2

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Russell and Colin Standish, twin sons and eldest in a family of four

children, were born in Newcastle, Australia, in 1933. They obtained their

teacher training diplomas from Avondale College before completing

Bachelor of Arts degrees with honors in psychology at the University of

Sidney.

Russell then completed medicine, choosing to specialize in internal

medicine, and achieved membership in the Royal College of Physicians,

United Kingdom and later was elected a fellow of the Royal College of

Physicians. Colin completed his Master of Arts degree and Doctor of

Philosophy, both in psychology, and then a second Masters in education.

Russell has subsequently served in a number of hospitals in Australia, the

Far East, and Great Britain, being medical director of a number of these

hospitals. Colin has worked in the field of education, being president of a

number of colleges, including West Indies College, Jamaica, and Columbia

Union College in the United States.

Russell is presently the president of Remnant Ministries located in

Melbourne, Australia. Colin is president of Hartland Institute, an

educational and health institution in Rapidan, Virginia.

3

CHAPTER 1

A BRIEF HISTORY OF BIBLE MANUSCRIPTS AND

TRANSLATIONS

The twenty-seven books of the New Testament were written in the

second half of the first century after Christ. Not one of the original

writings is preserved. However, early Christians carefully preserved

copies of these sacred writings, taking the greatest care to eliminate

copyist errors. Syria became the center of such copying endeavors.

Nevertheless, within a century of the writing of the New Testament

canon, serious alterations were made, especially by scribes in the city of

Alexandria in Egypt. These men were motivated by a desire to support

their Gnostic errors, which included the view that Christ was not a

member of the Godhead. Once scribes tampered with Scripture they

became increasingly careless in their copying techniques, introducing

numerous mistakes. However, the scribes of Syria did not deviate from

their meticulous copying methods.

From these two copyist perspectives, two quite different streams of

Greek manuscripts emerged. The Eastern stream, which became centered

on Syria and Constantinople, remained true to the original writings of the

apostles, while the Western stream, centered on Alexandria and Rome, was

markedly flawed by both deliberate and careless alterations.

Early in the fourth century, Emperor Constantine commissioned Eusebius,

bishop of Caesarea, to prepare fifty copies of the New Testament.

Eusebius chose to copy the flawed Western manuscripts. His decision was

influenced by his admiration of Origen, who himself was a corrupter of

Holy Writ.

It is thought that two of Eusebius’ copies survive in the Codex Sinaiticus

and the Codex Vaticanus. These copies contain many errors, and during

the sixth and the seventh centuries at least ten different scribes attempted

to make corrections to bring them somewhat closer to the valid Eastern

4

manuscripts. Despite this effort, deliberate and careless errors remained in

great numbers.

Knowledge of the errors did not prevent Jerome from using these faulty

manuscripts as a basis for his Latin version of the Bible. His translation

became the official Scripture of the Roman Catholic Church and is known

as the Latin Vulgate. Disregarding all evidence to the contrary, the Council

of Trent in the sixteenth century proclaimed the Latin Vulgate to be free

from error.

But despite the great influence of the Papacy, true Christians were not

deceived. Believers such as the Waldenses and the Gallic church of France

and the Celtic church of Britain refused such perversion of God’s Word

and used only those translations arising from the Eastern stream. This

practice was also true of God’s churches in Ethiopia, Persia, India, and

China.

When the Turks conquered Constantinople and destroyed the Byzantine

Empire in 1453, men escaped to the West bringing priceless biblical and

secular manuscripts with them. These manuscripts enlightened the dense

darkness of the Middle Ages, a darkness directly attributable to Roman

Catholic domination. The revelations of these manuscripts opened minds

to learning and also to the pure, precious Word of God. The Renaissance

spread throughout Europe like a wildfire, and shortly the Reformation

arose.

God’s servants perceived that it was the Word of God in the language of

the common people which opened minds to truth and dispelled the errors

of the Papacy. As nation after nation threw off the shackles of

Catholicism and embraced a pure faith based upon the inerrant Word of

God, great fear gripped the leadership in Rome. The Council of Trent was

called in 1545 to find a means to stem the advance of Protestantism.

Perceptively, the bishops gathered at the Council acknowledged that the

free distribution of the Bible to all men would prove the death knell of the

Roman Catholic Church. Wherever men and women read this precious

Book, the errors of Catholicism were forsaken.

Gladly would these wily bishops have cast every Bible into a sea of

flames as they had done in previous generations, but their coercive power

5

had disappeared from much of Europe. Thus more subtle means were

required to reverse the great advance of scriptural truth. Some less

farsighted bishops even suggested that the Roman Catholic Church, too,

endorse the Bible as the sole source of faith. They reasoned that they

might be able to wean men and women from Protestantism if they

proclaimed such a view. But the Jesuits saw that such a stand, rather than

serving to rescue the Catholic faith, would seal its doom. With the

Archbishop of Reggio as their spokesman, the Jesuits totally overthrew

this faulted tactic by pointing out that there was no scriptural basis for

Sundaykeeping, and unless the church was prepared to return to

Sabbathkeeping, they must uphold the authority of the tradition of the

church above that of the Scriptures.

The Archbishop of Reggio’s successful argument won a continued place

for church tradition as the major source of Catholic doctrine, but it did not

provide a solution to the advance of Protestantism and the supremacy of

Scripture in the hearts of Protestants. The Jesuits thus devised a new

strategy. While having little regard for the Bible, they nevertheless went to

Douay and Rheims in France and translated the Bible into the English

language using the Latin Vulgate as its basis, although resorting to the

original languages in some areas.

The Jesuits were not bothered by the faultiness of their new translation; it

furthered their aims. Their faith depended not upon God’s Word, but

rather upon church tradition. Accuracy was not vital to their undertaking,

and inaccuracies would assist them in their aim to weaken Protestant faith

in God’s Word. It is the corruption of God’s Word which tums men and

women to the authority of men and the church in place of the Bible.

For three centuries the design of the Jesuits met with scant success.

Protestants were acutely aware of the perversions of the Western

manuscripts and eschewed them. Men such as William Tyndale died at the

stake rather than submit to a perverted Scripture. The Reformers of

Europe united to bring before God’s flock the precious truths of the pure

Word of God. It was in this commitment of fidelity to God’s Word that

the King James Version of the Bible was undertaken by Godly men.

But in the nineteenth century the Jesuits penetrated the Anglican Church

in force. This infiltration led to the formation of what became known as

6

the Oxford movement early in that century. This movement among young

Anglican clerics upheld the re-introduction of Catholic practices such as

confession, the adoration of Mary, and the celebration of the Mass, into

the Anglican Church.

When, in the 1870s, the archbishopric of Canterbury undertook a revision

of the King James Version of the Bible, the revision committee’s two most

influential figures, Doctors Westcott and Hort, were greatly under the

influence of the Oxford movement. They encouraged the translators to

discard the pure Eastern manuscripts upon which the Protestant

Reformation and its Bible were based and to revert to the perverted

Western manuscripts, ever the ally of Catholicism.

Thus the Revised Version of 1881 transformed the nature of the Englishlanguage

Scripture. This version, and the American Revised Version which

followed twenty years later and which was equally faulted, did not

initially have a profound influence in Protestantism, for the King James

Version remained the standard Bible of these churches.

But the appearance of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible in the

second half of the twentieth century, followed by a plethora of new

translations, saw the scheme of the Jesuits finally implemented. Today

most Protestants have discarded the trusted King James Version and now

cheerfully use Bibles which are based upon Catholic manuscripts. All the

best-known modern translations with the exception of the New King

James Version (also known as the new Authorized Version) distort

Scripture. These translations include the New International Version, the

New English Bible, Today’s English Version, Phillips’ translation-cumparaphrase,

and a host of others.

Is it any wonder that the Catholics openly rejoiced at the appearance of

the Revised Version, proclaiming that its use would be the death knell of

Protestantism? The use of these translations has seriously weakened the

Protestant perception of the errors of Rome. Already the effects of the use

of these translations, initially sponsored by theologians, are plain to see.

7

CHAPTER 2

THE NOBLEST MONUMENT OF ENGLISH PROSE

It was not until the sixteenth century that the first English translation of

the Scriptures from their original Greek and Hebrew was completed. It is

true that John Wycliffe had, in the fourteenth century, translated the Bible

into English from the Latin Vulgate. For this and other assaults on the

excesses of Rome, Wycliffe’s bones were disinterred a decade after his

death in 1384, and publicly burnt. He had written,

Cristen men and wymmen, olde and yonge, shuden studie fast in

the Newe Testament, for it is of ful autorite, and opyn to

understanding of simple men, as to the poyntis that be moost

This astounding assertion had rocked the ecclesiastical foundations of

England. It was a frontal challenge to the papal teaching that the priests

alone could interpret and present scriptural truth. This erroneous view of

Catholicism is one reflected by the growing demands of modern

theologians to invest them with the right to determine truth when matters

of doctrine are in dispute. The domination of the church by theologians

has ever led to darkness, never light. Little wonder that Wycliffe was later

hailed by devout Protestants as the Morning Star of the Reformation.

In November 1983 we had the privilege of worshiping in the country

church of Lutterworth in Leicestershire, England. It was to this pastorate

that John Wycliffe was banished when his influence in Oxford was more

than the church hierarchy could tolerate. It was here that he died, and it

was here that his bones were ceremonially bumed. How fortunate we are

that our God’s actions are not subject to the whims and bigotry of man! In

the stone church is preserved a copy of Wycliffe’s great contribution to

truth, his translation of Holy Writ.

But bold as Wycliffe’s work was, and far-reaching as his efforts were — it

was through contact with him that Reformation stirrngs were witnessed as

8

far away as Bohemia, culminating in the mighty witness of Huss and

Jerome — Wycliffe was unable to introduce to his fellow citizens an

uncorrupted translation of the New Testament.

The Latin Vulgate, from which Wycliffe translated his English version, had

been translated originally from those corrupted Greek manuscripts.

William Tyndale in the sixteenth century had access to uncorrupted Greek

and Hebrew manuscripts and it was from these that he prepared his

English translation. The Roman Catholic prelates condemned Tyndale’s

work as a willful perversion of the New Testament. His Bible was

consigned to the flames and he himself was burnt at the stake in 1536 for

daring to utilize Greek manuscripts uncorrupted by deliberate alterations.

So dear was the purity of God’s Word to Tyndale that life itself was less

precious. We do well to consider at what price the standard of purity of

biblical manuscript was preserved.

Tyndale’s work was not extinguished by the flames which consumed his

body and his translations. It lives on today in its worthy successor, the

King James Version of Scripture. Unfortunately, the tradition of the

corrupted manuscripts was not stayed by the success of the English

Reformation. It still survives in most modern translations. Indeed in 1986,

sales of one of these versions, the New International Version, exceeded

that of the King James Version for the first time.

The great majority of Christians selecting a modern version of Scripture do

so, believing that they are simply obtaining an authentic Bible translated in

the English language of today rather than that of the seventeenth century.

They would be astounded to learn that the most popular modern versions

have been translated from a different Greek manuscript from that used in

Greek manuscripts have competed for the right to be accepted as the

original words written by the apostolic authors.

Many unsuspecting Christians accept the claim, that modern translations

have a marked advantage over those of the sixteenth and the seventeenth

centuries since more recent discoveries have revealed many more

manuscripts. In some cases these are more ancient copies of the Greek

manuscripts. It is claimed that these enable a more accurate basis for the

evaluation of both minor and major discrepancies among the various

9

manuscripts. But all the Greek manuscripts bear unmistakable testimony

of having arisen from one of two sourcesmone preserved by the Eastern

Christian Church in Constantinople and Syria and the other by the church

of the West, centered in Rome and Alexandria. Modern discoveries have

not altered this fact. The merits of these competing claims demand

evaluation, for it is never safe to tamper with Holy Writ. God did not

choose in a careless fashion the message He inspired His servants to

record. Every sentence was inspired by God. While it is true that these

privileged authors of the canonical writings used their own words and

distinctive styles in writing, nevertheless every concept expressed, every

fact related, was deemed by God as information vital to our salvation. So

holy were these words that the most terrible anathema was threatened

against those who dare to tamper with the Scripture’s content.

If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the

plagues that are written in this book: 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 22:18-19

No translator since early Reformation times has chosen these two forms of

the Greek Scripture in a vacuum. Each has made a deliberate decision to

choose one or the other. The translators who were chosen to undertake

this important task in the days of King James I. of England were well

extending back to

the apostolic churches and reappearing at intervals down through

the Christian era among enlightened believers. [It] was protected

by the wisdom and scholarship of the pure church in her different

phases; by such as the church in Pella in Palestine where Christians

Syrian Church of Antioch which produced eminent scholarship; by

the Italic Church in northern Italy; also at the same time by the

Gallic Church in southern France and the Celtic church in Great

Britain; by the pre-Waldensian, the Waldensian, and the churches

10

This pedigree is impressive indeed, for all these churches strove for purity

of faith in an age of rampant apostasy.

The competing stream is small by comparison, yet it seems that as in the

Vaticanus, secreted in the Vatican Library for centuries, and the Codex

Sinaiticus, discovered by a German theologian in the "waste-paper basket"

of an ancient monastery at Sinai in 1844. One could tightly wonder if this

discovery was not a satanic trump card reserved by the devil for the days

of the preaching of the everlasting gospel. This corrupt form of the Greek

manuscript has been represented in the Latin Vulgate, the 1582 Jesuit

translation of Scripture into English (known as the Douay) and, since

1881, in the vast majority of modern English translations.

Perhaps no man examined the evidence for the authenticity of the Greek

text more carefully than John William Burgon, fellow of Oriel College,

Oxford, vicar of St. Mary’s, the University of Oxford Church, professor

of Divinity at Oxford University, and later dean of Chichester. This great

nineteenth century Christian held a fervent love for Sctipture. He spared

no effort to examine the claims of the two versions. In Rome in 1860, he

visited the Vatican Library specifically to study the Codex Vaticanus. In

1862 he traveled to Sinai and inspected the treasures of St. Catherine’s

Convent where the Codex Sinaiticus had been discovered. He also visited a

large number of continental libraries, examining their ancient Greek

manusctipts of the New Testament.

At the conclusion of these investigations, Professor Burgon declared:

I am utterly disinclined to believe, so grossly improbable does it

seem — that at the end of 1800 years, 995 copies out of every

thousand, I suppose, will prove untrustworthy, and that one, two,

three, four, or five which remain, whose contents were till

yesterday as good as unknown, will be found to have the secret of

what the Holy Spirit originally inspired. I am utterly unable to

believe, in short, that God’s promise has so entirely failed, that at

11

the end of 1800 years, much of the text of the Gospel had in point

of fact to be picked by a German critic out of a waste paper basket

Grand Rapids International Publications, Grand Rapids, 13.

Some have upheld the antiquity of the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex

Vaticanus as evidence of their superiority over the manuscripts used in the

translation during the reign of King James I. Burgon adopted an alternative

view. He saw many years of preservation as evidence of their unreliability

since any valuable document, he believed, would have long since been

destroyed by constant usage.

Burgon’s references to the recentness of the knowledge of this western

stream should not be interpreted as evidence that it is of recent origin. It is

simply a fact that these Greek manuscripts were unknown to the mass of

scholars until the nineteenth century. But these manuscripts were soon

found to be the basis for the perversions present in the long extant Latin

Vulgate, so highly prized and promoted by the Roman Catholic Church.

That the Reformers, both English and Continental, eschewed this false set

of biblical records, should not surprise us. The Eastern church had

meticulously preserved the Word of God through numerous copyings,

checking and rechecking each entry. Such care had not been demonstrated

in the West, where apostasy so rapidly overtook the purity of the faith

that some sought to "improve" on the words of Holy Writ through means

of alterations and deletions.

Eusebius, an early church father, admitted that in his day,

corrupted manuscripts were so prevalent that agreement between

the copies was hopeless. Wilkinson, op. cit., 15

Men such as Justin Martyr in the second century of the Christian

Era, together with Tatian, who espoused Gnosticism, had

deliberately "corrected" Scripture. In the following century,

Clement of Alexandria, a man who espoused many pagan concepts,

336

12

But men like Origen and his follower, Jerome, who was the editor of the

Latin Vulgate, contributed most to the debasing of Holy Writ. The

situation has been well summarized by Scrivener:

It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst

corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected,

originated within a hundred years after it was composed; that

Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior

manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or

Edition, 511, quoted in Wilkinson, 18.

The history of the recent change of thinking in Protestant circles is not

clouded in mystery. It was successfully engineered by two prominent

professors of Theology at Cambridge University: Brooke Foss Westcott

and Fenton John Anthony Hort. These men have been recognized as the

most brilliant and erudite Bible scholars of the second half of the

nineteenth century, but they were brilliantly wrong. They were in error,

for they were not lovers of truth, but rather leaned toward the rising

Anglo-Catholic tide in their church. We illustrate by citing a quotation

from one of Professor Hort’s letters.

I have been persuaded for many years, he wrote in a letter to Dr.

Westcott dated October 17, 1865, that Mary-worship and Jesusworship

have very much in common in their causes and their

results (quoted in Fuller, 17).

With such Catholic sentiments in his heart, we need not experience

surprise that this man, ignoring the hard-won gains of his spiritual

forefathers in the Anglican Church, turned once more to the manuscripts

so valued by Rome. Thus when, in the 1870s, both Westcott and Hort

were included among those entrusted with a revision of the King James

Version, they persuaded their fellow translators to exceed their

commission. This commission had confined the work of the committee to

alterations of expressions which the passage of time had rendered archaic.

Many readers of the modern translations imagine that here the translators

halted. But tragically, the Revised Version of 1881 was based upon, not

13

manuscripts. What the consequences of this departure from their

commission produced, we shall subsequently examine.

Some assume that in most instances there is such a small difference between

the Textus Receptus and the Codex Vaticanus as to make all protests trivial.

Such should study the evidence more closely. Philip Mauro, a diligent

Greek scholar, has recorded no fewer than 7,578 verbal divergences in the

gospels alone. These consist of the omission of 2,877 words, the addition of

536 words, the substitution of 935 words, the transposition of 2,098 words

and the modification of 1,132 words (Philip Mauro, Which Version?

Authorized or Revised?, quoted in Fuller, 78). Such wholesale destruction

of the original text, resultant upon both willful changes and carelessness in

copying, indicates the magnitude of the problem.

The beauty of the King James Version English has never been matched.

Even the translators of the Revised Standard Version were constrained to

admit this fact. They quoted from the assessment of those involved in the

1881 revision. These men had stated that the King James Version was

marked by

its simplicity, its dignity, its power, its happy turns of

expression., the music of its cadences, and the felicities of its

rhythm. The Preface of the Revised Standard Version of Scripture

It is sometimes asserted that the English language reached its peak around

the seventeenth century. This view is a matter of personal judgment, but it

must be said that the works of William Shakespeare and John Milton,

contemporaries of the 1611 translation, offer evidence to support this

opinion. One analysis of the superiority of seventeenth-century English to

that of the present day concluded:

Each word was broad, simple and generic. That is to say, words

were capable of containing in themselves different shades of

meaning which were attached to that central thought. B.G.

Wilkinson, op. cit., p. 74

Whatever the reason, few could rightly refute the claim that the language of

the King James Version has not been equalled by later translators. It is

indeed the noblest monument of English prose. How proper that the

sacred Word of God should be thus expressed!

14

CHAPTER 3

TESTIMONY OF A MODERN REVISION

In 1982 the Revised Authorized Version (also known as the New King

James Version) of the Bible was published. While significantly superior to

some of the other contemporary translations of the Bible, it also shares

unjustifiably rendered "Most Holy Place" rather than "Holy Place" or

unsolicited testimony to the unmatched quality of the original Authorized

Version (also known as the King James Version) from rather unlikely

sources, such as this quotation from the eminent Catholic scholar,

Alexander Geddes, who in 1786 stated of the Authorized Version:

If accuracy and strictest attention to the letter of the text be

supposed to constitute an excellent version, this is of all versions

The same preface quotes the English literary legend, George Bernard Shaw,

certainly not a Christian in belief, as saying of the King James Bible:

The translation was extraordinarily well done because to the

translators what they were translating was not merely a curious

collection of ancient books written by different authors in different

stages of culture, but the Word of God divinely revealed through

His chosen and expressly inspired scribes. In this conviction they

carried out their work with boundless reverence and care and

achieved a beautifully artistic result. Ibid. p. iii

The preface adds some other valuable insights as to why no other

subsequent English translation of the Bible has been able to match the

veracity of the Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures. It affirms that

the period of the 1611 translation was far more aggressively devoted to

classical learning than our present day (ibid., ii).

15

Perceptively the preface of the Revised Authorized Version points out:

translation that paraphrased or gave only an approximate rendering.

languages of the Bible as they were with English.

which assured a translation in which only a principle of utmost

accuracy could be accepted.

who frequently use the less precise dynamic equivalence when

translating certain passages, used complete equivalence. The former

often leads to paraphrasing which lacks the more literal rendition of the

Authorized Version of Holy Scriptures (ibid.).

The preface to the Revised Authorized Version also offers confirmation

that the translators of the Authorized Version believed in the sacred

providences by which the manuscripts were preserved.

They firmly believed that they had been handed down a

trustworthy record of the Word of God (ibid.).

The profound influence of the Authorized Version upon a wide range of

life and culture in the English-speaking world is also noted in the Revised

Authorized Version preface:

The precision of translation for which it is historically renowned,

and its majesty of style have enabled that monumental version of

the Word of God to become the mainspring of the religion, language

and legal foundations of our civilization.

The preface also acknowledges the deficiencies of the Sinaitic and the

Vatican manuscripts, upon which most of the modern versions of the

Scriptures depend.

The manuscript preferences cited in many contemporary

translations of the New Testament are due to recent reliance on a

relatively few manuscripts discovered in the late nineteenth and

early twentieth centuries. Dependence on these manuscripts,

16

especially two, the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts, is due to the

greater age of these documents. However, in spite of their age,

many scholars have reason to doubt their faithfulness to the

autographs, since they often disagree with one another, and show

other signs of unreliability...

On the other hand, the great majority of existing manuscripts are in

substantial agreement. Even though some are late, and none are

earlier than the fifth century, most of their readings are verified by

ancient papyri, ancient versions, and quotations in the writings of

the early church fathers. This large body of manuscripts is the

source of the Greek text underlying the Authorized Version. It is

the Greek text used by Greek-speaking churches for many

Since the latter nineteenth century the theory has been held by

some scholars that this traditional text of the New Testament had

been officially edited by the fourth-century church. Recent studies

have caused significant changes in this view, and a growing number

previously thought (ibid., vii).

No translation is perfect. It may even be persuasively argued that no exact

copies of the original autographs still exist. That concept has become the

platform of debate for many who declare that therefore the precision of a

translation is less important than its relevance to today’s needs. This view

has led to the deplorable situation where some "translations" have only

scant resemblance to the sacred truth enshrined in the Scriptures. To those

who cherish the sacred oracles of God, objective research confirms that the

Authorized Version of the Bible is the most accurate and gives the most

precise translation of any English Version yet produced. That reason alone

is sufficient for it to be the primary Bible for all true Protestants.

17

CHAPTER 4

TWO GREEK NEW TESTAMENTS

Many theologians, seeking to calm the fears of church members, assert

that there is only three percent of difference between the Greek

manuscripts upon which the modern versions are based and those upon

which the King James Version depends. Even if this estimate is correct, it

means that the equivalent of 240 verses in the New Testament come under

question. Very significant doctrinal changes could be accomplished by the

perversion of such a large number of verses. Furthermore, should God’s

many theologians, as we have noted, emphasize that only three percent of

Scripture is in question, nevertheless, they are most tenacious in their

defense of the modern versions. Indeed, their defense of these versions

appears to extend beyond the matter of ease of understanding. After all,

theologians in many instances have studied Greek and/or Hebrew. They

themselves should have no trouble with a few archaic English words. Yet it

is evident that the majority discard the King James Version, preferring one

of the modern versions based upon the Greek manuscripts which contain

numerous omissions and other errors. We could be forgiven for suspecting

a hidden agenda.

There have been, from the earliest period of the Christian era, two

competing Greek manuscripts. Before a sincere Bible student selects a

Bible translation for daily use, it is imperative tha he first examine which

one of these two incompatible Greek manuscripts he finds to be the one

which represents the original writings of the New Testament apostles, and

then discover which translations are based upon this accurate Greek

manuscript. Clearly, a translation from a faulty Greek manuscript can in

no wise bring pure truth to God’s people.

The Greek manuscripts from which the King James Version of Scripture

was translated, largely emanated from the Eastern Christian Church. When

Constantinople, the headquarters of the Eastern Church, was overrun by

18

the Ottoman Empire in 1453, many Greek scholars fled to the West,

bringing with them priceless Greek manuscripts of Scripture. The Eastern

Christian Church, particularly that located in Syria, had faithfully copied

the manuscripts utilizing a technique similar to that used by the Jews in

copying the Old Testament. In this technique, words and letters were

counted and manuscripts checked to minimize the possibility of copyist

errors.

So dedicated were the translators of the King James Version that they

desired only the very best manuscripts, and eschewed those which had

been tampered with in the West. The sound manuscripts represent over

ninety-five percent of all Greek manuscripts of the New Testament.

The second category of the Greek manuscripts, from which the vast

majority of modern translations have been made, comprises those from the

Western Christian Church which had its centers of learning in Alexandria

and Rome. The two most famous of these manuscripts are the Codex

Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. Two significant Bibles have been

translated from these Western manuscripts. The first was the Latin

Vulgate translated in the fourth century, and the second was the Jesuit

translation of Scripture in 1582 known as the Douay Version.

It is significant that churches which remain close to the truth of God

always preferred Bibles based upon the Eastern manuscripts; while those

who did not regard biblical authority as final preferred the Western

manuscripts. Thus the church at Pella in Palestine, where Christians fled

after the fall of Jerusalem, the Syrian church of Antioch, the Italic church

of Northern Italy, the Gallic of Southern France, the Celtic church of Great

Britain, and the Waldensians, all had the Eastern manuscripts as the basis

for their Bibles. On the other hand, the Roman Catholic Church has

always upheld the Western group of manuscripts. Such a situation should

alert every loyal Christian to the need for a thorough examination of the

Bible from which he is studying. Dr. Fuller has demonstrated the presence

of the two contrasting categories of Greek manuscripts of the New

Testament. Speaking of the production of the Douay translation, he states:

At the same time another group of scholars, bitterly hostile to the

first group, were gathered at Rheims, France. There the Jesuits,

assisted by Rome and backed by all the power of Spain, brought

19

forth an English translation of the Vulgate. In its preface, they

expressly declared that the Vulgate had been translated in 1300 into

Italian and in 1400 into French, "the sooner to shake out of the

deceived people’s hands, the false heretical translations of a sect

called Waldenses." This proves that Waldensian Versions existed in

1300 and 1400. So the Vulgate was Rome’s corrupt Scriptures

against the Received Text; but the Received Text the New

Testament of the apostles, of the Waldenses, and of the Reformers.

That the Western Christian church corrupted Scriptures cannot be

doubted. Speaking of the pure Italic faith, Allix testified:

They receive only, saith he, what is written in the Old and New

Testaments. They say, that the popes of Rome, and other priests,

have depraved the Scriptures by their doctrines and glosses. Allix,

There is sound historical evidence to support the fact that the New

Testament was early corrupted in the Western Christian church.

Eusebius reported that in his day there were many corrupted

manuscripts. He asserted that those who were destroying the

Very soon the Gnostic heresy entered the Christian church. The

proponents of this heresy taught that Christ was a created being.

