"Spiritual Deception in the Highest"

An In Depth Study Of:

The Authorized King James Bible


All Other 'Modern Versions'

by: Jeff Johnson


*This is the best book I've ever read about the King James!  If you do not know why the King James is the only English Bible any Christian should ever use, then this is the book for you.  It's a little long, but worth the read, as it shows beyond a shadow of a doubt, that all new versions of the Bible are Satanic counterfeits, the results of satanic conspiracy and spiritual attack against the pure words of God.  May you read this work, and take a stand for the King James Bible!

- Robert Breaker III



Section Page

Title Page 1

Table Of Contents 2

Foreword 4

Footnoting Methodology 5

Preface 6

Chapter 1: Bible Comparison: A Broad Analysis 7

Chapter 2: Bible Comparison: An Individual Analysis 20

Chapter 3: How Could This Happen? 38

Chapter 4: In The Beginning ... 42

Chapter 5: God's Truth: The Peshitta Bible (150 A.D.) 47

Chapter 6: God's Truth: The Italic Bible (157 A.D.) 48

Chapter 7: Satan's Counterfeit: The Origen-Eusebius Bible 50

Chapter 8: Satan's Counterfeit: Jerome's Latin Bible (380 A.D) 54

Chapter 9: Satan's Persecution Of The True Church 57

Chapter 10: The Dark Ages (476 A.D. - 1453 A.D.) 60

Chapter 11: God's Truth: The Erasmus Bible (1522 A.D.) 61

Chapter 12: God's Truth: Luther's Bible (1522 A.D.) 65

Chapter 13: God's Truth: The Tyndale Bible (1525 A.D.) 66

Chapter 14: The Council Of Trent (1545 A.D.) 69

Chapter 15: The Roman Catholic Church 71

Chapter 16: The Jesuits 73

Chapter 17: Satan's Counterfeit: The Jesuit Bible 76

Chapter 18: God's Truth: The King James Bible (1611 A.D.) 79

Chapter 19: Modern Bible 'Claims' 85

Chapter 20: Satan's Counterfeits: Sinaiticus and Vaticanus 96

Chapter 21: Satan's Counterfeit: The Westcott and Hort Text 102

Chapter 22: Westcott and Hort 109

Chapter 23: Money Changers In The Temple 114

Chapter 24: God's Preserved Word 124

Chapter 25: New Age Doctrine 127

Chapter 26: Lexicons 135

Chapter 27: The Future? 140

Chapter 28: Conclusions 147

Chapter 29: Parting Comments 154

References 156



When I began to research the Bible my intent was to use the 'version' I found to be most accurate. That effort has taken three years, covered about 3,100 pages of research, and has resulted in this report.

To analyze the various Bibles required detailed 'verse by verse' comparisons. In chapter 1 of this report, we will review 20 of those verses. Those 20 scriptures were selected because they contain vital Christian doctrine.

As we review each comparison, you will see a lot of subtle, doctrinal, ramifications. Those subtleties are easily overlooked when just casually reading through the Bible.

When I was in the middle of this research, and the doctrinal implications surfaced; it became obvious that I needed to document my findings for the benefit of others.

Now that I'm at the end of this project; I am convinced that to be saved is the highest of all priorities. But, right after being saved, the choice of which Bible to use is next in importance. This is especially true for those whom God has called to teach; as Bible teachers will affect a great number of people.

The bottom line is this: I think you will be amazed at what is being taught in some of these 'Bibles'. I truly believe you will find this report to be a real 'eye opener'.

Lastly, this entire study is purposely NOT COPYRIGHTED. I have left this manuscript in electronic format so that it can be shared, freely. You are welcome to copy all of it, or part of it, as the Lord leads.

To God belongs all the Glory!

- Jeff Johnson

F O O T N O T I N G   M E T H O D O L O G Y


During the writing of this report I realized that, in its final form, this information would be converted into ASCII text. ASCII text can be uploaded to the Internet, uploaded to Christian Bulletin Boards, etc. Also, ASCII text can be read by almost any word processor.

Unfortunately, ASCII text cannot handle the typical "superscripts" used in footnoting. Translation into ASCII deletes all superscripts, subscripts, bolding, etc. etc.

Since I wanted to document all my references (so the reader can verify the facts), I have decided to use the following format for all footnotes:


Where, S# stands for source number and P# stands for page number.

Thus: [S1P1] is source number 1, page number 1; and [S2P4-5] is source number 2, pages 4 thru 5 etc. etc.

A list of the sources, their source numbers, as well as their distributors, can be found in the References at the end of this report.




"No greater mischief can happen to a Christian people than to have God's Word taken from them or falsified, so that they no longer have it pure and clear. God grant that we and our descendants be not witnesses of such a calamity. Let us not lose the Bible, but with diligence, in fear and invocation of God, read and preach it".

- Martin Luther


C H A P T E R 1

B I B L E C O M P A R I S O N: A B R O A D A N A L Y S I S

In this chapter we compare the teaching in the Authorized King James Bible to a broad array of 'modern versions'. The purpose is to note the versions' effect on Christian doctrine. 20 verses, many of them familiar to the reader, are used in this comparison.

When I say 'modern versions', I am referring to all other 'versions' except the Authorized King James Bible. 'Modern versions' include: the NIV, the RSV, the NRSV, the NASV, the NKJV, the TEB, the LB, the AMP, etc. etc.

The NIV, RSV, NASV etc. etc. fit the 'broad comparison' profile contained in this chapter.

However, there are at least 3 modern versions which require a specific 'individual' analysis. The 3 I am referring to are: The New King James Version (NKJV), the Living Bible (LB), and the Amplified Bible (AMP).

The 'New King James Version', 'The Living Bible', and the 'Amplified Bible' are compared to the KJV in chapter 2.

To get the most out of this chapter, please compare the verses with me, as you read along. You will need a 'modern version' and the King James Bible.

If you have a NKJV, a LB, or an AMP, please read this chapter before going on to chapter 2.

Now that you're ready, let's begin ...

B I B L E Q U I Z: 2 0 Q U E S T I O N S

Bible Question #1: Who was it that saved Shadrach, Messach, and Abednego from the fiery furnace?


Turn to Daniel 3:25. In this verse, Shadrach, Messach and Abednego have been thrown into the fiery furnace. However, they are NOT alone! Another one (a fourth) is there to deliver them !

Let's start off by looking at this verse in a 'modern version'. (Notice: the wording in each 'modern version' will differ slightly from all the others. But, those small differences, will not materially affect this report).

Suffice it to say that, at the end of Daniel 3:25, a 'modern' version has a reading "similar to" the following:

"... and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods ..."

"a" son of the ( plural ) gods?! Who is that? What is His name ? Notice how that reading is very vague and "non-descript".

But, look at this same verse in your King James Bible. The Authorized (KJ) Bible says:

"... and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God". i.e. Jesus Christ.

It was JESUS CHRIST, THE only begotten Son of God, who delivered Shadrach, Messach and Abednego. Jesus saved them from the fiery furnace; and it's Jesus who will save you and me from the fiery furnace (i.e. from hell, from the lake of fire ).

The Bible is clear: There is ONLY ONE SAVIOUR: The LORD Jesus Christ, THE Son (capital S) of God (big G). Jesus is the ONLY one who saves from the fiery furnace, NOT "a" son of the (plural) gods (little g). Jesus saved in the past, He does it today, and He will save in the future ! Amen ?

Bible Question #2: Who was Jesus' father?


The answer, of course, is that God was Jesus' father. Let's look in a 'modern' version of the Bible, at Luke 2:33.

Starting in Luke 2:27 Simeon has gone into the temple to see the baby Jesus (who is with Joseph and Mary). Again, depending on the particular 'modern' version, in verse 33, it will say something similar to:

" ... and his FATHER and mother were amazed at the things which were spoken of him" [i.e. of Jesus].

What do you mean "... and his father ..." was amazed at the things which were spoken of him?! Jesus' father was NOT Joseph! Jesus' father was God!

Now, let's look in the Authorized King James Bible. The KJV has the correct reading; in Luke 2:33 it says:

"And JOSEPH and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him".

For a 'modern' version ( NIV, NASV, RSV etc.) to say Joseph was Jesus' father is blasphemy! Think about the doctrinal implications: If Jesus had only an earthly father and mother, then he is just any man. If he is just any man, then we are still in our sins. If we are still in our sins, then we are not saved! If we are not saved, then we have a big problem!

Bible Question #3: What was Jesus' purpose in coming to earth?


Turn to Matthew 18:11. You may have a hard time finding this verse. In many new, 'modern', versions this verse is missing! The verses are numbered 10 then 12, 13, 14! Or you may find verse 11 is in brackets, casting doubt as to whether it is scriptural.

Let's see what the Authorized King James says:

"For the Son of man is come TO SAVE THAT WHICH WAS LOST."

This one verse, which summarizes Jesus' entire mission to earth, is either ignored in 'new' versions; or it is put in brackets casting doubt on it! This verse contains a KEY piece of Christian doctrine.

People have to know they are lost, i.e. that they have a problem, to know they need a saviour.

Bible Question #4: Noah was a great man used by God to build the Ark. To be called for such a task required Noah to be approved by the Lord God. So, how was Noah 'justified' before God? Was Noah's justification by his own works?


For the answer, turn in your Bible to Genesis 6:8. In a 'modern version' it says something like:

"Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord."

Now think what the word favor implies. Favor implies that Noah was 'better' than others. Favor implies Noah was approved by God because of his own 'good works'.

Now compare that to the KJV. It says:

"Noah found GRACE in the eyes of the Lord".

Even though Noah was used of God, he was also in need of grace (just like all of us). Noah was NOT justified by his good works, but by God's grace.

Look at verse 9: It says Noah walked with God. Notice that Noah's walk with God occurs, in verse 9, AFTER Noah received grace from God, in verse 8. Grace precedes our walk with God. We are NOT justified (NOR saved) by our own works.

Remember, Noah got drunk on occasion (Gen 9:21). He was in need of God's amazing grace. We are, too.

The consistent theme of the Bible is that we are saved by God's grace and NOT by our own works. Grace and favor have two totally, different, meanings.

The Authorized King James Bible is consistent with the Bible's teachings. These 'modern versions' are not.

Bible Question #5: Why did Jesus Christ go to the cross?


Let's look at 2 verses. Turn to 1st Peter 4:1. In a 'modern' version it says: "... Christ suffered ..."

In your Authorized King James Bible the full reading is quoted as:

"... Christ suffered FOR US."

Notice the last two words give the FULL meaning. Leaving out "for us" misses the point entirely!

This is confirmed again in 1 Corinthians 5:7b. In many 'new' versions it says:

"For Christ, our Passover, has been sacrificed."

Again, the full reading is found in the King James Bible. It says:

"For even Christ our passover is sacrificed FOR US."

Bible Question #6: How did Jesus' going to the cross bring our redemption?


A 'modern' version will NOT tell you how! (in Colossians 1:14). It says (of Jesus):

"in whom we have redemption ..."

The full Christian doctrine is only included in the King James reading of the same verse. Properly stated, it says (of Jesus):

"In whom we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD ..."

Without the shedding of blood there is NO remission of sins. Leaving out "the blood" misses a key point of doctrine (and leaves us in our sins).

Bible Question #7: Who does Jesus "call" and what does he "call" them to do?


The questions are getting harder! Open a 'modern' version to Matthew 9:13b. It says something like:

"For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners".

Notice how the end of this verse begs the question: "... call the righteous, but sinners TO WHAT?" Turn to the same verse in the King James Bible:

"... for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners TO REPENTANCE".

Those last 2 words are crucial! Hell (and then the lake of fire) will get all the sinners who don't repent. Jesus will get all the sinners who do repent. There is a big difference in those two eternal outcomes. And, there is a big difference in these two translations.

We are all sinners, and we must all repent, to be saved.

Bible Question #8: What happens to those who do not receive the testimony of Jesus Christ, i.e. what happens the those who do not receive the gift of everlasting life?


In many 'modern' versions you won't find out! This is because part of the verse is missing (in Mark 6:11). Let's turn there now. A 'modern' version reads something like:

"... shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them."

However, the King James gives the full teaching:

"... shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. VERILY I SAY UNTO YOU, IT SHALL BE MORE TOLERABLE FOR SODOM AND GOMORRHA IN THE DAY OF JUDGMENT, THAN FOR THAT CITY".

I think the reader will agree that this verse contains important information we need to know!

Bible Question #9: After we repent, and are born again (come to saving grace), what else does Jesus command us to do?


There are many changes that come in our new birth/in our new nature, but the answer I'm looking for is this: We are to make a public profession of faith. Then we are to be baptized, by immersion, in water.

Let's look in Acts chapter 8, verses 35-37. In Acts 8:35 Philip, the Apostle, preached Jesus Christ to the eunuch. In verse 36 the eunuch realized his need to be baptized. The eunuch then asks if he can be baptized.

Now, take a look at Acts 8:37 in a 'modern' version of the Bible. Many (but not all) 'modern' versions go from Acts chapter 8 verse 35, to verse 36, then to 38. 38?! Where is verse 37 you ask? And, what did verse 37 say?

This key verse, properly included in the King James Bible, tells us whom should be baptized. It says:


Numbering verses 35, 36, and then 38 is NOT the new math!

These 'modern' versions, which leave out verse 37, are omitting the deity of Jesus Christ. Also, they are missing the key point: We must make a PUBLIC profession of faith. We must believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. If we do not know, believe, and confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, our baptism only 'gets us wet'. Leaving out verse 37 omits a major portion of Christian doctrine.

Omissions of doctrine and corruptions of doctrine are bad news. In both cases, the reader is NOT getting the correct information he/she needs to know.

Bible Question #10: Can you recite the Lord's prayer?


The Lord's prayer, taught to us by Jesus, and recorded in Luke 11:2-4 of the KJV, is as follows:

"... Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil."

Now turn to Luke 11:2-4 in a 'modern' version and re-read the Lord's prayer. The wording will be similar to:

"... Father, hallowed be Thy name. Thy Kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves also forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation".

Note this modern version states "Father" but then leaves out "... WHICH ART IN HEAVEN ...". You don't know who you are praying to, your Father in heaven, or to Satan!

It also leaves out "our" as in OUR father. We were created by God who is "OUR" father. Satan is a father, but he is not "OUR" father. Satan is the "father" of lies.

And this 'modern' version leaves out "THY WILL BE DONE, AS IN HEAVEN, SO IN EARTH". By leaving out the fact that we are praying to our Father WHOSE WILL IS DONE IN HEAVEN, this 'modern' version is re-directing your prayer away from God and toward someone or something else (in another place).

Lastly, there is a major omission in the last half of verse 4. Verse 4 states: "And lead us not into temptation". But this verse then leaves out: "... BUT DELIVER US FROM EVIL ..."

Personally, I want to be delivered from evil! How about you?

I think the reader will agree: This 'modern version' is NOT the "Lord's Prayer" you want to be praying! Think about it.

Bible Question #11: After our new birth, how are we supposed to relate to God?


Once we are born again we have a new standard for our lives; it is Jesus Christ. The Bible tells us how we are to relate to him. Please turn to Ephesians 5:1 . In a 'new' version it says:

"... be imitators of God ..."

Compare this to the Authorized King James:

"Be ye therefore FOLLOWERS of God ..."

Even though we are born again; can we possibly imitate God? Can we be the judge of the Universe? Can we be at all places at the same time? No way. We have a new nature, sure; but we are still only men.

Think about it: only Satan tries to imitate God! Ever since the garden of Eden, Satan has tried to direct worship toward HIMSELF. We, as men, could NEVER imitate God. We are only men. We can only FOLLOW God!

Publishers of 'new', 'more up to date' versions are encouraging us to be like Satan! (i.e. to think of ourselves as God).

Bible Question #12: While we're talking about Satan, now is a good time to ask Bible question #12. What does the Bible say is the test for the antichrist?


Let's turn to 1st John 4:3 . A 'modern' version says:

"and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already."

Again, in 'modern' versions, key pieces of scripture are left out. Compare this same verse with the FULL reading in the King James. In the KJV it says:

"And every spirit that confesseth not that JESUS CHRIST IS COME IN THE FLESH is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."

Remember, evil spirits did confess Jesus. In Luke 4:34 (and in Mark 1:24) a man having a "spirit of an unclean devil" said to Jesus:

"... Let [us] alone; what have we to do with thee, [thou] JESUS of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God."

Contrary to what 'modern' versions would tell you, the antichrist DOES KNOW who Jesus is. But, what the antichrist CAN NOT say, is that: "JESUS CHRIST IS COME IN THE FLESH".

Modern versions not only need to get their gospel straight; they also need to correctly quote the true test for the antichrist.

Also, take a look at this: Compare 1st John 4:3 again between a 'modern' version and the King James Bible. Look one more time at what the 'new' version says:

"... which does not confess Jesus is ..."

But, in the King James it says:

"... that confesseth not that Jesus CHRIST is ..."

Besides the doctrinal error, these 'modern' versions continually assault the Lordship and Deity of Jesus Christ. If the King James says: "Jesus Christ", many times the modern versions will only say: "Jesus". If the King James says: "Lord Jesus Christ, "many times the 'modern' versions will only say: "Lord" or will only say: "Jesus".

Bible Question #13: In the wilderness, when Satan tempted Jesus to turn a stone into bread for food; what was Jesus' response?


Turn to Luke 4:4 . In a 'modern' version it reads: "... man shall not live by bread alone".

Well, that's true and that's part of it. But, what about the rest of the verse? Notice: words have been LEFT OUT in these 'modern versions'.

The Authorized (King James) Bible has the correct and full reading. In Luke 4:4 it says:

"... man shall not live by bread alone, BUT BY EVERY WORD OF GOD".

The fact that we are nourished by bread is true, but that is only part of the story. Our lives are sustained by the Word of God. We need bread to sustain our bodies; but, these 'modern' versions leave out our need for the life sustaining Word of God.

Bible Question #14: Whom does Jesus say has "everlasting life"?


For the answer; open your Bible to John 6:47. In a 'modern version' it says something like: "... he who believes has eternal life ..."

Notice how this does not make much sense. This verse does not have enough information.

Compare this to the King James. In it, Jesus is quoted as saying:

"... He that believeth ON ME hath everlasting life."

Everyone who believes DOES NOT have everlasting life; only those who believe ON JESUS. In John 6:47, the two words "ON ME" are vital.

Jesus Christ is the rock of our salvation. We must believe ON HIM to have everlasting life. Again, key Christian doctrine is missing.

How can missing information be a 'better', 'improved', translation?

Bible Question #15: Who slew Goliath?


This is an easy one! Now turn to 2nd Samuel 21:19. Depending on the 'modern version' it will say something like:

"... Elhanan ... killed Goliath ..."

What do you mean Elhanan killed Goliath!? This is wrong you say. Most Sunday school children know that David slew Goliath! Well, you're right. This is clearly in error.

Look at the same passage in your King James Bible. The Authorized King James Bible has the correct reading which is:

"... Elhanan ... slew THE BROTHER OF Goliath ..."

Spiritually, as Christians, we are the equivalent of David. Spiritually, Satan is the equivalent of Goliath. Just as David slew Goliath (with a rock), we Christians are "more than conquerors" as we have overcome (slew) Satan by the blood of the lamb (Jesus Christ, the rock!) and by the word of our testimony. Not only are 'modern versions' in error; but major doctrinal issues are involved here. Think about it.

Bible Question #16: Jesus said that our heavenly Father will forgive us of our sins. However, we are told that; likewise, there is something we must do. Do you remember what it is?


Let's turn, in a 'modern version' to Mark 11:26. Are you not able to find it? Are the verses in Mark chapter 11 numbered 23, 24, 25 and then 27!? Is verse 26 missing? Well, there is nothing wrong with your eyesight! Verse 26 is not there (or it is in brackets, casting doubt on it). It's ANOTHER omission.

Now turn to the same verse in your Authorized (King James) Version. The KJV says:


Oh, man! This is important to know! Leaving out verse 26, leaves out an important piece of Christian doctrine. Verse 26 needs to be there! And, that's why it is properly included in your King James Bible.

Bible Question #17: What did Jesus say about religious hypocrisy?


First, let's take a look in a 'modern' version of the Bible. What does it say in Matthew 23:14?

Actually, it says nothing! ( The verse is missing in many modern versions ).

For the word of God, turn to the same verse in your King James Bible. What does it say?


Jesus does not like hypocrisy. Notice how God knows our heart!

Bible Question #18: What did Jesus say we are to do relative to each other?


For the answer see: James 5:16. Many 'modern' versions say something similar to:

"... confess your sins to one another ..."

( Notice this could lead to gossip and further sinning ). But the King James says:

"... confess your FAULTS one to another ..."

Notice the 2 different words. The Bible says that ONLY God can forgive sins. We are supposed to confess our SINS to Him. We should confess our FAULTS to one another, but SINS are confessed to God. Faults and sins are entirely different.

Can you see how 'modern' versions have led Catholics astray? And, if it has led Catholics astray; couldn't the same thing happen to us if we, our spouse, our children, or our pastor, uses a 'modern' version?

Bible Question #19: Do modern 'versions' of the Bible have anyother problems?


Unfortunately, the answer is yes. In the Bible, the New Testament sometimes re-quotes the Old Testament. An example of this is in Mark 1:2

Compare the two Bibles again. In a 'new version' it says:

"As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, ..."

Compare this to the King James, it says:

"As it is written IN THE PROPHETS, ... "

Comment: The scripture quoted in Mark 1:2 DID NOT come from Isaiah as stated in these 'modern' versions of the Bible. The scripture quoted is from Malachi 3:1 ! Check it out.

Not only do 'modern' versions misquote God; they even misquote themselves!

The KJV reading of: "As it is written IN THE PROPHETS, ... " is correct, because the verse is from Malachi 3:1, and Malachi was a prophet!

So far we have seen all kinds of problems in these 'new', 'modern', 'more easily readable', 'more up to date', etc. etc. versions of the Bible. This leads to the last Bible question:

Bible Question #20: Why is it important to have the true Word of God (vs. a corruption)?


The answer, to our question, is found in 1 Peter 2:2. Please turn there now.

In a 'modern version' it says:

"... long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation; "

The King James Bible tells us to:

"... desire the SINCERE milk OF THE WORD, that ye may GROW thereby:"

My comment is that this verse, in 'new', 'modern,' versions, contains 2 problems:

First, we are to desire the sincere milk OF THE WORD. The purpose is "to grow thereby". Modern versions leave out "OF THE WORD". It's God's word that feeds us. If, like the modern verse, we leave out "the word" how can we grow? Or, if we get a corrupted translation, how can we grow on 'junk food'?

Second, contrary to 'modern' versions, we DO NOT grow up to salvation. That says salvation is by works! We are saved by grace, and not of works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9) Think about it.

In this chapter, we reviewed the doctrine contained in a "broad" array of 'new', 'modern', 'more easily readable', versions of the Bible. We compared 'modern' doctrine to the KJV. And, we have found significant error.

But, all 'modern' versions do not follow this 'broad' profile. So, in the next chapter, we will analyze 3 versions of the Bible which need an individual, case by case, analysis.


C H A P T E R 2

B I B L E C O M P A R I S O N :

(A N I N D I V I D U A L A N A L Y S I S)

In chapter 1, we compared the King James Bible to a broad array of 'new versions'. However, a few 'versions' need a case by case, 'individual', analysis.

In this chapter we will compare the 'New King James Version' (NKJV), the 'Living Bible' (LB), and the 'Amplified Bible' (AMP) to the KJV.

The K J V V S. The N K J V

Gen 1:21

KJV: "And God created great WHALES ..."

NKJV: "So God created great sea creatures ..."

COMMENT: There is a difference between sea creatures and whales.

Matt 12:40

KJV: "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the WHALES's belly ..."

NKJV: "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish ..."

Gen. 2:7

KJV: "... and man became a living SOUL."

NKJV: "... and man became a living being."

Comment: A MAJOR difference between man and beast is that

man is the ONLY creature with a soul. New versions miss this point.

Gen. 2:13

KJV: "... land of ETHIOPIA."

NKJV: "... land of Cush."

Comment: I know where Ethiopia is, but where is Cush?


Gen. 3:4-5

KJV: "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye at thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods knowing good and evil."

NKJV: "Then the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God knowing good and evil."

COMMENT: This is major blasphemy! God (with a big G) is not

evil! Think about the difference.

Gen. 22:8

KJV: "And Abraham said, My son, God will provide HIMSELF a lamb for a burnt offering ..."

NKJV: "And Abraham said, My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering.

Comment: It is true, as the NKJV says, that God did provide FOR himself a sacrifice. However, that is only part of the story. The NKJV totally misses the deeper, and more amazing truth: GOD WAS the sacrifice! The KJV wording is perfect: "God will provide HIMSELF" (in the form of his son Jesus Christ) as the sacrifice.

1 Ki.10:28

KJV: "and LINEN yarn: the king's merchants received the LINEN yarn at a price."

NKJV: "and Keveh; the king's merchants bought them in Keveh at the current price."

Comment: I know what linen is, but what is Keveh?

Dan. 3:25

KJV: "... and the form of the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD."

NKJV: (footnote) "or a son of the gods"

COMMENT: See comments in chapter 1 of this report. There is

a big difference between "THE SON OF GOD" and a son of 'plural' gods!

Zech 11:17

KJV: "Woe to the IDOL shepherd that leaveth the flock!

NKJV: "Woe to the worthless shepherd, who leaves the flock"

Matt. 2:4

KJV: "... he (King Herod) DEMANDED of them where Christ should be born."

NKJV: "... he inquired of them where Christ was to be born."

COMMENT: King Herod, furious over the arrival of Jesus, (and

wanting to do away with Him) did not inquire where Christ should be born, he DEMANDED to know!

Matt 18:11

KJV: "For the Son of Man IS come to save that which was lost."

NKJV: "For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost."

Comment: The NJKV says Jesus Christ "has come" to save that

which was lost; a PAST TENSE statement. The NKJV implies that ALL who were to be saved, HAVE BEEN saved. Not true. Anyone TODAY can be saved by Jesus. The correct reading is PRESENT TENSE. There are NUMEROUS places where the NKJV changes the verb tense. These types of NKJV corruptions are very subtle.

Matt 20:20

KJV: "Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, WORSHIPPING him ..."

NKJV: "Then the mother of Zebedee's sons came to Him with her sons, kneeling down ..."

COMMENT: Kneeling down is not even close to 'worship'.

John 1:3

KJV: "All things were made BY Him ..."

NKJV: "All things were made through Him ..."

COMMENT: 'BY' and through are totally different. Think about it.

John 4:24

KJV: "God is A Spirit ..."

NKJV: "God is Spirit ..."

COMMENT: For the NKJV to say: "God is spirit" is to infer that ALL spirits are God. Not true. We know there are evil spirits. And we know in God there is NO evil. Thus the KJV is correct: God is 'A' spirit.

Acts 12:4

KJV: "... after Easter ..."

NKJV: "... after Passover"

Acts 4:13

KJV: "Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and IGNORANT men ..."

NKJV: "Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and untrained men ..."

COMMENT: Peter and John had been with Jesus for some time. They WERE NOT untrained. Jesus HAD trained them. They were, however, ignorant (In the eyes of the Pharisees).

Acts 17:22

KJV: "Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are TOO SUPERSTITIOUS."

NKJV: "Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious;"

Comment: Come on! Being very religious and TOO SUPERSTITIOUS are entirely different!

2 Cor. 2:17

KJV: "For we are not as many, which CORRUPT the Word of God ..."

NKJV:"For we are not, as so many, peddling the Word of God ..."

COMMENT: Peddling and corrupting are very different. "Modern" versions try and hide from the truth they are 'corrupting' the Word of God.

Gal. 2:20

KJV: "I AM crucified with Christ ..."

NKJV: "I have been crucified with Christ ..."

COMMENT: The NKJV is saying their crucifixion is over! Not true. The believers crucifixion is an ongoing, PRESENT TENSE, transaction.

Eph. 5:1

KJV: "Therefore be FOLLOWERS of God ..."

