in subjection to God. The supporters of Westcott and Hort
possess a loyalty which borders on cultic, as Dr. Martin again has faithfully pointed out:
"The theory was hailed by many when it came forth as practically final, certainly definitive. It has
been considered by some the acme in textual criticism of the New Testament. Some of the
followers of Westcott and Hort have been almost unreasoning in their devotion to the theory; and
many people, even today, who have no idea what the WestcottHort theory is, or at best only a
vague notion, accept the labors of those two scholars without question. During the past seventy
years it has often been considered textual heresy to deviate from their position or to intimate that,
sincere as they undoubtedly were, they may have been mistaken."180
This cultic bent was even observed by Hort's friend, Professor Armitage Robinson, in 1891 who stated
that a "kind of cult" had sprung up around the venerated old scholar.181
To criticize either Dr. Westcott or Dr. Hort is almost sacrilegious in their eyes. We can almost hear Dr.
Westcott's own words, "I cannot myself reconcile the spirit of controversy and that of Christian faith."
This he used as a defense against the "fanatics" who think that the Bible is perfect. Once accepted,
pride makes the decaying process almost irreversible. As any parent knows who has questioned their
guilty son or daughter, being caught "redhanded" is not nearly as difficult for the child to take as is
admitting that they have been wrong.
Freedom Then Slavery
Just prior to the translation of the King James Bible, England had broken free of the yoke of Rome.
Shortly after the Authorized Version was published, England once again started down the road back to
Rome. For a brief "parenthesis" in English history, England was free of Roman influence just long
enough to translate and propagate a perfect Bible.
As we have seen, by the latter half of the Nineteenth Century, England had again, bitbybit, fallen to
Roman influence. The Romaninzing effects of the Oxford Movement, the corrupt tracts of Newman,
Pusey, and other proRomanists, the decisions by the Privy Council in favor of the antiscriptural position
of the "Essays and Reviews" had wrought their desired effect. In 1845, Newman made a formal break
with the Church of England to join the Roman Catholic Church. His decision influenced 150 Church of
England clergymen to do the same. In 1850, the aggressive Roman Catholic Cardinal Wiseman who had
done so much to lead Newman to Rome, and had directed the Oxford Movement via his paper, "Dublin
Review," had been commissioned by the Pope to formally reestablish the Roman Catholic Church on
the shores of England.
England had come from the Biblehonoring, Romerejecting position of the Reformation, to the
ritualistic, proRoman attitude which mistrusts and condemns the Bible.
England was ripe for revision!
The Trap is Set
In 1870, the Convention of the Church of England commissioned a revision of the Authorized Version. A
gleam of hope shone in the eye of every Roman Catholic in England and the Continent. An eager
anticipation filled every Jesuitinspired, Protestant scholar in England. Although it was meant to correct
a few supposed "errors" in the Authorized Version, the textual critics of the day assured themselves that
they would never again have to submit to the divine authority of the Universal Text.
In November of 1870, Westcott testified of just such a spirit in a letter to Dr. Benson, "In a few minutes
I go with Lightfoot to Westminster. More will come of these meetings, I think, than simply a revised
version."182
The Convocation had instructed the Revision Committee NOT to deal with the underlying Greek text of
the Authorized Version. They were instructed to do as follows: (1) to introduce as few alterations as
possible into the text of the King James Bible, and (2) to limit ... the expression of any alterations to the
language of the Authorized Version.183
Westcott and Hort had other plans. They had edited the corrupt Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts of the
Local Text of Alexandria and produced their own Greek text. Wisely they had never published it. Thus
its existence was unknown to the world, and Westcott and Hort did not have to worry about the
investigative eyes of their contemporary scholars, such as Dean John Burgon. Had it been published
earlier, it assuredly would have been exposed as corrupt and unfit for translation into English. Drs.
Westcott and Hort were definitely "wise as serpents," but unfortunately they were equally as harmful.
Scholarly Deceit
Since the Committee had been instructed not to deal with matters of the Greek text, and the Westcott
and Hort text had not been published, it was necessary for the two Cambridge Catholics to submit it
little by little to the Committee. Even this was done in secret.
In order to establish their own Greek text as authorative, they first planned the strategy prior to the first
meeting of the Committee. Their old friend Bishop Lightfoot was even there to help as Westcott notes in
a letter to Hort dated May 1870, "Your note came with one from Ellicott this morning ... Though I think
the Convocation is not competent to initiate such a measure, yet I feel that as 'we three' are together it
would be wrong not to 'make the best of it' as Lightfoot says ... There is some hope that alternative
readings might find a place in the margin."184
The next month he wrote to Lightfoot himself: "Ought we not to have a conference before the first
meeting for revision? There are many points on which it is important that we should be agreed."185
They then secretly submitted their text to the Committee members, and stayed close by their sides to
see to it that their scheme was carried out. This fact, Dr. Wilkenson attests to:
"The new Greek Testament upon which Westcott and Hort had been working for twenty years
was, portion by portion, secretly committed into the hand of the Revision Committee. Their Greek
text was strongly radical and revolutionary. The Revisors followed the guidance of the two
Cambridge editors, Westcott and Hort, who were constantly at their elbow, and whose radical
Greek New Testament, deviating the furthest possible from the Received Text, is to all intents and
purposes the Greek New Testament followed by the Revision Committee. This Greek text, in the
main, follows the Vatican and Sinaiticus Manuscripts."186
These actions reek of Jesuit underhandedness. Although Westcott and Hort were men of scholarship,
they were not men of integrity.
Defending the Infidel
For the most part, Westcott and Hort found a welcome audience to their abolition of the Universal Text,
for the spirit of the revision had been set when the Christdenying, Unitarian preacher, Dr. Vance Smith,
was seated on the Committee.
Dr. Hort shared his feelings concerning Smith's appointment with coconspirator Lightfoot. "It is, I think,
difficult to measure the weight of acceptance won before the hand for the Revision by the single fact of
our welcoming an Unitarian."187
Westcott exposed his loyalty to apostasy when he threatened to quit if the Convocation were successful
in ejecting Smith from the Committee.
"I never felt more clear as to my duty. If the Company accepts the dictation of Convocation, my
work must end. I see no escape from the conclusion."188
Wilkenson records Smith's comments concerning Isaiah 7:14: "This change gives room to doubt the
virgin birth of Christ. The meaning of the words of Isaiah may, therefore, be presented thus: 'Behold
the young wife is with child."'189
Dr. Smith called the belief in Christ's second coming an error. "This idea of the Second Coming ought
now to be passed by as a merely temporary incident of early Christian belief. Like many another error, it
has answered its transitory purpose in the providential plan, and may well, at length, be left to rest in
peace."190
Dr. Westcott felt that doctrine was unimportant. He believed that he as a scholar should decide the text,
then theologians could add their remarks afterwards. He stated, "I hardly feel with you on the question
of discussing anything doctrinally or on doctrine. This seems to me to be wholly out of our province. We
have only to determine what is written and how it can be rendered. Theologians may deal with the text
and version afterwards."191
What did Westcott think of Smith's theological beliefs? "Perhaps we agree in spirit but express ourselves
differently. At least we agree in hope."192
This last statement may very well hold more truth than Westcott intended. It may help here to point out
that the Church of England defector to Rome, Dr. Newman, was asked to be on the Committee, but he
refused.193 This should reveal the true spirit which the revisors had in their attempt to "bring the Bible
uptodate."
This is not the first revision Newman was asked to sit in on. In 1847, two years after defecting, Cardinal
Wiseman, the militant Roman Catholic priest, wrote him this from Rome: "The Superior of the
Franciscans, Father Benigno, in the Trastevere, wishes us out of his own head to engage in an English
Authorized Translation of the Bible. He is a learned man and on the Congregation of the Index. What he
wished was, that we would take the Protestant translation, correct it by the Vulgate ... and get it
sanctioned here."194 Strangely enough, the desire of Wiseman, to "correct" the Authorized Version with
Jerome's corrupt Vulgate, is exactly what Protestant scholars did in 1881, 1901, 1952, 1960, 1973, and
in every "new" and "improved" translation since 1611.
Westcott and Hort were so successful at their secret task of subtly guiding the decision of the Revision
Committee that many Committee members did not suspect that they had been used by the Cambridge
duo to help destroy the authority of the Authorized Version and give the world yet another Roman
Catholic Bible. Philip Mauro records:
"In view of all the facts it seems clear that, not until after the Committee had disbanded, and their
work had come under the scrutiny of able scholars and faithful men, were they themselves aware
that they had seemingly given their official sanction to the substitution of the "New Greek Text" of
Westcott and Hort for the Textus Receptus. The Westcott and Hort text had not yet been
published, and hence had never been subject to scrutiny and criticism; nor had the principles upon
which it was constructed been investigated. Only after it was too late were the facts realized, even
by the Revisors themselves."195
It can be safely said that if Westcott and Hort were not two Jesuit priests acting on secret orders from
could not have done a better job of
the Vatican, that two Jesuit priests acting under such orders
overthrowing the authority of God's true Bible and establishing the proRoman Catholic text of
Alexandria, Egypt!
It is truly amazing in light of all the evidence of their apostasy, that Westcott and Hort should be so
revered by modern scholarship. It is strange indeed that men who believe in the premillenial return of
Christ would defend men who did not. That men who believe that salvation is by grace through faith
could uphold men who not only did not believe in it, but sadly, did not experience it. It is amazing that
men who believe with all their heart that the Bible is the Word of God could be so blind to the infidelity
to the Word of these two men.
Revival in America is still possible, but like Jacob told his household in Genesis 35:2,3: Christian
scholarship must "put away the strange gods" and "go up to Bethel."

