The conventional Bible student assumes that the dramatic differences in Bibles have resulted from advances in new discoveries and a sharpening of the reviser’s skills in translating.

     But the real answer… lies in the fact that there are two distinctly different sets of Greek texts of the New Testament; from which Bibles have been translated from. All Greek manuscripts, Uncials, Lectionaries, etc. fall into one of two textual groupings.

     We are going to be very basic and pragmatic in this article…

     The first textual group was for centuries honored as the Word of God by the Church. ALL of the texts read virtually alike.

     Side note: the Church, referred to here is not the Vatican as many use the term; for Biblical Christianity and Catholicism are two distinctly different organisms.

     The other textual group is what was rejected as corrupted texts, by the Church. That is until they were resurrected by Westcott and Hort in the 1870’s. These texts, are any texts that do not go into the first group.

     A small fact I want to bring up about the manuscripts in these two groups: there are not any complete New Testament manuscripts; there are only books, chapters or fragments.

     Of the 267 Greek Uncials: 258 support the first group and 9 go into the other group.

     Of the 88 Greek papyri manuscripts: 75 support the first group and 13 go into that other group.

     Of the 2,764 Greek cursive manuscripts, sometimes called miniscules: 2,741 support the first group and 23 go into the other group.

     Of the 2,143 Greek lectionaries: 2,143 support the first group and there are none (zero) to support that other group.

     The first group has 99% agreement among themselves. While in that other group are the corruptions, and they all disagree among themselves.

     The first grouping takes this text issue 5,217 to 45.

     The first group is also known as the Antioch textual collection. The second group is known as the Alexandrian collection.

     But it is that second group - which is the collection that has held sway in academic circles for the last hundred years or so. In that group, reside the famed Sinaiticus and the much honored Vaticanus.

     The first group does not need much help from scholars today to put the text together; or decide what stays, what goes and what needs to be discussed and changed: that was remarkably taken care of centuries ago. The texts in this group have very few variants. From this first group the Textus Receptus Greek Text was put together.

     It is that other group that needs a team or teams of scholars to figure out how it would best go together, in their proud and diverse opinions; and to keep it resuscitated. Here, there are abundant opportunities for exploration; as this group is a vast metropolis of variants numbering in the hundreds of thousands, because these are the manuscripts that in transmission - the scribes changed the text. From this group the Wescott-Hort, Nestle-Aland, Hodges-Farstad Majority Text and the United Bible Society (UBS) Greek Texts were put together.

     The King James translators had much from the first group, as well as ancient texts and translations in other languages from the first few centuries (A.D.) that agree with the first group, to use for their English translation. They rejected anything of that other group that was there.

     And yes, there have been many discoveries of Greek texts of the New Testament since they published their translation in 1611; but all discoveries still fall into one of the two categories. Also, the readings of Vaticanus were available to them; but they summarily rejected those readings.

     Any principled scholar seeking the truth, can in a short time, come to the conclusion that Vaticanus is a notably corrupted text. The identical realization would be concluded with what is left of Sinaiticus.

     Vaticanus - Found in the Vatican, it repeatedly has words or clauses written twice over; and so many omissions, some call it an abbreviated text.

     Sinaiticus - Found in a monastery near Mt. Sinai (and according to Tischendorf who found it there, the monks were using the pages of it to start fires). It has the chirographies of -10- different revisers making changes to it. Also -6- pages were taken out and replaced, which appears (by the handwriting) to be the writer of Vaticanus. Letters, words and even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and canceled; as well as many omissions like Vaticanus.

     In fact, the last English translation made from the first group, (the Antioch collection) was the Authorized King James Version. ALL the other English versions that have been made since: have been made from that other group, (the Alexandrian collection) which also includes the New King James Version.

     Side note: the NKJV did leave many of the familiar verses reading basically the same as the KJV. That was in an attempt to pull off their deception that the version was just an update - only. But the rest of the version was translated from that other group: because pride and peer pressure rules.

     Another side note: the universally postured and intentionally misleading stratagem that these other versions are purely updates of the Authorized Version, is pure fiction. These types of statements by the scholars and publishers involved, are knowingly and patently false. That is because these other versions are not from the same group of texts, AND THEY KNOW IT.

     That last side note is one of the least known and most intensely suppressed secrets, regarding the texts and versions issue. The translators of ALL English versions since the KJV, have completely REJECTED the manuscripts belonging to the Antioch collection. The promoters of the corrupted texts know that the only way that they can win, is to jump into the fight with their primary weapon: the sword of confusion, and then battle their way out with the dagger of deception.