In the second century, Tatian wrote what he described to be a

harmony of the gospels, termed the Diatessaron. This book

claimed to have placed the four gospels into one book. However, it

was so corrupted that eventually most churches destroyed the

In Alexandria in the third century, Clement refused to hand down

Christian materials unmixed with the precepts of pagan

philosophy. He freely quoted from corrupted manuscripts

20

Origen also "corrected" Scripture. He stated:

The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as

they are written. M’Clintock and Strong, quoted in Wilkinson, 17.

It was Origen who taught Jerome, the editor of the Latin Vulgate

translation of Scripture.

Because the Gnostics did not accept the divinity of Jesus Christ, we can

see evidences of their doctrine in their corrupted New Testament

manuscripts. Let us examine just one. One of the great affirmations of the

divinity of Jesus Christ was stated in Paul’s first epistle to Timothy:

And without controversy great is the mystery of Godliness: God

was manifest in the flesh. 1 Timothy 3:16

Virtually every modern translation, following the Western manuscripts

Let us examine three modern translations of this text as evidence.

Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was

manifested in the flesh, RSV

And great beyond all question is the mystery of our religion: He

who was manifested in the body, NEB

Beyond all question, the mystery of Godliness is great: He

appeared in a body. 1 Timothy 3:16, NIV

That the English translators of the King James Version were not alone in

adhering to the legitimate Eastern manuscripts may be seen from an

examination of the translation of this text in a number of European

languages:

Dieu a ete manifeste en chair (Osterwald’s French Version).

Gott ist offenbaret im fleisch (Luther’s German translation).

Iddio e stato-manifestato in carne (Diodati’s Italian translation).

Deus se manifestou em carne (Almeide’s Portuguese translation).

Dios ha sido manifestado en carne (Valera’s Spanish translation

21

William Tyndale, in 1534, had translated this passage as

God was shewed in the fleisch (1 Timothy 3:16, Tyndale translation).

Clearly, the decision as to the stream of Greek manuscript in which to

place one’s faith is a vital one.

22

CHAPTER 5

CORRUPTED MANUSCRIPT

One may inquire upon what evidence we base the assertion that the Codex

Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus are corrupted manuscripts. Since much

has made of the fact that each is a fourth-century document, whereas the

the two Codices, are unaware that both are full of

alterations of an obvious correctional character — "brought in by

at least ten different revisers, some of them systematically spread

over every page, others occasional, all limited to separate portions

of the MS, many of these being contemporaneous with the first

writer, but for the greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh

required so many corrections is proof beyond dispute that it was regarded

as impure. Indeed, the Codex Sinaiticus would have been even more

corrupted, had it not been for the thoroughgoing revision which Dr.

Scrivener believed took place in the

6th or 7th century [in order] to conform to manuscripts in vogue at

Ibid.

Unlike scribes in the East, there is clear evidence that those scribes who

undertook the copying resulting in the Codex Sinaiticus were utterly

incompetent.

There is no attempt to end the word at the end of the line, for even

23

last letter being carried over to the beginning of the next line,

though there was ample room for it on the line preceding. Ibid., 76

Rank scribal carelessness can be seen in that the Codex Sinaiticus

must have been derived from one in which the lines were similarly

divided, since the writer occasionally omits just the number of

letters which would suffice to fill a line, and that to the utter ruin

of the sense; as if his eye had heedlessly wandered to the line

immediately below. Doctor Scrivener cited instances "where

complete lines are omitted" and others "where the copiers pass in

the middle of the line to the corresponding portion of the line

below." Ibid., 76-77

It is clear that the scribes failed to reread the page, for they could not have

failed to notice such omissions, and the destroyed sense of sentences.

Dean Burgon pointed out:

In the Gospels alone, Codex B (Vatican) leaves out words or whole

clauses no fewer than 1,491 times. It bears traces of careless

transcription on every page. Codex Sinaiticus "abounds with errors

of the eye and pen to the extent not indeed unparalleled, but

happily rather unusual in documents of first-grade importance."

On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very

carelessness. Letters and words, even whole sentences, are

frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled;

while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it

happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs

no less than 115 times in the New Testament. Ibid., 77

It is little wonder that Dean Burgon exclaimed:

So manifest are the disfigurements jointly and exclusively exhibited

by the two Codices (Vatican and Sinaitic) that instead of accepting

them as two independent witnesses to the inspired original, we are

constrained to regard them as little more than a single reproduction

of one and the same scandalously corrupt and comparatively late

copy. Ibid., 74

Dean Burgon went on to point out:

24

In the Gospels alone, Codex Vaticanus differs from the Received

Text in the following particulars: It omits at least 2,877 words; it

adds 536 words; it substitutes 935 words; it transposes 2,098

It is little wonder than in considering these two fourth-century Codices

and a similar one from Beza dated in the sixth century, Dean Burgon

declared,

"... 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 anyway to be met with"; that

they "have become (by whatever process, for their history is

wholly unknown) the depository of the largest amount of

fabricated readings, ancient blunders and intentional perversion of

truth, which are discernible in any known copies of the Word of

God." Ibid., 78

In view of the clear evidence that these manuscripts were copied by

scribes who disregarded the elementary techniques of their art, it should

not surprise us that the modern translations of Scripture based upon these

manuscripts are greatly faulted. Bibles utilizing such carelessly recorded

passages of Scripture should have no credibility in those areas where they

We must not overlook the fact, however, that such defective manuscripts

amply support Rome’s claim that the church is the sole source of doctrinal

truth. If our Bible is corrupted, then men will have to seek elsewhere to

find full truth.

25

CHAPTER 6

AN INSPIRED TRANSLATION?

As boys we traveled by train more than 1000 miles each Christmas

vacation (remember that is summertime in Australia), from our home city

of Newcastle to the beautiful Barossa Valley of the state of South

Australia. This valley was the ancestral home of our father, and was the

home of hundreds of Reformed Lutheran Germans who emigrated to

Australia between 1838 and 1850, fleeing persecution from the state

Lutheran Church in Germany.

Our great-great-grandfather, Thomas Standish, migrated to Australia from

Lancashire in England as a young man. On the boat, he met a young

German lass and they married upon arrival in the new state. These

Germans from the area of Germany known as Silesia (now part of Poland)

had adhered to their primitive Lutheran faith despite the fact that the

Prussian emperor adopted a course of persecution against them because

they refused to accept his enforced form of State Lutheranism, which they

judged to be apostate. Initially they sought refuge in the Ukraine, but their

leader, Pastor Kruger, on a visit to England met Sir William Angus, who had

devised a scheme to settle the state of South Australia and what became its

capital city, Adelaide. This, the only Australian State which did not

commence as a convict settlement, was first settled by Europeans in 1836.

In spite of the fact that our father was a fourth-generation Australian, and

despite the fact that he was of partial English ancestry, German was his

primary language. Following the failure of the German community of the

Barossa Valley to support the Australian war efforts in the First World

War, the German schools run by the Lutheran Church were closed and all

children of the Barossa Valley, including our father, were required to study

in English-medium schools. In a single generation the inhabitants of that

valley thus became Australians rather than Germans living in Australia.

We were always intrigued by this "little Germany." In our grandmother’s

home, we saw the primacy of the Martin Luther Bible. To fit our needs,

26

the English King James Bible was dusted off for worship time during our

visits. We still remember, however, the reverence with which our greatuncle

Oscar held the Luther Bible. Occasionally, he would point to a

passage, indicating his view that there was a deeper meaning in the Geman

Bible as compared with the English translation. Clearly, God spoke to him

in German.

In the English-speaking world, it is possible for us to forget that the Bible

has been translated into hundreds of languages. Every one of these

languages possesses words with slightly different shades of meaning —

often unique to the cultural heritage of that language. It is not possible for

one language to be translated into another language with perfect accuracy.

Though the Hebrew scholars were among the finest in the world,

nevertheless it is not difficult to detect the differences in expression in the

Greek Septuagint translation of the pre-Christian era when compared with

the original Hebrew. If anyone has doubts about translation difficulties, he

should examine a Diaglot, which attempts to provide a word-by-word

translation into English language from the Greek.

There are other considerations. Of all the 5,000 or so older

manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, many are fragmentary or

partial. Further, whenever there are significant portions of the New

It hardly needs emphasis that we have none of the original writings, and

that even manuscripts of the Byzantine (Eastern) text have in many cases

been altered from the original at least slightly, either by accidental error of

the scribe or by deliberate change. However, almost always these errors

can be identified by comparison with other copies, with early translations

into other languages, and with reference to scriptural quotations of the

early church fathers. It must be remembered that the leaders of

Christianity in the East followed very strict rules of copying. Most errors

are simple misspellings or omissions of words in one manuscript which are

practical purposes, represents the original writings.

We now examine the problem of whether any translation is divinely

inspired. Obviously, if no manuscript in the original language is a perfect

27

reproduction of the original writings, then it is impossible for any

translation from these imperfect manuscripts to be perfect. Yet, by

comparing manuscript with manuscript and examining other ancient

writings, it is possible to discern the original writings with great accuracy.

Many textual critics greatly overstate the presence of errors in the Greek

manuscripts. The lesson of the Hebrew manuscripts should not be lost.

Textual critics had pontificated major copyists’ errors in this text. But the

discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls put such guesswork to rest. God had

preserved His Word. That He has just as miraculously preserved the New

Testament cannot be doubted.

Some, however, have been so bold as to assert that the King James Version

of the Scripture is a divinely inspired translation. Such a claim must be

doubtful. Every evidence we have indicates that, though the King James

Version is an excellent translation, it is not a perfect translation, which

presumably is what an inspired translation would be. Yet we do not doubt

the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the work of these translators, a guidance

that could hardly be expected to guide men deliberately bent on falsifying

God’s Word.

Generally the exact-equivalence method of translation does not necessarily

completely remove all bias in translation. For example, the Authorized

Version, though giving many strong evidences of the doctrine of free will,

nevertheless reflects the Calvinistic leanings of some of its translators with

its heavy predestination emphasis in a number of New Testament

passages. It is likely that the writings of the Dutch scholar Armenius, who

died just about the time that the King James Version began to be

translated, were known to the translators. It is possible that they were

reacting against his free-will theology. Some have also felt that the King

James Version reflects the pagan error of immediate life after death, with

its emphasis on an everlasting burning hell. But, if these biases are present,

they do not misdirect the Spirit-directed soul who is endeavoring to find

the truth of the Bible by studying precept upon precept and comparing

Scripture with Scripture. Overwhelmingly, the King James Version

portrays a concept of free will through such texts as the following:

day whom ye will serve; whether the Gods which your fathers

28

served that were on the other side of the flood, or the Gods of the

Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we

And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between

him. And the people answered him not a word. 1 Kings 18:21

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest

them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered

thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under

her wings, and ye would not! Matthew 23:37

Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden,

and I will give you rest. Matthew 11:28

And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth

say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will,

let him take the water of life freely. Revelation 22:17

The Lord is not slack concerning his promises, as some men count

slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any

should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9

Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come

unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for

them. Hebrews 7:25

The King James Version portrays the sleep of death awaiting the

resurrection through clearly translated texts:

For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any

thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of

them is forgotten. Ecclesiastes 9:5

Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there

is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave,

whither thou goest. Ecclesiastes 9:10

For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the

latter day upon the earth: and though after my skin worms destroy

this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: whom I shall see for

29

myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my

reins be consumed within me. Job 19:25-27

And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,

some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting

contempt. Daniel 12:2

These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend

Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.

Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. Howbeit

Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of

taking rest in sleep. Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

John 11:11-14

But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of

them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also

the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in

Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order:

Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his

coming. 1 Corinthians 15:20-23

Behold, I shew you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall

all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last

trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised

incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must

put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So

when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this

mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass

the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 1

Corinthians 15:51-54

For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with

the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead

in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be

caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the

air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17

wide range of ways by which errors crept into the manuscripts of the New

Testament. Most of these errors are readily detected. For example, if a

30

scribe accidentally left out a word, that word is attested to by many other

manuscripts. Overwhelmingly, the words of the New Testament are sure,

and where scholars are unsure, there is in most circumstances high

probability of the words of the original. Where there is vigorous debate, it

is over issues that do not touch the central truths of the Bible. There is no

reason to doubt the veracity of God’s Word.

Problems arise, however, when translators seek to interpret Scripture

according to their own biases. We can expect that as we come near the end

of earth’s history, this bias will increasingly be the object of Satan’s

efforts. The reason we uphold the King James Version of the Bible is not

that it is an inspired or perfect translation. We recommend the King James

Version, not just because it is easier to memorize or its language more

sacred, or its cadence superior to modern translations. We recommend the

King James Version as the primary Bible for both the individual and the

church, simply because it is still the most accurate and reliable translation

available in the English language. Whenever a more accurate, unbiased

translation comes out in good quality, contemporary English, the authors

will quickly join those who endorse its primary usage. We had hoped that

the New King James Version would provide just that, but it does not

measure up to the King James Version, and seriously erodes some

precious truths of Scripture.

31

CHAPTER 7

THE CASE OF THE MISSING GREEK

A layman in New Zealand, Evan Saddler, concerned about the formation of

modern Bible versions which he believed to have been prepared from

corrupted manuscripts, was challenged by a pastor concerning his

competence to make such a judgment. "How many languages do you

know?" asked the pastor. Mr. Saddler, a man of good humor, promptly

replied, "Two! — New Zealand and Australian."

Unfazed by this humorous rejoinder, the pastor pressed his point. "How

can you make yourself an expert on Bible translation if you do not know

Greek or Hebrew?" Mr. Saddler replied by asking a question himself. "Do

requested an analysis of the Greek wording upon which the New

International Version translation of Matthew 18:11 was based. The pastor

diligently set about his assigned task, but soon discovered that it was not

easily fulfilled. Looking up from his Bible in confusion and amazement,

the minister exploded, "But there is no Matthew 18:11" His observation

was correct. The tenth verse is present, and the twelfth, but the eleventh is

entirely omitted. Quietly, Mr. Saddler replied, ‘Now what use is your

knowledge of Greek when the text is missing?"

Indeed this episode does demonstrate that a knowledge of Greek is of no

value whatsoever if those Greek words have been expunged from the Word

of God. Furthermore, God inspired the writing of the Scriptures for the

common man. Clearly, the common man is not a Classics professor from

Oxford or Cambridge Universities. It is thus irrelevant in the discussion of

such a matter to introduce inconsequential issues.

The omission of the great truth,

For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. Matthew 18:11

only arouses interest in a vast problem of the modern versions of

Scripture, for they depend upon corrupted Greek manuscripts.

32

Since the Bible is the sole standard of truth and doctrine, it serves Satan’s

purpose to destroy confidence in the Word of God. Furthermore, by

altering a little here and there, he brings confusion to God’s people until,

alas, many cease to regard the Word of God as a truly divine revelation.

But God has informed us,

To the law and to the testimony: If they speak not according to

this word, it is because there is no light in them. Isaiah 8:20

Unless we have a Bible uncorrupted by alterations, we have no set

standard of faith.

The omissions mentioned are not only in the New International Version

but also in the Revised Standard Version, the New English Version, the

Jerusalem Bible, the American Standard Version, Today’s English Version

and almost every other modern version, with the exception of the New

King James Version.

Appendix A sets forth the seventeen verses omitted from most modern

translations. In many cases, these verses are contained in a footnote

indicating that they have been omitted because they were not found in

"the most ancient and reliable manuscripts." Such a statement diminishes

the status of these verses as being truly part of Holy Writ. Appendix B

compares 178 texts containing major omissions in the New International

Version. Such widespread alteration of Scripture should not be met with a

shrug of the shoulder.

33

CHAPTER 8

WESTCOTT AND HORT

Bishop B.F. Westcott and Professor F.J.A. Hort were the most significant

translators of the Revised Version, and since their theories of textual

criticism continue to dominate the thinking of modern translators, we are

at liberty to examine their personal convictions, for manifestly these have

dictated their view of Scripture. That both men accepted gross apostasy is

testified by their own writings.

secret. He himself wrote:

Think of that vile Textus Receptus. Life of Hort, vol. 1, 214,

quoted in B.J. Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, 168

With this attitude to the Greek text, in defense of which many true

Christians were prepared to yield their lives, we need not be perplexed as

to why Hort engineered the discarding of the Textus Receptus as the basis

for the Revised Version and replaced it essentially with the Codex

Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.

He did not accept as truth the very Book he led out in translating.

I am inclined to think that no such state as "Eden" (I mean the

popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam’s fall in no degree

differed from the fall of each of his descendants, as Coleridge justly

How could the Holy Spirit enlighten a man who had such contempt for

God’s Word?

Once again we are not left to doubt why Hort possessed no faith in the

veracity of the early chapters of the Pentateuch; he was a convinced

evolutionist. In his letter to fellow translator and Anglican minister John

Ellerton, he wrote:

34

But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever

may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be

contemporary with ... My feeling is strong that the theory is

unanswerable. If so, it opens up a new period. Letter to John

Wilkinson, 152

While we possess no evidence to support the suggestion that Dr. Hort

was a Jesuit who had infiltrated the Anglican Church, one matter is certain:

he could not have done a "better" work had he been one. That he was a

Roman Catholic at heart is documented beyond dispute. The following

five quotations from his own pen should convince the most skeptical.

I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and

"Jesus"-worship have very much in common in their causes and

their results. Ibid.

I am very far from pretending to understand completely the offrenewed

vitality of Mariolatry. Ibid.

But this last error can hardly be expelled till Protestants unlearn

the crazy horror of the idea of Priesthood. Ibid.

But you know I am a staunch sacerdotalist. Ibid.

I believe that Coleridge was quite right in saying that Christianity

without a substantial church is vanity and disillusion; and I

remember shocking you and Lightfoot not so long ago by

expressing a belief that "Protestantism" is only parenthetical and

temporary. Ibid., 155

It is proper to ask the rhetorical question, Could God use such a man,

steeped in the pagan superstition of Roman Catholicism, to bring new light

to the world concerning His Word?

Bishop Westcott, the Anglican Bishop of Durham, was no less of Catholic

persuasion, as his own pen testifies.

After leaving the monastery, we shaped our course to a little

oratory which we discovered on the summit of a neighboring hill ...

Fortunately we found the door open. It is very small, with one

35

kneeling-place; and behind a screen was a "Pieta" [a statue of the

Virgin and the dead Christ] the size of life ... Had I been alone I

could have knelt there for hours. Westcott wrote from France to

I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears

witness. Westcott wrote to Archbishop Benson, November 17,

1865. Ibid.

He was just as condemnatory of the accuracy of the Word of God as was

his colleague.

No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of

Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could never

understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think

they did. Westcott wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury on Old

Testament criticism, March 4, 1890. Ibid., 157

Thus the two translators, whose work in textual criticism has dominated

almost all translations made in the last century, are seen to be "cupboard"

Roman Catholics, men who deny the inerrancy of Scripture and subscribe

to the theory of evolution. It is a record of belief that should utterly

destroy confidence in their work.

That they introduced not only the Western text dear to the Roman

Catholic Church, but that they concurred in the introduction of subtle

Further, their lack of belief in the Holy Book they chose to translate, and

their acceptance of the theory of evolution, disqualify them as serious

textual critics. Yet countless millions of Christians today are totally

oblivious of these facts, and unwittingly study from Bibles whose

translations have been influenced by the theories of these faithless men.

36

CHAPTER 9

THE MANUSCRIPTS

Today there are available over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of all or portions

of the New Testament. When the Ottoman Empire captured

Constantinople in 1453, scholars of the Byzantine culture centered there

fled to western Europe, bringing with them ancient manuscripts of every

kind. It was the reading of these manuscripts that stimulated the

Renaissance which spread throughout Europe, opening the continent once

more to scholarly endeavors and dispelling the gross ignorance of the Dark

Ages, which testified to the consequences of Rome’s apostate influence.

Centuries of suppression of God’s Word had reduced Europeans to a race

of ignorant, illiterate, backward people. Vast areas of knowledge were

totally lost. Such is the result of apostasy.

Most precious among the Byzantine manuscripts rescued from the

attacking Turks and brought to the West were the manuscripts of the

Greek New Testament. The Byzantine era lasted longer than a millennium,

Empire were a fierce people from the steppes of Asia, north of China in

the region still known as Turkestan. Under their fierce and ruthless leader,

Tamberlane, they had ravished many lands including China; others were

destroyed along their triumphal march toward Europe. Tamberlane the

Great, as he was known, adopted a scorched-earth policy. Every human,

every animal was murdered, every dwelling, every building destroyed,

every aspect of vegetation removed. Eventually the Greeks were

overthrown in Asia Minor, only the Cypriot Greeks remaining as a

remnant of the once vast Greek civilization in that region, the civilization

which had dominated during apostolic times. In fact, nomadic Turks had

been infiltrating Asia Minor since about the seventh century.

Subsequently the Turks conquered as far as central Europe, and on three

occasions stood at the gates of Vienna, threatening the very existence of

the Holy Roman Empire. Remnants of those conquests are seen in the

37

communities of Moslems still found in significant numbers in Albania,

Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia.

Tamberlane, who was born fifty miles north of Samarkand of Turko-

Mongol stock in 1336, conquered Persia by 1385 and Azerbaijan,

Armenia, Georgia and Mesopotamia by 1394. In 1398 he invaded India on

the pretext that the Moslem rulers were too lenient to Hindus, and he

razed Delhi to the ground. By 1401 he had overrun Baghdad and taken

Syria, and the following year he defeated the Egyptian army. Tamberlane,

sometimes known as Timur, died in 1405 while invading China. Some have

ascribed the arid Gobi desert to the scorched-earth policy adopted by his

soldiers, and certainly he was responsible for the almost total obliteration

of the strong Christian church in western China.

God in His infinite wisdom permitted the Turks to overrun

Constantinople to the frontiers of Greek knowledge. Scholars fled

Constantinople with all the Scriptures they could save. And thus Western

Europe, bathed in Catholic darkness, received the pure light of His Word.

His hand prevented the total overthrow of Europe, and thus preserved the

Christian flame. In those Greek New Testament manuscripts from

Constantinople lay the pure writings of the New Testament uncorrupted

by scribes and theologians in the West.

The known manuscripts consist of ninety papyrus fragments dated

between the second and eighth centuries, 270 uncial copies dated between

the third and the tenth centuries, 2,800 minuscules copied between the

The vast majority of these manuscripts, well over ninety-five percent, are

in such close agreement as to be to all intents and purposes identical. The

remainder, representing the Western stream of manuscripts, are clearly

defective. Yet it is these defective copies upon which almost all modern

translators place their trust. But the Reformers of the sixteenth and

seventeenth centuries made no such error.

Enormous support for the majority text is found in Armenian, Ethiopic,

Gothic, Latin, and Syriac translations, some predating the earliest Greek

manuscripts. For example, in the nineteenth century, following the texts of

the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, many passages of the New

38

Testament have been altered. But more recently discovered papyrus

fragments have confirmed the majority text. Nineteenth-century biblical

scholars claimed that much of the first fourteen chapters of the Gospel of

John was corrupted by scribes in the later Byzantine Era. This claim was

shown to be utterly false by the discovery of Papyrus Bodmer II. Dated

Papyrus verified many of the disputed passages attributed to late

Byzantine copyists and demonstrated that these passages were present in

very early manuscripts.

Other sources of verification of the Byzantine Greek Text are the writings

of the early church fathers. These men frequently quoted from Scripture

and their writings, going back to the second century, overwhelmingly

support the majority text.

Even the chairman of the committee which produced the Revised Version

was honest enough to write:

The manuscripts which Erasmus used differ for the most part only

in small and insignificant details from the great bulk of the cursive

MSS. The general character of the text is the same. By this

observation the pedigree of the Received Text is carried up beyond

the individual manuscripts used by Erasmus. ·. that pedigree

stretches back to remote antiquity. The first ancestor of the

To denigrate the majority text, Westcott and Hort introduced the Syrian

Recension theory. They postulated that some time in the third or fourth

centuries the Syrian copyists had mutilated the original New Testament,

One problem which Westcott and Hort faced was that the ancient Peshitta

Syriac translation, which undeniably predated the third century, agreed

Westcott and Hort overcame this apparently insurmountable objection to

their postulate by declaring the Peshitta Syriac translation to be of later

39

But it is significant to record that earlier Westcott had written that he had

discovered

no reason to desert the opinion which has obtained the sanction of

the most competent scholars, that the formation of the Peshitta

Syriac was to be fixed within the first half of the second century.

The very obscurity which hangs over its origin is proof of its

venerable age, because it shows that it grew up spontaneously

among Christian congregations ... Had it been the work of a later

date, of the third or fourth century, it is scarcely possible that its

Apparently when it was found necessary to support his false hypothesis

concerning the accuracy of the Peshitta Syriac, Westcott altered his view,

placed the Peshitta Syriac in the latter part of the third century or even in

the fourth. Of a certainty the vast bulk of Greek manuscripts confirm the

manuscripts.

40

CHAPTER 10

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ATTITUDE

TOWARD SCRIPTURE

At the outset it must be made clear that Catholics are not "Bible

Christians."

We do not profess faith in the Bible, but in Jesus Christ and His

Thus the lines of distinction are drawn between Protestants and Roman

Catholics. For Protestants, the Holy Scriptures are the only authoritative

teachings of Jesus; the teachings of the church are valid only as they

conform with the written Word.

Jesus Himself set us an example of the all-sufficiency of the Word. Upon

the day of the resurrection, He joined Cleopas, one of His faithful

followers, and another devout Christian on their journey to Emmaus. Both

friends were utterly dejected as they discussed Jesus’ execution two days

earlier.

And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him,

Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in

deed and word before God and all the people: and how the chief

priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and

have crucified him. But we trusted that it had been he which should

have redeemed Israel. Luke 24:19-21

Jesus’ response to their dismay is instructive to all Christians.

O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:

ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his

glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto

them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. Luke 24:25-27

41

In the minds of many, Jesus’ approach to the dilemma of the two friends

seems curious, for it was only later as He sat at supper with them and

blessed the food that

their eyes were opened, and they knew him. Luke 24:31

Surely the most convincing evidence that Jesus could have offered of His

resurrection was His appearance in person. But was it? In this episode,

Jesus taught implicitly that our eyes are not always reliable witnesses of

truth. The devil can deceive as he did when he brought "Samuel" before

King Saul. Was that sound evidence of Samuel’s immortality?

When we studied psychology at Avondale College under Dr. Gordon

McDowell, he told us of attending the American Amateur Magicians’

Championship. The winner’s act was deceptively simple, yet none of the

professional magicians, called upon to judge the event, could discern the

trickery employed. The young man simply strolled onto the stage

whistling. Then he suddenly shot up the thumb of his right hand, and a

live canary sat happily upon it. He continued his whistling until each of

his ten fingers, one by one, was found to have a canary perched upon it.

The magician then produced a cage and placed all ten canaries in the small

cage. They enthusiastically flew about in it like any such birds are bound

to do. The magician continued his whistling holding the cage with its birds

between his hands, in clear view of the audience. Suddenly he clapped his

hands together and the cage and all ten birds disappeared before their eyes.

On the visual evidence, the birds had come from nowhere and with the

cage had returned to the invisible realm. But was it so? Of course not. It

was indeed a very clever trick, but the audience’s eyes had deceived them.

Jesus well knew that our faith must be established on firmer evidence than

our visual images. It was only after He had proved the authenticity of the

crucifixion and the resurrection events from Scripture that Christ revealed

Himself to these followers. It is little wonder that they were to testify:

Did not our hearts burn within us, while he talked with us by the

way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? Luke 24:32

42

Peter correctly recognized that the testimony of the Word of God was far

more certain than even the evidence of what his eyes had seen and his ears

had heard.