The Authorized Version

Christian Critics
In this chapter we will be looking at some of the common misrepresentations of the Authorized Version.
Many of these misrepresentations are unintentional. Most of the comments against the Authorized
Version are, in fact, simply repetitions of what the commentator heard from a pulpit, read in a book, or
learned in a classroom.
Most of the fervency against the Authorized Version is not so much due to a conscious hatred against
the Book, as much as it is a show of one's education. This fact, which is a conscious malice, is then
coupled with the "flesh" or "natural man," which may be an unconscious malice, to form a constant
antagonism toward the true Word of God. This "old nature" exists in every person, even Christians. It
will not change until the rapture. This nature manifests itself in an innate desire not to submit to the
authority of God.
Satan realizes this and uses it to his own advantage by giving the flesh ammunition to fight a battle
which it naturally wants to fight. The sad result of this spirit of judgment is that the Word of God never
really gets a fair trial.
Inspiration vs. Preservation
Today it is widely taught and accepted that God wrote the originals perfectly, but that there is no
perfect translation. Yet, there is no scripture that teaches any such thing! This teaching is based on
logic, man's logic. Christian educators of today say that it is absurd to believe that God could use sinful
men to translate His Word perfectly. Such a supposition of a perfect translation is no more absurd than
the teaching that God used sinful men to write the Bible perfectly in the originals! Every
argument for
innerrant, infallible inspiration applies also for innerrant, infallible preservation.
It is the same God!
If a believer in perfect inspiration says that God overpowered the writers' ability to make a mistake, the
believer in perfect preservation can also state that God overpowered the translators' ability to make a
mistake. It can also very happily be pointed out that a man who claims that God preserved His Words
can at least PRODUCE what he claims to believe in!
Put Up or Shut Up
I personally believe that God has perfectly preserved His Word in the King James or Authorized Version.
I can at least produce a King James Bible to show what I believe in. Any person who claims that God
inspired the original autographs perfectly, cannot produce those original manuscripts to prove it! I do
not believe that the King James Bible is a new inspiration. "Inspiration" starts with a blank sheet of
paper, a man of God, and God. I am saying that the Authorized Version is every word of God that was
in the original autographs, preserved to this day. "Preservation" starts with God's manuscripts, a man of
God, and God. The end result of both is the same: the perfect Word and words of God. It only makes
sense.
Many of today's preachers and selfproclaimed scholars slam their fists down on their pulpits in
simulated "righteous indignation" while holding a Bible over their heads and loudly proclaim, "This Book
IS
doesn't 'CONTAIN' the word of God, it the Word of God! Perfect! Infallible! Without admixture of
error!" to the delight of the audience
. But ask them, while out
of their pulpit, if they believe that THE
BOOK IN THEIR HAND is truly without error, and they immediately go into a song and dance routine
about "just a translation OF
the Bible" and say something about "Forever, O LORD, thy word is settled
in heaven ." Try pressing the issue, and they will question your authority to do so (Matthew 21:23), and
if you persist you will be labeled a "Ruckmanite."
All for simply believing that this "godly man" really believed what he had said when he was performing
behind his pulpit!
Unwilling Allies
We have studied the history of the MSS, of the New Testament, and the historical plans and attempts to
overthrow God's preservation of His Word. We have seen that the vast majority of MSS and of historical
evidence points to the Authorized Version as God's preserved Word. Still, there is an air of antagonism
against the Authorized Version. Strange as it may seem, the only things which Roman Catholics,
apostates, Protestants, and fundamentalists can agree on is that the King James Bible should be
eliminated! This striking truth in itself should be enough to shock bornagain Christians into scrutinizing
their position to make sure of which side of the fence they are on. When we find ourselves aligned with
Satan's church against Scripture, we find ourselves in a very dangerous position. This is especially true
when we consider what the result would be if these groups were successful in abolishing the King
James Version. The elimination of the Authorized Version finds us without a Bible, at which time we find
Rome rushing to the rescue with her 1582 Jesuit translation, and the antiGod Local Text of Alexandria.
Knowing that no fundamentalist would consciously use a Roman Catholic Bible, the Roman Church has
obliged us by changing the cover to Revised Version, American Standard Version, Good News for
Modern Man, the Living Bible, the Amplified Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, the Common Bible, the New
International Version, the New Scofield Reference Bible, and many more. The story is true; the names
have been changed to protect the guilty.
Sowers of Discord
Rome realized that there is not one of these new Roman Catholic translations which will ever replace
God's Authorized Version. Her plan is to get any one of these translations to replace the Authorized
Version in any group of Christians. Let the fundamentalists use one of the Revised Standard Version's
"twin sons," the New American Standard Version or the New International Version. Convince the young
people that they cannot understand the "thees" and "thous" in God's Authorized Version and hand them
a "Good News for Modern Man" or a "Living Bible." Promote each new translation of the Local Text of
Alexandria, Egypt, as "thoroughly reliable" or "more accurate," until the Authorized Version is removed
from the hearts of Christians little by little.
How many young "preacher boys" have had their faith in God's PERFECT Word trampled and destroyed
while they sat in independent, fundamental
Bible colleges where they thought that they were safe?!
How many found themselves, upon graduation three or four years later indebted to their "alma mater"
for teaching them what the "originals really said" and in so doing saved them from being drawn into
that group of "King James fanatics," that "lunatic fringe," that "cult"?
They found themselves leaving college with the confidence (?) that the Book under their arm was NOT
perfect, and thanking God for the school that had shown them that!
The only person happier than they were was the Pope. After all, who wants someone who speaks with
authority? (Mark 1:22)
Many Shall Come
It must be remembered at this time that every new Bible is introduced as being "better than the
Authorized Version." It may also be noted that every false prophet is introduced as "better" than Jesus
Christ. Mohammed had supposedly come to finish the work which Christ began. Charles Manson claimed
that he was Jesus Christ. Sun Nyung Moon claims to have to finished the job which Jesus Christ failed to
finish. Jim Jones claimed to be Jesus Christ. The Beatles claimed to be more popular than Jesus Christ.
Notice that Jim Jones did not claim to be Mohammed. Notice that Moon did not claim to be the
replacement for Buddha. All of the false prophets attack Jesus Christ. Notice that the Good News for
Modern Man does not claim to be better than the American Standard Version, but it does claim to be
better than the Authorized Version. Notice also that the New International Version does not claim to be
better than the American Standard Version; it claims to be better than the Authorized Version. A false
prophet can always be recognized, because he attacks the true prophet. A false Bible can be
recognized, because it attacks the true Bible.
The Super Sack Philosophy
LET ME ALLEGORIZE FOR A MOMENT. The claims of the new Bibles are strikingly similar to the claims
of the famous "Super Sack" grocery bag which has swept the country. The bag producers wanted to cut
production costs. The "old reliable" double bag was just about indestructible when it came to doing its
job, but it was too costly to produce. The manufacturers came up with the idea of producing an inferior
product but calling it "superior."
It has happened to us all. One day, on a trip with our wives to the grocery store, we picked up our
groceries and noticed the bag. It wasn't a double bag! "They've made them cheaper," we thought. Then
we noticed an official looking statement on the side: "This new Super Sack is made from a new high
strength paper. There is no double bagging needed."
"Well," we realized, "then it isn't an inferior product after all. It's new and better. That's good to know."
We "bought the pitch." In our trusting, childlike manner, we believed that the "Super Sack" was better
than the "old reliable" double bag, just because someone told us that it was.
"This new Super Sack ... no double bagging needed."
How many times have these words echoed through my head as I heard a horrifying, tearing sound. I
watched as the cans rolled across the grocery store parking lot. I watched the flour break open in the
back seat of the car. After getting the survivors into the car, we headed for home.
"This new Super Sack ... no double bagging needed."
We hear that sound! We watch broken eggs as they pour their contents out into the driveway. The
cereal has broken open, and now the neighbors dog picks up our last package of hamburger. We make
a wild dash for the house, leaving a trail of canned goods, broken jelly jars, and spilled milk in our
wake. We arrive at the back door holding nothing more than a large piece of brown paper with words
on the side reading: "This Super Sack is made from a new high strength paper. There is no double
bagging needed."
At times like that, standing there, surveying the damage, I can hardly frame the proper words with
which to thank the manufacturers for blessing me with this wonderful, new, improved "Super Sack."
This "Super Sack" philosophy has existed in the field of Bible translations for years.
Every new translation published appears first with a giant "media campaign" directed at the Christian
community. This campaign is designed to tell the Christians that they "need" this new translation,
because the Christians do not know it. This is not an overstatement but is proven true by the Preface to
the New American Standard Version of 1963. The last paragraph in the Preface begins with this
statement:
"It is enthusiastically anticipated that the general public will be grateful to learn of the availability, value
and need
of the New American Standard Version." (Emphasis mine.)
The Lockman Foundation has admitted translating a Bible that the general public doesn't know that it
needs! It is intended for the general public to realize that they "need" this Bible when they read the
advertisement. This is just like a laundry detergent.
The Sales Pitch
Let us look into the way in which this "Bible advertising" works.
We read a few Christian periodicals and observe that a new translation has been published. It is, of
course, compared to the Authorized Version. The "mistakes" of the Authorized Version are revealed to
show us the "need" for a new translation. Next, this new translation is unveiled with exclamation of
"thoroughly reliable," "true to the Original Greek," and "starting a new tradition." We read but are
skeptical.
We proceed to the "Bible" book store to look over this new translation. After having the "sales pitch"
from the man behind the counter, we leave carrying a grocery bag (Super Sack) full of "new,"
"modern," "easy to read" translations in which we are assured that "all of the fundamentals can be
found." On the way home, we decide to try out these "more accurate," "Christ exalting" versions.
The Let Down
We meet a Jehovah's Witness. In the following discussion we try to convince him that Jesus Christ was
not a created God. He shows us John 1:18 in his "New World Translation." It reads that Christ was the
"only begotten God." We snicker. "That's just your version," we say, reaching for a New International
Version. To our amazement it also reads "only begotten God!"
Being fully embarrassed, we change the subject to the trinity. "I John 5:7!" we exclaim. Now we've got
him! We turn to I John 5:7 in the "Good News for Modern Man." "There are three witnesses," it says.
Our Jehovahs Witness asks, "So, what does that teach?" We stammer, "Wait a minute," as we reach for
a New American Standard Version. "And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth."
"So how is the trinity taught from that verse?" he demands.
With our face glowing red and phrases like "thoroughly reliable" and "faithful to the originals" spinning
through our head, we desperately grab a New King James Version.
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these
three are one." I John 5:7.
"There it is! There it is!" We exclaim, "See there, the Trinity!"
"Read the footnote on it," he states calmly. "Out loud!"
"The words from 'in heaven' (v. 7) through 'on earth' (v. 8) are from the Latin Bible, although three
Greek mss. from the 15th Century and later also contain them."
"You see," says our adversary, "it doesn't belong there."
Thankfully he hasn't got any more time to talk, and he leaves.
We tear our "Super Sack" slightly as we pick it back up and head for home, not quite understanding
what has taken place. In our mind we hear the Bible store salesman saying, "But I can find the
fundamentals in these new versions."
Devastating Revelations