     Here is how the game is played in first or second year Greek courses. The scenario is similar regardless of wherever a person goes (with an exception or two).

     The students are entering the class at a tremendous disadvantage; for the students do not have much knowledge of the Greek language, if any at all. So the students have naturally elevated the professor to a high intellectual pedestal. Then this presumption is reinforced by the faculty and probably the students ministers back home.

     They demonstrate how the Nestle-Aland 26th edition Greek Text and the third edition of the United Bible Society (UBS-3rd Edition) Greek Text are similar.

     The professor then explains: that the reasons for these many editions are because we do not have the original Greek text; and consequently it has taken a herculean effort by scholars, using new discoveries, methods, techniques, and… that it is still… an ongoing... process.

     So the faith of the students takes a hit: the text has been lost (!). Then they soon begin to doubt if a true Greek text even exists; followed by wondering if there is such a thing as the sure Word of God.

     [- It takes faith to believe that the Bible is pure: but no faith is required among those who say that the Bible as a whole is lost; and that they are still trying to recover it -]

     Then comes the crowning blow: as the professor chooses speciously selected portions of the Greek text in the Nestle-Aland and/or UBS, giving the professors word for word evaluation in the English.

     After this: they compare the NIV and/or NASB, etc, to their word for word evaluation; in an attempt to show how these versions comparatively follow to the professors word for word English equivocations.

     THEN… they open up a KJV Bible and begin to demonstrate how the KJB does not follow their Greek text at all. The professor boldly proclaims that he has not the foggiest idea why the KJB translators did not follow the Greek text; and that unfortunately it has been this version which had been trusted by Christians for centuries.

     The student’s faith is shattered... and then the students become doubters like Eve, in the truth of the Words of God. Their final authority is no longer the Holy Scriptures… on the grounds that they do not exist; or so their professor and so-called scholars try to convince them. Because if you cannot trust the texts you have, you cannot trust the foundations of Christianity.

     The students final authority now: has to become dependent on their professor of Greek, and so-called scholars. It is into this tragic scenario to which the students are pressed to believe, in replacement of the Word of God and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And this is exactly where they want you, for they want to enthrone the intellect of man as final authority.

     Why does Satan and his theologians utilize confusion much of the time, and why does it work so well for him? It is because confusion creates doubt. Doubt creates loss of confidence. Loss of confidence creates loss of interest!

     Many eventually… just walk away.

     Side note: I was given this last verse by God as my personal life verse.

     Wherefore instead of Scripture as final authority, apostate scholars attempt to transfer final authority over to their own opinions and prejudices and call it scholarship. They prefer to exalt and advance their own human reasoning as the means of reaching philosophical and theological truth. The effects of prejudice and preconceived ideas, the influence of strong personal convictions, and the opinions of so-called experts – influence them as much as anyone; even though they staunchly deny it, claiming that they are above all that.

     The Apostle Paul also stated...

     There are Bible scholars and there are pseudo-Bible scholars.

     Unfortunately... most people today when searching out the versions issue, begin and end their search at the feet of the pseudo-Bible scholars; where they never learn the truth of the subject. They then go their merry way, parroting the spin and fabrications of these masqueraders of Bible scholarship.

     It very much equates to an inquisitive person seeking an understanding of Creationism, by going to an evolutionist to seek the truth about what creationists believe, and what the Bible says. All you’re ever going to get from evolutionists is spin and fabrications, but never are you going to get at the truth.

     Additionally, the evolutionists will resolutely proclaim creationists to be anti-intellectuals; which is precisely the same label that the pseudo-Bible scholars use to describe those who defend the Authorized Version of the Bible. They characterize defenders of the KJB as anti-intellectuals.

     Now on to the question of Textual Criticism…

     There are different paradigms of approach among textual critics. Each peer group has their own theological presuppositions, criteria and agenda (all culled from naturalistic principles adopted from the secular field) for evaluating the authenticity of a reading. And, that still depends on if they believe any manuscripts to be authentic.

     Textual Criticism of the New Testament, represented a new approach in the 1800’s: it involved reading texts critically and trying to separate theological belief in Christ (supernatural events), from the true account of Jesus the human being (non-supernatural occasions).

     The majority of scholars today, do not even believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke or John wrote the Gospels which carry their name, they are thoroughly convinced that they are pseudepigraphas (spurious writings, falsely attributed to Biblical characters). They also advocate statements such as, “Scholars have long recognized that the four New Testament gospels are theological portrayals of Jesus, rather than actual historical accounts”.

     So, how do you know what a so-called scholars proclivities are? It’s something extremely difficult to find out in many or most cases. Many posture one thing, but between their writings or their words a different story is going on.