NKJV: "Therefore be imitators of God ..."

Comment: See chapter 1 of this report for a full analysis. Only Satan tries to imitate God as Satan wants to be worshipped AS God. Born again believers cannot imitate God. We can't rule the universe. We can only follow God. Remember Jesus DID NOT tell his "fishers of men" to imitate Him. Jesus said: "follow me ...".

Philipians 3:8


NKJV: "rubbish"

COMMENT: I have rubbish on the top of my office desk, but I don't want 'dung' there!!!

1 Tim 6:10

KJV: "For the love of money is THE root of all evil ..."

NKJV: "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil ..."

COMMENT: There is a big difference between the NKJV's "a" root and the correct KJV reading of "THE" root.

1 Tim 6:20

KJV: "... oppositions of science falsely so called"

NKJV: "... contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge"

2 Tim 2:15

KJV: "STUDY to shew thyself approved unto God ..."

NKJV: "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God..."

COMMENT: We are supposed to STUDY the Word of God.

Jude 15

KJV: "... and of all their hard SPEECHES which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him."

NKJV: "... and of all the harsh things which ..."

COMMENT: There is a difference between speeches and things.


K J V V S. L B

In this section we compare the King James to the "Living Bible" (LB). The Living Bible is a 'paraphrase'. In a 'paraphrased' Bible the renderings are arbitrary.

In this comparison we will show the result of a 'paraphrased' approach.

Lev. 3:13b


LB: "The priest shall throw its blood against the sides of the altar."

Numbers 25:11


LB: "Phinehas has turned away my anger for he was as angry as I."

COMMENT: How can someone be as angry as God?

Judges 7:20b


LB: "All yelling for the Lord and for Gideon."

Comment: The two verses are not even close!

Judges 19:2


LB: "But she became angry with him and ran away."

Comment: Are PLAYING THE WHORE and running away the same?

I Sam. 20:30


LB: "You son of a bitch."

Comment: Some 'modern' versions, like the LB, actually contain vulgarity. Notice this verse. Also, take a look in an NIV 'bible' in Ezekiel 23:20.

II Sam. 16:4b


LB: "Thank you, thank you, sir, Ziba replied."

Comment: There is NO similarity between these two verses.

I Kings 18:27


LB: "Perhaps he is talking to someone or else is out sitting on the toilet."

Comment: Sitting on a toilet ???

II Kings 21:6b


LB: "So the Lord was very angry, for Manasseh was an evil man in God's opinion."

COMMENT: In God's opinion?

II Chr. 26:4


LB: "He followed in the footsteps of his father Amaziah and was in general a good king as far as the Lord's opinion of him was concerned."

COMMENT: Again, God does NOT have opinions. Men have opinions.

Job 3:26


LB: "I was not fat and lazy yet trouble struck me down."

Psalm 34:20


LB: "God even protects him from accidents."

COMMENT: There are NO ACCIDENTS with God!

Ezekiel 2:1


LB: "And he said unto me, Stand up, son of dust and I will talk to you."

COMMENT: In the book of Ezekiel `son of dust' is used in place of `son of man'. Does the term 'son of dust' sound as derogatory to you like as it does to me?

Zech. 2:8


LB: "For he who harms you sticks his finger in Jehovah's eye."

Zech. 13:6


LB: "And if someone asks then, what are these scars on your chest and your back, you will say, I got into a brawl at the home of a friend."

COMMENT: The footnote about this verse says: "That this is not a passage referring to Christ is clear from the context. This is a false prophet who is lying about the reasons for his scars." We wonder how the editor of the LB (Taylor) came to know this.

Mark 9:29


LB: "Jesus replied, Cases like this require prayer."

COMMENT: Notice: fasting is left out! Wonder why Satan does not want us to fast?

Luke 23:42


LB: "Then he said, Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."

COMMENT: What justification is there to strip Jesus of his title "Lord"?

John 1:17


LB: "For Moses gave us only the law with its rigid demands and merciless justice while Jesus Christ brought us loving forgiveness as well."

COMMENT: The Old Testament contained God's mercy and grace, too.

John 2:4


LB: "I can't help you now, He said, It isn't yet my time for miracles."

COMMENT: His hour would come at Calvary. His HOUR and His MIRACLES are not the same.

John 3:13


LB: "For only I, the Messiah, have come to earth and will return to heaven again."

Comment: Not true, LB! Remember the angels on Jacob's ladder?

John 6:69


LB: "And we believe them and know you are the holy Son of God."

COMMENT: The word Christ means "anointed". Why does the LB strip him of his anointing?

John 13:26


LB: "He told me it is the one I honor by giving the bread dipped in the sauce."

COMMENT: Was Jesus Christ really HONORING Judas?

Acts 9:5


LB: "Who is speaking sir, Paul asked. And the voice replied, I am Jesus, the one you are persecuting. Now get up and go into the city and await my further instructions."

COMMENT: Jesus title "LORD" is changed to `SIR'. And Saul's name is changed to Paul.

I Cor. 16:22


LB: "If anyone does not love the Lord, that person is cursed, Lord Jesus, come."

COMMENT: Once again; Jesus Christ is separated from title 'Lord'

II Cor. 8:9


LB: "You know how full of love and kindness our Lord Jesus was."

COMMENT: Lord Jesus Christ is stripped down to: Lord Jesus.

I Tim. 2:5-6


LB: "That God is on one side and all the people on the other side, and Christ Jesus Himself, man, is between them to bring them together by giving His life for all mankind."

I Tim. 3:16


LB: "It is quite true that the matter to live a godly life is not an easy matter, but the answer lies in Christ who came to earth as a man."

COMMENT: Remember the test for the anti-christ. The anti-christ cannot say: "JESUS CHRIST IS COME IN THE FLESH". Notice how the LB dances around this verse! Apparently the LB cannot say "GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH!

I John 1:7


LB: "The blood of Jesus, His Son, cleanses us from every sin."

COMMENT: Jesus Christ is stripped down to Jesus.

Rev. 6:17


LB: "Because the great day of THEIR anger is come and who can survive it?"

Comment: What do "HIS" wrath and "THEIR" anger have in common?

K J V V S. A M P.

In this section we compare the King James to the "Amplified Bible" (AMP). In this comparison, we will see the results of an 'amplified' approach.

Gen 1:21

KJV: "And God created great WHALES ..."

AMP: "God created the great sea monsters ..."

Matt. 12:40

KJV: "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the WHALES's belly ..."

AMP: "For even as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster ..."

COMMENT: God creates monsters?

Gen. 2:7

KJV: "... and man became a living SOUL."

AMP: "... and man became a living being."

Comment: A MAJOR difference between man and beast is that man is the ONLY creature with a SOUL.

Gen. 3:4-5

KJV: "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods knowing good and evil."

AMP: "But the serpent said to the woman, You shall not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be as God, knowing the difference between good and evil."

COMMENT: This is major blasphemy! God (with a big G) is not evil! Think about the difference between "as gods" and "as God".

Lev. 3:13b

KJV: "... and the sons of Aaron shall SPRINKLE the blood thereof upon the altar round about."

AMP: "... and the sons of Aaron shall throw its blood against the altar round about."

Judges 7:20b

KJV: "... and they cried, the sword OF the LORD, and OF Gideon."

AMP: "... and they cried, The sword for the LORD and Gideon."

Comment: Notice: "OF" was changed to "FOR".

2 Sam. 21:19

KJV: "... Elhanan ... slew THE BROTHER OF Goliath ..."

AMP: "... Elhanan ... slew Goliath ..."

Comment: The scholars missed this one! Most Sunday school children know that DAVID slew Goliath.

Daniel 3:25

KJV: "... and the form of the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD."

AMP: "... And the form of the fourth is like a son of the gods!"

COMMENT: It was Jesus Christ, THE SON OF GOD, who was with Shadrach, Messach and Abednego. It was Jesus Christ who saved them from the fiery furnace. And, it is Jesus Christ who saves you and me from the fiery furnace (i.e. Hell). There is a big difference between "THE SON OF GOD" and 'a son' of 'plural' gods! Think about it.

Zech. 11:17

KJV: "Woe to the IDOL shepherd that leaveth the flock!"

AMP: "Woe to the worthless and foolish shepherd who deserts the flock!"

Comment: Idol and worthless/foolish are very different.

Zech. 13:6

KJV: "And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds IN THINE HANDS? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends."

AMP: "And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds on your breast - between your hands? Then he will answer, Those with which I was wounded [when disciplined] in the house of my (loving) friends."

COMMENT: Folks: This is a verse prophesying Jesus Christ. Jesus was wounded IN HIS HANDS (and also on His back), BUT NOT ON HIS BREAST! Also, Jesus WAS NOT BEING DISCIPLINED when He went to the cross! Jesus did nothing wrong! And, lastly, Jesus WAS in the house of "His" friends, but they WERE NOT BEING "loving" back to him!

Matt. 18:11

KJV: "For the Son of Man IS come to save that which was lost."

AMP: "For the Son of man came to save (from the penalty of eternal death) that which was lost."

Comment: The AMP says Jesus Christ "came" to save that which was lost; a PAST TENSE statement. The AMP implies that ALL who were to be saved, HAVE BEEN saved. Not true. Anyone, TODAY, can be saved by Jesus Christ. The correct reading is PRESENT TENSE. This AMP corruption is very subtle but very important.

Mark 1:2

KJV: "As it is written IN THE PROPHETS, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee."

AMP: "Just as it is written in the prophet Isaiah: Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, who will make ready Your way;"

Comment: Sometimes verses in the New Testament requote the Old Testament. This is happening here. The verse being quoted is not in Isaiah, as the AMP says, it is from Malachi 3:1. Check it out! Not only does the AMP misquote the Word of God, it even mis-quotes itself. The KJV has the correct reading: "As it is written in the prophets ...", because Malachi was a prophet!

Luke 2:33

KJV: "And JOSEPH and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him."

AMP: "And His [legal] father and [His] mother were marvelling at what was said about Him;"

Comment: This is blasphemy! Contrary to what the AMP would say, Joseph WAS NOT Jesus' father! God WAS Jesus' father! Every Christian knows this! And contrary to the AMP, God was also Jesus' LEGAL father. Think about what the AMP is saying: If Jesus' had an earthly father, then He is just any man. If He is just any man, then we are still in our sins. If we are still in our sins, then we are not saved. If we are not saved, then we have a BIG PROBLEM.

John 3:13

KJV: "And NO MAN hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

AMP: "And yet no one has ever gone up to heaven; but there is One Who has come down from heaven, the Son of man [Himself], Who is - dwells, Whose home is - in heaven."

Comment: Not true AMP. There HAVE BEEN others who have gone up to heaven. Remember the angels of Jacob's ladder? They were ascending and descending. The KJV has the correct reading which is: "... NO MAN hath ascended up to heaven ..."

Acts 12:4

KJV: "... after Easter ..."

AMP: "... after the Passover ..."

Acts 17:22

KJV: "Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are TOO SUPERSTITIOUS."

AMP: "So Paul, standing in the center of the Areopagus [Mars Hill auditorium] said: Men of Athens, I perceive in every way - on every hand and with every turn I make - that you are most religious ..."

Comment: Come on! Being "most religious" and "TOO SUPERSTITIOUS" are entirely different!

1 Cor. 5:7b

KJV: "For even Christ our passover is sacrificed FOR US:"

AMP: "... for Christ, our Passover [Lamb], has been sacrificed."

COMMENT: Leaving out "FOR US" misses the point entirely.

1 Cor. 16:22

KJV: "If any man love not the Lord JESUS CHRIST, let him be Anathema Maranatha."

AMP: "If any one does not love the Lord ... he shall be accursed ... "

COMMENT: Leaving out "JESUS CHRIST" leaves us guessing as to whom the AMP wants us to love.

2 Cor. 2:17

KJV: "For we are not as many, which CORRUPT the Word of God ..."

AMP: "For we are not, like so many ... peddling God's Word ..."

COMMENT: Peddling and corrupting are very different. 'Modern' bibles try and hide from the truth that they are 'corrupting' the Word of God.

Gal. 2:20

KJV: "I AM crucified with Christ ..."

AMP: "I have been crucified with Christ ..."

COMMENT: The AMP says their crucifixion is over! Not true. The believers crucifixion is an ongoing, PRESENT TENSE, transaction.

Eph. 5:1

KJV: "Therefore be FOLLOWERS of God ..."

AMP: "Therefore be imitators of God ..."

Comment: The AMP documents Satan's position exactly. ONLY Satan tries to IMITATE God as Satan wants to be worshipped AS God. Born again believers cannot imitate God. We can't rule the universe. We can only follow God. Remember Jesus DID NOT tell his "fishers of men" to imitate Him. Jesus said: "follow me ...".

Philipians 3:8

KJV: "... and do count them but DUNG, that I may win Christ,"

AMP: "... and consider it all to be mere rubbish ..."

1 Tim. 3:16

KJV: "... God was MANIFEST in the flesh ..."

AMP: "... He (God) was made visible in human flesh ..."

COMMENT: God wasn't just made visible, He was MANIFEST in the flesh. The image of the beast, in Revelation, is going to be made visible!

1 Tim. 6:10

KJV: "For the love of money is THE root of all evil ..."

AMP: "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil ..."

COMMENT: There is a big difference between AMP's "a" root and the correct KJV reading of "THE" root.

1 Tim. 6:20

KJV: "... oppositions of SCIENCE falsely so called"

AMP: "... contradictions in what is falsely called knowledge"

1 Peter 2:2

KJV: "As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk OF THE WORD, that ye may grow thereby:"

AMP: "Like new born babes ... desire - the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may ... grow unto [completed] salvation."

COMMENT: The AMP leaves out "OF THE WORD". It's God's Word that makes us grow. Also, unlike what the AMP says, we DO NOT grow to "[completed] salvation". That says salvation is by works! That is heresy. Remember: "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).

In chapters 1 and 2, we reviewed the doctrine contained in 'new', 'modern', 'more easily readable', versions of the Bible. Verses, familiar to the reader, were used to compare 'modern' versions to the Authorized King James Bible. As we have seen, 'new' versions contain major error.

In a verse by verse (side by side) comparison, it has been shown that 'modern' versions: Deny God was Jesus' father, omit the deity and Lordship of Jesus Christ, omit Jesus' blood as the atonement for our sins, corrupt the test for the antichrist, misquote Old Testament scripture, omit the purpose of Jesus' coming to earth, omit the fact that Jesus was sacrificed FOR US, omit the need for us to repent, omit the results of not receiving the gift of everlasting life, corrupt the Lord's Prayer, and even misquote Bible stories that most Sunday School children could repeat correctly.

In 'modern' versions we are told: There is more than 1 God, that Joseph was Jesus' father, that justification/salvation is by works, that we should try and imitate God (i.e. be like Satan), that anyone who believes anything is saved, etc. etc. Clearly, something is wrong! So, are these examples the "ONLY" problems in 'new' versions of the Bible? The answer, unfortunately, is no. Further research into 'new' versions shows that, not counting the Old Testament, there have been about 5,337 changes in the New Testament alone!

Now, could random chance cause 5,337 problems in the New Testament? Could key Christian doctrine become messed up by one verse mistranslated here, one verse mistranslated there? How could ANY mistranslation (or corruption) come about; since 'modern' translators have the King James Bible to check their work?

No dear reader; random chance cannot explain this. Something else is wrong! Somehow, the straight path in the King James Bible has become a crooked path in these new 'versions'. How did 'new' versions become filled with so much error? We will answer that question in the next chapter.


C H A P T E R 3

H O W C O U L D T H I S H A P P E N ?

In the Authorized King James Bible the Old Testament comes from a Hebrew text called the 'Massoretic Text'; and, the New Testament comes from a Greek text called the 'Textus Receptus'. MANY PEOPLE ASSUME THAT MODERN VERSIONS ARE SIMPLY WORDING 'UPDATES' TO THE SAME HEBREW AND GREEK TEXTS (i.e. updates to the Massoretic Text and updates to the Textus Receptus). This is what I thought. To me, this was a logical assumption. But, I found out there was a problem with my assumption; it was wrong!

Actually, a DIFFERENT Old Testament Hebrew text and a DIFFERENT New Testament Greek text have been SUBSTITUTED in place of the Massoretic Text and in place of the Textus Receptus.

As to the Old Testament, we learn that: "The NKJV and all new versions have abandoned the Traditional Hebrew, Ben Chayyim Massoretic Text, and follow Rudolph Kittel's 1937 corruption, Biblia Hebraica ..." [S3P594].

Reader note: Rudolph Kittel was "... a German rationalistic higher critic ... [who rejected] Biblical inerrancy and [was] firmly devoted to evolutionism" [S19P9]. And the younger Kittel (Gerhard Kittel) was the chief architect of Hitler's anti-semitism. It was Gerhard Kittel who made the extermination of Jews "theologically respectable" [S3P593].

As to the New Testament we find out that: "In our day there are ... about 110 ... translations of the Bible or New Testament ... in the English language alone ... Of those 110 ... only the King James Version (Authorized) is translated from the Received Text (Textus Receptus). All the others, even though no two of them agree with each other, were translated from ... the ... Westcott and Hort Text" [S14P3-4].

When this Westcott and Hort Greek text is compared with the more than 5,000 known Greek New Testament manuscripts, it is found to DIS-AGREE with them in 90-95% of the cases!

When the Textus Receptus is compared with the 5,000 known Greek New Testament manuscripts, it is found to AGREE with them in 90-95% of the cases.

Rudolph Kittel's corrupted O.T. text and Westcott and Hort's corrupted N.T. text form the basis for more than 110 'modern' versions.

With a bad underlying Hebrew O.T. text, and with a bad underlying Greek N.T. text, it DOESN'T MATTER how good a job a translation committee tries to do: A house built on sand will fall. Thus, there are really only 2 'versions' of the Bible: The Authorized King James Bible based on the Massoretic Text and Textus Receptus, and then ALL the other 'modern versions' based on 'different' Old and New Testaments.

The 'new' Bibles which publishers want to sell you, are NOT new translations of the same, original, texts. Instead, they are a total departure, based on a bad foundation.

B I B L E   P U B L I S H E R S   C H A N G E   G O D ' S W O R D S   O N   P U R P O S E

Although 'new versions' come from the SAME CORRUPTED TEXTS, they are all DIFFERENT from each other! Sounds amazing, but it is true! One reason new versions differ from each other is that they have to! What I'm saying is this:

For a 'new' version to be called a 'new' version, Bible publishers MUST change God's words (and ignore His warning in the book of Revelation). If they don't change God's words, they can't call it a 'NEW' version!

So 'new', 'modern' versions come from corrupted, underlying texts. Then, on top of that, publishers purposely change the translation so they can sell it as a 'new' version!

Now, 'different' and 'changed' products are fine in the business world, because this maximizes profits. But, 'different' and 'changed' Bibles are DISASTROUS for Christian doctrine!

Think about this: Do you remember that game you played as a child? You know the one where one person would tell something to a second. Then that person would tell the same thing to a third. This would continue until the last person would tell it to the first person.

Do you remember how the message was so messed up, by the time it came around, that the first person could not recognize his/her own message? The message that came back was not even close to the original! And that was when everyone was TRYING to repeat the SAME message!

The message the Bible is repeating is the message of salvation. We're talking about people's souls, here. We are talking about where they will live for eternity. We're talking about an important message.

But, 'new', 'modern' versions (and their publishers) are ignoring God's warning in Revelation and are PURPOSELY CHANGING the message from Bible to Bible.

God says: straight is the path and narrow is the way that leads to life eternal. And broad is the way that leads to destruction. (Matthew 7:13-14).

Clearly, 'modern' versions are on the wrong path. And with more than 110+ of these in print; a broad road is being offered.

So, which path do we want to take? Should we take the path that leads to life eternal or the broad road? And, which path should we teach, encourage our family and friends to take?


W H A T   D O   I   D O   N O W ?

Ok, you've been sold (or given) a 'new', 'modern' version of the Bible. A good question would be: What do I do now?

I wrestled with this question for some time, before making the following recommendations:

In my opinion, you have a DEFECTIVE PRODUCT. I think you should go back to the store (or person) who sold you/gave you that 'modern' Bible. I would take 30 minutes to talk with them. In Christian love, I would take some sample verses of key Christian doctrine, agree on the right answer, and then show them the error.

If you were RECENTLY SOLD the 'modern' Bible; then, you have at least 3 options. In preference order, I would:

1) Trade in the 'modern' Bible for a King James Bible.

If they won't do that, then I would:

2) Ask for your money back and go get a King James Bible at another store.

If they won't give you your money back, then I would:

3) Take the 'modern' Bible, mark up these sample errors, and show them to others. I recommend showing them to: your pastor/Bible study leader, your family, and your relatives.

NOTE: I would NOT personally USE a corrupted version in my daily walk nor in my daily feeding on God's Word. I would ONLY use the corrupted version to show others the error so they STAY OFF OF THE BROAD ROAD !


W E   N E E D  T O   T U R N   A R O U N D   A N D   G O   B A C K!

Clearly 'modern versions' are going down the wrong road. And, worse than that, they are trying to get Christians to go down the wrong road with them!

When travellers realize they are lost, or when they realize they are going down the wrong road; they stop, turn around, and go back to where they took the wrong turn. Then, they get started onto the right road.

We need to stop, go back, and retrace the path of the Bible. We will review the history of 'corrupted' versions; and, we will review the history of the King James Bible. By doing so, we will find out how 'modern' versions got onto the wrong road.

To re-trace the path, requires that we go back to the beginning ...

C H A P T E R 4

" I N  T H E  B E G I N N I N G . . . "

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God" (John 1:1).

When the Word was written down, the Word was then called 'Scripture'.

The original recordings of Scripture are called 'autographs'. Animal skins and papyrus (paper) were used for these first autographs. Unfortunately, because of decay, these original autographs no longer exist. What does remain are copies, made by scribes, of these original autographs. These scribal copies are called 'manuscripts'.

The manuscripts of the Old Testament were written in Hebrew and the manuscripts of the New Testament were written in Greek. We do not have many Old Testament manuscripts. But, we have more than 5,000 New Testament manuscripts.

From these manuscripts variant readings are analyzed and an agreed upon master 'text' is derived. From the agreed upon 'master text' a Bible can then be translated into the desired language.

Thus our Bible was first the Word of God, then an original 'autograph', then a scribal copy 'manuscript', then an agreed upon 'master text', then an English Bible.


G O D ' S   T R U T H

T H E   O L D   T E S T A M E N T   T E X T

"The Bible was written from 1650 BC to 90 AD" [S4P96]. (These dates include both the Old and New Testaments). As to the Old Testament:

"The Hebrew Scriptures were written by Moses and the prophets and other inspired men to whom God had given prophetic gifts" [S8P7].

The Old Testament text (Hebrew scriptures) were passed down both orally and in the written form. As to the oral tradition, we know the following:

"The original Hebrew manuscripts were not 'pointed', that is, the written text was made up of consonants, without the vowel sounds that make words pronounceable. The spoken text was passed down through the centuries by the Hebrew priests, who by their public reading of the Scriptures gave full understanding to the consonantal text" [S15P7].

This oral tradition continued until:

"... a Jewish sect known as the Massoretes, concerned that the demise of this oral tradition would make the Hebrew Scriptures incomprehensible, set out to produce a standardized copy of the Hebrew Old Testament complete with vowel sounds" [S15P7].

Thus, the Massoretes standardized the Hebrew Text, giving us the 'written tradition'.

In Alfred Levell's book "The Old Is Better"; we are told how the Old Testament was copied and passed down in written form:

"For the Old Testament, the copying was done with extreme care by the Jewish priesthood in the centuries before Christ ... After the time of Christ, copies were made by Jewish scribes, and especially by those from the 6th century onward called the Massoretes, who took extraordinary pains to ensure the correctness of their copies" [S13P17].

The extraordinary pains that the Massoretes used included:

"... many complicated safeguards ... such as counting the number of times each letter of the alphabet occurs in each book" [S8P13].

David Fuller expands on the care which went into copying the Hebrew manuscripts. He says:

"The Jews cherished the highest awe and veneration for their sacred writings which they regarded as the 'Oracles of God'. They maintained that God had more care of the letters and syllables of the Law than of the stars of heaven, and that upon each tittle of it, mountains of doctrine hung ... In the transcription of an authorized synagogue manuscript, rules were enforced of the minutest character. The copyist must write with a particular ink, on a particular parchment. He must write in so many columns, of such a size, and containing just so many lines and words. No word to be written without previously looking at the original. The copy, when completed, must be examined and compared within thirty days; if four errors were found on one parchment; the examination went no farther - the whole was rejected" [S2P112-113]

In his book "God Wrote Only One Bible", Jasper James Ray also speaks about the carefulness of the scribes:

"In making copies of the original manuscripts, the Jewish scribes exercised the greatest possible care. When they wrote the name of God in any form they were to reverently wipe their pen, and wash their whole body before writing 'Jehovah' lest that holy name should be tainted even in writing. The new copy was examined and carefully checked with the original almost immediately, and it is said that if only one incorrect letter was discovered the whole copy was rejected. Each new copy had to be made from an approved manuscript, written with a special kind of ink, upon skins made from a 'clean' animal. The writer had to pronounce aloud each word before writing it. In no case was the word to be written from memory. They counted, not only the words, but every letter, and how many times each letter occurred, and compared it to the original" [S4P94-95].

Notice: These 2 previous historical accounts differ slightly in a couple of places: namely did 1 or 4 errors cause the rejection of the whole copy; and did the copy get examined almost immediately or within 30 days. Suffice it to say that, even though these 2 quotes differ somewhat, the copies were made with extreme care. And, that is the point.

Therefore, we can have confidence in the Massoretic Old Testament text, because of what we have just learned, as well as:

"... the extreme reverence with which the Jews regarded their Scriptures affords a powerful guarantee against any deliberate corruption of the text" [S2P118].

And the Massoretic Old Testament has also been confirmed through other means, namely the:

"... many secondary witnesses ... including translations into other languages, quotations used by friends and enemies of biblical religion, and evidence from early printed texts" [S18P153].

Additionally, David Fuller points out (about the Massoretic Old Testament text):

"The Old Testament, precisely as we have it, was endorsed by Jesus Christ, the Son of God ... The Old Testament was our Lord's only study book .... Five hundred and four times is the Old Testament quoted in the New" [S2P113-114].

In the booklet "God's Inspired Preserved Bible" the author says (of the Massoretic Text):

"As a summary we may say that 10% of Christ's words were taken directly from the Old Testament" [S7P7].

Thus, the Massoretic Old Testament Text has been carefully reproduced and has been attested to by Jesus Christ. It is this Massoretic Text, which forms the Old Testament, of our King James Bible.

G O D ' S T R U T H


"The books which make up the Bible were written over a period of 1700 years from 1650 B.C. to 90 A.D. by men who were directly inspired by God" [S4P96]. (These dates include both the Old and New Testaments).

As to the New Testament:

"The last of the Apostles to pass away was John. His death is usually placed about 100 A.D. In his closing days he co-operated in collecting and forming of those writings we call the New Testament" [S4P94].

"John the Apostle was said to be about the only writer of the New Testament who did not die a violent death as a martyr. Then, following the completion of the New Testament, most of the men who translated the Bible manuscripts into the language of the common people were put to death. History reveals the surprising fact that it was members of the clergy, those supposed to be ministers of Christ, who directed and carried out the cruel deeds of martyrdom" [S4P96].

We now have about 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament. These manuscripts were written in Greek. And, as we have said earlier; the Greek Text used in the King James Bible, agrees with 90-95% of these 5,000 manuscripts.

Later, we will discuss the 5-10% of the manuscripts and why they are different.

Because the King James New Testament agrees with the majority of these 5,000 manuscripts, it is called the 'Majority Text'. It has also been referred to as the 'Traditional Text' and it is also called 'The Textus Receptus'.

The New Testament of the KJV got its name 'Textus Receptus' because; in 1624 the Elzevir brothers printed, in the preface of their 1624 edition of the Greek New Testament, the following words (translated into English):

"Therefore thou hastthe text (textum) now received (receptum) by all, in which we give nothing altered or corrupt. From Textum Receptum came the words we now use as the Textus Receptus, or Received Text" [S4P96].

