A) HISTORICAL FIGURES.

B) WESTCOTT AND HORT.

C) FENTON JOHN ANTHONY HORT.

D) WESTCOTT AND HORT’S HEIR = EBERHARD NESTLE.

E) THE MODERN BIBLE VERSION MAKERS.

F) TO THE BIBLES THEMSELVES.

G) EDWIN PALMER, THE NIV BIBLE MAKER.

H) TO THE GREEK.

 

 

A) HISTORICAL FIGURES

 

 

First:  “I saw that God had especially guarded the Bible, yet learned men, when the copies were few, had changed the words in some instances, thinking that they were making It more plain, when they were mystifying that which was plain, in causing It to lean to their established views, governed by tradition.  But I saw that the Word of God, as a whole, is a perfect chain, one portion of Scripture explaining another.  True seekers for truth need not err; for not only is the Word of God plain and simple in declaring the way to life, but the Holy Spirit is given to guide in understanding the way of life revealed in His Word.”  1SG:116-117.

 

What would make anyone think that this practice (by Satan through his agents) is not still going on?

 

 

Aleph:  “Epistle of Barnabas,” by Aleph (author of Manuscript, “Sinaiticus”), states:  “The whole Old Testament sacrificial and ceremonial institution are the devil’s work.”  “New Age Bible Versions” [from now on referred to as, “NABV”], page 605.  

 

Clement:  “The Son is a creature” and “God is a Being,” states Clement in, “The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics,” page 313.  “Clement, the second century core of the new versions, contrived a system in which ‘baptism is decidedly more prominent than redemption by the blood of Christ,’ ” “NABV,” page 242. 

 

Origen:  (185 A.D. - 254 A.D.) of Alexandria, Egypt, succeeded Clement of Alexandria.  Origen’s major beliefs:  “The Logos is subordinate to the Father and has some characteristics similar to the Logos of the Gnostics.  The soul is pre-existent; Jesus took on some pre-existent human soul.  There was no physical resurrection of Christ nor will there be a Second Coming.  Men will not have a physical resurrection.  Hell is non-existent; purgatory, of which Paul and Peter must partake, does exist.  All, including the devil, will be reconciled to God.  The sun, moon and stars are living creatures.”  “NABV,” page 529.

 

Origen also taught that the Lord Jesus Christ is a created being Who did not have eternal existence as God.  “God Wrote Only One Bible,” by Jasper James Ray.  Origen’s “Hexapla” omits “the Deity of Christ frequently,” Ibid., page 552.  Origen made every Scripture an allegory tainted with Greek philosophy.  He taught forgiveness of sin by penance and injected “Neo-Platonic mysticism.”  “The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers,” Volume 1, page 311, by Leroy Edwin Froom.

 

NOTE:  Dr. Edward Hills, Harvard and Yale scholar, relays:  “Origen. . . was not content to abide by the [already adulterated] text which he received but freely engaged in the boldest sort of conjectural emendations. . . [resulting in Manuscripts] Aleph and B,” “The King James Version Defended,” page 144.  The “McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia” records Origen as saying:  “the scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written.”  Dr. David Fuller, Princeton scholar finds:  “Many of the important variations in the modern versions may be traced to the influence of Eusebius and Origen,” “Which Bible,” page 3.

 

Eusebius, and then Jerome, succeeded Origen:  “(170) The ‘pure’ text was translated into Syriac and was used by the Eastern Church in Syria, Constantinople and Greece.  The tainted text gained a foothold, as might be expected, in Alexandria, Egypt.  Eusebius Pamphili (ca 260-340 A.D.) Bishop of Caesarea, played an important role in Bible history.  He was an avid follower of Origen. . . who was sometimes called the ‘second Origen.’  For a time he was a follower of Arianism, though he later renounced it.  Jerome claimed he wrote six books in defense of Origen.  (See “The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,” Volume 1, page 59).  He played an important part in the council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.  Eusebius and Pamphilus made a number of copies of Origen’s Septuagint, which was the fifth column of the Hexapla.  Many scholars have thought that either the Codex A (“Sinaiticus”) or Codex B (“Vaticanus”), or both are existing copies. . . produced under Eusebius, while others deny it.

 

“(171) However, the internal evidence of the two shows similarity to the Origen/Eusebius strain.  At any rate Eusebius added to the impure line of Scripture Manuscripts. . . However, since Jerome was so enamored of Origen and his teachings, and obviously having available a copy of the Hexapla, it is almost certain that these ‘tainted texts’ [corrupted texts] influenced his translation.  Protestants from the very start denounced the Latin Vulgate, refusing to use it in their Churches.  The Latin Vulgate became the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church by a decree of the Council of Trent in the 16th Century in its battle to stem the rising flood of Protestantism.  Jerome went on to write many books and commentaries.”  “THE S.D.A. BIBLE,” by Gar Baybrook, pages 170-171.