In an attempt to boost our own morale, we try to lead a man to Christ. We tell him the simplicity of
conversion. We relate to him how easy it was for the Ethiopian eunuch. We open a Revised Standard
Version to show it to him. We read Acts 8:36 and then the next verse, verse 38. "Wait just a second; I
seem to have skipped over a verse," we say apologetically.
We read verse 36, then carefully run our finger across the line to the next verse, verse 38! There is no
verse 37! This eunuch never believed on the Lord Jesus Christ!
"Excuse me," we apologize. "I seem to have picked up the wrong Bible." We lay down the Revised
Standard Version and pick up the New American Standard Version. We read again. This time we arrive
at verse 37.
It says, "See footnote."
"No thank you!" we say to ourselves.
Having lost his train of thought, our lost friend walks off shaking his head and wondering why Christians
don't know their Bibles better.
Of all things, we run into an infidel before we can reach the safety of our home.
"Jesus Christ was not God in the flesh," he states.
"Oh yes He was!" we retort confidently, happy to have the opportunity to redeem ourselves for the bad
showing earlier. "Look at I Timothy 3:16."
We pick the Living Bible.
"But the answer lies in Christ, who came to earth as a man...."
"There's no 'God' in that verse," he declares.
The statement of the salesmen comes to mind again. "But I can find the fundamentals in these."
"Where?" we ask ourselves returning to the Revised Standard Version.
"He was manifested in the flesh...."
"Where is God?" demands our infidel. We wonder the same thing!
"He appeared in human form," says the Good News for Modern Man.
"He who was revealed in the flesh," states the New American Standard Version.
"Where is God?" demands our infidel with finality.
"I don't know. I really don't know," we reply with our heads down in sorrow.
We drag our wounded spirits home. Words cannot describe our "gratitude" to the Lockman Foundation
and all the rest of those "godly, conservative scholars" who gave us these "accurate, reliable, true to the
original" translations. We hear a horrifying, tearing sound as we reach the back door.
The next morning the garbage man finds a garbage bag full of brand new, unused "Bibles" covered by a
large, torn piece of brown paper with the words on the side saying: "This new Super Sack is made from
a new high strength paper. There is no double bagging needed."
No thank you, we will stick with our "old, reliable" King James, 1611.
The story has been an allegory, but the philosophy it describes is very true.
Common Complaints
We shall now look at some of the complaints against the Authorized Version. Remember, being able to
"find the fundamentals" in a version is not enough. This was the claim of the corrupt Revised Version!
As Wilkenson points out, "There are many who claim that the changes in the Revised Version did not
affect any doctrine."
The problem with this statement is that even if the major doctrines can be found in these new Roman
Catholic Bibles, these doctrines always appear in a watered down form.
Yes, the blood of atonement can be taught in spite of the removal of the word "blood" from Colossians
1:14. The doctrine of the blood atonement is found in other passages. The danger is this. Where the
Authorized Version teaches a given doctrine in maybe thirty different places, the New American
Standard Version may teach the same doctrine in only twenty. The New International Version may only
teach this doctrine in fifteen passages. The next "new and improved" version may teach it only three or
four, until it is reduced to only one passage. How then can we teach a new convert this "major" doctrine
from only one passage?
All of the doctrines, which today's fundamentalists claim to be able to "find" in these new translations,
have been taught to these same fundamentalists through the use of a King James Bible. How will the
next generation of Christians learn pure doctrine from a watered down Bible? How can we even call
something a "major" doctrine which is taught only in one or two verses?
Remember, Satan is not worried at all about what people think of Jesus if he can just keep us from
being able to prove that He was virgin born, shed His blood for our sins, rose from the dead, or is
coming back physically. Without scripture to prove the above, Jesus was just a man.
The new Bibles have no blood in them, no Lord, no second coming, nor other vital doctrines. In other
words, the new Bibles have all of the convictions of B.F. Westcott.
"The Scholar Scam"
Many Christian educators, (especially scholars) claim that the scholarship of today is greater than that of
the days of King James. How can they say such a thing? How can men who say that the Bible teaches
that everything will get worse and worse with time claim that education is the exception? We see the
signs of apostasy all around us. They are evident in world economic systems. They are evident in
educational systems. They are evident in the apostasy of religious groups which were formerly loyal to
the Bible. They are evident in the worldly learnings of many once separated Christian colleges. Are we
to believe that "scholarship" has avoided the "downhill progress?" That is far from being realistic.
Scholar for scholar, the men on the King James translating committee were far greater men of God than
Westcott, Hort, or any other new translator. They were not only educated in a powerful, antiRoman
atmosphere, but they looked at the MSS which they handled as the Holy Word of God. They state such
in the Dedicatory to King James:
"So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish persons at home or abroad, who
therefore will malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God's holy Truth to be yet
more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness;
or if, on the other side, we shall be maligned by selfconceited brethren, who run their own ways,
and give liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil...."
As can be seen, they considered themselves "unworthy instruments," for these were humble men.
Compare the words of the King James translators to the pride of the anonymous Lockman Foundation:
"The producers of this translation were imbued with the conviction that interest in the American
Standard Version should be renewed and increased. Perhaps the most weighty impetus for this
undertaking can be attributed to a disturbing awareness that the American Standard Version of
1901 was fast disappearing from the scene. As a generation "which knew not Joseph" was born,
even so a generation unacquainted with this great and important work has come into being.
Recognizing a responsibility to posterity, the Lockman Foundation felt an urgency to rescue this
noble achievement from an inevitable demise, to reserve it as a heritage for coming generations,
and to do so in such a form as the demands of passing time dictate. It is enthusiastically
anticipated that the general public will be grateful to learn of the availability, value and need of
the New American Standard Bible. It is released with the strong confidence that those who seek a
knowledge of the scriptures will find herein a source of genuine satisfaction for a clear and
accurate rendering of divinelyrevealed truth."196
The mysterious Lockman Foundation seems not only to believe that they have done us a great service,
but seems also to feel that we "ignorant" members of the general public should be grateful to them for
their "clear and accurate" translation. Of course we are grateful. We are just as grateful to the Lockman
Foundation as we are to the manufacturers of the "Super Sack." Their products seem to be equal in
quality.
Genuine Scholarship
As stated earlier, the translation of the King James Bible was achieved at a "parenthesis of purity" in
English history. It was produced during a brief period following the overthrow of Roman authority and
prior to the apostasy of the Church of England. It was translated in the era when the still young English
language was at its height of purity. Dr. McClure succeeds in aptly describing this esteemed company of
translators:
"As to the capability of those men, we say again, that, by the good providence of God, their work
was undertaken in a fortunate time. Not only had the English language, that singular compound,
then ripened to its full perfection, but the study of Greek and of the Oriental tongues and/or
rabbinical lore had then been carried to a greater extent in England than ever before or since."
"This particular field of learning has never been so highly cultivated among English divines as it
was at that day. To evidence this fact, so far as necessary limits will admit, it will be requisite to
sketch the characters and scholarship of those men, who have made all coming ages their
debtors. When this pleasing task is done, it is confidently expected that the reader of these pages
will yield to the conviction, that all of the colleges of Great Britian and America, even in this proud
day of boastings, could not bring together the same number of divines equally qualified by
learning and piety for the great undertaking. Few indeed are the living names worthy to be
enrolled with those mighty men. It would be impossible to convene out of any one Christian
denomination, or out of all, a body of translators on whom the whole Christian community would
bestow such a confidence as is reposed upon that illustrious company, or who would prove
themselves as deserving of such confidence. Very many selfstyled "improved versions" of the
Bible, or of parts of it, have been paraded before the world, but the religious public has doomed
them all, without exception, to utter neglect."197
As Dr. McClure has already stated, to fully apprciate the depth of true scholarship present at the
translation of the King James Bible, it is necessary to investigate the character of the individuals on the
translating committee. His excellent book, Translator Revived, will be the primary source of the
following brief biographical comments.
Lancelot Andrews
Dr. Lancelot Andrews, a member of the Westmenster Company is known for his linguistic ability.
"Once a year, at Easter, he used to pass a month with his parents. During this vacation, he would
find a master, from whom he learned some language to which he was a stranger. In this way after
a few years, he acquired most of the modern languages of Europe."198
"He was not a man of 'head knowledge' only. He was a man of great practical preaching ability
and an ardent opponent of Rome. His conspicuous talents soon gained him powerful patrons.
Henry, Earl of Huntington, took him into the north of England, where he was the means of
converting many Papists by his preaching and disputations."199
"As a preacher, Bishop Andrews was right famous in his day. He was called the 'star of
preachers.'" 200
Dr. Andrews was also known as a great man of prayer.
"Many hours he spent each day in private and family devotions; and there were some who used to
desire that 'they might end their days in Bishop Andrews' chapel.' He was one in whom was
proved the truth of Luther's saying, that 'to have prayed well, is to have studied well.'"201
Although he was a mighty preacher and prayer warrior, he was not "above" the people around him.
"This worthy diocesan was much 'given to hospitality,' and especially to literary strangers. So
bountiful was his cheer, that it used to be said, 'My Lord of Winchester keeps Christmas all years
'round.'"202
Lastly we review his ability as a translator of the Word of God.
"But we are chiefly concerned to know what were his qualifications as a translator of the Bible. He
ever bore the character of a 'right godly man,' and a 'prodigious student.' One competent judge
speaks of him as 'that great gulf of learning!' It was also said, that 'the world wanted learning to
know how learned this man was.' A brave old chronicler remarks, that such was his skill in all
languages, especially the Oriental, that had he been present at the confusion of tongues at Babel,
he might have served as the IntepreterGeneral! In his funeral sermon by Dr. Buckzidge, Bishop of
Rochester, it is said that Dr. Andrews was conversant with fifteen languages."203
John Overall
Dr. John Overall was another of the King James translators. He, too, was known for his opposition to
Roman rule. He was present at the hanging of the Jesuit Henry Garnet, mastermind of 'the Gunpowder
Plot.'
In spite of his opposition to Rome, he had an interest in individual souls and urged Garnet to make a
true and lively faith to Godward."204
Dr. Overall was vital to the translation because of his knowledge of quotations of the early church
fathers. Without a man with such knowledge it might have been impossible to verify the authenticity of
passages such as I John 5:7. This verse has a multitude of evidence among church fathers, though its
manuscript evidence suffers from the attacks of Alexandria's philosophers.
This disputed verse is known among textual circles as the "Johannine Comma." Dr. Edward Hills records
some of the evidence in its favor:
"The first undisputed citations of the Johannine Comma occur in the writings of two fourth century
Spanish bishops, Priscillian, who in 385 was beheaded by the emperor Maximus in the charge of
sorcery and heresy, and Idacious Clarus, Priscillian's principal adversary and accuser. In the Fifth
Century the Johannine Comma was quoted by several orthodox African writers to defend the
doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals, who ruled North Mrica from 439 to
534 and were fanatically attached to the Arian heresy. About the same time it was cited by
Cassiodorus (480570) in Italy. The Comma is also found in r, an old Latin manuscript of the fifth
or sixth century, and in the Speculum, a treatise which contains an old Latin text. It was not