     An example would be the Lockman Foundation not publishing the names of their translators, for their New American Standard Version in 1963 and 1971. Why did they not want it to be known or found out? The obvious answer is that they knew many would reject their version just on that knowledge alone. The NIV used people of varying faiths, religions and even the so-called non-religious.

     Then there are textual critics who believe that the Nag Hammadi texts are more valid than the current Canon texts. Bart Ehrman, Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, would seem to fit into this category. Bart stated, when questioned about the Gospel of Judas, "It is the most significant discovery in the last 60 years; or since the finding of the Nag Hammadi texts". - YouTube video on his book, 'Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene’.

     The esteemed Westcott and Hort were involved in pagan backgrounds:

     Dr. Fenton Hort, a dabbler in the occult, founded the Ghostly Guild Society for classification of ghosts and psychic phenomena. This was during the same time that he was 'conjuring up' his Revised Greek Text with Dr. Brooke Westcott. Birds of a feather flock together, for verily they see eye to eye.

     Then there are as some would call them: Moderates. This brand of scholar conducts himself as if everyone with a degree is a scholar striving for the highest ethics of nobility and virtue. And as such, many of them espouse that every scholars point of view should be considered valid and equal; because few if any could have an agenda or an axe to grind.

     In reality, most of those who position themselves as moderates, are actually in their heart extremists of a varying degree; striving to be the bridge to attract people out of the camp they are originally in, or to keep them away from a particular camp.

     Another process that would be comparable to finding the correct text by the current philosophies of textual criticism, would be an attempt to find the True Christian Faith by giving Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Catholics (Vatican), etc, equal standing with true Bible believers -- simply because the afore mentioned assemblies claim that they are Christian organizations following the Bible.

     Nowhere in the Gospels did Jesus ever say, “you will find that the truth is to be found somewhere in the middle".

     To the contrary, Jesus stated emphatically, “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.” – Matthew 12:30.

     An impenetrable line has got to be drawn.

     The use of the word 'critical' needs in this day and age, to be prioritized and attached to the word 'thinking', as in 'critical-thinking'. Why do you think that they did away with teaching rhetoric decades ago? It is because the powers that control the World do not want people to do any critical-thinking. They want them as sheep following their Pied-Pipers (These Pied-Pipers are their men with Ph.D.'s).

     But before moving on, I want to briefly address Modernism as some call it, or Liberalism as others call it.

     The Modernist/Liberal denies that any truth is absolute, and then promotes an absolute of a continuum of relativity. In other words, the only absolute is that nothing is absolute: this is a New Age teaching.

     Additionally, modernist scholars expound their principles of 'enlightenment' by setting themselves contrary to the Bible. They do this by denying the Bibles history, making its spiritual and/or supernatural events relate to natural phenomena, and even denying the historical existence of Jesus as God.

     These Modernist scholars in their guise as textual critics, with all their vanity in tow, have spoken eloquently of their scholarship: AND that their superior understanding has now whisked away the cobwebs of past superstitions, and given us a corrected history and version of the Bible.

     The key issue here is Preservation: a true Bible believer has a core, undaunted belief that God has actually preserved His Word; we do not have to hope that scholars will be able to reconstruct it at some point, but we can be assured that we have it now. Modern textual criticism is rank heresy, because it is NOT predicated upon faith in Divine preservation.

     We are experiencing a fulfillment of Isaiah 29:14 - "... for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid".

     In opposition to the puffed-up scholarolatry promoted by some of the more contemporary 'fundamentalists' who tell us that we are dependent upon textual scholars: It strikes me as strange, when a person who believes there are no errors in their Bible is considered dangerous, but those who think there are errors in all Bibles are true and wise believers.

     Finally… to the Magna Cum Laude – the Johannine Comma!

     This verse, which is verse 7 as found in the Authorized Version at I John 5:6-8 is also commonly mentioned as the strongest scripture on the Holy Trinity.

     But that commonly held view is incorrect, the strongest is found at Luke 3:21-22, because in those two verses you have all three interacting together at the same time.

     Moving on…

Much of this section on the "Johannine Comma" is derived from the book, 'Which Version is the Bible?' by Floyd Nolen Jones, Th.D. and Ph.D.

     First, the external evidence for ‘The Comma’.

     There is much to be offered in defending its inclusion in scripture. The Nestle-Aland 26th edition lists -4- cursive manuscripts that include the passage. These are: 61, 629, 918 and 2318. It also lists: 88, 221, 429 and 636 as having them in the margin. Another is cited by Metzger and UBS-1, bringing the total to nine.