So the King James Bible is called the 'Majority Text', the 'Traditional Text', the 'Textus Receptus' and the 'Received Text'. All of these names refer to the SAME Greek New Testament Text. All of these names refer to the King James Bible.

For this report I will be use the term 'Traditional Majority Text' to describe the text which underlies the King James Bible.

And, I will use the term 'Corrupted Minority Text' to describe the substitute text used in 'modern' versions.

Now, let's trace the history of both the 'Traditional Majority Text' and the 'Corrupted Minority Text' and their translations into various languages.


C H A P T E R 5

G O D ' S   T R U T H

T H E   P E S H I T T A   B I B L E ( 150 A.D. )

( The Traditional Majority Text In Syrian )

After the Apostle John died, the Church used its collection of New Testament manuscripts. With the guidance of the Holy Spirit, these separate manuscripts were brought together into codex (book) form.

In the very early years of the Church, the Traditional Majority Text (i.e. the Bible) was called the Greek Vulgate; Greek because it was written in Greek and Vulgate because Vulgate means:

"... that which is popular; the usual or best known, and most used by the majority of the people" [S4P97].

Then around 150 A.D. the Greek Vulgate (the Traditional Majority Text) was translated into Syrian. This Bible, for the Syrian Church, was named the 'Peshitta Bible'. Syriac scholars state that the Peshitta Bible was:

"... careful, faithful, simple, direct, literal version, clear and forceful in style" [S4P97].

In his book: "Believing Bible Study", Edward F. Hills compares the Syrian Peshitta Bible to the Traditional Majority Greek Text:

"The Peshitta Syriac version agrees closely with the Traditional text found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts ..." and he says: "... the Peshitta was regarded as one of the most important witnesses to the antiquity of the Traditional text" [S8P94].

The statement above is VERY, VERY, important. The original reason (i.e. excuse) given by Westcott and Hort to make a 'new' (i.e. corrupted) Greek New Testament was that the Textus Receptus did not date back to the early manuscripts. The quote above shows the 'Traditional Majority Text', i.e. the text used in the King James Bible, dates back to the early Syrian Church, and thus to the earliest manuscripts.

It used to be that: "... some scholars of the nineteenth century believed that the 'Majority Text' was a fourth century recension and did not represent the earliest manuscripts ... This [theory] has been abandoned by most present day scholars" [S3P480].

Isn't it appropriate that the Traditional Majority Text can be traced back to the early Church in Syria. I say this because it was in Syria, specifically at Antioch the capital of Syria, where believers were first called 'Christians'! ( Acts 11:26 ).


C H A P T E R 6

G O D ' S   T R U T H

T H E   I T A L I C   B I B L E ( 157 A.D. )

( The Traditional Majority Text In Latin )

At the same time as the Syrian translation, but in another part of the world; the common language of Italy, France, and Great Britain was not Syrian, but Latin. Thus, for these countries, a Bible was needed in Latin. Therefore, the original Greek Vulgate (The Traditional Majority Text) was translated from Greek into Latin. This is believed to have occurred no later than 157 A.D.

"One of the first of these Latin Bibles was for the Waldenses in northern Italy ..." [S4P98]. The Waldenses were: "lineal descendents of the Italic Church" [S4P98-99]. More will be said of the Waldenses later on, but as for the Italic Church suffice it to say that:

"Allix, an outstanding scholar, testifies that enemies had corrupted many manuscripts, while the Italic Church handed them down in their apostolic purity" [S4P98].

Augustine, speaking of the Latin Bibles, said: "Now among translations themselves the Italian (Old Itala) is to be preferred to others, for it keeps closer to the words without prejudice to clearness of expression" [S2P208].

Dr. Nolan, who acquired fame for his Greek and Latin scholarship, traced the history of the 'Traditional Majority Text' to the Waldenses of the Italic Church. He says the Traditional Majority Text was:

"... adopted into the version that prevailed in the Latin Church" [S4P99].

This means:

"... the basis for the King James Bible has been proven to be in harmony with translations which go back to the second century" [S4P99].

This statement about the Italic Bible of 157 A.D., along with the statement about the Syrian Peshitta Bible of 150 A.D., both date the 'Traditional Majority Text' with the earliest Church manuscripts.

For terminology sake we will call this Latin Bible the 'Old Latin'. And, as history shows, it's this 'Old Latin' Bible which agrees with the 'Traditional Majority Text' used in the King James Bible.

This Old Latin Bible saw widespread use. In his book: "An Understandable History of the Bible", Reverend Gipp says:

"The true gospel was fast spreading all over Europe due to the Old Latin translation ..." [S1P82].

He goes on to say that:

"The Old Latin Vulgate was used by the Christians in the churches ... 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 ... which is Latin for common" [S1P67].


S A T A N  I S  N O T  F A R  B E H I N D

In the Garden of Eden, after God spoke with Adam, Satan came by to offer his own translation!

It seems to follow; that whenever God makes His original, it's not long before Satan comes by with a counterfeit.

Satan will offer a counterfeit to God's original Greek Bible as well as a counterfeit to God's original 'Old Latin' Bible, and on and on.

As David Fuller points out in his book "Which Bible?": "From the beginning there has been no pause in the assault on God's Son and God's Word" [S2P4].

The following quote, referring to Christ's victory at Calvary, summarizes Satan's actions against God's Bible:

"Vanquished by The Word Incarnate, Satan next directed his subtle malice against The Word written" [S2P96].


C H A P T E R 7

S A T A N ' S C O U N T E R F E I T

T H E O R I G I N - E U S E B I U S B I B L E

( The Corrupted Minority Text In Greek )

To attack God's true Word, Satan had to come up with a corruption. The history goes as follows:

Around the year 200 A.D. a man named Clement:

"... founded the 'Catechetical School' at Alexandria. He brought the wisdom of the world into the teachings of the Christian faith and began to collect a group of corrupt manuscripts" [S7P8]. "Clement expressly tells us that he would not hand down Christian teachings, pure and unmixed, but rather clothed with precepts of pagan philosophy" [S2P191].

These 'historically early' changes to God's Word were also verified by Colwell who found that: "... as early as A.D. 200 scribes were altering manuscripts, changing them from a Majority-type text to a minority type" [S3P484] ).

These changes to the Word of God took place at Alexandria, Egypt.

READER NOTE: "... it was Antioch that the Holy Spirit chose for the base of Christian operations" [S1P51]. Thus, Antioch was good.

But, we must remember that Egypt was bad. In the Word, God says Egypt is: "... the house of bondage" (Exodus 20:2). Egypt is: "... the iron furnace" (Deuteronomy 4:20).

It was the Egyptians whom Abraham thought would kill him after seeing he had a beautiful wife (Genesis 12:2). It was in Egypt that Joseph was sold into slavery (Genesis 37:36). It was in Egypt that Israel had taskmasters set over them to afflict them with burdens (Exodus 1:11). It was about Egypt that God said to Israel: "Ye shall henceforth return no more that way" (Deuteronomy 17:16). And, it was in Jeremiah 46:25 that God promises to bring punishment onto Egypt.

Thus, Egypt is a type of this world, it is evil. And, as for Alexandria, Egypt; it was a: "... pagan city known for its education and philosophy ..." [S1P51].

Now, back to the story:

"... The best known graduate of this Alexandrian School was Origen who followed Clement as the head of the school. He became the most influential leader of his generation. He edited a six column Bible called the 'Hexapla'. Each of the columns had a different version of the Bible. He continually changed Bible verses that did not agree with his liberal ideas. He spiritualized God's Word. He believed Christ to be a created being just as Jehovah's Witnesses teach today" [S7P8].


"Origin did not believe that Jesus lived physically on earth!" [S5P65]. We know: "Origin was the first person to teach purgatory" [S1P75] and that Origin was quoted to say: "The laws of men appear more excellent and reasonable than the laws of God" [S3P527]. And, we also know that: "Origin was baptized as an infant, and he gave no indication that he was spiritually saved" [S4P112].

In her book "New Age Bible Versions" [S3P529] G.A. Riplinger tells us the church rejected Origin because of his heretical beliefs. For example, Origin believed (against scripture) that:

1) The soul is preexistent; Jesus took on some preexistent human soul.

2) There was no physical resurrection of Christ nor will there be a second coming. Man will not have a physical resurrection.

3) Hell is non existent; purgatory, of which Paul and Peter must partake, does exist.

4) All, including the devil, will be reconciled to God.

5) The sun, moon, and stars are living creatures.

6) Emasculation, of which he partook, is called for, for males.

Origin was also the author of the 'Septuagint'. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Old Testament. Remember, it was the Massoretic Old Testament Text which Jesus quoted when he walked the earth. And, it was the Massoretic Old Testament Text that has been verified.

Yet, some 'modern textual critics' use the Greek Septuagint to determine the wording of 'new versions'. Instead of using the proven Hebrew Massoretic Old Testament Text, some translators admitted they used Origin's Septuagint. For instance; the NIV translators said they used the Old Testament Text that was: "standardized early in the third century by Origin" [S3P537].

Thus, we see that Origin was a key participant in the corruption of God's Word.

"It is clear that Origin is not a safe guide in textual criticism any more than in theology" [S7P8]. "Origin, 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 ..." [S1P74].


After Origin, "The next step in corrupting the Bible was taken in the time of Constantine." [S7P8].

In 331 A.D. Constantine was the Emperor of Rome and he sought to: "... unite Christianity with pagan Rome" [S2P195]. He regarded himself as: "... the director and guardian of ... [the] world church" [S2P195]. "Constantine, the wolf of Paganism, openly assumed the sheep's clothing of the Christian religion" [S4P19]. "He accepted the Christian faith for political purposes and ordered a Bible that would appeal to the masses. Eusebius, a follower of Origin, was chosen for this task. This was the beginning of the Arian controversy concerning the Deity of our Lord and the spirit of ecumenism" [S7P8].

At this point, let's pause for some clarification and definition:

A) The Arian controversy is the belief that Jesus Christ was a created being. i.e. that Jesus is: "the eldest and highest of creatures, rather than God manifest in the flesh" [S3P535]. The ramification is that Christ is fallen, is less than God, and is not equal to God. This is heresy.

B) Ecumenism is the belief in a one world church where I'm OK, your OK, we're all OK. The ramification here is that no one is a sinner. Therefore, we do not need to be saved. This is NOT scriptural. This is a big lie. ( Note: Ecumenism is happening today ).

The truth is: "The Bible God wrote through holy men, does not teach ecumenicalism, i.e. that all religious systems should be united into one world-wide fellowship. Instead the Word of God teaches fellowship-separation between true believers and false professors" [S4P113].

Now, back to the history of the Bible. Eusebius has just been chosen by the so called 'Christian' Emperor Constantine to produce a corrupted Bible 'for the masses'. From historical records we know that:

"Eusebius was a great admirer of Origen and a student of his philosophy. He had just edited the fifth column of the 'Hexapla' which was Origin's Bible. Constantine chose this, and asked Eusebius to prepare 50 copies for him ... The Emperor Constantine gave orders that ... this edition should be used in the Churches" [S4P18-19].

"Together Constantine and Eusebius called for religious toleration, which is invariably followed by amalgamation. To placate both Christian and heathen, they took a 'middle of the road position' regarding the deity of Christ. Consequently ... the doctrine that Jesus was 'the eldest and highest of creatures', rather than 'God manifest in the flesh', was adopted ..." [S3P535]. And: "... the amalgamation of heathen and Christian doctrine - smoothing out differences thereby allowing for unity - was perfect for Constantine's purposes" [S3P535].

Thus, Eusebius carried on Origin's work in corrupting the scriptures. And, as it turns out:

"Many of the important variations in the modern versions may be traced to the influence of Eusebius and Origin ..." [S2P3].

Looking back at this point in history, G.A Riplinger makes an interesting observation. In her book "New Age Bible Versions" she says:

"Corrupt bibles, with their loose doctrine, seem to create loose living in A.D. 333 and in the 1990's" [S3P536].

That's something to think about.


C H A P T E R 8

S A T A N ' S C O U N T E R F E I T

J E R O M E ' S L A T I N B I B L E ( 380 A.D. )

( The Corrupted Minority Text In Latin )

After Origin, Constantine, and Eusebius:

The "... corruption of God's Word was taken over by Jerome who was called upon by the Pope to prepare a Bible that would favor the Roman Catholic teaching" [S7P8]. "Jerome was furnished with all the funds that he needed and was assisted by many scribes and copyists" [S2P217].

"Jerome in his early years had been brought up with an enmity to the Received text, then universally known as the Greek Vulgate ... The hostility of Jerome to the Received Text made him necessary to the Papacy" [S2P219].

"Jerome was devotedly committed to the textural criticism of Origin, an admirer of Origen's critical principles ..." [S2P218]. To corrupt the Bible, Jerome went to "... the famous library of Eusebius ... where the voluminous manuscripts of Origin had been preserved" [S2P218].

As to the manuscripts of Origin and Eusebius, we know that: "it was from this type of manuscript that Jerome translated ..." [S2P195]. And we also know that Jerome's translation "... became the authorized Catholic Bible for all time" [S2P195].

"... It was through Jerome that ... Apocryphal books were placed in the Bible. These were soon accepted by the Roman Catholic Church as authoritative" [S7P8]. "Jerome admitted that these ... DID NOT belong with the other writings of the Bible. Nevertheless, the Papacy endorsed them ..." [S2P218].

In his book "An Understandable History Of The Bible" Reverend Gipp tells us that:

"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 ... which no Bible believing Christian accepts as authentic" [S1P82].

"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' ... for Jerome's translation in an attempt to deceive loyal Christians into thinking that it was the true common Bible of the people ... It would seem that such deception lacks a little in Christian ethics, if not honesty" [S1P68].

But: "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 ..." [S1P83]. Thus: "The common people recognized the true Word of God because the Holy Spirit bears witness to it" [S1P82].

So: "... the people for centuries refused to supplant their old Latin Bibles ... The old Latin versions were used longest by the western Christians who would not bow to ... Rome" [S1P84]. "True Protestants have always rejected ... Roman Catholicism and maintained the very opposite" [S12P103].

This 'Old Latin' Bible was:

"... universally accepted by faithful Christians ..." [S1P68] and that "... 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" [S1P68].

Reverend Gipp says:

"Perhaps we should learn a lesson. Where the ... King James Bible reigns, God blesses .... Oh, that America could but look at what has happened to England ... Yes, the sun began to set on the British Empire in 1904, when the British Foreign Bible Society changed from the pure Textus Receptus ..." [S1P69].

Thus, Satan used Jerome and the Catholic Church to substitute his counterfeit Latin Bible. But, this corruption "... which we will now call Jerome's translation - did not gain immediate acceptance everywhere. It took nine hundred years to bring that about. Purer Latin Bibles than Jerome's had already a deep place in the affections in the West. Yet steadily through the years, the Catholic Church has uniformly rejected the Received Text wherever translated from the Greek into Latin and exalted Jerome's ..." [S2P220].



In the history of the Bible, we see the development of two 'streams' of Bibles: God's true Word and Satan's counterfeit. This started in the Garden of Eden and continues today. In fact, every Bible both old and 'new', and every Bible in every language, falls into one of these two categories.

We also see that some people are (knowingly or unknowingly) propagating the corruption and some are passing on the original.

In the next chapter we will break from our historical study and look at the personal side of the struggle for God's Word. We will look at a group of people, within the 'true Church', called the Waldenses.

The Waldenses, of the Italian Church, are trying to pass on God's original Bible.

Their's is an interesting story. Let's review the role they played in history.


C H A P T E R 9

S A T A N ' S P E R S E C U T I O N


( One Example: The History Of The Waldenses )

Previously, we mentioned a group of people named the Waldenses (or Waldensians). We said that they made sure God's Word was kept pure. We said this in connection with the Italic Bible of the Italian Church. In this chapter, we will examine their role in history.

As to these people we know that:

"The Waldenses were among the first of the peoples of Europe to obtain a translation of the Holy Scriptures. Hundreds of years before the reformation, they possessed the Bible in manuscript in their native tongue. They had the truth unadulterated, and this rendered them the special objects of hatred and persecution ..." [S2P215].

"The Waldenses of northern Italy were foremost among the primitive Christians of Europe in their resistance of the Papacy. They not only sustained the weight of Rome's oppression but also they were successful in retaining the torch of truth until the reformation took it from their hands and held it aloft to the world" [S2P205].

When Constantine became Emperor and 'called a truce' with the Christians, his effort was only a 'surface gesture'. Constantine was actually a wolf in sheep's clothing. Beneath his sheep's wool, he was actually trying to unite pagan Rome with the true Church and thus dilute Christian doctrine with the heretical teachings of Rome. History records that the Waldenses did not fall for this deception. For instance:

"... when Christianity, emerging from the long persecutions of pagan Rome, was raised to imperial favor by the Emperor Constantine, the Italic Church in northern Italy - later the Waldenses - is seen as standing in opposition to papal Rome" [S2P207].

Thus, the Waldenses remained steadfast in their faith. They could not be moved by 'the carrot' (i.e. a deceptive truce) nor could they be moved by 'the stick' (i.e. persecution).

In his book "Which Bible?", David Otis Fuller exposes Rome's efforts against the Waldenses:

"The agents of the Papacy have done their utmost to calumniate their [The Waldenses] 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 the 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" [S2P205].

Not only was the character of the Waldenses corrupted in the documentation that has remained, but other records of the Waldenses were blatantly destroyed:

"The destruction of Waldensian records, beginning about 600 A.D. by Gregory the I, was carried through with thoroughness by the secret agents of the Papacy" [S2P206].

And if this was not bad enough, the Waldenses were physically persecuted by Rome.

"History does not afford a record of cruelty greater than that manifested by Rome toward the Waldenses. It is impossible to write the inspiring history of this persecuted people, whose origin goes back to apostolic days and whose history is ornamented with stories of gripping interest. Rome has obliterated the records" [S2P206].

In his book "An Understandable History Of The Bible", Reverend Gipp says:

"We find that Rome's wicked persecutions of the Waldenses culminated in a devastating massacre of their number in 1655. They were hounded as 'heretics' until the mid 1800's when their persistence paid off and the vile actions against them ceased" [S1P85-86].

We owe a lot to the Waldenses:

"To Christians such as these, preserving apostolic Christianity, the world owes gratitude for the true text of the Bible. It is not true, as Rome claims, that she gave the Bible to the world. What she gave was an impure text, a text with thousands of verses so changed as to make a way for her unscriptural doctrines" [S2P214-215].

So "Throughout the centuries, the Waldenses ... had sown the seed ..." [S2P224].

Thus, the name 'Waldenses' is forever recorded in history. For us, they passed on the pure Word of God (until the reformation would do it in mass). They withstood Rome. They held fast in their faith. And, they did this even unto death by massacre.

There is no telling how many souls were saved because of the Waldenses. Maybe yours, maybe mine. No one knows.

This chapter is dedicated to the Waldenses, and to the role they played, in history, to preserve God's Word. Now, back to the history of our Bible.


C H A P T E R 1 0

T H E D A R K A G E S ( 476 A.D. - 1453 A.D. )


Beginning around 476 A.D., the world entered 'The Dark Ages'. This lasted almost 1,000 years.

In this short chapter, we will explore the cause of 'Dark Ages'.

When we last left the history of the Bible, the Catholic Church hired Jerome to make a corrupted Latin Bible. The purpose was to go up against the true Latin Bible ( the Italic Bible ) of the early Italian Church.

Jerome completed his corruption in 380 A.D., and the Catholic Church adopted Jerome's corrupted Bible as their standard. In addition to Jerome's Latin Bible, the Papacy adopted another measure to: "... keep Europe under its domination" [S2P216]. We find out that:

"... the Papacy was against the flow of Greek language and literature to Western Europe. All the treasures of the classical past were held back in the Eastern Roman Empire, whose capital was Constantinople. For nearly one thousand years, the western part of Europe was a stranger to the Greek tongue" [S2P216]. "The West became exclusively Latin, as well as estranged from the East; with local exceptions ... the use and knowledge of the Greek language died out in Western Europe" [S2P216].

"When the use and knowledge of Greek died out in Western Europe, all the valuable Greek records, history, archaeology, literature, and science remained untranslated and unavailable to Western energies. No wonder, then, that this opposition to using the achievements of the past brought on the Dark Ages (476 A.D. to 1453 A.D.)" [S2P216].

Thus, the people were denied access to valuable Greek records. And they were fed Jerome's corrupted Bible.

So, during this 1,000 year timeframe, the sun came up every day, just like it had since creation. The Dark Ages DID NOT refer to a 'celestial problem'. No, the Dark Ages referred to a 'spiritual problem'.

The Church needs to learn a lesson from the 'Dark Ages'. Edward F. Hills tells us the bottom line:

"From the study of the Bible and Church history two conclusions may be safely drawn. First, spiritual darkness and apostasy ALWAYS begin with false notions concerning faith. Second, reformation and revival ALWAYS REQUIRE the correction of these errors ..." [S8P55].


C H A P T E R 1 1

G O D ' S T R U T H

E R A S M U S ' B I B L E ( 1516 A.D. )

( The Traditional Majority Text In Greek )

As you remember from the last chapter, the Papacy cut off Western Europe from Greek literature. Also, the Papacy substituted Jerome's corrupted Bible for God's true Bible. This brought on the 'Dark Ages'.

For almost 1,000 years ( 476 A.D. - 1453 A.D. ), the world went through a time of spiritual darkness.

Also, in the last chapter we learned that: "spiritual darkness and apostasy ... begin with false notions concerning faith" [S8P55] and "reformation and revival ... require the correction of these errors ..." [S8P55].

God moved in a mighty way and the 'Dark Ages' ended in 1453. Then, 1 year later in 1454, printing with movable type was invented.

Movable type printing, along with revival, spread God's Word quickly.

We pick up our study of the Bible, during this God given revival, which history has named: 'The Reformation'.



One person who changed the world, during the reformation, was Erasmus. Erasmus was a "... giant intellect and scholar ..." [S2P225]. And, Erasmus' name: "... was a household word all over the known world ..." [S10P4].

History records that:

"Probably the most important figure in the renaissance of learning and religion was Erasmus. He traveled around Europe's great learning centers, such as Oxford, Cambridge, Paris, Rome and others. He left his mark in history as the editor of the first published Greek New Testament printed in 1516" [S9P4].

Endowed by God: "... with a mind that could do ten hours work in one, Erasmus, during his mature years ... was the intellectual giant of Europe. He was ever collecting, comparing, writing, and publishing. Europe was rocked from end to end by his books which exposed the ignorance of the monks, the superstitions of the priesthood, the bigotry, and the childish and coarse religion of the day" [S2P225].

"... Erasmus looked for manuscripts ... during his travels and ... he borrowed them from everyone he could" [S8P193]. "There were hundreds of manuscripts which Erasmus examined, and he did; but he used only a few" [S2P226].

So why did Erasmus use only a few manuscripts, when he had personal access to hundreds of them? This question is answered consistently from author to author. For instance:

David Otis Fuller says: "The vast majority of manuscripts are practically all the Received Text" [S2P226].

And Barry Burton says: "The vast majority of Greek manuscripts agree together. They have been passed down thru the centuries by true Bible-believing Christians. In 1516 Erasmus compiled, edited, and printed the Greek 'Textus Receptus'. This is the text that the Protestants of the Reformation KNEW to be the Word of God (inerrant and infallible)" [S5P59-60].

Even ENEMIES of the Traditional Majority Text concede that: "The manuscripts Erasmus used, differ, for the most part, only in small and insignificant details from the bulk of the cursive manuscripts ..." [S2P227].

Erasmus examined every manuscript he could find and he found agreement among them. From the massive collection of manuscripts, Erasmus selected a sample to use. We find out that:

Erasmus' Greek New Testament was produced from: "... nine manuscripts chosen from a very large mass" [S10P4].

So these manuscripts were in agreement; but what about their quality?

David Otis Fuller says (of Erasmus' text):

"Moreover the text he chose had an outstanding history in the Greek, the Syrian, and the Waldensian Churches, and ... it constituted an irresistible argument for and proof of God's providence" [S2P227].

So, not only did these manuscripts agree with each other, but they had an excellent history.

Now, did Erasmus' great knowledge and detailed Godly effort result in a trouble free life? Hardly! We discover that:

"It is customary even today with those who are bitter against the pure teachings of the Received Text, to sneer at Erasmus. No perversion of the facts is too great to belittle his work" [S2P225].

Thus, the greatest mind of that day had enemies. For example, in 1521, Erasmus said:

"I did my best with the New Testament but it provoked endless quarrels. Edward Lee pretended to have found 300 errors. They appointed a commission, which professed to have found bushels of them. Every dinner-table rang with the blunders of Erasmus. I required particulars, and could not have them" [S2P226].

"... I required particulars and could not have them ..." I think that says it all.

We see Erasmus taking a stand for God's Word. We see him trying to understand the comments of his detractors, in an effort to do the best possible work; yet there were never any 'facts' to discuss.

The quote above gives insight into the true 'problem'. The people who sneered at the greatest mind of their day weren't actually against Erasmus; they were against God's Holy Word. They were against the Traditional Majority Text.

And, although some tried to belittle his work, history is very clear about Erasmus' personal worth and character:

"... while he lived, Europe was at his feet. Several times the King of England offered him any position in the kingdom, at his own price; the Emperor of Germany did the same. The Pope offered to make him a cardinal. This he steadfastly refused, as he would not compromise his conscience. In fact, had he been so minded, he perhaps could have made himself Pope. France and Spain sought him to be a dweller in their realm; while Holland prepared to claim him as her most distinguished citizen" [S2P225-226].

And so, Erasmus went on with his work ...

"Book after book came from his hand. Faster and faster came the demands for his publications. But his crowning work was the New Testament in Greek. At last after one thousand years the New Testament was printed (1516 A.D.) in the original tongue ... the world ... read the pure story of the gospels. The effect was marvelous. At once, all recognized the great value of his work which for over four hundred years (1516 to 1930) was to hold the dominant place in the era of Bibles. Translation after translation has been taken from it, such as the German, and the English, and others [S2P226].

Thus: "The God who brought the New Testament text safely through the ancient and medieval manuscript period did not fumble when it came time to transfer this text to the modern printed page" [S8P196].

Finally, the 'Dark Ages' passed:

"When the 1,000 years had gone by, strains of new gladness were heard. Gradually these grew in crescendo until the whole choir of voices broke forth as Erasmus presented his first Greek New Testament at the feet of Europe. Then followed a full century of the greatest scholars of language and literature the world ever saw" [S2P225].


C H A P T E R 1 2

G O D ' S T R U T H

L U T H E R ' S B I B L E ( 1522 A.D. )

( The Traditional Majority Text In German )

In the previous chapter, we learned that Erasmus' Greek New Testament found its way into Bibles of several languages. One of those was the translation, into German, by Martin Luther.

We pick up the history of the Bible in Whittenberg, Germany:

"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 Whittenberg. The nail drove deep into the hearts of truly born-again Christians who had for centuries been laboring under the tyranny of the Roman Catholic Church ..." [S1P86].

History tells us that "... Martin Luther brought in the Protestant Reformation by insisting on the difference between faith and works" [S8P56]. From this ... the fires of reformation were kindled" [S1P86]

"Within 35 years after Luther had nailed his theses upon the door of the Cathedral of Whittenberg, and launched his attacks upon the errors and corrupt practices of Rome, the Protestant Reformation was thoroughly established. The great contributing factor to this spiritual upheaval was the translation by Luther of the Greek New Testament of Erasmus into German" [S1P232].

"The most vital and immovable weapon in Luther's arsenal came in the form of the New Testament of 1522. This put the pure words ... back into the hands of 'Bible starved' Christians. The reformation ran wild across the continent, fueled by this faithful translation. Rome at this point was totally helpless to stop it" [S1P86-87].