included in Jerome's original edition of the Latin Vulgate, but around the year 800 it was taken
into the text of the Vulgate from the old Latin manuscripts. It was found in the great mass of the
later Vulgate manuscripts and in the Clementine edition of the Vulgate, the official Bible of the
Roman Catholic Church."205
It was also cited by Cyprian in 225 A.D. 206
This is one hundred and seventyfive years before Eusebius penned the Vatican manuscript.
We can see then that Dr. Overall's contribution to the translation would be of the utmost importance.
No "modern" translation has so candidly investigated the evidence of the church fathers.
Hadrian Saravia
Dr. Hadrian Saravia, another learned translator, was as evangelical as he was scholarly. McClure
reports:
"He was sent by Queen Elizabeth's council as a sort of missionary to the islands of Guernsey and
Jersey, where he was one of the first Protestant ministers; knowing, as he says of himself, in a
letter, 'which were the beginnings, and by what means and occasions the preaching of God's Word
was planted there.' He labored there in a twofold capacity, doing the work of an evangelist, and
conducting a newly established school, called Elizabeth College."207
He too, as any truly dedicated soldier for Christ, was a constant foe of Rome. In 1611 he published a
treatise on Papal primacy against the Jesuit Gretser.
He is said to have been "educated in all kinds of literature in his younger days, especially several
languages."208
John Laifield
Dr. John Laifield was another man of unique talents which lent to his extraordinary value as a translator.
Of him it is said: "That being skilled in architecture, his judgement was much relied on for the fabric of
the tabernacle and temple."209
Robert Tighe
Dr. Robert Tighe was known as "an excellent textuary and profound lingtlist."210
William Bedwell
Dr. William Bedwell was "an eminent Oriental scholar." His epitaph mentions that he was "for the
Eastern tongues, as learned a man as most lived in these modern times."
"He published in quarto an edition of the epistles of St. John in Arabic, with a Latin version,
printed at the press of Raphelengius, at Antwerp, in 1612. He also left many Arabic manuscripts to
the University of Cambridge, with numerous notes upon them, and a font of types of printing
them. His fame for Arabic learning was so great, that when Erpenius, a most renowned Orientalist,
resided in England in 1606, he was much indebted to Bedwell for direction in his studies. To
Bedwell, rather than to Erpenius, who commonly enjoys it, belongs the honor of being the first
who considerably promoted and revived the study of the Arabic language and literature in Europe.
He was also tutor to another Orientalist of reknown, Dr. Pococke."211
"Some modern scholars have fancied, that we have an advantage in our times over the translators
of King James' day, by reason of the greater attention which is supposed to be paid at present to
what are called the 'cognate' and 'Shemitic' languages, and especially the Arabic by which much
light is thought to be reflected upon Hebrew words and phrases. It is evident, however, that Mr.
Bedwell and others, among his fellowlaborers, were thoroughly conversant in this part of the
broad field of sacred criticism."212
In addition to his work on the Authorized Version, Dr. Bedwell left several other contributions to his age:
"Dr. Bedwell also commenced a Persian dictionary, which is among Archbishop Laid's manuscripts,
still preserved in the Bodelian Library at Oxford. In 1615 he published his book, A Discovery of the
Impostures of Mahomet and of the Koran . To this was annexed his Arabian Trudgeman.
"Dr. Bedwell had a fondness for mathematical studies. He invented a ruler for geometrical
purposes, like that we call Gunther's Scale, which went by the 'Bedwell's Ruler'.
"After Bedwell's death, the voluminous manuscripts of his lexicon were loaned to the University of
Cambridge to aid the compilation of Dr. Castell's colossal work, the Lexicon Heptaglotton."213
Edward Lively
Dr. Edward Lively was known as "one of the best linguists in the world ... Much dependence was placed
on his surpassing skill in Oriental languages."214
Lawrence Chaderton
Dr. Lawrence Chaderton was raised a Roman Catholic and encouraged by his family to become a
lawyer. He traveled to London where he was converted to Christ and joined the Puritan Congregation
there. 215 It is said that:
"He made himself familiar with the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew tongues and was thoroughly skilled
in them. Moreover he had diligently investigated the numerous writings of the Rabbis, so far as
they seemed to promise any aid to the understanding of the Scriptures."216
Dr. Chaderton was a powerful preacher who lived to the age of one hundred and three. A preaching
engagement in his later years was described as follows:
"Having addressed his audience for two full hours by the glass, he paused and said, 'I will no
longer trespass on your patience.' And now comes the marvel; for the whole congreagtion cried
out with one consent for God's sake, go on! He accordingly proceeded much longer, to their great
satisfaction and delight."217
Dr. McClure leaves us to ponder the direction scholarship has taken in these modern times. "For even
now people like to hear such preaching as is preaching. But where shall we find men for the work like
those who gave us our version of the Bible?"
Francis Dillingham
Dr. Francis Dillingham was so studied in the original languages that he participated in public debate in
Greek.218
Dr. Dillingham was another soldier for Christ who took aggressive action against the teaching of Rome.
"He collected out of Cardinal Bellarmine's writings, all the concessions made by the acute author in
favor of Protestantism. He published a Manual of Christian Faith, taken from the Fathers, and a variety
of treatises on different points belonging to the Romish controversy."219
Thomas Harrison
Dr. Thomas Harrison, it is recorded, was chosen to assist the King James translation due to his
knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. In fact his ability served him well in his duties as ViceMaster of
Trinity College in Cambridge.
"On account of his exquisite skill in the Hebrew and Greek idioms, he was one of the chief
examiners in the University of those who sought to be public professors of these languages."220
John Harding
John Harding was an ardent scholar of whom it is said concerning his ability: "At the time of his
appointment to aid in the translation of the Bible, he had been Royal Professor of Hebrew in the
University for thirteen years. His occupancy of that chair, at a time when the study of sacred literature
was pursued by thousands with a zeal amounting to a possession, is a fair intimation that Dr. Harding
was the man for the post he occupied."221
John Reynolds
Dr. John Reynolds had been raised in the Roman Catholic Church. As Chaderton, he too trusted Christ
and became a Puritan. The attributes leading to his position on the translation committee are recorded
as follows:
"Determined to explore the whole field and make himself master of the subject, he devoted
himself to the study of the Scriptures in the original tongues, and read all the Greek and Latin
fathers, and all the ancient records of the Church."222
His aggressive nature toward the false teachings of his former church are exemplified in the following
record:
"About the year 1578, John Hart, a popish zealot, challenged all the learned men in the nation to a
public debate. At the solicitation of one of Queen Elizabeth's privy counsellors, Mr. Reynolds
encountered him. After several combats, the Romish champion owned himself driven from the
field."
"At that time, the celebrated Cardinal Bellarmine, the Goliath of the Philistines at Rome, was
professor of theology in the English Seminary at that city. As fast as he delivered his popish
doctrine, it was taken down in writing, and regularly sent to Dr. Reynolds; who from time to time,
publicly confuted it at Oxford. Thus Bellarmine's books were answered, even before they were
printed."223
His skills in Hebrew and Greek made his appointment to the company of translators a wise one. While
on his death bed, it is recorded:
"The papists started a report, that their famous opposer had recanted his Protestant sentiments.
He was much grieved at hearing of the rumor; but too feeble to speak, set his name to the
following declaration: 'These are to testify to all the world, that I die in the possession of that faith
which I have taught all my life, both in my preachings and in my writings, with an assured hope of
my salvation, only by the merits of Christ my Savior."'224
Richard Kilby
Dr. Richard Kilby was a man worthy of the position of translator. One incident in his life, which occurred
shortly after the Authorized Version had been published, suffices not only to reveal his depth, but also
the dangers of the selfesteemed "scholars" changing the translation of even one word in God's Book.
"I must here stop my reader, and tell him that this Dr. Kilby was a man so great in learning and
wisdom, and so excellent a critic in the Hebrew tongue, that he was made professor of it in this
University; and as also so perfect a Grecian, that he was by King James appointed to be one of
the translators of the Bible, and that this Doctor and Mr. Sanderson had frequent discourses, and
loved as father and son. The Doctor was to ride a journey into Derbyshire, and took Mr.
Sanderson to bear him company; and they resting on a Sunday with the Doctor's friend, and going
together to that parish church where they were, found the young preacher to have no more
discretion than to waste a great part of the hour allotted for his sermon in exceptions against the
late translation of several words, (not expecting such a hearer as Dr. Kilby) and showed three
reasons why a particular word should have been otherwise translated. When evening prayer was
ended, the preacher was invited to the Doctor's friend's house, where after some other
confidence, the Doctor told him, he might have preached more useful doctrine, and not filled his
auditor's ears with needless exceptions against the translation; and for that word for which he
offered to that poor congregation three reasons why it ought to have been translated as he and
others had considered all them, and found thirteen more considerable reasons why it was
translated as now printed."225
Miles Smith
Dr. Miles Smith was the man responsible for the preface to the King James Bible. This preface is no
longer printed in the present copies of the Book. He had a knowledge of the Greek and Latin fathers, as
well as being expert in Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic. "Hebrew he had at his finger's end." 226 And so was
the Ethiopic tongue.
Henry Saville
Dr. Henry Saville was known for his Greek and mathematical learning. He was so well known for his
education, skilled with languages and knowledge of the Word, that he became Greek and mathematical
tutor to Queen Elizabeth during the reign of her father, Henry VIII. 227
Dr. McClure tells us, "He is chiefly known, however, by being the first to edit the complete works of
John Chrysostom, the most famous of the Greek Fathers." 228
We could go on and on concerning the scholarship of the King James translators, but we have not the
space here. Dr. McClure's book, Translators Revived
, is recommended for an indepth study of the lives
of these men.
It should be noted that these men were qualified in the readings of the church fathers which prevented
them from being "locked" to the manuscripts, causing early readings to be overlooked. This is vastly
better than the methods used by modern translators.
It should also be recognized that these men did not live in "ivory towers." They were men who were
just as renowned for their preaching ability as they were for their esteemed education. It is a lesson in
humility to see men of such great spiritual stature call themselves "poor instruments to make God's Holy
Truth to be yet more and more known."
"Revised" Scholarship
We shall now briefly examine a few of the translators of the Revised Standard Version. The reasons that
we shall examine these revisors are as follows:
First, it is due to the secrecy surrounding translations such as the New American Standard Version and
the New International Version. The Lockman Foundation has elected to remain anonymous. This is, of
course, the safest method, as it prevents investigative eyes from discovering truths such as those we
shall see concerning the Revised Standard Version translators.
The translating committee of the New International Version is also nameless. We are assured of their
"scholarship" although words without proof ring of a snake oil salesman in the days of the Old West. Of
course, it must be admitted, they are both in the "selling business."
Secondly, we have chosen to examine the Revised Standard Version translators because they are of the
exact same conviction concerning biblical MSS as Westcott and Hort, Nestle, the Lockman Foundation,
the New Scofield Board of Editors, and the majority of unsuspecting college professors and preachers
across America today. Namely, they believed the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS are more reliable than the
Godpreserved Universal Text.
Thirdly, due to this mistaken preference for Roman Catholic MSS, EVERY Bible translation since 1881 is
linked directly to the Revised Version, and had nothing to do with the Authorized Version. These new
translations follow the same MSS family as the Revised version. This family is the Local Text of
Alexandria, Egypt and has no relationship whatsoever to the Authorized Version. It is the text which
Satan has altered and promotes as a replacement for God's Universal Text.
All modern translations, such as the New American Standard Version, are linked to the Revised Standard
Version of 1952, which is a revision of the American Standard Version of 1901, which was originally
marketed as the American Revised
Version an American creation growing from the English Revised
Version of 1881.
Edgar Goodspeed
Edgar Goodspeed was on the Revised Standard committee. Goodspeed did not believe in the deity of
Jesus Christ. He looked at Jesus Christ as a social reformer who gave His life as a martyr for a "cause."
Goodspeed said, "Jesus' youth was probably one of the dawning and increasing dissatisfaction with the
prevalent form of the Jewish religion in Nazareth and in his own home. HE DID NOT IN THOSE EARLY
YEARS SEE WHAT HE COULD DO ABOUT IT, but he must have felt a growing sense that there was
something deeply wrong about it, which should be corrected."229
Goodspeed continues, "He faced the question of his next step in his work. He had no mind to die
obscured in some corner of Galilee, to no purpose. A bolder plan was now taking shape in his mind. He
would present himself to Jerusalem ... publicly offer them their Messianic destiny, AND TAKE THE
CONSEQUENCES. And he would do this in ways that would make his death something that would never
be forgotten, but would carry the message to the end of time. Yet how could this be done?" 230
Goodspeed also, like Westcott, seemed to think it necessary to explain away Christ's miracles. Here we
see what he thought took place at the feeding of the five thousand:
"He took the five loaves and two fishes and looked up to heaven and blessed the loaves, and
broke them in pieces, and gave them to the disciples to pass to the people. He also divided the
two fishes among them all. And they all ate, and had enough. JESUS' SIMPLE EXAMPLE OF
SHARING ALL he and his disiciples had with their guests must have MOVED THOSE GALILEANS as
it moves us still. THEY COULD NOT DO LESS THAN HE HAD DONE. THEY FOLLOWED HIS
EXAMPLE. He simply showed the way, and they gladly took it." 231
Goodspeed called Genesis the product of an "Oriental story teller at his best." 232
Julius Brewer
Julius Brewer, another revisor, stated, "The dates and figures found in the first five books of the Bible
turn out to be altogether unreliable." 233
Henry Cadbury
Henry Cadbury, another member of the Revised committee, believed that Jesus Christ was a just man
who was subject to story telling. "He was given to overstatements, in his case, not a personal
idiosyncrasy, but a characteristic of the Oriental world." 234
He also doubted the deity of Christ. "A psychology of God, if that is what Jesus was, is not available."
235
Cadbury, like Westcott, was a socialist, and he attempted to fit Jesus Christ into the same mold. "His
(Jesus') gospel was in brief, a social gospel." 236
Walter Bowie
Walter Bowie was another revisor who believed that the Old Testament was legend instead of fact. He
says in reference to Abraham, "The story of Abraham comes down from the ancient times; and how
much of it is fact and how much of it is legend, no one can positively tell." 237
In speaking of Jacob wrestling with the Angel, he says, "The man of whom these words were written
(Genesis 32:31) belongs to a time so long ago that it is uncertain whether it records history or legend."
238
Bowie did not believe in the miracle of the burning bush. "One day he (Moses) had a vision. In the
shimmering heat of the desert, beneath the blaze of that Eastern sun, he saw a bush that seemed to be
on fire, and the bush was not consumed." 239
Clarence Craig
Clarence Craig was one of the revisors who denied the bodily resurrection of Christ. "It is to be
remembered that there were no eyewitnesses of the resurrection of Jesus. No canonical gospel
PRESUMED to describe Jesus emerging from the tomb. The mere fact that a tomb was found empty
was CAPABLE OF MANY EXPLANATIONS. THE VERY LAST ONE THAT WOULD BE CREDIBLE TO A
MODERN MAN WOULD BE THE EXPLANATION OF A PHYSICAL RESURRECTION OF THE BODY." 240
Craig also held Westcott's view that Christ's second coming was a spiritual coming, not physical. "In
other words, the coming of Christ is to THE HEARTS of those who love him. IT IS NOT HOPE FOR SOME
FUTURE TIME, but a present reality of faith." 241
Strangely enough, Craig is found to agree with the position of the present day "godly Christian scholars"
who believe that God is not able to preserve His Word. "If God once wrote His revelation in an inerrant
book, He certainly failed to provide any means by which this could be passed on without contamination
through human fallibility...The true Christian position is that the Bible CONTAINS the record of
revelations." 242
Frederick Grant
Frederick Grant was in agreement with Westcott and Hort's belief in prayer for the dead. "It would seem
that modern thought...demands that if prayer be real or effective at all, it shall not cease when those
who have gone before advance, as by a bend in the road beyond our sight...must we cease to pray for
them? The answer is CEASE NOT TO PRAY, for they are living still, in this world of the other, and still
have need of prayers." 243
Willard Sperry
Willard Sperry shows his dislike for the gospel of John in the following statement. "Some of these
sayings, it is true, come from the Fourth Gospel (John), AND WE DO NOT PRESS THAT GOSPEL FOR
TOO GREAT VERBAL ACCURACY IN ITS RECORD OF THE SAYINGS OF JESUS." 244
It is a known fact that all liberals attack John's gospel, due to the fact that it makes the strongest
statements of the four gospels concerning the deity of Jesus Christ.
William Irwin
William Irwin believed that the Jewish prophets inflated the position of God in the Bible. "The prophets
were forced by the disasters that befell to do some hard, painful thinking. THEY WERE FORCED BY THE
HISTORY OF THEIR OWN TIMES TO REVISE THEIR MESSAGES AGAIN AND AGAIN IN ORDER TO KEEP
UP WITH THE PROGRESS OF THE AGE. THE ASSYRIANS AND THE BABYLONIANS FORCED THEM TO
REVISE THEIR CONCEPTION OF YAHWEH FROM TIME TO TIME UNTIL THEY FINALLY MADE HIM GOD
OF THE UNIVERSE." 246
Fleming James
Fleming James was yet another Bible revisor who was as much an infidel as any secular college
professor in America today. He said concerning Moses' authorship of the first five books of the Bible,
"The idea has been shown by scholars to be untenable on many grounds. The view that now prevails is
that through these five books, there were FOUR DIFFERENT STRANDS OF NARRATIVE WHICH HAVE
BEEN PIECED TOGETHER to make the present story...Two are older and more reliable as history, two
proceed from later time and are so coloured by later ideas that they can hardly be called history at all."
246
This almost coincides with Fenton John Anthony Horts' belief concerning the synoptic gospels, Matthew,
Mark, and Luke.
"I quite agree that it is most essential to study each Synoptist by himself as a single whole. Only I
should add that such a study soon leads one to the fact of their having all largely used at least
one common source, and that fact becomes an additional element in their criticism." 247
We also find that he doubted the miracle of the Red Sea crossing.
"What really happened at the Red Sea WE CAN NO LONGER KNOW; but scholars are pretty well
agreed that the narrative goes back to some striking and pretentious event which impressed both
Moses and the people with the belief that YAHWEH had intervened to save them. THE SAME MAY
BE SAID OF THE ACCOUNT OF THE PLAGUES." 248
Concerning Elijah's action in 2 Kings 1:10, he said, "The narrative of calling down fire from heaven upon
soldiers sent to arrest him is PLAINLY LEGENDARY." 249
Millar Burrows
Millar Burrows finalizes the true convictions of the revisors in his statement, "We cannot take the Bible
as a whole and in every part as stating with divine authority what we must believe and do." 250
Earlier we studied the beliefs of Drs. Westcott and Hort. We can see how all of these men fit together
so well and were able to completely reject God's text in favor of Rome's. Many may make a defense for
new translations in claiming that these men are "liberal" scholars, while today's modern translations
such as the New American Standard Version and the New International Version are translated by
"conservative" scholars. This claim is an empty one, though, because concerning which MSS are to be
judged as "best, most reliable, etc...," "conservative" scholars of the day agree wholeheartedly with the
conviction of the "liberal" revisors of the 1881 and 1952 revision committees. They BOTH believe that
the Roman Catholic text found in Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, etc., is better than the Universal Text of the
Authorized Version.
Conservative "scholars" also agree with the liberal "scholars" in their conviction that God could not
preserve His words through history.
We see then that the men of the King James Bible were men of great education, education which was
tempered by true spirituality and biblical convictions. They were used by God as instruments in His plan
for the preservation of His words. They were not "inspired" to write a new revelation. They were
empowered by the Holy Spirit to preserve that which had already been written. This is what God had
promised in Psalms 12:7.
The King James Apocrypha
Another one of the assaults on the Authorized Version is that the early editions contained the Apocrypha
between the Old and New Testaments. In defense, we shall list the seven reasons why the Apocrypha
was NOT considered inspired by the Authorized Version translators. 'The reasons assigned for not
admitting the Apocryphal books into the Canon, or list, of inspired Scriptures are briefly the following:
1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and
poets of the Old Testament.
2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish church and, therefore,
never sanctioned by our Lord.
4. They were not allowed among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian
church.
5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical
Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made
to die three different deaths in as many places.
6. It includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination, and magical incarnation.
For these and other reasons the Apocryphal books, which are all in Greek, except one which is extant
only in Latin, are valuable only as "ancient documents, illustrative of the manners, language, opinions,
and history of the East." 25l
We see then that the King James translators did not accept the books of the Apocrypha as inspired by
God.
The Greek Game in Action
Still another complaint against God's Authorized Version is the manner in which certain Greek words
have been translated. Today's "Godhonoring" scholars "love the Lord and His Bible" but are quick to
point out and attack any seeming inconsistency in translation in the Authorized Version. Even the most
infinitesimal Greek article is attacked under the guise of seeking to give a more "grammatically correct"
translation. This is the claim consistently made by the translating groups, such as the anonymous
Lockman Foundation.
This is all very noble sounding. It puts into one's mind a picture of these "hard working scholars" slaving
away to remove all of the "mistakes" from the Authorized Version so that we can finally have the pure
"Word of God." This is the farthest thing from the truth. The truth is that the new "Bibles" are translated
"Word of God." This is the farthest thing from the truth. The truth is that the new "Bibles" are translated
by men who first, desire to eliminate the detested Authorized Version and second, though never
admittedly, to make money in the "Bible business." Sad as that is to think, it is true.
The problem with their hypercritical examination of the Authorized Versions is that the same scrutiny is
never applied to their own work.
The Greek Game in Reverse
Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, who is known for being very Burgonian in his comments, is nonetheless an
outstanding authority in manuscript readings. In several of his works, he has done no more than to
examine the new translations under the same unyielding eye with which the modern translators
examine the Authorized Version.
Before examining any of his findings and the evidence of the critical apparatus of Nestle's 23rd edition,
it must first be remembered that the present day translations and translators act under the premise that
the Nestle's Greek New Testament is the closest to the original text. Nestle's text is basically Westcott
and Hort's text, which is in turn primarily Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, as Dr. Wilkenson has recorded.
"It was of necessity that Westcott and Hort should take this position. Their own Greek New
Testament upon which they had been working for twenty years was founded on Codex B and
Codex (Aleph), as the following quotations show:
"If Westcott and Hort have failed, it is an overestimate of the Vatican Codex, to which (like
Lachman and Tregelles) they assign the supremacy, while Tischendorf may have given too much
weight to the Sinaitic Codex." 252
All modern translators give B and Aleph unbalanced superiority, assuming them to be more accurate
because they assume that they are older.
They unfortunately overlooked the fact that the Universal Text has MSS just as old, plus the backing of
the church fathers. They also seem not to realize that Egypt is NOT the location for the pure text old
not
manuscripts maybe, but pure readings.
Modern translators build their arguments for changing the Authorized Version readings around two very
loose rules:
1. The oldest reading is best.
2. The majority reading is best.
This sounds very good except for one small problem. What happens when the reading conflicts oldest