     Again, one has to remember that there are no complete New Testament manuscripts: only fragments, chapters or books. Therefore the supporting evidence for many passages in the New Testament manuscripts, are often just a few.

     Yet, crucial to this issue is whether there were any references to the passage prior to 1522. This is the year that Erasmus supposedly (according to pseudo-scholars) decided on his own: to add ‘The Comma’ to his Greek text.

     Of the previously listed manuscripts: 221 is dated from the 10th century, 88 from the 12th century, 629 and 429 were from the 14th century. That is a total of -4- before 1500.

     ‘The Comma’ was also part of the text of Old Latin Bibles from the 2nd century. ‘The Comma’ is cited by Tertullian (died 225? A.D.) and Cyprian of Carthage (died 258 A.D.). It is also found in 'r', an Old Latin manuscript from the 5th century.

     Jerome’s original edition of the Latin Vulgate did not include ‘The Comma’, but it was taken into the text from the year 800 on, from the Old Latin manuscripts.

     The above listed examples, convincingly make the case that Erasmus did not just arbitrarily add ‘The Comma’ to his Greek text.

     ‘The Comma’ was also cited by Cassiodorus of Italy (480-570), by Vigilus of Thapsus (490) and Fulgentius of Ruspe in North Africa (died 533).

     And yet all that I have listed is not complete.

     It also can be strongly argued that 1 John 5: 7 is missing from certain copies because early heretics who were followers of Sabellius (in the 2nd century and continuing on into the 5th or 6th century) did not believe in the Trinity and wanted those words deleted. They had partial success with Greek manuscripts, but not so much where Latin manuscripts flourished. There are even a couple of denominations who don’t believe in the Trinity as such, even today.

     A similar correlation can be drawn with the absence of John 7:53 – 8: 11 in some Greek texts. Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430 A.D.) had recorded in his writings of people who attempted to delete this story of the woman caught in adultery from Bible texts. Those early heretics did not want Jesus showing mercy to someone involved in this sinful act.

     We now move on to the evidence that confirms it to be inconceivable, that ‘The Comma’ was not contained in the original text of I John chapter 5.

     It is the internal evidence that slams the door. This internal evidence explains why Erasmus was looking for 'The Comma’ in a manuscript, and why he knew that it had to have been in there originally.

Critical Internal Evidence Supports ‘The Comma’.

     In I John 5:6-8, if ‘The Comma’ is removed from the Greek text, the two resulting loose ends will not join together grammatically. The noun endings in Greek (as in many other languages) has 'gender'. Neuter nouns normally require neuter articles (the word “the” as in “the blood” is the article). But the article in vs. 8 of the shortened reading as found in the Greek that is the foundation of the new versions (minus verse 7 of the King James Greek text) is masculine. Thus the new translations read “the Spirit (neuter), the water (neuter), and the blood (neuter): and these three (masculine ! – from the Greek article “hoi”) are in one”. Consequently three neuter subjects are being treated as masculine (see below where the omitted portion is italicized). If ‘The Comma’ is rejected it is impossible to adequately explain this irregularity. In addition, without ‘The Comma’ verse 7 has a masculine antecedent; 3 neuter subjects (nouns in vs. 8) do not take a masculine antecedent. Viewing the entire passage, it becomes apparent how this rule of grammar is violated when the words are omitted.

     5:6 … And it is the Spirit (neuter) that beareth witness (neuter), because the Spirit (neuter) is truth.

     5:7 For there are three (masculine) that bear record (masculine) [in heaven, the Father (masculine), the Word (masculine), and the Holy Ghost (neuter): and these three (masculine) are one (masculine).

     5:8 And there are three (masculine) that bear witness (masculine) in earth,] the Spirit (neuter), and the water (neuter), and the blood (neuter): and these three (masculine) agree in one.

     When we inquire of the scholars for an accounting of this strange situation, the reply is that the only way to account for the masculine use of the three neuters in vs. 8 is that here they have been 'personalized'. Yet we observe that the Holy Spirit is referred to twice in vs. 6 and as He is the third person of the Trinity this would amount to 'personalizing' the word “Spirit” – but the neuter gender is used. Therefore since personalization did not bring about a change of gender in vs. 6, it cannot fairly be pleaded as the reason for such a change in vs. 8.