For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made

known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,

but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God

the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him

from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am

well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard,

when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more

sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as

unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the

day star arise in your hearts. 2 Peter 1:16-19

Roman Catholics have not altered their attitude toward Scripture. In 1954,

the Supreme Council of the Knights of Columbus, a fiercely Roman

Catholic organization, made the bold claim that the Bible does not believe

itself to be inspired or to be the complete Word of God; and that there is

only one place in the world where you can be sure to prove the Bible is

true and that is through the Catholic Church, the Apostolic Church (stated

Columbus are so ignorant of the words of the Bible that they are unaware

that it does present powerful testimony of its own inspiration. It testifies:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God. 2 Timothy 3:16

Further, the Bible plainly indicates that it is the complete Word of God

and that nothing else is required, for it warns:

If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the

plagues that are written in this book. Revelation 22:18

Protestants, on the other hand, accept the biblical assurance that it is the

work of the Holy Spirit to guide the worshiper in his discovery of the true

meaning of God’s Holy Word.

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you

into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he

43

shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to

come. John 16:13

Nowhere does Scripture delegate this right to the church. Any student of

history can trace the dismal results of following the papal philosophy of

biblical interpretation. In the days of Jesus, God’s church claimed to be

the sole interpreter of the Word. This view was implicit in the question

posed concerning Jesus —

How knoweth this man letters, having never learned? John 7:15

In answer to this question Jesus enunciated the principle of individual

Bible interpretation.

If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether

it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. John 7:17

When the leading light of the early Christian Church, the apostle Paul,

explained his interpretation of Scripture to the believers in Berea, they

refused to accept his words without confirming them by personal study.

Rather than heaping condemnation upon them for following this

procedure, it is recorded concerning the Bereans:

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they

received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the

scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Acts 17:11

In both Old Testament and New Testament times, men were admonished

to study God’s Word for themselves.

For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our

learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures

might have hope. Romans 15:4

Never did God place the interpretation of Scriptures in the province of the

church. So sacred are the Scriptures that the Holy Spirit alone holds the

key to their understanding. When the church has usurped this divine

prerogative, it has inevitably provided a fertile ground for the proclamation

of damnable error. The Jewish Church perverted Sabbathkeeping by its

dictates. It taught the law from a legalistic viewpoint which favored the

church but removed from God’s people the joy of their salvation.

44

So too the Roman Catholic Church, usurping God’s authority, has

interpreted Scripture to teach the infallibility of the pope, the immortality

of the soul, the Immaculate Conception, the efficacy of the seven

sacraments, confession of sins to men, idol worship, the veneration of the

"saints," purgatory, limbo, infant baptism, penance, the Mass, and a

whole host of associated heresies. Truly, the track record of ecclesiastical

interpretation of Scripture is a poor one indeed.

In contrast, humble men of God, searching the Scriptures under the power

of the Holy Ghost, founded the Reformation, the Methodist Revival, and

the great Advent movement of the nineteenth century. None of these

mighty reformatory movements which shook the world could have been

based upon interpretations propounded by church authority, for such is

not the province of the church. The duty of church leaders is to encourage

private Bible study and prayer, to preach the Word, admonishing the flock

to personally verify that which is spoken, to condemn sin, and to uplift

Jesus as our Savior. It is the church’s duty to organize the proclamation of

the three angels’ messages to every corner of the earth.

This responsibility does not mean a loose organization consisting of men

and women of great variations of belief. The Holy Spirit does not guide

one into truth and others into various errors. The Holy Spirit is designated

as the Spirit of Truth. He alone can guide into truth. Contrary to

speculation, when each believer asserts his God-ordained right to discover

Bible truth for himself, unity will prevail and the church will be vibrant.

Deeper truths will be discovered and shared as each believer utilizes the

power of divine insight freely available from the Holy Spirit. No course

would more effectively eliminate the spiritual stagnation of credalism than

a church buoyant with members freely studying God’s Word to discover

more and more of God’s plan for their lives.

Typical of the acquisition of truth which comes from personal Bible study

under the guidance of the Holy Spirit is the faith of William Tracy, a

former High Sheriff of the County of Glouchestershire in England. Tracy,

a devout Roman Catholic, had nevertheless studied William Tyndale’s

translation of Scripture. Before his death in 1530, Tracy wrote in his will a

profound view of the Bible truths he had found in Scripture, which were

quite contrary to the multitudinous errors taught by his church. He had

45

discovered justification by faith, the fallacy of the doctrine of the

immortality of the soul, the mediatorial ministry of Christ, and many other

truths still condemned by Roman Catholics. In part his will read:

First and before all things, I commit myself to God and to His

mercy, believing, without any doubt or mistrust that by His grace,

and the merits of Jesus Christ, and by virtue of His passion and

His resurrection, I have and shall have remission of all my sins, and

resurrection of body and soul according as it is written, I believe

that my Redeemer liveth, and that in the last day I shall rise out of

the earth, and in my flesh shall see my Savior: this my hope is laid

up in my bosom. And touching the health of my soul, the faith that

I have taken and rehearsed is sufficient (as I suppose) without any

other man’s works or merits· My ground of belief is, that there is

but one God and one Mediator between God and man, which is

Jesus Christ; so that I accept none in heaven or in earth to be

mediator between me and God, but only Jesus Christ: and

therefore will I bestow no part of my goods for that intent that any

man should say or do to help my soul: for therein I trust only to

the promises of Christ: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be

saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned." As touching the

burying of my body, it availeth me not whatsoever be done

thereto; for ... the funeral pomps are rather the solace of them that

live, than the wealth and comfort of them that are dead. And

touching the distribution of my temporal goods, my purpose is, by

the grace of God, to bestow them to be accepted as the fruits of

faith; so that I do not suppose that my merit shall be by the good

bestowing of them, but my merit is the faith of Jesus Christ only,

by whom such works are good ... and ever we should consider that

true saying, that a good work maketh not a good man, but a good

man maketh a good work; for faith maketh a man both good and

righteous; for a righteous man liveth by faith, and whatsoever

springeth not of faith is sin. Witness mine own hand the tenth of

October in the twenty-second year of the reign of King Henry the

vol. 2, 69-70

46

Perhaps this superb testimony of faith would be incomplete if we were

not to record that like John Wycliffe’s, William Tracy’s bones were

exhumed and burnt two years after his death on the order of the Roman

Catholic primate of England. Such foolishness not only demonstrated

Roman Catholic intolerance of truth, but also emphasized the paucity of

Bible truth espoused by those who permitted the Church to guide their

interpretation of Scripture.

Worse still, the Roman Catholic Church has ever upheld the corrupted

manuscripts of the Bible and included seven non-canonical books in their

bible. It has done so because

The Catholic Church has always encouraged the faithful to read the

Bible, but at the same time she reserved and reserves the fight to

see that translations are in accordance with her tradition and her

Thus when Roman Catholic literature speaks well of the modern

translations of Scripture, that fact alone should serve as a stern warning to

those who wish to uphold these translations before God’s people as the

standard Word of God. The condemnation and rejection of the King James

Version by the Roman Catholic Church serves as one of the most

powerful testimonies of its validity.

47

CHAPTER 11

BURNING BIBLES AND SAINTS

The use of Catholic translators in the production of modern ecumenical

versions of scripture overlooks the abysmal record of the Papacy in

relation to the Bible. The record is one of hatred toward God’s Word and

those who humbly choose to read it. Protestants with short memories will

protest that it is quite unjust to judge the modern Papacy by the standards

and actions of its medieval predecessors. It is asserted that times have

changed, and thank God they have. But has Rome genuinely altered her

attitude toward Scripture?

In recent years, the Emperor of Japan publicly apologized to South Korea

for Japanese actions during their Korean occupation from 1910 to 1945;

the governments of East Germany, Poland, and Hungary apologized

publicly to Czechoslovakia for the part they played in putting down the

Prague pro-democracy uprising of 1968; the U.S.S.R. apologized to Poland

for massacres it undertook during the Second World War. But when has

the Vatican publicly apologized for the burning of Bibles and the

immolation of saintly people? Until it does, it ill behooves Protestants to

assume that there is a genuine change of heart by the Roman Catholic

Church to the Word of God.

presentation is well documented and emphasizes the papal attitude toward

the Scriptures. There follows an extract from his book, printed by the

Southern Publishing Association:

Could it be thought possible that an all-wise Creator would bring so many

millions of people into existence, as the inhabitants of this earth, and give

them no information as to why they are here, or what His will is

concerning them? No, that would be unreasonable. Just as surely as there

is a judgment day coming, on which we all shall be called to account for

our conduct, so surely He must have given us an infallible rule of life. But

what is this "infallible rule"? The Roman Catholics say it is "the Church,

48

with its traditions." But the church has changed so greatly since its origin

that if the apostles could arise from the dead, they would not recognize it

as the church they established. As for "tradition," it is like a story that

grows and changes as it travels. No government would be satisfied with

oral laws. In so important a matter as our etemal happiness we need a rule

that is more stable and unchangeable, and this rule we have in God’s

infallible Word, the Bible.

The Bible is not the product of man’s thought and planning.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy

men of God spake as they were moved by the ‘Holy Ghost. 2

Peter 1:21; compare Isaiah 55:8-9; 1 Corinthians 3:5.

and David himself declares: "The Spirit of the Lord spake by me."(2

word spoken through human instrumentality, for "God hath spoken by

His hand guided them while they wrote: "The Lord made me understand in

And so the prophets, after writing of Christ’s coming, were "searching"

their own writings to find out

what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in

them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of

Christ, and the glory that should follow. 1 Peter 1:11

We have now presented the testimony of the Bible itself to the fact that

consistent person can, therefore, receive one portion of it while he rejects

He, the Author of the Scriptures, displayed such implicit confidence in

them, that even the devil did not dare to question their authority, when

Bible is true, while critics today doubt and ridicule, see Jude 10. What has

49

caused such terrible unbelief among men? We shall now briefly review the

causes and the history of modern "Higher Criticism."

After the church had fallen from its apostolic purity of life and doctrine, it

found that, where the Bible was read by the common people, they lost

faith in the church and opposed her worship as a species of idolatry. This

was particularly true of the Waldenses, who had retained the Bible in their

native language hundreds of years before the Reformation, and had copied

and spread its pages over Catholic Christendom, wherever their

missionaries traveled. It was natural, therefore, that the Roman Church,

instead of supplying the common people with the Scriptures in their

native tongue, should oppose this availability of the Scriptures to the

people. Cardinal Merry del Val says that on account of the activity of the

Waldenses, and later of the Protestants, in spreading the Scriptures in the

native language of the people,

the Pontiffs and the Councils were obliged on more than one

occasion to control and sometimes even forbid the use of the Bible

in the vernacular ...

Those who would put the Scriptures indiscriminately into the

hands of the people are the believers always in private

interpretation — a fallacy both absurd in itself and pregnant with

disastrous consequences. These counterfeit champions of the

inspired book hold the Bible to be the sole source of Divine

Revelation and cover with abuse and trite sarcasm the Catholic and

published by order of Pope Pius XI, Vatican Polyglot Press, 1930,

These plain words from such an authentic source need no comment. Ever

since the first Index of Prohibited Books was issued by Pope Paul IV in

1559, the Bible has had a prominent place in these lists of forbidden

books. And before the invention of printing it was comparatively easy for

the Roman Church to control what the people should, or should not, read;

but shortly before the Reformation started the Lord prepared the way for

its rapid progress by the discovery of the art of printing. The name of

Laurence Coster, of Holland, is often mentioned in connection with the

story of the first production in Europe, in 1423, of movable type. In 1450

50

to 1455 John Gutenberg printed the Latin Bible at Mentz (Mainz),

Germany. He endeavored for a time to keep his invention a secret, but

Samuel Smiles relates:

In the meanwhile, the printing establishments of Gutenberg and

Schoeffer were for a time broken up by the sack and plunder of

Mentz by the Archbishop Adolphus in 1462, when, their

workmen becoming dispersed, and being no longer bound to

secrecy, they shortly after carried with them the invention of the

There being so few books to print, and there being a ready sale for Bibles,

the printers risked hazards from the opposition of the Church, and printed

Bibles in Latin, Italian, Bohemian, Dutch, French, Spanish, and German.

While these were so expensive that only the wealthy could afford to buy

them, and their language was not adapted to the minds of the common

people, yet they —

seriously alarmed the Church; and in 1486 the Archbishop of

Mentz placed the printers of that city, which had been the cradle

of the printing press, under strict censorship· Twenty-five years

later, Pope Alexander VI issued a bull prohibiting the printers of

Cologne, Mentz, Treves, and Magdeburg, from publishing any

books without the express license of their archbishops. Although

these measures were directed against the printing of religious works

generally, they were more particularly directed against the

The time had now come for the light to shine, and God’s Word could no

longer be kept from the people. Prophecy states that in spite of captivity,

fire and sword,

they shall be holpen with a little help. Daniel 11:34

But the people had been kept in darkness so long that they could not

endure the glaring light of all the Bible truths at once. They had to come

gradually, and the hour had struck for the Reformation to begin.

51

In preparing for the Reformation, the Lord had worked in marvelous ways

to provide protection for the Reformers. The night before Martin Luther

nailed his ninety-five theses on the door of the castle church at Wittenberg,

the Elector Frederick of Saxony had a remarkable dream. In relating it to

Duke John the next morning he said:

I must tell you a dream which I had last night. For I dreamed it

thrice, and each time with new circumstances... I fell asleep... I then

awoke... I prayed ... God to guide me, my counsels, and my people

according to the truth. I again fell asleep, and then dreamed that

Almighty God sent me a monk... All the saints accompanied him

by order of God, in order to bear testimony before me, and to

declare that he did not come to contrive any plot... They asked me

to have the goodness graciously to permit him to write something

on the door of the church of the Castle of Wittenberg. This I

granted through my chancellor. Thereupon the monk went to the

church, and began to write in such large characters that I could read

the writing at Schweinitz. The pen which he used was so large that

its end reached as far as Rome, where it pierced the ears of a lion

that was crouching there, and caused the triple crown upon the

head of the Pope to shake. All the cardinals and princes, running

hastily up, tried to prevent it from falling ... I awoke ... it was only

a dream [Again he fell asleep].

Then I dreamed that all the princes of the Empire, and we among

them, hastened to Rome, and strove, one after another, to break the

pen; but the more we tried the stiffer it became, sounding as if it

had been made of iron. We at length desisted ... Suddenly I heard a

loud noise — a large number of other pens had sprung out of the

long pen of the monk. I awoke a third time: it was daylight ...

So passed the morning of the 31st October, 1517, in the royal

castle of Schweinitz ... The elector has hardly made an end of

telling his dream when the monk comes with the hammer to

263-266

One can hardly be surprised that the elector of Saxony became Luther’s

protector during his long struggle with the Papacy. The greatest work that

52

was accomplished by these "pens" of the Reformation was the translation

of the Bible into the language of the common people. True, there had been

some attempts made before this time to produce the Scriptures in the

vernacular, but without much success, as the language was almost

unintelligible to the common people, and the price prohibitive.

After Martin Luther had spent much time in the homes and company of

the people that he might acquire their language, he, with his co-workers,

translated the Bible into a language that, while it was dignifed and

beautiful, was so natural and easy to be understood by the ordinary mind

that it made the Bible at once "the people’s book." The New Testament

was translated in 1521, and fifty-eight editions of it were printed between

1522 and 1533: seventeen editions at Wittenberg, thirteen at Augsberg,

twelve at Basel, one at Erfurt, one at Grimma, one at Leipzig, and thirteen

at Strassburg. The Old Testament was first printed in four parts, 1523 to

1533, and finally the entire Bible was published in one volume in 1534.

In 1522 Jacques Lefevre translated the New Testament into French, and

Collin, at Meaux, printed it in 1524. In 1525 William Tyndale translated

the New Testament into English. All these New Testaments were

translated from the original Greek, and not from the imperfect Latin

Vulgate used by the papal church.

Printing presses were kept busy printing the Scriptures, while colporteurs

and booksellers sold them to the eager public. The effect was tremendous.

Every honest intellect was at once struck with the strange

discrepancy between the teaching of the Sacred Volume and that of

York: Harper Brothers, 1876, 255

In the Book of God there were found no purgatory, no infallible pope, no

Masses for the dead, no sale of indulgences, no relics working miracles, no

prayers for the dead, nor worship of the Virgin Mary or of the saints. But

there the people found a loving Savior with open arms welcoming the

poorest and vilest of sinners to come and receive forgiveness full and free.

Love filled their hearts and broke the shackles of sin and superstition.

Profanity, coarse jests, drunkenness, vice, and disorder disappeared. The

53

blessed Book was read by young and old, and became the talk in the home

and shop, while the Church with its Latin Mass lost its attraction.

Rome was awake to the inevitable result of allowing the common people

to read the Bible, and the vicar of Croydon declared in a speech at St.

Paul’s Cross, London:

We must destroy the printing press, or it will destroy us. Quoted

The papal machinery was therefore set in motion for the destruction of the Bible.

There now began a remarkable contest between the Romish Church

and the Bible — between the printers and the popes ... quoted in

To the Bible the popes at once declared a deathless hostility. To

read the Scriptures was in their eyes the grossest of crimes ... The

Inquisition was invested with new terrors, and was forced upon

France and Holland by papal armies. The Jesuits were everywhere

distinguished by their hatred for the Bible. In the Netherlands they

led the persecutions of Alva and Philip II; they rejoiced with a

dreadful joy when Antwerp, Bruges, and Ghent, the fairest cities

of the workingmen, were reduced to pauperism and ruin by the

Spanish arms; for the Bible had perished with its defenderss ...

To burn Bibles was the favorite employment of zealous Catholics.

Wherever they were found the heretical volumes were destroyed

by active Inquisitors, and thousands of Bibles and Testaments

perished in every part of France. Lawrence, op. cit. 254-257,

In Spain, not only were the common people forbidden to read the Bible,

but also university professors were forbidden by the "Supreme Council"

of the Inquisition to possess their valuable Bible manuscripts.

The council, in consequence, decreed that those theologians in the

university who had studied the original languages, should be

obliged, as well as other persons, to give up their Hebrew and

54

Greek Bibles to the commissaries of the holy office, on pain of

excommunication. D.J.A. Llorente, Secretary of the Inquisition,

In 1490, Torquemada [the Inquisitor-General] caused many

Hebrew Bibles and more than six thousand volumes to be burnt in

How many thousands of invaluable manuscripts thus perished in the

flames of the Inquisition, eternity alone will reveal. It is exceedingly

difficult for a Protestant in our day to fathom the extent of this fear of, and

enmity against, the Bible manifested by the Roman Church. With her it

was actually a life-or-death struggle. A person must read the history of the

Inquisition, and examine the Roman indexes of forbidden books, to

understand her viewpoint. Inquisitor-General Perez del Prado gave

expression to her feelings and her bitter lament when he declared in horror

that some individuals had carried their audacity to the execrable

extremity of demanding permission to read the Holy Scriptures in

the vulgar tongue, without fearing to encounter mortal poison

The funeral pyres were lit all over Europe. Samuel Smiles says of France:

Bibles and New Testaments were seized wherever found, and

burnt; but more Bibles and Testaments seemed to rise, as if by

magic, from their ashes. The printers who were convicted of

[a Roman Catholic paper] gives a detailed account of the human

sacrifices offered up to ignorance and intolerance in that city during

the six months ending June, 1534, from which it appears that

twenty men and one woman were burnt alive ... In the beginning of

the following year, the Sorbonne obtained from the king an

for the suppression of printing! Smiles, 20-21 and first footnote,

55

Further attempts continued to be made by Rome to check the

progress of printing. In 1599 [1559] Pope Paul IV issued the first

and was therefore mitigated under that pontiff by decree of the

Persecution raged over nearly all Europe: in 1545 the massacre of the

Vaudois of Provence was perpetrated; and on the twenty-fourth of

August, 1572, the St. Bartholomew Massacre commenced, and continued

until between 70,000 and 100,000 innocent and unsuspecting persons

were murdered in cold blood for being Protestants. The massacre was

secretly planned by the leaders of the Roman Church. Sully says 70,000

Catherine de Medici wrote in triumph to Alva, to Philip II, and to

the Pope ... Rome was thrown into a delirium of joy at the news.

The cannons were fired at St. Angelo; Gregory XIII and his

cardinals went in procession from sanctuary to sanctuary to give

God thanks for the massacre. The subject was ordered to be

painted, and a medal was struck, with the Pope’s image on one

side, and the destroying angel on the other, immolating the

Finally, however, the papal church discovered that her opposition

to the Bible only betrayed the sad fact that, instead of being the

divinely instituted church of the Bible, she and the Scriptures were

deadly enemies, and that her open fight was furnishing the world

with the clearest evidences to justify the Reformation. Her relentless

persecution was making martyrs, but not loyal Catholics. She must

halt her course and forge new weapons against Protestantism, if she

ever hoped to win the battle. But what were these weapons to be?

The answer lay in the foisting of perverted Scriptures upon gullible

Protestants.

56

CHAPTER 12

THE JESUITS AND THE VERSIONS

In May 1962, Russell traveled for the first time across Australia to Perth

in the state of Western Australia, representing the University of Sydney.

The Sydney University group was billeted at St. Thomas More College.

The college is an adjunct of the University of Western Australia, run by

the Roman Catholic Church, conducted by the members of the order of the

Society of Jesus (the Jesuits).

This college was no isolated work of the Jesuits, for since their founding

by Ignatius of Loyola in 1540, the chief thrust of the Jesuits has been in

the field of education. They are described as a mendicant order of Clerks

contemplative order.

While initially the Jesuits confined themselves to establishing their own

colleges for the training of members of their order, the first in Gandia,

Spain, in 1546, very shortly they were penetrating the tertiary institutions

of secular and even Protestant organizations.

In countries where Catholicism was threatened by Protestantism,

the early Jesuits took up key positions, usually in colleges, in

Education is the principal occupation of Jesuits in the missions as

well as in Europe and America. Ibid.

Some of the most prestigious universities in the United States, such as

Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., are operated by the Jesuits.

In 1896, the Jesuits obtained the permission of Oxford University to open

Champion Hall as a part of the university. This pattern was adopted by

57

the University of Western Australia when it permitted a similar privilege

The Jesuits were committed to the restoration of the authority of the

Roman Catholic Church, which had been critically damaged by the

Protestant Reformation. Perceptively, these servants of Rome recognized

that the strength of the Reformation lay in its acceptance of the pure Word

of God as the sole basis of truth. The Word of God was of only marginal

consequence, in the minds of the Jesuits, as compared with the

maintenance of papal authority. Thus, unlike the Reformers, the Jesuits

possessed no conviction dictating to them that they preserve God’s Word

inviolate. Indeed, it perfectly suited their purposes to denigrate God’s

Word and to cast doubt upon its purity. If they could achieve this aim,

then Christians would once again be compelled to depend upon the edicts

and traditions of the papists to find a platform for their faith.

Even in the fourteenth century a companion of Wycliffe had declared:

Although there should be a hundred popes in the world at once,

and all the friars living should be transformed into cardinals, we

must withhold our confidence from them in the matter of faith so

far as their teachings are those not of the Scriptures. Merle

It was this stand for truth which confrontationally challenged the entire

authority of the papal system, an authority which the Jesuits sought to

restore by their subtle activity in the educational institutions of Europe

and abroad.

Sir Thomas More had challenged the trail-blazing work of William Tyndale

in presenting these Scriptures translated from the original languages to the

English people in their own tongue. Said More,

We must not examine the teaching of the church by Scripture, but

understand Scripture by means of what the church says. Ibid., 395

Tyndale was quick to reply and apt to destroy the Lord Chancellor’s

foolish assertion.

What! Does the air give light to the sun, or the sun to the air? Is the

church before the gospel, or the gospel before the church? Is not

58

speak more correctly, before the congregation.

Compelling as were arguments such as those proffered by Tyndale, they

did not pierce the blind bigotry of papists determined to ignore the

centrality of Scripture to a pure faith. Thus the Jesuits were absolutely

correct in their discernment that a pure Scripture would destroy the power

of Roman Catholicism.

No order of the Roman Catholic Church was better designed than the

Jesuit, for the task of perverting Scripture:

It was at the feet of the Jesuits that the youth of the higher and

middle classes were brought up from childhood to manhood, from

the first rudiments to the courses of rhetoric and philosophy ...

Jesuits were to be found under every disguise, and in every

country; scholars, physicians, merchants, serving men; in the

hostile court of Sweden, in the old manor-house of Cheshire,

among the hobbles of Connaught; arguing, instructing, consoling,

stealing away the hearts of the young, alienating the courage of the

timid, holding up the crucifix before the eyes of the dying.

In the Council of Trent, convened in the sixteenth century to re-establish

the supremacy of Roman Catholicism, the Jesuits played a decisive role. A

significant group of delegates, taking their cues from the Protestant

Reformers, advocated the concept of the supremacy of Scripture in

providing doctrinal authority. But the Jesuits, and those delegates of like

thought, saw the danger of accepting such a proposal; for had it been

adopted, it would destroy, rather than establish, the Papacy. After much

discussion, Gaspare de Posso, archbishop of Reggio, put forward an

unassailable argument which decided the issue. He correctly asserted that

there is absolutely no biblical sanction for Sunday observance. The

"sanctity" of Sunday could only be validated by acceptance of the

establishment of papal tradition as a God-ordained doctrine. The

archbishop’s argument has been preserved. He stated:

59

The authority of the church is illustrated most clearly by

Scriptures: for while on the one hand she [the church] recommends

them, declares them to be divine, [and] offers them to us to be

read., on the other hand, the legal precepts in the Scriptures taught

by the Lord have ceased by virtue of the same authority [the

church]. The Sabbath, the most glorious day in the law, has been

changed into the Lord’s day ... These and other similar matters

have not ceased by virtue of Christ’s teaching (for He says He has

come to fulfill the law, not to destroy it), but they have been

Thus the Council of Trent accepted four errors in relationship to

Scripture:

doctrine.

study the original Greek and Hebrew writings.

the Holy Spirit.

Armed with the authority of the Council of Trent, the Jesuits exerted

every effort to destroy the authority of the English version of Scripture

destroy the value of Scripture and thus turn the English back to Rome: it

was decided to concede the need for a Bible in the English language, but to

base it largely upon the Latin Vulgate, with some reference to the original

languages. This work was undertaken in Douay, a small town near Lille in

France where the Jesuits had set up a university to train English priests to

return to their homeland to promote the return to Catholicism.

It is instructive to compare the aims of the translators of the Douay

Version with those of the King James translators. The Jesuits had no love

for Scripture, for it was the greatest adversary of the Papacy. Thus in

pursuing their translations,

60

the Jesuits were acting to turn the English people from the Bible,

Compare this attitude toward their task with that of fifty-four Godly men

who brought forth the King James Version.

But among all our joys, there was no one that more filled our hearts

than the blessed continuance of the preaching of God’s sacred

Word among us; which is that inestimable treasure which excelleth

all the riches of the earth; because the fruit thereof extendeth itself,

not only to the time spent in this transitory world, but directeth

and disposeth men unto that eternal happiness which is above in

So despised was the Scripture by Roman Catholics that one learned

Catholic theologian declared to Tyndale:

We were better to be without God’s laws than the pope’s. E.G.

While the Douay Version of Scripture was never able to achieve the

acceptance accorded the King James Version, it was the influence of this

Jesuit-inspired version of Scripture which has, in the latter half of the

twentieth century, prevailed through the plethora of modern translations

foisted upon present-day Christians. From the failure of the Douay

Version has risen the success of the New International Version and similar

other modern versions.

The Jesuits’ scheme was masterful. They did not discredit Scripture as did

our ancestor, Dr. Henry Standish, bishop of St. Asaph in Wales. In 1516,

Bishop Standish threw himself at the feet of King Henry VIII and Queen

Catherine and exclaimed,

Great King, your ancestors who have reigned over this island —

and yours, O great queen, who have governed Aragon, were always

distinguished by their zeal for the church. Show yourselves worthy

of your forefathers. Times full of danger have come upon us; a

61

all over with the religion of Christ among us. Merle D’Aubigne,

As D’Aubigne remarked,

Bishop Standish’s courage was worthy of a better cause. Ibid.

How we wish that the bearer of our own surname had distinguished

himself as did one of his successors to the see of St. Asaph who, seventytwo

years later (1589), translated the Word of God into the Welsh

language!

The Jesuits possessed much more guile than this mistaken bishop. They

recognized that so loved and esteemed were the Holy Scriptures, such a

source of faith and comfort, that any attempt to wrench them from the

devout Christians of Britain was bound to fail. Thus they directed their

attack along the subtle lines of producing an altemative version, one not

only incorporating papal errors, but also casting doubt upon masses of

retained texts.

Some have looked at the changes accepted into the Catholic Version of

Scripture and have correctly pointed out that these changes are not

favorable to Roman Catholic doctrine in some cases. Let us instance one

example. The passage quoted earlier in this book, 1 Timothy 3:16, which

affirms both the human flesh and the divinity of Jesus Christ, is not in

accord with Roman Catholic doctrine. Roman Catholics firmly believe in

the divinity of Jesus.

Why then, it is often asked, should the Catholics accept this change? The

answer is quite simple. Roman Catholics do not depend upon Scripture for

their doctrinal positions. They depend upon the word of the pope and

church tradition. That which is recorded in Scripture is of but marginal

interest to them, for they have a preferred source of authority. However,

the Jesuits rightly perceived that if the Bible were equivocal, even

contradictory, the inconsistency would well serve the purpose of the

Papacy in weakening the Bible as the sole authority for Protestant faith. If

this aim were achieved, then the Jesuits felt certain that there would be a

return to the acceptance of the authority of the Roman Catholic hierarchy.

As we will see, this judgment was far from faulty.

62

CHAPTER 13

EMPEROR CONSTANTINE

Caesarea to prepare fifty Greek copies of the Bible. Dr. Tischendorf, the

man who rescued the Codex Sinaiticus from the Monastery of St.

Catherine in the Sinai desert, devotedly believed that this manuscript and

the Codex Vaticanus were two of Eusebius’ copies (Sidney Collett, The

Although Eusebius wrote a splendid history of the early Christian church,

[He] was an enthusiastic admirer, and devoted adherent of Origen.

Further, Cook, who refused an invitation to sit on the committee which

prepared the Revised Version, asserted:

No one needs to be reminded who knows aught of the history of

that age, or who has read, however hastily, his history of the early

church; that in all questions he would defer absolutely to the

authority of Origen, especially in questions of criticism, is almost

equally undeniable; nor do I hesitate to state my immovable

conviction that in that influence is to be found the true solution of

the principal phenomena which perplex or distress us in

considering the readings of the Vatican and Sinaitic Manuscripts.

Cook, 155-157

This reliance upon Origen no doubt recommended Eusebius’ work to the

emperor, for he designed to merge Christianity and European paganism, an

aim he successfully achieved. The connection between the Codex

Sinaiticus (Codex Aleph), the Codex Vaticanus (Codex B), and Eusebius’

work in Caesarea is well attested.

But in connecting B and Aleph with the library at Caesarea we are

not left only to conjecture or inference. In a well-known colophon

63

affixed to the end of the book of Esther in Aleph by the third

corrector, it is stated that from the beginning of the book of Kings

to the end of Esther the MS was compared with a copy "corrected

by the hand of the holy martyr Pamphilus," which itself was

written and corrected after the Hexapla of Origen. And a similar

colophon may be found attached to the book of Ezra. It is added

that the Codex Sinaiticus ... and the codex Pamphili ... manifested

great agreement with one another. The probability that Aleph was

thus at least in part copied from a manuscript executed by

Pamphilus is established by the facts that a certain "Codex

Marchalianus" is often mentioned which was due to Pamphilus and

Eusebius; and that Origen’s recension of the Old Testament,

although he published no edition of the text of the New, possessed

a great reputation. On the books of the Chronicles, St. Jerome

mentions manuscripts executed by Origen with great care, which

were published by Pamphilus and Eusebius. And in Codex H of St.

Paul it is stated that that MS was compared with a MS in the

library of Caesarea "which was written by the hand of the holy

Pamphilus." These notices added to the frequent reference by St.

Jerome and others to the critical (akribe) MSS, by which we are to

understand those which were distinguished by the approval of

Origen or were in consonance with the spirit of Origen, shew

evidently the position in criticism which the library of Caesarea

and its illustrious founder had won in those days. And it is quite in

keeping with that position that Aleph should have been sent forth

This passage is better understood ifEusebius’ relationship to Pamphilus is

known. Dr. G.A. Williamson, who has prepared a translation of Eusebius’

background:

As a young man he [Eusebius] became a disciple and close friend of

Pamphilus, a teacher whose influence over his receptive pupil was

profound. Pamphilus was dedicated to the spread of sound

learning. He established at Caesarea a school of theology, and built

up a large and well-stocked library, thus largely contributing to the

vast erudition later displayed by the younger man. Eusebius had

64

already published several books, but for a time he gave up his

of Christ, but they continued their combined labors until

Pamphilus was put to death for the Faith — a martyrdom which

made an immense impact on his disciple. Eusebius, released from

prison, withdrew to Tyre, where he honored his friend’s memory

by taking the name Eusebius (son) of Pamphilus, and himself

Thus it is seen that Eusebius was greatly influenced by Pamphilus, who in

tum was a great admirer of the work of Origen. Abbo Martin, a Roman

Catholic scholar, claimed that the Codex Sinaiticus was fabricated by

Origen. If Martin’s assertion is true, then it would account for Eusebius’

reliance upon such a defective manuscript in the preparation of the royally

commanded fifty copies. Eusebius’ high regard for the work of Origen

would no doubt have led him to accept the veracity of his manuscripts.

But no true adherent to God’s Word would be similarly deceived.

A number of authorities agree that Eusebius was the source of the Codex

Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. One states:

Constantine himself ordered fifty Greek Bibles from Eusebius,

bishop of Caesarea, for the churches in Constantinople. It is quite

possible that Aleph and B are two of these fifty. Dr. Robertson,

Because of this possibility it is of vital importance that we examine

Eusebius’ attitude toward Scripture to determine his mind-set as he

undertook his task of copying the Sacred Word. Significantly he may be

described as an early version of today’s higher critics. In fact, he was one

of the forerunners of higher criticism.

After describing the death of James, the step-brother of Christ who he

stated was thrown from a parapet of the temple, and when he survived

that fall was clubbed to death, Eusebius records:

65

Such is the story of James, to whom is attributed the first

"general" epistle. Admittedly its authenticity is doubted, since few

early writers refer to it, any more than Jude’s, which is also one of

Dorset Press, New York, 1984, 103

Eusebius also chose to cast doubt upon the second epistle of Peter.

Of Peter one epistle, known as the first, is accepted, and this the

early fathers quoted freely, as undoubtedly genuine, in their own

writings. But the second Petrine epistle we have been taught to

regard as uncanonical. Ibid., 108

That Emperor Constantine played no small part in opening the door to the

entry of paganism into the Christian church is proved beyond dispute.

That he further encouraged the spread of corrupted Greek manuscripts

appears all but certain. Later, Eusebius states, after listing four other

documents attributed to Peter,

These then are the works attributed to Peter, of which I have

recognized only one epistle as authentic and accepted by the early

fathers. Ibid.

comments upon this book are of interest.

As the same apostle [Paul], in the salutations that conclude the

Epistle to the Romans, has referred among others to Hermas, the

reputed author of the "Shepherd," it is to be noted that this, too,

has been rejected by some authorities and therefore cannot be

placed among the accepted books. Others, however, have judged it

indispensable, especially to those in need of elementary

instruction. Hence we know that it has been used before now in

public worship, and some of the earliest writers made use of it, as I

have discovered. Ibid., 108-109

Since Eusebius believed that James, 2 Peter, and Jude were non-canonical,

he had no right to include them as part of the Scriptures he prepared for

Constantine. But include them he did, thus indicating his lack of care in

such matters. We firmly believe that these epistles are divinely ordered.

66

But Eusebius has demonstrated that he was prepared to include books

which he regarded as doubtful within his Scriptures. Thus we should not

be surprised that they included such non-canonical books as The

Shepherd, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Apocryphal books in his Greek

manuscript. It is clear that he had a reduced sense of the sacredness of the

Holy Bible, which no doubt influenced his work. Yet the modern versions

presume to claim such manuscripts as the oldest and most reliable. Most

reliable! Hardly, for in addition to numerous copyist errors and alterations

they contain non-canonical books.

It is instructive to quote one passage from the Epistle of Barnabas to

demonstrate the nonsense it contains.

But he adds, neither shalt thou eat the hare. To what end? To

signify this to us: Thou shalt not be an adulterer, nor liken thyself

to such persons. For the hare every year multiplies the places of

its conception; and so many years it lives, so many it has. Neither

shalt thou eat the hyena; that is again, be not an adulterer, nor a

corrupter of others; neither be like such. And wherefore so?

because that creature every year changes its kind and is sometimes

male and sometimes female. Epistle of Barnabas, 8:6-7

Quite rightly was this epistle rejected from the canon of God’s Word, yet

the manuscripts ordered by Emperor Constantine and furnished by

Eusebius were so corrupted that the inclusion of this epistle was regarded

as worthy. And still many Christians accept the claims of the translators

of the New International Version that the Codex Vaticanus and Codex

Sinaiticus which contain such a scientific absurdity are "the two most

reliable early manuscripts." May we be preserved from any less reliable

than these!

Eusebius also cast doubt upon the Book of Hebrews when he claimed:

We must not shut our eyes to the fact that some authorities have

rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, pointing out that the Roman

Church denies that it is the work of Paul. Eusebius, op. cit., 108

Later in his book Eusebius also cast doubt on the authenticity of 2 John

and 3 John.

67

Those that are disputed, yet familiar to most, include the epistles

known as James, Jude, and 2 Peter, and those called 2 and 3 John,

the work either of the evangelist or someone else with the same

name. Ibid., 134

Thus the only general epistles upon which Eusebius places undoubted

authority are 1 Peter and 1 John. Emperor Constantine chose a man to

prepare his ordered fifty Scriptures who was himself not settled in the

Word of God.

Despite that the book known as "The Shepherd" was included in the

Codex Sinaiticus, and it is likely that this was one of Eusebius’ 50

Scriptures, Eusebius acknowledged:

Among the spurious books must be placed the "Acts" of Paul, and

the "Shepherd."

Thus if the Codex Sinaiticus is Eusebius’ work, it seems that he saw no

harm in adding to his prepared Scripture, books that he full well knew to

be non-canonical. This fact would indicate a very careless attitude toward

his task.

Another disturbing point is the doubt Eusebius cast upon the book of

Revelation. He states, after listing a number of books he regards as

spurious including the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd, the Revelation of Peter,

the Epistle of Barnabas (another book, acknowledged to be spurious,

which was placed in the Codex Vaticanus) and the Teachings of the

Apostles, that

together with the Revelation of John, if this seems a right place for

it: as I said before, some reject it, others include it among the

recognized books. Ibid.

Since the Codex Vaticanus does not include the book of Revelation one

might question if it is just due to a failure to complete the manuscript, or

due to later loss, or whether a more sinister matter — that Eusebius

himself accepted that it was spurious and thus saw no need to include it,

as he also omitted some of the other books correctly deemed spurious and

with another group he mentions including the Gospels of Hebrews, Peter,

68

Clearly, manuscripts based upon Eusebius’ notions are most unlikely to

meet the high standards of a copyist who possesses no doubts concerning

the canon of Scripture.

69

CHAPTER 14

ROMAN CATHOLIC ELATION

Surely the Jesuits had waited longer than they had hoped, to see the rise to

pre-eminence of their mutilated version of Scripture. But by the time of

the production of the Revised Version of Scripture in 1881, they had, after

three centuries, achieved their aim. It is little wonder that Catholic leaders

throughout the world rejoiced when they read this new version. Today

their joy is likely to be even greater as they see that the vast majority of

Protestants in virtually every country of the world are now studying the

Bible from new translations based upon the perverted manuscripts.

In Bible outlets today modern versions compatible with the Latin Vulgate

sometimes difficult to acquire. In 1988, the Chaplaincy Department of an

overseas hospital had to wait well over six months to receive its order for

the Authorized Version of Scripture. Yet the Revised Standard Version

and the New Intemational Version of Scripture were both available for

immediate delivery. When one enters a motel or a hotel room today, the

great work of the Gideon Society is bound to be tarnished by their

placement of modern translations in the room. Through the world, in many

languages, new translations are being produced inexorably using the

corrupted Greek manuscript dear to the hearts of the Jesuits.

In 1990 Colin was preaching at a Korean campmeeting in Georgia. He

mentioned the widespread use of Bibles in many languages translated from

the corrupted Greek manuscripts. After the service a number of Korean

pastors wanted to know if their Bible was translated from corrupted

manuscripts. It took little time to confirm the worst fears of the pastors.

They explained that only one translation is now available in Korean — and

that translation is from corrupted manuscripts.

Even in the minuscule Pacific Island nation of Kiribati (formerly the

Gilbert Islands), the present translation is based upon the corrupted

Western manuscripts. No wonder God foresaw,

70

And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his

deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the

beast. Revelation 13:3

In March 1989, Russell was walking up Victoria Street in London. On his

right, he noticed Westminster Cathedral, the seat of Catholic power in

England. Here the present primate of England, Cardinal Basil Hume,

presides. Russell decided to pay a visit to the bookstore of the

Westminster Cathedral (not to be confused with Westminster Abbey, an

Anglican church). As he scanned the shelves of the bookstore where Bibles

were located, Russell noticed that he could purchase many different

versions including the Douay Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, the New

Intemational Version, the New English Bible, the Revised Standard

Version, Today’s English Version and a number of others. But he did not

see a single copy of the King James Version of the Scripture for sale.

Noting this lack, he approached the manager and asked to see his stock of

King James Versions. Very politely, the manager said, "I am afraid, sir, we

have none in stock." Pressing the point a little further, Russell asked,

"When do you intend to have your new stock available?" The manager

replied as Russell suspected he would, "Oh, sir, we do not stock the King

James Version of Scripture." In the most ecumenical time of earth’s

history, the Roman Catholic Church still cannot tolerate the King James

Version of Scripture.

It should serve as a red flag to Protestants to learn that virtually every one

of the modern translations may be purchased at Catholic book stores, but

not the King James Version, so despised is this version by the Roman

Catholic faith. Perhaps the most perceptive comment upon the Revised

Version was that made in Dublin, the capital of Roman Catholicdominated

Ireland,

One thing at least is certain, the Catholic Church will gain by the

How accurate this prophecy has proved to be! For now we are

overwhelmed by the haste in which Protestant churches are seeking to ally

themselves with the Roman Catholic Church. Indeed the Roman Catholic

71

Church has gained, and gained enormously, in the era following the

acceptance of this perverted form of Scripture.

Let us look at some instances of this fact:

Australia’s Christian Churches will for the first time speak with

one voice. If a breakthrough proposal announced yesterday to form

a new national ecumenical body is adopted, the new body would

incorporate the Catholic Church, which has refused to join the

Australian Council of Churches during the Council’s forty-four

year history. The Catholic Church is the biggest single Christian

denomination in Australia, accounting for 26.3% of the population.

The Council at present represents 13 Orthodox, Anglican and

Protestant member churches. The proposal was announced in

Adelaide by the president of the Australian Catholic Bishops’

Conference and Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal Edward Clancy,

and the president of the Council, the Anglican bishop of Bendigo,

Archbishop Robert Runcie of Canterbury has asked the churches

of the Anglican communion, divided over ordination of women

priests and other issues, to consider a united Christian church

under a reformed papal primacy. Runcie, spiritual leader of the

Anglican church, told the 525 bishops attending the Decennial

Conference on Monday night that the 70-million-strong Anglican

communion could be preserved only if its churches were directed

The Archbishop of Canterbury has caused a major controversy

with his call for Protestants to accept the pope as "universal

After ten years of periodic discussion, the Baptist-Catholic

dialogue group, quoting Ephesians 4:5, concluded, "We not only

confessed but experienced one Lord, one faith and one baptism."

Roman Catholics and Lutherans stepped closer together Monday

when church officials from both denominations announced plans to

draw up a covenant that will increase co-operation between the

72

Thus we can see that virtually every mainline church of Protestantism is

following the road to Rome. The acceptance of perverted modern

translations of Scripture has made a significant contribution in stimulating

this reversal of the great Protestant movement. Is it any wonder that God

foresaw:

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names

are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the

foundation of the world. Revelation 13:8

Naturally Cardinal Wiseman, the Roman Catholic primate of England, was

delighted with the new translation (the Revised Version of 1881). He

stated:

When we consider the scorn cast by the Reformers upon the

Vulgate, and their recurrence, in consequence, to the Greek, as the

only accurate standard, we cannot but rejoice at the silent triumph

which truth has at length gained over clamorous error. For, in fact,

the principal writers who have avenged the [Latin] Vulgate and

obtained for it critical preeminence, are Protestants. Cardinal

The Roman Catholic bishop of Erie, Pennsylvania, was no less delighted:

It must be admitted that either the Revisers wish to withdraw

several important passages of the Holy Scripture from Protestants,

or that the latter, in their simplicity, have all along been imposed

upon by King James translators, who, either through ignorance or

malice, have inserted in the Authorized Version a number of

paragraphs which were never written by an apostle or other

366

Thomas S. Preston, the priest of St. Anne’s Catholic Church in New York,

also perceived the advantages of the Revised Version to the Roman

Catholic Church,

73

It is to us a gratification to find that in very many instances they

[the translators of the Revised Version] have adopted the reading

of the Catholic Version, and have thus by their scholarship

How bitter to them must be the sight of their Anglican bishops

sitting with Methodists, Baptists, and Unitarians to improve the

English Bible according to modern ideas of progressive biblical

every Protestant as he or she looks at the manner in which Protestantism

has been virtually decimated in the second half of the twentieth century.

The New Version [The Revised Version] will be the death knell of

Protestantism. Ibid., 230

This prediction has now been completely fulfilled, for in the 1990s the

Protestant churches have virtually entirely lost their significance and their

purpose. Most of the mainstream Protestant churches are eager for

association with the Roman Catholic Church. Those who resolutely resist

such association are frequently seen to be bigots and disuniting elements in

Christendom.

74

CHAPTER 15

THE FOURTH AND THE TWENTIETH CENTURIES

There is a remarkable parallel between the fourth and the twentieth

centuries. It was during the fourth century of the Christian era that many

apostate doctrines entered the Christian church. The source of apostasy is

not difficult to identify. The conversion of Emperor Constantine occurred

in the fourth century. Hailed as a divine blessing by the majority of

Christians, history testifies to its baleful effects. It is doubtful that

Constantine truly embraced the teachings of Jesus. Without a deep sense

of Scripture, he permitted the merging of Christian truth with pagan error.

The rapid "conversion" of the Germanic tribes of Europe to the Christian

faith, although superficially a mighty evangelistic success, simply saw the

merging of two diametrically opposed faiths, Christianity and paganism.

The one was ordained of God, the other by Satan. The merger caused

Christianity to develop into a mere pagan religion using Christian

designations for its idols and pagan practices.

Thus during the fourth century the pagan symbol of the cross became the

symbol of the church, Sunday worship was decreed, idol worship

developed, and pagan festivals masquerading as Christian memorials were

introduced. The century culminated in the development of the Augustinian

doctrines of original sin, Christ as possessing an unfallen nature upon

earth, eternal damnation of the lost, purgatory, limbo, predestination,

penances, the designation of sexual relations as evil even within the

marriage relationship, together with the introduction of other pagan

doctrines. Further, it was this century which forged the union of church

and state that led to clerical degradation, intellectual darkness, and a

thousand years of cruelty in the name of Christ.

At the center of this appalling demise of the Christian faith was the

acceptance of a perverted Scripture: the Latin Vulgate Bible produced by

Jerome in the early part of the fifth century.

75

Now let us turn to our own century. It commenced with Protestant

Christians condemning the practice of homosexuality, abortion of embryos

apart from severe danger to the life of the mother, pornography, divorce,

the use of alcoholic beverages, ballroom dancing and many other evil

practices inconsistent with a love for Jesus. The century ends with some

of the staunchest advocates of these practices found, not only among the

laity, but in the ministry of many churches. Ministers shamelessly

"marry" homosexuals; bishops brazenly deny the virgin birth and the

resurrection of Christ; they ordain practicing homosexuals to the clergy;

they ordain women to the ministry; some ministers even deny the

existence of God, while others loudly support the doctrine of abortion on

demand and the remarriage of guilty divorcees.

The twentieth century opened with most Protestants prepared to declare

the Papacy to be the antichrist of Scripture. They abhorred contact with

Rome and loudly declared its spiritual abominations, from the practice of

the Mass to the sale of priestly indulgences. Such men recalled the history

of the Middle Ages and the price their spiritual ancestors had paid to bring

freedom of conscience, the open Word, and the spiritual truth into the

hearts of men. Most faithful Christians less than a century ago upheld the

temperance cause; they eschewed disorderly conduct including the practice

of glossolalia within the church. Church music was reverent as befits

adoration of our high and holy God. The use of worldly music within the

church was frowned upon. Nor did genuine Christians resort to trumpery

such as clowning and puppetry.

The churches of the 1990s are almost unrecognizable as the descendants of

those of the 1890s. Would Luther now recognize the Lutheran church, or

Wesley the Methodist? Would Knox select the Presbyterian church as the

one he helped to form? It is doubtful. Marked alterations of faith have

been weakly accepted, in some cases without so much as a whimper of

protest. These changes have been urged under the cloak of relevance, with

an expressed desire to capture the allegiance of youth, in a professed effort

to meet the challenges of the era. The result of this large-scale

abandonment of truth and righteous practice has not been a strengthening

of Christian commitment or practice, for that could never be the fruit of

shameful apostasy. Never has the Protestant church been weaker. As a

consequence, ecumenism has become virtually a tenet of faith, as if God

76

would approve the violation of doctrinal purity in search for a Christian

"unity" based not upon truth, but upon damnable error. Ecumenism has

become the "icon" worshiped by blind Protestantism.

The prayers for Christian unity, now frequently seen as evidences of the

working of the Holy Spirit in the church, are in reality simply prayers to

the arch-deceiver demanding that Protestants turn their steps along the

broad path that leads to Rome. For surely no thinking Protestant expects

that the ecumenical movement will lead Rome into Protestantism. Shortly

persecution will follow, and deeds worse than any enacted in the Dark

Ages will be legitimized by men claiming service to a God of love.

As persecution followed from the perversion of Scripture and the

subsequent introduction of apostasy in the fourth century, no other result

can be anticipated from the adoption of an identical course sixteen

centuries later, for we have now completed the full circle of —

Only persecution awaits the completion of the circle. And it will come, for

God’s Word is sure. Speaking of our day, God’s infallible Word foretells

just such a result:

And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the

image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as

would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. And he

causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to

receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: and that no

man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of

the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that

hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the

number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

Revelation 13:15-17

Shall we return to the fourth century? Or shall we progress from the

sixteenth, ever upholding God’s precious Word and completing the

Reformation? A vital key to the outcome of this question is the

preservation of the true Word of God.

77

CHAPTER 16

PROFITABLE PROPHETS

Few persons give consideration to the fact that Bible translations are big

business. To produce a popular version will assure the publisher a

observation of a man associated with a Christian Book Center:

A short time ago, a well-known Bible Institute teacher visited our

Book Room, the Christian Supply Centre, which handles only

KJV Bibles. In the course of conversation concerning the

effectiveness of Christian Book Stores in the ministry of our Lord

Jesus Christ, he made this remark: "Most Book Rooms are no

longer a ministry for the Lord, but a commercial business." With

this we agree.

There is probably no group of people doing more to promote

compromise, the ecumenical and charismatic movements, new

evangelicalism, and corrupt Bibles than the so-called Christian

Book Stores of our day.

If this conclusion is correct, we have reached a sorry state in Christianity.

Surely the Word of God, which is of priceless value, should not become a

matter of mere commercialism. God help those who would so treat this

sacred book. We have often wondered why new, "improved" versions of

modern versions are appearing with such rapidity. We have the Revised

English Bible, the New Jerusalem Bible, the New Revised Standard

Version, and others published within two or three decades of the original.

There cannot be any grounds for a further proliferation of versions on the

basis that the language has dramatically altered in that period. But it is

possible that economic considerations may have played a part in the desire

to bring out yet another version, simply because many faithful souls

collect Bible versions almost as a philatelist collects postage stamps.

78

New International Version of Scripture. Their editor headlined the article:

"Zondervan, Blessed with Bible Contract, Lifts Profit Forecast." Its subheading

stated: "Church Leaders’ Endorsement Aids Sale of New Version:

Initial Press Run Sold Out." Church leaders should give careful

consideration to the propriety of their endorsement of various versions.

Do such versions clarify truth or do they simply fill coffers? Pastor

Burnside has remarked upon Billy Graham’s penchant for eulogizing new

translations as they appear. Certainly his approval provides a great boost

for sales.

The New International Version has been endorsed by well-known

evangelicals like Dr. John R.W. Stott of Inter-Varsity fame and by Dr.

Billy Graham. Dr. Graham said,

I believe this will be one of the most serviceable versions available,

eminently suited to be read in the churches. It preserves, in a sense,

a certain historic familiarity, but couches God’s message in

contemporary and easily understood terms.

The same Dr. Graham endorsed the RSV, one of the most liberal of all

versions, in these words:

The RSV will express itself in a language that the English-speaking

world uses today. These scholars have probably given us the most

perfect translation in the English. While there may be room for

disagreement in certain ares of translation, yet this new version

should supplement the KJV and make Bible reading a habit

throughout America.

Dr. Graham also promoted The Living Bible:

In this book I read the age-abiding truths of the Scriptures with

renewed interest and inspiration as though coming to me directly

from God.

Is Billy Graham referring to 1 Samuel 20:30 in the Living Bible? "Saul

79

indicate the extent to which commercial considerations are a focus of the

production of such a version. The statement was made in the early days of

The New International Version. Since then this version has achieved the

dubious distinction of being the first English-language version of Scripture

to outsell the King James Version in any year since the latter was

produced. It can only be assumed that profits have risen as a consequence.

Grand Rapids, Mich. — Zondervan Corp. believes it has struck a

new vein of gold in the ancient and well-mined lode: the Bible.

Accordingly, it told analysts here, it raised its already-gleaming

sales and earnings forecasts.

Zondervan, a publisher of religious books and music, has been

blessed with a 30-year exclusive contract to publish the New

International Version of the Bible, translated and edited by the

New York International Bible Society. After the version was

endorsed by a number of church leaders, the initial press run of 1:2

million copies sold out before the book went on sale Oct. 27, the

company said.

Thus, Zondervan raised its earnings prediction 10 cents a share, to

$1:85, and its sales prediction $3 million, to $41 million, for the

year. In 1977, the concern earned $1:5 million, or $1:41 a share, on

sales of $32:7 million.

"Bibles are always a much-wanted item at Christmas," commented

Peter Kladder Jr., president. Noting that a second printing will

bring the total of New International Version Bibles in print at yearend

to 1:6 million, he said he isn’t sure stores will be able to meet

customer demand.

The executive prophesied that sales of the Bible will rise in 1979

and 1980, then remain on a "high plateau" because "the sales

pattern for a well-accepted version of the Bible tends to continue

80

Well may we consider whether these new versions are written to uplit~

the Word of the Law and the Prophets or whether they are seen more in

terms of popularity and profits.

81

CHAPTER 17

SUBTLE CATHOLICISM

The great majority of Protestants do not discern the subtleties of the new

translations. Yet many changes have been made which are specifically

designed to support Roman Catholic errors. Tobias Mullen, Roman

Catholic bishop of Erie, Pennsylvania, wrote,

It will be perceived here, that the variation between the Catholic

Version and the Revision [The Revised Version] is immaterial,

indeed no more than what might be found between any two

versions of different but substantially identical copies of the same

It will be seen that this close similarity of the Catholic and the new

versions was not a coincidence, but of deliberate design. Yet most of

God’s people appear to be quite oblivious to the peril inherent in these

new versions. Let us examine a few instances.

glance, but is it? Not to the Roman Catholics is it! The Roman Catholic

translation in the Revised Version:

82

The Apostles have now power to "forgive" sins and not simply to

"remit" them. "Confess therefore your sins" is the new reading of

James 5:16. (p. 206)

Further, the Scripture has also been altered to uphold the papal blasphemy

of the Mass. Compare the verses below:

drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself

himself if he does not discern the Body

It will be noted that the new translations consistently omit the word

verse where the Lord intended it to be — a warning to those who, while

unbelieving or without proper solemnity and gratitude, participate in this

sacred ordinance. The Catholic omission, on the other hand, transparently

seen in the translation of the New International Version, provides grounds

for the Roman Catholic error of transubstantiation — that the bread is

actually Christ’s body.

It will also not surprise the astute reader to learn that strong biblical

evidence concerning the resurrection at the Second Coming is distorted.

I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter

day upon the earth: and though after my skin worms destroy this

body, yet in my flesh shall I see God. Job 19:25-26 KJV

Let us compare this body of truth with the rendering of one modern

translation:

But in my heart I know that my vindicator lives and that he will

rise last to speak in court; and I shall discern my witness standing

at my side. Job 19:25-26 NEB

83

We could be excused if we doubted that this was the same text of

Scripture. It would, further, be revealing to examine the rendering of

portions of this verse in other translations. It will be seen that among the

diversity one common thread is present — a denial of the "latter day upon

the earth" — the Second Coming. We quote the various translations

equivalent to "and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth."

And that he shall stand up at the last upon the earth. RV

And he, the last, will take his stand on earth. Jerusalem Bible

And as the next-of-kin he will stand upon my dust. Goodspeed’s

Translation

Worse follows, for replacing the positive proof that we see God, not as

bodiless spirits, but in real physical flesh, many new translations support

the same Catholic error of the soul, unencumbered by a body, seeing God,

thus utterly reversing the truth. We shall observe some of the translations

of Job 19:26. Read them carefully.

And after this my skin is destroyed. And without my flesh, I shall see God.,

The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Testaments:

This body may break up, but even then my life shall have a sight of God.

Moffatt

And after my skin has thus been destroyed, then, out of my flesh I

shall see God., the New Berkeley Version

And after my skin, even this body, is destroyed, then without my

flesh shall I see God. ARV

These translations, and many others, deliberately distort the plainest

words of the Hebrew text to support the pagan error concerning man’s

state in death. Surely with Dr. Edgar we can exclaim:

84

It is certainly a remarkable circumstance that so many of the

Catholic readings in the New Testament, which in Reformation and

early post-Reformation times were denounced by Protestants as

corruptions of the pure text of God’s Word, should now, in the

last quarter of the nineteenth century, be adopted by the Revisers

347-348

The variation in the translation of Hebrews 9:27 will at first appear totally

inconsequential. Let us examine these translations, for in them is a most

subtle and deliberate attack upon the crucial doctrine of the end-time

judgment.

judgment.

after this cometh judgment.

others are cited.

And after death comes judgment NEB

And after that to face judgment. NIV

But after this, judgment., American Bible Union Version

With judgment following. Berkeley Version

(Death being followed by judgment). The Twentieth Century New

Testament

Nothing remains after this but judgment., Knox Translation

And after this comethjudgment. ASV

85

authority than Canon Farrar, a great supporter of the modern translators,

cited this apparently minor variation as being one of the most significant

alterations made by the Revisers. He well knew the thinking of Westcott

and Hort since he was a member of the Apostles’ Club at Cambridge

University to which they belonged, and he wholeheartedly supported their

Anglo-Catholic bias. Canon Farrar thus asserted

the sense in which that word is popularly understood. By

incorrectly inserted, the Revisers help, as they have done in so

many other places, silently to remove deep-seated errors. At the

death of each of us there follows "a judgment," as the sacred writer

come. In the omission of that unauthorized little article from the

Authorized Version by the Revisers, lies no less a doctrine than

that of the existence of an Intermediate State. Canon F.W. Farrar,

Here we note the subtle significance which those who believe the pagan

concept of the immortality of the soul place upon the deletion of the

of deception. The great truth of the mighty end-time judgment to which

this text points is destroyed by the artifices of those who value the

mystery of iniquity.

curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which

despitefully use you, and persecute you.

persecute you. Matthew 5:44

86

Here we notice a most subtle accomodation of Catholic thought. The

missing phrases are "Bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate

you." Who could be offended by these Christ-given directions, given in the

Sermon on the Mount?

But if we think carefully, we see that Rome is in the business of cursing

and hating heretics, those faithful Christians who believe the Word of God

and accept it as their spiritual guide rather than the faulted doctrines of

the findings of councils. And of course they do not want their people to

see Christlikeness in those whom they curse.

Roman Catholicism has ever taught that man may die in his sins and yet

ultimately reach the state of bliss. The whole doctrine of purgatory

supports this concept. The act of performing requiems for the dead is

supposed to facilitate this transition. Many Protestants have accepted

various modifications of this view, some asserting that God will eventually

save all through a worldwide conversion during the millennium. Dr. Samuel

Cox expressed such a belief this way:

The states of being, shadowed forth by the words, Gehenna,

Paradise, Hades cannot, therefore, be final or everlasting; they are

only intermediate conditions, states of discipline in which the souls

of men await, and may be prepared for, their final award. Cited in

With this mind-set, Dr. Cox was delighted with the following alteration:

probation after death) certainly believe so. Other translations offer similar

places (New English Bible), abiding places (American Bible Union

87

Version), dwellings (Twentieth Century New Testament) and resting

places (Rieu’s Translation).

Stirling Berry in upholding the substitution of abiding places claimed that

in this term

the contrasted notions of repose and progress are combined in this

Another "minor" alteration which may escape the notice of a superficial

reader is worthy of examination. Speaking prophetically, Zacharias, the

father of John the Baptist, had referred to Christ as being the One who

would come,

To perform the mercy promised to our fathers. Luke 1:72 KJV

Many new translations have followed the Douay Translation. Thus one

rendition is

To show mercy to our fathers. Luke 1:72 RV

They pointed to this latter translation as indicating that while Jesus was

on earth He was at that time extending mercy to the forefathers of the

Jews who were yet in one of the intermediary states. Let us note Bishop

Tobias Mullen’s exuberance over the changed translation.

For the text was one which, if rendered literally, no one could read

without being convinced, or at least suspecting, that the "fathers"

already dead needed "mercy"; and that "the Lord God of Israel"

was prepared "to perform" it to them. But where were those

fathers? Not in heaven, where mercy is swallowed up in joy. And

assuredly not in the hell of the damned, where mercy could not

reach them. They must therefore have been in a place between

both, or neither the one nor the other. What? In Limbo or

Purgatory? Why, certainly. In one or the other. Bishop Mullen,

On what pathetically slim "evidence" do papal apologists base their souldestroying

errors! Yet, subtly, Scripture has been perverted to bolster

their errors.

88

There is a need for Christians to make decided efforts to return to that

Version of Scripture from which the Roman Catholic tampering was

almost totally expunged. To persist in promoting faulted translations will

seriously damage our ministries and our capability to present positive

truth with certainty. We must not permit the bait of simpler English to

seduce us into accepting a perverted Scripture.

89

CHAPTER 18

A CRUCIAL TEXT

No passage of Sacred Writ more powerfully verifies Christ’s deity than

that found in Paul’s epistle to Timothy.

And without controversy great is the mystery of Godliness: God

was manifest in the flesh. 1 Timothy 3:16

Here is presented one of the two mighty mysteries of the universe — the

mystery of Godliness. The second mystery is its antithesis — the

mystery of iniquity. Paul introduced God’s people to this mystery when

he wrote to the early church in Thessalonica. There he declared,

For the mystery of iniquity doth already work. 2 Thessalonians 2:7

While the mystery of Godliness is explained — that God appeared in

human flesh — Paul does not define the mystery of iniquity. Could this

mystery be the denial that Christ came in the flesh? Indeed, Scripture

confirms this precise definition.

In a letter to the Thessalonians, Paul prophesies of the emergence of the

Papacy, whom he refers to as the man of sin and the son of perdition (2

Thessalonians 2:3). The apostle John uses altemative terminology to

identify the papal apostasy. It is in relation to this synonym, antichrist,

that he reveals that the denial that Christ came in the flesh is the precise

doctrine of the papal power.

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. 1 John 4:3

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that

Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

2 John 7

If there is one characteristic of Satan above all others, it is the trait of

deception. Since 1 Timothy 3:16 provides the key to the understanding of

90

the mystery of iniquity, it is to be expected that, desiring to veil his true

character, the devil would make every effort to pervert that text. This he

has done by placing a question over the divinity of Christ. Many astute

Bible students have grasped this fact, but few have perceived that by

minimizing Christ’s deity, the devil has equally challenged His humanity.

First, let us examine the alteration in the corrupted Greek manuscripts

which have destroyed this text as a powerful witness confirming Christ’s

divinity. The Latin Vulgate first destroyed this passage. Instead of the

reflected in Wycliffe’s and the Douay-Rheims translations. Since he based

the first English Version of Scripture upon the Latin Vulgate, John

Wycliffe in 1380 translated this passage as

that thing that was shewid [showed] in fleisch [flesh].

1 Timothy 3:16, Wycliffe translation

Not surprisingly the 1582 Jesuit version (Douay-Rheims Version) also

destroyed Christ’s divinity. It translates the passage:

which was manifested in flesh. 1 Timothy 3:16, Douay-Rheims Version

Modern Catholic versions also destroy this passage.

Revelation made in human flesh. 1 Timothy 3:16,

Ronald Knox’s Version, 1945

But no English Bible of the Protestant Reformation affronted our Lord in

this manner. They translated this passage as follows:

God was shewed in the flesche. Tyndale, 1534

God was shewed in the flesche. Great Bible, 1539

God is shewed in the flesche. Geneva New Testament, 1557

God was shewed manifestly in the flesh. Bishop’s Bible, 1568

91

Virtually all modern translations with the exception of the New King

James Version follow the lead of Catholicism and despoil this text. A

selection of translations is quoted.

Who was manifested in the flesh. Alford

It is he who was manifest in the flesh. Moffatt

He who appeared in the flesh. New World - Jehovah’s Witness

The One who appeared in human flesh. Phillips

He who was manifested in the body. New English Bible

Who was revealed in the flesh. Berkeley

But while these translations rely on a handful of corrupted manuscripts,

especially the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, they ignore the

extensive testimony to the contrary.

accomplished by the omission of two letters. This alteration could be

progression can be seen when the Greek equivalents of the three words are

cited:

Beside the overwhelming evidence of extant Greek manuscripts, the

in 1Timothy 3:16. Second-century writers such as Barnabas, Hippolytus,

and Ignatius, third-century writer Dionysius of Alexandria, Diodorus of

Another important source of evidence is the Codex Alexandrius "A." This

Greek manuscript was presented to King Charles I of England (ruled 1625

-1649) by Patriarch Cyril Lucar. It is a fifth-century manuscript and

92

more recent vintage. Indeed some have used this fact as evidence of a later

alteration. But the evidence is all against this conclusion.

The original custodian of the manuscript, Patrick Young, in whose hands

the manuscripts were from 1628 to 1652, assured Archbishop Ussher that

manuscript confirmed the same fact. Huish (1657), Bishop Pearson

(1659), Mill (1677), Wotton (1718), Wetstein (1716), Berriman (1737),

Woide (1785), and Prebendary Screvenier (1885) were among those who

confirmed this fact. Each personally noted that although

the middle stroke has been retouched, the fine stroke originally in

the letter is discernible at each end of the fuller stroke of the

rendition of 1 Timothy 3:16.

Some adopt a casual attitude to such changes. They suggest that there are

no grounds for concern since even in modern translations there are other

passages supporting Christ’s divinity. Such thinking indicates that God

provided surplus evidence which may be discarded at man’s will without

causing damage to the message of Scripture. But every passage of God’s

Word contains vital truth.

Further, such an argument also disregards the crucial connection between

this passage and the identification of antichrist as noted earlier in the

chapter. Clearly there is no deep mystery in a man being manifest in the

flesh. While each conception and birth is a true miracle, nevertheless it is a

miracle of such daily occurrence that it does not rate a place among the

only characterized by being unique, but is a mystery beyond human

comprehension as well, and one which draws our most sublime love for

our Savior.

The second deep mystery of the universe is that of the mystery of

iniquity. It was a mystery in its origin — that in a universe knowing

93

nothing but perfection and selfless love, sin and its attendant evils could

originate. That mystery is perpetuated in the lives of sinners. Initially

Lucifer did not contemplate that his rebellion would be utterly repulsed.

Only after God was manifest in human flesh, and paid the supreme

penalty for man’s sins, was man’s redemption assured. This act of infinite

love, so contrary to the character of Satan, he has ever sought to conceal.

As we have seen, John testifies that this deception is the specific

identification of antichrist. Many, identifying antichrist as the Papacy,

will hasten to protest that the Roman Catholic Church upholds the truth

that Christ appeared in human flesh. But does this apostate power really

declare the biblical truth of this matter? Does its view, that Christ did not

take our nature but the human nature of unfallen Adam, truly realize the

depths to which our Savior descended in order to save us from our sin?

Listen to the testimony of Scripture:

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the

seed of David according to the flesh. Romans 1:3

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he

also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he

might destroy him that hath the power of death, that is, the devil;

and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime

subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of

angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all

things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren that he

might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to

God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that

he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them

that are tempted. Hebrews 2:14-18

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the

feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we

are, yet without sin. Hebrews 4:15

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the

flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and

for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. Romans 8:3

94

It is little wonder that modern translations seriously distort Hebrews 2:16.

Its testimony is so strong and availing that the enemy of souls dare not let

it stand. It will be noted in the next two verses (Hebrews 2:17-18) that

Christ’s very High Priestly ministry for us is predicated upon His

possession of our human nature — that He was made like unto His

brethren in every respect.

In accepting the fifth-century error of Augustine, bishop of Hippo, the

Roman Catholic Church incorporated the mystery of iniquity into its

dogma, for Christ’s living sacrifice in accepting the nature of weakened

man elevates the trials He endured. Only thus could He be our true

Example, as testified by Peter:

For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for

us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: who did

no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth. 1 Peter 2:21-22

From the basic tenet of the mystery of iniquity (that Christ’s nature was

different from ours), the Roman Catholic Church has fashioned the evil

doctrines of the Immaculate Conception (of Mary), original sin, limbo,

infant baptism, the confession of sins to priests and "saints," the

mediatorial role of Mary, and other doctrines offensive to our pure and

holy God.

Thus the alteration of that single word in 1 Timothy 3:16, regarded by

many as an innocent alternative, provides ample testimony to

ramifications of even a change in a single word of Scripture. Our God does

not provide us with extraneous material or details of little consequence.

At a time when Protestantism is moving ever closer to Rome and has lost

all understanding of the biblical doctrine of antichrist, the destruction of

one relevant verse is disquieting. All great Protestant Reformers were

agreed that the antichrist power is the Papacy; virtually all nineteenthcentury

Protestant writers agreed. But in the twentieth century the church

has lost this doctrine in a sea of wild and nonsensical speculation.

1991), not one religious leader showed even an elementary understanding

of the subject of the antichrist. Uninformed guesses as to the identity

ranged from the absurd thought that he will be a homosexual to the

95

ridiculous concept that probably Henry Kissinger is the antichrist. The

How precious is the pure Word of God, which shines as a beacon of truth

in the mind of every true Christian to defend the purity of the Word of

God and uphold its every word, for it is in those words, and those alone,

that we find the revealed will of our God!

96

CHAPTER 19

THE DESTRUCTION OF THE DOCTRINE

OF ANTICHRIST

So important is the destruction of the true identity of the antichrist that

we will follow the previous chapter with a second examination of this

matter. We trust that minds will be enlightened.

We have seen that the modern translations greatly favor the heretical

doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. We have further noted that this

bias is not coincidence, but rather is the result of a carefully orchestrated

program of scriptural sabotage engineered over four centuries chiefly by

the Jesuits.

At the time of the Reformation, Protestants were united in proclaiming the

Papacy to be the antichrist (1 John 4:2-3), the man of sin and son of

perdition (2 Thessalonians 2:3), the little horn (Daniel 7:8), the beast with

seven heads and ten horns (Revelation 13:1), Babylon (Revelation 14:8),

the mother of harlots (Revelation 17:5), and the whore (Revelation 17:15).

The identification was so convincing, and was verified by such powerful

scriptural evidences, that the Roman Catholic Church was at a loss to

deflect the charges. Eventually the Jesuit innovator Francisco Ribera

succeeded in devising a theory which satisfied Roman Catholics, but its

faults are apparent to any true student of God’s Word. This theory

suggested that the antichrist was to be an evil, Satan-inspired individual

who will appear at the end of the age and pursue the acme of apostasy

through terrible persecution for three and one-half years.

Since this cunning theory lacked scriptural support, Protestants in former

centuries saw it for what it was — a self-serving Roman Catholic

deception. The theory was rightly given short shrift in Protestant circles.

But in the nineteenth century a chink in Protestant unity on this issue

became evident. The Oxford movement of England, a group of young

Anglican clergymen anxious to bring their church closer to the Church of

97

Rome, recognized that it could not be achieved while the Anglican Church

maintained the Westminster Confession, which specified the papacy to be

antichrist and the man of sin. Desperately seeking a solution to their

problem, they lent their support to Ribera’s theory. So successful was the

Oxford movement in its promotion of this flawed theory that today

almost all Protestant churches, whether ritualistic or evangelical, accept it

as their position. It accords well with the ecumenical motives of most

Thus we could anticipate that modern translations would corrupt the

Scriptures to destroy the divine evidence identifying the Papacy as

antichrist. They have achieved this aim.

The central heresy of antichrist is not clouded in darkness. It is the belief

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that

Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 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. 1 John 4:2-3

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that

Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

2 John 7

Many protest that the Roman Catholic Church strongly supports the

concept that Christ came in human flesh. In this they are correct, but in his

Antichrist was not to deny that Christ had come in flesh, but was

flesh as the human race He came to save. Christian Edwardson,

The Roman Catholic Church has led out in the proclamation of the false

doctrine that while Christ’s flesh (nature) was human, it was nevertheless

quite different from ours since it was that possessed by Adam prior to his

Fall. But God declares quite differently:

98

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the

seed of David according to the flesh. Romans 1:3

For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on

him the seed of Abraham. Hebrews 2:16

How then do the modern translations thwart this plain truth of God?

Quite simply, by corrupting the compelling biblical evidence. God infoms

us what is the mystery of Godliness:

And without controversy great is the mystery of Godliness: God

was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels,

preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up

into glory. 1 Timothy 3:16

Let us examine how one typical modern translation renders this key text:

Beyond all question the mystery of Godliness is great:

He appeared in a body ... 1 Timothy 3:16 NIV

thus destroying a potent text which evidences Christ’s divinity. But most

Bible students also overlook an equally serious omission — that the term,

is not that Jesus appeared in a body — angels have at times done that —

of David and Abraham.

Clearly the mystery of iniquity (2 Thessalonians 2:7) is the antithesis of

identification is confirmed by the evidence of 1 John 4:2-3 and 2 John 7

quoted above.

The New International Version confuses the matter by translating the term

NIV). In such a translation the identifying evidence of the antichrist is

weakened. While it is true that the New International Version does make

reference to the chief identifying feature of the antichrist —

99

Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming

in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the

deceiver and the antichrist. 2 John 7 NIV

— nevertheless this concept is replaced in the second reference by "does

not acknowledge Jesus" 1 John 4:3.

This translation further diminishes the evidence that Jesus came in the

flesh (nature) of fallen man. We return to the two texts cited above from

the King James Version. These texts should be compared with the

following translation:

regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of

David, Romans 1:3 NIV

This translation does possess the virtue of demonstrating that the term

However, the translation seriously weakens the possession of David’s

David according to the flesh.

In respect of the second reference, the entire text is distorted in such a way

as to make the two translations almost unrecognizable as referring to the

same original· Certainly Christ’s possession of the same human nature as

Abraham is entirely lost.

For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants.

Hebrews 2:16 NIV

Now it is true that the King James Version is forced by context and

obvious intent to insert a few additional words to make plain the meaning

of the text. But it is quite necessary and is demanded by the context. The

translation offered by the New International Version is totally devoid of

any relevance to either the preceding or succeeding verses.

Yet in all fairness we must admit that one text supporting the fallen human

nature of Christ is strengthened by the New International Version

translation. We shall compare the two versions.

100

the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and

for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law

might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the

Spirit.

by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of

sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,

in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met

in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to

the Spirit

That Rome denies that Jesus possessed a fallen nature is beyond dispute,

for to sustain this unscriptural position it proclaimed the heretical doctrine

of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

The Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception ... was

preserved free from all stain of original sin...

She was created more sublime and glorious than that of all natures...

Very different from the rest of mankind...

The Blessed Virgin ... by communicating to the Second Person of

the adorable trinity., a true human nature of the same substance

We define that the Blessed Virgin Mary in the first moment of her

conception., was preserved free from every taint of original sin ...

Unlike the rest of the children of Adam, the soul of Mary was

204, quoted in ibid.

The merits of Jesus, shall be dispensed through the hands and by

101

God has chosen to bestow no grace upon us but by the hands of

Mary...

Ibid., 180

Whoever asks and wishes to obtain graces without the intercession

of Mary, attempts to fly without wings· Ibid., 189

Mary is all the hope of our salvation. Ibid., 195

Thou [Mary] are the only advocate of sinners. Ibid., 129

All those who are saved, are saved solely by means of this divine

mother, ... the salvation of all depends upon preaching Mary. Ibid.,

19-20

We ask many things of God and do not obtain them; we ask them

from Mary and obtain them. Ibid., 150

Well may it be asked why God identified antichrist by the single criterion

of the denial of the truth that Jesus came in the flesh. Atfer all, does not

Rome propose numerous disgraceful heresies such as confession to priests

and saints, the baptism of infants, the doctrine of original sin which

declares that we are lost because of Adam’s sin, the Immaculate

Conception, limbo, the issuing of indulgences, and many other perversions

of the Christian faith? This claim is true, and it will be found that the

central doctrine upon which each of these depends is the human nature of

The Bible teaches that in order to qualify as our Mediator, Christ had to

be made like unto us in every respect.

Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his

brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in

things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the

people· For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is

able to succor them that are tempted. Hebrews 2:17-18

Rome, in denying that Jesus possessed our fallen nature, not only deprives

Christ of His role as our Example, but also disqualifies Him from being our

Mediator· Thus, they turn not only to Mary, but also to "saints" and

priests to be mediators between man and God.

102

The merits and virtue of the sacrifice of the cross are infinite; but

that virtue and these merits must be applied, and this can only be

York, Kennedy and Sons, 1846

The priest has the power of the keys, or the power of delivering

sinners from hell, of making them worthy of paradise, and of

changing them from the slaves of Satan into the children of God.

And God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of His

priests; ... the Sovereign Master of the universe only follows the

servant by confirming in heaven all that the latter decides upon

27-28: New York, Benziger Brothers, 1888

Thus it is that the weakening of the identification of antichrist in the

modern translations seriously reduces God’s witness and warnings

concerning this power. It is lulling present-day Protestants into an

ecumenical slumber which will have devastating effects upon their eternal

destinies unless aroused by the power of the valid Word of God.

103

CHAPTER 20

DEFAMING SCRIPTURE

Some sincere folk believe that it is a defamation of God’s Word, if not

downright blasphemy, to oppose the various modern translations, after all,

is not "all Scripture ... given by inspiration of God"? 2 Timothy 3:16.

It would be a perilous stand to uphold that all human perversions of

Scripture are inspired of God. Do not the Roman Catholics confidently

assert that the Apocrypha is part of Holy Writ? They do. Is it blasphemy

then for Protestants to rightly ignore these books? Of course not.

Manifestly Paul’s statement refers only to the pure Scriptures,

unadulterated by human reasoning and additions and subtractions.

Other Bible students point out that the Septuagint was a faulty version of

the Old Testament, yet Christ at no time condemned it, and indeed He and

His disciples quoted freely from it. Suffice to say that the biblical writers

were very selective in their use of this version, and that, in any case,

silence upon an issue is often less than a persuasive argument in its favor.

What is certain is that many Godly authors have freely condemned

corrupted Scriptures. The Latin Vulgate from which John Wycliffe

translated his version of the English Bible was seriously defective.

Wycliffe’s Bible had been translated from the Latin text, which

contained many errors ... In 1516, a year before the appearance of

Luther’s theses, Erasmus had published his Greek and Latin

version of the New Testament. Now for the first time the Word of

God was printed in the original tongue. In this work many errors of

former versions were corrected, and the sense was more clearly

Undoubtedly the Protestant Reformers were far from inhibited in this

matter. They freely condemned false versions.

104

Again, that your vulgar Latin text is full of many errors and

corruptions, I have showed by the confession of Isidorus Clarius

and Lintranus, two of your own profession; ... and where you say

that Luther and his followers forsook it for none other cause in the

world, but that it is against them, is utterly untrue. For besides that

they have made clear demonstration of many palpable errors

therein (which they that have any forehead amongst you cannot

deny) they have and do daily convince you of horrible heresies,

It is certainly a remarkable circumstance that so many of the

Catholic readings in the New Testament, which in Reformation and

early post-Reformation times were denounced by Protestants as

corruptions of the pure text of God’s Word, should now, in the last

quarter of the nineteenth century, be adopted by the Revisers of our

As early as about the turn of the fifth century, Helvidius condemned the

Latin Vulgate, then only recently translated by Jerome, in the most

strident terms.

You cannot for shame say Joseph did not know of them, for Luke

tells us (Luke 2:33) "His father and His mother were marvelling at

the things which were spoken concerning Him." And yet you with

marvelous effrontery contend that the reading of the Greek MS is

corrupt, although it is that which nearly all the Greek writers have

left in their books, and not only these, but several of the Latin

writers have taken the words of the same way. Jerome, "Against

Edition, vol. vi, 338

Noting this condemnation, Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson, president of Columbia

Union College, commented:

You will see by this that Helvidius, the great scholar of the Italic

Church, which was the predecessor of the Waldensian or the pre-

Waldensian Church, accuses Jerome of using Luke 2:33 just as we

find it now in the American Revised Version from corrupt Greek

105

MSS. It is clear that Helvidius had the pure Greek MSS, which

were older than the corrupt Greek MSS used by Jerome. The pure

Greek MSS read Luke 2:33 as we now read it in the King James

Version; so on this one text the present battle between the King

James and the American Revised Versions is the centuries-old

battle fought between the pre-Waldensian Church and the growing

Rather than being a defamation of Scripture, it is the proper duty of

sincere Christians to point out corruptions of the precious Word of God.

To do less is to condone satanic perversions of Scripture.

106

CHAPTER 21

THE YOUTH FACTOR

Sincere Christian parents face increasing difficulties in bringing Jesus to

their children. Worldly competition, both without and within the church,

is almost overwhelming. How many parents, their hearts in deep concem,

have claimed God’s promise!

For I will contend with him that contendeth with thee, and I will

save thy children. Isaiah 49:25

Yet there is a decided falling away of Christian youth from the faith.

Playing upon the fears of parents and their desperate desire for the

salvation of their children, liberal theologians and liberal church leaders

the doors to lowered standards and principles, and to the acceptance of

apostate doctrines.

How often we hear the necessity of enlivening church services by the

introduction of various blasphemous modes of worship, with the catchcry

that these techniques will preserve our children for God! Thus activities as

diverse as Pentecostalism, the singing of "gospel" rock, puppetry, clown

"ministries," emphasis of church youth groups on competitive sport,

drama groups, the cinema, un-Christian video, and many more such

activities have been accepted as "good" concepts designed "to save our

youth." Indeed about the only tactic never suggested as a means of saving

our youth is to bring to their hearts the love of Jesus through the study of

His Word, an understanding of biblical doctrines, and a pure witness. But

such a course would not subserve the hidden agenda of many liberal minds.

To follow the advice of liberal church leaders is to doom the church, for

denomination after denomination has been decimated by policies which

introduce worldly compromise as a means to retain the youth of the

church. We say, Challenge the youth with the Scriptures and they will

107

remain true. But compromise the standards and the faith, and youth will

depart.

Perhaps the most disquieting feature is the way in which some theologians

and senior church people presume to speak for the youth. Frequently they

place in young people’s mouths words that they do not speak. Thus the

youth are said to complain that the music is too dull, we are assured that

they wish to move away from time-honored forms of worship, and many

other claims are made in behalf of the youth. Usually it is found that until

inserted into the minds of the young people by these persons, who believe

themselves to be experts on the thinking of youth, many of these matters

have scarcely entered their heads. It is almost as if a massive brainwashing

of our young people is being orchestrated. The requirements of the youth

are repeated so often that ultimately they assume that this must be what

they believe.

Of course we believe that worship services should be vibrant and that the

hymns of Zion should generate an enthusiastic expression. All this, as we

study God’s Word, we believe He approves. But mixing the world and the

apostasies, for the world performs evil more effectively than the church.

It is in this general frame of reference that unceasing efforts are being put

forward to convince our youth that they cannot comprehend the King

James Version of Scripture. 0nly recently have youth commenced to

mouth this sentiment, for they have now been told it so frequently that

not only do they believe it; but in many cases they have not read the King

James Version to verify or refute the "conventional wisdom." The result

of accepting this pronouncement of liberal theologians is so appalling that

one hopes that Christian parents will critically analyze their claim before

accepting it.

But playing upon the fears of Godly parents, some of these men used this

line of reasoning as a carefully designed means to replace the Word of God

from the purest Greek manuscripts, substituting versions based upon

manuscripts both carelessly and deliberately corrupted. It was a cunning

ploy, and it has succeeded no doubt beyond the wildest dreams of those

who planned it. So successful is it that we frequently hear even very

responsible laity echoing this misinformation. Now nearly all theology

108

students are informed that modern translations are preferable to the King

James Version. Men are graduating with Masters’ degrees in Divinity

believing this error, without the slightest knowledge that the modern

versions are based upon entirely different Greek manuscripts. Failure to

highlight this fact in seminaries which promote the new versions is

tantamount to a monstrous cover-up.

We are now treating our highly educated young people as if they were

illiterate. We do them a gross injustice in this assumption. There is nothing

wrong with a modern translation, but there is everything wrong with the

use of mutilated manuscripts as its basis. Our young people deserve the

very best — the uncorrupted Word of God.

In an era when higher education has never been so commonly achieved, we

now pretend that young people cannot understand that which caused not

the least difficulty to people with a mere elementary-school education

only a few decades past. It is time that these liberal theologians stopped

insulting the intelligence of our young people.

The early Reformers proposed to issue a Bible so easy to understand that

the plough-boy could readily comprehend it. Today, we have reached the

incredible situation where the plough-boys are in little difficulty in their

understanding, while the theological professors find the beautiful English

of the King James Version beyond their comprehension. Or do they? It

to please our youth. It may be that the hiddden motive is to foist upon

Christians an ecumenical Bible pleasing to Rome and to those who no

longer fear her pagan practices.

Our youth merit far better than that. Let us not make them pawns in a

God.

109

CHAPTER 22

ARCHAIC WORDS

In defense of the use of modern translations, it is frequently asserted that

the use of archaic words in the King James Version makes it

frequently used by those who have no great interest in the Bible study of

the youth, but rather wish to find persuasive arguments to spread the use

of corrupted versions of Scripture, versions which better suit their

perverted doctrines. It is tragic that so many good people are persuaded

by such pitiful lines of reasoning. Those convinced by such arguments

seldom stop to reason why, if it was the genuine desire of modern

translators to make Scripture clearer, it was thought essential to associate

such changes with a perversion of the Bible. The revisers of 1881,

including Westcott and Hort, were presented the opportunity to make

only those corrections required by the change in language, and in a few

minor areas where the King James Version did not provide the best

translation. They were expected to maintain the Scriptures inviolate. Had

they done so, they would have performed for the English-speaking

Christian community a thorough service. But although they were

commissioned only to make such changes, they used the exercise to totally

pervert God’s Word. It was a shameful breach of trust.

Once more we assert that there is virtue in having the Bible presented in

contemporary language, but decidedly not in association with destruction

of the purity of the Word.

We contend that defenders of modern translators have protested the

matter of archaic words in the King James Version far too much. Such

protests disguise their hidden desire to insinuate corrupted material, which

otherwise would be found totally unacceptable by every true lover of the

Word.

110

If archaic words are a problem, a simple glossary in each King James

Version would suffice. Indeed we believe that such an addition would be

desirable. It would also serve to increase the vocabularies of the believers.

Such an inclusion would be infinitely preferable to the present trend of

combining the use of modern language with large scale alterations in God’s

Word. We can but wonder if the true reason for the printing of modern

versions is to deliberately pervert God’s Word, while the modernization

simply provides the excuse.

The emphasis placed on the need for youth to use a Bible in simple

English overlooks that it is in our youth we make the most rapid growth in

our vocabularies, and that often the meaning of a new word is not gleaned

from a dictionary or glossary, but rather is inferred from its context. If we

remember how we ourselves and our children established a vocabulary of

tens of thousands of words, many of the arguments concerning archaic

words, specious as they are, simply fade away.

Exodus, this word has not the common meaning of a story, but means a

people would not give it this meaning. But when read in context, no

person of average intellect would have the least doubt concerning its

meaning.

Ye shall no more give the people straw to make brick, as heretofore:

let them go and gather straw for themselves. And the tale of the

bricks, which they did make heretofore, ye shall lay upon them; ye

shall not diminish ought thereof: for they be idle; therefore they cry,

saying, Let us go and sacrifice to our God ... Go therefore now, and

work; for there shall no straw be given you, yet shall ye deliver the

tale of bricks. And the officers of the children of Israel did see that

they were in evil case, after it was said, Ye shall not minish ought

from your bricks of your daily task. Exodus 5:7-8, 18-19

Such a word devoid of context may not be easily defined, but once again

111

context in Scripture its meaning is perfectly plain.

As when a man goeth into the wood with his neighbor to hew

wood, and his hand fetcheth a stroke with the axe to cut down the

tree, and the head slippeth from the helve, and lighteth upon his

neighbor, that he die; he shall flee unto one of those cities, and live.

Deuteronomy 19:5

Sometimes the immediate context does not reveal the exact meaning of an

archaic word. An example of this may be seen in the following verse.

But the hand of the Lord was heavy upon them of Ashdod, and he

destroyed them, and smote them with emerods, even Ashdod and

the coasts thereof. 1 Samuel 5:6

people. In its context in this verse, it could mean a disease, or equally a

weapon such as a type of rod. But if only we would encourage God’s

people to be thorough students of His Word they would be left in no

doubt as to which of these alternatives is correct. The King James Version

in its margin refers the reader to another passage of Scripture which states,

The Lord will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the

emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst

not be healed. Deuteronomy 28:27

other verses in the original passage, such as

And it was so, that, after they had carried it about, the hand of the

LORD was against the city with a very great destruction: and he

smote the men of the city, both small and great, and they had

emerods in their secret parts. 1 Samuel 5:9

Although Russell is an Internist (consultant physician) he had never heard

this term, nor read it outside of Scripture. But the impact and general

understanding of the text remain. Many persons read of diseases the

nature of which they do not know, but it does not detract from

understanding. For example, in Russell’s clinical examination for his

112

specialist qualification in England he was shown a lady with a rare disease

ever heard of this disease. But one does not require a detailed knowledge of

its pathology to understand the meaning of the sentence above which

includes this contemporary term.

It is true that some words or terms still have contemporary meaning (just

King James Version was translated. We are frequently told that this

ambiguity causes great confusion. Yet here again context is so illuminating

that in most cases there is no difficulty.

term as used in the King James Version, its fuller meaning is a command to

cease being anxious. That understanding of the term is perfectly conveyed

by the context in which it is used.

Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye

shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye

shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body more

than raiment? Matthew 6:25

And when a convenient day was come, that Herod on his birthday

made a supper to his lords, high captains, and chief estates of

Galilee. Mark 6:21

Christians, but in eighteenth-century English the word used was

causes not the least problem.

For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’

religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God,

and wasted it. Galatians 1:13

At times the Hebrew poetical form gives us an understanding of a word. In

this form parallel thoughts are expressed. Notice this construction below.

113

Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor

the bloody and deceitful man. Psalm 5:6

the word in its context. One instance is cited.

And the same John had his raiment of camel’s hair, and a leathern

girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.

Matthew 3:4

Thus we contend that any problem caused by the use of archaic words in

the King James Version is greatly overstated. Where an occasional word is

not clarified by its context, we suggest that a Bible be prepared which

includes the modern meaning of the word in question. Certainly there is

absolutely no ground to mutilate Scripture in response to the presence of a

few archaic words or phrases in the Bible.

114

CHAPTER 23

THE BIBLE SOCIETIES

National Bible Societies have proliferated. The British and Foreign Bible

Society has become a model for other such societies all over the world. We

can but applaud the work of many of these societies in providing the

Word of God, in many tongues, distributed by the millions. But recent

trends give cause for alarm, for now most of these societies have become

agents for ecumenism. Many Scriptures now distributed by these societies

are those approved by the Roman Catholic Church. Such Bibles are

always based upon the corrupted Greek manuscripts beloved of Rome,

and they also contain the uninspired books of the Apocrypha.

Lest any be in doubt as to the baleful effects of the distribution of such

perverted Scriptures, we remind the reader of the Roman Catholic attitude

toward the Bible.

The attitude of the church toward the Bible societies is one of

unmistakable opposition. Believing herself to be the divinely

appointed custodian and interpreter of Holy Writ, she cannot

without turning traitor to herself, approve the distribution of

Scripture "without note or comment." The fundamental fallacy of

private interpretation of the Scriptures is presupposed by the

Bible societies. It is the impelling motive of their work. But it

would be likewise the violation of one of the first principles of the

Catholic faith — a principle arrived at through observation as well

as by revelation — that of the insufficiency of the Scriptures alone

to convey to the general reader a sure knowledge of faith and

morals. Consequently, the Council of Trent, in its fourth session,

after expressly condemning all interpretations of the sacred text

which contradict the past and present interpretation of the church,

orders all Catholic publishers to see to it that their editions of the

Bible have the approval of the bishop.

115

Besides this and other regulations concerning Bible reading in

general we have several acts of the popes directed explicitly against

the Bible societies. Perhaps the most notable of these are contained

in the Encyclical Ubi Primum of Leo XII, dated 5 May, 1824, and

Pius IX’s Encyclical Qui Pluribus, of 9 November, 1846. Pius VIII

in 1829 and Gregory XVI in 1844, spoke to similar effect. It may

be well to give the most striking words on the subject from Leo XII

and Pius IX. To quote the former (loc. cit.):

You are aware, venerable brothers, that a certain Bible Society is

impudently spreading throughout the world, which, despising the

traditions of the holy Fathers and the decree of the Council of

Trent, is endeavoring to translate, or rather to pervert the

Scriptures into the vernacular of all nations ... It is to be feared that

by false interpretation, the gospel of Christ will become the gospel

of men, or still worse, the gospel of the devil."

The pope then urges the bishops to admonish their flocks that

owing to human temerity, more harm than good may come from

indiscriminate Bible reading.

Pius IX says (loc. cit.): "These crafty Bible societies, which renew

the ancient guile of heretics, cease not to thrust their Bibles upon

all men, even the unlearned — their Bibles, which have been

translated against the laws of the church, and often contain false

explanations of the text. Thus, the divine traditions, the teaching of

the Fathers, and the authority of the Catholic Church are rejected,

and every one in his own way interprets the words of the Lord,

and distorts their meaning, thereby falling into miserable errors."

Having failed to stop the work of the Protestant Bible Societies, the

Roman Catholic Church now appears to support them. The United Bible

Societies (UBS), an organization which includes both the British and

Foreign Bible Society and the American Bible Society, along with most

other national Bible Societies, has encouraged Roman Catholic

participation in joint evangelistic services, joint prayer sessions for

Christian unity, and participation in local church councils and

organizations.

116

Roman Catholics, who have no love for the Scriptures as testified in their

unrepented history, have, in recent times, seen fit to promote the Word of

God. However, it is not promoted on the basis of a belief that the

Scripture is the sole foundation of Christian faith, nor a true love for the

Word of God. To ensure that the reader is biased toward Roman Catholic

dogma, Roman Catholic versions are "assisted" in five ways:

the Word of God.

Thus when Protestants support the distribution of Bibles approved by

the Roman Catholic Church, they are unwittingly assisting that church to

extend its influence and authority and to spread unscriptural doctrines

offensive to God. For example, the Roman Catholic Church cites the

twelfth chapter of the Apocryphal book, 2 Maccabees, which enjoins

prayers for the dead, in support of the damnable doctrine of purgatory,

and in support of the church’s extension of this doctrine to demand money

for Masses offered in behalf of those dead believed to be suffering in this

fictitious state of torture, that their severe agonies be alleviated.

We suggest that the time has come for true Protestants to withdraw their

support from such Bible Societies. Under no circumstance should a

faithful Christian regard it as good stewardship of the means God has

entrusted to him, to use it in support of the distribution of Scriptures

which, rather than uplifting the light of God’s Word, promote Roman

Catholicism’s darkness.

In 1986 the British and Foreign Bible Society issued a catalogue of

English-language Bibles and New Testaments published by the society. In

this catalogue were included the Jerusalem Bible, which the catalogue

correctly states to be the work of Roman Catholic scholars, three editions

of the New American Bible which is accurately stated to be an American

Catholic translation, an edition of the Revised Standard Version containing

117

the Apocrypha, the New Jerusalem Bible, and the Good News Bible

containing the Apocrypha and which the catalogue claims is stamped with

the imprimatur of Basil, Cardinal Hume, the Roman Catholic archbishop

of Westminster. Again we remind each reader that any donations given to

the British and Foreign Bible Society are, in part, used to distribute these

Bibles which comply with Roman Catholic views. Further, we believe that

the common practice of inviting representatives of the British and Foreign

Bible Society or national Bible Societies to preach in Protestant churches

be discouraged, for it simply gives credence to these societies and

encouragement to congregations to support their work, including their

distribution of Bibles containing error.

The Second Vatican Council in 1965 opened the way for ecumenical Bible

translations by approving translation projects in "co-operation with the

separated brethren." Already in 1964 a meeting of major Bible Societies

had agreed to the production of a common biblical text in the original

Hebrew and Greek, acceptable to both Protestants and Catholics, so that a

Bible acceptable to all faiths could be prepared in the languages of the

world. Such Bibles could be prepared only by Protestant compromise, for

the Roman Catholic Church would never lend its approval to Bibles

their opposition to Roman Catholic error that they will accept such

appalling compromise with truth.

In 1966 the British and Foreign Bible Society amended its constitution to

permit the inclusion of the Apocrypha in versions which it distributed.

The American Bible Society and most other national societies followed the

British lead.

The Roman Catholic Church formed the World Catholic Federation for the

Biblical Apostolate (WCFBA) under the leadership of Monsignor Alberto

Ablondi, the Roman Catholic bishop of Livorno, Italy, to promote these

ecumenical translations. A spokesman for that organization stated that

such projects were

An act of common witness and an expression of common grounds.

118

It was also suggested that

this collaboration opens doors to a better understanding of each

other’s point of view and prepares the way for ecumenical dialog.

Ibid.

Further the spokesman confirmed that

The WCFBA is not merely interested in, but committed to, this

common witness in joint Bible work, which does break new ground

for future ecumenism. Ibid.

Bishop Ablondi sees interconfessional translations as

One of the important advancements of post-Vatican II ecumenism

— an important step toward unity. Ibid

True Christians must examine the very Scriptures which these Bible

Societies are perverting, especially as the bishop claims that these

translations

will help overcome prejudice in a divided church. Ibid.

It is these Scriptures which shout an urgent warning against this

ecumenical movement which is bound to be so successful that

all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him [the beast,

the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Revelation 13:8

Further, God’s people are called by our loving God in His last urgent plea

to mankind to

Come out of her [out of Roman Catholicism and apostate

Christianity] that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye

receive not of her plagues. Revelation 18:4

We are too late in earth’s history for Christians to align themselves with

organizations promoting a unity condemned of God.

It is not alone in English-speaking lands that this thrust of the Bible

Societies is to be found. The distribution of Arabic Bibles in North Africa

119

and the Middle East by the United Bible Societies is a combined effort of

Protestants and Roman Catholics. This fact was highlighted by the

Executive Secretary of the Bible Society in North Africa when he reported:

1985 got under way with the inauguration of our new offices ...

This event, preceded by a reception for various heads and staff of

diplomatic missions, and marked by an outstanding sermon

delivered by the Cardinal Archbishop of Algeria, Monsignor Leon-

Etienne Duval, will be remembered as a high point in the rich

In Brazil a Portuguese translation of Scripture which included the

Apocrypha was produced by an ecumenical team led by Dr. Robert

Bratcher, the United Bible Societies international translation consultant

translator of the Good News Bible. In his writings this minister has denied

the inerrancy of Scripture.

Even more sinister is it, that in Latin America the distribution of these

modern Bible versions, approved of Rome, is seen as a powerful weapon

in the Roman Catholic counterattack against the inroads of Protestantism

in that part of the world.

Ecumenical cooperation ... which includes the distribution of over

one million Bibles a year, has been successful in minimizing the

6/1986

Thus the United Bible Societies’ work is counterproductive to the work of

the gospel. Dare any true Christian support such ventures, knowing that

Rome boasts their efficacy in keeping its flock in medieval darkness? It

must be pointed out that the United Bible Societies in Latin America

appointed Miss Maria Teresa Porcile, a Roman Catholic, as their

consultant for interconfessional translations. This same organization has

assisted Catholicism by providing translations of the Apocrypha in some

of the minor languages of Latin America, including the Quechua and

Aymara languages of Bolivia, and Creole in Haiti. Undoubtedly many

contributors to the United Bible Societies would be deeply disturbed if

they knew how their funds are being used.

120

In Burundi, a nation of Central Africa,

a new interconfessional translation of the Bible in Kirundi [the

national language] was started ... by the Roman Catholics together

with the Protestants: work is done by a staff of three — a Roman

Catholic and a Protestant translator, and a typist. UBS Report

1984:21

In 1984 the Burundi Bible Society arranged to print

40,000 copies of the traditional Catholic version of the New

Testament in Kirundi. Ibid.

The UBS signed an agreement with the Roman Catholic bishopric in

Burundi regarding the production of this edition, which will be

printed until the new interconfessional translation is completed.

Ibid.

The situation in Cameroun is tragic. There the ecumenical movement led to

severe persecution of Protestants who would not compromise their faith.

In 1967 the leader of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church of Cameroun

reported:

In one year, at least fifty people in our congregation were

imprisoned, my mother being a victim. My father, who was a

pastor, died in prison. During a three-year period we were all

pushed out. The ecumenical group took over all our territory, they

took all our churches, they took all our resources. Trinitarian Bible

Yet despite this terrible consequence of ecumenism, the General Secretary

of the Bible Society of Cameroun reported:

The visit of the Pope to Cameroun was an opportunity for

distribution of Scriptures among Roman Catholics. We supplied a

summary of our activities to the Holy See and the Pope mentioned

it with satisfaction during his visit to our country ... Many of our

translation projects, most of which are interconfessional, are

121

In Ethiopia the work of the United Bible Societies was of the same order

as in other African nations.

The 1984 Report of the United Bible Societies mentioned with

evident satisfaction that "the annual general assembly of the Bible

Society of Ethiopia was held in the Patriarchate conference hall of

the Ethiopian Orthodox Church." By way of change, the 1985

Report stated that the "prayer day" of the United Bible Societies

"was held in the Catholic cathedral and was attended by His Grace

Abune Paulos Tsadiwa, Cardinal of the Catholic Church" and that

"a Bible rally was held in a Catholic church in Addis Ababa to raise

funds, to encourage Scripture distribution and to enlist new

The nation of Kenya has also been invaded by ecumenical translators. The

Bible Society in that nation has translated the Bible into three languages

and has included the Apocrypha and also satisfied their Roman Catholic

pastors by using the corrupted Greek manuscripts. These languages are

translations in four other languages — Massai, Meru, Pokot and Turkana.

There is no secret as to what is happening in the field of Bible translation

in Kenya, for Roman Catholic Bishop C. Davies of Kenya has stated:

The Kenya Episcopal conference has had a much greater say in

translation work through the good relations which are expressed by

having three members of the Board of Governors (of the Bible

Society). World-Event No. 59/ 1985, 32 and WCFBA III, 68-69

Further, Peter Kiarie, a Roman Catholic, is the Bible Society’s chairman

and also a member of the African Regional Executive Committee of the

In the Seychelles, an island nation in the Indian Ocean, the ecumenical

committee consists of representatives of the Seventh-day Adventist, the

Roman Catholic, and the Anglican Churches. The General Secretary of the

Bible Society of Mauritius (a nearby nation, also in the Indian Ocean)

holds regular meetings with the Roman Catholic bishops of Mauritius,

Reunion and Seychelles. The result of this ecumenism is that

122

To mark the Pope’s visit to Mahe, the main island in the

Seychelles group, a Scripture portion was distributed containing an

introduction to the role of the Pope in the Catholic Church as well

as the text of the two Letters of Peter in Today’s French

translation. The Scripture portion was published by the Bible

Society of Mauritius, which is responsible for Bible Society work

in the Seychelles, and was produced in cooperation with local

Catholics. UBS World Report 199, January 1987, 5

Can God approve such a work?

Even in Sudan the Sudan Bible Society has been engaged in the

ecumenical translation of Scripture into four languages of that

nation — Belanda, Jur, Ndogo and Viri. WCFBA III, 80-81

In Europe the Catholic Church has such influence in the United Bible

Societies that Bishop Ablondi is a member of the General Committee and

European Regional Executive of the United Bible Societies. As noted

earlier, he is also the president of the World Catholic Federation for the

Biblical Apostolate.

The evidence of the work of most Bible Societies is all too easy to

document. Undoubtedly many sincere supporters are ignorant of the real

work of these societies. Careful consideration must lead any true-hearted

Christian to withdraw his support from these societies.

123

CHAPTER 24

THE TRINITARIAN BIBLE SOCIETY

The British and Foreign Bible Society created controversy almost from its

outset. On December 7, 1802, the formation of a society for the dispersion

of Scripture throughout the world was first mooted. On March 7, 1804, a

public meeting was convened to inaugurate the British and Foreign Bible

Society.

From the beginning the society was conceived as a worldwide

venture, to bring the Bible to every person in their own language.

The source of the first major controversy in the British and Foreign Bible

Society (BFBS) was a seemingly innocuous resolution passed in June

1813. It stated

that the manner of printing the Holy Scriptures by Foreign

Societies [i.e. societies in convention with the BFBS] be left to

their discretion, provided they be printed without note or

The true purpose of this resolution was concealed from the rank-and-file

members until 1821 when Robert Haldane, a Scottish patron of the

Society, discovered that the resolution had been adopted so that the

Apocrypha could be included in Bibles distributed in predominantly

Catholic nations. This realization caused a furor in the Society. In 1824, a

new resolution was adopted which satisfied many of those who did not

wish uninspired materials associated with the Word of God. It was

resolved

that no pecuniary grants be made by the Committee of this Society

for the purpose of aiding the printing or publishing of any edition of

the Bible, in which the Apocrypha shall be mixed and interspersed

with the Canonical Books of Holy Scriptures. lbid, 337

124

The Scottish members still were not satisfied, believing the new resolution

too lax, for it did not prevent the provision of grants for the printing of the

Apocrypha separately. On the other hand, a group at Cambridge

University objected to the resolution and preferred the one of 1813. In

March 1825 they presented the "Cambridge protest."

Alexander Haldane, a nephew of Robert, sat on the Society Committee and

strongly objected to the printing of the Apocrypha. His cry for biblical

purity did not meet the minds of the more liberal elements on the

committee. It was decided to vote Alexander Haldane off the committee in

a meeting from which his chief supporters were absent. Providentially,

just as the motion of expulsion was about to be put, in walked Henry

Drummond, Edward Irving, and Hugh McNeile, three of Haldane’s ardent

supporters.

No sooner did they understand it than Edward Irving sprung to his

feet with flashing eyes, burst into one of his flights of oratory,

delivered an eulogium on the conduct of his assaulted friend, shook

his staff in the heat of his indignation at the unworthy conspiracy,

and so completely turned the fortune of the hour that a counter

In 1827 a further new resolution on the matter of the Apocrypha still did

not meet the minds of the Scottish delegates. All Scottish bodies withdrew

and followed an independent course. In 1861 they united to form the

National Bible Society of Scotland. That the secession of the Scots had

been proper was apparent when it was later discovered that the BFBS was

sending grants for the production of the unbound Bibles with the intention

that later these Bibles should be bound with the Apocrypha for

distribution in Europe.

Thus the leadership of the BFBS early demonstrated itself to be

unprepared to take a decided stand against Roman Catholic wishes in

biblical translations. This lack of direction is demonstrated today as the

BFBS unites with Catholics in the preparation of new translations of

Scripture. An instance is the input of the BFBS into the preparation of the

1989 Revised English Bible, which was carried out in conjunction with

Protestants and Roman Catholics. This Bible carries a number of false

translations, favorable to Catholic doctrine.

125

A second major schism shortly developed. A number of supporters of the

BFBS were Unitarians, especially on the European continent. Since these

members did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, they favored the use of

manuscripts minimizing the divinity of Christ. The problem became

entwined with the matter of opening Society meetings with prayer.

Unitarians and those supporting them opposed the procedure of

commencement of meetings with prayer, lest God be addressed through

Jesus Christ.

One of the vice-presidents of the BFBS, Viscount Mandeville, refused to

chair any meeting which was not opened with prayer. The viscount was

not alone. The matter reached a climax at the 1831 Annual Meeting held in

May. The meeting was chaired by Lord Bexley. His Lordship was most

decidedly opposed to the calls for the expulsion of the Unitarians. The

meeting erupted in disorder when Captain J.E. Gordon spoke, supporting

the expulsion of those who did not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Some clapped and cheered. While applause was thunderous and lasted

minutes, others interrupted Gordon. Finally, general uproar ensued.

Amid scenes of wild disorder, one speaker after another failed to

When Gordon’s motion was finally put, it was rejected by a six-to-one

majority. This decision engendered a second breakaway movement.

Captain Fredrick Harcourt, the son of the Anglican Archbishop of York,

chaired a meeting two days later on May 20, 1831. A decision was taken

to form a provisional committee to set up a new Bible Society whose

membership would be confined to Protestants who acknowledged the

doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Two nobles, General Viscount Lorton and

Viscount Mandeville, later to succeed his father as the sixth duke of

Manchester, were the two vice-presidents.

Eventually the Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS) was formed at a public

meeting, with over 2,000 in attendance, on December 7, 1831. Among the

original members of this TBS were some fascinating men. These men had

been caught up in the worldwide Advent movement which studied the

prophecies, especially those of the books of Daniel and Revelation. Much

emphasis was placed upon the passage in Daniel 8:14 which refers to a 2,300-

126

day period at the conclusion of which the sanctuary would be cleansed.

Believing that a symbolic day represented a literal year, these believers

pinpointed the 1840s as the time of the conclusion of this prophetic period.

From the information found in Daniel 9:25, they concluded that the 2,300-

year prophetic period commenced at the time of the proclamation of the

decree of Artaxerxes, king of Medo-Persia, to restore and rebuild Jerusalem

after the Babylonian captivity of the Jews. It was determined from

archeological records that this decree was issued in 457 B.C.

There was a belief, popular worldwide among sincere Christians in the

1820s and 1830s, based on the mistaken impression that the sanctuary

mentioned in Daniel 8:14 represents the earth and that its cleansing

represents the Second Coming of Christ. It was only after the failure of the

prediction of Christ’s return that some believers recognized that the

sanctuary to which the scriptural passage referred is the heavenly

In the 1830s, over 700 ministers of the Church of England were preaching

the return of Jesus in the 1840s. Among these were some of the founders

of the Trinitarian Bible Society. Included among these ministers were

Hugh McNeile and G.W. Philips. Prominent lay figures accepting the

Advent teaching and involved in the TBS formation were Henry

Drummond, Edward Irving, himself an outstanding preacher, Alexander

Haldane, Viscount Mandeville, Captain Gambier, James Hatley Frere,

Spencer Percival, M.P., and the Honorable J.J. Strutt. Drummond

organized the famous Prophetic Conferences at his residence in Albury,

Surrey, from 1826. The renowned converted Austrian Jew, Joseph Wolfe,

attended some of these conferences. He later preached his Advent message

before a joint sitting of the American Congress.

This group proved to be a great strength, but later a weakness, to the

fledgling Society. Some of the members disagreed with Irving’s view

That the human nature of Christ was subject to sinful tendencies.

Andrew J. Brown, op. cit., 29

However, it was Irving’s subsequent claim to mediate divine healing and

his encouragement of glossolalia (speaking in tongues) which greatly

diminished his influence.

127

The TBS survived this crisis and gradually developed in the nineteenth

century. Today it follows a most commendable policy in respect of the

Scriptures. Its present Law and Regulation No. III states:

in the English language shall be those of the Authorized Version

(King James Bible). In promoting and editing new translations, and

selecting versions in foreign languages, the competency of the

translators employed, and the faithfulness and Christian character

of the versions, shall be ascertained by the Committee, before the

publication or circulation of such versions is in any way aided by

this Society.

Members must be Protestants and must acknowledge the Holy Trinity.

The aims of the TBS are fivefold:

To publish and distribute the Holy Scriptures throughout the world.

To promote Bible translations which are accurate and trustworthy.

To bring light and life, through the Gospel of Christ, to those who

are lost in sin and in the darkness of false religion and unbelief.

To uphold the doctrines of reformed Christianity, bearing witness

to the equal and eternal deity of God the Father, God the Son, and

God the Holy Spirit, three Persons in one God.

To uphold the Bible as the inspired, inerrant Word of God.

In 1990 the Presbyterian Church of Queensland withdrew from the

Queensland branch of the Bible Society of Australia, from which it had

arisen. The reasons for making this decision were cited:

One of these concerns is the increasing incidence of translation

work being undertaken by groups of scholars from widely differing

backgrounds and widely differing approaches to the absolute

reliability of the Bible. The Assembly did not agree with the Bible

Society’s view that translation work is a "neutral" activity.

128

A second concern was the openly professed purpose of the United

Bible Society as a vehicle of "common witness" and one of the

most important advancements in the modern ecumenical

movement. It was reported to the Assembly that 70% of UBS

projects are "interconfessional" projects, that is, that they are joint

ventures of Protestant Churches and the Roman Catholic Church.

This involvement was officially acknowledged last year when at its

Annual General meeting, the Queensland Branch of the Bible

Society resolved to add the Roman Catholic Church and the

1990

The Assembly commended the Trinitarian Society ... to the

prayerful support of the church. Ibid.

The TBS head office is at 217 Kingston Road, London SW 19 3NN. In

Canada headquarters are at 39 Caldwell Crescent, Brampton, Ontario L6W

1A2. Australian headquarters may be located through P.O.Box 97, Yamba,

New South Wales 2464.

It is long overdue that the Trinitarian Bible Society should be supported

by Bible-believing Protestants who are concerned about the growing

Roman Catholic influence in modern versions. The majority of

contemporary Bible Societies have long since compromised the desire of

their founders to present the pure Word of God to the peoples of the

world. The Trinitarian Bible Society has eschewed such compromise.

129

CHAPTER 25

THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

While the Dead Sea Scrolls are not central to a book on the modern

translations, they do have some peripheral impact.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were initially discovered in caves near the Dead Sea

in 1947. Hundreds of scrolls were discovered, some dating back to 400

B.C. Every Old Testament book with the exception of Esther has been

found among these scrolls, although not all in their entirety. In addition to

Bible passages, the scrolls included many secular manuscripts, for this find

represented the library of the Essene community living in Qumran from

the Romans just two years prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. A second

community too fell to Roman arms at the time of the Second Jewish

Revolt.

Recognizing that they were facing perilous times, these people hid their

precious scrolls in almost inaccessible caves. This action must be evaluated

in the knowledge that, so precious was God’s Word to them that when the

scrolls became unusable they were buried, a type of funeral service being

said over the scroll.

The great significance of this archeological discovery is that it provided

evidence of the Old Testament text at the time of Christ or even earlier.

One evangelist has reported on his conversation with the director of the

museum examining the Dead Sea Scrolls. The evangelist stated:

As the director of the Jerusalem Museum assured us that they had

found manuscripts or fragments of all the books of the Old

Testament, I asked him if there was any difference between these

ancient manuscripts and our present Bible. He quickly answered,

"There is virtually no difference. In practically all things they are

130

exactly the same as the Authorized Version. You can take that for

Professor Frank Cross confirmed that

Not only in Isaiah, but in other prophetic books, indeed in the

entire Old Testament, we must now assume that the Old

Testament text was stabilized early, and that late recensional

activities were of only slight effect. This conclusion, of course,

powerfully supports textual scholars of conservative persuasion.

In confirmation, another authority stated:

In the latter years of the nineteenth century the champions of

Christianity were mainly on the defensive. Natural science was in

the heyday of the progress which took its rise in the discoveries

and doctrine of Darwin. At the same time within the sphere of

religious study itself a school of thought asserted itself which

questioned the authenticity and trustworthiness of the fundamental

doctrines of Christianity, and applied the utmost freedom of

skepticism to their narratives. Against this attitude the state of our

knowledge of biblical archeology did not supply arguments which

could effectively convince those who did not wish to be convinced.

The advocates of the Christian faith fought at a disadvantage and

were on the defensive. Now all this is changed, and the point I

want to make is that we are no longer on the defensive. It is no

longer the Christian scholar who is out of date. The up-to-date

scholars are now those who recognize the authenticity and

authority of the Christian literature. It is the critics who formerly

claimed to be advanced, who are now belated and behind the times.

Sir Frederick Kenyon, former head of the manuscript department

of the British Museum in his presidential address to the Victoria

A scroll of great significance is the Isaiah scroll, which is in excess of

twenty-four feet in length, and contains Isaiah’s entire prophecy. Higher

131

critics had long held that Isaiah was written by separate authors, one

writing the first thirty-nine chapters and the other the remainder. The

basis for this speculation was that the fortieth chapter focuses on the

Babylonian exile which occurred over one hundred years after Isaiah’s

death. Faithful students of Scripture have long discarded such theorizing,

believing rather that Isaiah wrote a prophetic message under divine

guidance. Let it not be overlooked that the New Testament writers quoted

both sections of Isaiah and ascribed the quotations to his pen. Jesus

Himself quoted from both the early and the latter sections of the book,

identifying Isaiah as the author of both.

And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By

hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall

see, and shall not perceive. [Jesus is quoting Isaiah 6:9-10.]

Matthew 13:14.

That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet,

saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.

[Jesus was quoting Isaiah 53:4.] Matthew 8:17

Thus when the Isaiah scroll was discovered it was eagerly examined for

clues to settle the dispute. All evidence indicated that the book was

written by a single author. There was absolutely no evidence of a

distinction between the thirty-ninth and the fortieth chapters, no break in

the material. Nor has the least evidence of separate authors been identified

in the more than one dozen other copies of Isaiah discovered. While these

findings do not provide proof beyond dispute, they accord with the

writers of the New Testament who, we assert, do provide irrefutable

evidence.

Yet it is men of higher critical bent who have been most active in planning

and supporting new Bible translations. They have been wrong in their

every attack on Scripture, and they cause great harm when their opinions

are accepted in the matter of biblical translation.

Of course, a further matter of great significance is that the discovery of the

Isaiah scroll, copied about 150 B.C., provided absolute certainty that the

precise Messianic prophecies of Isaiah were indeed written long before

Christ’s birth (the Septuagint translation around the same period also

132

confirms the matter). This evidence of Christ’s Messiahship is

outstanding.

It is rather sad to find in their writings that while the members of these

communities were avidly studying the Messianic prophecies, yet the

Messiah came during their era and they were totally oblivious of it. In

their earnest search these Essenes came to the conclusion that they could

anticipate four Messiahs — one a king in the line of David, one a priest of

the Levitical rite, another a prophet in the mold of Moses, and last a

Messiah of the order of Melchizedek. How close these men were to the

truth! If only they could have fused these four "Messiahs" in their minds!

But they could conceive neither of a priest of the tribe of Judah, nor of a

prophet who was also a conquering king. But in Jesus was their kingly

Prophet and Priest of the Order of Melchizedek. Interestingly, in their

commentaries on Melchizedek, these men recognized his role in judgment.

One scroll states:

Melchizedek shall exact the vengeance of the judgments of God from

the hand of Belial and from the hands of all the spirits of his lot.

When Hebrews chapters 5 and 7 are read we discover that the conclusions

of these people were not far from the truth. Yet they tragically failed to

recognize the One they earnestly sought.

At the time of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls the oldest Hebrew

text known was copied in the ninth century afer Christ. Thus the Dead Sea

Scrolls were up to one thousand years older than the earliest Hebrew

manuscripts used by the King James translators. The same translators had

been able to utilize manuscripts four hundred years older for their

translation of the New Testament. Yet we find that God in His goodness

had so preserved His Word that those ninth-century copies almost exactly

accorded with those of one thousand years earlier. This powerful

testimony should establish the faith of God’s people in His power to

preserve the Word of God, whether it be the Hebrew text of the Old

Testament or the Greek text of the New Testament. There are many such

lessons to be underscored in the minds of Bible students who cast doubts

upon the majority text.

133

CHAPTER 26

THE MISSING COMMA

Christians have often used the King James Version translation found in

instance verifying that there is no punctuation in the Greek language. The

proof was given in explanation to students of the Bible who were

unacquainted with Greek. It served to explain the misplacement of the

And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou

be with me in paradise. Luke 23:43

Since this text has frequently been used to indicate that a person goes to

heaven upon death, it was necessary to point out to those studying God’s

Word that the placement of the comma was a matter of judgment by the

translators. The appropriate position for the insertion of the comma is

Scripture, which asserts that the dead have no conscious existence.

However, there is another "comma" which is omitted from most modern

translations, called the Johannine comma. This comma has little to do with

punctuation; it consists of the following text of Scripture:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word,

and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 1 John 5:7

Of all the omitted texts, this one has caused the greatest difficulty to Bible

students, for it must be admitted that numerous Greek manuscripts do not

contain it, although it is to be found in the Latin Vulgate, a version of the

Scripture to which most true Protestants give little credence. This text, of

course, is a powerful evidence for the Godhead. Nevertheless, it is

important for us to examine the evidence for the validity of its inclusion in

134

The usual story circulated conceming the inclusion of this passage in

Tyndale’s English Scripture is that when the matter of its omission was

brought to his attention, Tyndale promised to include it, provided a single

manuscript could be found containing the passage. It was promptly

supplied. Thus to keep his word, Tyndale included it. However, some

stated the produced manuscript to be a forgery. Those accepting this

account clearly could have no confidence in the authenticity of the text.

But is this superficial view a correct one? It has been said that Tyndale

included this text only in parentheses. For example, Dr. Adam Clarke in

in addressing 1 John 5:7 states:

admitted the words into the text of the first edition of his New

Testament printed in 1526, yet he distinguished them by a

different letter, and put them in brackets.

However, in the only extant first edition of Tyndale’s Bible, in Bristol,

England, no such parenthesis appears. Thus Dr. Adam Clarke is incorrect

in his statement. What is true is that in the later edition of William

Tyndale’s New Testament, published in 1534 after his execution, these

words are in parentheses.

(For ther are thre that beare recorde in heuen, the father, the word

and the holy ghost. And these thre are one). 1 John 5:7, 1534

edition of William Tyndale’s New Testament

It is thought that the parentheses were added after Tyndale’s death.

Perhaps no group of Christian believers more diligently kept the purity of

the faith alive in Europe than did the Waldenses. Their missionaries went

to many countries, including Hungary, Czechoslovakia, France, England,

Scotland and Italy. These Christian believers refused to use the Latin

Vulgate, but used the old Latin Bible which was written in the Romaunt

language. When the early leaders of the Reformation entered the valleys of

the Waldenses, it was agreed that they would translate the Waldensian

Bible into French, comparing it with the original Hebrew and Greek. This

translation became the Olivetan Bible, the first Protestant Bible in the

French language. The second edition of the Olivetan Bible, which was later

135

produced by Calvin, became the basis of the Geneva Bible in the English

language, a forerunner of the King James Version. Since the Waldensians

had maintained their Scripture for over 900 years, it is instructive to record

that the Olivetan Bible and the Geneva Bible both contain the passage of 1

John 5:7. It is recorded in the Olivetan Bible as follows:

Car il y en a trois qui rendent temoignage u ciel, le Pere, la Parole,

et le Saint Esprit: et ces trois-la sont un. 1 John 5:7 in the French

edition of 1569

The English translation for the above is as follows:

For there are three who give witness in the heavens, the Father, the

Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.

John Calvin, in his Bible Commentary, made an interesting statement upon

this contested passage:

this verse has been by some omitted. Jerome thinks that this has

happened through design rather than through mistake, and that

indeed only on the part of the Latins. But as even the Greek copies

do not agree, I dare not assert anything on the subject. Since,

however, the passage flows better when this clause is added and as

I see that it is found in the best and most approved copies, I am

inclined to receive it as the true reading. John Calvin,

What did Calvin mean when he claimed that the passage flowed better

when it was included in the substance of the first epistle of John? Dr. P.S.

Ruckman has pointed out:

The evidence that shows the passage should be there (if it was ever

which is grammatically impossible. (Editor’s note: To illustrate, an

English construction which is grammatically impossible would be,

for instance, She agrees with themselves.)

oti treiv eioin marturuontev, to pneuma kai to udwr kai

to aima, kai oi treiv en eion

136

The problem with the Greek of the perverted manuscripts is that in 1 John

require neuter articles. However, the articles retained in verse 8 are

masculine gender and thus indicate that the presence of verse seven is

needed to make the passage grammatically correct.

No doubt there is another reason which compelled Ruckman to observe:

But Origen and W.H. [Westcott and Hort] never hesitated to

violate the rules of Freshman Greek Grammar if it afforded an

opportunity to destroy the despised Reformation! Ibid.

Indeed, very careful research has been undertaken to evaluate the

authenticity of the Johanninc comma. One such researcher was Dr.

Frederick Nolan who concluded that the Johannine comma was indeed part

of the original biblical manuscript.

Dr. Nolan, who had already acquired fame for his Greek and Latin

scholarship and researches into Egyptian chronology, and was a

lecturer of note, spent twenty-eight years to trace back the Received

Text to its apostolic origin. He was powerfully impressed to examine

the history of the Waldensian Bible. He felt certain that researches in

this direction would demonstrate that the Italic New Testament, or

the New Testament of those primitive Christians of northern Italy

whose lineal descendants were the Waldenses would turn out to be

Frederick Nolan’s conclusions were as follows:

The author perceived, without any labor of inquiry, that it derives

its names from that diocese, which has been termed the Italick, as

contra-distinguished from the Roman. This is a supposition, which

received a sufficient confirmation from the fact, — that the

principal copies of that version have been preserved in that

diocese, the metropolitan church of which was situated in Milan.

The circumstance is at present mentioned, as the author thence

formed a hope that some remains of the primitive Italick version

might be found in the early translations made by the Waldenses,

137

who were the lineal descendants of the Italick Church; and who

have asserted their independence against the usurpations of the

Church of Rome, and have ever enjoyed the free use of the

Scriptures.

In the search to which these considerations have led the author, his

fondest expectations have been fully realized. It has furnished him

with abundant proof on that point to which his inquiry was chiefly

directed; as it has supplied him with an unequivocal testimony of a

truly apostolical branch of the primitive church, that the celebrated

text of the heavenly witnesses [1 John 5:7] was adopted in the

version which prevailed in the Latin Church previously to the

Here is sound evidence that the disputed passage from 1 John 5:7 was

included in manuscripts prior to the publication of the Latin Vulgate.

Indeed,

The Reformers held that the Waldensian Church was formed about

son the teachings they received from the apostles. The Latin Bible,

Even Augustine, bishop of Hippo, admitted about the year 400:

Now among translators themselves the Italian (Itala) is to be

preferred to the others, for it keeps closer to the words without

However, so ingrained has it become in the thinking of modern students of

the Bible that this passage has no place in Scripture, that when Greek

manuscripts support its authenticity, often there is a sense of dejection.

Thus, Ruckman reported:

Observe the "conservative" scholar, F.F. Bruce, bemoaning the fact

138

"conservative" if the Greek manuscript had never showed up! Dr.

When translating the Authorized Version in 1611, the translators had

before them four Bibles which had come from Waldensian

influences: the Diodati in Italian, the Olivetan in French, the

Lutheran in German, and the Genevan in English. We have every

reason to believe that they had access to at least six Waldensian

Thus the translators of the Authorized Version were very indebted to the

Waldensian biblical traditions for including 1 John 5:7 as an authentic

portion of Scripture.

Many critics of this passage are unacquainted with the powerful evidence

for its validity, and accept the attacks upon it by those who have no love

for the pure Word of God.

139

CHAPTER 27

THE REVISED STANDARD VERSION AND ISLAM

One significant feature of the use of the perverted manuscripts of

Scripture is its influence upon those of other faiths. This aspect has, we

believe, received no attention in any other work considering the new

translations of Scripture. The influence of the new translations is most

marked in Islam. To many in the West it may seem to be a matter of minor

import. But such ignore that Islam is growing at a rate which exceeds that

of Christianity and that almost one-fifth of the population of the world

professes this faith Only nine nations upon earth have populations

exceeding 100 million. Yet three of these (Indonesia, Pakistan, and

Bangladesh) are Islamic nations and three others (India, China, and the

former U.S.S.R.) have large Islamic minorities. Even in huge nations which

we traditionally see as Christian, Islam is making giant strides. Thus the

Islamic population of Brazil has reached two million. In Colombia where

the population contained only four Islamic believers per 10,000 citizens in

1988, no fewer than 26 adherents of that persuasion were members of

parliament; two held ministerial portfolios and many of the journalists of

the country professed the Islamic faith.

The use of the corrupted version of Scripture is understandably cited by

Moslem apologists as proof beyond dispute that the Bible has been

corrupted by human devising. And unquestionably, so it has, in the

Revised Standard Version of Scripture which falsely asserts that

The King James Version has grave defects and that these defects

are so many and so serious as to call for revision. Ahmad Deedat,

Selangor, Malaysia

140

Little could the writers of this disgraceful introduction have anticipated

that their words would be seized upon as evidence of the inferiority of the

Bible as compared with the Qur’an, concerning which Sir William Muir is

credited with asserting two hundred years ago:

There is probably in the world no other book that has remained

twelve centuries with so pure a text. Ibid, 9

It is of no casual interest that Deedat invariably points to the Catholic and

the modern Protestant versions as more accurate than the King James

Version. This latter version always appears to strike at the heart of

unbelievers and call forth their greatest wrath. This striking power in itself

should be cause for contemplation. ‘Quoting God’s denunciation of those

who delete material from Scripture (Revelation 22:18-19), Deedat attacks

Protestants who have

bravely expunged seven whole books from their Book of God.

Ibid., 9, emphasis in the original

His reference is here to the absence of the Apocryphal books from the

King James Version of Scripture.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses have, for their own purpose, also made efforts

to destroy the credibility of the King James Version of the Bible. They

claim that

as early as 1720, an English authority estimated that there were at

least 20,000 errors in the two editions of the New Testament

commonly read by Protestants and Catholics. Modern students

1957

This article did not escape Deedat’s attention. When visited by a

Jehovah’s Witness in his home, he produced the article. The following

conversation ensued.

I asked, "Is this yours?" He readily recognized his own. I said, "It

says: 50,000 errors in the Bible, is it true? "What’s that!" he

exclaimed. I repeated, "I said, that it says that there are 50,000

errors in your Bible."

141

"Where did you get that?" he asked. (This was printed 23 years

ago, when he was perhaps a little nipper.) I said, "Leave the fancy

talk aside — is this yours?" pointing again to the monograph,

"Awake." He said, "Can I have a look?"

"Of course," I said. I handed him the page. He started perusing.

They (the Jehovah’s Witnesses) are trained. They attend classes

five times a week in their "Kingdom Halls." Naturally they are the

fittest missionaries among the thousand-and-one-sects-anddenominations

of Christendom. They are taught that when

cornered, do not commit yourself to anything, do not open your

mouth. Wait for the Holy Ghost to inspire you with what to say. I

silently kept watching him, while he browsed the page. Suddenly,

he looked up. He had found it. The "Holy Ghost" had tickled him.

50,000? 500?, 50? Even if 50 remain, do you attribute those errors

to God?" He was speechless. He excused himself by suggesting

that he will come again with some senior member of his Church.

That will be the day! Ahmad Deedat, op. cit., 13-14

The perversions of Scripture relating to Christ’s divinity have been eagerly

exploited in the Islamic world. Referring to the exclusion of 1 John 5:7

from all modern versions, Deedat asserts:

This verse is the closest approximation to what the Christians call

keystone of the Christian faith has been scrapped from the Revised

Standard Version without even a semblance of explanation. It has

been a pious fraud all along and well-deservedly has been expunged

in the RSV for the English-speaking people. Ahmad Deedat, op.

cit., 16

Here the perverted text used in the modern versions of Scripture is used as

a powerful argument by Moslems against the divinity of Christ, whom

they debase to the status of a mere prophet.

142

Another Islamic author seizes upon the "evidence" of some modern

versions of Scripture which state that the last verses of Mark, chapter 16,

are not authentic, to cast doubt upon Christ’s ascension.

Neither Matthew nor John speaks of Jesus’ Ascension. Luke in his

gospel situates it on the day of the Resurrection and forty days

later in the Acts of the Apostles, of which he is said to be the

Tripoli, emphasis added

Many more examples of the misuse of the new versions of Scripture by

Islamic apologists could be cited. There is no doubt that these versions are

accomplishing much more harm to God’s cause in the non-Christian world.

Missionaries there must meet these arguments. Much time is thus

needlessly expended which could be better invested presenting positive

truth.

The new translations of Scripture are the work of Catholics, a segment of

Christianity which has never valued God’s Word, and of Protestant higher

critics, and often of Jews. This unholy alliance has performed untold evil

to the cause of God. That Protestants would promote translations of

Scripture bearing such poor credentials needs thorough investigation. We

should be careful not to support such works. Virtually all the arguments

used against the Holy Bible by Islamic authors are not original but are

extracted from the works of "Christian" theologians with a penchant for

higher criticism. Platitudes used by "Christian thinkers" who do not

believe the historicity of the gospels are understandably scorned by

writers from Moslem nations. Their opposition to Scripture is bolstered

by that which they read in "Christian" literature. Thus Bucaille used

Roguet’s wordy excuse for ignoring the plain statements of fact in the

gospels as proof of the Bible’s lack of veracity. Roguet’s offending

statement follows:

Here, as in many similar cases, the problem only appears

insuperable if one takes biblical statements literally, and forgets

their religious significance. It is not a matter of breaking down the

143

factual reality into symbolism which is inconsistent, but rather of

looking for the theological intentions of those revealing these

mysteries to us by providing us with facts we can apprehend with

our senses and signs appropriate to our incarnate spirit. Roguet,

By subtly using the doubt-engendering words of apostate theologians and

their scriptural translations, non-Christian authors powerfully hinder the

progress of the gospel. This hindrance to our missionary endeavors has

scarcely received attention in the West. But for those who are on the

cutting edge of the worldwide commission, it is significant. The time

surely has come for God’s people to take a stand against perverted

scriptural versions.

144

CHAPTER 28

THE DEFENSE OF MODERN TRANSLATIONS

One of the strongest defenses of modern translations, especially the New

Intemational Version (MV), has been made by the Canadian, Dr. D.A.

convinced that the King James Version is still the most reliable English

translation of the Bible, are indebted to scholars like Dr. Carson for making

them aware of the weakness of some arguments presented by overeager

defenders of the King James Version.

Dr. Carson with detailed care points out that no two manuscripts are

identical, and that the age of a manuscript is not final proof that it is more

accurate (though later in his book he does seem to give great emphasis to

the likely superiority of older manuscripts). Neither can we always trust

the majority reading of any text or passage. Dr. Carson details the way

intentional and unintentional errors have crept into the manuscripts.

Usually substantial changes, such as the effort of Marcion in the second

century to delete all references to Jesus’ Jewish background, have not been

difficult to detect. Marcion attempted to dissociate Christianity from the

Jews, who were then under fearful persecution by the Roman Empire.

It is significant that when Erasmus put out his Diaglot (Greek and Latin

translation) it varied significantly from the Catholic Vulgate of Jerome.

Erasmus’ second edition formed the basis of Luther’s German translation

and it became the basis of almost all of the Protestant translations of

Europe in the sixteenth century.

Unfortunately, Carson failed to acknowledge the tremendous thrust that

translations based upon Erasmus’ Greek text gave to the Reformation.

Though Erasmus did not renounce the Roman Catholic Church, there is no

doubt he hoped his text would foreshadow sweeping reforms within that

church. Such reforms did not eventuate, and the Latin Vulgate continued to

dominate Catholic thinking. Unfortunately, Carson spends considerable

145

space detailing how Erasmus had to resort to the use of the Vulgate for the

final six verses of Revelation since these verses were missing from the

Greek manuscripts he was using. Carson also enters into lengthy

arguments on Erasmus’ inclusion of 1 John 5:7-8. While both these issues

are worthy of review, they are presented in a way that casts unnecessary

that it was the standard text of the era. In reality, it was almost identical to

the Erasmus text of the previous century.

Though Carson does not indicate it, the leaders of the Protestant

presentation of scriptural purity that had been missing from the Latin

Vulgate. Therefore all over Europe the translations of that text were used

in the preparation of the Protestant Bibles, which differed markedly from

the Catholic Bible of the Latin Vulgate and the later vernacular translations

by Catholic scholars. It is only in recent years, with the rise of the

ecumenical movement, that many Protestant scholars have sought the

Alexandrian (Westem) text in preference to the Byzantine (Eastern) text.