"The medieval Papacy awakened from its superstitious lethargy to see that in one-third of a century, the Reformation had carried away two-thirds of Europe. Germany, England, the Scandinavian countries, Holland, and Switzerland had become Protestant. France, Poland, Bavaria, Austria, and Belgium were swinging that way" [S1P232].

And so: "... Constantinople fell in 1453, ... Europe awoke as from the dead ... Columbus discovered America. Erasmus printed the Greek New Testament. Luther assailed the corruptions of the ... church. Revival of learning and the Reformation followed swiftly" [S2P217].


C H A P T E R 1 3

G O D ' S T R U T H

T H E T Y N D A L E B I B L E ( 1525 A.D. )

( The Traditional Majority Text In English )

Throughout history the Roman Catholic Church has 'stonewalled' efforts to give God's Holy Word to the common person.

But a man named Tyndale would champion the cause of the common man.

"The first printed English version of the Bible was that of William Tyndale, one of England's first Protestant martyrs" [S12P214]. "The burning desire to give the common people the Holy Word of God was the reason Tyndale translated it into English" [S2P239].

Tyndale was born: "... in the county of Gloucester near the Welsh border, about 1484" [S9P5]. "Tyndale entered Magdalen Hall at Oxford at an early age, completing his graduate work there. Further studies were done in Cambridge, which was also a center for reform. Many of the reformation martyrs were from Cambridge" [S9P5] Tyndale: "... went from Oxford to Cambridge to learn Greek under Erasmus, who was teaching there from 1510 to 1514" [S12P214].

Tyndale was: "... completely at home in eight languages, French, Hebrew, Greek, German, Spanish, Dutch, Latin and in his own tongue. He could speak any one of the seven as well as his mother tongue. He translated all of the New Testament and part of the Old, from the Greek or Hebrew, into English. His English was so perfect that the King James translators used 85% of his translation without changing a word. That was a miracle, because those scholars naturally would wish to use their own way of translating, but instead gave Tyndale's choice of words and phrases the preference" [S10P4].

In a dispute with a learned man, who put the Pope's laws above God's laws, Tyndale said: "If God spare my life, ere many years, I will cause a boy that driveth a plough to know more of the Scripture than thou ..." [S2P229].

For this, Tyndale: "... was called before a council to answer charges of heresy" [S9P5].

"From that moment ... his life was one of continual sacrifice and persecution" [S2P229].

"About 1520 he became attached to the doctrines of the Reformation and conceived the idea of translating the Scriptures into English" [S12P214].

To find a place to translate the Bible, Tyndale went to see Bishop Tonstall. The purpose was to:

"... ask for a place for his employ ... The Bishop had no room for him. It had been decreed at the Council of Constance in 1417, that the Scriptures were NOT to be translated into the vernacular ... Tyndale wrote that ... there was not only no room in the Bishop's palace to translate the Bible, but not in all of England" [S9P5].

Unable to translate the Bible in England, Tyndale:

"... set out for the Continent in the spring of 1524 and seems to have visited Hamburg and Wittenberg. In that same year (probably at Wittenberg) he translated the New Testament from Greek into English for dissemination in his native land. It is estimated that 18,000 copies of this version were printed on the Continent of Europe between 1525 and 1528 and shipped secretly to England. After this Tyndale continued to live on the Continent as a fugitive, constantly evading the efforts of the English authorities to have him tracked down and arrested. But in spite of this ever present danger his literary activity was remarkable. In 1530-31 he published portions of the Old Testament which he had translated from the Hebrew and in 1534 a revision both of this translation and also of his New Testament. In this same year he left his place of concealment and settled in Antwerp, evidently under the impression that the progress of the Reformation in England had made this move a safe one. In so thinking, however, he wasmistaken. Betrayed by a friend, he was imprisoned in 1535 and executed the following year. According to Foxe, his dying prayer was this: "Lord, open the King of England's eyes" [S12P214]. "Henry VIII had banned all Bibles printed in English in his realm. Eleven months after Tyndale's death Henry gave the order to print the Bible in English ..." [S10P5].

As to translating from Greek into English (vs from Latin into English) Tyndale said:

"The Greek tongue agreeth more with the English than with Latin. And the properties of the Hebrew tongue agreeth a thousand times more with the English than with the Latin. The manner of speaking is both one; so that in a thousand places thou needest not but to translate into the English, word for word: when thou must seek a compass in the Latin" [S6P86].

And where did Tyndale get the Greek text that he used for his English translation?

His text: "... came from the pure Greek text of Erasmus" [S2P222].

As to the quality of his English translation, Tyndale said:

"I call God to record, against the day we shall appear before our Lord Jesus Christ to give a reckoning of our doings, that I never altered one syllable of God's Word against my conscience, nor would to this day, if all that is in the earth-whether it be honour, pleasure, or riches-might be given me" [S6P85].

And so: "William Tyndale translated from the original Greek into English ... For this he was imprisoned in 1535 for about 18 months, afterwards strangled and burnt at the stake in October, 1536" [S9P4-5]. "His great offense was that he had translated the Scriptures into English and was making copies available against the wishes of the Roman Catholic hierarchy" [S2P3].

"But his life's work had been completed. He had laid securely the foundations of the English Bible" [S12P214].


C H A P T E R 1 4

T H E C O U N C I L O F T R E N T ( 1545 A.D. )

( Satan Is Not Far Behind )

The reformation is running wild across Europe. There is revival in the land. Major changes are occurring and the good news of the gospel of grace is spreading. Many people are being blessed and many are thankful.

However, not everyone likes the gospel of grace. There are enemies to this good news.

In this chapter, Satan is once again seeking to kill, steal, and destroy. And, he is seeking those he may 'use'.

"In 1545 the Roman Catholic Church formed the Council of Trent" [S1P87]. "The Council of Trent was dominated by the Jesuits" [S2P235]. The purpose was to: "... undermine the Bible, then destroy the Protestant teaching and doctrine" [S2P237].

"The Council of Trent systematically denied the teachings of the Reformation. The Council decreed that 'tradition' was on equal authority with the Bible" [S1P87].

The Council of Trent also decreed 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" [S1P87].

The council's exact words were:

"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" [S1P87].

"Now we see that the Roman Catholic Church is guilty of officially cursing Jesus Christ! Would God use this 'Church' to preserve his Words?" [S1P87].

So this was the 'policy' of the Council of Trent. But what about the results?

Specifically, history records that:

1) The Council of Trent condemned: "That Holy Scriptures contained all the things necessary for salvation ..."

2) The Council of Trent condemned: "That the meaning of Scripture is plain, and that it can be understood without commentary with the help of Christ's Spirit".

3) As to certain books in the Traditional Majority Text, the Council of Trent condemned them saying: "... they were apocryphal and not canonical".

4) The Council of Trent also said that: "... lay members of the church had NO RIGHT to interpret the Scriptures apart from the Clergy" [S2P237].

5) "The Council of Trent, after a prolonged and stormy session, also issued a decree that the entire Old Testament, including the Apocryphal books, were to be received and venerated with unwritten tradition as the Word of God" [S4P100].

6) On April 8th 1546, the Council of Trent declared that Jerome's, corrupted, Latin Bible was: "... the authentic Bible of the Roman Church" [S4P99].

And lastly:

"The Papal machine officially closed all investigation into the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts in 1546, at the Council of Trent, by declaring -without a single German philologist, historian, or scholar present - that the corrupt manuscripts ... are the inspired, canonical scriptures, and that anyone who does not go along with them is anathema - ACCURSED" [S11P61].

So we see Satan using the Roman Catholic 'Church', the Jesuits, and the Council of Trent to resist the Reformation and to resist the spread of the true Word of God.


C H A P T E R 1 5

T H E   R O M A N   C A T H O L I C   C H U R C H

In chapter 7 of his book: "An Understandable History Of The Bible", Reverend Gipp gives us some insight into the Roman Catholic 'Church'. He first begins with a contrast:

"It is necessary to salvation that every man should submit to the Pope." (Boniface VIII Unum Sanctum, 1303.) [S1P80].


As Reverend Gipp says: "Here lie two totally contradictory statements. They cannot both be correct. The one which you believe will depend on the authority you accept" [S1P80].

"The Roman Catholic Church has always 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?" [S1P80]

"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' [S1P80-81].

"The true Bible is the arch-enemy of the Roman Catholic Church [S1P80-81].

Therefore, Rome wanted a 'different' Bible. So:

"Rome received the corrupted ... text ... and further revised it to suit her own needs" [S1P81]. "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 subtlety. 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" [S1P81].

And so, summarizing the corrupted Minority Text: "Its two outstanding trademarks are that orthodox Christianity has never used it, and that the Roman Catholic Church has militantly (read that 'bloodily') supported it" [S1P69].

As to the gospel of Christ: "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" [S1P81].

Romanist Carl 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" [S1P81].

Thus we see the TRUE 'doctrine' of Rome! Now, let's find out what Rome substitutes in place of the gospel of Jesus Christ:

"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 'think' about the true gospel" [S1P82].

What else does history record about Rome? Some samples:

1) "In the fourteenth century the church of Rome ... canonized Buddha as a saint" [S3P140].

2) It was Rome who: "... burned persons who provided the Bible in a language the laity could read for themselves" [S3P140].

3) In the 16th century: "... the Roman Catholic Church put out the Majority Greek New Testament text, then placed the Textus Receptus, on 'The Index' of forbidden books" [S3P140].

4) It was Rome who was responsible for crucifying Christ (Matt.27:35).

5) It was Rome who was responsible for throwing Peter into prison (Acts 12:4 ).

6) It was Rome who was responsible for cutting off James' head (Acts 12:1). and ....

7) It was Rome who was responsible for killing Paul (2 Tim 4:6).


C H A P T E R 1 6

T H E J E S U I T ' S

( "Satan's Plain-Clothesmen" )

In the previous chapter Satan used both Rome and the Roman Catholic 'Church'.

In this chapter he will use the 'Jesuits'.

"The founder of the Jesuits was a Spaniard, Ignatius Loyola... [S2P232], As to his character, Ignatius "... was known as a youth to be treacherous, brutal, and vindictive" [S1P88]. Later in life, it is said he was "... unruly and conceited ..." [S1P88].

Also, it is this same Ignatius Loyola that: "... the Catholic Church has canonized and made Saint Ignatius" [S2P232].

"Wounded at the siege of Pampeluna (1521 A.D.) so that his military career was over, Ignatius turned his thoughts to spiritual conquests and spiritual glory. Soon afterwards, he wrote a book called: "Spiritual Exercises", which did more than any other document to erect a new papal theocracy and to bring about the establishment of the infallibility of the Pope. In other words, Catholicism since the reformation is a new Catholicism. It is more fanatical and intolerant" [S2P232].

It is said that Ignatius 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 was to serve the Pope" [S1P88].

"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" [S1P88].

"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" [S1P89].

"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" [S1P89].

"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" [S1P89].

And "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" [S1P91].

"He [the Jesuit General] also absolves the irregularity issuing, from bigamy, injuries done to others, murder, assassination ... as long as these wicked deeds were not publicly known and this cause a scandal" [S1P91].

"That the Jesuit priests have such liberties as murder is reflected in the following ... quote from Paris' book 'The Secret History Of The Jesuits'" [S1P91].

"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 ..." [S1P91].

Also, the Jesuits can murder 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!" [S1P91].

These are some of the Jesuits' beliefs. But what about their practice? What have they actually done?

"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. 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. Clement was called an 'angel' by the Jesuit priest, Camelot. Another Jesuit priest by the name of Guigard, who was eventually hanged, taught his students that Clement did nothing wrong. In fact he voiced rerets 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's do it; if we cannot make war against him, then let's put him to death ... we made a big mistake at the St. Bartholomew; we should have bled the royal vein ..." [S1P91-92].

As bad as that was, "The Jesuit's murderous ways were not yet completed in the history of the French Protestants! When Henry III was murdered, Henry of Navarre a Huguenot [Protestant], came to power. A hope for a 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. 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. It was at that time that Father Guigard, the Jesuit teacher previously mentioned was hanged for his connection with this plot" [S1P92-93].

Six years later, "In 1598, King Henry IV issued the Edict of Nantes, granting religious freedom to the Huguenots [Protestants]. They were allowed full civil rights and the right to hold public worship services in towns where they had congregations" [S1P93].

Well "This was the last straw! Henry the 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 writings 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 Epernon, 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" [S1P93].

Reverend Gipp says: "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? [S1P93-94]

Do these two doctrines (Protestantism and Catholicism) have anything in common? Obviously, not!

Should Protestants form 'pacts' or 'agreements' with Catholics? I think not.

The Protestant and Catholic beliefs are 180 degrees apart. These two belief systems are diametrically opposed to one another and will always be that way.


C H A P T E R 1 7

T H E J E S U I T B I B L E ( 1582 A.D. )

( The Corrupted Minority Text In English )

The previous chapter explored some of the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. We concluded the two doctrines are 180 degrees apart. And we learned that Catholic doctrine is trying to infiltrate God's Bible.

At this point in our study of the Bible, God is using: The Greek text of Erasmus (1522 A.D.), the Tyndale English Bible (1525 A.D.), and Luther's German Bible (1525 A.D.).

Satan is using the Roman Catholics and the Jesuits.

In this chapter there will be ANOTHER attack on God's true Word.




"Sixty years elapsed from the close of the Council of Trent (1563) to the landing of Pilgrims in America. During those sixty years, England had been changing from a Catholic nation to a Bible-loving people. Since 1525, when Tyndale's Bible appeared, the Scriptures had obtained a wide circulation. As Tyndale foresaw, the influence of the Divine Word had weaned the people away from pomp and ceremony in religion. But this result had not been obtained without years of struggle. Spain at that time was not only the greatest nation in the world, but was also fanatically Catholic. All the new world belonged to Spain, she ruled the seas and dominated Europe. The Spanish sovereign and the Papacy united in their efforts to send into England bands of highly trained Jesuits. By these, plot after plot was hatched to place a Catholic ruler on England's throne" [S2P237-8].

"At the same time, the Jesuits were acting to turn the English people from the Bible, back to Romanism. As a means to this end, they brought forth in English a Bible of their own ... If England could be retained in the Catholic column, Spain and England together would see to it that all America, north and south, would be Catholic. In fact, wherever the English-speaking race extended, Catholicism would reign. If this result were to be thwarted, it was necessary to meet the danger brought about by the Jesuit Version" [S2P238].

"So powerful was the swing toward Protestantism during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and so strong the love for Tyndale's Version, that there was neither place nor Catholic scholarship enough in England to bring forth a Catholic Bible in strength. Priests were in prison for their plotting, and many fled to the Continent. There they founded schools to train English youth and send them back to England as priests. Two of these colleges alone sent over, in a few years, not less than three hundred priests" [S2P238-9].

"The most prominent of these colleges, called seminaries, was at Rheims, France. Here the Jesuits assembled a company of learned scholars. From here they kept the Pope informed of the changes of the situation in England, and from here they directed the movements of Philip II of Spain as he prepared a great fleet to crush England and bring it back to the feet of the Pope" [S2P239].

"The burning desire to give the common people the Holy Word of God was the reason why Tyndale had translated it into English. No such reason impelled the Jesuits at Rheims" [S2P239]. The purpose of the Jesuit New Testament was: "... to do on the inside of England what the great navy of Philip II was to do on the outside. One was to be used as a moral attack, the other as a physical attack - both to reclaim England" [S2P237-9].

We pick up the history of the Bible in 1582:


T H E   S P I R I T U A L   A T T A C K


"About 1582 ... the Jesuit Bible was launched to destroy Tyndale's English Version" [S2P233].

"The appearance of the Jesuit New Testament of 1582 produced consternation in England. It was understood at once to be a menace against the new English unity" [S2P239].

"Immediately the scholarship of England was astir. Queen Elizabeth sent forth the call ... to ... undertake the task of answering the objectionable matter contained in the Jesuit Version" [S2P239-240].

Thomas Cartwright undertook the task. "With inescapable logic, he marshalled the facts of his vast learning and leveled blow after blow against this latest and most dangerous product of Catholic theology" [S2P240].

Thus, Cartwright defended the English people against the spiritual attack. But, that was only 1/2 the battle ...


T H E   P H Y S I C A L   A T T A C K


"Meanwhile, 136 great Spanish galleons, some armed with 50 canons, were slowly sailing up the English channel to make England Catholic. England had NO SHIPS. Elizabeth asked Parliament for 15 men-of-war - they voted 30. With these, assisted by harbor tugs under Drake, England sailed forth to meet the GREATEST FLEET the world has ever seen. All England teemed with excitement" [S2P240].

Cartwright sent forth the Word of God against Satan's lies. With Drake, a type of 'David' was sent forth against an attacking Goliath.

Now, which side do you think God was on?


T H E   O U T C O M E: G O D P R O T E C T S   H I S   O W N !

Although England was outgunned by every measurable indication (in the physical), history has forever recorded the results:

"... the Armada was crushed, and England became a great sea power" [S2P240].

Hallelujah! Praise God!




"Flushed with their glorious victory over the Jesuit Bible of 1582, and over the Spanish Armada of 1588, every energy pulsating with certainty and hope, English Protestantism brought forth a perfect masterpiece" [S2P242].

This perfect masterpiece: "... was not taken from the Latin in either the Old or the New Testament, but from the languages in which God originally wrote His Word, namely, from the Hebrew in the Old Testament and from the Greek in the New Testament" [S2P242].

English Protestantism: "... gave to the world what has been considered by hosts of scholars, the greatest version produced in any language, - The King James Bible, called 'The Miracle of English Prose'" [S2P242].


C H A P T E R 1 8

G O D ' S T R U T H:

T H E K I N G J A M E S B I B L E ( 1611 A.D. )


( The Traditional Majority Text In English)



"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" [S1P161].

The King James Bible "... 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" [S1P183].

And God foresaw the widespread use of the English language. Notice that:

"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" [S1P40].

And, God gave us the BEST English:

"The English language in 1611 was in the very best condition ... Each word was broad, simple, and generic. That is to say, words were capable of containing in themselves not only their central thoughts, but also all the different shades of meaning which were attached to that central thought.

Since then, words have lost that living, pliable breadth. Vast additions have been made to the English vocabulary during the past 300 years, so that several words are now necessary to convey the same meaning which formerly was conveyed by one" [S2P246-247].

"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 a degenerated vocabulary of today!" [S1P41].

And so, "Not only was the English language by 1611 in a more opportune condition than it had ever been before or ever would again, but the Hebrew and the Greek likewise had been brought up with the accumulated treasures of their materials to a splendid working point. The age was not distracted by the rush of mechanical and industrial achievements. Moreover linguistic scholarship was at its peak. Men of giant minds, supported by excellent physical health, had possessed in a splendid state of perfection a knowledge of the languages and literature necessary for the ripest Biblical scholarship" [S2P244-245].




"On July 22, 1604, King James of England announced that he had appointed 54 Hebrew and Greek scholars to produce a Bible, which we know today as the King James, or Authorized Version" [S16P7].

And, it was understood that if 54 scholars were not enough:

"... ALL the learned men of the land could be called upon by letter for their judgment" [S2P257].

"The Kings order was carried out with utmost zeal and knowledge in an orderly manner" [S9P1] and "... because of the careful planning the whole project was completed in less than seven years" [S8P64].



"Without any question there never has been a greater group of scholars gathered together at one time than the ... translators of the King James Version" [S10P5].

"The most qualified of the entire English speaking world were summoned ..." [S9P1]. "They were all eminent scholars, and they all had great reverence for the Word of God, being wholly committed to its inspiration and infallibility ..." [S13P7].

"No one can study the lives of those men who gave us the King James Bible without being impressed with their profound and varied learning" [S2P258].

"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, anti-Roman atmosphere, but they looked at the manuscripts which they handled as the Holy Word of God" [S1P182].

"Let me show you a few of the translators of the Authorized Version. JOHN BOIS was able to read the Bible in Hebrew when five years of age! When 14 he was a proficient Greek scholar and for years he spent from 4 o'clock in the morning til eight at night in the Cambridge library studying manuscripts and languages... LANCELOT ANDREWS was the overall chairman, who was fluent in twenty languages, the greatest linguist of his day. He spent five hours a day in prayer and was so respected by the kings that orders were given, whenever Andrews was in court, there was to be no levity, no joking ... JOHN CHEDDERTON, he knew Greek, Hebrew and Latin as well as you and I know English, and better" [S10P5].



"Originally 54 scholars were on the list but deaths and withdrawals reduced it finally to 47" [S8P64].

"These men were organized into six groups which were to meet separately. Two groups met at Cambridge, two at Oxford and two at Westminster. Each group was designated a certain portion of Scripture to translate into the English language" [S16P7].

"Each scholar first made his own translation, then passed it on to be reviewed by each other member of his group. When each section had completed a book of the Bible, it was sent to the other five groups for their independent criticism. In this way each book went thru the hands of the entire body of translators. To guard further against possible errors another committee was formed by selecting two from each of the three companies. Then the entire version came before this select group where all differences of opinion were ironed out. It put the finishing touches upon the work, and in 1611 prepared it for the printers" [S4P102-103].

All of the work was done in the open.




"... it was ... the principle of the numerical majority of the readings which gave us the ... Textus Receptus" [S13P17].

"Dean Burgon a learned textural critic and collator of Manuscripts, Presbendary Miller, Dr. Scrivener and others, uphold the Textus Receptus because of the immense number of manuscripts which are in agreement with it" [S4P28].

The KJV agrees with the massive amount of witnesses (more than 5,000 Greek manuscripts) and also: "Virtually no [KJV] MSS are known to be copies of any others ..." [S6P57].

Thus, when we say that the majority of the 5,000 witnesses agree with the King James Bible, we are saying that these 5,000 witnesses are 'INDEPENDENT' witnesses.

"We can safely conclude from scholars on both sides of the issue that the vast majority of manuscripts agrees with the readings in the King James Version ... [And] Not only does the KJV have a firmer foundation numerically, but also geographically. It comes from numerous localities ..." [S3P479].

Thus, the testimony to the validity of the King James Bible is deep: 5,000 independent witnesses. And, the testimony is wide: these witnesses come from a variety of locations.

But what about the corrupted minority of Greek texts? Did the King James translators know about these manuscripts? Did they use them?

History documents that:

"... the translators of 1611 had available ALL of the variant readings of these manuscripts and rejected them" [S2P254].

Thus, the King James translators knew about the corrupted minority of manuscripts and they rejected this corruption.

The KJV translators went on to make a Bible which has been shown to be in agreement with the majority of the Greek texts.

To make the King James Bible, the translators selected and used a representative sample of the majority texts. This was easy to do because the majority texts agree with one another.


"The [KJV] translators drew on the earlier 16th century translations, such as the Bishop's Bible and the Geneva Bible, but especially on Tyndale's translation. His was a very great influence on the Authorised Version - it has been said that some 80% or more of the AV derives from Tyndale. In a sense the AV was the culmination of nearly a century of Bible translation ... it came out of the Reformation which was the greatest revival since the first Christian Pentecost" [S13P8].

As for the Geneva Bible, it: "... was the first English Bible to have verse numbers; the first to use italics for words that were not in the original languages, but necessary for understanding the English; the first to use the Roman type, rather than the Gothic (Old English); and they were small and inexpensive" [S9P2].

The King James Bible followed the example of the Geneva Bible. In other words, in the KJV: "All words which were not found in the Hebrew and Greek Manuscripts, were placed in italics. In this way these men [the KJV translators] made a vast difference between the words given by inspiration of God, and the words originating in the thoughts of men. This is the way it should be" [S4P103].

( Reader note: 'Modern' versions DO NOT separate God's Words from man's words. Instead the two are mixed together ).

"In conclusion, recent scholarship demonstrates that the majority of manuscripts, as seen in the traditional Greek Textus Receptus, and its translation, the King James Version, represent the earliest, broadest (numerically and geographically) and most consistent edition of the New Testament" [S3P503].


T H E R E S U L T S : R A V E R E V I E W S !

What do you get when you start with the true Word of God and then add: the anointing of the Holy Spirit, godly men in excellent health, an optimum work environment, an organized work approach, and a system of quality control though comprehensive peer reviews?

You get the following:

"The KJV reverberates with eternal familiarity" [S6Pvi].

Of the Bible: Queen Victoria said: "... That book accounts for the supremacy of England", George Washington said: "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible", Patrick Henry boasted: "The bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed" [S9P3].

"Priests, atheists, skeptics, devotees, agnostics, and evangelists, are generally agreed that the Authorized version of the English Bible is the BEST example of English literature that the world HAS EVER SEEN ..." [S2P260].

Ivy league scholars have selected the King James Bible as: "one of the FINEST samples of writing styles IN EXISTENCE" [S3P212].

"... 250 different versions of the Bible were tried in England between 1611 and now, but they ALL FELL FLAT before the majesty of the King James" [S2P253].

"[The King James Bible] was accepted in common use by the people, without coercion, and has been blessed of God as no other book of any language ..." [S9P1].

The KJV: "... has proven itself for almost 400 years, it is the most beautiful, it bears the most fruit, it produces spiritual revival, it is easiest to memorize, its readers are the most zealous to read it often" [S9P2].

"But upon the whole the version of 1611 ... is probably the best version ever made for public use. It is not simply a translation, but a living reproduction of the original scriptures in idiomatic English, by men as reverent and devout as they were learned. It reads like an original work, such as the prophets and apostles might have written in the seventeenth century for English readers. It reveals an easy mastery of the rich resources of the English language, the most cosmopolitan of all modern languages, and blends with singular felicity Saxon force and Latin melody. Even its prose reads like poetry, and sounds like music. It is the first of English classics, and the greatest modern authors have drawn inspiration from this pure well of English undefiled. Its best recommendation is its universal adoption and use ... Next to Christianity itself, the version of 1611 is the greatest boon which a kind Providence has bestowed upon the English race. It carries with it to the ends of the globe all that is trulyvaluable in our civilization, and gives strength, beauty, and happiness to our domestic, social, and national life" [S6P96].

"The Majority text, it must be remembered, is relatively uniform in its general character with comparatively low amounts of variation between its major representatives. NO ONE HAS YET EXPLAINED how a long, slow process spread out over many centuries as well as over a wide geographical area, and involving a multitude of copyists, who often knew nothing of the state of the text outside of their own monasteries or scriptoria, could achieve this widespread uniformity out of the diversity presented by the earlier forms of text ... an unguided process achieving relative stability and uniformity in the diversified textual, historical, and cultural circumstances in which the New Testament was copied, imposes IMPOSSIBLE strains on the imagination" [S2P34]

"Herein lies the greatest weakness of contemporary textual criticism. Denying to the Majority text any claim to represent the actual form of the original text, it is nevertheless unable to explain its rise, its comparative uniformity, and its dominance in any satisfactory manner. All of these factors CAN be rationally accounted for, however, IF THE MAJORITY TEXT REPRESENTS SIMPLY THE CONTINUOUS TRANSMISSION OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT FROM THE VERY FIRST" [S2P34].


C H A P T E R 1 9

M O D E R N B I B L E ' C L A I M S '

In the last chapter we learned that:

"... The KJV reverberates with ETERNAL FAMILIARITY ... Priests, atheists, skeptics, devotees, agnostics, and evangelists, are generally agreed that the Authorized version of the English Bible is the BEST EXAMPLE OF ENGLISH LITERATURE that the world HAS EVER SEEN ... Ivy league scholars have selected the King James Bible as ONE OF THE FINEST SAMPLES OF WRITING STYLES IN EXISTENCE ... The KJV ... has proven itself for almost 400 years, it is the MOST BEAUTIFUL, it BEARS THE MOST FRUIT, it produces SPIRITUAL REVIVAL, it is the EASIEST TO MEMORIZE ... the version of 1611 ... is probably the BEST version EVER MADE ... etc. etc. etc.

Now contrast those quotes with sales pitches for 'modern versions':

... the King James Bible is too hard to understand ... its words are archaic ... people don't understand it ... it has thee's and thou's .... today's Christian needs is a 'more readable' version ... etc. etc.

These two views are diametrically opposed to one another. Only one of them is true. Either the King James Bible IS the ... BEST EXAMPLE of English literature the world HAS EVER SEEN or it ISN'T.