 

“It is said that in Jerome’s voluminous works the seeds of virtually every papal error are found imbedded -- saint and martyr worship, veneration of relics, penance, primacy of the bishop of Rome and so forth.”  “The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers,” Volume 1, page 441.

 

 

B) WESTCOTT AND HORT

 

 

The Origen and Jerome of 1881 A.D. are today’s Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, Authors and Editors of “The New Greek Text.”  First, Westcott:

 

B.F. Westcott subscribes to “only a social interpretation of the Gospel.”  Commenting on First John 2:2, he says this verse is “foreign to the language of the New Testament,” and he has “great difficulty with the notion of [Jesus’] sacrifice,” seeing “men [as] paying this debt,” and noting that “Some by diligent obedience have been raised hierarchy,” supporting the removal of “through His blood,” in Colossians 1:14, finally admitting, “No doubt many do not agree with me,” because of the correctness of the “Majority Greek Text,” and common sense.  “The Life and Letters of B.F. Westcott,” Volume II, pages 101 & 226; Volume 1. pages 231 & 209; “Religious Thought in the West,” page 228.

 

Westcott writes, “No one now. . . holds that the first three chapters of Genesis give a literal history [yes we do],” “TheLife of Westcott,” Volume II, page 69.  To prove this, the “Vaticanus B” Manuscript OMITS Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 46:28.  Westcott, in his work, “The Gospel According to St. John, & “The Authorized Version With Introduction and Notes,” page 297, states:  “He [Christ] never spoke directly of himself as God [see John 10:35 KJV].”  “The Son of man was not necessarily identified with the Christ,” “The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Greek Text,” page 122.  “The belief is ‘in Christ’ not in any propositions about Christ,” “The Gospel According to St. John,” page 200. “Each Christian is in due measure himself a Christ [God]. . . Christians are in a true sense Christ’s [God’s], anointed ones,” “Historic Faith,” page 53, “The Epistles of St. John: The Greek Text,” page 73.  The “New International Bible (NIV),” must totally agree, as it follows Westcott and Hort’s “The New Greek Text” in many instances, leaving out Christ’s Deity whenever possible.

 

The fact that Westcott and Hort did change the Greek Text is admitted by Bishop Ellicott, chairman of the “Revisers Committee,” in his book, “The Revisers and the Greek Text of the N.T. by two members of the N.T. Company,” pages 11-12.  Ellicott, in his book, “On Revision” (1870), declares that:  “Lachmann’s was ‘a Text composed on the narrowest and most exclusive principles [in other words, they changed what they wanted to],’ that it was ‘really based on little more than four manuscripts,’ [There you have it.  Of the over 2500 Manuscripts, these guys only consulted the ones they changed and ONLY USED those manuscripts that were of Roman Catholic origin].” “Which Bible Can We Trust,”page 181.  Robert Young, author of “Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible,” PROVED that there were about 8,000 changes from the Westcott and Hort New Testament in his book, “Concise Concordance of the Revised Testament.”

 

Westcott stated that Psalm 8:5 helps “man recognize his divine affinity [Mormonism agrees], and “He took a strange interest in Mormonism. . . procuring and studying the Book of Mormon,” in 1840 A.D., “Westcott Diary,” Volume 1, page 19.  Westcott also retorts, “Nothing implies that the knowledge of the Lord was supernatural,” “The Scandal Crisis: Is it Over, Christian Herald,” Volume 122, Number 2, February 1889, page 21.  Westcott writes, “It is impossible to suppose that two beings distinct in essence could be equal in power,” “The Gospel According to St. John,” page 159.  Westcott also believed that, “Christ had sinned,” Ibid. page 35.  See the “NIV” and the “NASB” rendition of Hebrews 5:2.

 

Westcott and Hort changed the traditional “Majority Greek Text” until it mirrored the “Vaticanus (B),” from which the Roman Catholic “Vulgate” and the “Douay Ames” versions spring, “NABV,” page 141.  “Clement and Origen, by which. . .  Platonism. . . was incorporated into Christianity. . . modern thinkers, for example Westcott, are in sympathy with Clement and Origen,” “Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics,” page 318.  “Our Bible as well as our faith is a mere compromise,” “On the Canon of the New Testament: A General Survey,” page VII, by Westcott (1881 A.D.).

 

Westcott believes, “The coming of Christ is not one but manifold,” “Historic Faith,” page 91, written by Westcott.  Westcott states, “The Apostolic expectations were mistaken” in regard to Christ’s Second Coming, Ibid., page 89.  “The appearing of Jesus Christ may be a long and varying process,” Ibid., page 948.  Jehovah’s Witnesses agree and new versions agree with JW’s, in their work, “New World Translation” bible, by teaching that Christ has already Come.  Examples in that version, see Matthew 25:13; First John 2:18; Revelation 11:18; 15:3.

