top of page

bible versions after 1881 a.d.

(See Also My Bible Chart & Studies:
















DISCLAIMER:  Before we get started, let me always state that, “Whatever version you will read and apply is the one you should use.”  However, if that version leads you away from solid Biblical doctrine, reader beware.  For even in Paul’s day people [Satan] were attempting to corrupt the Word of God (see 2Co. 2:17).






IN ANOTHER DISCLAIMER:  I acknowledge that modern translations are better at researching a more correct translation of “individual words” (keep that in mind please), mostly the Greek portion of words, because of better knowledge of those words and Greek terminology.  However, if the grammar is improved, does that necessarily translate into a better contextual structure of the text?  Here is where the new (pre)versions fail miserably.


Also keep in mind that you cannot receive a copyright (make money), unless there is a 10% difference from the original (“KJV”), or other versions.  There are over 900 English versions of the Bible right now, with more coming.  If the first one (after 1881) was 10% different in order to receive their copyright, i.e., make money, then how changed and modified is the 900th one?


Verses effected tragically, or on purpose (I realize that their version had to be 10% different then already established versions), and disastrously for the unseasoned reader are (acknowledging that some changes are good; while most are dishonest; discussed later):


New American Standard = 909 changes.

Revised Version = 788 changes.

New World Translation (JW Bible) = 767.

New International Version = 695.

Good News = 614.

Amplified = 484 (Note: 484 changes amplifying the incorrect word in the correct words place).

Douay-Ames (Roman Catholic) = 421.

Old Jehovah’s Witnesses = 120.

Note the exorbitant changes since then to keep up with the Christians challenging them.

New King James Version = 1,200 times the “Textus Recepticus” was ignored.


It is also interesting to note that every change in the Old J.W. bible (120 changes), has been adopted by the new versions printed after it, or at least discredited in the “margin” or bottom notes.  Here is a list of what the new versions do go by instead of the “Textus Recepticus.”


Old Testament: Septuagint:  Known as the “LXX” (Written in Greek [not Hebrew] from Alexandria, Egypt). 

New Testament: Manuscripts:  “Vaticanus” (B, in 350 A.D., by Marcion), “Bezae” (D), “Sinaiticus” (“Aleph,” in 350 A.D., by Aleph), “A,” “C,” and “L.”  (Note:  All of Roman Catholic origin).

Papyrus / Uncials:  “45,” “The Brodmer John” (“P66,” in 175 A.D.), “75” (in 200 A.D.), “72,” and “Nebsenti.”

Where Are My Protestant Protestors?






Since there are now approximately 900 translations and paraphrases of the Bible for the English-speaking world, we know that these range from vary literal, to a very lose translation of the original Manuscripts.  Of these, there are THREE primary Manuscript text types.


1) The “Alexandrian Text Type.”  This “Text” is represented by the “Vaticanus;” “Alexandrian” (“LXX”); “Codex B” (4th Century); “Papyruses 66,” & “Papyruses 75,” (2nd Century; 66 being a mixed text); with both of these culminating into “Codex Aleph” (4th Century), also known as the “Sinaiticus;” from which came the translations “Revised Version” & the “American Standard Version” (1881; NOTE THIS DATE).


2) The “Byzantine Text Type.”  The “Text” is represented by the “Gothic Version” (4th Century); “Peshitta Syriac” (2nd Century); “Codex W” (4th or 5th Century); “Codex A” (5th Century); which is represented by the “Majority Text;” which is represented by over 1,900 Manuscripts in most of the languages of the world.  And of the approximately 5,556 Manuscripts we have today, these 1,900 Manuscripts used by the “Byzantine Text Type,” agree totally with each other.  That is Amazing!!!  Because those listed in the “Alexandrian Text Type,” and the “Western Text Type,” and others listed below, DO NOT AGREE with each other.


3) The “Western Text Type.”  This consist of the “Latin Vulgate” (4th Century); “Codex D” (5th or 6th Century); “Codex D2” (6th Century); “Codex E2” ((7th Century); which is represented by the “Old Latin Text” (2nd Century); ending with today’s Roman Catholic bible, the “Douay-Ames Version” (1582); which was produced in order to combat the Protestant Reformation of the time.






