Sunday, Oct 02nd

Last update:08:21:32 PM GMT

You are here: Christian Doctrine The Bible Jesuits, Others, and New Bible Versions

Jesuits, Others, and New Bible Versions

E-mail Print PDF

“Joining the dots...”

(Please note that quotations from particular authors or sites do not imply that we necessarily accept everything they say or do)

“Here, powerfully documented, is the shocking true story of how two New Age occult "scholars" plotted to give the Christian church a horribly flawed, satanic Bible masquerading as ‘a better translation than the King James’.”

(Texe Marrs about the book ‘New Age Bible Versions’)

In this paper I will be ‘joining the dots’, a term I first used in articles for my Canada Free Press articles. What I mean is that while several actions and people, etc., might appear to have no connection, we can certainly trace their intertwining by joining the various links that can often be secret or hidden. I have already written on such links between Rome and Arminianism. Here we see what the devious Jesuits have done and continue to do. I hope also to join the dots to other apparently separate people and movements.

The Jesuits (Society of Jesus) have been dubbed ‘God’s Marines’ because they infiltrate and destroy. They were heavily involved in the counter-Reformation, and follow the occult ‘spiritual exercises’ of their founder, Ignatius of Loyola.

Ignatius wrote special rules, and in his ‘Rules for Thinking with the Church’, he said:

“That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity... if... (the church)... shall have defined anything to be black which to our eyes appear to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black.”

Thus, the ‘church’ (Rome) is the final authority, not Christ or God’s word. This is nothing but the old children’s story brought to reality – ‘The King’s New Clothes’! We must believe it because we are told to believe it, and not because it is true! Adherents to new bible versions are like this. The above quote is not alone. It only reinforces the Catholic Catechism, which says this abominable thing:

Question: What if the Holy Scriptures command one thing, and the Pope another contrary to it?

Answer: The Holy Scriptures must be thrown aside.

Question: What is the Pope?

Answer: He is the Vicar of Christ, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, and there is but one Judgment-Seat belonging to God and the Pope.”

This paper is not about the Jesuits as a whole, but shows that the Jesuits have their part to play in promoting the new bible versions, because they literally hate genuine Protestantism and the Bible they follow (KJAV). And this simple fact should warn all who use the new versions that something bad is afoot, for anything Rome does is always for its own ends, and for the destruction of Protestant truth, as found in scripture. Let it be underlined - what they want to destroy is true scripture, identified as the KJAV and its reliance on authentic sources.

The new versions are all foul, for they take us away from truth and genuine sources of truth, to the winding and rocky paths of Roman Catholic lies, and towards atheism and paganism. Without doubt new versions support Rome in its deceptions. (See ‘The Jesuit Oath’, BTM Publications List, to understand unvarnished Jesuitism).

The Jesuits, like Rome itself, hate scripture with a deep and dark satanic passion. Forget the public pronouncements based on scripture – these are only ploys to make Rome appear pious. Bearing in mind that the Jesuits are Rome’s storm-troopers, and no branch of Romanism can carry on without Rome’s order and blessing, look at what Jesuits say about the Bible (in a Jesuit meeting in Cheri, Italy, 1825), the genuine Bible that can be traced back through the centuries to the genuine sources:

"Then the Bible, that serpent which with head erect and eyes flashing, threatens us (the Jesuits) with its venom while it trails along the ground, shall be changed into a rod as soon as we (the Jesuits) are able to seize it…for three centuries past this cruel asp has left us no repose. You well know with what folds it entwines us and with what fangs it gnaws us." (‘The Jesuits in History’, Hector Macpherson, Ozark Book Publishers, 1997, Appendix 1).

The Jesuits merely repeat the same hatred shown by popes and Rome. So, we can say that the above quote can be taken to be official doctrine of Rome. Note how this statement was made at the same time that the Higher Critics were gaining ground in theology, and just before W&H began their own work of destruction of the word.

Rome is delighted that new versions base their work not on the original, authentic sources of the Bible they curse, the KJAV, but on the corrupt sources of the Alexandrian school, to which they subscribe. Rome loves the fact that new versions use the Vaticanus and the later Sinaiticus, because both these sources are corrupt but Roman, taking people away from Reformation truths. (See YouTube ). Look at the aims of Rome:

“The true Bible is the arch-enemy of the Roman Catholic Church. Rome can only rule over ignorant, fear-filled people. The true Bible turns "unlearned and ignorant" men into gospel preachers and casts out "all fear".”

“Rome must find a way to supplant the true gospel with "another gospel." The only way to do this is to eliminate our faith in the Word of God.” (From ch 7, ‘Understandable History of the Bible’, S C Gipp).

Rome began its onslaught against scripture very early on in its heretical career, by ignoring the accepted canon of God’s word and replacing it with the Alexandrian text, which was shunned by true believers from the beginning because of its heresy:

“Rome received the corrupted Local Text of Alexandria, Egypt, and further revised it to suit her own needs. Some scholars call this revision the "Western" text. This, of course, makes it part of the already corrupted text and, therefore, still contains the Local Text readings. This text suited the Roman Catholic Church well, since it attacked the doctrines of the Bible. Rome is wise. To attack salvation by grace directly would expose her plot to all. So instead she used subtlty. The Roman Catholic Church strips Jesus Christ of His deity, separates the divine title "Lord" and "Christ" from the human name Jesus, having the thief on the cross address Him as "Jesus" instead of "Lord" (Luke 23:42). It also removes the testimony to His deity in Acts 8:37, and it eliminates the Trinity in I John 5:7.

You may ask, "Would not a weakening of the place of Jesus Christ weaken the Roman Catholic Church's reason for even existing?" The answer is "No." The Roman Catholic Church does not even claim to represent the gospel of Jesus Christ. Romanist Karl Adam admits this: "We Catholics acknowledge readily, without any shame - nay with pride - that Catholicism cannot be identified simply and wholly with primitive Christianity, nor even with the Gospel of Christ." (Gipp)

Cash-Cow and Spreader of Dung

So, what many refer to as the ‘new versions’ are not new at all, but carry on the work of subterfuge first started by the Gnostics, then Rome and her allies, the heretics. Rome employed Jerome, to distort the true scriptures even more. He produced the ‘Vulgate’ (used as a major source by W&H, and Tischendorf before them). Since then, new versions have been big business, raking in huge amounts of cash. Dr Edward Hills confirms this to be so:

“He (Hills) speaks in reference to the committee of the American Standard Version promising not to publish their translation at the same time as the English Revised Version. He points out, "They promised not to publish their own revised edition of the Bible until 14 years after the publication of the English Revised Version (R.V.), and in exchange for this concession were given the privilege of publishing in an appendix to this version a list of the readings which they favored but which the British revisers declined to adopt." It was obvious to these "contenders for the faith" that two new Bibles hitting the market at the same time just would not be conducive to good profits. These men are obviously "led by the spirit" but I am not entirely sure it is "Holy." It is a sad thing when men make merchandise of the Word of God.” (Gipp)

Rome was behind many ‘new versions’ even before Jerome set to work. Time and again Rome tries to displace the genuine Bibles (such as the Old Latin or ‘Italic’), but genuine men of God refused them.

