Friday, Nov 24th

Last update:09:46:58 AM GMT

You are here: Christian Doctrine The Bible Paths of Truth and Error

Paths of Truth and Error

E-mail Print PDF

 In this article I will offer a very simple answer, without technical intrusions, so that you will have a gentle introduction to the articles that will follow. If you do not see a favourite argument here, wait for the other articles!

 Christians can follow one of two paths – the right one or the wrong one. Some of these paths have no dire consequences. But, the path of truth is vital. Veer away from it and you will always end up in trouble. And, only one person has an interest in guiding you away from the true path – Satan.

He has tried for many centuries to mislead and misinform. When he started to impact God’s word by changing it, he was using a ploy he used at the very beginning of time.

“Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?”

“And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:”

Genesis 3:1&4

The Hebrews were jealous keepers of their God’s word and strictly maintained it as received. 19TH century heretics, who wickedly devised the Higher Criticism movement, tried to throw Christians into confusion, by saying that certain verses were written later, or earlier, or that they were passed-on by oral traditions, so could not be trusted. What lies! The Mosaic Jews were utterly strict in how they transmitted what God said, and they wrote it all down! However, there were Jews (more today) who tried to infiltrate it with lies and their own philosophies. This is why, today, Judaism is littered with the occult and bad theology. It all began with Satan’s serpentine insinuation that maybe God did not give the whole truth...

He is using the very same tactic with new versions of scripture, causing men and women to walk a wrong path by asking “Did God say so?” and “No, you won’t die!” Is the issue that important? Yes, it is. Spiritual death is worse than physical death.

We all require oxygen to live. What if someone started to pollute our office, home, school, etc., with a dangerous gas, slowly mixing it in increasing amounts with the oxygen? Would it do the same thing, or would we die? The answer is obvious: at first our bodies would tolerate the unacceptable gas, then we would start to become unwell, then very sick, and then we would die. The more of the gas we took in, the more likely we would be to die, as vital oxygen is depleted and the poison increases.

Also, as a writer of long standing, I know what can be done by making the slightest change to texts, or changing their order in a sentence, or omitting or adding words. When dealing with the way groups antagonistic to Christ operate, I warn that the first thing they do is – change words and their meanings. The new version editors have this same agenda, and change words at will, thus changing the perceptions of readers of bibles.

Is Error Acceptable?

I have sometimes asked people how much error is acceptable when dealing with doctrine? My answer is always “Zero”, because it is the answer of the Lord. Why should I accept even one error, when God does not? The same answer applies to the Bible itself. The original sources said a particular thing. If we truly believe the originals were inspired by the Lord, then we must accept without question that the originals cannot be faulted or improved upon. True?

And have you noticed how God is very specific; but, when men dabble with His word, they broaden it out to include several doubts and variables, implying there can be a number of options? In this way they reduce God’s word to philosophical arguments, so that error can be introduced. This is exactly what new versions do. Be warned if you use, or teach from, any of the new versions, or run the danger of being classed by God as a “vile person” (Isaiah 32:6,7),

“For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise hypocrisy, and to utter error against the LORD, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.

The instruments also of the churl [are] evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right.”

Make no mistake – new versions speak villainy against the Lord, and utter error against Him! These devices – new versions – are “wicked”, and are used to destroy the faith of many people who are born again, and misrepresent God to the unsaved.

Note: Almost every scriptural word has a number of possible meanings. Depending on the word, these meanings can be either literal or figurative. In every case, the meaning used in any verse must take into account the context of the word and verse, and the verses around them. New versions are unscholarly in the way they handle these variables, because their aim is to destroy genuine scripture and to impose man’s unholy ideas, which taint faith with error. (See A-404: Westcott and Hort

In the 19th century, theologians began to meddle with this straightforward fact, tearing-apart what God said by inserting their own ideas – modernists who devised such horrors as higher criticism, which helped to devastate the churches and faith, coinciding with that other devilish thing called ‘evolution’. It is in this setting that new versions were set. (See A-329).

Job 32:8 says:

“But [there is] a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.”

The feminine noun, ruwach, is common in the Old Testament. There are a large number of possible meanings, but in this verse it refers to that part of man that gives him life, including his disposition, moods, and mental abilities. Though existing, this spirit is NOT ALIVE before repentance and salvation, even if one is elect in eternity; it is MADE ALIVE at the precise time the Holy Spirit has determined a person will be born again, or regenerated.

Therefore, for the man in the verse to understand anything of God, he must firstly be spiritually alive and not dead in sins. Thus, the ‘understanding’ this man has is only possible because he is made spiritually alive (born again) by the Holy Spirit. Then, the man’s spirit can commune with God’s Spirit. Modernist theologians think men can understand God and salvation without this rebirth, and so unsaved theologians wreak havoc in the churches today.

It is the “inspiration” of Shadday (Shaddai, the Almighty), God, that makes the understanding effective. That is, in this verse, the breath of God, leading to the rebirth of the spirit. There are a few other possible meanings, but this is probably the best one in this context.

(For those who are suspicious that I might be imposing my own interpretation: another possible meaning is ‘the breath of man’; another is the ‘spirit of man’. Neither can apply in this case, because we are emphatically told that the inspiration is “of the Almighty”. Another meaning is ‘souls’, but as souls belong to mankind, it cannot be a meaning in this verse. The word can also refer to every living thing... but as we have had the word qualified by ‘Almighty’ this cannot apply either. The word can also refer to the anger of God. So, you see, I am not just cherry-picking meanings!)

2 Timothy 3:16 says:

“All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”

This repeats the same principle, that scripture is inspired or breathed by God, not by Man. Note that this applies to ALL of scripture, which automatically means that no man may tamper with scripture (the warning about this in Revelation primarily applies to the book of Revelation, and secondarily, and just as importantly, to ALL of scripture, as scriptural logic dictates). Only this inspired word makes a man “perfect” (verse 17) and enables him to do good works. (This holy inspiration was given to the originals, not to copies. Therefore, if the copies faithfully transmit what the originals said, in every jot and tittle, the copies also pass-on the inspired word).

The adjective, pas (‘all’), can be used of both individual and collective forms. That is, scripture is inspired, whether it is an individual word, verse, paragraph or book, or applied collectively to all the Bible (because it covers all forms of declension). Vine explains that it “radically means ‘all’, or all things.”

“Inspiration” here is theopneustos. Pneo means coming from God, as breathing, for example (this is a presumed meaning, given the texts). The whole word is rooted in theos. Though this word can be used to describe false deities, in this verse it only applies to the true God. We know this because, again, the word is defined or qualified for us by the writer: “of God”.

We see, then, that the whole of God’s word is inspired or breathed/given by God. If God Himself says something, it is always true and without fault, perfect in its words and content. For this reason no man, no matter who he is, has the warrant or ability to change anything God says. True? Of course it is!

It also follows that every word of God has only one meaning in any given text*. But, as humans, we are sometimes unable to decipher that one meaning (this is very rare). Thus, the safest action is to leave it be and not tamper with it. As a consequence, the words of God cannot be legitimately altered by any man for any reason.

(*This claim is hotly denied by all who wish to tamper with God’s word! They think that their opinion is as good as any other. However, God’s word is not ‘opinion’ but holy fact that cannot be altered. It cannot be altered because God does not change His mind and so whatever He says must, by definition, always be perfect and fixed, with no shades of meaning. The ‘shades’, sadly, are provided by arrogant men. With new versions came this arrogance and many shades of meaning that did not agree with the KJAV, which transmitted faithfully the words of the originals Yet, until that time, the KJAV and its sources agreed almost unanimously. The flaw, then, must be with the new versions, which not only use corrupt sources, but ungodly ones that had been discarded and held to be objectionable for nearly two millennia).

What is the Canon of Scripture’?

What if a tiny number of theories were not part of the original canon of scripture (the ‘canon’ being the books accepted as authoritative by the early churches and found in the 1611 KJAV)? What if they were not part of it because all the apostles and writers at the time, who had heard Jesus speak, walked with Him intimately, and saw His miracles, rejected them as frauds or spiritually inferior? Which is precisely what happened. Thus, these very few manuscripts were discarded as worthless and not of God. It is why these corrupt sources were never used in the true Church.

‘Canon’ means measuring stick or rule – something other things are judged by. Sadly, those with a godless agenda choose to avoid or reject these books as written, preferring their own idea of what God said. Rather, they use the rejected corrupt sources to amend the genuine, holy sources!

The end result is something like the “New World Translation” of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Whether misled Christians like it or not, this cultic translation is no different from the NIV or any other modern version used by genuine believers, because the New World Translation uses the same modern source – Westcott and Hort (see KJAV-02)! Does not this same source bother you?