     What then is to be done by way of explanation? The answer is that something is missing! If we retain the Johannine Comma, a reason for referring to the neuter nouns (Spirit, water, and blood) of vs. 8 in the masculine gender becomes readily clear. The key is the principle of 'influence' and 'attraction' in Greek grammar. What influence would cause “that bear record” in verse 7 and “these three” in vs. 8 to suddenly become masculine? The answer can only be: due to the influence of the nouns Father and Word in verse 7 which are masculine – it is the inclusion of the Father and the Word, to which the beginning and ending of the passage are attracted, a principle well known in Greek syntax. In effect then, the only way the spirit, the water and the blood can be 'personalized' is by retaining the reading of the 1611 King James and the Greek text upon which it is based, where all three words are direct references to the Trinity (vs. 7). Where is the “Person”(?). “The Person” is in verse 7 of the Authorized Version of 1611.

     The reader will note that the underlined phrase, “that bear witness/record”, occurring three times in the preceding passage is a participle which is a type of verbal adjective. As adjectives, they modify nouns and must agree in gender. Thus if a textual critic wishes to remove this passage (enclosed in square brackets) with integrity, he should be able to answer for it.

     But there is no satisfactory answer! Leading Greek scholars such as Metzger, Vincent, Alford, Vine, Wuest, Bruce, Plummer, etc. , make no mention whatsoever of the problem when dealing with the passage in any of their works to date. The International Critical Commentary devotes twelve pages to the passage, but is ignorantly or dishonestly silent regarding the mismatched genders.

     Finally, with regard to internal evidence, if the words were omitted, the concluding words at the end of vs.8 contain an unintelligible reference. The Greek words “kai hoi treis eis to hen eisin” mean precisely – “and these three agree to that (aforementioned) One". If the 7th verse is omitted, “that One” does not appear.

     It is inconceivable how “that One” (Grk = to hen) can be reconciled with the taking away of the preceding words, that is – by taking out ‘The Comma’. Remove it, and the grammar becomes incoherent.

     On another note about remarkable manuscript evidence…

     Three small fragments of uncial codex written on both sides, were obtained in Luxor, Egypt in 1901 by an Oxford graduate, Rev. Charles Huleatt, M. A. He sent them on to Magdalen College in Oxford, England where they are preserved in a display case. In 1953 they were dated to 180 – 200 A.D. and they exhibit Greek text from the 26th chapter of Matthew.

     A Dr. Carsten Thiede came across these fragments in 1994. He is the Director of the Institute for Basic Epistemological Research in Paderborn, Germany. By an extensive and painstaking process, he re-dated the fragments to approximately 66 A.D.

     These results met with ‘unanimous approval’ by the 21st Congress of the International Papyrologists’ Association in Berlin, Germany on August 15th, 1995.

     Additionally interesting, is that by using an eipflourescent confocal laser scanning microscope, Dr. Thiede found that fragment 3 (recto) revealed the TR/KJB reading from Matthew 26:22 instead of the reading as found in all the various critical texts.

     Therefore, this 66 A.D. fragment now documents the antiquity of the TR/KJB text to the time of the Apostles: Peter, Paul and John.

     Another interesting tidbit is that Carsten Thiede was not motivated to arrive at these conclusions because he is a supporter of the Textus Receptus, for he is not a supporter. Furthermore there is a book and DVD under the name, 'Eyewitness to Jesus'. The DVD is very interesting, but it does not go into the text issue other than how it was dated to the 60’s.

     And yet another recent Manuscript discovery is on the way…

     "Mummy Mask May Reveal Oldest Known Gospel"

     by Owen Jarus, Live Science Contributor | January 18, 2015 04:21am ET

     http://www.livescience.com/49489-oldest-known-gospel-mummy-mask.html

     A text that may be the oldest copy of a gospel known to exist — a fragment of the Gospel of Mark that was written during the first century, before the year 90 — is set to be published.

     This first-century gospel fragment was written on a sheet of papyrus that was later reused to create a mask that was worn by a mummy. Although the mummies of Egyptian pharaohs wore masks made of gold, ordinary people had to settle for masks made out of papyrus (or linen), paint and glue. Given how expensive papyrus was, people often had to reuse sheets that already had writing on them.

     In recent years scientists have developed a technique that allows the glue of mummy masks to be undone without harming the ink on the paper. The text on the sheets can then be read.

     Set to publish

     Evans said that the research team will publish the first volume of texts obtained through the mummy masks and cartonnage later this year. It will include the gospel fragment that the researchers believe dates back to the first century.

     The team originally hoped the volume would be published in 2013 or 2014, but the date had to be moved back to 2015. Evans said he is uncertain why the book's publication was delayed, but the team has made use of the extra time to conduct further studies into the first-century gospel. "The benefit of the delay is that when it comes out, there will be additional information about it and other related texts".

     Hummm… This looks to be very interesting.

• - by Ed Elkins

Save or print this article