We could not detect any substantive evidence presented by Carson to

verify his claim that the Alexandrian text is superior to that of the

Byzantine tradition, except that a few remaining manuscripts are earlier in

origin. And on his own testimony, the age of a manuscript is not decisive

in determining accuracy.

Carson presents fourteen theses to defend his viewpoint. His third thesis

is that the Byzantine text type is demonstrably a secondary text. He bases

this assertion upon the greater harmonization of the synoptic gospels (the

gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke) in the Byzantine text than in the

Alexandrian type text. We do not contest that there is harmony of the

gospels in the Byzantine text, but we deny that his thesis is thereby

strengthened. Yet this argument is set forth as one of the strongest. Of

course, such an argument does nothing to injure the doctrinal truth of the

gospels.

Another argument presented by Carson is that the famous Papyrus P75,

claims that this correspondence suggests an early dating of the Alexandrian

text.

146

The ultimate thesis set forth by Carson seems to develop in his chapter on

nontextual questions. It is evident that he has a preference for the New

International Version. He argues that the King James Version is too

insensitive to English idiom. This insensitivity, he says, leads to awkward

English. The King James Version, he further states, gets into difficulty

trying to translate Greek imperfect verbs into English imperfect verbs, and

is too literal at other points as well. This awkwardness he says is

minimized in the New International Version. However, we are willing to

accept a little awkwardness, if by so doing we have greater accuracy

In his book Carson states:

Some modern translations tend toward the heretical by virtue of

the fourth of the presuppositions that govern the translations.

D.A. Carson, op. cit., 65

Perhaps Carson has not recognized that the New International Version is

certainly guilty of this tendency, independent of the merits of the

manuscripts used in its translation. Unwittingly he has attested to this fact

when he says of the awkwardness of the King James translation:

This is one of the errors that the translators of the New

International Version, all of whom were selected because of both

minimize. Ibid., 89, emphasis supplied

This thesis we hold strongly. The New International Version reflects the

biases of evangelical translators, just as the Douay reflects Catholic bias.

Perhaps most surprising is that Carson provides not one substantive

doctrinal issue that is presented erroneously in the King James Version. If

he is aware of them, he certainly chose to refrain from their presentation.

Admittedly, he states that he is presenting only a few examples, but we

wonder why he does not present such important defects if they exist.

Carson asserts:

The onus of proof, in my view, still rests with the defenders of the

Byzantine tradition. Ibid., 111

We wonder why. Surely any significant change from a 350-year Protestant

147

is meaningless in itself, but surely substantive evidence is required to

support a case for change.

Of course most of the New Testament is already textually certain;

and as I have already argued, the remaining variations may affect

the interpretation of various passages, but they do not affect a

single doctrine. Ibid., 119

In this assertion, Carson is demonstrably in error. In various passages the

disputed readings do weaken the testimony of Scripture in defense of the

divinity of Christ, the investigative judgment, the state of the dead, the

doctrine of the Lord’s supper, and the mediatorial work of Christ. In view

of this fact, we question Carson’s strong support of the New International

Version, which seeks, by interpretive translation, to support the

evangelical concept in such areas as Augustine’s doctrine of original sin

(Psalm 51:5), and immediate life after death (2 Peter 2:9), and in the other

substantial doctrinal aberrations that have their roots in the infiltration of

pagan doctrines into the early Christian church.

Our major disappointment is that Carson either fails to address, or

addresses with only passing reference, many important issues. He does

not address, for example, the well over 3,000 differences between the

Codex Vaticanus, and the Codex Sinaiticus upon which so much of the

Westcott-Hort Greek text is established. Neither does Carson address the

numerous missing words, phrases, and passages in the Codex Vaticanus.

Neither does he address the numerous "corrections" and changes made by

twenty or thirty scribes over a period of half a millennium within the

Codex Sinaiticus.

Carson emphasizes that no Byzantine -type text has been discovered

had no origin before this date; it must have come from somewhere. There

are also very, very few Western and Alexandrian texts from before this

time, and for the next three or four centuries there are few of the

Byzantine texts that are now known. Why not acknowledge that there

may be some earlier Byzantine texts that are waiting to be discovered?

Surely we have not found all that are hidden in some remote building, or

archeological area, yet to be uncovered.

148

Carson makes much of the invalidity of arguments as to why we have no

correctly points out that after the fourth century, Greek almost vanished

as a spoken (or read) language in the Western Roman Empire. Therefore it

would be logical to assume that with Jerome’s Latin Vulgate dominating

the educational institutions, this translation was copied over and over

again by copyists. Thus the Greek manuscripts in the West all but

disappeared. Given this reality, demonstrated by the very few Greek

manuscripts discovered in the West from later periods of history, we

would logically expect that Western scholars would be more likely to

preserve the tattered and torn copies of the earlier Greek New Testament,

since preparation of new copies had fallen into abeyance. Further, since

the Latin Vulgate became the standard Scripture of the West, older copies

of the Greek manuscripts held there were less likely to be read and thus

destroyed by constant use. However, in the Eastern Roman Empire, the

situation was entirely different. For a half millennium after the fourth

century, Greek continued to be a strongly active language. Thus, Greek

New Testament manuscripts continued to be copied in significant numbers

in the East. We can logically assume, with the much larger numbers of

manuscripts available in the East, as is attested by the number that have

been recovered, that old, tattered, and worn copies of the manuscripts

would be far more likely to be discarded and destroyed. Also their

constant use would ensure their rapid deterioration.

Carson asserts that the earlier church fathers quoted from the Western

Alexandrian texts in their writings rather than from the Byzantine. We

point out that those church fathers resided in the Western empire, not the

Eastern. Further, there is increasing evidence now that the Byzantine text

was very frequently used in the writings of the ante-Nicene period (before

340). This evidence is quite remarkable, since these men almost all resided

in the West. Such a finding is powerful evidence for the validity of the

Byzantine text.

Another strong concern expressed over the last century is the evidence of

the Anglo-Catholic commitment of Westcott and Hort. This bias is

confirmed in their own writings, and naturally leads to suspicion of the

motives behind the translation of the Revised Version, which is the

forerunner of virtually all modern English translations, and not a few in

149

other languages. Faithful Protestants are hardly comforted by the reported

statements of the distaste of Westcott and Hort for the King James

Version. Carson surprisingly does not address this issue.

We are also disappointed that Carson does not seriously compare exact

equivalence, versus dynamic equivalence, in translation. We assume that he

does not believe the King James Version or any other translations use

exact equivalence, for he says it ought to be obvious that to some extent

involved again and again with finding the "dynamic equivalent." In the

perspective from which he was writing, his statement is true; but it

sidesteps the real issue. The Hebrew language has been judged to be one of

the most "concrete" languages in the world, and even the writers of the

New Testament, though writing in Greek, were writing with the mind-set

of Hebrews. Therefore, many Hebrew phrases needed to be translated

from the concrete to the abstract. Thus, the translators of the King James

Version attempted to give the exact meaning of the original languages in an

altogether different way from the liberties taken by most modern

translators in the name of "dynamic equivalence."

As an attempt to discredit the King James Version of Scripture, Carson’s

book falls far short of its aim. He uses selective evidence, ignores difficult

questions, fails to give weight to more substantial explanations of proven

facts, and altogether provides no sound basis for his preference for the

New International Version of the Bible.

150

CHAPTER 29

THE REVISED VERSION

In the second half of the nineteenth century, strident moves afoot in

England aimed at a revision of the King James Version of Scripture. Since

the resultant Revised Version became the model for virtually all the

modern translations, it is worthy of our investigation.

While the King James Version was translated in an atmosphere of deep

dedication to God and to His truth, and abhorrence of the apostasy

promoted by the Roman Catholic Church, the motivation of the

translators of the Revised Version was altogether different. In their

unwearied efforts to restore the primacy of the papal faith in Britain

through its educational institutions, the Jesuits did not overlook the

institution which epitomized English educational excellence — the

University of Oxford. Indeed Dr. Desanctis asserted that there were

a greater number of Jesuits [in Britain] than in Italy. Desanctis,

Since Dr. Desanctis had held the position of professor of Theology in

Rome and official Theological Censor of the Inquisition and was himself a

member of the Jesuit order before converting to Protestantism, we can give

credence to his report. Indeed the same author claimed:

There are Jesuits in all classes of society: in Parliament, among the

English clergy, among the Protestant laity, even in the higher

stations. Ibid.

So successful were these Jesuit infiltrators that in the middle of the

nineteenth century, the entire ecclesiastical history of Britain was revised.

In his insightful work, the historian J.A. Froude related his own

experiences during this period at the University of Oxford:

151

In my first term at the University, the controversial fires were

beginning to blaze ... I had learnt, like other Protestant children,

that the Pope was Antichrist, and that Gregory VII had been a

special revelation of that being. I was now taught that Gregory VII

was a saint. I had been told to honor the Reformers. The

Reformation became a great schism, Cranmer a traitor, and Latimer

Since Thomas Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury, and Hugh Latimer were

martyred for their opposition to the Roman Catholic faith and Milton was

one of the great Protestant poets, this alteration in historical perception by

the University of Oxford was a matter of no minor importance. In terms of

belief this change meant that while in 1833 Anglicans in Britain believed

that the Reformation was the work of God, that the pope was antichrist,

and that the celebration of the Mass was satanic, a mere half-century later

most Anglicans saw the Reformation as rebellion and the pope as the true

successor of the apostles, while many participated in the services of the

Mass.

Precisely one hundred years before our birth, the Oxford movement

commenced. J.H. Newman was the leading founder of this movement.

Newman had entered the University of Oxford as an Evangelical Christian

but already the Jesuit influence was so strong that his professors,

particularly Hawkins, the provost of Oriel College in Oxford, were

teaching that the Bible must be interpreted in the light of tradition.

Newman graduated from Oxford University with his Bachelor of Arts

degree, and in 1823 was elected a fellow of Oriel College. As a fellow of

Oriel College, Newman fell under the influence of numerous persons

purporting to belong to the Church of England, but possessing a strong

anti-Protestant and anti-Evangelical bias.

In 1833 Newman made a tour of Europe, making Rome his principal

destination. While there, he sent a message to the pope requesting details

of the terms upon which the Church of England could be accepted by the

Church of Rome. The answer he received was that the Church of England

must accept the findings of the Council of Trent. That Council, which had

152

been called to counter the spread of Protestantism, had uplifted tradition

and had devised plans to destroy the influence of the Protestant

Reformation. It was while travelling back by boat from Rome that

Newman wrote the words:

When one understands the circumstances in which Newman, who later

professed the Catholic faith, and was promoted to the rank of cardinal

without ever so much as being consecrated a bishop, much less an

archbishop, it does reduce one’s appreciation of this hynm.

Upon his return, Newman commenced the Oxford movement. This

movement was not consciously organized in 1833. But Newman wrote a

series of tracts, as did others, and shortly the Association of Friends of the

Church was formed. This secretive society formed the powerful impetus

for the Oxford movement. Newman’s thinking was well expressed in 1841

when he wrote:

Only through the English church can you act upon the English

nation. I wish, of course, our Church should be consolidated, with

and through and in your communion, for its sake, and your sake, and

Since this letter was addressed to a Roman Catholic, its intent cannot be

mistaken. So perverted had become the thinking of these treacherous

members of the Church of England that they described Protestantism as

antichrist. One of Newman’s associates in the Oxford movement, F.W.

Faber, wrote:

Protestantism is perishing: what is good in it is by God’s mercy

being gathered into the garners of Rome ... My whole life, God

willing, shall be one crusade against the detestable and diabolical

quoted in ibid.

153

Newman gave the date July 14, 1833, as the date of the beginning of the

Oxford movement. Perhaps it is of no significance, but that date was the

forty-fourth anniversary of the storming of the Bastille in Paris, the event

which activated the French Revolution. The Oxford movement commenced

a revolution of another order, one no more honorable.

Faber made a visit to Rome in 1843. There he visited the church of St.

John Lateran on the Thursday before Easter. His report indicates just how

consumed he was by Catholicism, despite still claiming membership in the

Church of England.

I got close to the altar, inside the Swiss Guards, and when Pope

Gregory descended from his throne, and knelt at the foot of the

altar, and we all knelt with him, it was a scene more touching than I

had ever seen before ... That old man in white, prostrate before the

uplifted Body of the Lord, and the dead, dead silence — Oh, what

a sight it was! ... On leaving St. John’s by the great western door,

the immense piazza [square] was full of people; ... and in spite of

the noonday sun, I bared my head and knelt with the people, and

received with joy the Holy Father’s blessing until he fell back on

quoted in ibid., 131

In October 1850, a very significant event occurred in England. For the first

time since the Reformation, a Roman Catholic hierarchy was created with

Cardinal Wiseman appointed as the primate of England and archbishop of

Westminster. In addition twelve other bishoprics were established. There

was still sufficient Protestant sentiment in England for an explosion of

wrath which shook the cities of England. The cry went out from villages,

towns, and cities, "No popery!" In the city of Salisbury, in the county of

Wiltshire, where the famous Salisbury Cathedral is situated, effigies of the

pope, Cardinal Wiseman, and the twelve bishops were burnt in protest.

However, despite all this evidence of anti-Catholic sentiment, the

continued training of Anglican (Church of England) priests in Anglo-

Catholicism had its undoubted effects. Dramatic alterations in the Anglican

faith ensued. It is upon this matter that all Protestants need be warned, for

one hundred years later, precisely the same method is being used to

weaken the faith of all Christians. As young pastors are trained today in a

154

large number of colleges and seminaries they are learning doctrines more

akin to the beliefs of Catholicism than of Protestantism, resulting in a

rapid decline in faith and principle within Protestantism.

It was in 1870, in this Anglo-Catholic atmosphere dominated by

clergymen influenced by the Oxford movement and with a desire for unity

with Rome, that the southern communion of the Church of England

decided to revise the King James Version of Scripture. It is vital for those

who have been seduced into using the new translations of Scripture as

their basic Bibles to understand the fundamental texts upon which those

Scriptures have been prepared, and the purpose for which they have been

designed. It was in these circumstances that two theological professors,

purporting to be members of the Church of England, dominated the

revision commenced in 1870. These men were Doctors Brooke Foss

Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort. Westcott later became bishop

of Durham, the fourth ranking bishop of the Anglican Church in England.

That these men were fully influenced by the Oxford movement and were

more Catholic than Anglican in their outlook can easily be demonstrated

from their writings. At the time of his graduation with his Bachelor of Arts

degree in 1847, Westcott had feared that he would have to sign belief in the

39 articles of faith of the Anglican Church, for he no longer assented to

them. Both men were great believers in Mary worship. As we have

previously noted, Professor Hort on one occasion wrote,

I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and

‘Jesus’-worship have very much in common in their causes and

their result. Life of Hort, vol. II, 49, quoted in ibid., 152

This letter interestingly was addressed to Westcott. Westcott on another

occasion, as we have seen, told how he knelt for a considerable period of

time in front of a statue of Mary.

After leaving the monastery, we shaped our course to a little

oratory which we discovered on the summit of a neighboring hill ...

Fortunately, we found the door open. It is very small, with one

kneeling-place; and behind a screen was a "Pieta" the size of life

[that is, a life-size statue of Mary and the dead Christ] ... Had I

been alone I could have knelt there for hours. Letter written by

155

81, quoted in ibid.

Thus Doctors Westcott and Hort were both prepared and motivated to

influence the translation committee toward the utilization of the corrupted

Western manuscripts of the New Testament promoted by the Roman

Catholic Church and the Jesuits in their effort to destabilize Protestantism.

Previous to the commencement of the revision, Westcott and Hort

colluded to produce alterations consistent with Roman Catholic desires.

Writing on May 28, 1870, to Hort, Westcott stated:

Your note came with one from Ellicott this morning ... Though I

think that Convocation [the Southern Convocation of the Church

of England] is not competent to initiate such a measure [the

revision of the Bible], yet I feel that as "we three" are together it

would be wrong not to "make the best of it" as Lightfoot says ...

there is some hope that alternative readings might find a place in

It will be seen that Westcott’s ambitions were less than the complete

revision of Scripture at this point. Nevertheless he was to find, along with

Hort, the opportunity for a total capitulation to the Roman Catholic

manuscripts as the translation progressed.

On July 1, 1870, Westcott wrote to Hort again stating:

The Revision on the whole surprised me by prospects of hope. I

suggested to Ellicott a plan of tabulating and circulating

emendations before our meeting which may in the end prove

Perhaps Dr. Hort’s letter to one of his friends, Dr. Rowland Williams,

exposed the greatest testimony to the cunning design of these translators:

The errors and prejudices, which we agree in wishing to remove,

can surely be more wholesomely and also more effectually reached

by individual efforts of an indirect kind than by combined open

assault. At present very many orthodox but rational men are being

unawares acted on by influences which will assuredly bear good

fruit in due time, if the process is allowed to go on quietly; and I

156

cannot help fearing that a premature crisis would frighten back

quoted in ibid., 160

Thus it can be seen that Hort was determined to achieve, through subtlety

and artifice, that which he could not openly achieve.

The announcement that there would be a new translation of Scripture

undertaken was met with much skepticism from devout English

Christians. Archbishop Trench, the archbishop of Canterbury, recognized

this fact. While the committee of translators was authorized only to alter

proven errors and archaic terms in the King James Version, nevertheless

they completely overstepped the mandate and substituted the corrupted

Western Greek manuscripts for the pure manuscripts of the Eastern

stream. Even the chairman of the New Testament Revision Committee, an

ardent advocate of the revision, Bishop Ellicott, was constrained to admit:

Even critical editors of the stamp of Tischendorf have apparently

not acquired even a rudimentary knowledge of several of the

leading versions which they conspicuously quote. Nay, more, in

many instances they have positively misrepresented the very

readings which they have followed, and have allowed themselves to

be misled by Latin translations which, as my note will testify, are

This relative ignorance of the manuscripts must be contrasted with the

fundamental knowledge of the translators of the King James Version, who

translated that version at a time when Greek and Hebrew scholarship was

at its zenith.

Most Protestants who are now influenced to use new versions of

Scripture need to stop and understand the whole basis upon which these

translations have been prepared. If we wish to follow translations

favorable to Catholic doctrine, then we may continue to study from the

New International Version, the Revised Standard Version, the Jerusalem

Bible, the New English Version, Today’s English Version, the American

Standard version, and other equally faulted modern translations. Now is

not a time to listen to our college professors on this matter. Almost

157

without exception, even the most conservative are using versions such as

the Revised Standard Version, unaware that in doing so they are uplifhng

the Bible so precious to the Roman Catholics. Such are preparing

themselves and the lay people in the pews for the day, soon to come,

when Catholicism will persecute those who refuse its evil dictates. We

appeal to our church leaders to study this matter aright; to give the lead in

upholding the wonderful Scriptures as prepared by the translators of the

King James Version. Now is not the time to weaken our people’s faith in

any way, and we, as ministers of the gospel, must warn of the enormous

dangers to faith and practice inherent in the common use of these faulted

versions.

It seems that many do not know that the translations undertaken at the

time of the Reformation were performed under the guidance of the Holy

Spirit. Such cannot be stated of the Revised Version, where men who were

deliberately destroying the Protestant faith were the chief spokesmen for

the translators.

158

CHAPTER 30

A MUTILATED NEW TESTAMENT

Few readers of God’s Word have the least notion of the differences

between the Greek manuscripts on which almost all modern versions of

Scripture are based and those used in the translation of the King James

Version. That the two manuscripts, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex

Vaticanus, contain not only deliberate alterations but are also the product

of extremely careless copyists cannot be denied. Yet it is these two faulty

manuscripts upon which so much weight is placed by the recent

translators of Scripture. When the New International Version states in

reference to Mark 16:9-20 that

[The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20.]

NIV, 1978

[The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do

not have Mark 16:9-20.] NIV, 1984

they fail to mention both that hundreds of carefully copied manuscripts do

indeed contain these words, and that in the Codex Vaticanus, the space for

these verses is very clearly left, indicating a careless omission.

Not only are the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus fiddled with

careless omissions and numerous spelling mistakes, but they also include

such spurious books as the Apocrypha, Bel and the Dragon, and the

Epistle of Barnabas.

Dr. Dobbin has estimated a total of 2,556 words or clauses omitted from

reflected in the modern translations. For instance, the Book of Revelation

is totally omitted from the Codex Vaticanus, but has been preserved in the

new translations.

159

The Gideon’s edition of the New International Version has attempted to

cover up these disgraceful omissions by inserting translations from other

texts, using square brackets to indicate that they do not belong to the

original manuscripts.

Let us examine some of the great truths that have been totally omitted

from the New International Version. These include:

For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. Matthew 18:11

This beautiful passage would be lost to God’s people if versions based

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour

widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayer: therefore, ye

shall receive the greater damnation. Matthew 23:14

Perhaps a church which demands penance and offerings for the dead from

poor widows, could not tolerate such straight testimony.

Let us examine a further omission from the New International Version.

But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in

heaven forgive your trespasses. Mark 11:26

This emphatic truth, the very words of Jesus, has been deleted. Perhaps it

suits the Roman Church since the passage does not accord with the Roman

Catholic doctrine that priests have the right to forgive sin. Roman

Catholics still deny that God directly forgives our sins.

Mark sought to emphasize Christ’s fulfillment of prophecy when, after

describing Christ’s crucifixion between two thieves, he quoted from Isaiah

53:12. This important confirmation of Christ’s fulfillment of prophecy

finds no place in the text of the New International Version.

And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered

with the transgressors. Mark 15:28

160

A portion of the story of the healing of the infirm man by the pool of

Bethesda is omitted (John 5:4). The affirmation of belief in Jesus by the

Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:37) is deleted, as is the complaint of the Jewish

leaders that the chief captain, Lysias, rescued Paul from their hands (Acts

24:7)· These are simply a few instances when entire verses have been

deleted from Scripture.

In only one case does the New International Version seek to cover a loss

of Scripture by dividing one verse in two to preserve the correct

numbering of verses.·This version omits 1 John 5:7 but divides verse 8

into two to provide a seventh verse.·In all other cases the verse is entirely

omitted and can be found only as a footnote, indicating that it is not a true

portion of Scripture.

In addition, no fewer than 180 phrases and clauses, many of them

significant, are missing in the New International Version. Ask someone to

repeat the Lord’s prayer as rendered by this version of Scripture. If he

should be able to do so, and it is doubtful, you will note that the following

is not in his recitation:

For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever.

Amen. Matthew 6:13

Once again the impact of Christ’s fulfillment of prophecy is not in this

modern version· Quoting David’s prophecy from Psalm 22:18, Matthew

asserted:

that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They

parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they

cast lots. Matthew 27:35

Yet the New International Version sees fit to omit this fact.

According to this version, when Christ was tempted by the devil, Luke did

not record Christ’s words:

Get thee behind me, Satan. Luke 4:8

On occasions these omissions have been used with telling effect to destroy

161

of an empty affirmation of belief are delighted to quote the following

verse:

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in

Christ Jesus. Romans 8:1, NIV

Diligent students of the Bible will recognize that a vital explanatory clause

has been omitted at the conclusion of this verse:

who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Romans 8:1, KJV

Furthermore, this text places an entirely different complexion upon one’s

understanding of the preceding verses of Romans 7.

According to the New International Version, the following advice to a

bishop is not found in Scripture:

Not greedy of filthy lucre. 1 Timothy 3:3

The history of the greed of the Papacy may provide a reason for this

omission. Nor is Christ’s assertion:

I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. Revelation 1:11

to be found in the New International Version.

In the grand declaration of victories obtained over the beast and his image

and the number of his name, the victory "over his mark" (Revelation 15:2)

escapes mention.

These serve simply as a few examples of the mass destruction of Scripture

in modern versions. The avid student of the Word may study further by

reference to Appendix B.

For some curious reason the name of the Lord is omitted on 173 occasions.

names on 26 occasions.

Perhaps even more startling are the 229 instances where differences in

meaning have been expressed without any omission. Compare the

following texts as examples:

162

Bible Verse King James

Version

New

International

Version

Why callest thou me

good?

Why do you ask me

about what is good?

Jesus replied.

Christ, which before

was preached unto you.

And that he may

send the Christ, who

has been appointed

for you — even

Jesus.

So then he that giveth

her in marriage doeth

well; but he that giveth

her not in marriage doeth

better.

So then, he who

marries the virgin

does right, but he

who does not marry

her does even better.

yield salt water and

fresh.

Neither can a salt

spring produce fresh

water.

unjust unto the day of

judgment to be

punished.

And to hold the

unrighteous for the

day of judgment,

while continuing their

punishment.

an angel flying through

the midst of heaven.

As I watched, I heard

an eagle that was

flying in midair call

out in a loud voice.

his commandments, that

they may have right to

the tree of life, and may

Blessed are those

who wash their

robes, that they may

have the right to the

163

enter in through the

gates into the city.

tree of life and may

go through the gates

into the city.

iniquity; and in sin did

my mother conceive me.

Surely I have been a

sinner from birth,

sinful from the time

my mother conceived

me.(1978)

Surely I was sinful at

birth, sinful from the

time my mother

conceived me.(1984)

reserved to the day of

destruction? they shall

be brought forth to the

day of wrath.

That the evil man is

spared from the day

of calamity, that he is

delivered from the

day of wrath.

This bias in translating discloses a calculated effort to insinuate the Roman

Catholic doctrine of original sin into Scripture.

In this chapter, we have only introduced the subject of scriptural

mutilation. The many thousands of alterations cannot be fully documented

in this book. But God’s people need to be aware that massive destruction

and alteration of God’s precious Word has been foisted upon Christians in

the guise of the use of modern English language. The desirable use of

contemporary English must not be achieved at the incalculable expense of

Bible purity.

164

CHAPTER 31

THE MILIEU OF THE REVISED STANDARD VERSION

On occasion it is enlightening to analyze the circumstances surrounding the

publication of a book, for it reveals the purpose of its presentation. In

1954, the World Council of Churches held its great convention in the

Chicago suburb of Evanston. At that convention five slogans were in

evidence. These slogans, which included reference to the Revised Standard

Version, at that time only recently published, tell much of the spirit in that

destroy denominations.

denominations.

child, to be our constitution and atomic bomb to bring all other Bibles

throughout the world in harmony with it.

conceived in time elsewhere — to lift the human race up in reverence

to God. That is the sacrifice of the Mass.

These slogans are quite a revelation, and merit closer examination. Each

one in its own way is threatening to humble souls who wish to avoid the

religious intolerance and coercion of former years. The first would force all

Christians into a single world church; the second would prevent the full

spread of the gospel; the third would foist a faulty Scripture upon all

Christians; the fourth implies religious interference in the political sphere,

thus introducing a perilous breach in the separation of church and state,

the one principle which has given religious freedom to mankind; and the

fifth would utterly destroy the very foundations of Protestantism by

165

restoring us to the tyranny and blasphemy of the Mass. In past

generations, thousands suffered martyrdom rather than to yield to such

practices.

Such is the unpromising milieu surrounding the presentation of the

Revised Standard Version of Scripture. It cannot be denied that it was

produced to support the cause of ecumenism and the unsanctified aims of

the World Council of Churches. It is thus not mere coincidence that the

use of the Revised Standard Version and like translations has been

accompanied by a blurring of the distinction between Protestantism and

Catholicism. We live in an era when the Anglican Archbishop of

Canterbury feels free to call for a Christian Church led by the pope

Baptist Church claim that they share one Lord, one faith, one baptism

Lutherans find that they can join with Roman Catholics in united aims

women who will not yield their faith, nor compromise doctrine. They are

not blinded by current ecumenical propaganda nor are they willingly