 

New versions, “unless those days had been cut short no life would have been saved,” Matthew 24:22; “The day of the Lord has come,” Second Thessalonians 2:2; “NWT, NASB, NIV:”  “have loved his appearing,” Second Timothy 4:8; “Waiting for Christ” omitted in, Second Thessalonians 3:5.

 

Referring to the “Traditional Greek Text,” “I am most anxious to provide something to replace them,” Westcott says, and he admits his drastic changes in “our proposed recension of the New Testament,” 1852 A.D. revision of his work, “Historic Faith,” page 229.  “I reject the word ‘infallibility’ of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly,” 1860 A.D. revision, Ibid, page 207.  “All the questionable doctrines which I have ever maintained are in it,” speaking of Westcott and Hort’s “New Greek Text,” in the 1866 A.D. revision of, Ibid. page 290.  “From my Cambridge days I have read the writings of many who are called mystics with much profit [incorrect, they were very profitable as they show up in many of your changed texts Westcott],” Ibid. Volume II, page 309.

 

Dr. Newth, one of the Revisers affirms, “that they did not have before them, or give any consideration to, the weighty matters of fact [don’t bore us with the “facts”], affecting the character of those two ‘ancient witnesses,’ which we are now putting before our readers [in the New Versions, one of which is probably in your hand right now,” “Which Bible Can We Trust,” page  161.

 

Dr. Newth also states:  “A passage being under consideration, the Chairman asks, ‘Are any Textual changes proposed?’  If a change be proposed then ‘the evidence for and against is briefly stated.’  This is done by ‘two members of the Company -- Scrivener and Dr. Hort.’  And if those two members disagree ‘The vote of the Company is taken, and the proposed Reading accepted or rejected.  The Text being thus settled, the Chairman asks for proposals on the Rendering’ (i.e., the Translation).”  Ibid. page 163.  Thus, we can see clearly that they “CREATED” their own “New Greek Text.”

 

Westcott and Hort were necromancers.  For proof of this see “NABV’s” chapter entitled, “The Necromancers,” and some of the following quotes.  Westcott was called “a spiritualist” by his own son, “NABV,” page 380, and “began doing research into psychic activity,” “A Crash Course on the New Age,” page 163, by Elliott Miller.  Westcott and Hort were known underground occult members of “The Ghost Club” or “Ghostly Guild,” which was launched in 1851 A.D., according to, “The Occult Underground,” page 8, and both had a “love for contacting ‘the dead,’ ” “NABV,” page 418.

 

 

C) FENTON JOHN ANTHONY HORT

 

 

“Moody Bible Institute’s” Alfred Martin cites, “Origen’s. . . influence in promoting the spiritualizing method of Bible interpretation has done untold damage.  Hort relied on him perhaps more than any Father,” “Which Bible,” by David Otis Fuller, page 146.  Philo (B.C. 20 - 42 A.D.) of Egypt’s “LXX,” “held that the scriptures held an occult or hidden meaning,’ Hort’s personal letters disclose his penchant for Philo.  His biographer said, ‘There are no writers on whom Dr. Hort spent more time than Josephus and Philo,’ ” “NABV,” page 518.  Hort does not see Jesus as Lord, Greek, “Adon,” “but as the Aramaic Mar sometimes applied to teachers [Note the plural, in other words, more than one god] by their disciples,” “The First Epistle of St. Peter,” page 31.

 

F.J.A. Hort, “pleaded for the social interpretation of the gospel,” saying, “the crude individualism of common notions of salvation is corrected,” in his and Westcott’s work, “New Greek Text,” stating, “Without any act of ours, we are children of the Great and Gracious Heavenly Father,” “Christ’s bearing our sins. . .  [is] an almost universal heresy,” “the passover lamb. . . [is] not the lamb of God,” admitting that, “objections might be taken to his views, especially on the doctrine of the Atonement,” if it existed at all, Christ’s Sacrifice being “not a substitute which makes all other sacrifices useless,” and, “anything is better than the doctrine of a ransom to the father.”  “The Greek Text with Introductory Lecture, Commentary and Additional Notes” (reprint 1976), page 77.

 

Hort writes, “Westcott. . . and I have started a society for the investigation of ghosts,” “The Life and Letters of F.J.A. Hort,” Volume II, pages 158 & 373 & 334 & 401 & 224 & 57; Volume 1, pages 428-430; Volume 1, page 211.  “I have a sort of craving that our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion.  I mean, a text, issued by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy will have great difficulty finding its way to regions which it might otherwise hope to reach, and whence it would be banished by subsequent alarms,” “Life of Hort,” Volume 1, page 445.

 

Hort hated First John 5:7-8, and wrote, “It could be gotten rid of,” and he did that in his, “New Greek Text,” see “Life of Hort,” Volume II, page 128.  Speaking of his “New Greek Text,” Hort states, “So far the angry objectors have reason for their astonishment,” because of the changes made, Ibid. page 139.  Hort’s letter to Mr. A. MacMillian, the publisher, announces Plato as, “the center of my reading while creating [did you notice that word, “creating”] the New Greek Text,” Ibid., Volume 1, page 425.

 

“Greek philosophy. . . seems full of precious truths,” “New Greek Text,” “Life of Hort,” Volume 1, page 449.  “The pure Romish view seems to me nearer and more likely to lead to truth,” Ibid. Volume 1, pages 76-77.  “Protestantism is only parenthetical and temporary [in other words, his renderings of the Biblical text would destroy Protestantism],” Ibid.Volume II, page 31.  Hort admitted in 1853 A.D., “that he should take part in an interesting and comprehensive ‘New Testament Scheme,’ ” Ibid., page 264.  Hort also stated, “No such state as Eden ever existed,” Ibid. Volume 1, page 78.

 

Hort admits he “made changes” in this statement:  “. . . we dare not introduce considerations which could not reasonably be applied to other ancient texts,” “The New Testament in the Original Greek,” London 1881, Volume 2, page 277.  “Dr. Hort has shown too distinct a tendency to elevate probable hypotheses into the realm of established facts,” “Which Bible Can We Trust,” by Les Garrett, page 181.  Quoted in “Codex B and Its Allies -- A study and an Indictment,” by Herman C. Hoskier, we find on page 53:  “Naturally Hort regarded these manuscripts [the only four Roman Catholic in origin ones that he used] as most trustworthy which give the readings recognized by Origen; and these no doubt were the readings which in the third century were most preferred at Alexandria.  Thus Hort’s method inevitably led to the exclusive adoption of the Alexandrian text.”

 

 

D) WESTCOTT AND HORT’S HEIR = EBERHARD NESTLE

 

 

From “NABV,” page 551, we learn:  “Eberhard Nestle, in 1898 cloned [DID YOU CATCH THAT?  The word “cloned” is normally a good word, meaning, “exactly alike.”  In Nestle’s case, it means, “took from here and there.  He thus “cloned”] the text for the next generation.  In 1927 his son Erwin became warden, reforming its critical apparatus in minor ways and making a dozen or so changes in the text [“CHANGES”], yet guarding the minority ‘spectre’ of Hort’s kin.  In 1950, custody was transferred to Kurt Aland, who with the help of Matthew Black, Bruce Metzger and Allen Wikgren, today recommit allegiance to the “Westcott-Hort Text Type.”

 

“A verbatim translation of the Nestle-Aland text, with all of its deletions [“DELETIONS], would shock even the most liberal reader and could never be sold as a ‘New Testament.’  [The closest actual translation of it is the super-liberal “NEV,” “TEV,” “NRSV,” and Catholic Bibles, all of which use many of Nestle’s “Manuscript D” readings].  Consequently, other versions which are based on Nestle’s, such as the NASB, ‘borrow’ some ‘Majority’ readings from the Textus Receptus in order to be marketable (e.g., John 7:53 and 8:1-11). [DID YOU CATCH THAT?  “In order to be marketable”].

 

“Nestle’s own statement, in his preface, cautions the reader that it is not the ‘Traditional’ Greek Text but a ‘Kind of New Textus Receptus,’ ” “Novum Testamentum Greece,” pages 40-41.  Its advocates even caution the unlettered, who would take such a text and pronounce, ‘The Greek says. . .’ because the original Greek would not agree [discussed latter].  For example, Philip Comfort, collaborator on The New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament-NRSV yields:  This text [speaking of Nestle’s] however is by no means ‘inspired’ or ‘infallible’ as many scholars will readily attest.  In fact, some scholars have openly criticized UBS3/NA26 as trying to gain the reputation of being the new ‘Textus Receptus’ and other scholars are discouraged that this new text still looks so much like the Westcott-Hort text,’ Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament, page 23.”  Quoted from “NABV,” page 493.

 

“Nestle concedes he had to change his Greek text when using [Manuscripts] Aleph and B, to make it ‘appear’ like Koine.”  NABV,” page 493.

 

 

E) THE MODERN BIBLE VERSION MAKERS

 

 

Phillip Schaff, “NASB” Bible Maker (1963 A.D.):  Schaff is/was President of the “American Old and New Testament Committees,” meaning he is chairman of the committees for the “ASV,” “NASB,” “Living Bible,” “RV,” “RSV,” and the “New Greek Text.”  “NASB” progenitor, Phillip Schaff states that, “the changes thus far. . . should contain the germs of a new theology.”  “The Life of Phillip Schaff,” see pages 427-428 & 478.

 

Schaff calls for all Protestants to return to the Roman Catholic Church and states, “Catholic Protestantism. . . stands for a new era,” Ibid., pages 108 & 114-115 & 131.  Schaff says, “the church must adjust her. . . doctrinal statements. . . to natural science.”  Ibid.  page 488.  What the Bible Commentator EGW calls, “science, falsely so called,” 4SP:345 & 390.

 

Schaff did not believe in “the inerrant[cy]” of the Bible.  Ibid., page 439.  Schaff also helped organized the “World Religion Parliament.”  Its keynote speaker, a Hindu named Vivekananda, told attendees, “The East must come to the West,” a Schaff dream, “Eastern Definitions,” by Edward Rice, page 398.

 

In “The NASB Interlinear Greek-English New Testament,” page vii, admits their verbs are mistranslated as in company with the “NASV,” & “NIV,” and that, “The Authorized Version [“KJV”] is idiomatically correct.”  The “NASB” agrees with the “NWT” [Jehovah Witnesses Bible] about the non-Deity of Christ.  Examples are:  John 1:18; Revelation 3:14(capital B).

 

Phillip Comfort, in his book, “Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament,” page 195, states, “the NASB does not reflect the impact of the latest available manuscripts.”  In other words, it does not agree with the over 2,500 Manuscripts that are available to us to achieve the best translation of the Bible possible.

 

The “NASB” believes you will be “gods,” with renditions like Luke 17:21:  “the kingdom of God is within you,” which gives you the feeling of another Luke in a “Star Wars” movie dreamland.  Also, Revelation 1:6:  “He has made us to be a kingdom.”  It is one thing to have “Christ in you, the hope of glory,” Colossians 1:27, and still another to have the entire “kingdom of god” in you, meaning, “All Powerful,” in New Age thinking/reasoning.  Christians know of only One Who is “All Powerful.”  Unless they buy the dogma of their “NIV” and “NASB” versions that they have not thrown away by now.

 

Along with this, the “NASB” and “NIV” translate the word “world,” as it is translated in the “KJV,” for example, as “age” instead of “world” [as in New Age Movement] in almost every instance.  Also, the “NASB” and “NIV” translate “Master” as “Teacher.”  Is this a correct considering of what Jesus said in John 13:13?  -- “Ye call me Master. . .”

 

Dr. Frank Logsdon, a force behind the “NASB,” says of his partner in crime, Dewey Lockman, “He did it for money[referring to the “NASB”].” “NABV,” page 172.  Phillip Schaff, in his autobiography, exposes the sordid details of “commercial ventures,” “intense fighting” and “battles” over the “profits” to ensue, Ibid.  Schaff admits the translations moved to “publisher’s control midstream,” and each verse was “subject to approval of the University presses,” who had “assumed all the expenses,” Ibid.  Schaff “denied the deity of Christ and the Trinity,” Ibid.  page 459.  “The NASB is based loosely on Nestle’s 23rd edition (1959).”  Ibid.  page 494.

 

“NASV” contributor of interpretations of the Greek text, Dr. Frank Logsdon, some years later stated:  “Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman (The Lockman Foundation), explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV.  The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times. . .

 

“I don’t want anything to do with it.

 

“The finest leaders that we have today. . . haven’t gone into it, just as I hadn’t gone into it. . . that’s how easily one can be deceived. . . I’m going to talk to him [Dr. George Sweeting, president of Moody Bible Institute] about these things.

 

“You can say the Authorized version (KJV) is absolutely correct, How correct?  100% correct!. . . I believe the Spirit of God led the translators of the Authorized version.  If you must stand against everyone else, stand.”  “NABV,” page 494.

 

Think about it.  Twenty-Three times to attempt to make it sellable.  The “KJV,” is now close to being taken over for the number of copies sold by these admitted forgers of the Bible.  Remember, they called you the “uninformed” Christian world.  Some of you must have been informed, because they are on their 23rd version in an attempt to sell even more with less openly contrived changes.

 

 

F) TO THE BIBLES THEMSELVES

 

 

THE “NKJV” BIBLE (1982):  “The New King James committee boasts seven members who subscribe to Edwin Palmer’s ideas,” “NABV,” page 233.  “The NKJV uses Rudolph Kittel’s [Germany’s Jew Exterminator] 1937 corruption, Biblia Hebraica, which follows Leningrad manuscript B, 19a.”  Ibid.  page 594.

 

THE “PHILLIPS BIBLE” (1960) / Verses the “KJV.”  Here is Isaiah 8:19-20 in the “Phillips Bible:”  “(19) And when men say to you ‘Consult the ghosts and spirits that chirp and gibber?  On behalf of the living should they not consult the dead for instruction and direction? -- (20) of a truth, they shall keep making a statement like this, in which there is no light.”

 

Here it is in the “KJV:”  “(19) And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter; should not a people seek unto their God?  For the living to the dead? (20) To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”

 

The point is, whenever God’s Holy Law can be left out, they will leave it out.  Plus, “the living” CAN “consult the dead,” given in other places I’m not going to list here.  See my Bible Study:  “DEATH, THE BIBLICAL TRUTH ABOUT,” which teaches that the Scriptures testify that the dead are dead and know nothing (see Ecc. 9:5-6).

 

THE “REVISED STANDARD VERSION:”  In a treatise published in 1946 A.D., July issue of the “Church News Letter,” by Dr. R.C. Foster, Professor of “Greek and the NT in the Cincinnati Bible Seminary,” in Ohio, Stated:  “The Revised Standard Version is frankly unitarian [Dictionary:  “a person who maintains that God is One Being, rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity] and offers a very subtle attack upon the deity of Christ. . .  It is as if the scholars were saying -- This stubborn and unscientific generation of the 20th century insists on maintaining that Jesus was God in the flesh, but by the use of a literary device we will put words into their mouths as they read this version so that they will consciously or unconsciously admit that Jesus is not God but man.”  The attack on Jesus is at the HEART of all of these New Versions created after 1881.

 

THE “AMERICAN TRANSLATION:”  In the preface of the American Translation, they admit to using “scientific conjecture.”

 

THE “JAMES MOFFATT BIBLE” -- “THE MOFFATT TRANSLATION” (1925 A.D.):  Sadae Kubo and Walter Specht, in their book, “So Many Versions,” pages 31-32, states:  “In 1913 he published his first edition of The New Testament A New Translation.  As the name implies, it was an entirely fresh rendering and not a revision of The Historical New Testament.”  In the preface he stated his aim, “to translate the New Testament exactly as one would render any piece of contemporary Hellenistic prose.  He endeavored to divorce himself from all previous versions and produced a strikingly independent modern speech translation. . .

 

“Unfortunately, he used as his base the Greek text of Hermann Von Soden, in which textual critics see many defects [“DEFECTS”]. . . In some 130 instances he departed from Von Soden’s Greek text. . . Moffatt often adopts readings that have little MS [original “Manuscript”] support.  But beyond that, he has accepted around thirty conjectural emendations [THAT’S ALL YOU COULD FIND?], without MS support. . . Moffatt also felt at liberty to rearrange the materials in the NT.  He frequently changes the order of verses, supposedly restoring them to their ‘original position.’  The Gospel of John has suffered more than any other book in the NT from this attempted ‘restoration.’ ”

 

 

G) EDWIN PALMER, THE “NIV” BIBLE MAKER (1978 A.D.)

 

 

Edwin Palmer was the “NIV” [Non-Inspired Version] committee leader and chairman.  He is probably the most responsible for today’s popular teaching of “Once Saved Always Saved,” and “no free will,” and everyone is an “election” of God, and therefore the doctrine of “predestination.”

 

In the Preface of the “NIV” (1978 A.D. Edition; Not in later editions) we find:  “For the Old Testament the standard Hebrew text, the Masoretic Text as published in the latest editions of Biblia Hebraaica, was used throughout.  The Dead Sea Scrolls contain material bearing on an earlier stage of the Hebrew text.  They were consulted, as were the Samaritan Pentateuch and the ancient scribal traditions relating to textual changes. [NOTE, they always used the “textual changes” when they could].  Sometimes [actually more than just sometimes] a variant Hebrew reading in the margin of the Masoretic Text was followed instead of [INSTEAD OF] the text itself. . . words in the consonantal text were divided differently from the way they appear in the Masoretic Text. . .

 

“The translators also consulted the more important early versions [“more important” than the most reliable texts available, are, and we consulted these instead, rather, used these,] -- the Septuagint; Symmachus and Theodotion; the Vulgate; the Syriac Peshitta; the Targums; and for the Psalms the Juxta Hebraica of Jerome [for the New Testament translations, I mean, fixes]. . . Where existing manuscripts differ, the translations make their choice of readings according to [Palmer’s] accepted principles of New Testament textual criticism.”  DID YOU NOTICE that the manuscripts used above are of Roman Catholic origin?

 

Palmer points to his alteration of John 1:13, asserting that now it “proves” man has no free will.  From his work, “The Holy Spirit,” page 83.  “Palmer cites a dozen instances in which he changed” words, “NABV,” page 610.  Palmer believes that “prayer should be directed to the Holy Spirit.” “The Lucifer Connection,” page 16.  Quoting Edwin Palmer himself:  “this [his “NIV”] shows the great error that is so prevalent today in some orthodox Protestant circles[THAT WOULD BE any “Protestant circle” that disagrees with his interpretation or version of the Biblical text and how it should read according to him], namely that. . . in order to be born again man must first accept Jesus as his Savior,” “The Holy Spirit,” by Edwin Palmer, p. 83.

 

That this is false doctrine, for an example, see his translation of Luke 21:19.  Palmer edited the “NIV Study Bible,” which “Zondervan” says includes the “liberal position.”  “Words about the Word,” page 161.

 

Palmer flatly denies free will, and at his own admission, “accepts the most illogical matters possible.”  “The Five Points of Calvinism,” by Edwin Palmer, pages 77-78 (see also “The Holy Spirit,” page 161).  Palmer wants to disprove the idea that “man still has the ability to ask God’s help for salvation.”  Ibid. page 18.  In defense of his “NIV,”Palmer says, “The lack of a [original Scriptural] text does not destroy their character.”  Ibid. pages 5 & 191.  Think about that statement for a minute.  The fact that I left something out “does not destroy their character.”

 

Palmer whittles away at John 3:16, and concludes, “that Christ loved the whole world equally and gave himself up for the world,” is wrong in that he concludes, “God intends that salvation shall be for only a few.”  Ibid. page 30.  The footnote in the “NIV” for First Corinthians 12:3 concedes, “many Manuscripts say Lord.”  This proves to be an honest footnote compared to most of their footnotes in that they say, “some Manuscripts say ___.”  Whereas, the FACT is that “most Manuscripts (the originals)” state it correctly.

 

Here are some statistics.  Omitted Names of our Lord:  Christ 43 times, Jesus 38 times, God 31 times, Lord 35 times, other Names referring to God, 26 times, Totaling 173 times.  “Forty-six times the “KJV” used the term ‘master’ when for today’s reader of the NEW VERSIONS, it/you should use the term “teacher.”  This is Palmer’s way of denying the Divinity of Christ.  See “The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation,” page 147.

 

Lewis Foster, “NIV” and “NKJV” committee member, speaking on certain text renderings states, “This in itself results in an unnatural straining of the tenses of the English.”  “Selecting a Translation of the Bible,” page 90.  Rupert Murdock, owner of the “NIV,” when questioned about the “NIV’s” interpretation of Manuscripts and translation of them, stated, “After all, we are in the entertainment business.”  “New Age Bulletin, England,” Volume V, Number 1, page 2, June 1993.  The Roman Catholic Church put the “Textus Receptus Text” (of the “KJV”), on “The Index” of forbidden books.  “NIV” committee member, Ronald Youngblood agrees, “NABV,” pages 140-141.

 

Palmer writes, that in the “New Versions” there now are “few clear and decisive texts that declare Jesus is God,” because of his changes, not because of the original Manuscripts renderings, “The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation,” page 143.  Palmer’s chapter on the “Elect,” is reflected in his translation of First Thessalonians 1:4, admitting his change, “suggests the opposite of” the original text, Ibid. page 48.  He again admits that his change in First Thessalonians 1:4 “suggests the opposite” of the original text, Ibid. page 150, knowing, that since God is going to judge you for your acts, that you must be free to act.

 

Palmer also admits his purposeful switch of Romans 1:28 saying, “Paul was not speaking of the reprobate but the depraved.”  “The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation,” page 148.  “Edwin Palmer. . . agreed with many of the changes himself to save time.”  Ibid. page 139.  Palmer was the “coordinator of all work on the NIV,” and “selected all of the personnel of the initial translation committee.”  Ibid. pages 13 & 48.

 

Palmer made sure that the “NIV” would omit 20 of the 34 references to Satan, because of Palmers and other scribes of the “NIV’s” “uncertain” position about Satan’s existence.  See “The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation,” page 18 [Note:  The “NASB” drops 18 of those references; agreeing with the “NIV”].  Palmer subscribes to “modern and elegant” substitutions, Ibid. page 143.

 

Calvin Linton, another “NIV” committee member, agrees that “alterations” were made in the “New Age Bible Versions.”  “The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation,” page 17.  How many versions are we talking about?  Bottom line, any Bible [per] version after 1948 A.D. [1881], you should be suspicious of.

 

Larry Walker, “NIV” and “NKJV” committee member, divulges, that on several occasions, “The committee did not feel absolutely bound to the Hebrew text,” [in reality it wasn’t even used except to make their version readable].  “The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation,” pages 95-105.  Speaking about First John 5:7-8, it is admitted that, “It is the strongest statement in the KJV [and the original Greek] on the Trinity.”  So out it goes from the “NIV,” Ibid, page 56.  “NIV” editor, Ronald Youngblood adds, “It may be true at times that the NIV translators have been [were] guilty of reading something in to the text.”  Ibid, page 167.

 

The “United Bible Society’s” “(UBS) Greek New Testament,” written by Aland, Black, Metzger, Wikgren, and Italy’s own Carlo M. Martini (whose editorship is revealed only on the frontispiece of the edition for translators, lest Protestants panic), is based upon B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort’s, “New Greek Text,” which is decidedly Roman Catholic, because Westcott and Hort translated their Greek text from the “Latin Vulgate” as a basis.  See “NABV,” pages 141-142.

 

Now both Protestant and Roman Catholic versions are the same, being based on the “Vaticanus Minority Greek Text,” such as “Nestle’s” and “UBS’s” Biblical texts admit.  “Greek text. . . of the NIV. . . was basically that in the United Bible Societies and Nestle’s printed Greek New Testament.”  “The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation,” page 23, Ralph Earle, “NIV” committee member writing.  “NIV” editor, Larry Walder acknowledges that, “some Bible characters appear to have disappeared from the text.”  Ibid. p. 101.  Example, see Second Samuel 21:19, since Westcott said, “David is not a chronological. . . person,” in his work, “The Life of Westcott,” Volume II, page 127.

 

Herbert M. Wolf, another “NIV” committee member, discloses, “The word tsedeqah -- normally rendered ‘righteousness’ is translated ‘prosperity,’ perhaps understood as the reward of righteous living. . . The abstract quality of ‘righteous’ does not fit.”  “The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation,” page 129.  Larry Walker, another “NIV” translator, “applauds the rejection of the Hebrew Old Testament for the Ugaritic.”  Ibid. page 102.

 

In “The Making of a Contemporary Translation,” pages 17-18, “NIV” committee member Calvin Linton discloses that the Bible is, “God’s message,” contending, that it is NOT God’s Words.  Believing the Bible is, “the wrong side of a beautiful embroidery.  The picture is still there, but knotted, blurry -- not beautiful, not perfect.”  He calls Christians, “amusingly uninformed,” who “presume the Holy Spirit dictated the actual words of the text of the original writers.”  Ibid.  His omissions of Luke 4:4 and Acts 10:37 bear this out.

 

Another “NIV” committee member, Dr. Virginia Mollenkott states, “My lesbianism has always been a part of me.”  “Episcopal, Witness,” June 1991.  In her book, “Is the Homosexual My Neighbor?,” she asserts, “that the Bible censures only criminal offenses like ‘prostitution’ and ‘violent gang rape’ not ‘sincere homosexuals.’ ”  Also, In “The NIV Story,” by “NIV” editor Burton Goddard, page 65, he says, stylists like Mollenkott made “significant changes” to the “NIV”text, let alone departing from the acceptable 2,500 original trusted Manuscripts.

 

 

H) TO THE GREEK

 

 

THE NEXT TIME YOU HEAR A (your) PASTOR PROCLAIM:  “The Greek Here Really Means. . .”

 

“The Greek and Hebrew Lexicons and dictionaries are written by men, ‘most of whom are unbelievers,’ ” writes Princeton and Yale scholar Edward Hills (see “NABV,” page 601).  A few examples will suffice:

 

The “New Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon’s” editor (Briggs) was defrocked by the “liberal” Presbyterian Church for his “liberalism.”  “NABV,” page 601.

 

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.  “NABV,” page 601.

 

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 (page vii).  It cautions readers to watch for “adulterations in the work relating to the deity of Christ and the Trinity.”  “NABV,” page 601.

 

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 in all its essentials.”  “NABV,” page 601.

 

Conclusions drawn by Kurt and Barbara Aland, of the “Nestles-Aland Greek New Testament,” elicit the response of Phillip Comfort, that “the Alands’ designations must be taken with caution.”  “Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament,” page 7.

 

James Strong, author of “Strong’s Concordance,” was a “member of the corrupt ASV committee.”  “NABV,” page 601.

 

Therefore, the popular “Strong’s Concordance” is to be carefully scrutinized.  It would be better to take a Greek or Hebrew word yourself (thankfully they at least numbered them for us; or better, God made them number them so we could check them out), then reading all of the verses where that Greek or Hebrew word appears, you can make your own deductions as to what that Greek or Hebrew word really means.

 

An example of altering by Strong is his belief of a “Sovereign” God (now running rampant throughout Christianity, but nowhere expressed in the “KJV”).  Strong’s forms of “Sovereign,” meaning, “absolute monarch, dictator.”  Thus, the doctrine of, “No free will/choice,” resulting in, “predestination, election,” doctrine throughout his “Strong’s Concordance.”