So, should we believe:

A) The 'non-financially' compensated comments of the first view?


B) Should we believe 'salesmen' and 'marketing ads' ?

Instead of emotionally (and philosophically) debating this question, let's get the facts.

Sales pitches for new, modern, versions contain several 'claims'. In this chapter, we will test them for truth.



One persistent advertisement is that new versions are 'easier to read'. If this is true, it is easily verified.

The Flesch-Kincaid research company has a formula which measures the grade level of a book. The higher the grade level the more education is required. And, the lower the grade level, the less education is required.

The Flesch-Kincaid formula is:

Grade level = (.39) times (the average number of words per sentence) + (11.8) times (the average number of syllables per word) minus (15.59)

From this formula; fewer syllables per word lowers the grade level and/or shorter sentences lowers the grade level. Both make sense.

Now, let's compare some 'modern' versions to the King James Bible.

In her excellent book "New Age Bible Versions", on page 196, G.A. Riplinger gives us the Flesch-Kincaid readability results of various 'Bibles'. In her first analysis, she compares the average grade level required to read the first chapter of the first and last books of both the Old and New Testaments. Her chart follows:


Of Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade

Book Level Level Level Level Level

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

Gen. 1 4.4 4.7 5.2 5.1 5.1

Mal. 1 4.6 5.1 4.6 5.4 4.8

Matt. 1 6.7 6.8 10.3 11.8 16.4

Rev. 1 7.5 7.7 7.7 6.4 7.1



Level 5.8 6.1 6.9 7.2 8.4


Analytical data confirms that it's the KING JAMES BIBLE that requires the LEAST amount of education, NOT the 'modern versions'.

Think about it. God is willing than none should perish (2 Peter 3:9). Now; if you were God, and you wanted everyone to be saved, would you make your Bible hard to understand? Of course not.

You would make the message of salvation so simple anyone (and everyone) could understand it. This is what God has done in the Traditional Majority Text (King James Bible).

Also, notice that the NEW King James Version IS NOT an improvement over the KJV. The NKJV requires an additional grade level INCREASE in education compared to the KJV.

Continuing her analysis, G.A Riplinger says:

"To extend the inquiry, one each of the three book-types (Gospel, Pauline epistle, and General epistle) were surveyed. The resulting data confirms the readability of the KJV" [S3P196].


Of Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade

Book Level Level Level Level Level

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

John 1:1-21 3.6 5.9 3.9 3.6 4.2

Gal. 1:1-21 8.6 6.7 8.9 9.8 10.4

James 1:1-21 5.7 6.0 6.4 6.5 7.0



Level 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 7.2


An objective analysis uncovers the truth. 'New versions' are actually HARDER TO READ, not easier. The claim that new versions are easier to read is ANOTHER lie. And who is the father of lies ?

"Why is the KJV easier to read? The KJV uses one or two syllable words while the new versions substitute complex multi-syllable words and phrases" [S3P196]

For instance: The following is a sample of the hard words used in the NASB vs. the easy words used in the KJV. This sample analysis is also courtesy of G.A. Riplinger [S3P197-208].


Hard Easy

Word Word

Verse (NASB) (KJV)

Matt. 1:11 deportation carried away

Matt. 2:16 environs coasts

Matt. 9:18 synagogue-official certain ruler

Matt. 11:26 well pleasing good

Matt. 14:24 but the boat was was now in the

already many stadia away midst of the sea

Matt. 14:24 battered tossed

Matt. 15:6 invalidated made

Matt. 16:27 recompense reward

Matt. 25:10 make the purchase buy

Matt. 26:59 in order that to they might

Matt. 27:27 Praetorium common hall

Matt. 27:27 whole Roman cohort band of soldiers

Mark 2:21 unshrunk new

Mark 15:18 acclaim salute

Luke 5:29 reclining at table sat

Luke 6:22 ostracize separate you

from their company

Luke 6:49 collapsed fell

Luke 7:2 highly regarded dear

Luke 7:32 sang a dirge have mourned

Luke 8:31 the abyss the deep

John 10:23 portico porch

John 16:26 on your behalf for you

John 17:4 accomplished finished

John 18:1 ravine brook

John 19:20 inscription title

John 21:7 stripped for work naked

Acts 11:24 considerable numbers much people

Acts 12:21 rostrum throne

Acts 27:18 jettison the cargo lighten the ship

Romans 9:29 posterity seed

2 Cor. 11:32 the ethnarch the governor

Gal. 1:14 contemporaries equals

Phil. 4:9 practice do

1 Thess. 2:17 having been bereft being taken

of you from you

1 Thess. 5:1 epochs seasons

1 Thess. 5:14 admonish warn

1 Tim. 1:15 foremost of all chief

1 Tim. 3:3 uncontentious not a brawler

1 Tim. 5:12 previous pledge first faith

Titus 1:6 dissipation riot

Titus 3:10 factious heretick

Heb. 7:2 apportioned gave

Heb. 12:1 encumbrance weight

Rev. 4:1 standing was

Rev. 11:11 who were beholding saw


Rev. 18:2 prison of every bird cage




"The memorization of scripture, which is the 'sword of the Spirit', is a necessary self-defense against sin. Simple sentence structure and single syllable words certainly simplify this task. Satan strives to stop this safeguard against sin, so new versions keep the 'sword' wrapped in a sheath of words" [S3P204]. For example:

Syllable Comparison: NASB vs KJV

NASB # Of KJV # Of

Verse Wording Syllables Wording Syllables

Matt. 26:41 Keep watching 3 Watch and pray 6 and praying

Matt. 26:59 in order that they 6 to 1


Matt. 28:5 you are looking 5 seek 1


Mark 1:34 who he was 3 him 1

Mark 1:41 am willing 3 will 1

Mark 2:7 speak that way? 8 speak blasphemies 4

He is blaspheming

Mark 3:3 Rise and come 5 Stand forth 2


Mark 13:37 Be on the alert 5 Watch 1

Mark 16:8 astonishment had 7 were amazed 3

gripped them

Luke 1:80 continued to grow 5 grew 1

Luke 5:26 seized with 6 amazed 1


Luke 6:8 what they were 5 their thoughts 2


Luke 7:5 it was he who 4 he hath 2

Luke 7:26 one who is more 4 much more 2

Luke 8:45 Who is the one 7 Who touched me? 3

who touched me?

Luke 8:50 Do not be afraid 9 Fear not 2

any longer

Luke 10:9 those in it who are 5 the 1

Luke 16:3 am not strong 6 cannot 2

enough to

Luke 18:3 Give me legal 12 avenge 2

protection from

my opponent

Luke 20:37 in the passage 7 at 1

about the

John 19:3 And they began to 11 said 1

come up to him

and say

John 19:3 to give Him blows 7 they smote him 3

in the face

Eph. 1:4 with a view to 4 until 1

Rev. 7:15 spread his 8 dwell 1

tabernacle over

=================== === ==


After comparing these two columns; it is no wonder G.A. Riplinger says: "The sentence structure of the new versions can only be called a labyrinth" [S3P207].

READER NOTE: The Word is "The Sword of the Spirit". When G.A. Riplinger says that: "The memorization of scripture is a necessary self-defense against sin" and that: "simple sentence structure and single syllable words ... simplify this task"; I believe she has hit on a very SUBTLE but EXTREMELY important point.

The memorization of scripture REQUIRES repetition. And, it requires hearing the SAME words again and again. When each 'modern' version, substitutes different words (so it can 'sell itself' as a 'new' version), it hinders and confuses the memorization of scripture.

When Jesus was tempted by Satan in the wilderness, I suspect He DID NOT have scrolls of scripture with him. Nor do I think He fumbled around with which version to quote back to Satan. The only thing Jesus had was the Word, memorized! Think about it!



"Only a multi-million dollar marketing campaign could capture unsuspecting customers for the New King James Version camp. An actual collation of its text proves it MORE DIFFICULT, not 'clearer', as claimed. Second grade students can define ALL of the following sample KJV words, but NONE of their NKJV substitutes" [S3P208].

Hard Easy

Word Word

Verse (NKJV) (KJV)

2 Cor. 5:2 habitation house

Eccl. 2:3 gratify give

Is. 28:1,4 verdant fat

Deut. 28:50 elderly old

Judges 19:29 limb bones

Ps. 43:1 Vindicate Judge

Rom. 14:13 resolve judge

Josh. 22:24 descendants children

Acts 17:22 the Areopagus Mars' Hill

Ez. 31:4 rivulets little rivers

New Test. hades hell

1 Kings 10:28 Keva linen yarn

1 Sam. 13:21 pim file

John 18:28 Praetorium judgement hall

Rom. 13:1 governing higher powers


Gal. 5:4 estranged no effect

Is. 2:16 sloops pictures

Lam. 5:3 waif fatherless

1 Sam. 10:19 clans thousands

Acts 27:17 Syrtis Sands quicksand

2 Cor. 11:5 eminent chiefest

Job 2:10 adversity evil

1 Sam. 16:14 distressing evil

Jer. 19:3 catastrophe evil

2 Kings 22:16 calamity evil

Eccl. 12:1 difficult evil

Eccl. 8:5 harmful evil

Ezek. 5:16 terrible evil

Ezek. 5:17 wild evil

2 Sam. 17:14 disaster evil

1 Kings 17:20 tragedy evil

Prov. 16:4 doom evil

Jer. 44:17 trouble evil

Amos 9:4 harm evil

Job 2:10 adversity evil


Syllable Comparison: NKJV vs. KJV

Not only are the words simpler in the KJV (vs. NKJV) but the syllable count is less, too. For example:

NKJV # Of KJV # Of

Verse Wording Syllables Wording Syllables

1 Cor. 3:3 behaving like 6 walk as men 3

mere men

2 Cor 11:29 do not burn 8 burn not 2

with indignation

Ps. 40:9 I have proclaimed 8 I have preached 3

the good news of

1 Cor 11:10 a symbol of 8 power 2


1 Sam 25:12 on their heels 4 their way 2

================== === ===


And lastly; let's compare the NIV syllable count to the KJV:


Syllable Comparison: NIV vs. KJV

NIV # Of KJV # Of

Verse Wording Syllables Wording Syllables

1 Cor. 10:7 indulge in 6 rose up to play 4


Lev. 14:2 regulations for 15 law of leprosy 5

infectious skin

diseases and


Lev. 11:30 skink 1 snail 1

2 Chron. 2:2 conscripted 3 told 1

Rom. 1:28 think it 4 like 1


Eph. 4:16 supporting 6 joint 1


Luke 10:35 reimburse 3 repay 2

Luke 11:26 final condition 5 last state 2

================== === ===



"So the reader will not think 'select' verses are presented, a thorough comparison of one book, Hebrews follows. The NIV's vocabulary evades both young and old alike" [S3P209].


Further Syllable Comparison: NIV vs. KJV

NIV # Of KJV # Of

Verse Wording Syllables Wording Syllables

Heb. 1:2 universe 3 worlds 1

Heb. 1:3 radiance 3 brightness 2

Heb. 1:3 representation 5 image 2

Heb. 1:3 sustaining 3 upholding 3

Heb. 1:3 provided 8 purged 1


Heb. 1:4 superior to 5 better than 3

Heb. 2:3 announced 2 spoken 2

Heb. 2:10 exists 2 are 1

Heb. 4:2 combine 2 mixed 1

Heb. 4:15 sympathize 3 be touched 2

Heb. 5:7 his reverent 7 he feared 2


Heb. 5:10 designated 4 called 1

Heb. 5:13 not acquainted 4 unskillful 3

Heb. 6:6 subjecting him to 5 put him to 3

Heb. 7:16 indestructible 5 endless 2

Heb. 8:13 obsolete 3 old 1

Heb. 10:26 deliberately 5 wilfully 3

Heb. 10:27 expectation 4 looking for 3

Heb. 11:5 experience death 5 see death 2

Heb. 11:22 exodus 3 departing 3

================== === ===


F E W E R ' D I F F E R E N T ' W O R D S

Not only does the King James use simpler words, but it also uses a shorter vocabulary of 'different' words. In his book "The Majority Text", Theodore Letis points out:

"The AV contains only about six thousand words as compared to Shakespeare's fifteen to twenty thousand and Milton's thirteen thousand ..." [S6P87].




What about the King James' words we don't recognize? G.A. Riplinger responds to this question:

"The ... words in the KJV, which are unfamiliar, at first glance, to dictionary shy Americans are actually simpler and more accurate than their new substitutes. A 'stomacher' for example (Isa. 3:24) is NOT a belt, as new versions indicate, but a chest ornament. (It seems the only 'simpler' words in new versions are incorrect or from a corrupt Greek text.) New versions not only do not improve the KJV's 'sackbut' (Daniel 3:7), calling it a 'trigon', but in the same sentence change the KJV's simple 'harp' to a 'zither' [S3P210].


T H E E ' S A N D T H O U ' S


A second claim is that: 'thee', 'thou', 'thy', and 'thine' are out of date. The 'pitch' is that these words were spoken in 1611, are archaic, and need to be eliminated.

Let's examine this claim. In his book 'The King James Version Defended', Edward F. Hills gives us some interesting insight into these words. On page 218, he says:

"... the English of the King James Version is not the English of the 17th century ... It is Biblical English, which was not used on ordinary occasions even by the translators who produced the King James Version. As H. Wheeler Robinson (1940) pointed out, one need only compare the preface written by the translators with the text of their translation to feel the difference in style ... The King James Version ... owes its merit, not to 17th century English - which was very different - but to its faithful translation of the original. Its style is that of the Hebrew and the New Testament Greek. Even in their use of thee and thou the translators were not following 17th century English usage but biblical usage, for at the time these translators were doing their work these singular forms had already been replaced by the plural you in polite conversation" [S12P218].

In his book 'The Old Is Better', Alfred E. Levell also comments on the need for thee's and thou's. On page 31, he says:

"Why did the AV translators not adopt the up to date English of their time? For one reason ... accuracy of translation! Whenever the Hebrew and Greek texts use the singular of the pronoun, so does the AV; and whenever those texts use the plural, so does the AV ... There is a distinct loss of accuracy in translation if 'You' is used for singular as well as the plural: it becomes an ambiguous word ... Thus in Luke 22:31-32 the Lord says to Peter "Satan hath desired to have you, to sift you as wheat," "you" here referring to Peter and the other disciples; "But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not," "thee" and "thy" referring to Peter only. Such shades in meaning are completely lost when 'you' is used throughout" [S13P31].

The words: 'thee', 'thou', 'thy' and 'thine' are clearly needed. The Holy Spirit picked these words for a reason: It is to distinguish the 'singular you' from the 'plural you' for the purpose of clarity. Praise God!

Objective, analytical, data shows new versions are NOT EASIER to read, they are HARDER. Also, new versions are wordier, have more syllables per word, and use harder words.

The words God chose, for His Traditional Majority Text, are simpler. And, like the use of 'thee', 'thou', 'thy' and 'thine'; each word was chosen for a reason. We may or may not understand each word, but it is there for a purpose; just like you and I are here for a purpose.

Lately; Bible publishers are trying to tell Christians the King James Bible is 'hard to understand'. Their 'claim' is that we need to buy a 'new version'.

Well, if the King James Bible is 'hard to understand', then this is a very, very, RECENT phenomenon. Our grandparents were able to read the King James!

And, how would Bible publishers explain this supposed problem with King James 'readability' when we are actually MORE EDUCATED than our grandparents?

No; their claim does not make sense. Something else is wrong.



The truth is that the King James Bible is NOT the problem.

"The real gap is one of distance between God and man, not a lapse between us and Father Time ... The spiritual chasm is so vast that even those close to Jesus could not understand him. He was NOT speaking archaic Aramaic to Mary and Joseph yet, "they understood NOT the saying which he spake unto them". Obsolete words were NOT the obstacle when he asked Peter, "Are ye also yet WITHOUT understanding?" [S3P635].

Something to think about.


C H A P T E R 2 0

S A T A N ' S C O U N T E R F E I T S :


( Corrupted Minority Texts In Greek )


"In our day there are reputed to be about 110 so-called translations of the Bible or New Testament in the English language alone ... Of those 110 versions only the King James Version (Authorized) is translated from the Received Text (Textus Receptus). All the others, even though no two of them agree with each other, were translated from another source. That other source is the Misters Westcott and Hort Text" [S14P3-4].

Jasper James Ray 'echoes' the same report. He says all modern Bibles since 1611 are: "... for the most part, in agreement with the Greek Text of Westcott and Hort" [S4P29].

So, where did the Greek Text of Westcott and Hort come from?

"The Greek text of Westcott and Hort is ... from a very limited and select number of manuscripts" [S4P27]. "The Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament was primarily based on the Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (Aleph) manuscripts of the fourth century, both of which originated from the Alexandrian School" [S1P9].

In this chapter we discuss the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts.

The reader should note that 'Vaticanus' is sometimes called 'Codex Vaticanus'. The word 'Codex' means the manuscript is in 'book' form, verses a scroll. Vaticanus is also called 'B'.

Sinaiticus is also referred to as 'Codex Sinaiticus'. Again the word Codex meaning this manuscript is also in 'book' form, verses scroll. Sometimes Sinaiticus is also called 'Aleph'.

In summary: "The text of Westcott and Hort is practically the text of Aleph and B" [S2P136]. i.e. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.



Vaticanus: " ... was written on fine vellum (tanned animal skins) and remains in excellent condition. It was found in the Vatican Library in 1481 A.D." [S5P60]

In spite of being in excellent condition:

"This Codex omits portions of Scripture vital to Christian doctrine. Vaticanus omits Genesis 1:1 - Genesis 46:28, Psalms 106 - 138, Matthew 16:2,3; Romans 16:24; the Pauline Pastorial Epistles; Revelation; and everything in Hebrews after 9:14" [S1P72]. "These parts were probably left out on purpose" [S5P60].

"Moreover having been found in the Vatican library, the suspicion was all the more compounded. We must recall that the Renaissance was lifting the great curtain hiding medieval superstition and forged documents, allowing the light to shine in ..." [S6P135].

"According to authorities the date of its writing is placed within the years 325 A.D. to 350 A.D." [S4P20].

"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" [S1P72].

"Besides all that - in the gospels alone it leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses and 748 whole sentences, which hundreds of later copies agree together as having the SAME words in the SAME places, the SAME clauses in the SAME places and the SAME sentences in the SAME places" [S5P60].

"It seems suspicious indeed that a MSS possessed by the Roman Catholic Church omits the portion of the book of Hebrews which exposes the 'mass' as totally useless. (Please read Hebrews 10:10-12). The 'mass' in conjunction with the false doctrine of purgatory go hand in hand to form a perpetual money making machine for Rome. Without one or the other the Roman Catholic Church would go broke!" [S1P72].

G.A Riplinger adds the following about Vaticanus (i.e. 'B'):

"The use of recent technology such as the vidicon camera, which creates a digital form of faint writing, recording it on magnetic tape and reproducing it by an electro-optical process, reveals that B has been altered by at least two hands, one being as late as the twelfth century ... A few passages ... remain to show the original appearance of the first hand. The corrector omitted [things] he believed to be incorrect" [S3P551].

"B agrees with the Textus Receptus only about 50% of the time. It differs from the Majority Greek in nearly 8,000 places, amounting to about one change per verse. It omits several thousand key words from the Gospels, nearly 1,000 complete sentences, and 500 clauses. It adds approximately 500 words, substitutes or modifies nearly 2,000 and transposes word order in about 2,000 places. It has nearly 600 readings THAT DO NOT OCCUR IN ANY OTHER MANUSCRIPT ..." [S3P551].

And: "Linguistic scholars have observed that B is reminiscent of classical and Platonic Greek, NOT the Koine [common] Greek of the New Testament ..." [S3P551].

"Protestant theologians question its lack of use by anyone for 1300 years-then its sudden 'discovery' in the Vatican in 1481" [S3P552].

"Its [i.e. Vaticanus'] immediate use to suppress the Reformation and its subsequent release in 1582 as the Jesuit-Rheims Bible are logical, considering the manuscripts omission of anti-Catholic sections and books (ie Hebrews 9:14 and Revelation etc.)" [S3P552].

Also, Vaticanus: "... agrees essentially with Origen's Hexapla, omitting the deity of Christ frequently ..." [S3P552].

In summary, history records that:

"... Vaticanus was available to the King James translators but they didn't use it because they knew it was unreliable" [S5P60].



"The Sinaiticus is a manuscript that was found in 1844 in a trash pile in St. Catherine's Monastery near Mt. Sinai, by a man named Mr. Tichendorf" [S5P61].

"The date of its writing is placed at around 340 A.D. ..." [S4P20].

"The Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable, proven by examining the manuscript itself. John Burgon spent years examining every available manuscript of the New Testament" [S5P61]. He writes about Sinaiticus:

"On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters, words or even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled; while ... a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause proceeding, [this] occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament" [S5P61].

"On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions done by TEN different people" [S5P61].

Dr. Scrivener agrees with John Burgon. Dr. Scrivener says (of Codex Sinaiticus):

"... it is clear that this document was corrected by ten different scribes at different periods". He tells of "the occurrence of so many different styles of handwriting, apparently due to penmen removed from each other by centuries, which deform by their corrections every page of this venerable looking document" [S2P307-308].

And Dr. M. Reynolds tells us:

"Tischendorf, the discoverer of the Sinaiticus manuscript noted at least 12,000 changes which had been made ... by OTHERS than the original copyist" [S17P3].

G.A. Riplinger cites some 'advanced' analysis of Sinaiticus:

"[With] more recent detailed scrutiny of the manuscript ... by the use of [the] ultra-violet lamp, Milne and Skeat discovered that the original reading in the manuscript was erased ... [in places]" [S3P552].

In Sinaiticus: "There are about 9,000 changes from ... the Majority ... Text, amounting to one difference in every verse. It omits some 4,000 words from the Gospels, adds 1,000, repositions 2,000 and alters another 1,000. It has approximately 1,500 readings that DO NOT APPEAR IN ANY OTHER MANUSCRIPT ..." [S3P552-553].

"Philip Mauro was a brilliant lawyer who was admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court in April 1892. He wrote a book called 'Which Version' in the early 1900's" [S5P61]. He writes concerning Sinaiticus ...

"From these facts, therefore, we deduce: ... the impurity of the Codex Sinaiticus, in every part of it, was fully recognized by those who were best acquainted with it, and ... it was finally cast aside as WORTHLESS for any practical purpose" [S5P61].


S I N A I T I C U S   A N D   V A T I C A N U S

Since the Vaticanus originated between 325 A.D. and 350 A.D; and since the Sinaiticus originated about 340 A.D. :

"Several textural authorities believe that the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts are two extant copies of the 50 Greek manuscripts copied for Constantine by Eusebius in 331 A.D." [S4P19].

One of those authorities is Dr. Herman C. Hoskier. He says:

"My thesis is then that B (Vaticanus) and Aleph (Sinaiticus) ... are Egyptian revisions current between A.D. 200-400 and abandoned between 500 and 1881, merely revived in our day ..." [S3P550].

Do you remember in an earlier chapter we talked about Constantine? We said that, on the surface, he put on the 'robe' of Christianity. But, behind the scenes, he had Eusebius prepare 50 corrupt Bibles from the heretical teachings of Origin.

It's possible that we have 2 copies of Satan's corrupted minority Greek texts resurfacing again from the year 331 A.D. Westcott and Hort then use these 2 corrupt texts to produce their own corrupt Greek text.


K E Y   E V E N T S


Let's summarize some key events in the history of the corrupted minority text:

- Satan's lies in the Garden of Eden ( about 4,000 B.C. )

- Origin's 'Hexapla' Bible ( 200 A.D. )

- Eusebius' 50 Bibles for Constantine ( 331 A.D.)

- Jerome's Latin Bible ( 380 A.D. )

- Jesuit Bible ( 1582 A.D. )

and now, add to that:

- Vaticanus ( 1481 A.D. )

- Sinaiticus ( 1844 A.D. )


Now, whether or not Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are actually two of Eusebius' 50 Bibles is not fully proven (at this time). It is, however, consistent, with the facts.

Since these two texts are forerunners of 'modern' versions; the key question is: What is contained in these manuscripts?


A N A N A L Y S I S   O F :

S I N A I T I C U S   A N D   V A T I C A N U S

"The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus both leave out the last 12 verses of Mark, concerning the resurrection of Christ. But, there is not one other manuscript ... that leave out this passage" [S5P62].

"Aleph and B differ from one another IN THREE THOUSAND PLACES in the Gospels alone - not including differences in spelling" [S6P43].

Of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, John Burgon says: "It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two MSS. differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree" [S15P16].

G.A. Riplinger points out that:

"Neither Aleph nor B ends with the book of Revelation. Vaticanus (B) completely eliminates Revelation, thereby disobeying God's command 'not to take away from the words of this book'. Sinaiticus (Aleph) adds two books after Revelation ... These two books: The Shepherd of Hermas and The Epistle of Barnabas, spell out in detail the New Age scenario, including commands to do the things God specifically forbids, such as:

1) Take 'the name' of the beast

2) Give 'up to the beast'

3) Form a one world government

4) Kill those not receiving his 'name'

5) Worship female virgins

6) Receive 'another spirit'

7) Seek power

8) Believe that God is immanent in his creation, as a pantheistic, monistic Hindu God

9) Avoid marriage, permit fornication

10) Abstain from fasting

11) Subscribe to the New Age Race Root Theory

12) Be saved by being baptized and keeping the 'twelve' mandates of the Antichrist [S3P557].

"Long ago Burgon and Miller (1896) pointed out the heretical trait in Aleph and B, and their observations have never been refuted" [S8P77].

"Burgon's position remains absolutely unshaken ... He maintains that Aleph and B had been tampered with and revised and proved it in his "Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text"" [S2P141].

"Many scholars today disagree with Westcott and Hort, noting the poor character of these minority manuscripts. Moody Vice President, Alfred Martin, calls Aleph and B 'depraved'. Dean John Burgon writes: 'I have convinced myself by laborious collation that they are the most corrupt of all. They are depositories of the largest amount of fabricated and intentional perversions of the truth which are discoverable in any copies of the word of God. They exhibit a fabricated text...[and are] shamefully mutilated'" [S3P546].

Of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus we can say that:

"The longer we ponder the evidence ... the more obvious it becomes that the texts ... were the handiwork of heretics who for some reason were reluctant to acknowledge Jesus to be the Son of God" [S8P77].


C H A P T E R 2 1

S A T A N ' S C O U N T E R F E I T

T H E W E S T C O T T A N D H O R T T E X T (1881 A.D.)

( The Corrupted Minority Text In Greek )


In the last chapter, we learned 'Codex Vaticanus' and 'Codex Sinaiticus' are two manuscripts from the corrupted minority of Greek texts.

'Vaticanus' was found in the Vatican library. 'Sinaiticus' was found in a Mt. Sinai trash can.

We also know these 2 manuscripts form the basis for the Westcott and Hort Greek text. And, the corrupt Westcott and Hort Greek text forms the basis for 'modern' versions of the Bible.

In this chapter Westcott and Hort use the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts to make their 'own' Greek text. This they submit to a Bible translation committee. The result will be the "English Revised Version of 1881". Later on, other 'modern versions' will follow the W&H text.

We pick up the history of the Bible, in England, in 1870.



"In 1870, the Convention of the Church of England commissioned a revision of the Authorized Version" [S1P162].

A revision committee was assembled.

The Revision Committee was instructed: "... 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" [S1P163].

"Westcott and Hort had other plans. They had edited the corrupt Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts ... and produced their own Greek text. Wisely they had never published it" [S1P163].

"Westcott and Hort had been working together on their text since 1853; in 1870 they printed a tentative edition for private distribution only. This they circulated under pledge of secrecy within the company of New Testament revisers, of which they were members (of which came the Revised Version of 1881). It soon became evident that the New Testament committee was NOT going to be content merely to revise the Authorized Version, but was determined to revise the UNDERLYING Greek text radically" [S2P153-154].