The “Majority Text” is used as a BASE for ALL Bible translations (not just English), because it refers to the largest number of all surviving Manuscripts.  It also has the fewest instances of textual variations.  This is why the “Textus Receptus” and “Critical Text” heavily rely upon Its known accuracy.  Therefore, almost all reformation Bibles used the “Majority Text” for their translations.


The “Alexandrian Text” consists of a relatively small number of Manuscripts.  It is therefore sometimes referred to as the “Minority Text.”  Those Manuscripts that were used, tended to have many interruptions in the text, omitted passages, variations between parallel passages, and, if you will, even more difficult readings (see my Bible Study:  “BIBLE VERSIONS EASIER TO READ”).  With that said, still some theologians and translators prefer these texts because they tend to be found to be older documents then the thousands of agreeable documents mentioned above (older does not mean better or more correct; something new version advocates harp on but are ALWAYS found to be in error; which errors are continued in their translated versions).


The “Byzantine Text” is stated to be newer because the area in which it was preserved (Asia - Middle East) was not favorable to preservation of Manuscripts, thus copy after copy was made in order to preserve the text.  While the Egyptian climate was more favorable to the Manuscript’s preservation, thus multiple preservation copies need not to have been made.  Whatever excuse you like, please use.  By contrast, the overwhelming accuracy of the “Majority Text” has proven Itself repeatedly.


Most modern Bible versions (all, not just English; versions after 1881) are based upon the “Critical Text.”  This text lies heavily upon the “Vaticanus” and “Sinaiticus” Codex’s.  From a young age, I was taught that “Protestant” meant, “Protesting against Roman Catholic errors and doctrines.”


It is important to note that the “Sinaiticus Codex” has been modified seven different times between the 4th and 12th centuries.  That makes it one of the most corrected Manuscripts in existence.  It also is missing large portions of the Old Testament, and a few small portions of the New Testament.  IMPORTANT FOLLOWING NOTE HERE.  Thus, when you see a “note” in your modern translation of the Bible that states, “this was (or “is”) not in the original text YOU CAN KNOW that it was, or if you see “Most Manuscripts,” that is a BIG LIE (falsehood),” therefore you can be sure they are only comparing their readings to only 12 or so Manuscripts that support their agenda.  That is the only way they can state “Most Manuscripts” when only using 12 to compare to, leaving you, the duped redear thinking they mean when they say “Most Manuscripts,” to include all 2,500 of them.  And again, the “Sinaiticus” is followed by most modern translators because of the excuse that it is older than all the rest.  Let me state again, just because your copy of a copy of a copy is the youngest copy of copy’s, does not make it the oldest or most reliable of the copy of a copy of the original text.


“Codex Vaticanus” is named such because it came from the Vatican library (you are studying to be a Roman Catholic with these modern versions).  This version has small horizontal textual dots, which indicate uncertainty of the translation of the text, opening it up for the translator to put in what he wants, leave out certain texts, or whatever fits into their translation.  It is known to have many textual variances.


The “Critical Text” lies heavily upon the “Vaticanus” and “Sinaiticus” Codex’s, which places ALL versions printed after 1881 susceptible to many forced or unforced errors.  Plus, it has been discovered that there are more than 3,000 textual variances between the “Vaticanus” and “Sinaiticus” texts alone in the Gospels Themselves.  Not to mention the rest of the Bible.  Bible translator Dean John W. Burgon, in his published work, “Revision Revised” (1883), page 12, stated:  “It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two Manuscripts differ the one from the other than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree.”



D) THE KING JAMES VERSION or Authorized Version (Is Based On Over 5,556 Manuscripts)



Please do not accuse me of believing that the “KJV” is the only Bible you should own, or that It is without any errors; for It does have It’s errors.  However, It is still the best translation available out there for your average English reader.  And even more importantly, for over 400 years, It has been critiqued, attacked, criticized, and most (if not all) of Its errors are known; which you can know using just about any honest Bible Commentary.


In a side note, the “King James Version” that we have and read today is not the 1611 edition, nor the second 1611 edition which corrected the errors of the first printing.  But the version of the “KJV” today is the 1827 version, which was brought up to American English of its time.  See my Bible Study:  “BIBLE, VERSIONS EASIER TO READ.”


Suffice it to say, whichever version you decide to read, remember that the Word of God is Spiritually understood when all is said and done.