with the majority
? The answer is: Do what you want as long as you do not
agree with the Authorized
Version. This is not an over statement, but it describes the animosity which modern scholarship has for
the text of the Authorized Version.
Following will be examples of translations in which modern translators break all their own rules of
translating in order to eliminate the readings of the Universal Text of the King James Bible.
The readings to be examined are those which have been pointed out by Dr. Ruckman. We shall
compare his references to the footnotes in the critical apparatus of Nestle's 23rd Edition, unless he
states such evidence already. The English translation to be examined will be the New American
Standard Version, since it is the one which is assumed by most fundamentalists to be sound.
First, the verse to be discessed will be quoted from the Authorized Version, then it will be quoted from
the New American Standard Version. The word, words, or passage in question will be italicized.
Mark 1:2
AV: "As it is written in the prophets, Behold I send my messenger before thy face, which shall
prepare thy way before thee."
NASV: "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I will send my messenger before your face,
who will prepare your way."
Here the New American Standard Version sticks with the premise of using the "oldest" reading. The
phrase, "Isaiah the prophet" appears in the Hesychian (Local Text) family represented primarily by B, C,
and Aleph.
The problem arises when you read
the remainder of verse two and then verse three, the Old Testament
quote in verse two is NOT
from Isaiah! It is quoted from Malachi 3:1. Verse is from Isaiah. (Isaiah three
not
40:3) Malachi plus Isaiah does equal "Isaiah the prophet;" it equals "the prophets."
The reading "the prophets" is found in W along with the Textus Receptus (Universal Text) which is
represented by E, F, G, and H in the gospels. It is also found in the majority
of witnesses. Also it was
cited in 202 A.D., 150 years before
Vaticanus or Sinaiticus. 253
Immediately we run into the problem of the "oldest" versus the "majority." It happens though that
neither
of these two groups is to be judged just because of what they represent. The factor is, deciding
which group reads with the Universal Text? That group is the correct group.
In sticking with the Local Text, the Lockman Foundation has managed to print a Bible with a MISTAKE
in it!
It is obvious that the reading "Isaiah the prophet" is wrong, because Isaiah never said what is
quoted in verse two.
Why would anyone try to hide the quote by Malachi? Dr. Ruckman explains, "You see, the quotation
from Malachi was reference to Jehovah God the Father! If anyone were to find this reference, they
would see that "thy" and "thee" of Mark 1:1,2 is the "me" of Malachi 3:1!" 253
Thus the deity of Christ is hidden in the New American Standard Version even though it claims to
"confirm" the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately for the egos of the nameless Lockman Foundation,
the Lordship of Jesus Christ was "confirmed" in the wilderness in Matthew chapter four, and God did not
have to wait over 1900 years for them to "confirm" it.
Luke 24:51
AV: "And it came to pass while he blessed them, he was parted from them and carried up to
heaven."
NASV: "And it came about that while He was blessing them, He parted from them."
Here we see a portion of Scripture where both the "oldest" and "majority" texts read in favor of the
Authorized Version. The inconsistent Lockman Foundation has omitted the phrase "and carried up into
heaven" (kai ephereto eis ton houranan) which is in P75, a papyrus MS of the second century, as well
as the entire Receptus family, plus A, B, C, E, most other witnesses, and every Latin copy.
On what "weighty" evidence does the Lockman Foundation remove the bodily ascension of Jesus Christ?
On the weight of ONE
copy of Sinaiticus and ONE
copy of D.
As stated before the only rule which is consistently kept by supposed "godly Christian scholars" is the
practice of attacking the Authorized Version reading because it upholds the deity of Christ.
It might be advisable for us to look at Acts 1:1,2.
"The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach.
"Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given
commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:"
You will notice that Luke claims that his "former treatise" (the gospel of Luke) ended with a record of
Jesus being "taken up." But in the New American Standard Version's translation of Luke's gospel, Jesus
Christ does NOT
ascend, but He is left standing flatfooted on the Mount of Olives. Thus, we see that if
the gospelist, Luke, could examine both a King James Bible and a New American Standard Version, he
would quickly expose the New American Standard Version as a fraudulent adulteration of his 'former
treatise."
In other words, "If the King James Bible is good enough for the disciple Luke, then it's good enough for
me!"
Luke 24:52
AV: "And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy."
NASV: "And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy."
In the case of "And they worshipped him" (proskunesantes auton), the New American Standard Version
translators actually lose
a witness, for in Luke 24:52 even Aleph joins the innumerable mass of
witnesses in favor of the King James translators' scholarship. This leaves D to stand alone against
several thousands
of MSS which uphold the deity of Christ.
With evidence like this, it seems somewhat hypecritical to hear "good, godly men" deride Erasmus for
using only five MSS, which represented the oldest and the majority, to collate his text, a text which
upholds our Savior. While here we see the Lockman Foundation's corrupters use a minority
of the
minority to attack two major doctrines of the Bible, the bodily ascension and the deity of Christ.
The argument may be forwarded that "I can still find
these doctrines in the New American Standard
not
Version." Yes, but in as many places as in the Authorized Version. There is Bible which upholds NO
Christ's deity as much as the Authorized King James Version.
2 Timothy 2:15
AV: "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,
rightly dividing the word of truth."
NASV: "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who need not to be
ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth."
The critics of the Authorized Version often complain that the scholars of the translation of 1611 have
translated a Greek word with an English word which supposedly does not correspond with the correct
meaning. This makes the modern translators seem very sincere in that they present themselves as if
they would never
do such a thing. Here in 2 Timothy 2:15 we find them guilty of that very thing for
which they assail the King James translators.
The Greek word the King James translators translate "rightly dividing" (orthotomeo) means just that.
The Analytical Greek Lexicon (Zondervan 1970) has it as "to cut straight." There is Greek evidence no
for the two words "handling accurately." The Greek word for 'handle'(pselapho) is found in I John 1:1.
The Greek word for "accurate" (doloo) does not appear in the Bible.
These two words together in no
way resemble the Greek word used in II Timothy 2:15 and correctly translated "rightly dividing." As Dr.
Ruckman points out, "The Greek word for 'rightly dividing' is found in all four families of manuscripts, all
cursives and uncials, of any century." 254 It might be good to note here that Nestle's Greek Text does
not even give an alternate reading!
The question which naturally arises in our mind is, "Why would anyone want 2 Timothy 2:15 to read
"handling accurately?" The answer is found in the preface to the New American Standard Version in
which it (the NASV)is called a translation of "linguistic accuracy." 255
In other words the Lockman Foundation says, "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a
workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth." The Lockman
Foundation then says that IT has handled God's Word accurately! To pat one's self on the back so often
and so obviously must make for tired arms.
Let us look at a word change which is designed to keep the Roman Catholic Church "in business."
James 5:16
AV: "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The
effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much."
NASV: "Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may
be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much."
Confession of sins has been a teaching of the Roman Catholic Church for centuries.
The Greek word for "faults" (paraptomata) is found in MSS E, F, G, H, S, V, Y, and Omega, plus the rest
of the Receptus family and the greater
number of all remaining witnesses. Nestle's text inserts "sins"
(tax amarties) with NO manuscript authority, and the misguided men of the Lockman Foundation accept
it with no evidence . Perhaps there are more Jesuits lurking in the shadows than we think! Anyone
accepting an alternate reading with no evidence
CANNOT be credited with acting ethically or scholarly.
One last passage shall suffice:
John 9:35
AV: "Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost
thou believe on the Son of God?"
NASV: "Jesus heard that they had put him out; and finding him, He said, 'Do you believe in the
Son of Man?'"
Here once again the "conservative scholars" of the New American Standard Version and other "Bibles"
have attempted to water down the deity of Christ.
The word for "God" (Theou) is found in MSS E, F, G, H, S, V, Y, Omega, Theta, the majority of the
remaining miniscules, most of the remaining witnesses, plus the entire Latin tradition.
The Greek word "man" (anthropouo) is upheld by one Twentieth Century Greek scholar.
It is strange indeed that the Lockman Foundation is quick to strip Jesus Christ's Godship away from
Him. Here, the "conservative" scholars of the secret Lockman Foundation are in complete agreement
with the "liberal" scholars of the Revised Standard Version. These are strange bedfellows! I am certainly
glad that the translators of the Christexalting Authorized Version never "slept" in this bed.
This is, of course, NOT a "Godhonoring" translation. I know that the deity of Christ "can be found" in
other places in the New American Standard Version, but it now "can be found" in one place than in less
the Authorized Version.
Would John, in penning the gospel that is intended to exalt Jesus Christ as God, use the term "Son of
Man"? Dr. Ruckman explains:
"One of the great critical dictums for correcting the A.V. 1611 Greek manuscripts is that 'one
should always choose language and expressions most charcteristic of the author.' Well, what in
the world would possess a man who was acquainted with John's style (in the Gospels), to
suddenly write "Son of man" where Jesus is dealing with a sinner on matters of doctrinal belief? Is
this characteristic of John? It isn't in any 20 passages, anywhere, in the Gospel of John! "The Son
of God" is the correct reading, and the ASV, RSV, and all the new 'Bibles' are greatly in error, 'not
knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.'" 256
The Apostle John NEVER called Jesus Christ the "Son of Man" anywhere in his gospel when dealing with
a doctrinal belief. Furthermore, the context of the book defines the correct translation in that the
multitude cried for Jesus Christ's crucifixion in John 19:7 because "he made himself the Son of God."
(Greek: huion Theos heauton epoinsen.) This statement so struck the already frantic Pilate, that "he
was more afraid" (John 19:8) at which time he hurried back to where Jesus Christ was waiting and
asked, "Whence art thou?" Pilate realized that there was something supernatural about Jesus Christ. It
is too bad the elusive Lockman Foundation has never come to such a realization.
We have looked at only a few
passages where modern translators have made unwarranted changes in
God's Word. The result is a change in doctrine. It is evident then that, no matter what
Bible salesmen
may say about being able to "find" the fundamentals in any
of the new translations, they are still
weaker on doctrine than the Godhonoring Authorized Version. I repeat, EVERY new "Bible" is
doctrinally weaker than the King James Authorized Version. Why then should any school or preacher
use a "Bible" in which they must "search" to prove doctrines which are more than evident in the King
James Bible? If we honor Jesus Christ, then we should just naturally choose and use the Bible which
honors Him the most. In case after case, the Christhonoring Bible is found to be the King James Bible.
Virtue, Not Fanfare
Finally, it must be remembered that the Authorized Version is the only Bible ever released without
fanfare.
The Revised Version, the American Standard Version, the Revised Standard Version, the New American
Standard Version, the Living Bible, the Good News for Modern Man, the New International Version, the
New King James Version, and all other new translations have been published with a great advertising
"blitz." They have all attempted to replace the Authorized Version in the study, in the pulpit, in
memorization, and in the hearts of believers. They have all failed. Those which have not failed are
destined to fail, except for . one
The Counterfeits
To explain the last statement, let us look at a few facts. For every truth which God has, Satan has many
counterfeits and then one ultimate
counterfeit. Look at the following example:
God's Truth
Satan's Counterfeits
Satan's Ultimate Counterfeit
One God
Many "gods"
Satan is "god" of this world
One Christ
Many "antichrists"
The Antichrist
One Church
Many false churches
One ultimate church, Rome
One Bible (AV)
Many "Bibles" (ASV, NIV, etc.)
One ultimate false "Bible"
We see from the above example that there is one true
God. Satan has many false "gods" for people in
this world to worship. Satan himself is the "false god." ultimate
We further see that there is one true Christ. Satan has many spirits of antiChrist. During the tribulation
there will be a manifestation of "the Antichrist."
God has one true church made up of bornagain believers. Satan has many congregations serving him
on this earth today. During the tribulation the ultimate Satanic church located in Rome (Babylon the
Great) will again be in power.
God has preserved His Words in one Bible. Satan has many "Bibles." I believe it seems certain that
someday in the future he will have one ultimate Satanic "Bible." It will probably be called a "New
Authorized Version."
Notice that in the examples above, the "many" counterfeits seem to run in conjunction with the Church
Age. Satan's ultimate counterfeit is always manifested during the Great Tribulation when the Holy Spirit
has ceased to deal with mankind. I believe that there is a time when Satan will have an antibible
exalted as the true Word of God just as surely as he will have an Antichrist exalted as the Son of God. It
seems likely that this will not take place until the great Tribulation. Until then, God
will be exalted, Jesus
Christ will be exalted, Christ's church
will be exalted, and the Authorized Version
will be exalted.
The ASV "Bust"
In spite of the publicity campaigns to sell "Bibles," they all fail. The American Standard Version is a
prime example. It was heralded as a replacement for the King James when it was published in 1901.
Twentythree years later it went broke and sold its copyright to the National Council of Churches. Was
God's hand on this "Bible?" If so, WHY wasn't it accepted and used by Christianity even MORE than the
Authorized Version? Was Satan able to overcome God's Will? If God's hand was not on the American
Standard Version, why would the Lockman Foundation try to "resurrect" it?
"The producers of this translation were imbued with the conviction that interest in the American
Standard Version should be renewed and increased.
"Perhaps the most weighty impetus for this undertaking can be attributed to a disturbing awareness
that the American Standard Version of 1901 was fast disappearing from the scene." (From the Preface
of the New American Standard Bible.) 257
If God wouldn't use the American Standard Version, WHY would the Lockman Foundation want to? If
God's blessing was on the American Standard Version, and it died in twentythree years without even a
minor revival, HOW has the Authorized Version lasted nearly four hundred years in spite of all of the
"better translations" which God has supposedly been "blessing"?
Of course, there is no answer for these questions, unless it is admitted that God's
Bible is the Authorized
Version and that He will preserve it whether the Christian educators can help it or not. God will continue
to use this English version of sthe Universal Text and will continue to ignore the English versions of the
Local Text, no matter who the fundamentalist is that recommends them and no matter what size college
may use them. Advertisement will not help.

Vindicated

In this book we have observed the battle which rages in fundamental circles concerning the question of
the perfect English translation.
We have taken a scriptural look at the localities from which we have obtained the extant MSS.
We have looked closely at the witnesses and have examined their testimony in light of our two ground
rules, and in respect to their place of origin and faithfulness to the Lordship of Christ.
We have taken a careful look at the true
enemy of the Word of God, the Roman Catholic Church. In so
doing, we have examined Rome's efforts and goals concerning the overthrow of the Godhonored
Universal Text. We have seen that in the past, this organization has been ruthless in her attempt to
exterminate both Christians and their Bible. We can be confident that her goals have not changed.
We have looked into the lives of the two men who were primarily responsible for the successful
overthrow of the Universal Text in textual criticism, and have discovered that they were the "godly not
conservative scholars" which many brethren claim they were.
Lastly, we have looked at the Authorized Version, a Bible which has lasted through time in spite of
major efforts by fundamentalists and liberals both
to replace it with the Roman Catholic Local Text of
Alexandria, Egypt. We have compared the scholarship and piety of the King James translators to the
liberal and infidelic standards of the revisors of 1881 and 1952, who have been faithfully followed by the
Lockman Foundation and other modern translators. We have briefly investigated the manuscript
readings in a Christhonoring
light.
Throughout this work we have answered some of the common innuendoes hurled at God's Authorized
Version, such as "archaic words," supposed authorization by King James, supposed "better" MSS being
in favor of new translations, etc.
What is the conclusion?
The conclusion is that first, we Christians who call ourselves "Biblebelieving fundamentalists" need to
realize that the true enemy to the King James Bible is Rome. Christian colleges should closely examine
their curriculum and philosophy of teaching concerning its relationship to the Authorized Version.
Preachers should remove all new "Bibles" from their pulpits and private studies, realizing that Rome's
teaching moves very subtly.
Secondly, it is time to turn away from the teaching that Westcott and Hort were two bornagain, Bible
believing scholars. They were not. They and their longdead theories concerning the Bible should be
treated with all the sincerity with which Darwin and his theory are treated in Christian circles.
Thirdly, it is hoped that Christian preachers and teachers would direct their zeal for the Lord in more
positive action than in attempting to destroy the Christians faith in God's perfect Word, and to insult or
ruin fundamental brethren who disagree with them concerning the history of the manuscripts. I believe
that parties on both
sides have been extremely guilty of attacking each other with such zeal as to be a
source of never ending joy for the Roman Catholic Church.
Brethren who believe the Authorized Version have been sadly maligned due to a misteaching on the
part of those who do not believe it. Believers in the Authorized Version attempted to "fight fire with
fire." This has left a sad division in fundamental circles. A faithful return to the Authorized Version will
not only be honoring to God, but will be helpful in mending the wounds of nearly one hundred years of
warfare with the wrong enemy.
There is no Bible that exalts Jesus Christ any higher than the Authorized Version. There is no Bible that
has ever been more blessed by God than the Authorized Version. There is no Bible which is more hated
by Satan and the Roman Catholic Church than the Authorized Version. There is no Bible which is more
clearly translated nor is any easier to read than the Authorized Version. There is no Bible which teaches
doctrine more clearly than the Authorized Version.
I love the Lord Jesus Christ. I love His Book. I am thankful for His graciousness in giving me a perfect
Bible in English. To show my appreciation, I intend to read it, believe it, learn it, memorize it, promote
it, defend it, love it, keep it, and most of all, be in subjection to God's authority through it. In
appreciation, I will not change it not a colon or a comma, not even an italicized word, not a chapter,
nor a verse marking. Nor will I condemn the parts I do not understand. I will not "correct" the parts I do
not like. I will exalt Jesus Christ and give His Book any benefit of the doubt. I will not worry about "what
the Greek says" but will accept the "English" God has given me. It is a spiritual Book. God's Hand is on
it. I need no more. No other version comes close to it nor ever will. There is no reason that it should be
replaced, for it is every word of God preserved in English and placed in my hand. It is up to me to place
it in my heart.
As the very great man of God, Lester Roloff, once said, "The Bible we don't need to rewrite it, we
need to reread
it!"
What more can be said about this grand Book than what it says about itself?
Psalms 12:6, 7 says, "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 for ever."
Thank you, Lord, for your perfect Bible, the Authorized King James Bible.

Bibliography

Burgon, John, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, (Associated Publishers and Authors Inc., Grand Rapids, 1881).
Burgon, John, The Revision Revised, (Conservative Classics, Paradise, 1883).
Clarke, Donald, Bible Version Manual, (B.T.M. Publications, Millersburg, 1975).
Cummons, Bruce, The Foundation and Authority of the Word of God, (Massillon Baptist Temple, Massillon, 1973).
Fuller, David, Counterfeit or Genuine, (Grand Rapids International Publications, Grand Rapids, 1975).
Fuller, David, True or False, (Grand Rapids International Publications,Grand Rapids,1973).
Fuller, David, Which Bible? , (Grand Rapids International Publications, Grand Rapids, 1970, 1971).
God's Inspired Preserved Bible, (Peoples Gospel Hour, Halifax, 1979), p. 20.
Hills, Edward, Believing Bible Study, (The Christian Research Press, Des Moines, 1967).
Hills, Edward, The King James Version Defended, (The Christian Research Press, Des Moines, 1956).
Hort, Arthur, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, (Macmillan Press, New York, 1896).
Karl, Adam, The Spirit of Catholocism, (MacMillan, New York, 1928), p. 2.
King James Dedicatory, (Oxford Press, 1611).
Lockman Foundation, New American Standard New Testament Preface, (Gospel Light Publications, Glendale, 1971,
Volume 6).
Machen, Gresham, New Testament Greek for Be ginners, (The Macmillan Co. CollierMacmillan Canada, Ltd.,
Toronto, 1923).
McClure, Alexander, Translators Revised, (Maranatha Publications, Worthington).
National Council of the Church of Christ, Revised Standard Version, (Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1972).
Nestle Eberhard, Novum, Testamentum Graece, (United Bible Societies, 1898).
New Standard Encyclopedia, (Standard Educational Corporation, 1977).
Paine, Gustavus, The Men Behind the KJV, (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1959).
Paris, Edmond, The Secret History of the Jesuits, (The Protestant Truth Society, London, 1975).
Ray, James, God Wrote Only One Bible, (The Eye Opener Publishers, Junction City).
Rice, John, Our GodBreathed Book The Bible, (Sword of the Lord Publishers, Murfreesboro, 1969).
Ruckman, Peter, Manuscript Evidence, (Pensacola Bible Press, Pensacola, 1970).
Ruckman, Peter, Monarch of the Books, (Pensacola Bible Press, Pensacola, 1970).
Ruckman, Peter, Satan's Masterpiece! , (Pensacola Bible Press, Pensacola, 1974).
Ruckman, Peter, The Bible Babel, (Pensacola Bible Press, Pensacola, 1964).
Smyth, Paterson, How We Got Our Bible, (James and Pott Co., New York).
Standridge, James, Do We Have an Infallible Bible Today, (Cook Road Baptist Church, Mansfield, 1973).
Westcott, Arthur, Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, (The Macmillan Co., 1903).
Wilkenson, Benjamin, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, (Takoma Park, 1930).

Footnotes

1. Ray, James, God Wrote Only One Bible, (The Eye Opener Publishers, Junction City), p. 96.
2. Fuller, David, Which Bible?, (Grand Rapids International Press, Grand Rapids, 1973), p. 269.
3. Hills, Edward F., Believer's Bible Study, (The Christian Research Press, Des Moines, 1967), pp. 120122.
4. Ruckman, Peter, Christian's Handbook on Manuscript Evidence, (Pensacola Bible Press, Pensacola, 1970), p.
24.
5. McClure, Alexander, Translators Revived, (Maranatha Publications, Worthington), p. 60.
6. Fuller, David, Which Bible?, (Grand Rapids International Press, Grand Rapids, 1971), p. 254.
7. McClure, Alexander, Translators Revived, (Maranatha Publications, Worthington), p. 61.
8. New Standard Encyclopedia, (Standard Educational Corporation, 1977), Volume L, No. 64.
9. Hills, Edward, The King James Version Defended, (The Christian Research Press, Des Moines, 1956), p. 115.
10. Fuller, David, Which Bible?, (Grand Rapids International Publications,Grand Rapids, 1970, First Edition) p. 10.
11. Ibid., pp. 51,52.
12. Ibid., p. 21.
13. Ibid., p. 21.
14. Ibid., p. 21.
15. Fuller, David, True or False, (Grand Rapids International Publications, Grand Rapids, 1973), p. 264.
16. Wilkenson, Benjamin, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, (Takoma Park, 1930), p. 28.
17. Nestle, Eberhard, Novum Testamentum Graece, (United Bible Societies, London, 1898), p. 60.
18. Ibid., pp. 59, 60.
19. Ruckman, Peter, Manuscript Evidence, (Pensacola Bible Press, Pensacola, 1970), pp. 72, 73.
20. Fuller, David, True or False, (Grand Rapids International Publications, Grand Rapids, 1973), pp. 74, 75.
21. Fuller, David, Which Bible?, (Grand Rapids International Publications, Grand Rapids, 1971, Second Edition), p.
272.
22. Ibid., First Edition, p. 61.
23. Burgon, John, The Revision Revised, (Conservative Classics, Paradise, 1883), pp. 243, 244.
24. Ruckman, Peter, Manuscript Evidence, (Pensacola Bible Press, Pensacola, 1964), p. 70.
272.
26. Smythe, Paterson, How We Got Our Bible, (James and Pott Co., New York), p. 22.
28. New Standard Encyclopedia, (Standard Educational Corporation, 1977), Volume O, P. 154.
29. Fuller, David, Which Bible?, (Grand Rapids International Publications, Grand Rapids, 1970, First Edition), p.
103.
30. Ibid., p. 71.
31. Ibid., p. 130.
32. Ibid., p. 13.
33. Ibid., pp. 14, 15.
34. Burgon, John, The Revision Revised, (Conservative Classics, Paradise, 1883), p. 318.
35. Hills, Edward, Believing Bible Study, (The Christian Research Press, Des Moines, 1967), p. 166.
36. Ibid., p. 48.
38. Ibid., p. 88.
39. Clarke, Donald, Bible Version Manual, (B.T.M. Publications, Millersburg, 1975), p. 37.
40. Ibid., p. 37.
41. Ibid., p. 37.
272.
43. Wilkenson, Benjamin, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, (Takoma, 1930), p. 16.
44. Fuller, David, Which Bible?, (Grand Rapids International Publications, Grand Rapids, 1970, First Edition), p. 74.
45. Karl, Adam, The Spirit of Catholicism, (Macmillan, New York, 1928), p. 2.
48. Ibid., p. 27.
49. Ibid., p. 34.
50. Ibid., pp. 32,33.
51. Ibid., p. 36.
52. New Standard Encyclopedia, (Standard Educational Corporation, 1977), Volume W, p. 18.
53. Council of Trent, Session VI, Cannon 1545.
54. Paris, Edmond, The Secret History of the Jesuits, (The Protestant Truth Society, London, 1975), p. 17.
55. Ibid., p. 28.
56. Ibid., p. 26.
57. Ibid., p. 32.
58. Ibid., p. 44.
61. Ibid., p. 67.
62. New Standard Encyclopedia, (Standard Educational Corporation, 1977), Volume S, p. 35.
63. New Standard Encyclopedia, (Standard Educational Corporation, 1977), Volume H, p. 141.
65. Ibid., p. 48.
66. Ibid., p. 48.
67. Ibid., p. 49.
68. Ibid., p. 49.
70. Paine, Gustavus, The Men Behind the KJV, (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1959), pp. 8890.
71. McClure, Alexander, Translators Revised, (Maranatha Publications, Worthington), pp. 71,72.
73. Ibid., p. 104.
74. Ibid., p. 104105.
75. Ibid., p. 105.
76. Rice, John, Our GodBreathed Book The Bible, (Sword of the Lord Publishers, Murfreesboro, 1969), p. 387.
79. Ibid., p. 65.
80. Ibid., p. 66.
82. Ibid., p. 127.
83. Ibid., pp. 135,136.
84. Ibid., p. 135.
85. Burgon, John, The Revision Revised, (Conservative Classics, Paradise, 1883), p. 257.
86. Hort, Arthur Fenton, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, (New York, 1896), Volume 1, p. 211.
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. 420422.
93. Ibid., pp. 414416.
94. Ibid., p. 42.
95. New Standard Encyclopedia, (Standard Educational Corporation, 1977), p. 450.
96. Ibid., pp. c450451.
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.
114. Ibid., p. 138.
115. Ibid., p. 140.
116. Ibid., p. 139.
117. Ibid., p. 211.
118. Ibid., p. 377.
120. Westcott, Arthur, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott. (New York, 1903), Volume II, p. 69.
121. Ibid., p. 147
124. Ibid., p. 49.
125. Ibid., p. 253.
126. Ibid., p. 394.
128. Ibid., p. 279.
129. Ibid., p. 13.
130. Ibid., p. 6.
131. Ibid., p. 7.
132. Ibid., p. 135.
133. Ibid., p. 60.
134. Ibid., p. 73.
135. Ibid., p. 77.
136. Ibid., p. 77.
137. Ibid., p. 93.
138. Ibid., p. 43.
139. Ibid., p. 110.
140. Ibid., p. 110.
141. Ibid., p. 318.
142. Wilkenson, Benjamin, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, (Takoma Park, 1930), pp. 143,144.
143. Westcott, Arthur, Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, (New York, 1903), Volume II, p. 160.
144. Ibid., p. 439.
146. Wilkenson, Benjamin, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, (Takoma Park, 1930), pp. 157.
147. Ibid., p. 157.
148. Westcott, Arthur, Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, (New York, 1903), Volume II, p. 251.
149. Ibid., Volume 1, p. 81.
150. Ibid., p. 183.
151. Ibid., p. 8.
152. Ibid., pp. 263, 264.
153. Ibid., p. 264.
154. Ibid., p. 2E;4, 265.
155. Ibid., p. 265.
156. Ibid., pp. 265, 266.
157. Ibid., p. 267.
158. Ibid., p. 305
160. Ibid., pp. 22,23.
161. Ibid., p. 18.
162. Ibid., p. 23.
163. Ibid., p. 19.
164. Ibid., p. 19.
165. Ibid., p. 23.
166. Ibid., p. 52.
167. Ibid., Volume 1, p. 254.
168. Ibid., p. 135.
169. Ibid., P. 77.
170. Ibid., p. 404.
171. Ibid., p. 160.
172. Ibid., p. 108.
173. Ibid., p. 108.
174. Fuller, David, Which Bible?, (Grand Rapids International Publications, Grand Rapids, 1971, Second Edition), pp.
265, 266.
175. Ibid., p. 268.
176. Ibid., p. 270.
178. Fuller, David, Which Bible?, (Grand Rapids International Publications,Grand Rapids,1971,First Edition), p. 16.
179. Ibid., p. 16.
180. Ibid., Second Edition, p. 254.
181. Hort, Arthur, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, (New York, 1896), Volume II, p. 368.
182. Westcott, Arthur, Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, (New York, 1903), p. 367.
183. Clarke, Donald, Bible Version Manual, (B.T.M. Publications, Millersburg, 1975), p. 39.
184. Westcott, Arthur, Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, (The Macmillan Co., 1903), p. 390.
185. Ibid., p. 391.
204.
187. Ibid., p. 206.
188. Westcott, Arthur, Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, (New York, 1903), p. 394.
190. Ibid., pp. 197,198.
191. Westcott, Arthur, Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, (The Macmillan Co., 1903), p. 393.
192. Ibid., p. 393.
194. Ibid., p. 147.
195. Fuller, David, True or False, (Grand Rapids International Publications, Grand Rapids, 1971, Second Edition), p.
91.
196. Lockman Foundation, New American Standard New Testament Preface, (Gospel Light Publications, Glendale,
1971), p. VI.
197. McClure, Alexander, Translators Revised, (Maranatha Publications, Worthington), pp. 63,64.
198. Ibid., p. 78.
199. Ibid., p. 79.
200. Ibid., p. 85.
201. Ibid., p. 86.
202. Ibid., p. 87.
203. Ibid., p. 87.
204. Paine, Gustavus, The Men Behind the KJV, (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1959), p. 90.
207. McClure, Alexander, Translators Revived, (Maranatha Publications, Worthington), pp. 93,94.
208. Ibid., p. 95.
209. Ibid., p. 97.
210. Ibid., p. 98.
211. Ibid., p. 1 00.
212. Ibid., pp. 100,101.
213. Ibid., pp. 101,102.
214. Ibid., p. 103.
215. Ibid., p. 107.
216. Ibid., pp. 108,109.
217. Ibid., p. 115.
218. Ibid., p. 116.
219. Ibid., p. 112.
220. Ibid., p. 118.
221. Ibid., p. 120.
222. Ibid., p. 122.
223. Ibid., pp. 123,124.
224. Ibid., p. 132.
225. Ibid., p. 139.
226. Ibid., p. 143.
227. Ibid., p. 165.
228. Ibid., p. 166.
229. God's Inspired Preserved Bible, (Peoples Gospel Hour, Halifax, 1979), pp. 17,18.
230. Ibid., pp. 18,19.
231. Ibid., p. 18.
232. Ibid., p. 18.
233. Ibid., p. 19.
234. Ibid, p. 20.
235. Ibid., p. 20.
236. Ibid., p. 20.
237. Ibid., p. 21.
238. Ibid., p. 21.
239. Ibid., p. 21.
240. Ibid., p. 22.
241. Ibid., p. 22.
242. Ibid., p. 22.
243. Ibid., p. 22.
244. Ibid., p. 22.
245. Ibid., p. 23.
246. Ibid., p. 23.
248. God's Inspired Preserved Bible, (Peoples Gospel Hour, Halifax, 1979), p. 23.
249. Ibid., p. 23.
250. Ibid., p. 24.
251. Ibid., pp. 185,186.
253. Ruckman, Peter, Satan's Masterpiece!, (Pensacola Bible Press, Pensacola, 1974), p. 38.
254. Ibid., p. 55.
1971), p. I.
1971), p. IV, V.


An Understandable History of The Bible by Samuel C

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Understandable History of The Bible by Samuel C

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Understandable History of The Bible by Samuel C

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2/16/2017 An

Holy Bible by Samuel C. Gipp Essential Reading

Lenin, one of the founders of communism, for once

I also keep issuing a friendly warning IF you SEE

God's Book, filled with God's words

"If the scriptures have not

Let us look and learn and follow the Bible example of handling "archaic" words. Surely the Bible, God's

Its two outstanding trademarks in history are that orthodox Christianity has used it and that the never

Stop and think! Naturalistic as opposed to spiritual. Unsaved as opposed to saved. Roman Catholic as

Westcott also resented criticism of the Essays and Reviews

It has been often stated that "You are

Even though he doubted Jesus Christ's

This sounds very good except for one small problem. What happens when the reading conflicts oldest

You might also like

An Understandable History of The Bible by Samuel C

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Understandable History of The Bible by Samuel C

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Understandable History of The Bible by Samuel C

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2/16/2017 An

Holy Bible by Samuel C. Gipp Essential Reading

Lenin, one of the founders of communism, for once

I also keep issuing a friendly warning ­ IF you SEE

God's Book, filled with God's words

"If the scriptures have not

Let us look and learn and follow the Bible example of handling "archaic" words. Surely the Bible, God's

Its two outstanding trademarks in history are that orthodox Christianity has used it and that the never

Stop and think! Naturalistic as opposed to spiritual. Unsaved as opposed to saved. Roman Catholic as

Westcott also resented criticism of the Essays and Reviews

It has been often stated that "You are

Even though he doubted Jesus Christ's

This sounds very good except for one small problem. What happens when the reading conflicts oldest

You might also like

I also keep issuing a friendly warning IF you SEE