In November of 1870, Westcott said: "In a few minutes I go with Lightfoot to Westminster. More will come of these meetings, I think, than simply a revised version" [S1P162-163].

Hort to Westcott: "This may sound like cowardice-I have a craving that our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion" [S3P407-408]

Westcott to Hort: "... strike blindly ... much evil would result from a public discussion" [S3P408].


A   U N I T A R I A N   A T   C O M M U N I O N ?

"When the company of New Testament revisers (for the Revised Version) were ready to begin their work, a communion service was held in Westminster Abbey. A Unitarian member of the committee partook along with the others. There was serious criticism of this ... The upper house of the Convocation of Canterbury passed a resolution that NO person who denied the deity of Christ should take part in the work" [S2P156].

"Westcott expressed his loyalty to apostasy when he threatened to quit if the Convocation were successful in ejecting Smith [the Unitarian] from the Committee. 'I never felt more clear as to my duty. If the Company accepts the dictation of the Convocation, my work must end. I see no escape from the conclusion'" [S1P165].

Westcott and Hort found an ally for their plan to abolish the Traditional Majority Text, when Dr. Vance Smith, a Christ denying, Unitarian preacher, was seated on the committee.

As to the Unitarian, Dr. Hort said: "It is, I think, difficult to measure the weight of the acceptance won before the hand for the Revision by the single fact of our welcoming a Unitarian" [S1P165].


D R. S M I T H

What were some of Dr. Smith's beliefs? Dr. Smith called the belief in Christ's 2nd coming 'erroneous'. He said:

"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" [S1P165].




Dr. Vance Smith was NOT the only problem within the translation committee. The following quote summarizes the members in general:

"The reputations of the committee members were so tainted that Queen Elizabeth and her chaplain ... refused to give it official sanction ... Half the Church of England declined involvement, as did the American branch ..." [S3P435]. Also: "Others ... left after seeing the SINISTER character of the 'New' Greek text" [S3P435].

When comparing the scholars of his day to those of the King James committee: Bishop Ellicott, the CHAIRMAN of the Revised Version Committee, said:

"We have certainly NOT YET ACQUIRED sufficient critical judgment for any Body of Revisors to undertake such a work as this" [S3P435].

(Please note: "Advocates of modern versions assume that they are the product of scholarship far superior to that of the translators of the King James Version of 1611, but this assumption is not supported by the facts" [S2P13]).

It was said that Bishop Ellicott was the committee chairman. Actually, the FIRST chairman was Bishop Wilberforce. One meeting, was enough for him. He wrote to a friend: "What can be done in this most miserable business?" [S2P291] "Unable to bear the situation, he absented himself and never took part in the proceedings ... One factor had disturbed him considerably - the presence of Dr. G. Vance Smith, the Unitarian ..." [S2P291].



When the King James Bible was translated from Hebrew/Greek into English each scholar first made his own translation. His work was passed on to other scholars within his own section for review. This work was then passed on to other sections for their review. Lastly, the work went to a final committee to iron out differences. All the work was done in the open.

The work of Westcott and Hort was VERY different:

"The Old Testament committee met together SECRETLY as one body for ten years. The New Testament committee also met together SECRETLY for ten years. All was done in secret" [S4P103-104].

"This arrangement left the committee at the mercy of a determined triumvirate to lead the weak and to dominate the rest. All reports indicate that an iron rule of silence was imposed upon these revisers during all that time. The public was kept in suspense all the long, weary ten years. And ONLY after elaborate plans had been laid to throw the Revised Version all at once upon the market to effect a tremendous sale, did the world know what had gone on" [S2P257-258].

This same tactic, of buying sight unseen, was used to 'sell' the RSV Bible on September 30th, 1952. We know that: "Pastors had no opportunity to review the new Bible, yet they were asked to open their churches for a tremendous advertising campaign" [S4P104].



Once the corrupted Old Testament and corrupted New Testament were ready, Reverend Gipp tells us how Westcott and Hort manipulated the English translation:

"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" [S1P163].

Jasper James Ray also confirms the same report:

"The unpublished new Greek Text of Westcott and Hort, upon which they had been working for 20 years was, portion by portion, secretly committed into the hands of the Revision Committee" [S4P104].

"Had it been published earlier, it [the Westcott and Hort text] assuredly would have been exposed as corrupt and unfit for translation into English" [S1P163].

Once the corrupted text was submitted ...

"The Revisers of 1881 followed the guidance of ... Westcott and Hort who were CONSTANTLY at their elbows ..." [S4P25]. "The committee of the Revised Version was dominated and practically controlled by Westcott and Hort ..." [S2P106].

There were; however, some committee members who actually OPPOSED Westcott and Hort. We learn that:

"The MINORITY in the committee was represented principally by Dr. Scrivener, probably the FOREMOST scholar of the day in manuscripts of the Greek New Testament and the history of the Text. If we may believe the words of Chairman Ellicott, the countless divisions in the committee over the Greek Text 'was often a kind of critical DUEL between Dr. Hort and Dr. Scrivener'" [S2P291].

But, most committee members were 'duped' by Westcott and Hort ...

"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 they had been used by the Cambridge duo ..." [S1P166-167].



Estimates differ as to the EXACT number of changes which were made to the underlying Greek New Testament. For instance:

"Scrivener counted the number of changes in the underlying Greek text of the Revised Version as 5,788" [S2P154].

Jasper James Ray says "... the Greek text of Westcott and Hort contains 5,337 changes from the Greek Textus Receptus" [S4P27].

David Otis Fuller believes that: "The Revisers ... made 36,000 changes in the English ... and nearly 6,000 changes in the Greek Text' [S2P298].

Whether or not the underlying Greek text was changed in '5,337' or '5,788' or 'nearly 6,000' places, the text is SIGNIFICANTLY different. So different in fact that J.J. Ray points out:

"The Revision of 1881, the American Standard Version of 1901 and the Revised Standard Version Bibles are IN NO TRUE SENSE a revision of the King James of 1611. If they were they would follow the same Greek text ..." [S16P5].

Of his text Westcott himself said: "The value of the revision is most clearly seen when the student considers together a considerable group of passages, which bear upon some article of faith. The ACCUMULATION OF SMALL DETAILS then produces the FULL EFFECT" [S4P26].

"Dr. Ellicott ... declared that they had made between eight and nine changes in every five verses, and in about every ten verses three of these were made for critical purposes" [S4P26].

Lest anyone think the changes to the Greek text are minor; Hort himself says:

"It is quite impossible to judge the value of what appears to be trifling alterations merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have often IMPORTANT bearings which FEW would think of at first ..." [S3P432].

Dr. Vance, the Unitarian on the committee, said of the W&H text:

"It has been ... said that the changes of translation ... are of little importance from a doctrinal point of view ... Any such statement is CONTRARY to the facts" [S3P432].

Scholars reviewed the W&H text and concluded that:

"... they have given us a DIFFERENT Bible constructed upon a DIFFERENT foundation" [S4P30].

E.W Colwell, a preeminent textual scholar said of the W&H text: "The text ... is not reconstructed it is constructed; it is an ARTIFICIAL entity that NEVER EXISTED" [S3P433].

The Westcott and Hort text: "... deviated the FURTHEST possible from the Received Text", "a VIOLENT RECOIL from the Traditional Greek Text", "the most vicious Recension of the original Greek IN EXISTENCE", "seriously mutilated and otherwise grossly depraved ...", and "the passages in dispute are of GREAT IMPORTANCE" [S3P432].

John Burgon said of the W&H text:

"... the Greek Text which they have INVENTED proves to be hopelessly depraved ... The underlying Greek is a MANUFACTURED article throughout ... The New Greek Text was FULL OF ERRORS from beginning to end ... " [S3P433].

John Burgon said to Westcott and Hort:

"It was no part of your instructions to INVENT a new Greek Text, or indeed to MEDDLE with the original Greek at all ... By your OWN confession - you and your colleges knew yourselves to be INCOMPETENT. Shame on [those] most incompetent men who ... occupied themselves ... with FALSIFYING the inspired Greek Text ... Who will venture to predict the amount of MISCHIEF which must follow if the 'New' Greek Text ... should become used" [S3P433].

Immortal words indeed:

"... Who will venture to predict the amount of mischief which must follow if the 'New' Greek Text ... should become used".

The W&H corrupted Greek Text is now in more than 110+ 'modern' versions.

"... all Greek texts produced since 1611, which are in agreement with Westcott and Hort are founded upon the same quicksands ... Since Westcott and Hort's text is corrupt, all in agreement with it are corrupt also" [S4P29].



When the 'New' Greek Text was finally brought into the open and published, there was a public outcry from conservative and moderate Christians.

In Hort's own words:

"... the abuse we are receiving ... The crisis is a very grave one and we ought ... to resist the Moderates in their attempts to carry out the demands of a noisy public opinion" [S3P436].



And so the foundation for a 'mass deception' had been laid by Satan through his use of Westcott and Hort.

In summary; we can trace 'modern corruptions' back to the 1881 English Revised Version Of Westcott and Hort:

"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" [S1P197].



C H A P T E R 2 2


We have studied the work of Westcott and Hort. It's time to look at these men, personally.



Our study of Hort starts with his mother. As to his mother, Hort said in his biography:

"Her religious feelings were deep and warm ... [H]is mother was ... an adherent of the Evangelical school and she was to a certain degree hampered by it ... She was unable to enter into his theological views which to her generation seemed a desertion of the ancient way; thus pathetically enough, there came to be a barrier between mother and son ... [Concerning] her point of view, ... he ... had to recognize that the point of view was different. SHE STUDIED AND KNEW HER BIBLE WELL" [S3P627].

Hort's mother also tried to 'evangelize' him. For instance, his mother wrote to him pleading that Hort would not miss:

"... the many mansions of our Heavenly Father's House ..." [S3P627]. She went on to say to him: "... and my darling, Now happy it will be if we all meet there; no one missing of all our household" [S3P627].

Through Hort's own biography we see that his mother was an Evangelical and she 'evangelized' her son.

So, if Hort was saved, why did his mother try to save him? Or, put another way; if Hort was a Christian, why would he need saving?

The answer to this question is also in Hort's biography. In it he states he: "outgrew the Evangelical teaching which he came to regard as sectarian ... fanaticism ... perverted" [S3P627].

Apparently, Hort was not saved. As to his views about secular topics, we know that:

Hort did not think much of Abraham Lincoln. Of Lincoln, Hort said: "I cannot see that he has shown any special virtues or statesmanlike capacities" [S1P128].

Hort said he had: "... a deep HATRED of democracy in all forms" [S3P419].

Hort WAS interested in communism. He said: "I have pretty much made up my mind to devote my three or four years up here to the study of this subject of Communism" [S1P129].

Hort did not like America. To him America was: "a STANDING MENACE to the whole civilization" [S3P418].

As to Hort's views on 'spiritual' topics, we know that: Hort did not believe in the authority of the Bible. While mocking an Evangelical, Hort is quoted as saying: "[There are] SERIOUS differences between us on the subject of authority, and ESPECIALLY on the AUTHORITY of the bible" [S3P627-8].

Hort called God's Traditional Majority Text that: "... vile Textus Receptus ..." [S10P7].

According to Hort, Hell is not a place. Hort said Hell was: "figurative" [S3P296].

Hort did not believe in Eden. His quote follows: "I am inclined to think NO SUCH STATE as 'Eden' ... EVER EXISTED ..." [S2P280].

Hort did not believe in Christ's atonement for sins: "Certainly NOTHING can be more unscriptural than ... Christ's bearing our sins to His death; ... that is ... an almost UNIVERSAL HERESY" [S10P7].

Hort did not believe that people were saved by being 'born again'. Hort believed people were saved by water baptism; he stated: "Baptism assures us that we are children of God, members of Christ and His body, and heirs of the heavenly kingdom" [S1P126].

Unfortunately, this belief may have cost his own son's soul. In the following quote, Hort is talking to his son and assuring him that he was saved by water baptism as a baby. Hort tells his son: "You were ... born of Christian parents ... While yet as an infant you were claimed for God by being made in Baptism an UNCONSCIOUS member of His Church ..." [S1P126].

Hort was not Protestant, but was in reality, Catholic. He says: "... the pure Romish view seems to me nearer ... the truth than the Evangelical" [S1P126].

Hort believed his salvation was at least partially dependent on 'the sacraments'. Hort: "We dare not forsake the sacraments or God will forsake us" [S2P280].

Hort was involved in Mariolotry (worshipping Mary). Hort said: "I have been persuaded for years that Mary-worship and Jesus-worship have very much in common ..." [S10P7].

Hort was NOT competent in Greek. He said: "I had no idea ... of the importance of texts having read SO LITTLE GREEK ..." [S10P7].

Hort also began looking into the occult. In his words: "Westcott, Gorham, C. B. Scott, Benson, Bradshaw, Luard and I have started a society for the investigation of ghosts, and all supernatural appearances, ... being all disposed to believe that such things really exist ... Our own temporary name is the Ghostly Guild" [S10P7].

And, although Hort did not like evangelistic Christians, calling them 'unsound' and 'perverted'; Hort was evangelistic when it came to recruiting for his Ghostly Guild club. Hort said to a friend: "I sent you two ghostly papers; you can have more if you want them; but I find they go very fast and the 750 copies which we printed go by no means far enough" [S3P406].

And lastly, Hort was deceived by Darwin. He said: "Have you read Darwin? ... in spite of difficulties, I am inclined to think it unanswerable ..." [S10P7].



As to Westcott, we know that:

Westcott rejected the Bible as infallible: "... I too must DISCLAIM ... infallibility ... the more I learn, the more ... fresh doubts come ... I REJECT the word infallibility ..."[S1P139].

Westcott did not believe the first 3 chapters of Genesis. He said: "NO ONE now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis ... give a LITERAL history ..." [S2P280].

Westcott was NOT concerned about Hell. Westcott said Hell is: "not the place of punishment of the guilty" [S3P296].

Westcott did not believe in Jesus' miracles; of them, he said: "I never read an account of a miracle, but I seem instinctively to feel its IMPROBABILITY ..." [S1P132].

Westcott believed that Jesus' second coming was spiritual and not physical; he said: "I hold very strongly that the Fall of Jerusalem was the coming which ... fulfilled the Lord's words ..." [S1P132].

Of heaven, Westcott said: "... heaven is a state, not a place ..." [S1P133].

"As a Cambridge undergraduate, Westcott organized a club and chose for its name 'Hermes'. The designation is derived from 'the god of magic ... and occult wisdom, the conductor of Souls to Hades, ... Lord of Death ... cunning and trickery". [S3P400].

Who does 'Hermes' refer to? Luciferian H.P. Blavatsky identifies Hermes as Satan: "Satan or Hermes are all one ... He is called the dragon ... the serpent ..." [S3P400].

We also know that Westcott took part in "... prayers for the dead" [S1P142].

And Westcott's son Arthur recalls his father's: "tradition of reading Goblin stories at Christmas" [S3P424].

(Reader note: Webster defines Goblin as "an ugly, grotesque, evil, malignant being or spirit" [S3P424]).

And lastly; it was Westcott who was selected to write the section on Origen in the "Dictionary of 'Christian' Biography" [S3P528].



It's interesting to note that:

"All corrupt Bible scholars, from Augustine to Hort, believed in religious evolution ... [But] To teach that the new 'bibles' are progressive improvement is to slander God, for it implies that the Holy Spirit ... has better material to work with in the twentieth century than He had in the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries" [S11P120].

"... its time to turn away from the teaching that Westcott and Hort were two born again, Bible believing scholars. They were not" [S1P220].

Dr. Ralph I. Yarnell says: "As far as I have been able to discover, both men [Westcott and Hort] were liberals and by no means Fundamentalists, IF they were saved AT ALL ..." [S14P3]

It is obvious that Westcott and Hort did not believe the Bible. And, as Jakob Van Bruggen points out, this is a big problem:

"Whether one believes the Bible or not will affect the way a person translates some passages" [S6P105].

David Otis Fuller states the same point in different words: Westcott and Hort's conclusions "... must always be open to suspicion if ... [they do not] ... accept the Bible as the very Word of God" [S2P157].

Or put another way: "A Bible believing Christian can NEVER be content to follow the leadership of those who do not recognize the Bible as the verbally inspired Word of God" [S2P172].

And, to Westcott and Hort's use of a minority of CORRUPT manuscripts as the FOUNDATION for their Greek New Testament, Burgon said:

"They ... invent ... theories because ... a few against the many requires ingenuity ... for its support" [S2P91].

Knowing what we now know about Westcott and Hort, we must ask: Was their 'new' Greek Text an effort to establish a 'new' text? Or, was it actually an effort to abolish an old one? Were their efforts REALLY for 'greater accuracy'? Or, was this an excuse to replace the Textus Receptus?



C H A P T E R 2 3


In this chapter we discuss the 'marketing' of new versions. Our first topic: The characteristics of a 'false prophet'.



"... all the versions ... in the last one hundred years immediately compared themselves to one version; a version written three hundred years ago ..." [S11P126].

"... 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" [S1P173].

"Notice that Jim Jones did not claim to be Mohammed. Notice that Moon did not claim to be the replacement for Buddha. All the false prophets attack Jesus Christ. Notice 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" [S1P173-4].

Our next topic, in the marketing of new versions, is 'marketing fanfare'.



All the 'new versions' are promoted with great fanfare and expensive advertising budgets. Whereas: "... the Authorized Version is the only Bible ever released WITHOUT fanfare" [S1P215].

Why are expensive advertising budgets justified? Because new versions are financially copyrighted !




'Modern' versions are financially copyrighted. Why is this?

"God has only one Bible. All the other versions ... are not Bibles, but books of men" [S7P13].

'Modern versions' are copyrighted because they are the product of men's efforts, not God's.

Contrast this to the text of the King James Bible. The KJV text can be copied, reproduced, quoted etc. etc. without any intervention by man.

Peter Ruckman points out:

"The AV has no financial copyright. It has the Crown Copyright, which only applies to Bible publishers in the United Kingdom, and this copyright DOES NOT demand money from anyone who wishes to quote, cite, reproduce, or print any passage from it" [S11P20].

Barry Burton says the: "Thomas Nelson Co. has a copyright notice in the front of ... King James Bibles that they print. It makes it APPEAR that they have the copyright to the King James Bible. HOWEVER ... if you call the Thomas Nelson Company, they will tell you that they do not have a copyright on the King James text (the Bible itself). What they have copyrighted are the notes and the layout" [S5P80].



Publishers of 'modern Bibles' are the fulfillment of the prophecy of the Apostle Paul. Remember how Paul said: "We are not the MANY which corrupt the word of God ..." (2 Co. 2:17). Paul also said: "Professing themselves to be WISE, they became FOOLS" (Romans 1:22) ... "Who CHANGED the TRUTH of God into a LIE ..." (Romans 1:25).

"When men change the Word of God, they invariably are WORSHIPPING THEMSELVES ... no matter how sincere they may be, they are setting themselves up as knowing better than God and able to correct God" [S14P3].

And the Apostle Paul was concerned for those being misled. To the Galatians he said: "I marvel that ye are SO SOON REMOVED from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another Gospel: Which is NOT ANOTHER; but there be SOME that trouble you, and would PERVERT the gospel of Christ" (Galatians 1:6-7).

Therefore we are told: "... [henceforth] be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, [and] cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;" (Ephesians 4:14).

In 2nd Peter 2:1-2 we are told: "... there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be FALSE TEACHERS among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that brought them, and bring upon themselves SWIFT destruction. And MANY shall follow their pernicious ways ...".

"How sad it is that while the Bible warns us of false teachers, so few present-day preachers and evangelists give any warning to our people" [S7P14].



Who are the "... MANY which corrupt the word of God ..."? Who are the people on 'new version' translating committees?

Reverend Gipp researched the committee membership of the Revised Standard Version. The following are his findings about some of the RSV members and their beliefs:



Edgar Goodspeed: "Goodspeed called Genesis the product of an 'Oriental' story teller at his best" [S1P198]. "Goodspeed did not believe in the deity of Jesus Christ" [S1P197]. "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 ..." [S1P197-8].

Julius Brewer: Julius Brewer, said: "The dates and figures found in the first five books of the Bible turn out to be altogether unreliable" [S1P198-9].

Henry Cadbury: Henry Cadbury believed Jesus Christ was a man who TOLD STORIES: "He was given to OVERSTATEMENTS, in his case, not a personal idiosyncrasy, but a characteristic of the Oriental world" [S1P199].

Walter Bowie: Walter Bowie believed the Old Testament was LEGEND, not 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" [S1P199].

Of Jacob wrestling with the Angel, Bowie 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" [S1P199].

Walter 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" [S1P199].

Clarence Craig: Clarence Craig denied the bodily resurrection of Jesus 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 the 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" [S1P200].

Craig also believed that Christ's second coming was spiritual, 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" [S1P200].

Craig said God is NOT able to preserve His Word. "If God wrote His revelation in an inerrant book, He certainly FAILED to provide any means by which this could be passed on without contamination ..." [S1P200].

Frederick Grant: Against scripture, Frederick Grant (like Westcott and Hort) prayed for the dead: "... CEASE NOT TO PRAY, for they are living still, in this world or the other, and still have need of prayers" [S1P200].

Willard Sperry: Willard Sperry disliked the Gospel of John: "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" [S1P201].


Fleming James: Fleming James said of Moses' writing the first five books of the Bible: "The idea has been shown by scholars to be UNTENABLE on many grounds" [S1P201].

Fleming also doubted the miracle of the Red Sea crossing: "What really happened at the Red Sea WE CAN NO LONGER REALLY KNOW ... THE SAME MAY BE SAID OF THE PLAGUES" [S1P202].

Concerning Elijah in 2 Kings 1:10, Fleming said: "The narrative of calling down fire from heaven upon soldiers sent to arrest him is PLAINLY LEGENDARY" [S1P202].

Millar Burrows: Millar Burrows summarized the true convictions of the RSV revisors in his quote: "We CANNOT take the Bible as a whole and in every part as stating with divine authority what we must believe and do" [S1P202-3].



But, what about other 'new' versions and their revision committee memberships. Reverend Gipp researched this and found:

"... secrecy surrounding translations such as the New American Standard Version and the New International Version. The Lockman Foundation has elected to remain anonymous" [S1P196].

Reverend Gipp goes on to say: "This is, of course, the safest method, as it prevents investigative eyes from uncovering truths ..." [S1P196].

G.A Riplinger also researched new version translating committees. She says: "The NASB committee list remained a closely guarded secret for over 30 years, lest conservative Christians catch a glimpse of the liberal membership" [S3P491].

Of one NASB committee member G.A. Riplinger adds that: "Dr. Frank Logsdon has renounced his participation. At numerous speaking engagements he denounced his part in what he now perceives to be a heretical version" [S3P491]. "I may be in trouble with God" because of it, he confesses [S3P491].

As to the NIV committee, Reverend Gipp says: "The translating committee of the New International Version is ... nameless" [S1P196].

Of this 'nameless' NIV committee, Reverend Gipp concludes:

"We are assured of their 'scholarship' although words without proof, ring of a snake oil salesman in the days of the Old West" [S1P196].


Q U O T E S F R O M N E W V E R S I O N E D I T O R S A N D / O R D I R E C T O R S

Although groups (like the Lockman Foundation) try to keep their translating committee memberships a secret; information eventually leaks out. For instance; some 'new version' editors have written books and/or articles about their work. This, of course, exposes their participation.

From these published works we can gain insight into their beliefs. In this short section we will document the beliefs of some new version editors and/or directors.

Quotes from: Professor C.H. Dodd

Director of Translation For the New English Bible:

"The old dogmatic view of the Bible therefore, is not only open to attack from the standpoint of science and historical criticism, BUT IF TAKEN SERIOUSLY it BECOMES A DANGER to religion and public morals." (The Bible is a danger?) [S5P68].

"God is the author, NOT of the Bible BUT of the life in which the authors of the Bible partake, and of which they tell in such IMPERFECT HUMAN WORDS as they could command." (God did not write the Bible?) [S5P68].

"The most downright claims to infallibility are made by the apocalypist, as for example in the New Testament Revelation (see 22:6, 16, 18-19) a book which some of the wisest thinkers of the early Church wished to exclude from the canon, and which as a whole, is SUB-CHRISTIAN in tone and outlook." (Revelation is sub-Christian?) [S5P69].

"God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son - The expression evidently ANTHROPOMORPHIC. It is a MYTHOLOGICAL way of saying that in Christ God gives of His own Being ..." (John 3:16 is a myth?) [S5P69].

"MOSES HAS LEFT US NO WRITINGS, and we know little of him with certainty." [S5P69] ( Reader note: Professor Dodd really missed this one. Apparently he has not STUDIED the Bible. Up to the time of the writing of the 2nd book of the Bible [Exodus], in Exodus 24:4 it says: "Moses wrote ALL the words of the LORD ...". Many scholars believe Moses then went on to write, not only the first two books, but the FIRST 5 BOOKS of the Bible ).

"For indeed the bare idea of vicarious expiation (substitutionary atonement) is NOT WHOLLY RATIONAL ..." [S5P69]. ( Jesus' dying for our sins is not rational? )

Quotes from: Edwin Palmer

Coordinator Of: 'All The Work On The NIV Bible'

"[T]his [his NIV Bible] shows the GREAT ERROR that is so prevalent today in some orthodox Protestant circles, namely that regeneration depends upon faith ... and that in order to be born again a man must first accept Jesus as his Savior ..." [S3P231].

"... that Christ loved the whole world equally and gave himself up for the world is WRONG" [S3P231].

"[There are] few clear and decisive texts that declare Jesus is God" [S3P305].

"The committee DID NOT FEEL BOUND TO THE HEBREW TEXT ..." [S3P292].



Peter Ruckman has noticed a couple of common threads in 'new versions' and in their translating committees. He says:

"You cannot uncover an apostasy without discussing SIN. You cannot fix the blame for apostasy without talking about SIN, and the surest proof of this is the fact that the word [sin] is never mentioned in one single preface by any revision committee since 1611. The AV translators used the word [sin] in their dedicatory ..." [S11P123].

Peter Ruckman also noticed another common thread. He says:

"There hasn't been ONE man on any revision committee since 1880 who was a strong evangelistic preacher against SIN: not one man" [S11P123].



The "... Christian makes perhaps no more crucial decision than choosing a Bible" [S6Pv].

Yet: "The average Christian is not aware of what is taking place. History contrasts the sacrificial lives of the early English translators to the cavalier life styles: the zeal of the martyrs for the glory of God, against the modern popularity and profit motivated efforts to replace the Word of God in English" [S9P13].

Even Christian ministers are NOT aware of what is taking place:

"The mass of Christian ministers today ... don't know what they have in their hand, and if they have an AV ... they strongly doubt that they have anything more than a 'poor' translation of the 'original' ..." [S11P12].

"The Church ... has abdicated her role as guardian of the Bible and has turned such responsibility over to HIRELINGS who market various, conflicting translations to the confusion and dis-array of the Church" [S6Pii]. Therefore, "... the Bible publishing industry ... now determine[s] the texts of scripture" [S6Pii].

But: "If you have two books that both claim to be the Word of God and they contradict each other you must draw one of two conclusions. Either one of them is the word of God and the other is not, or, neither of them is the Word of God" [S14P7].

Therefore we find "... sincere believers are in a state of bewildering confusion today, because of the multiplicity of Bible versions ... They CANNOT ALL be the Word of God" [S4P92].

The truth is that "Satan has from the beginning ... done everything ... to destroy, belittle, and malign the Word of God. Today he is using a new tactic, that of ... multiplicity of Bible versions 'so called' ..." [S14P22].

Thus, the Church's worst threat is not external, it is internal: "... the plunder of God's people will be an INSIDE JOB as 'thieves enter in among you' (Acts 20:30) [S3P393].

As Christians, let us REJECT these 'new' versions which "... ignore the over 5000 Greek MSS ..." [S3P475].


T H E  F A T E  O F  S O M E  ' N E W V E R S I O N '  E D I T O R S

God says: "Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the Lord, that steal my words ..." (Jeremiah 23:30). And God also says: "... If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: (Revelation 22:18b) "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book" (Revelation 22:19).