The largest complaint you will encounter is that the “KJV” has to many old English words too hard to understand.  And the most-silliest example given is that the “KJV’s” use of “Thee; Thou; Thine; Ye, You, Your.”  However, we can know that the “KJV” translators know how to use “your” Majesty, in a sentence. Therefore, the “KJV” translators wanted their readers to be able to distinguish between what is in the plural and what is not.  An example would be, if I walk into a room full of people and say, “You come with me,” who am I referring to?  Is that singular or plural?  The “KJV” translators figured out how to solve that dilemma.  If the word starts with a “Y,” the meaning is “plural.”  If it starts with a “T,” its meaning is “singular.”  An excellent example would be John 3:7:  “Marvel not that I said unto thee [SINGULAR], if Ye [PLURAL] were used, “everybody” must be “born again,” but the circumstances were, that only Nicodemus is offered this privilege, and only he at this time], must be born again.”  Genius!


The “King James Version” is based upon:


Old Testament:  “Hebrew Masoretic Text,” later on -- the so-called “Targums,” which is the Hebrew translated into the “Aramaic Text.”


New Testament:  “Byzantine” (Better known as the “Majority”) Text,” including those Manuscripts used by Erasmus(in 1516 A.D.) in compiling the text that would eventually become “The Textus Receptus,” or “Received Text.”  In addition, approximately 75 papyri fragments dating from 135 A.D. to the 8th Century.


In a side note, which I will get to, it is argued that these four older Manuscripts, “LXX,” “Vaticanus,” “Sinaiticus,” and the “Bezae,” are more accurate, in that certain verses in the Book of Mark, as an example, where added by the 5,556 other Manuscripts.  However, the majority of Manuscripts that quote these verses in Mark are not the problem.  The problem is that the four older Manuscripts, “LXX,” “Vaticanus” (B), “Bezae” (D), and “Sinaiticus” (“Aleph”), drop Mark’s statements.  Thus, we can see that by following only four Manuscripts, most modern translations (if not all of the modern [per] versions) suffer with some major deficiencies.


However, let me state here that all of the translations have problems.  The advantage of the “KJV,” as an example, is that the problems are well known, well documented, well answered, well footnoted, and well understood; and this Bible has withstood every argument for over 400 years.


The most important, and generally the most reliable witnesses to the “Hebrew Text,” are the “Masoretic Texts,” which are those produced by Hebrew scholars (called the “Masoretes”), who assumed the task of faithfully copying and transmitting the Bible.  The standard printed “Hebrew Bible” in use today is a reproduction of the “Masoretic Text,” written in 1088 A.D.  From Christ to 100 A.D., all the original Manuscripts were used.  By 170 A.D., 20 New Testament Books had been accepted by the early Christians.  By 400 A.D. all 27 Books of the New Testament were accepted.  From 452 A.D. through 1453 A.D., the “Textus Receptus,” was used by the Greek Church.


In 1516 A.D., Erasmus edited the first printing of the “Greek New Testament.”  This was in agreement with the “Textus Receptus.”  In 1526 A.D., Tyndale’s New Testament in English was printed.  Next, in 1550 A.D., Stephens “Greek New Testament” (“Textus Receptus”) was used.  Lastly, in 1611 A.D., “The King James Version,” or “Authorized Version,” was translated from the “Greek Textus Receptus.”  From 1611 A.D. to 1881 A.D., or rather, from 312 A.D. to 1881 A.D., the only accepted source for the world’s authorized Bible was the “Byzantine Text” (“Textus Receptus”).  Then along came “WESTCOTT AND HORT.”  See my Bible Study:  “BIBLE, VERSIONS (NEW) EXPOSED” for a breakdown of their contributions to the Bibles produced after 1881 A.D.


In addition to these Greek sources, scholars have recovered copies of ancient translations in Latin, Syriac, Ethiopic, Armenian, Gothic and many others, some of which originated before our oldest existing Greek copies.  They thus testify to the contents of still earlier Manuscripts and the spread of Christianity beyond the regions where Greek prevailed.  The great weight of this evidence is favorable to the “Byzantine,” or “Received,” or “Traditional Text,” is overwhelming.  The “Dead Sea Scrolls” also backed up the accuracy of these “Texts,” with the “text” within the Book of Isaiah matching exactly.  That is almost over 2000 years of copyists with no errors or recognizable errors!  Can you see God’s hand in this?


Before we get into the changes, and to keep you from leaving and not continuing to read, check out quickly these changes for yourself.  Left out of your “NIV” & “RSV” versions:  Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 6:48; 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 9:5-6; 15:34; 24:6-8; 28:29; Romans 8:1; 11:6; 16:24; Galatians 3:1 & 17; 4:7; 6:17; Ephesians 3:14; Colossians 1:2, 14; First Timothy 2:7; 3:16; Second Timothy 4:22.  Added either with a “Foot Note” or bad explanation in the “Margin.”






What is known as “The New Greek Text,” was fashioned (quoted later) by Westcott and Hort and completed in 1881 A.D.  Although it only follows 12 Manuscripts, which is less than 1% of the extant Manuscripts, most New [Per] version Bibles written since 1881 A.D., follow along with the Westcott and Hort text.  So just who are Westcott and Hort?  Let’s let them speak for themselves:


Referring to the Traditional Greek Text Westcott states:  “I am most anxious to provide something to replace them,” “Historic Faith,” page 91.  And he admits his drastic changes in “our proposed rendition of the New Testament,” 1852, “Ibid.” page 229.  “I reject the word ‘infallibility’ of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly,” 1860, “Ibid.” page 207.  “All the questionable doctrines which I have ever maintained are in it,” speaking of their “New Greek Text,” 1866, “Ibid.” page 290.  “From my Cambridge days I have read the writings of many who are called mystics with much profit,” “Ibid.” Volume II, page 309.


Dr. Newth, one of the Revisers of the text, and helper to Westcott and Hort, affirms, “that they did not have before them, or give any consideration to, the weighty matters of fact, affecting the character of those two ‘ancient witnesses,’ which we are now putting before our readers,” “Which Bible Can We Trust,” page 161.  He 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 -- Dr. 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,” which is mostly an attack on the Divinity of Christ.


Another fact is that Westcott and Hort were “Necromancers.”  For proof of this statement, see “New Age Bible Version’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,” also known as the “Ghostly Guild,” launched in 1851 A.D., “The Occult Underground,” page 8, and both had a “love for contacting ‘the dead,’ ” “NABV,” page 418.  Hort’s letter to Mr. A. MacMillian, the publisher, announces Plato as, “the center of my reading while creating the New Greek text,” [NOTE the word “creating”] “The Life of Hort,” Volume 1, page 425.  Hort admits (1853 A.D.), “that he should take part in an interesting and comprehensive ‘New Testament Scheme,’ ” “Ibid.” page 264.


“Moody Bible Institute’s” Alfred Martin cites, “Origen’s. . . influence in promoting the spiritualizing [DEAMON “spiritualizing,” not Godly “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 created “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.  “I have a sort of craving that our text should be cast upon the world [Satanic talk] 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 admits he made changes to the original text 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, meaning they had to find them, or something like them, in the 5 perverse Manuscripts.


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, who was chairman of the Revision Committee, in his book, “On Revision” (1870 A.D.), declares that:  “Lachmann’s was ‘a Text composed on the narrowest and most exclusive principles,’ that it was ‘really based on little more than four Manuscripts,’ “  “Which Bible Can We Trust,” page 181.  Robert Young, author of “Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible,” PROVED that there were “over 8,000 changes” from the original accepted Manuscripts, in the “Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament,” in his book, “Concise Concordance of the Revised Testament.”






Constantine requested the production of Manuscripts “B” and “Aleph.”  “NABV,” page 339.  Keep in mind his agenda was to unite Christianity with Paganism (4th Century A.D.).  The Gospel of Luke has approximately 1,000 verses, with the “New Greek Text” making 1,000 or so “changes” to that Book alone.  “Ibid.” page 431.  In 1943 A.D., Jesuit scholars moved on to editorial positions in the previously Protestant Journal of Biblical Literature.  “Their work on the UBS/Nestle’s [Note, “UBS” = “United Bible Society”] Text and influence in Biblical scholarship has biased so many ‘new’ readings that the recent Catholic New American Bible was translated directly from UBS/Nestle, rather than the traditional Catholic Latin Vulgate.”  “Ibid.” page 498.  Any true Protestant should be shocked about this statement of FACT.


John R. Kohlenberger, spokesperson for “Zondervan,” discloses:  “. . .all subsequent versions from the Revised Version (1881 A.D.) to those of the present. . . have adopted their basic approach. . .  [And] accepted the Westcott and Hort text.”  “Words About the Word,” page 42.  In “The King James Version Debate,” page 41, author D.A. Carson, of Baker Book House, admits:  “. . .the theories of Westcott and Hort. . . [are] almost universally accepted today. . . It is on this basis that Bible translators since 1881 have, as compared with the King James Version, left out some things and added a few others.”


Marcion’s contemporaries, Tertullian, Epiphanius and Irenaeus, when speaking of their writings, we read, “Where also Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all; and curtailing the gospel according to Luke; and the epistles of Paul, they assert that these alone are authentic, which they themselves shortened.”  “When Humanity Comes of Age,” page 39.


John Burgon, who was Dean of Westminster, and the pre-eminent Greek textual scholar of the day, said, “For the Greek Text which they [Westcott and Hort] have invented proves to be depraved throughout. . . it was deliberately invented. . . the underlying Greek. . . is an entirely new thing, is a manufactured article throughout. . . the new Greek Text. . . is utterly inadmissible. . . the underlying Greek Text had been completely refashioned throughout. . . The New Greek Text. . . was full of errors from beginning to end:  had been constructed throughout. . . to meddle with the original Greek at all. . . by your own confession -- you and your colleagues knew yourselves to be incompetent. . . falsifying the inspired Greek Text.”  “The Revision Revised,” pages 114-122.


“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.”






The Jehovah’s Witnesses of Westcott and Hort’s day and today saw in “The New Greek Text,” as a text to “promote the doctrine of the Watchtower.”  “Understanding the Cults,” page 81.  To this day, Jehovah’s Witnesses “New World Translation” is “a modern language translation of the Westcott-Hort Greek text.”  “The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures,” pages 3-5.


Even more shocking and not so well known, since most modern Christians are adopting these versions as their new standard to read, the “NIV” and “NASB” users need to realize that they are using essentially the same Bible as Jehovah’s Witnesses.  “Unitarian editor of the New Greek Text, Vance Smith urges new versions to replace ‘Holy Ghost’ with ‘the Spirit’.”  “The Revision Revised,” page 124, or “the Holy Spirit,” or “the Spirit,” changed to, “A Spirit” (Example, see Romans 8:15).  The “Minority Greek New Testament Text,” shifts words around “Babylon,” so that it is not a religious system (as portrayed in the “KJV”), but a geographic location.  “Even the NAB Catholic Bible and official Knights of Columbus, pamphlet #51, agree that this ‘city of seven hills’ is Rome.”  “NABV,” page 132.  Watch the new versions refer to the “KJV’s” translations of the word “The,” when speaking of “The God,” “The Son,” or “The Savior,” as in their translation, “A God,” “A Son,” or “A Savior.”  Example, see “NIV,” “NASB,” translation of First John 4:14.


Valentinus’ productions papyri, “72” and “66,” changes “begotten Son” to “begotten God.”  The Jehovah’s Witnesses “New World Translation” translators agree wholeheartedly.  Alan Wikgren, of the “UBS Greek New Testament”committee admits:  “It is doubtful that the author would have written ‘begotten God’ which may be a primitive, transcriptural error in the Alexandrian [Speaking of the “LXX” translation] tradition.”  “A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,” page 198.  However, the critical apparatus of the “UBS Greek New Testament” cites, “P66,” “P75,” “Aleph,” “B,” “C,” and “L,” as well as Valentinians, Theodotus, Clement, Origen and Arius, as support for their use of “begotten God.”


Consider this though, that nowhere is this concept supported in the over 5,000 Manuscripts backing the “KJV.”





Vance Smith, Unitarian editor of the “New Greek Committee,” writes, “. . .the NT contains neither precept nor example which really sanctions the religious worship of Jesus Christ.”  “Texts and Margins,” page 47.  For examples, you can see Romans 1:3, 16; Ephesians 3:14; Philippians 2:10; 4:13.  Of the 300 Greek Manuscripts containing First Timothy 3:16, only five late Manuscripts (9th, 12th and 13th centuries) omit “God.”  The “Uncials,” “Aleph,” and especially “A” and “C,” have been altered, such that either “God” or “who” can be deduced.  See the “NIV,” “NASB,” “NWT,” and “Phillip’s” translations on First Timothy 3:16.


Of the four Uncials, “Aleph,” “B,” “C,” and “D,” which in our days the new [per-] versions are based upon, Burgonwrites:  “All four are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from the 99 out of 100 of the whole body of extant Manuscripts, but even from one another.”  “The Revision Revised,” page 12.  But of the 5,366 Manuscripts and 2,209 Lectionaries extant today, Hill says:  “The vast majority of these extant Greek New Testament Manuscripts agree together very closely, so closely indeed that they may fairly be said to contain the same New Testament.”  “Which Bible,” page 104.  Therefore, the New [Per]Version translators knew the truth, and chose, on purpose, to corrupt it.


E.C. Colwell informs us that as early as 200 A.D., scribes were altering Manuscripts [“P75” for one].  See “The Origen of Textypes of New Testament Manuscripts,” pages 128-138.  In these pages Colwell tells us that “The Brodmer John(P66) is also a witness to the early existence of many of the” scribal alterations.  Historians admit Manuscript “D” was truncated by Marcion.”  “New Age Bible Versions,” by G.A. Riplinger, page 487.  “Protestant theologians question its [“Vaticanus (B)”] lack of use by anyone for 1300 years -- then its sudden ‘discovery’ in the Vatican in 1481 A.D.  Its immediate use to suppress the Reformation and its subsequent release in 1582 A.D., as the Jesuit-Rheims Bible, is logical, considering the Manuscript’s omission of anti-Catholic sections and books.”  In other words, that Daniel and Revelation.  “New Age Bible Versions,” by G.A. Riplinger, page 552.


Dr. Nolan, who acquired fame for his Greek and Latin scholarship, spent 28 years in tracing the “Received Text”(“Textus Receptus”), back to its apostolic origin.  His searching led him to investigate the Bible texts of the Waldenses,who were the lineal descendants of the Italic Church.  He states:  “It has supplied me with the unequivocal testimony of a truly apostolic branch of the primitive church.”  This means that the “Textus Receptus” has been proven to be in harmony with translations which go back to the Second Century.


It is important to note here that the “Sinaitic” (“Aleph”) and “Vatican” (“B”), Manuscripts, were not brought into existence for many years following the “Textus Receptus,” when Eusebius copied them for Constantine.  Besides this information, the “International Bible Encyclopedia,” page 2,955, states plainly that the latter copies that the “King James Bible” were taken from, really represent a more ancient reading.  “Codex Vaticanus” differs from the “Received Text,” so much so, such as:  It omits at least 2,877 words; It adds 536 words; It substitutes 935 words; It transposes 2,098 words; and it modifies 1,132; making a total of 7,578 verbal divergences.  That’s “divergences,” which is different than attempting to make something sound more modern or easier to understand, as the “NIV” claims it does in its preface.


Therefore, the present controversy between the “King James Bible” and the modern [per] versions, is the same old contest fought out between the early Church and rival sects [Antioch verses Alexandria]; and later between the Waldenses and the Papists from the fourth to the thirteenth centuries; and later still, between the Reformers and the Jesuits in the sixteenth century; and in reality, between Christ and Satan.


Speaking of writers before 400 A.D., only Origen stands alone in omitting “God.”  The omission of “God” in the new [per] versions is based on its deletion in 1881 A.D., by the Westcott and Hort’s revision, which Metzger says, “Was taken as the basis for the present United Bible Societies edition.”  “A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,” page XVII.


D.A. Carson, New [Per] Version advocate, responded in his book, “The King James Version Debate,” page 42:  “This theory [That Christ is NOT God] is being presented in popular literature to pastors and laymen every where, many of whom have never read a rebuttal at the same level [Reader, are you going to rise to a higher level now that you have this information?] and who are not equipped to do the more advanced work that demonstrates the theory to be false[DID YOU READ THAT?  “false?”  Again, they admit their {per}versions to be “false” and love it when you buy their corrupted {per} versions.].  The KJV translators obscured the NT witness to that truth [The DEITY of Christ]. . . if we compare all of the verses of the new testament that can be translated in such a way that they directly call Jesus God, we would find that the KJV missed half of them.”  The “KJV” actually has most, if not all; and it is ONLY the New [Per] Versions that delete half or more of them.


The changing of God’s Word created the Arians of the fourteenth Century, who became the Nestorians of the fifteenth Century, followed later by the Socinians of the sixteenth Century, and the Jehovah Witnesses of today!  The Following Is From The Highly Recommended Book:  “Which Bible Can We Trust,” By Les Garrett:


A little history first:  Tischendorf (1865 A.D. -- 1872 A.D.), discoverer of “Codex Sinaiticus” (“Aleph”), had a dominating influence in the formation of the modern Text.  His plan, in his own words:  “The text is to be sought only from ancient evidence [meaning using only the oldest Manuscripts], and especially from Greek Manuscripts [“LXX,”from Alexandria, Egypt], but without neglecting the testimonies of Versions and [meaning Catholic] Fathers.”  “Ibid.” page 144.  But whether the “Codex Sinaiticus” (“Aleph”) is the most ancient of all is “beyond any doubt whatever, the most defective, corrupt, and untrustworthy. . . the worst and most ‘scandalously corrupt’ of all the Greek Texts now known to exist.”  “Ibid.” page 144.  Tregelles, who was a contemporary with Tischendorf, wanted “to give the text on the authority of the oldest Manuscripts and Versions.”  “Ibid.” page 144.


This was precisely the plan proposed by Lachmann, whose precedents mainly influenced Westcott and Hort.  “Dr. Scrivener [In his book, “A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus” (1864)] states in his Introduction, page 342:  “Lachmann’s text seldom tests on more than four Greek Codices, very often on three, not infrequently on two, sometimes on only one.  His fallacy, which was adopted Tregelles, necessarily proved fatal to the text prepared by the latter, who in fact acted upon the astounding assumption that ‘eighty nine ninetieths’ of our existing Manuscripts and other authorities might safely be rejected, in order that we might be free to follow a few early documents of bad repute.  This tendency in a wrong direction found a still further development in Tischendorf, and came to full fruition in Westcott and Hort, who were allowed to fashion according to their own ideas the Greek Text of the R.V.”  “Ibid.” pages 144-145.  Also, “. . .the worst corruption’s to which the New Testament has ever been subjected originated within a hundred years after it was composed,’ and ‘Irenaeus and African fathers used far inferior Manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens, thirteen centuries, later, when molding the Textus Receptus.“  Ibid. page 145.


Canon Cook, in his authoritative book “The Revised Version of the First Three Gospels,” states:  “By far the greatest number in innovations, including those which give the severest shocks to our minds, are adopted on the testimony of two Manuscripts, or even of one Manuscript, against the distinct testimony of all other Manuscripts, uncial and cursive. . . The Vatican Codex, sometimes alone, but generally in accord with the Sinaitic, is responsible for nine-tenths of the most striking innovations in the R.V.”  “Ibid.” page 148.  “It is not too much to say that in nine passages out of ten -- nay, to go further -- in every passage of vital importance as regards the integrity of Holy Scripture, the veracity of the sacred writers, and the records of our Lord’s sayings, nearly all ancient versions, and with very few exceptions, all ancient fathers, support the readings rejected by the Revisers.”  “Ibid.” page 169.


One of the greatest and most renowned scholars is Dean Burgon.  On this subject his works should be sought with the utmost diligence.  He writes, “The impurity of the text exhibited by these codices is not a question of opinion but of fact. . . In the Gospels alone Codex B (Vatican) leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times.  It bears traces of careless transcription on every page.  Codex Sinaiticus ‘abounds with errors of the eye and pen to an extent not indeed unparalleled, but happily rather unusual in documents of first-rate importance.’  On many occasions, 10, 20, 30, and even up to 40 words are dropped through very carelessness [Or rather, ON purpose].  Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled:  while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause proceeding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament.”  ““Which Bible Can We Trust,” page 151.


“Notwithstanding, they differ “not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant Manuscripts besides, but even from one another.  This last circumstance, obviously fatal to their corporate pretensions, is unaccountably overlooked.  As said of the two false witnesses that came to testify against Christ, so it may be said of these witnesses who are brought forward at this late day to testify against the Received Text, ‘But neither so did their witness agree together’.”  “Which Bible Can We Trust,” page 151.


Summing up the case, Dean Burgon assures us, including the “Codex Beza,” (“D”):  “. . .without a particle of hesitation, that they are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant; That they ‘exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with;’ that they ‘have become (by whatever process, for their history is wholly unknown) the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of truth,’ which are discoverable in any known [From the true] copies of the Word of God.”  “Ibid.”  page 152.


Dr. Edward Vining of Cambridge, Massachusetts, “has produced evidence tending to show that they were copies (and most carelessly made) of an original brought by Origen out of Egypt [the “LXX”], where, as is well known, the Scriptures were corrupted almost from the beginning in the interest of the same ascetic practices as now characterize the church of Rome.”  “Ibid.”  page 159.


In his Preface to “Revision Revised,” Burgon states:  “. . .use has been made of that margin to insinuate suspicion and distrust, in countless particulars as to the authenticity of parts of the Text which have been suffered to remain unaltered.”  “Ibid.”  page 163.  In his book, “The Revision Revised,” he states:  “I rose from the investigation profoundly convinced, that however important they may be as instruments of criticism, codices A, B, C, D are among the most corrupt documents extant.  My contention in, -- not that the Theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort rests on an insecure foundation, but, that it rests on no foundation at all.”  “Ibid.” page 232.






BLOOD ATTACK:  Does your version cancel the power of Christ’s blood in these verses:  Luke 22:20; Acts 17:26; Ephesians 1:1; Colossians 1:14?


DIVINITY ATTACK:  Does your version have it that there are a plurality of “God’s?”  As displayed in Genesis 6:2; 41:38, and Mark 12:32?  Or, can men become “God’s” as in Acts 8:10?  Or, does it eliminate the “trinity” as in Romans 1:20 and First John 5:7?


CHRIST’S DIVINITY ATTACKED:  Is Christ a created being as in Proverbs 8:22 and Daniel 3:25?  Does your version eliminate the word “Lord” or “God” or “The” when referring to “The Christ” or “Jesus,” and/or place a question as to His Divinity at all?  See your versions:  Psalm 8:5; Micah 5:2; Matthew 1:16; 8:6; 12:42; 18:11; 21:44; 24:36; 27:54; 28:6; Mark 9:24; Luke 2:33,43; 7:31; 9:57; 22:31; 23:42; 24:52; John 6:69; 8:20; 9:25; 14:12 & 28; 16:10; Acts 9:5 & 6 & 29; 19:10; Romans 1:3; 6:11; 16:24; First Corinthians 11:29; 12:3; 15:47; Second Corinthians 4:10; Galatians 6:17; Ephesians 3:14; Colossians 1:2; First Thessalonians 1:1; Second Thessalonians 2:4; First Timothy 1:1; 3:16; 8:21; Second Timothy 4:1 & 22; Titus 1:4; Second John 1:3; Jude 1:5 & 14; Revelation 1:1 & 8 & 11; 15:4; 16:5; 19:1.






Remember, less than 1% of the extant Manuscripts available to us today were used by today’s New [Per] Versions; and of those, none agree with themselves.  That’s Right!!! The new [per] versions and their Manuscripts don’t even agree with themselves!!!  No Hebrew (the true original) was used.  (Note:  making up over 70% of the Bible).  The scholars behind the New [Per] Versions admit to not even following exactly the “already adulterated” Manuscripts.  The New [Per] Version scholars admit to putting into their versions their own “agenda;” such as “Once Saved Always Saved,” and the non-belief in the “Deity of Christ.”


The New [Per] Version scholars were/are known “necromancers,” “occultists,” “lesbians,” “homosexuals,” etcetera.  In addition, the New [Per] Version scholars should have, being scholars, taken the Greek word and translated it into English (as they claim to the public they did).  THINK ABOUT IT!  You and fifty other Americans are German scholars, and the word you are to translate for your American Bible edition is the German word, “GOTT,” meaning in the strictest sense, “God.”  Some may choose to translate it as “God The Father, The Almighty God,” etcetera. Nevertheless, if you are a New [Per] Version, New Greek Text scholar, and it is speaking about “Christ,” you alter it.  Examples would be:  “a god,” or “non-god,” or omit it altogether (Example: _____).


To be honest, all of the Manuscripts available to us today have approximately a 15% variation between them; with 85% of them being identical (not including the “Vaticanus” and “Sinaiticus” Roman Catholic texts).  Of these variances, translators agree that 99% of them make no substantial corrupting of the text at all.  As examples:  75% are spelling mistakes; 24% is word order and grammar of the day.  Thus, this leaves only 1% of the Manuscripts to be of any concern as to being the original translation and intent of the original author.  Or should I say, Author [God]?


“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 [and these are the honest ones], 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 [if you don’t have a new {per} version].”  1SG:117.

bottom of page