On the other hand, the KJAV (King James Authorised Version, 1611) came from the accepted canon of scripture that was used by every genuine believer from the earliest churches to the 19th century. The new versions all arose from those fraudulent or heretical documents written by godless men, and therefore rejected by those who knew better. That is, documents rejected because they were widely believed not to be of God, as indicated by their inferiority. If, say, 1000 witnesses to an incident actually saw something happen and passed this information on without change for, say, 100 years, it is very likely that the details will remain unchanged, so the reports will still be accurate 100 years afterwards. With scripture this unbroken accuracy ran over 1800 years, and still remains in the KJAV.

But, suddenly, out of the blue, comes just ONE counter-report written by someone who had his own agenda, and which deliberately altered the original sources. Would you place trust in his version, or in the versions that stood the test of time for 100 years? The answer should be obvious. When you decide on which version of the Bible to use, you are at a cross-roads: do you accept the rogue report? Or, the many that have stood the test of time for almost two millennia and were approved (and written) by the apostles and their peers? The difference will either strengthen your faith and spiritual growth, or, it will cause you to start to doubt the Lord and His word, leading you into a dark and miserable Christian life.

This depends on one thing – that when the information is passed on, it is done with exactness and purity, with each word and structure exactly as it appeared at first. This is how the word of God was passed on! Some imply that people just copied the words inexactly, not bothering with their original form. This is nothing but a lie, to cause confusion amongst believers, and is just a wild guess by people who have no idea! Those who know how Christian scribes worked can testify that they worked methodically and exactly, never adding or removing even a dot. They certainly did not add words, remove them, or otherwise change them.

They copied from the originals sent out by the Apostles who worked and lived with, and were taught by, Christ, and men like Luke and Paul (Paul was also taught personally by Jesus Christ, as scripture tells us). These originals were passed around the churches (see Paul’s letters), but, as they were only one copy, more were needed to pass on the words even quicker. As the first copies were around when the originals still existed, everyone KNEW if there was an error. But, these errors did not occur, because those who copied the originals were careful and precise. They handled the word of God with fear and trembling. And the number of these copies multiplied rapidly and precisely.

Then, after the original writers died, the scribes continued as before, copying the copies made from the originals and approved for circulation by men who had seen and heard Jesus speak, and, also, who had seen and heard the apostles and other witnesses, who confirmed the accuracy of the first copies. In this way, every copy made, for hundreds of years, were exact copies of the originals, without error or human implantation, and without redaction or review. Each copy made was the same as the original, without flaw.

Unfortunately, flaws DID exist. The only flaws were in those originals made by godless men, gnostics and others in Alexandria, whose understanding of God and His word was fraudulent, or wrong, or personalised and renegade. In other words, they were amended copies written by men who did not truly believe. It was these few erroneous copies that were used by translators of the new versions – they preferred the errors to the exactness of the KJAV sources, because they did not believe.

Just as men walked around after Christ had died and risen, pretending to be called of God for their own ends and for reasons of personal power, so writers in Egypt changed the original manuscripts in their fraudulent copies. It is these few wrong copies that the early churches rejected. The Alexandrians did not copy exactly what the originals said, so they were obvious frauds! The Apocrypha, too, was rejected by the early churches. Luther’s Bible, for example, put this set of books at the end of the Old and New Testaments, to show they were separate and merely examples of human ideas affected by God’s grace. Even some Reformers accepted inclusion of the apocrypha in the canonical books, which is why they say so in the Geneva Bible:

“These bokes that follow in order unto the Newe testament, are called Apocrypha, that is, bokes, which were not received by a comune consent to be red and expounded publickely in the Church, neither yet served to prove any point of Christian religion, save inasmuche as they had the consent of the other Scriptures called Canonical to confirme the same, or rather whereon they were grounded : but as bokes proceding from godlie men, were received to be red for the advancement and furtherance of the knowledge of the historie, and for the instruction of godlie maners : which bokes declare that at all times God had an especial care of his Church and left them not utterly destitute of teachers and meanes to confirme them in the hope of the promised Messiah, and also witnesse that those calamities that God sent to his Church, were according to his providence, who had bothe so threatened by his Prophetes, and so broght it to passe for the destruction of their enemies, and for the tryal of his children.”

To put this in modern terms, it is like reading scripture and then reading anything I have written, believing both to be inspired and divine. Scripture is 100% of God, and inspired by Him, whereas anything I write can possibly contain error of some kind (though I try to guard against it) and, though Christian and even holy, is NOT of the canon of scripture, nor equal to it. I can only reflect what God originally inspired, but whatever I write is NOT inspired as God inspired the original writers of scripture.

Some modern theologians insist that the originals were inspired (which they were) and so is modern interpretation of these. But, I see no evidence in scripture that such a ‘double inspiration’ is actual or to be considered. Some in the ‘KJV Only’ movement believe in this double inspiration but it has a very serious counter – that if someone can interpret in our day and have it considered the same as the originals – then what is to stop ANY heretic from claiming he is inspired? (For just one example of this argument see ‘Double Inspiration: True or False? As in http://www.4thesaviour.com/resources/Microsoft+Word+-+double+inspiration.pdf" class="Hyperlink" style="font-family:'Calibri';">http://www.4thesaviour.com/resources/Microsoft+Word+-+double+inspiration.pdf )

The truth is, genuine believers today (as they have done over the centuries) take the word of God seriously, and will never alter it in any way. They can translate and interpret correctly and with holy awe, but they are NOT ‘inspired’. Rather, they are led by the Holy Spirit to write with purity and to interpret the originals with care and thankfulness... and accuracy

The Sources of the KJAV

The sources of the KJAV can be traced back through the previous 1500 years directly to the original manuscripts or sources. This is because each copy made, whether from the original or from one of the many exact reproductions copied over centuries, repeated whatever was found in the originals. Impossible? Only in the minds of fallen man! A believer has no problem in accepting that God preserved His word in this way, and will continue to do so until the end of time! (Which is why I advise all believers to get a KJAV Bible before they are almost gone).

In 1604, King James 1st authorised a new translation of the Bible. In 1611 it was completed, and then went through several corrections until printer’s errors, etc., were removed. (See A-392; 29 pages). The king mandated that the translators improved on the Geneva Bible by using the best possible methods that did not rely on personalised theories. Thus, 47 scholars, all believers in God, set about the task, and the king expected 100% adherence to truth. Rule 4 (of 15) was that meanings must correspond to those known to the early churches (thus agreeing with the long line of exact copies of the originals).

The committee did not just consist of the translators but of anyone who had the knowledge and expertise, anywhere in the land (as compared to the sometimes secret activities of men who worked on new versions, who preferred anonymity). Between them all, they worked and amended according to truth, not personalised preferences, as part of the Preface announced:

“Neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see.”

The title page of the 1611 translation adds that it relied on the “original tongues”, meaning, the copies of the copies of the originals, as unanimously agreed upon by the apostles and earliest churches. This was also how the comparable Bibles were written (e.g. Geneva, Bishops, etc). Any word not found in the originals but useful for understanding the text was inserted as italics, thus giving an honest appraisal. Today, such personalised ideas are inserted without any attempt to differentiate between original sources and modern opinions of unbelieving theologians.

The dedication to the King adds that the 1611 work was “one more exact translation of the Holy Scriptures”, indicating its faithfulness to the exact copies passed on from generation to generation, by armies of dedicated scribes in cold monasteries and other places, whose only rule was to copy previous copies in wholeness and perfect exactitude. Later, the 1611 version was examined afresh to check on any need to amend, but retaining the whole tenor of the text (1629, 1638, 1762 and 1769).

“The Authorized Version eclipsed all previous versions of the Bible. The Geneva Bible was last printed in 1644, but the notes continued to be published with the King James text. Subsequent versions of the Bible were likewise eclipsed, for the Authorized Version was the Bible until the advent of the Revised Version and ensuing modern translations. It is still accepted as such by its defenders, and recognized as so by its detractors.” (Dr Laurence M Vance, ‘A Brief History of the King James Bible’, taken from his book, ‘a Brief History of English Bible Translations’, Pensacola, Vance Publications).

In 1792, Alexander Geddes, a Roman Catholic priest, published his own Catholic version of the Bible, but heaped high praise on the 1611 KJAV, confirming that every jot and tittle was carefully crafted according to the original sources:

"The highest eulogiums have been made on the translation of James the First, both by our own writers and by foreigners. And, indeed, if accuracy, fidelity, and the strictest attention to the letter of the text, be supposed to constitute the qualities of an excellent version, this of all versions, must, in general, be accounted the most excellent. Every sentence, every work, every syllable, every letter and point, seem to have been weighed with the nicest exactitude; and expressed, either in the text, or margin, with the greatest precision."

Surprisingly, even the two fathers of modern versions, Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort, recognised the weight of the 1611 KJAV, even though they attempted to destroy it in their own works:

“From the middle of the seventeenth century, the King's Bible has been the acknowledged Bible of the English-speaking nations throughout the world simply because it is the best. A revision which embodied the ripe fruits of nearly a century of labour, and appealed to the religious instinct of a great Christian people, gained by its own internal character a vital authority which could never have been secured by any edict of sovereign rulers.”

Note the admission – that the 1611 KJAV “is the best”! So, why go after what is inferior? The sources used, whether directly or indirectly, by the KJAV translators included: The Bishop’s Bible, the Geneva Bible, and 5366 manuscripts, found in papyri, Uncials, Miniscules and Lectionaries. Each type has a number for identification. There are many other sources, but these would require an extra article. Suffice to say that the sources used by the KJAV committee were exactly those used throughout the centuries by all theologians and churches, EXCEPT for those who were heretical. The sources followed almost universally by genuine believers was called the ‘Majority Text’ (there are other names given to it).

The Path of the New Versions

So, the 1611 KJAV built upon the generations of faithful copies that could be traced back to the first copies, and thus to the originals. In which way do the new versions differ? And why do I call them ‘corrupt’?

The translators of the new versions deliberately did not refer to the Majority Text, but, instead, used sources that were disallowed and shunned by everyone from the earliest churches to the time of today. They used such sources as Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Bezae, Papyrus 75 and others, such as uncials Aleph, B, C, and D. Of these uncials we are told that

“All four are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from the 99 out of 100 of the whole body of extant manuscripts, but even from one another”!

(The Revision Revised, p 12, Burgon)

Thus, for almost two thousand years 99% of all the churches followed the Majority Text, whilst the remainder, unbelievers, followed a different set of sources comprising of only 1% of the total, all corrupt and all shunned by the genuine Church of Christ. It is these shunned 1% that form the basis for the new versions.

The ‘new Greek text’ use by Westcott and Hort was found in the Vaticanus (manuscript B). This same inferior source has since been used for all new versions. This is like general medicine being ousted by the occult. What actually happened is that W&H replaced the true sources with false, thus changing the underlying Greek text substantially. But, readers are usually untaught, so they simply accepted their works and subsequent new versions as ‘scholarly’ and ‘better’, when, in fact, they were unscholarly and worse.

“It really does seem that those scholars who reject the Majority Text are faced with a serious problem... They are remnants reflecting aberrant forms... (which is)... manifestly untenable.”

(Pickering).

All the minor (and false) manuscripts came from Alexandria, whereas the Majority Texts came from a wider geographical area. We can thus say that the minority (corrupt) texts are an example of error produced by spiritual deformed inbreeding. W&H followed a very narrow set of sources, knowing they were corrupt and worthless, and knowing that they did not rely on original manuscripts, but on heretical ‘recensions’* of the originals (*Revisions rather than originals). W&H ignored ALL the known true sources in favour of sources KNOWN to be corrupt. And it is these sources now embedded in almost all Bible school courses and thus in their students and pastors, etc. In other words, today’s churches are being misled by well-meaning teachers who have swallowed the corrupt poison, hook, line and sinker.

Summary

What I am saying, then, is that W&H were heretics. They chose to ignore the many thousands of correct sources in favour of the 1% they KNEW contained error. For this to work they assumed that the majority of readers would not be able to check the sources themselves... and they were right. The majority of readers, in fact, put an undue authority on W&H even though the peers of W&H did not hold such a good opinion! In this way, error spread by way of ignorance.

The fact that new versions use corrupt sources, and produce work that removes the personal name of Jesus from ‘Christ’, and insert Lucifer as the Morning Star, should warn people dramatically! The new versions alter the true Bible in many thousands of places, using the false Greek of Vaticanus. But, who cares? Apparently, those who shout loudly in favour of the new versions, do not! This is because the new versions follow a path they themselves walk, a path that is broad and leading to destruction.

They want a watered-down scripture so it can absolve them of countless errors and real belief. They do not want accuracy or genuine texts. Sadly, but sinfully, countless genuine believers are caught up in this web of deceit, helping to spread the cancer started by Satan through Westcott and Hort. (See A-404).

After reading this article, new version adherents will scoff, rant and be generally obnoxious. It is their usual reaction! So be it, but God has preserved His word in the 1611 KJAV, and that is that.

Also see O-002 Bible Versions and A-020

© December 2012

Published on www.christiandoctrine.com

Bible Theology Ministries - PO Box 415, Swansea, SA5 8YH
Wales
United Kingdom

Please 'Make a Donation' to support the work of Bible Theology Ministries