So, what happened to those who have changed God's words?

"A surprising number of new version editors have permanently lost their ability to speak ..." [S3P2].

For instance: The Living Bible; Ken Taylor editor:

In July 1972, Time magazine recorded that: "Mysteriously half way through the paraphrase Taylor lost his voice and still speaks in a hoarse whisper" [S3P447]

(Please note: The introduction to the Catholic Edition of Taylor's Bible warns: "[T]his translation CANNOT BE USED AS A BASIS for Doctrinal or traditional disputes ... People from various Doctrinal traditions may ... be CHAGRINED at the particular translations found within this volume" [S3P447] ).

American Standard Version; Philip Schaff:

Early warnings came to Schaff in 1854: "... his voice so affected that he could not speak in public so as to be heard". Then in 1892: "... the power of articulate speech GONE" [S3P447].

'New Greek Text'; Tregelles:

S.P. Tragelles was the author of a 'New Greek Text'. This text influenced Westcott and Hort. Of Tragelles, it was written that he was: "scarcely able to speak audibly" [S3P448].

Westcott and Hort Greek Text; Westcott:

Westcott's own biographer stated, in 1858, that Westcott: "... was quite inaudible". Then by 1870: "His voice reached few and was understood by fewer" [S3P448].

The New Testament in Modern English; J.B. Phillips

J.B. Phillips says (in his own autobiography): "I was still doing a fair measure of speaking in schools and churches until the late summer of 1961. And then quite suddenly my speaking, writing and communication powers stopped. I was not in panic but I was certainly ALARMED, and when a few weeks rest brought no improvement I cancelled all speaking engagements for the rest of the year" [S3P448].

Lastly; "Insanity marked another prominent new version editor whose commitments to mental institutions served as bookends to a life fraught with derangement and hallucinosis" [S3P2].

In summary: "Modern translators of the Bible are true successors of Jehoikim, the King of Jerusalem, whose mutilation of Scripture is given in Jeremiah 36:22-23" [S7P2]. (Note how Jehoikim died. It is found in Jeremiah 22:18-19).


W H A T A R E T H E R E S U L T S ?

"What have all these versions done for our Lord and for His Church? Are more people reading and practicing the Bible? Are more souls being saved? Is there less confusion regarding the inspiration of the Scriptures since they appeared on the scene? You know as well as I do that modern versions have brought confusion and compromise ..." [S7P10].

These 'corrupted versions', which dis-agree among themselves, have made it virtually impossible for the congregation to follow along with their pastor during the reading of scripture.

And 'new versions' do not contain the same words in our traditional gospel songs. Thus, hymnals and 'new versions' do not agree, either!

A R E M O R E C O M I N G ?

At this juncture, a good question would be: Is the latest 'version', that is on the market today, the last one which will be sold to the Christian public?

The NIV translators give us the answer:

"[T]he work of translation is NEVER wholly finished" [S3P583].

Therefore, if we can believe these translators, the Bible industry PLANS to remain in apostasy. How sad.



"... it is fair to say that the entire American Bible publishing industry is travelling this road to riches [through the] use of CONTINUOUS revisionism of their various COPYRIGHTED editions of the Word" [S6P19]. "In short, the road to profits in the free enterprise system is CHANGE. While this law is valid for business in general it is absolutely INIMICAL to the timeless ... Christian faith" [S6P21].

Since the English Revised Version of 1881 "... the flood gates have been opened and we are now deluged with many different ... Greek New Testaments ... mutilated in bewildering confusion" [S2P178].



"When we receive the Traditional New Testament as the true text, then we see the history of the New Testament text as a GREAT BATTLE between Christ and Satan. Always Satan has been corrupting and mutilating the true text. Always Christ has been preserving it through the guidance of His all-governing providence. And this battle is going on right now. As Bible-believing Christians therefore we follow every detail of this long conflict with intense interest and gladly volunteer to fight this good fight of faith with all our might in our own day and age" [S8P53].


C H A P T E R 2 4

G O D ' S P R E S E R V E D W O R D

The foreword to the NASB Bible says that ONLY the originals were inspired. It says: "The New American Standard Bible has been produced with the conviction that the words of scripture AS ORIGINALLY PENNED in the Hebrew and Greek were inspired by God" [S5P76].

Today it is taught that: "... God wrote the originals perfectly, but that there is NO perfect translation. Yet, there is NO scripture that teaches any such thing! [S1P170].

We are told that God CAN NOT use Holy men to translate His Word (from the Traditional Majority Text) into the various world languages.

Yet, if God used Holy men to write His originals, why can't He use Holy men to translate his Word?

Something is wrong, here. The logic, in what we're being told, does not make sense.

So, in this chapter, let's examine what God said about His Word.



"FOREVER, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." (Psalm 119:89)

" ... thou hast magnified thy word above ALL thy name." (Psalm 138:2)

"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." (Psalm 12:6-7)

"Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words SHALL NOT pass away." (Luke 21:33)

"The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God SHALL STAND FOR EVER." (Isaiah 40:8)

" ... the scripture CANNOT be broken;" (John 10:35)

And, lest any of us think that God cannot accomplish His promises; God has already anticipated our doubts. He says:

"Behold, I [am] the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me? (Jeremiah 32:27).



Contrary to what we're being told, God says that his word is WITH us and is PRESERVED forever.

Reverend Gipp agrees and points out:

" ... the Bible is a spiritual book which God exerted supernatural force to conceive, and it is reasonable to assume that He could exert the same supernatural force to PRESERVE it" [S1P49].

Edward Hills comments:

"... why would God infallibly inspire these original manuscripts if He did not intend to PRESERVE their texts by His special providence down through the ages?" [S8P55].

"... if the providential PRESERVATION of the Scriptures is not important, why is the infallible INSPIRATION of the original Scriptures important? [S12P225].

"Every argument for inerrant, infallible INSPIRATION applies also for inerrant, infallible PRESERVATION. It is the same God!" [S1P170].

"If the doctrine of the Divine inspiration of the Old and New Testament scriptures is true doctrine, the doctrine of the providential preservation of the scriptures MUST also be a true doctrine. It must be that down through the centuries God has exercised a special providential control over the copying of the scriptures ... so that trustworthy representatives of the original text have been available to God's people in every age" [S6P192-3].

"There exists NO reason for supposing that the divine agent who ... gave to mankind the scriptures ... straightway abdicated his office, took no further care of his work, [and] abandoned these precious writings to their fate" [S2P124].

Or put another way:

"Are we to simply believe that, for a millenium and a half, the New Testament languished textually until it was providentially rescued in the last century by two random discoveries: in a Vatican archive and in a Mount Sinai wastebasket ...? [S6Pvii].

" ... if God has not preserved His words ... then he has done something which He has never done before. He has wasted His time!" [S1P21].

No dear reader, God has not wasted His time. He has, in fact, preserved his Words. For instance:

"A.W. Pink ... wrote that the indestructibility of the Bible is proof that the Author is Divine... A very small percentage of books survive more than twenty years, a yet smaller percent last a hundred years, and only an INSIGNIFICANT fraction ... have lived a thousand years" [S7P1].

As Dean Burgon (1883) pointed out, the history of the New Testament text is the history of a conflict between God and Satan. Soon after the New Testament books were written Satan corrupted their texts by means of heretics and misguided critics whom he had raised up. These assaults, however, on the integrity of the Word were repulsed by the providence of God, who guided true believers to reject these false teachings and to preserve the True Text in the majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts [S12P231].

So, we know God HAS preserved His Word.

W H I C H B I B L E ?

Therefore, the question before us today is this: Which of the two Bible 'types' is the true Word of God ?

"The fact that there is ONE God plainly tells us that there can only be ONE correct reading concerning any discrepancy between these two groups" [S1P48].

"... the whole controversy may be reduced to the following narrow issue: Does ... Scripture dwell with the VAST multitude of copies ... concerning which nothing is more remarkable than the MARVELOUS AGREEMENT which subsists between them? Or is it ... with a very LITTLE handful of manuscripts, which at once differ from the great bulk of witnesses, and ... also amongst themselves" [S2P124-5].

"It is certainly much more reasonable to believe ... that the true New Testament text has been preserved in the vast majority of the New Testament manuscripts than to suppose with Westcott and Hort that the true text is ... found in ... codex B, now securely locked up in the library of the Pope ..." [S2P103].

"Number is the most ordinary ingredient of weight. If ten witnesses are called into court and nine give the same account while one contradicts the other nine, which will be accepted? [S2P125].

And if 10 witnesses are good, how much more valuable is the testimony of 5,000?


C H A P T E R 2 5



In the word, it says: "... we are not as MANY which corrupt the Word of God". ( 2Co 2:17 )

The Bible tells us that MANY people are trying to corrupt the Word of God.

In previous chapters we have seen SOME of the heresy which has crept into these 'modern' versions of the Bible. We have seen the denial of the deity of Jesus, the removal of Jesus' blood as the atonement for our sins, we have seen Catholic doctrine, etc. etc.

In this chapter we will look at another category of corruption included in 'modern' versions: It is 'New Age Doctrine'.



In this section we will pose several questions to 'New Agers'. We will then analyze their response(s) and check for the presence of 'New Age' doctrine in 'new versions' of the Bible.

Question #1 For New Agers: Who is God?


"WE ARE ALL 100% divine" - Maharishi [S3P184].

"ALL MEN are innate divinity" - Annie Besant [S3P184].

"The knowingness of OUR divinity is the highest intelligence ... YOU are divine. But YOU must continually remember YOUR Divinity ... we had all forgotten we were EACH Divine" - Shirley MacLaine [S3P184].

"We need a World Religion ... based on DIVINE ESSENCE IN EACH PERSON. Peace can only come when we recognize THE DIVINITY IN EACH PERSON" - Lola Davis [S3P184].

The first 'New Age' belief is that MAN is divine, i.e. God. Now let's see if that corrupt doctrine is in 'new versions'.

Scripture Scripture Reading Scripture Reading

Verse ( NASB ) KJV

Psalm 8:5 Yet Thou hast made him For thou hast made him

a little lower than GOD a little lower than


"New versions fall back into ... a belief in the divinity of man" [S3P184].

Not only do some 'new versions' place man up with God, but these 'new versions' also change God from the personage of the Trinity to a 'nature' or 'divine nature'. In other words, 'new versions' lower God. For example:


Scripture Scripture Reading Scripture Reading

Verse ( NASB, NIV ) KJV

Romans 1:20 divine nature Godhead

Question #2 For New Agers: Are devils real?


"[T]he Church is wrong with calling them Devils ... [T]he word demon however, as in the case of Socrates, and in the spirit of the meaning given to it by the whole of antiquity, stand[s] for the Guardian Spirit or Angel not a Devil of Satanic descent as Theology would have it ... Demons is a very loose word to use as it applies to ... minor Gods; ... there are no devils" - Luciferian, Mme. Blavatsky [S3P218-9].

A second 'New Age' belief is that there are no such things as 'devils'. Let's look at some 'new versions' to check for this error.


Scripture Scripture Reading Scripture Reading


Deut. 32:17 demons devils

Psalm 106:37 demons devils

Matt. 8:16 demons devils

Matt. 8:31 demons devils

Matt. 9:34 demons devils

Matt. 10:8 demons devils

Matt. 12:24 demons devils

Indeed, new versions ignore the existence of devils. New versions change 'devils' to 'demons'.

Question #3 For New Agers: Are Christians Slaves or Servants of Christ


First off; let's define those terms. Per Webster's dictionary:

Servant: "... one who exerts himself for the benefit of another master ... as a public servant, an official of the government". [S3P221]

Slave: "... a person HELD in bondage, a thrall. One who has LOST CONTROL of himself, freedom of action. A drudge." [S3P221].

According to Webster, there is a big difference between servants and slaves. Servants work because they WANT TO. Servants have RETAINED their freedom. Slaves work because they HAVE TO. Slaves have LOST their freedom.

So how do New Agers see Christians? "The New Agers see ... Christ's Church as:

'... bigoted and cruel to all who do not choose to be it's SLAVES'" [S3P223].

New Age leaders say Adam was a 'SLAVE' before he ate from the Tree of Life. He was then 'emancipated' just like Lucifer, who '... preferred free will to passive slavery'.

Another New Age author writes:

'[D]ogmas have made weaklings and SLAVES of men ... Justification by faith and vicarious atonement were taught as Gospel truth and man became a greater SLAVE than before'" [S3P223].

Thus, New Agers see Christians as 'slaves' of Christ. Now, let's see if this 'New Age' belief is in some 'modern' versions. (The following table is from [S3P224-225]).

Scripture Scripture Reading Scripture Reading


Mark 10:44 slave servant

1 Co. 7:21 slave servant

1 Co. 7:22 slave servant

Eph. 6:8 slaves servants

Sure enough, 'New Age Doctrine' can be added to our list of errors contained in 'new versions'.

Question #4 For New Agers: Who does 'Christ' refer to?


Roy Livesey: author and publisher of the New Age Bulletin, in England, says:

"Christ, however doesn't refer to the Lord Jesus Christ but to the World Teacher" [S3P322].

Thus, New Agers change Jesus Christ (the Master) to just a "teacher". Let's see if 'new versions' do the same. ( The following table is from [S3P323] ).

Scripture Scripture Reading Scripture Reading

Verse ( NASB, NIV, etc. etc.) KJV

Matt. 8:19 Teacher Master

Matt. 17:24 teacher master

Matt. 23:8 Teacher Master

Mark 4:38 Teacher Master

Mark 5:35 Teacher Master

Mark 13:1 Teacher Master

Mark 14:14 Teacher Master

Luke 3:12 Teacher Master

Luke 8:49 Teacher Master

Luke 11:45 Teacher Master

Luke 12:13 Teacher Master

Luke 18:18 Teacher Master

Luke 19:39 Teacher Master

Luke 20:21 Teacher Master

Luke 20:39 Teacher Master

Luke 21:7 Teacher Master

Luke 22:11 Teacher Master

John 4:31 Rabbi Master

John 11:8 Rabbi Master

John 11:28 Rabbi Master

John 20:16 Rabbi Master

Question #5 For New Agers: Is doctrine important?


Edwin Luzer: "Doctrine is NOT IMPORTANT [in the New Age]. What is important is religious experience" [S3P328].

Once Jesus is no longer 'Master', notice what happens to Christian doctrine: doctrine is then no longer important! In new versions, doctrine is 'watered down' to the generic term: 'teaching'. For example: ( The following table is from [S3P326-327] ).

Scripture Scripture Reading Scripture Reading

Verse ( NASB, NIV, etc. etc. ) KJV

Matt. 7:28 teaching doctrine

Matt. 16:12 teaching doctrine

Matt. 22:33 teaching doctrine

Mark 1:22 teaching doctrine

Mark 1:27 teaching doctrine

Mark 4:2 teaching doctrine

Mark 11:18 teaching doctrine

Mark 12:38 teaching doctrine

Luke 4:32 teaching doctrine

John 7:16 teaching doctrine

John 7:17 teaching doctrine

John 18:19 teaching doctrine

Acts 2:42 teaching doctrine

Acts 13:12 teaching doctrine

Acts 17:19 teaching doctrine

Romans 6:17 teaching doctrine

Romans 16:17 teaching doctrine

1 Co. 14:6 teaching doctrine

1 Co. 14:26 teaching doctrine

1 Tim. 1:10 teaching doctrine

1 Tim.4:13 teaching doctrine

1 Tim.4:16 teaching doctrine

1 Tim.5:17 teaching doctrine

2 Tim.3:10 teaching doctrine

2 Tim.3:16 teaching doctrine

2 John 1:9 teaching doctrine

Rev. 2:14, 15, 24 teaching doctrine

Does this remind you of 2nd Timothy 4:3 ? i.e.:

"For the time will come when they will NOT ENDURE SOUND DOCTRINE; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves TEACHERS ..." [S3P327].

As Christians we KNOW doctrine is important! Religious historian David L. Johnson says:

"Doctrine specifically states that which is of ULTIMATE CONCERN" [S3P327].

Or put another way:

"Our plan of action REQUIRES ... sound doctrine. [I]t is the formal BASIS of our opinions and beliefs. If we do not maintain good doctrine then all manner of BAD TEACHING can creep into the Church" [S3P327].

( And isn't this happening in these 'new versions' ? )

Question #6 For New Agers: Is God going to judge the world?


Ramtha: "God ... will allow you to be and do ANYTHING you wish and hold you JUDGELESS. God HAS NEVER judged anyone." [S3P287].

Comment: "Since the destruction of the earth is a result of God's judgment, those verses describing the severity of that judgment are 'softened up' or omitted. (The following table is from [S3P286-287]).

Scripture Scripture Reading Scripture Reading

Verse ( NASB, NIV, etc. ) KJV

Mark 6:11 omitted the day of judgement

Mark 9:44 omitted Where their worm

dieth not, and the

fire is not quenched

Mark 9:46 omitted Where their worm

dieth not, and the

fire is not quenched

Luke 17:36 omitted Two men shall be

in the field;

the one shall be

taken, and the other eft.

Question #7 For New Agers: Where do sinners go when they die?


H.P. Blavatsky: " ... Hell and its sovereign are both INVENTIONS of Christianity." [S3P291].

Let's see what this 'New Age' belief has done to 'modern' versions:

( The following table is from [S3P292] ).


Scripture Scripture Reading Scripture Reading

Verse ( NIV ) KJV

Deut. 32:22 death hell

Job 26:6 death hell

Prov. 23:14 death hell

Prov. 27:20 death hell

Isa. 28:18 death hell


Notice that Hell, a place of eternal torment and punishment, has been changed to the generic term: 'death'.

Question #8 For New Agers:

In the end times, what will happen to the earth?


First off; let's see what God says in the KJV:

"... the earth also and the works that are therein shall be BURNED UP." ( II Peter 3:10 ).

"Luciferian H.P. Blavatsky: 'Both Jesus and St. John the Baptist preached the end of the Age ... So little did the UNINITIATED CHRISTIANS understand that they accepted the words of Jesus literally and firmly believed he meant the end of the world'" [S3P283].

New Agers believe that this 'world' will remain. They DO NOT believe the world will burn up as stated in the Bible. Instead New Agers believe in a nebulous concept of one age ending and a 'New Age' then beginning.

Now, let's see if this 'New Age' belief has been injected into 'modern' versions. ( The following table is from [S3P285] ).

Scripture Scripture Reading Scripture Reading

Verse ( NASB, NIV, etc. ) KJV

Dan. 12:13 end of the age end of the days

Matt. 13:39 end of the age end of the world

Matt. 13:40 end of the age end of this world

Matt. 13:49 end of the age at the end of the world

Matt. 28:20 I am with you always lo, I am with you

even to the end of alway, even unto

the age the end of the world

The 'New Age' corruption, that the sinful earth will remain, is also included in 'new versions'.

As G.A. Riplinger points out: "If the world ends the sinner has nothing to stand on; if the age ends, he merely changes his calendar" [S3P285].

Something to think about.

C H A P T E R 2 6



There is one last way the Word of God is corrupted ...

In her book "New Age Bible Versions" G.A. Riplinger discusses lexicons. On page 601, she says:

"The Greek and Hebrew Lexicons and dictionaries are written by men, 'most of whom are unbelievers', writes Princeton and Yale scholar Edward Hills. A few examples will suffice: 1) The New Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon's editor (Briggs) was defrocked by the 'liberal' Presbyterian Church for his 'liberalism'. 2) Trench, author of the much used: "Synonyms of the New Testament", was a member of Westcott's esoteric clubs, as was Alford, whose Greek reference works are still used. 3) J. Henry Thayer, author of the "New Thayer's Greek Lexicon", was a Unitarian who vehemently denied the deity of Christ. (Thayer was also the dominant member of the ASV committee!) His lexicon contains a seldom noticed warning by the publisher in its introduction (p. vii). It cautions readers to watch for adulterations in the work relating to the deity of Christ and the Trinity. 4) The acclaimed A.T. Robertson's "Greek Grammar" also sends up a red flag in its preface saying, 'The text of Westcott and Hort is followed inall its essentials'. 5) Conclusions drawn by Kurt and Barbara Aland of the "Nestles-Aland Greek New Testament" elicit the response by Philip Comfort that "the Alands' designations must be taken with caution". 6) James Strong, author of "Strong's Concordance" was a member of the corrupt ASV Committee" [S3P601].

Lexicons corrupt the word of God. In this chapter we will see how that happens.

U S I N G   A   L E X I C O N

A 'lexicon' can be used two different ways:

M E T H O D 1

In method 1, the Christian looks up an English word in their King James Bible. If a 'lexicon' is used, it cross references the Bible's original English word to the Bible's original Hebrew/Greek word. Then the Christian is given the lexicon's 'new' English translation of that original Hebrew/Greek Word.

Notice how the Christian makes a 360 degree circle from the Holy Spirit's chosen English word, to the Holy Spirit's chosen Hebrew/Greek word, to "another" English word chosen by MAN!

Since God is perfect, and man is not, this method corrupts God's Word.

Notice also, method #1 approaches the Word of God by 'doubting' him. i.e. by doubting His choice of the original English words.

That is how some people use a lexicon. Knowingly or unknowingly Christians are being misled from what God wants them to know, to what man and/or Satan puts in place of God's original!

Thus, a Christian may have God's Word (from their King James Bible), but they can get 'derailed' by reading man's words in place of God's Words!


E X A M P L E   O F   M E T H O D   1

The following is an example of using method 1. Let's see how God's Word gets corrupted.

In the King James Bible, in Isaiah 7:14, it says:

"... Behold, a VIRGIN shall conceive, and bear a son ...".

If I look up the original Hebrew word for 'virgin' in a corrupted (but popular) Strong's lexicon, it says the original Hebrew word is: 'al-maw'.

To that original word 'al-maw', Strong gives his definitions. That's right 'plural' definitions! Strong says al-maw is a "young woman" and could EITHER be A) of marriageable age or B) maid or newly married.

Notice Strong NEVER translates it "virgin"!

Think about it.

The Holy Spirit translated 'al-maw' as "virgin". For a "virgin" to conceive is an obvious MIRACLE.

But Strong says an 'equivalent translation' is "young woman"!

There are two MAJOR problems with Strong's translation:

1) If a "young woman" gave birth to Jesus, this is NOT a miracle. Young women give birth all the time! By Strong's definition, Jesus is just ANY man. If Jesus is just any man, then we are still in our sins. If we are still in our sins, then we are not saved. If we are not saved, then we have a big, big, problem.

2) In Strong's definition 'A' he says "of marriageable age". Strong does not say Mary was married, only that she was of marriageable age. In Strong's definition 'B' he has 2 translations: 1) maid (i.e. a woman who is not married) or 2) newly married. Thus, in most of these definitions, Strong is inferring that Mary is unmarried. Since Mary is pregnant and Strong is inferring that she is unmarried, Strong is calling Mary a whore !

Folks, this is heresy. Lexicons are apostate and are ANOTHER way to corrupt the Word of God.


M E T H O D   2

The second method for using a lexicon, is the approach of "faith". In this approach we say: God I know you picked these original English words for a reason, I just don't understand why.

Then, you look up the original Holy Spirit chosen Hebrew/Greek word for the original Holy Spirit chosen English word. You compare the places where the Holy Spirit translated the original Hebrew/Greek word into the same (or sometimes) different English words. By using this method #2, you will gain insight into God's Word.

Method #2 is the ONLY way to use a lexicon, and that's if you use a lexicon AT ALL.

E X A M P L E O F M E T H O D 2

The following is an example of method 2.

In 1st Corinthians 13:13, in the KJV, its says: "... faith, hope and charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity"

In new versions it says: "... faith, hope and love, these three; but the greatest of these is love".

Some people 'like' the new version's translation. However, the 'new version' does not give the FULL meaning.

If I use Strong's lexicon and look up the original Greek word I find it is "agape". In the King James Bible, the Holy Spirit translated agape as 'charity' in 1st Corinthians 13:13 BUT the Holy Spirit translated agape as 'love' in Matthew 24:12.

Remember, we said earlier there are two ways to approach God's Word: doubt or faith.

When I first read this, I approached the Word in doubt. I did not understand why the word 'charity' was used in 1Co 13:13. In my position of doubt, I went to the Lord to ask him why He said 'charity'. I received NO insight. I received NOTHING. Total void.

This kept bothering me. Eventually I wearied of getting no response and I finally took the approach of faith. I said:

"Lord I KNOW you chose the word 'charity' for a REASON. I don't know why. Lord, you are not the problem, I am the problem. I just don't understand. As your Word says; please give me wisdom and 'upbraideth me not'".

At that moment of faith; the Lord gave me insight into His Word:

The insight was this: Charity is a form of love. It is consistent with love. But the word charity contains the FULL meaning. The reason is this: If I love my wife, my wife can love me back. Therefore 'what thanks have ye'. If I love my wife and my wife loves me back, I am being REPAID.

The Bible is very clear about giving: 'GIVE EXPECTING NOTHING in return', 'it is more blessed to GIVE, than to receive, 'for God so loved the world that he GAVE his only begotten son ...'

But 'charity', by definition, is giving when you do not expect to be repaid. When we give our time and money to a charity, we don't get a check back in the mail !

Thus, charity is a HIGHER form of giving than just love.

When Jesus gave His life for us He was being 'charitable'. He was giving and getting nothing in return. What He gave to us we can NEVER FULLY repay. Giving when you expect 'nothing back' is charity.

Thus, the full meaning is in the King James: "... faith, hope, CHARITY, these three; but the greatest of these is CHARITY".


B E   C A R E F U L !

Man made definitions in lexicons are corrupt. If a lexicon is used AT ALL, method 2 is the only way to go. Only method 2 approaches the Word in a position 'of faith'. Method 2 safely bypasses the man-made definitions. And, only method 2, gives insight into God's Word.



In effect, the men who write lexicons are saying: "Yea, hath God said?" And these same men then say: "God did not say the English words that are in your King James Bible, what God really meant was ....".

Then the 'counterfeit' is given to the Christian. Lexicons are subtle and devious in their methodology. G.A. Riplinger believes we should rename them: "Lucifer's Lexicons" [S3P591].


C H A P T E R 2 7

T H E F U T U R E ?

In previous chapters we focused on 'facts' i.e. historical facts, Bible verse comparisons, Bible readability scores, personal biographies, etc. etc. In those chapters data was available because we were dealing with the past and with the present.

In this chapter the topic is 'The Future'. Since we will be discussing the future, we are limited to 'speculation'. No one knows 'the facts' about the future!

F A C T S  S E P A R A T E D  F R O M  S P E C U L A T I O N

I have purposely separated this chapter on 'The Future' from all other chapters. This was done so that 'facts' are separated from 'speculation'.

D I F F E R E N C E S  O F  O P I N I O N

This is a 'Future Shock' kind of chapter. My speculation of the future may differ from yours, the reader. Or, we may be in TOTAL agreement! Whatever the agreement level, I believe this chapter presents some logical and possible, maybe even probable, scenarios of the future.

The purpose of this chapter is to encourage and stimulate thought.

But, let's keep in mind only God knows the future, and; this is a chapter written by a man.



In this chapter we will discuss:

1) Where Bible 'revisionism' may be going and

2) The possible future of the Bible, the Church, and the world.


The Bible says God IS NOT the author of confusion (1Co 14:33). Since 'modern versions' dis-agree among themselves, and since this is causing confusion in the Church; I believe we can conclude that these books ( i.e. new versions ) are NOT from God.

And, if they are not from God, they must be from Satan.


"Satan wants to be worshipped" [S1P25].

Also: "Satan's first interest HAS ALWAYS BEEN 'revision' (Gen 3:1-4) [S11P121].


W H E R E I S B I B L E R E V I S I O N I S M G O I N G ?

One way to know where the future is going is to look back at the past. One way to see where 'new versions' are headed is to go back to the Garden of Eden.

It was in the Garden of Eden where we saw Satan's methodology. Let's study Satan's tricks.