"The old Italic version, into rude Low Latin of the second century, held its own as long as Latin continued to be the language of the people. The critical version of Jerome never displaced it, and only replaced it when the Latin ceased to be a living language, and became the language of the learned. The Gothic version of Ulfilas, in the same way, held its own until the tongues in which it was written ceased to exist." (Forum, June 1887)

In other words, when everyone spoke Latin the new versions of Rome could not gather momentum. The people just rejected them. Once Latin became the exclusive playground of the scholars, the texts could not be checked. Today, by publishing many new versions (many of which repeat Rome’s old heresies), people have been led away from the genuine sources and accept the lies and propaganda put out by publishers and heretical theologians alike. The majority, then, did not bother with Rome’s Vulgate. Rome had to find another way to bring people on its side!

But, then along came Luther, who fanned the flames of the Reformation! Rome was beside itself with rage when it saw thousands flock to Luther’s side. That was why it then relied on its storm-troopers, the Jesuits, to do a better job of assassination of scripture, and its leader, Ignatius was the right warped man for its success. As a youngster he was known to be treacherous, brutal and vindictive.

Later, as a soldier, he was crippled by a wound and so entered into more ‘spiritual’ activities. It was he and his men who were trained to beat the ‘enemy’ and their ‘heresies’. This was done with a 14 year training that left them totally submissive to the pope and devoted to the destruction of Protestants and truth. They did it not so much by violence (though they were good at it), but by secret means, slipping into positions of authority and power so as to influence everyone else.

“... the 33,000 official members of the Society operate all over the world in the capacity of her personnel, officers of a truly secret army containing in its ranks heads of political parties, high ranking officials, generals, magistrates, physicians, faculty professors, etc., all of them striving to bring about, in their own sphere, 'Opus Dei,' God's work, in reality the plans of the papacy." (Edmund Paris).

“So powerful was the swing towards Protestantism during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and so STRONG the LOVE for Tyndale's Version, that there was neither place nor Catholic scholarship enough in England to bring forth a Catholic Bible in strength.

Priests were in prison for their plotting, and many had fled to the Continent. There they founded schools to train English youth and send them back to England as priests.....The most prominent of these colleges, called seminaries, was at RHEIMS, France. Here the Jesuits assembled a company of learned scholars.....and from here they directed the movements of Philip 2 of Spain as he prepared a GREAT FLEET to CRUSH England and bring it back to the FEET of the POPE.

The burning DESIRE to give the COMMON people the Holy Word of God, was the reason why Tyndale had translated it into English. No such reason impelled the Jesuits of Rheims. In the preface to their Rheims New Testament, they state that it was not translated into English because it was necessary that the Bible should be in the mother tongue, or that God had appointed the Scriptures to be read by all; BUT from the SPECIAL considerations of the state of their mother country.

This translation was indeed to do on the INSIDE of England, what the great navy of Philip 2 was to do on the OUTSIDE. One was to be used as a MORAL attack, the other as a PHYSICAL attack; both to RECLAIM England..... "The principal object of the Rheims translators was not ONLY to circulate their doctrines through the country, but ALSO to DEPRECIATE as much as possible the English translations"

(Brooke’s ‘Cartwright’, p. 256, quoted in ‘The New Testament Translation, the Jesuit Counter-Attack bible’, referencing the Jesuit Bible of 1582).

Cartwright the Champion of Truth

Queen Elizabeth 1st loathed Catholics, but also disliked Puritans. But, she wanted someone to fight against the Jesuits and wrote to Beza, co-worker with Calvin, to see if he would take up the challenge. Beza was a humble man and politely wrote back that Elizabeth had a far more able scholar than himself, in England itself. He gave the name of Thomas Cartwright, Puritan divine, saying that “The sun does not shine on a greater scholar than Cartwright.”

The Queen was dismayed because she really wanted someone from the Anglican or Presbyterian folds. So, she did not contact Cartwright. However, the scholars of the day all wanted Cartwright; they needed a solid answer to the Jesuits and so sent a formal request to him (Brooke’s Cartwright, p 260).

Cartwright accepted, and immediately used his vast knowledge to glean the best from the Latin sources as well as the Greek and Hebrew. His work used sheer biblical logic and so he managed to deal a massive blow to the Jesuit fakery. (English Hexapla, pp. 98, 99; F.J. Firth, The Holy Gospel, pp. 17,18).

The Rheims-Douay Bible

Not to be outdone, the Jesuits reworked their fake bible time and again and then finally gave it a different name, to put off critics – the Douay. Not only this, but:

“The Rheims-Douay and the King James Version were published LESS than THIRTY years apart.....The Rheims-Douay has been REPEATEDLY changed to APPROXIMATE the King James. So that the Douay of 1600 and that of 1900 are NOT the same in MANY ways.” (Keith

As you can see, even then, Catholics, like modern publishers, had to rework and rewrite their falsities many times over, and STILL did not get it right! Whereas, the KJAV and its antecedents stood solidly true: it did not change simply because its sources were accurate and genuine!

Thus, the Douay we now have is not the original and has been altered extensively over the past several hundred years. So much for its authority and correctness! Then, when Bishop Challoner got hold of the version, 1749-52, it was changed so dramatically that Cardinal Newman said the new version was virtually a completely new translation.

“Cardinal Wiseman wrote, 'To call it any longer the Douay or Rheims Version is an abuse of terms. It has been ALTERED and MODIFIED until scarcely ANY verse REMAINS as it was ORIGINALLY published. In nearly every case, Challoner's change took the form APPROXIMATING to the Authorized Version' " (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Art., 'Douay Bible.')

The changes, then, were so extensive that it had no resemblance to the original. This is exactly what the new version writers did to the KJAV and its original sources! Let me put it this way... The letter ‘A’ remains the letter ‘A’ no matter how many times it is reproduced. Same goes for any other letter. But, what the new version translators did was to change ‘A’ to ‘B’ and ‘C’ to ‘D’, and then repeated the same process, without warrant, many times. Even so, note that Challoner’s work brought the Douay closer to the KJAV than any Catholic would have wished!

“A thousand years had passed before time permitted the trial of strength between the Greek Bible and the Latin......The Vulgate yielded before the Received Text. The Latin was vanquished before the Greek.....The Jesuits were obliged to SHIFT their line of battle. They saw, that armed ONLY with the Latin, they could fight no longer. They therefore resolved to enter the field of the GREEK and become superb MASTERS OF THE GREEK. They knew that MSS in Greek, of the type from which the Bible adopted by Constantine had been taken, were awaiting them - manuscripts, moreover, which involved the OT as well as the New. To use them to overthrow the Received Text would demand GREAT TRAINING and almost HERCULEAN labors; for the Received Text was apparently INVINCIBLE.

But still more.....Flushed with their glorious victory over the Jesuit Bible of 1582, and over the Spanish Armada of 1588.....English Protestantism.....They have to the world what has been considered by a host of scholars, the greatest version ever produced in any language - the King James Bible, called "the MIRACLE of English PROSE." (Hunt).

“The Jesuits had before them a DOUBLE task - both to SUPPLANT the authority of the Greek of the Received Text by another Greek New Testament, and then upon this mutilated foundation, to bring forth a new English version which might retire into the background, the King James.......

In other words, the Jesuits had put forth one Bible in English, that of 1582, as we have seen; of course they could get out another.” (Hunt)

Think all this is just ‘conspiracy theory’? Look no further than the old Russian communist regime! The authorities created a special band of men to infiltrate the genuine churches; they were shown how to speak and act like genuine believers. Once they gained the trust of the already cautious Christians, they betrayed them to the atheistic authorities.

In my work in a mental hospital I came across highly intelligent men who, though insane, could use and quote scripture with perfection, and were far more knowledgeable than any usual Christian. But, they were also wicked at heart and did abominable things. Ordinary believers dared not oppose them because of their biblical knowledge – but opposing heresy is not just about knowledge of verses and words, it is about having the Lord within and expressing faith. God will fill our mouths!

Yes – it is easy to outwit most Christians with lies. Jesuits were used by popes in an attempt to destroy the reformation, by inventing ‘new’ Greek texts, which were not new at all, but reworkings of old heresies. Later, in the 19th century, guess what? Yes, ‘new’ Greek texts (which happened to be Romish) came into being and again tried to batter the KJAV to death... and, to now. has almost succeeded.

Jesuit Bible goes Undercover as the American Revised Version/Revised Version

"I have been surprised, in comparing the Revised Testament with other versions, to find how many of the changes, which are important and valuable, have been anticipated by the Rhemish translation, which now forms a part of what is known as the Douay Bible... And yet a careful comparison of these new translations with the Rhemish Testament, shows them, in many instances, to be simply a return to this old version, and leads us to think that possibly there were as finished scholars three hundred years ago as now, and nearly as good apparatus for the proper rendering of the original text." (B Warfield, ‘Collection of Opinions’, Vol II, pp52,53)

Warfield is here saying something important for those who want to know the origin of the new versions. Remember that the Revised Version was the brainchild of Westcott and Hort. They used corrupt sources calling it ‘new’ Greek! The American version simply follows the English Revised, which was the first in a long line of ‘new’ versions. Only what we actually find, is that W&H were simply repeating the same textual nonsense as can be found in the earlier Jesuit Douay version!

Does this mean W&H were acting on behalf of Rome? Of course they were! A large number of ‘new’ versions are based on W&H. Ben gives a list of comparisons (only a few mentioned here as examples).

“I. MATTHEW 6:13

(1) KING JAMES BIBLE OF 1611. "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."

(2) JESUIT VERSION OF 1582: "And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. Amen."

(3) AMERICAN REVISED VERSION OF 1901: "And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one."

The Reformers protested against this mutilation of the Lord's prayer. The Jesuits and Revisers accepted the mutilation.


(1) KING JAMES BIBLE. "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."

(2) JESUIT VERSION. "But I say to you, love your enemies, do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and abuse you."

(3) AMERICAN REVISED. "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you."

The phrase "bless them that curse you" is omitted from both the Revised and the Jesuit. On this, Canon Cook says, "Yet this enormous omission rests on the sole authority of æ and B." (That is, on the Vatican Manuscript and the one found in 1859 in a Catholic monastery. [Ed. Sinaiticus]) Thus, we see that the Revised Version is not a revision in any sense whatever, but a new Bible based on different manuscripts from the King James, on Catholic manuscripts in fact.

Comparisons to Show How the Jesuit Bible Reappears in the American Revised Version

"I have been surprised, in comparing the Revised Testament with other versions, to find how many of the changes, which are important and valuable, have been anticipated by the Rhemish translation, which now forms a part of what is known as the Douay Bible... And yet a careful comparison of these new translations with the Rhemish Testament, shows them, in many instances, to be simply a return to this old version, and leads us to think that possibly there were as finished scholars three hundred years ago as now, and nearly as good apparatus for the proper rendering of the original text."

THE modern Bible we have selected to compare with the Jesuit Bible of 1582, is the Revised Version. It led the way and laid the basis for all Modern Speech Bibles to secure a large place. On the following passages from the Scriptures, we have examined The Twentieth Century, Fenton, Goodspeed, Moffatt, Moulton, Noyes, Rotherham, Weymouth, and Douay. With two exceptions, these all in the main agree with the change of thought in the Revised; and the other two agree to a considerable extent. They all, with other modern Bibles not mentioned, represent a family largely built on the Revised Greek New Testament, or one greatly similar, or were the products of a common influence. Therefore, marshalling together a number of recent New Testaments by different editors to support a changed passage in the Revised, proves nothing: perhaps they all have followed the same Greek New Testament reading.


(1) KING JAMES BIBLE OF 1611. "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."

(2) JESUIT VERSION OF 1582: "And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. Amen."

(3) AMERICAN REVISED VERSION OF 1901: "And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one."

The Reformers protested against this mutilation of the Lord's prayer. The Jesuits and Revisers accepted the mutilation.


(1) KING JAMES BIBLE. "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."

(2) JESUIT VERSION. "But I say to you, love your enemies, do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and abuse you."

(3) AMERICAN REVISED. "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you."

The phrase "bless them that curse you" is omitted from both the Revised and the Jesuit. On this, Canon Cook says, "Yet this enormous omission rests on the sole authority of æ and B."(2) (That is, on the Vatican Manuscript and the one found in 1859 in a Catholic monastery.) Thus, we see that the Revised Version is not a revision in any sense whatever, but a new Bible based on different manuscripts from the King James, on Catholic manuscripts in fact.

III. LUKE 2:33

(1) KING JAMES BIBLE. "And Joseph and His mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of Him."

(2) JESUIT VERSION. "And His father and mother were marvelling upon those things which were spoken concerning Him."

(3) AMERICAN REVISED; "And His father and His mother were marveling at the things which were spoken concerning Him."

Note that the Jesuit and American Revised Versions give Jesus a human father, or at least failed to make the distinction. Helvidius, the devout scholar of northern Italy (400 A.D.), who had the pure manuscripts, accused Jerome of using corrupt manuscripts on this text. (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Christian Lit. Ed.), Vol. VI, p. 338 These corrupt manuscripts are represented in the Jesuit Version of 1582 and are followed by the Revised Version of 1901.

Ed. The author gives many more examples of how the Jesuit ‘bible’ is simply transferred to modern titles.

Note that! Helvidius had authentic manuscripts, the genuine post-apostolic copies taken directly from the originals. He had enough proof from these to show that Jerome used corrupt manuscripts – the same as were used by W&H and all later new version authors! Does this not warn you strongly against W&H and all the new versions? They are exactly the same sources found in the Jesuit bible of 1582 and these are reproduced in the first of the cursed new versions – the Revised Version! Surely, even in the minds of strong adherents, logic must prevail?

We can find coincidences throughout life, but when there are multiple coincidences, all repeating the same things, we must start to look for a conspiracy of thought and action, for true coincidences are random by nature. No, I am not talking about ‘conspiracy theories’ which are often based on flights of fancy, but about actual attempts to repeat actions and words, etc. That is, a genuine conspiracy amongst people who wish to press forward a particular agenda, with proofs of their actions finally revealed.

Tischendorf and W&H

(See our article on this man)

Constantin von Tischendorf was a leading light in the emerging Higher Critical movement in Germany in the 19th century. His aim was to displace the truths in the KJAV with ‘new’ truths (ever noticed how all cults, too, claim that the churches have been deceived for nearly 2000 years, and only they have managed to find the REAL truth?). His aim makes it very hard to accept that the Codex Sinaiticus he supposedly found in a monastery just so happened to provide him with his ‘proof’! That is, if the manuscript is not a forgery, as seems highly probable!

We find that though Tischendorf appears to have been an unbeliever, he had connections with the Jesuits, particularly with reference to this dubious manuscript. (See ). This should not be a surprise for both Vaticanus (Manuscript B) and Sinaiticus (‘a’ Aleph) are Roman Catholic in origin. In essence, then, modern versions are Romanist.

Vital texts were deliberately left out of the Vaticanus – texts that could not support Rome’s teaching and claims, e.g. Genesis 1:1-46; 28; Psalms 106-138; Matthew 16:2-3; Mark 16:9-20; The Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus); Hebrews 9:14-13:25 and all of the book of Revelation. It must be asked why the majority of Christians today are reading new versions, when they are founded on mostly Romanist manuscripts, one of them probably a fake?

It has been noted that Sinaiticus is a “literary mess” (

“There are mistakes, erasures, sentences written on top of other sentences plus many words are omitted. It contains nearly all the New Testament, the Apocryphal Books plus two other false books, “The Shepherd of Hermes” and “The Epistle of Barnabas.” Every page contains corrections and revisions by at least ten different people. Corrections on the manuscript were made as late as the sixth or seventh century A.D. With so many revisions and corrections done to this manuscript, it made it totally worthless.”

As I have suggested elsewhere, the monks wanted to burn the supposed Sinaiticus because it was such a bad manuscript! Dean Burgon said:

“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.”


“The impurity of the text exhibited by these codices [Sinaiticus and Vaticanus] is not a question of opinion but of fact. ... In the Gospels alone Codex B (Vaticanus) leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of careless transcription on every page. ... they are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant ... [exhibiting] the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with.” (Burgon, True Or False? pp. 77-78).

“The two major editors of these manuscripts were Westcott and Hort. Both of them were Roman Catholics.” (scionofzion)

Both Westcott and Hort loved Rome and Mary. Is this not also a reason to hear the alarm bells that can be heard by all who love the Lord, not Rome? Look at two statements by Westcott (documented in Westcott, Arthur, ‘Life and letters of Brooke Foss Westcott’, New York, 1903. Vol 1):

“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 (i.e. a Virgin and dead Christ)…Had I been alone, I could have knelt there for hours.” (Page 81)

“It is smaller than I expected, and the colouring is less rich, but in expression it is perfect. The face of the virgin is unspeakably beautiful. I looked till the lip seemed to tremble with intensity of feeling---of feeling simply, for it would be impossible to say whether it be awe or joy or hope---humanity shrinking before the divine, or swelling with its conscious possession. It is enough that there is deep, intensely deep, emotion such as the mother of the Lord may have had.” (Page 183)

(Hort had the same opinions. The following quote is by Hort: Hort, Arthur Fenton, ‘Life and Letters of Fenton John Hort, New York, 1896, Vol 1, p81. The quote is from a letter to Westcott on 17th October, 1865)

“I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and ‘Jesus’ worship have very much in common in their causes and results.”

It is known that W&H acted in secret. They did not want early detection of their task or aims – to replace the KJAV they hated (because they were Romanists), so asked all on their Revised Version committee to abstain from discussing their work. They cast away the authentic documents underlying the KJAV and instead brought in their own Roman corrupt sources, as prepared by Tischendorf. How very different from the open and honest work of the KJAV translators!

Now add to this poisonous brew a Jesuit, Cardinal Carlo Montini, who was on the editorial committee of the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament so widely used today, and the Nestle Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (27 revisions). Both of these underpin all modern versions. This means that W&H, influenced heavily by Tischendorf, who was himself led by a corrupt document (Vaticanus) and a bad forgery (Sinaiticus), and all three edited by a Jesuit cardinal, formed the basis for those modern versions you may now be harbouring in your hand, heart, house, church or Bible school! Are you comfortable with all this?

What the above shows, is that by simply ‘joining the dots’, we discover that all new versions are the devil’s own brand; they are founded on Roman Catholic documents that have always been rejected by genuine believers, and are carefully edited by Jesuits to agree with Roman dogma, via W&H and a host of other unbelievers.

It is almost laughable that many who use these corrupt modern versions also oppose Rome in their speech! How can they, when the very ‘bibles’ they use are from the clawed hands of Jesuits and Rome? To say that new version readers who cannot see this are deceived is an understatement! And when we learn that the NIV was worked on by homosexuals, we see not just corruption in modern versions, but a pit of damnation that no genuine believer can touch. But wait... we find that the two manuscripts so used by modern versions DO NOT AGREE WITH EACH OTHER!

In the Gospels alone they disagree with each other over 3,000 times! ( Does this fact prove just how unreliable the new versions are? If not, why not?

“Phillip Mauro was a brilliant lawyer who was admitted to the bar of the supreme Court in April 1892. He wrote a book called "Which Version" in the early 1900's. He writes concerning the Sinaiticus.....

From the facts, therefore, we deduce: first that the IMPURITY of the codex Sinaiticus, in every part of it, was fully recognized by those who were best acquainted with it, and that from the very beginning until the time when it was finally cast aside as worthless for the practical purpose.

Both the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus LEAVE OUT the last 12 verses of Mark. BUT there is not one other manuscript, either uncial or cursive that leave out this passage. There are 18 other uncial (capital letters) manuscripts that have the passage in and at least 600 cursive (small letters) manuscripts that ALL contain these words. THE EVIDENCE IS AT LEAST 618 TO 2!”


“This REVISED Greek text of Westcott and Hort, the NT based largely on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts (and from which most modern translations come) DIFFERS from the basic Textus Receptus in......wait for it.............5,337 places!

Some want you to think there is little difference between the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts and the rest of the over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, even Hort wanted people to believe that, and tried to say so in certain words, that some still quote today, BUT the TRUTH OF THE MATTER is CLEAR TO SEE for the scholars who will open their eyes to see the PLAIN truth.”


“We need to note here that Dr.Hort, while a life-long opponent of the Received Text, and the man who dominated the English NT Revision Committee, did say this: "An OVERWHELMING proportion of the text in all known cursive manuscripts except a few is, as a matter of fact, IDENTICAL" (Hort's Introduction, p.143). Here was his clear acknowledgement of what most scholars already knew: thousands of manuscripts from different countries in different ages, said the SAME thing! The differences in the Greek manuscripts come from a very few of those 5,300 manuscripts (ED. That is, Alexandrian).

In other words, W&H deliberately used corrupt sources KNOWING that virtually all other texts contained the same truths as were found in the Textus Receptus! Thus, their Revised Version was not truth but simple Romish propaganda. Textual Criticism (part of Higher Criticism) began in earnest with Romanist Richard Simon in the 1600s. Hort said this and so does the Catholic Encyclopaedia (Vol 4, p492).

Tischendorf is part of this school of thought, and W&H relied on his work to do their own... and so the circle comes around and dots are joined even moreso. It cannot be denied that the Satanic hand of Rome is deeply involved; indeed, she is the patron of the literary craftsmen behind the new versions. I would repeat what many Protestants now do not accept – that new versions are satanic in origin, aim and content.

“During the 1830's and thereafter began the invasion of

German Gnostic Theology into England. More and more "scholars" were coming forth who were openly putting to one side all the mass of manuscript evidence that supported each other, agreed together, and putting their mind-set on a relatively few, which we have seen did not agree with each other. But the mind was set by these so-called "scholars" to trash the Textus Receptus.” (Hunt).


“Wilkinson in his book (B Wilkinson, ‘The Authorised Bible Vindicated’, Leaves-of-Autumn Books Inc. Arizona), has a whole chapter on how the Catholic Jesuits captured the thinking of Oxford University in England. Most do not realize that in the middle 1800's the Catholic Church in England made HUGE gains. In Cardinal Wiseman's address to the Congress of Milines in 1863, he reported that in 1830 the number of priests in England was 434; in 1863 they numbered 1242. The converts in 1830 amounted to only 16; in 1863 there were 162 (Ward, Life of Wiseman, Vol.2, p.459).

It was in this climate that Dr. Westcott and Dr. Hort appeared on the scene.”

Do not forget that Hort always considered the KJAV to be disgusting to his senses, and referred to “that vile Textus Receptus” with much venom. It was a disgust he carried on throughout his fake ‘study’ of the ‘new’ Greek (Alexandrian sources), and he was disgusted because of his Romanism. Also bear in mind that Rome never claims to be Christian as such, but prefers to be called by its title, ‘Roman Catholicism’. I have read this denial of being Christian over the years, in a variety of writings.

Remember, too, that both W&H were entranced by the theories of Charles Darwin. (Life of Hort by his son, Vol. 1, p.416). Rome itself favours evolution, which it calls ‘scientific’. But, its main reason for support of evolution is that it contradicts scripture and the KJAV! Hort’s autobiography says:

"....Evangelicals seem to me PERVERTED rather than untrue.......I have been persuaded for many years that MARY-WORSHIP and Jesus-worship have much in common.......But you know I am a STAUNCH sacerdotalist (belief in the sacraments)...The popular doctrine of SUBSTITUTION is an IMMORAL and material COUNTERFEIT....."

So, adherent to modern versions – do you STILL persist in supporting the new versions, knowing they are rooted in Rome? Then continue reading more of Hort’s words below:

"The old dogmatic view of the Bible therefore, is not only open to attack from the standpoint of science and historical criticism, but IF TAKEN SERIOUSLY it becomes a DANGER to religion and public morals......God is the author, NOT of the Bible BUT of the life in which the authors of the Bible partake, and of which they tell in such IMPERFECT HUMAN WORDS as they could command.

.....The most downright claims to infallibility are made by the Apocalyptist, as for example in the NT REVELATION(see 22:6, 16, 18-19) a book which some of the WISEST THINKERS of the early Church wished to exclude from the canon, and which as A WHOLE, is SUB-CHRISTIAN in tone and outlook...... Moses HAS LEFT US NO WRITINGS, and we know little of him with certainty......For indeed the bare idea of vicarious expiation(substitutionary atonement) is NOT WHOLLY RATIONAL......." (Letter to John Ellerton, 1848).

And what of this...

“The great Revision Committee that was formed after the time of the discovery of the Vanticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts, was DOMINATED by Westcott and Hort. Dr. Scrivener was the one man that fought them tooth and nail all the way, but he was always outvoted. The Committee followed the Greek text as advocated by Westcott and Hort, which was based on the main from the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts, and especially the Vaticanus. Where it contained no text the Sinaiticus was used.

So the Revisers "went on changing until they altered the Greek text in 5,337 places" (Dr. Everts, ‘The Westcott and Hort Text Under Fire’, Jan. 1921).

Atheism Loved Tischendorf

That atheists liked the work of Tischendorf merely strengthens the revulsion we should all have towards his work, and the work of Higher Critics and Textual Critics (such as W&H).

One recent article on this liking is found at and is typical of pro-new version atheists. For atheists, as if to lend Tischendorf some kind of respectability, they refer to him as a “brilliant and pious German biblical scholar”! That many of us do not share such adulative language is irrelevant, of course! What matters is that Tischendorf is behind an attempt to dismantle and finally destroy Christian beliefs, by firstly destroying faith in God’s word. This suits atheism well!

This acceptance of Tischendorf by atheism is also shown in a quote used on

“If the New Testament is defective the church itself is in error, and must be given up as a deception.”

(Baron von Tischendorf, quoted in John E Remsberg, The Christ, p. 272).

In spite of his biblical scholarship and links to Jesuits, there is no evidence that he was in any way converted, or even interested in Rome itself. The quote above shows, rather, a disinterest in truth that equals that of atheism... which is why atheists quote him. I find it hard to understand why any Christian would want to side with such a man as him, or W&H! Indeed, I find the support obnoxious if such Christians have had the opportunity to examine the evidences found in this series of papers, and in many other sources.

W&H Loved Jesuitical Rome

I have already shown that W&H were Romanists. Now, add this:

“Wescott and Hort, were a pair of unsaved liberals whose open Vatican sympathies cast them as the consummate Jesuit plants.” (Dr Bill Grady, ‘Final Authority’).

Anyone with a smattering of knowledge of Jesuits will readily admit that a Jesuit plot idea is a very strong contender, for this is exactly what Jesuits were set up by Rome to do. After all, W&H did not believe major doctrinal teachings found in scripture (that is scripture that is the genuine word of God, NOT the Alexandrian/Roman texts).

And what of the admission by both men that they knew next to nothing of Hebrew and Greek in any true academic sense? (“Westcott went on to say that he could not speak of the Old Testament with adequate knowledge. Hort even admits his ignorance of the Hebrew and Greek. He said, “I have all but discarded them.” Quoted in by Nicole Peoples, but no reference given).

What we are giving is not a blatant ad hominem attack on the new version writers for the fun of it, or out of chagrine, but a blunt warning that such men ARE to be opposed, because of their unbelieving stance, atheism, and antagonism to the genuine word of God. In fact, their work is so badly done and so obviously against scripture, that we can dispense with them altogether and just judge what they wrote!

Even so, where necessary, Paul ‘named names’, and so did Jesus! If people influence others to sin or not to believe, then they are to be named as devilish and condemned as traitors to Christ. I have shown in many articles that W&H, Tischendorf and others stand condemned by their own hearts, words and work. They were wicked, and later new version committees carried on this evil.

“I was first offered an RSV when I was in Bible College (in 1968), but I rejected it. I read that it was published by the World Council of Church’s which is led by the Catholics, and I saw corrupted verses, such as Mary being called a young woman instead of virgin. Why would the Catholics do this? To destroy the faith and doctrines of the Protestants, whom they want to ‘bring back into the fold’ of Roman Catholicism. How true the scripture "If the foundation be destroyed, what can the righteous do" Psalm 11:3. The foundation of our faith is the truth of God’s Word.” (


“In Antioch (Syria); where the followers of Christ were first called Christians, the true believers were making exact copies of the original manuscripts. They sent missionaries to Egypt, which was the land of Isis (Queen of Heaven) and Horus (the sun god), and Baal worship (which began with Nimrod). In Alexandria there were men known as the Gnostics, men that were proud of their wisdom. They formed a school of religion and philosophy, which became the ‘center of Christian learning and culture.’ They didn’t believe in heaven or hell or that the Bible was the Word of God. So, they began making changes to Bible manuscripts, because, after all, they were so wise. Origen became head of this school (of which he had began as a student). Origen, who was an Arian, didn’t believe Jesus was God almighty, but a lesser god. In 184 to 254 he corrupted Bible manuscripts. [When other early church fathers (bishops) were condemning Origen, Eusebius praised him in his book ‘ecclesiastic history’.]”


“Constantine, the professed Christian, who secretly worshipped the sun god, ordered Eusebius (the bishop of Caesarea) to make 50 Bibles for him. Eusebius had the choice of using the Greek manuscripts from Antioch or from Alexandria to make up the 50 Greek Bibles. He believed the same as Origen. He was not a real Christian. He used the corrupted manuscripts of Egypt to make his Bibles for the Roman Catholic Church. From those 50 Bibles came the Latin vulgate, written by Jerome. It became the official Bible for Roman Catholics. All others were outlawed!“

Those who are ignorant of the part played by Jesuits in the fall of the KJAV are destined to become their slaves...

“When the Counter Reformation was launched, the Jesuit order was its driving force. During the Council of Trent, several Jesuits, notably Diego Lainez, served as theologians. The English mission, a bold attempt to reclaim England for Catholicism during the reign (1558 - 1603) of Elizabeth I, was led by Edmund Campion and included the poet Robert Southwell. Jesuits established schools in almost every important European city and were leaders in education until the 18th century. Members of the society taught the sons of leading families and served as spiritual advisors to kings.” (

Then, we have this:

“Desperate to ward off these closing events of human history and, hopefully, to quench them entirely, Satan began turning loose on the world a flood of error, apostasy, and perversion.

Here are a few of these things; each one either began or alarmed a resurgent attack on the Bible in the 19th century:

German higher criticism, a basic attack on the integrity of the Bible.

British textual criticism, a focused attack on the text, especially of the New Testament.

Modern Bible versions, based on a few low-quality, and even corrupt, Bible manuscripts.

All of the above constituted a direct attack on the Bible. This present book will concern itself with each of the above three items.” (‘The Attack Intensifies’, in


“Higher criticism consists of vicious speculative theories by liberals, in an attempt to undermine the authorship of Scripture.

Modern theology was seriously affected by the so-called Enlightenment and its aftereffects, which declared that man and human reason were more important than God and divine revelation.

18th-century philosophers and theologians, especially in Germany and France, carried that concept further. Immanuel Kant stressed the importance of reason and the rejection of everything else. Friedrich Schleiermacher rejected creeds and doctrines, declaring that all that mattered in religion was feeling. Georg Hegel saw religion as a constant evolution with the synthesizing of two opposing views. These three men deeply affected later theological thought, down to our own time.

Every theology student today who is trained in outside universities is subjected to this kind of thinking. Few graduate from those worldly institutions who do not accept it.

In Old Testament criticism, the concept of documentary hypothesis won the thinking of the liberals. Regarding the Pentateuch, it taught that the first five books of the Bible were a compilation of different documents, written over a span of five centuries by various authors. And Moses was not one of them.”


“Jean Astruc (1684-1766) started it off by suggesting that Moses copied from two different documents. His idea became the foundation of documentary hypothesis. Johann Eichhorn (1752-1827) expanded the concept by dividing up Genesis and part of Exodus. Wilhelm DeWette (1780-1849) applied it to Deuteronomy. Others made further atheistic contributions; and, then, Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918) put it all together in a unified theory of multiple authors of the Pentateuch, over several centuries.

This higher-critical approach did much to destroy the historically held views concerning the authorship of the Biblical books. The way was prepared for dissecting all the books of the Bible and generally assigning late dates to their writings. In the New Testament, for example, Paul was rejected as the author of anything.

Closer to our own time, Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976) developed a radical criticism of the Biblical text, known as form criticism. This was an attempt to discover the literary forms and sources used by the writer of each book. He concluded that the Gospel records are nothing more than a collection of myths "which portrayed truths about mans existence rather than telling about actual historical events." In order to understand the New Testament, according to Bultmann, it is necessary to demythologize them.” (worldincrisis)

As a pre-degree theology student with a well-known evangelical Bible school, I had to study Bultmann (much admired by one of the deacons in my church and one of my examiners), plus other unbelievers. When I gave the school my researched information on certain claims made in the course, I was politely dismissed. And we can continue:

“As we have observed, continental (German and French) higher criticism was primarily concerned with destroying the value of the content of the Bible.

In Britain, a different approach was taken by men who also chose to think themselves smarter than Gods Word. They set to work to switch manuscript sources for the Bible. This is called textual criticism.

It is of interest that Richard Simon (1638-1712), a Roman Catholic priest, was the first to delve into Biblical criticism.

A French priest, Richard Simon (1638-1712), was the first who subjected the general questions concerning the Bible to a treatment which was at once comprehensive in scope and scientific in method. Simon is the forerunner of modern Biblical criticism." (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, p. 492).

Biblical scholar. From 1662 to 1678, he was a member of the French Oratory. His Histoire Criticque du Vieux Testament (1678), arguing from the existence of duplicate accounts of the same incident and variations of style, denied that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch. He is generally regarded as the founder of Old Testament criticism." (Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 476).

The Jesuits believed that they could use textual criticism to help them win Protestants back to the fold, by replacing the King James Bible. During the Oxford Movement, they had their opportunity to lay the groundwork in England.

The beginnings of the revision of the King James Version occurred at Oxford University during that period, known as the Oxford Movement, which began in 1833. This was a direct attempt to infiltrate Catholicism into the minds of the intellectual leaders of England.” (worldincrisis)


“In order to better understand what we are discussing, a brief overview of the Oxford Movement is in order:

Despite all the persecution they [the Jesuits] have met with, they have not abandoned England, where there are a greater number of Jesuits than in Italy; there are Jesuits in all classes of society; in parliament, among the English clergy; among the Protestant laity, even in the higher stations.

I could not comprehend how a Jesuit could be a Protestant priest or how a Protestant priest could be a Jesuit; but my [Catholic] Confessor silenced my scruples by telling me, omnia munda mundis [when in the world, be of the world], and that St. Paul became as a Jew that he might save the Jews. It was no wonder, therefore, if a Jesuit should feign himself a Protestant, for the conversion of Protestants." (Dr. Desanctis, Popery and Jesuitism in Rome, pp. 128, quoted in Walsh, Secret History of the Oxford Movement, p. 33). Ed. Before renouncing Catholicism, desanctis was a long-standing Roman priest in the Vatican).

Then, we have this... (the dots are getting closer together!):

"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 the Antichrist, and that Gregory VII had been a special revelation of that being.

"[But] I was now taught [at Oxford] that Gregory VII was a saint. I had been told to abhor the Reformers. The Reformation became a great schism. Cranmer a traitor and Latimer a vulgar ranter. Milton was a name of horror." (J.A. Froude, Short Studies on Great Subjects, pp. 161, 167).


“In 1832, John Henry Newman (1801-1890), vicar of St. Mary's at Oxford, went to southern Europe, accompanied by Richard Hurrell Froude (1803-1836), another secret Catholic. While there, Newman sought an interview with Cardinal Wiseman, who was later to have a telling influence on the 1871-1881 revision of the King James Bible and the romanizing of the English Church.

It is known that, with Froude by his side, Newman asked Wiseman what it would take to return England to the Roman faith. The answer to the two Oxford professors was this: The Church of England must accept the Council of Trent. Newman's future was now clear to him. He immediately left the city of Rome, declaring, "I have a work to do in England." (It was on the return voyage that he wrote the words for the hymn we so often sing, "Lead kindly Light, amid the encircling gloom." He felt God was leading him out of Protestantism, back to the Mother Church.)”


“Upon his return to England, on July 9, 1833, the Oxford Movement began. He organized secret Catholics (including Jesuit agents planted in the church and university) into a working whole. They were quietly taking orders from the Vatican. In 1841, he wrote this to a Roman Catholic:

"Only through the English Church can you act upon the English nation."

(J.H. Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sue, p. 225 [published years later when he openly renounced Protestantism and became a Catholic cardinal].)

Which brings us full circle back to Alexandria and heretical sources joining the previous dots to the man known as a ‘turncoat’, Newman:

“Newman was able to accomplish so much, so rapidly, because he and his associates had gained control of the teaching faculty at Oxford University! This is the reason why the liberals in our own denomination have been able to make such rapid inroads! The Theological Seminary at Andrews University has been almost entirely composed of new theology liberals since 1980. Most of our other colleges and universities in North America have, since the early 1980s, swung into the orbit.

These pro-Catholics at Oxford came to be known as "tractarians," because of the many small leaflets and tracts they published. These were called Tracts for the Times, and were written between 1833 and 1841. Newman wrote 24 of them. Each paper said it was written "against Popery and Dissent"; yet, without exception, these little sheets explained why Britains needed to return to Rome. And neither university officials nor the British government moved a finger to shut this down!

One might wonder how these men could so lie through their teeth. But the answer is simple enough. They were using the Jesuitic method adapted by Ignatius Loyola from an earlier baptized pagan, Clement of Alexandria (about A.D. 200). The device is known as mental reservation and was used in these tracts.” (worldincrisis)

The Alexandrian school had no qualms about deception uttered for the greater good of a cause. Later, the Jesuits believed a similar thing. It is even found in the paganistic occult beliefs of Hinduism! So, we can expect new versions to adopt the same attitude in order to destroy the KJAV... it goes way back to their source:

"He [the Christian] both thinks and speaks the truth; except when consideration is necessary, and then, as a physician for the good of his patient, he will be false, or utter a falsehood . . He gives himself up for the church." (Clement of Alexandria, quoted in Newman's ‘Arians’, p. 81).


“Newman declared that the principles of Roman Catholicism could be taught in the Church of England under the Thirty-Nine Articles. Release of that tract created a terrific stir in the nation. By 1845, it was obvious that Newman had accomplished all he could secretly, so he then openly left the Church of England. Pope Leo XIII later made him a cardinal.

W P Grady said this: “One of the better-known Jesuit plants of this period was Cardinal John Henry Newman (1801-1990). His followers such as Frederick William Faber (1814-1863) had labelled the preaching of fellow Englishmen like Booth, Whitefield, and Wesley as detestable and diabolical heresy. Of course, their influence had also spread to English politics. The Emancipation Act of 1829 made it legal for Roman Catholics to become elected to parliament. After years of spreading pro-Vatican propaganda within the Church of England, the Oxford professor [Newman] finally jumped ship and returned to Rome where he was given a cardinal’s hat in 1879. Part of the story is that within one year of his exodus, over 150 clergy and laymen also crossed over to join him." (W.P. Grady, Final Authority, p. 210).


“From the beginning, Newman saw the value of using the university, where the clergy were trained for service, as the basis of his attempted takeover of the denomination.

Newman had claimed that the foundation creed of the Anglican Church, the Thirty-Nine Articles, was essentially like the decrees of the Council of Trent. The two great obstacles which stood in the way of Catholicism's invading the mental defenses of English Protestantism were these: The Thirty-Nine Articles and the King James Version of the Bible.

He also wrote that the King James Bible was a spurious text, devoid of divine authority. He contrasted it with the Catholic Vulgate which, he declared, was "a true comment on the original text."

Something still had to be done to undercut the influence of that holy book. The King James Bible was scornfully referred to by the Catholics as the "Protestants paper pope." The Jesuits well-knew that it was that book which was the center of the strength and religious life of the British people.” (worldincrisis)

Newman, then, paved the way for the coming of Westcott & Hort and their abominable new versions, based as they were on the Alexandrian texts and other heretical sources. Those who refuse to join the dots of a wide variety of facts therefore become the pawns of Rome, helping it to bring down true faith and the genuine Bible. Do not be disillusioned – Rome was 100% behind the attack on the KJAV:

"The Catholic most responsible for directing Protestant aggression against the Authorized Version was Cardinal Nicholas Patrick Stephen Wiseman (1802-1865). While rector of the English College at Rome, he studied under Cardinal Angelo Mai (1782-1854), prefect of the Vatican library and celebrated editor of the Codex Vaticanus." (W.P. Grady, Final Authority, p. 211).


“Wiseman was responsible for the conversion of hundreds of English Protestants, including Prime Minister William Gladstone (1809-1898), Archbishop Richard Chenevix Trench (1807-1886), and John Newman (1801-1890). Trench and Newman worked closely with him in devising ways to replace the King James Bible with something they considered more appropriate.

By this time, German higher criticism was beginning to invade England, and many Anglican clergymen were being attracted to it. This only added to the confusion and disintegration of spirituality in the nation.

There were four key resolutions, adopted at the Council of Trent, which focused on papal authority as above that of Holy Scripture. They are important:

1 - Papal tradition is on a level with Scripture.

2 - The Apocryphal books are equal to the canonical ones.

3 - Jerome's Latin Vulgate Bible contains no errors.

4 - Only the Roman Catholic clergy have the right to interpret the Scriptures.”

The Oxford Movement, one that we see is of Roman/Jesuit origin, corrupted the Anglican church by teaching its future priests in the ways of Rome. It had the express desire to find a way to undermine the KJAV, because it alone stood between Rome and dissidents. It is also why, in our modern day, homosexuals want to get rid of the KJAV. The Movement elevated Higher and Textual Critics to positions of power in the universities, so that propaganda could begin in earnest. The greater part of this was undertaken by Westcott and Hort. Hort was deeply influenced, too, by an Unitarian minister – and Unitarians are just atheists in disguise:

“Frederick Maurice was a close friend of Hort's, who Hort said "deeply influenced me" (ibid., p. 155). Maurice was a dedicated Unitarian minister who had been discharged from Kings College because of his atheistic teachings, yet was appointed to the Revised Version Committee through Hort's influence”.

And what of these quotes by, or about, Westcott?

"He took a strange interest . . not very long after that time, especially in Mormonism . . I recollect his procuring and studying the Book of Mormon about 1840." (Comment by Arthur Westcott, in Life and Letters of John Westcott, pp. 19-20)

"Oh, the weakness of my faith compared with that of others! So wild, so skeptical am I. I cannot yield." (Op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 52 [August 31, 1847].)

"I dare not communicate to you my own wild doubts at times . . which I should tempt no one to share." (Op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 94 [November 11, 1847].)

"I cannot help asking what I am? Can I claim the name of a believer?" (Op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 92 [November 7, 1847].}

"What a wild storm of unbelief seems to have seized my whole system." (Op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 111 [May 13, 1849].)

Reader of new versions, claiming to be believers – this is the kind of man you follow, by allowing his words into your mind and heart! This demonic attraction for what is plainly corrupt has led to a W&H link to Strongs! (Interlinear Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament with Strong’s Numbers and Morphological Codes’). What a heinous mix of good and bad! I do not doubt that many genuine believers have been caught by this mixture, because of their regard for Strong.

I urge all readers to abandon EVERY modern version and to return to the KJAV. The above information is enough to make any thinking Christian cringe at the audacity of W&H, Jesuits, and all who have insinuated their foul heresies into the churches. Those who are pastors or theologians should consider their position before God and repent, if they use new versions, knowing that they are Rome’s instruments of spiritual death. The evidences cannot be ignored! And if they are ignored, it can only be because of a deceived mind and heart. In all humility – turn back! There are enough joined dots in this paper to bring this about!

© January 2013

Published on

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