S A T A N ' S  3  S T E P  P L A N

In the Garden of Eden, God spoke to Adam. Then, Satan came to Eve and said:

"... Yea, hath God said ..." ( Genesis 3:1 )

Thus, step 1 in Satan's methodology, was to question whether God spoke AT ALL.

Next Satan said to Eve:

"... Ye shall not surely die:" ( Genesis 3:4 )

Thus, step 2 in Satan's methodology, was to ATTACK what God DID SAY.

Lastly, Satan said to Eve:

"... ye shall be as gods ..." ( Genesis 3:5 )

Thus; step 3 in Satan's methodology, was to SUBSTITUTE his ULTIMATE LIE.


W H E R E   A R E   W E   N O W ?

God has already told us the truth. He gave us His Traditional Majority Text. So where are we in Satan's 3 step methodology?

Satan's 'new versions' deny Jesus' deity, i.e. they deny that 'Jesus IS God'. In effect, these new versions 'infer' that God has NOT SPOKEN AT ALL.

From the 3 step model, we can say the world HAS PASSED step 1.

Second; some 'new versions', like the RSV, include statements like:

"... the King James Version has grave defects" [S5P76]. This statement, as well as the fact that 'new versions' change God's Words, are DIRECT ATTACKS on what God DID SAY.

From the 3 step model, we can conclude the world has PASSED step 2.

In the last step, Satan's substitutes his ULTIMATE LIE: "... ye shall be as gods ..." ( Genesis 3:5 ). As we have seen 'new versions' contain the 'New Age' belief that man is divine, i.e. God. Thus, the world may be 'in', or may be 'entering', step 3.

Jasper James Ray thinks that the world has NOT YET fully entered into step 3.

He says: "... [the] conflicting and confusing Bible Versions ... appear to be part of a 'Brain Washing' process, to PREPARE both clergy and laity for the reception of the 'EVOLVING BIBLE'" [S4P115].

He goes on to say: "... the Ecumenical Church must replace [The King James Bible] with a 'MAN-MADE-BIBLE' in which all 'objectional doctrines' have been removed. A Bible that answers this description is said to be WELL ON IT'S WAY" [S4P114].

Peter Ruckman gives his forecast for 'new Bible versions'. He says:

"What is shaping up now is A 'MUTUAL' BIBLE that Catholics and apostate Protestants WILL 'SHARE' ..." [S11P10].

G.A. Riplinger also believes we have NOT YET entered step 3. She believes that we have not yet seen the ULTIMATE LIE, i.e. the ULTIMATE SATANIC BIBLE. In her book: "New Age Bible Versions" she says:

"Satan recognizes that a bible is needed to control the masses. The DEVELOPMENT of a New Age Bible is among his top priorities" [S3P15].

She says: "The devious strategy that seems to be paying off for the New Age is that of revising or updating the Bible to make it more 'meaningful to modern times'" [S3P16].

She believes that: "The New Age Bible will be the unholy vessel into which the Antichrist will pour these doctrines of devils. It will incorporate the major doctrines of the [One World] religion" [S3P16].

Reverend Samuel C. Gipp takes Satan's three step methodology and summarizes how he thinks God's truth will be changed, by Satan, into Satan's ULTIMATE LIE and into the ULTIMATE SATANIC BIBLE. Gipp's chart follows: [S1P216].


God's Truth Satan's Counterfeits Satan's ULTIMATE Counterfeit

One God Many "gods" Satan is "god" of this world

One Christ Many "anti-christs" The Antichrist

One Church Many false churches One ultimate church, Rome

One Bible (AV) Many "Bibles" (ASV, One ultimate false "Bible"

NIV, etc. )

In summary, these authors believe we are somewhere between step 2 and step 3.


T H E   S O F T E N I N G

"Christians today do not realize they 'need a better translation' until they are TOLD SO by the Bible salesmen ..." [S1P83].

Notice how the public is first 'softened up' to the concept of receiving a corrupted Bible before the actual sale takes place!

For Satan to 'sell' his ULTIMATE SATANIC BIBLE (step 3), may require FURTHER 'softening' of the public.

Texe Marrs, a researcher of the 'New Age Movement', discusses how this 'softening' is occurring today and how it could occur in the future:

"For centuries Satan has inspired scientists and pseudo scientists to label Christians as unsophisticated and behind-the-times. Many of these ... secular humanists' arguments will become part of the New Age Bible. The bible that is developed by the Antichrist will be applauded as fully keeping with the high-tech age. Furthermore, New Age citizens will be told that the New Age scriptures CAN BE CHANGED whenever new scientific discoveries suggest revision is needed" [S3P555-556].


T H E   'F I N A L   B I B L E'   R E V I S I O N   C O M M I T T E E

To develop a 'Final Bible' requires a 'Final Bible Revision Committee! '

New Age leader, Vera Alder, describes who might be on this committee, and how it could possibly operate. She says:

"[T]he World Government and its Spiritual Cabinet of 12, headed by 'the Christ' will study all archaeological archives ... From it, the 'Research Panel' would develop the 'New' Bible of a World Religion which would be the BASIS of future education" [S3P555].


Where would the 'Apostate Church' be headquartered and whom would it include?

G.A. Riplinger quotes Dave Hunt as saying:

"There seems little doubt that this false abominable last-days religious system called Mystery Babylon (Revelation 17:5) will have its headquarters AT THE VATICAN" [S3P133].

And "While its headquarters will be at Rome, this false religious system will represent ALL CHURCHES, denominations, cults and religions joined into one" [S3P133].


T H E P O P E ?

"The blueprint for the New World Order, by Vera Alder, calls for the POPE to take his rightful 'position'" [S3P135]

"The Head of the Spiritual Cabinet would therefore have to be the most spiritually developed MAN in the world ... He would occupy the position which could have been that of the POPE ALL ALONG" [S3P135-6].

W O R S H I P T H E D R A G O N ?

G.A. Riplinger asks: "Are new versions preparing mankind to receive the Antichrist and 'worship the dragon'?" [S3P17]

She thinks the answer is yes.

"... Catholics and unwary Protestants, with their Gnostic Vatican manuscript under their arm, are being steered into the waiting arms of the one world church of the Antichrist" [S3P498].

"Naive Christians pass over the esoteric terminology and philosophy in new versions because, as Moody's 'Agony of Deceit' points out:

"[T]hey are unaware that they are repeating the errors of the past. Because they do not understand Greek philosophy or Oriental mysticism, or 19th century theosophy [Luciferism], they do not know how seriously they have been affected by such thinking" [S3P23].


M O V E M E N T T O W A R D ' T H E E N D T I M E S '

"Satan's objective is to unite the world under a man wholly given over to him ..." [S3P421]. This will occur sometime during the 'End Times'.

As we look around, there are signs that the world is moving toward the 'End Times' with its 'One World Religion'. For example:

"Efforts to have the United Nations declare 1993: 'The International Year of Religious Understanding' have been made" [S3P461]. Also, U.N. Assistant Secretary General Robert Miller has called for a "universal bible" [S3P3].


E V E R Y  M A N  D I D  T H A T  W H I C H  W A S  R I G H T  I N  H I S  O W N  E Y E S

"New Ager Vera Alder says ... 'It is likely that a NEW KIND OF RELIGION will develop in which EACH MAN will discover and work out his OWN sermons FOR HIMSELF'" [S3P504].

"J.B. Phillips touts the reader of his forward to the NASB Interlinear Greek-English New Testament to 'TRY AND MAKE HIS OWN TRANSLATION'" [S3P504-5].

David Spangler, a Luciferian (one who worships Satan) said:

"The evolution of the race is for every man NOT to learn to OBEY the law but to BE the law ... We can take all the scriptures ... and have a JOLLY GOOD BONFIRE ... Once you ARE the truth, you do not need it EXTERNALLY represented" [S3P507].

Don't these last statements sound a lot like the scripture: "... every man did [that which was] right in his own eyes" (Judges 17:6)?


W H E R E I S T H E C H U R C H N O W ?

Sometimes, we can be 'too close' to a problem to see it clearly. As the saying goes: 'we can't see the forest for the trees'. Since we are 'the Church', and since we are discussing where the Church is headed, let's see where outsiders believe 'the Church' is headed:

"Starhawk, a self proclaimed witch remarks: 'I am VERY GLAD to discover such movement within Christian churches that is sympathetic to the PAGAN SPIRIT'" [S3P23].



In summary, the future is really headed toward ONE question:

"The final conflict will come down to 'Who is God?'" [S3P301].

Is it Jesus Christ, or is it Satan ?

The sheep are going to be separated from the goats; and what we are, is our choice !


C H A P T E R 2 8



Today: "Biblical Christianity is facing one of its biggest tests as the twentieth century closes: A return to Papal Rome of the 'separated brethren'; A continuing stream of 'new' bibles, with NO END in sight; A decadent morality rivaling that of Noah's day; A revival of witchcraft and other ancient religions; and OLD heresies with NEW names. [With] The prospect of a [one] world government forcing conformity in religion; Christians had better be CERTAIN that they have the RIGHT SWORD, to '... earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints' (Jude 3) [S9P11-12].

And the 'right sword' is the Traditional Majority Text, the English translation being the King James Bible.

As we have seen in this report: "The New International Version, New American Bible, New American Standard, New Jerusalem, New English Bible, and the New Revised Standard are not so 'NEW', ... but are merely an encore of the 'New' Age esotericism of Plato, Saccus, Clement and Origen ..." [S3P545]. For instance: "The divinity of man, of all men, was taught ... from the writings of Origen and Clement. Plato is saturated with it" [S3P527].

Right now "... we are ... in the middle of a Bible translation explosion - a veritable flood of 'new' Bible translations, versions, paraphrases, all claiming to be the 'most accurate', the 'most readable', and the most 'up to date'" [S17P1].

Publishers of 'modern' Bibles tell us their versions are the 'best' translation of the Word of God. Then, a year or 2 later, they use the exact same words AGAIN when they come out with a newer version (i.e. when they want us to BUY again). There are now more than 120 of these "BEST TRANSLATIONS" of the Word of God.

That's right 120!

Notice that, at the beginning of this article, there were 110 'versions' of the Bible. At the end of this article there are now 120.

From the time I started writing to the end of this report, 10 new 'versions' have been added!

Would it surprise the reader if I said they were corrupt also?

The publishers of 'new versions' are telling us that, since the last version, 'new information' has been found that sheds 'new light' on God's Word.

Think about it, publishers are saying that we do not have God's Word, today. They are saying we have to keep looking for it!


C O M E , L E T U S R E A S O N T O G E T H E R

Would Jesus Christ leave the world, for the last 2,000 years, WITHOUT leaving us his true New Testament Word? Would He NEGLECT everyone for the last 2,000 years?

The simple truth is this: When Jesus Christ left the earth, he left MANY witnesses. Those witnesses wrote down what Jesus said and did. In fact, Jesus left so many witnesses that there are still more than 5,000 Greek New Testament manuscripts which EXIST TODAY. The early church had those witnesses. We have them, too.

From those 5,000 New Testament witnesses we can take ANY Bible and test it for accuracy.

The King James Bible has been found to AGREE with those 5,000 witnesses in 90-95% of the cases. That agreement level is why the King James is called: 'The Majority Text'.

So, we do have God's Word, and we have it, today.

If, on the other hand, we take the Westcott and Hort New Testament text (which underpins 'modern' versions) and if we compare it to the 5,000 Greek New Testament manuscripts; we find that it DISAGREES with 90-95% of the witnesses. That is why it is called the 'Minority Text'.

The bottom line is this: Jesus said you will know a tree by its fruit.

As a Christian, you need to compare the 'fruit' of these Bibles and decide whether you believe the King James Bible (The Majority Text) contains the Word of God, or whether the Word of God is in these 'modern' versions (the Minority Text).

Remember that the Bible is not just any book; it is the Word of God, and is, therefore, subject to spiritual attack.

In fact it is due to SPIRITUAL ATTACK, that there EVEN EXISTS a MINORITY of the 5,000 Greek New Testament texts which ARE CORRUPTED. Without that spiritual attack, the King James Bible would have agreed with 100% of the 5,000 Greek New Testament witnesses.

Remember also: Jesus has the name above all names (Philip. 2:9). And the Bible goes on to say that: God has MAGNIFIED HIS WORD ABOVE ALL HIS NAME (Psalms 138:2).

Wow! That is getting up there!

Thus, when we are talking about the Word of God, we are discussing a VERY, VERY, important topic.

This report was written for the Glory of God and to point everyone toward His True Word.

- THY WORD have I hid in my heart that I might not sin against thee. ( Ps 119:11 )

- I will delight myself in thy statutes: I will not forget THY WORD. ( Ps 119:16 )

- For ever, O Lord, THY WORD is settled in heaven. (Ps 119:89)

- I have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I might keep THY WORD. ( Ps 119:101 )

- THY WORD [is] a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. ( Ps 119:105 )

- Thou [art] my hiding place and my shield: I hope in THY WORD. ( Ps 119:114 )

- THY WORD [is] true [from] the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments [endureth] for ever. ( Ps 119:160 )


A R E T H E S E R E V I S I O N S ?

A R E T H E S E V E R S I O N S ?

A R E T H E S E B I B L E S ?

Throughout this report I have called the NIV, the NASB, the AMP, the RSV, the LB, the NRSV etc. etc. 'new versions'. I have also called them 'new Bibles'. And add to that the fact they are also sometimes called 'revisions'. But:

1) Are these 'corruptions' REALLY 'Bibles'?

2) Are these 'corruptions' REALLY new 'versions'?

3) Are these 'corruptions' REALLY 'revisions'?

I called them 'Bibles' and 'versions', to establish 'a common dialogue' between myself and the reader. But, let's analyze this issue.


Q U E S T I O N # 1

To the question: Are these 'corruptions' REALLY 'revisions'? David Otis Fuller responds:

"The Revision of 1881, the American Standard Version of 1901, and the Revised Standard Version ... are IN NO TRUE SENSE a revision of the King James of 1611. If they were they would have followed the SAME Greek text, the Textus Receptus, and thus would contain the SAME verses" [S16P5].

'New corruptions' DO NOT follow the same texts. Therefore, they ARE NOT 'revisions'.

Q U E S T I O N # 2

To the question: Are these 'corruptions' REALLY 'new versions'? David Otis Fuller responds again:

"A VERSION is that which is TRANSLATED, or rendered FROM ONE LANGUAGE to ANOTHER. The Textus Receptus IS NOT a version. It is composed of the basic manuscript copies from which the King James [English] VERSION was made" [S16P5].

Since all of these 'new corruptions' are in the SAME language, they ARE NOT 'new versions'. Martin Luther's German Bible IS a 'new version'. It is translated, from the same Traditional Majority Text, into a different language, i.e. German.

Q U E S T I O N # 3

To the last question: Are these 'corruptions' REALLY 'Bibles'?

A 'Bible' is a book written by God. Since there is only 1 God, ALL OF THE BOOKS WHICH ARE REALLY BIBLES WOULD AGREE WITH EACH OTHER. This is because God is CONSISTENT and faithful. Also, the true Bible written by God, would be FREELY available to all His people; as, God is willing that ALL should be saved. It would NOT be financially copyrighted by men. Men CANNOT take credit for God's labor.

"God has only one Bible. All the others ... are NOT Bibles BUT BOOKS OF MEN" [S7P13]. '

Modern corruptions' are financially copyrighted because they are the product of MEN'S efforts, not God's.

Thus, these modern 'books' ARE NOT Bibles.


W H A T A R E W E D E A L I N G W I T H ?

So what are we really dealing with when we are discussing these 'books of men'.

First off, I believe they are NOT 'revisions', they are NOT 'versions', and they are NOT 'Bibles'. That is what THEY ARE NOT. So what are they?

There are at least two words, that I can think of, which accurately describe these 'books of men'. Those words are: 'Forgeries' and 'Counterfeits'.

A forgery and/or a counterfeit is something that tries to LOOK like the original, but isn't. A forgery and/or a counterfeit tries to pass itself off as the original, but never makes it OBVIOUS that it is a fake. A forgery/counterfeit always takes a SUBTLE approach.


W H Y C O U N T E R F E I T ?

WHY is there an effort to counterfeit the Word of God? This question is easily answered.

We have all seen the TV ads for 'counterfeit diamonds'. Counterfeit diamonds are called Cubic Zirconias.

But, we have NEVER seen a TV ad for a 'counterfeit Cubic Zirconia'. Why is that?

The reason is that diamonds are VALUABLE. A Cubic Zirconia is only of 'nominal' value. Items which are counterfeited are those of HIGH VALUE. Diamonds are counterfeited, the US dollar is counterfeited, etc. etc. But, there is no reason to counterfeit a Cubic Zirconia.

Thus the TRUE, original Word of God MUST BE EXTREMELY VALUABLE. The actual Word of God MUST BE ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

- If God says we MUST be Born Again, then it is TRUE and VALUABLE.

- If God says Jesus saves us from Hell, then it is TRUE and VALUABLE.

- If God says we can be divinely healed, then it is TRUE and VALUABLE.

- If God says we can speak in new tongues, then it is TRUE and VALUABLE.

- If God gives the test for Antichrist, then it is be TRUE and VALUABLE.

And on and on.

C O U N T E R F E I T S O F M E N ?

So are these books 'counterfeits of men'? Is this 6,000 year historical struggle for the Word of God a 'struggle between men'?

In this report, Protestants seem to be struggling against the Jesuits, the Catholics, and the "... MANY which ... corrupt the Word of God".

But the Bible is very clear about our problem: "For we wrestle NOT against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places]" ( Ephesians 6:12 ).

Thus, these 'counterfeits' are not from men, but from Satan himself. Yes, Satan is 'using' these men. And yes, we need to be 'aware' of the men Satan is using.

But, in reality it is a spiritual struggle. We are really struggling against the 'father of lies'.

Thus, it was Satan who used Rudolph Kittel to make the corrupted Old Testament manuscript. It was Satan who used Westcott and Hort to make the corrupted New Testament manuscript. And these corrupt manuscripts form the foundation for 120 modern 'counterfeits'.

Because this is a struggle against 'wickedness in high places' we are NOT talking about an earthly 'flesh to flesh' deception. Instead, we are talking about "Spiritual Deception In the Highest".


I F  Y O U  L I K E  T H I S  R E P O R T

If you like this report, you are welcome to copy it and pass it on to others.

In conclusion, I think the following quote really 'sums things up'!


D O  W E  N E E D  A  N E W  V E R S I O N ?

Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones, a highly respected theologian of this century commented on these 'new versions'. He said:

"... the most popular of all the proposals at the present moment is to have a new translation of the Bible ... The argument is that people are not reading the Bible any longer because they do not understand the its language ... What does your modern man ... know about justification, sanctification, and all the biblical terms?

... we are told the thing that is necessary is to have a translation that Tom, Dick, and Harry will understand, and I began to feel ... that we had almost reached the stage in which the Authorized Version was being dismissed, to be thrown into the limbo of things forgotten, no longer of any value. Need I apologise for saying a word in favor of the Authorized Version ...

It is a basic proposition laid down by the Protestant Reformers, that we must have a Bible 'understanded of the people'. That is common sense ... we must never be obscurantists. We must never approach the Bible in a mere antiquarian spirit ... but it does seem to me that there is a very grave danger incipient in so much of the argument that is being presented today for these new translations. There is a danger, I say, of surrendering something that is vital and essential ...

Take the argument that the modern man does not understand such terms as justification, sanctification and so on. I want to ask a question. When did the ordinary man ever understand those terms? ... Did the colliers to whom John Wesley and George Whitfield preached in the 18th century understand? They had not even been to a day school ... they could not read, they could not write. Yet these were the terms that were used. This was the version that was used - the Authorized Version. The common people have never understood these terms ... we are concerned here about something spiritual; something which does not belong to this world at all; which, as the apostle Paul reminds us, the princes of this world do not know. Human wisdom is of no value here - it is a spiritual truth. This is the truth about God primarily, and because of that it is a mystery ...

Yet we are told - it must be in such simple terms and language that anybody taking it up and reading it is going to understand all about it. My friends this is sheer nonsense. What we must do is educate the masses of the people up to the Bible, not bring the Bible down to their level. One of the greatest troubles today is that everything is being brought down to the same level; everything is cheapened. The common man is the standard of authority; he decides everything, and everything has to be brought down to him ...

Are we to do that with the Word of God? I say no! What has happened in the past has been this. Ignorant, illiterate people, in this country and in foreign countries, coming into salvation have been educated up to the book and have begun to understand it, to glory in it, and to praise God for it, and I say that we need to do the same at this present time. What we need is therefore, not to replace the Authorized Version ... We need rather to reach and train people up to the standard and language, the dignity and the glory of the old Authorized Version" [S6P103-4].


C H A P T E R 2 9


I hope this report has been useful to you.

When I began researching the Bible, I did not fully comprehend the depth and breadth of the spiritual battle which has, is, and will continue to take place.

This research has been a real 'eye opener' for me.

With the exception of one chapter devoted to 'speculating' about the future, this article has been based on 'factual data'. Factual data included Bible verse comparisons, historical facts, personal biographies, etc. etc.

Those facts were documented by approximately 500 footnotes. Therefore, the reader can trace all of the information.

The early Church verified everything the Apostle Paul told them. You should verify everything Jeff Johnson tells you. You should review this information and decide if; I have said the truth.

Jesus said that you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free. You need to decide what you believe to be true.

This entire study is purposely NOT COPYRIGHTED. I have left this manuscript in electronic format so that it may be shared, freely. You are welcome to copy all of it, or part of it, as the Lord leads.

God belongs ALL the Glory!

A N O T H E R   E Y E   O P E N E R

This article discussed some 'eye opening' facts about the Bible. We saw how God's truth has (and is) being corrupted. False teaching abounds.

On the same topic of Truth and the Bible:

Did you know that ACTUAL archaeological and geological data agrees with the Biblical account of the creation, the fall, and the flood?

That's right! Contrary to what we've been told, God's Word AGREES with the facts. The truth is this: the earth, moon, sun, and the universe are actually very young; just like the Bible says. Engineering data and scientific data agrees with God's Word. You CAN be an engineer and/or a scientist and NOT compromise your Christian beliefs. The two are actually consistent.

If you want to find out more about how God's Bible agrees with scientific data, I would refer you to:


The Institute For Creation Research

P.O. Box 2667

El Cajon, California 92021


Phone: (619) 448-0900


or to:

Creation Science Evangelism

29 Cummings Road

Pensacola, Florida 32503


( 850 ) 479-3466


The staff at ICR, and at CSE, include PHD's. These people are highly intelligent Christians.

Their information is ANOTHER eye opener!

Again, I hope this article has been useful to you.



This article is dedicated to the King of Kings, and the Lord of Lords: Jesus Christ; the "Word made flesh".

Since there is only one God; there is only one Bible.

Now, to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to the only wise God; to God be the glory, now and for ever more. AMEN.

Jeff Johnson

705 Baxter Drive

Plano, Texas 75025




More information is available on this important subject.

For those of you who wish to go further in this study, the following are my references.

As you know from the section on "Footnoting Methodology"; the following format was used for the footnotes:


Where: S# is the source number and P# is the page number.

Thus: [S1P1] is source number 1, page number 1; and [S2P4-5] is source number 2, pages 4 through 5 etc. etc.

Each source number, source material and distributor of the material is listed below.

Also, if it was available, I included the phone number, fax number, and web site for the 'distributors' of this material.

As you know, phone numbers (especially area codes) can change. Addresses are more stable.


Source Source Distributor

Number Material Of The Material


1 "An Understandable History Bible Believers Baptist

Of The Bible" Bookstore

by: Rev. Samuel C. Gipp 1252 East Aurora Road

( Book, 242 pages ) Macedonia, Ohio 44506

Phone: (216) 467-1611

2 "Which Bible" Eye Opener Publishers

by: David Otis Fuller P. O. Box 7944

ISBN 0-944355-24-2 Eugene, Oregon 97401

( Book, 350 pages )

3 "New Age Bible Versions" Chick Publications

by: G.A. Riplinger P. O. Box 662

ISBN: 0-9635845-0-2 Chino, Calif. 91708-0662

( Book, 690 pages )

Phone: (909) 987-0771

Fax: (909) 941-8128

Web: http://chick.com

4 "God Wrote Only One Bible" Eye Opener Publishers

by: Jasper James Ray P. O. Box 7944

( Book, 122 pages ) Eugene, Oregon 97401


5 "Let's Weigh The Evidence" Chick Publications

by: Larry Burton P. O. Box 662

ISBN: 0-937958-17-4 Chino, Calif. 91708-0662

( Book, 95 pages )

Phone: (909) 987-0771

Fax: (909) 941-8128

Web: http://chick.com

6 "The Majority Text: Essays Institute For Biblical

And Reviews In The Textual Studies

Continuing Debate" 2233 Michigan Street N.E.

by: Theodore P. Letis Grand Rapids, MI. 49503

ISBN: 0-944355-00-5

( Book, 210 pages ) Phone: (616) 456-8190

Fax: (616) 949-7540

7 "God's Inspired Preserved Bible" Bible Baptist Bookstore

Publ. by: The Peoples Gospel Hr. P.O. Box 7135

( Book, 67 pages ) Pensacola, Florida 32514

Phone: 1-800-659-1478

8 "Believing Bible Study" Eye Opener Publishers

by: Edward F. Hills P. O. Box 7944

ISBN 0-915923-01-7 Eugene, Oregon 97401

( Book, 258 pages )

9 "The Legacy Of Our Institute For Biblical

English Bible" Textual Studies

by: John Wesley Sawyer 2233 Michigan Street N.E.

( Booklet, 15 pages ) Grand Rapids, MI. 49503

Phone: (616) 456-8190

Fax: (616) 949-7540

10 "A Position Paper On The Institute For Biblical

Versions Of The Bible" Textual Studies

by: David Otis Fuller 2233 Michigan Street N.E.

( Booklet, 8 pages ) Grand Rapids, MI. 49503

Phone: (616) 456-8190

Fax: (616) 949-7540

11 "The Bible Bable" Bible Baptist Bookstore

by: Peter S. Ruckman P.O. Box 7135

( Book 129 pages ) Pensacola, Florida 32514

Phone: 1-800-659-1478

12 "The King James Version Defended" Eye Opener Publishers

by: Edward F. Hills P. O. Box 7944

ISBN 0-915923-00-9 Eugene, Oregon 97401

( Book, 280 pages )

13 "The Old Is Better" Eye Opener Publishers

by: Alfred Levell P. O. Box 7944

ISBN 0-903556-87-1 Eugene, Oregon 97401

( Book, 61 pages )

14 "A Fresh Look At The Institute For Biblical

King James Bible" Textual Studies

by: Dr. Ralph I. Yarnell 2233 Michigan Street N.E.

( Booklet, 35 pages ) Grand Rapids, MI. 49503

Phone: (616) 456-8190

Fax: (616) 949-7540

15 "New International Version: What Trinitarian Bible Society

Today's Christian Needs To Know 1710 Richmond Street N.W.

About The NIV" Grand Rapids, MI. 49504

by: G.W. Anderson and

D.E. Anderson Phone: (616) 453-2892

( Booklet, 33 pages )

16 "God Wrote Only One Bible" Eye Opener Publishers

by: Jasper James Ray P. O. Box 7944

( Pamphlet, 8 pages ) Eugene, Oregon 97401

17 "Modern Versions Are Institute For Biblical

Dangerous" Textual Studies

by: Dr. M. H. Reynolds 2233 Michigan Street N.E.

( Pamphlet, 8 pages ) Grand Rapids, MI. 49503

Phone: (616) 456-8190

Fax: (616) 949-7540

18 "The Origin Of The Bible" Joshua's Christian Bookstores

by: Philip Comfort

ISBN: 0-8423-4735-6

( Book, 308 pages )

19 "A Creationist's Defense Of The Institute For Creation

King James Bible" Research

by: Dr. Henry M. Morris P.O. Box 2667

( Pamphlet, 18 pages ) El Cajon, California 92021

Phone: (619) 448-0900


********** THE END ! ********



*This book posted by Robert Breaker III with permission of Jeff Johnson.

For more info about the King James Bible contact: