Article: The So-called "Science" of Textual Criticism. Science or Hocus-Pocus? Gospels through Acts by Will Kinney

From Textus Receptus

Jump to: navigation, search

Is this "Science" or Hocus-Pocus?


Most modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV (the 2001 English Standard Version) are based on the Westcott-Hort Greek text, which omits or substitutes some 5000 words and many whole verses from the New Testament Greek text that the King James Bible is derived from.


The W-H text is based primarily on two manuscripts called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These two texts disagree significantly with each other, let alone with the vast majority of all other texts, in over 3000 places in the gospels alone, and over 1000 times in the rest of the New Testament. Yet they form the textual basis of most modern bible versions.


Bruce Metzger, the chief editor of the United Bible Society eclectic critical Greek text, says, "It is understandable that in some cases different scholars will come to different evaluations of the significance of the evidence." B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (London: Oxford University Press, 1964), p. 210.


A cursory review of the writings of textual scholars suggests that Metzger's "in some cases" is decidedly an understatement. In fact, even the same scholars will vacillate, as demonstrated by the "more than five hundred changes" introduced into the third edition of the Greek text produced by the United Bible Societies as compared with the second edition. The same committee of five editors prepared both!!!


W. M. Pickering significantly notes that in the space of three years (1975-1978), "with no significant addition of new evidence, the same group of five scholars changed their minds in over five hundred places. It is hard to resist the suspicion that they are just guessing." - The Identity of the New Testament Text, revised edition, Thomas Nelson, Nashville, p. 209, footnote 5 for chapter 1.


In case you are under the impression that all bibles are 99% the same, I highly recommend you take a look at this site called Westcott and Hort's magic marker. There are two parts to this, but it is very easy to follow and will probably shock you to actually see just how different the two basic New Testament texts really are.


http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html


In this study we will be looking at some of the places where the readings found in most modern versions are based on only one, two or a small handful of manuscripts as opposed to the overwhelming majority of all other Greek copies. You will also find many examples of where the Nestle-Aland, UBS critical Greek texts continue to change from one edition to the next. The Modern Multiple-Choice, X Files (the truth is out there somewhere) Bible of the Month Club's contradictory versions have no settled and final text. The main versions referred to in this study are the King James Bible, NKJV, NASB, NIV and the ESV. Of these 5 versions, the NASB, NIV and ESV are primarily based on the Westcott-Hort Alexandrian Greek text, while the KJB and NKJV are based on the Traditional Text of the Greek speaking churches.


Gospel of Matthew


Matthew 6:13 "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."


One of the most notable differences between the Catholic bible versions and the Protestant Reformation Bibles has been the ending of what is commonly referred to as the Lord's Prayer. These last words: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" are found in the vast Majority of all Greek texts, as well as in four copies of the Old Latin (k,f, g, and q), which predates anything we have in Greek. All these words are also found in the ancient Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Curetonian, and Palestinian, as well as the Coptic Boharic and Sahidic, the Georgian, Armenian, Slavonian, and Ethiopian ancient versions. In fact, of over 1000 Greek manuscripts that contain this section of Matthew's gospel, these words are found in all but 10 manuscripts. Dean Burgon mentions emphatically the 100 to one ratio in favor of the King James reading.


The modern English versions present a confused picture even among themselves as to the authenticity of these words. Such modern versions as the NIV, RSV, ESV, Darby, CEV, and the 2003 ISV omit these precious words, as do all Catholic versions.


However the NASB, and the 2003 Holman Christian Standard, include the words but place them in brackets, indicating doubt as to their inspiration.


Other modern versions, which are still based primarily on the UBS, Westcott-Hort texts which omit hundreds and hundreds of words from the New Testament, have gone back to including these words without brackets. Among these are the New Life Bible (Lockman foundation 1969), World English Bible, the Hebrew Names Version, and the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible.


The 2002 version called The Message includes the words but paraphrases them to such a degree that they are virtually unrecognizable. It says: "Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil. You're in charge! You can do anything you want! You're ablaze in beauty! Yes. Yes. Yes."


The confusion is seen in the two most recent "evangelical" versions to come out. The 2003 International Standard Version omits all these words, while the 2003 Holman Standard contains them.


Even the footnotes found in the modern versions that omit these words give conflicting evidence.


The RSV omits the words as does the NIV, but the RSV footnotes that the reading is found in "Other authorities, some ancient", whereas the NIV footnote is completely false and presents a distorted view of the evidence. The NIV footnotes tells us: "Some late manuscripts" include the verse. SOME?! Is the ratio of 100 to 1 fairly considered as "SOME"? As for "late manuscripts", they apparently do not want you to know the reading is found in copies of SEVERAL ancient Bible versions that predate the very few manuscripts that omit these words. This is not scholarship but sleight of hand.


The ancient Syriac Peshitta reads: " And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever: Amen.?


These words are also found in the following English Bible versions: Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Wesley 1755, Webster's 1833, Young's, the NKJV 1982, the KJV 21st Century 1994, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, the Hebrew Names Version, World English Bible, the New Berkelely Version 1969, the 1987 Amplified Version all read: " For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." and Green's Modern KJV.


The list of foreign language Bibles that include the words "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" is quite impressive. Among them are: the Africaans Bible 1953, the Albanian, Bulgarian, Chinese Traditional Union Version, Croatian, Danish, Dutch Staten Vertaling, French Louis Segond 1910, French Martin 1744, French Oservald 1996, Gaelic, Luther's German 1545, German Schlachter 1951, the Modern Greek N.T. used throughout the Greek Orthodox churches all over the world, Gypsy Rhomanese, Hatian Creole, Modern Hebrew, Hungarian, Icelandic, the Italian Diodati 1649, the New Diodati 1991, Korean, Latvian, Norwegian Det Norsk 1930, Portuguese Almeida, Romanian Cornilescu, the Russian Synodal and Zhuromsky translations, the Shuar translation, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, Swahili N.T., Turkish, Ukranian, Uma N.T., and Vietnamese Bibles.


The New Testament from Aramaic, copyright 1940 reads like the King James Bible saying: "Because thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever and ever. Amen."


But in the USA we have such versions that omit these words as the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, ISV, and the New Living Translation.


Bible "scholars" are all over the board. What one affirms another just as confidently denies. Some argue for the legitimacy of these words and others deny they are part of Scripture, in spite of the massive evidence in favor of these inspired words.


John Calvin includes all these words in his Latin translation and then comments: "For thine is the kingdom"- It is surprising that this clause, which agrees so well with the rest of the prayer, has been left out by the Latins for it was not added merely for the purpose of kindling our hearts to seek the glory of God, and of reminding us what ought to be the object of our prayers; but likewise to teach us, that our prayers, which are here dictated to us, are founded on God alone, that we may not rely on our own merits."


Adam Clarke also says regarding the Doxology - "It should not, in my opinion, be left out of the text"


Barnes' Notes on the New Testament includes all these words with no hint that they are spurious and he expounds upon them in great detail.


David Guzik's Commentary on the Bible concludes - "we should regard it as Jesus truly said it."


Likewise Matthew Henry says - "Observe, how full this doxology is, The kingdom, and the power, and the glory, it is all thine." and then proceeds to expound upon them in great detail.


John Wesley believed these words form part of inspired Scripture and he both expounded upon them in his commentary and included them in his own translation made in 1755 - "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen." (Wesley translation 1755)


Octavius Winslow comments on these words in Matthew 6:13 - “We see no just reason, however, to question its integrity. Found as it is in the Syriac copy, the most ancient version of the New Testament--standing as it does in close harmony with the very first petition of the prayer--and maintaining a strict analogy with the whole tenor of God's Word, we feel no difficulty in accepting it as genuine.”


A.W. Pink expounds upon the passage and includes the Doxology as inspired Scripture. He states: “"For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." Thus the family prayer closes with a doxology or an ascription of that glory which is due unto God, thereby teaching us that prayer and praise should always go together. It is to be carefully noted that this doxology of the Divine perfections is made use of as a plea to enforce the preceding petitions: "deliver us from evil for Thine is the kingdom," etc....The concluding "Amen" expresses both a fervent desire, "so be it," and an avowal to faith, "it shall be so." Bible "scholars" are all over the board. What one affirms another just as confidently denies. Some argue for the legitimacy of these words and others deny they are part of Scripture, in spite of the massive evidence in favor of these inspired words.


John Calvin includes all these words in his Latin translation and then comments: "For thine is the kingdom"- It is surprising that this clause, which agrees so well with the rest of the prayer, has been left out by the Latins for it was not added merely for the purpose of kindling our hearts to seek the glory of God, and of reminding us what ought to be the object of our prayers; but likewise to teach us, that our prayers, which are here dictated to us, are founded on God alone, that we may not rely on our own merits."


Adam Clarke also says regarding the Doxology - "It should not, in my opinion, be left out of the text"


Barnes' Notes on the New Testament includes all these words with no hint that they are spurious and he expounds upon them in great detail.


David Guzik's Commentary on the Bible concludes - "we should regard it as Jesus truly said it."


Likewise Matthew Henry says - "Observe, how full this doxology is, The kingdom, and the power, and the glory, it is all thine." and then proceeds to expound upon them in great detail.


John Wesley believed these words form part of inspired Scripture and he both expounded upon them in his commentary and included them in his own translation made in 1755 - "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen." (Wesley translation 1755)


Bible "scholars" are all over the board. What one affirms another just as confidently denies. Some argue for the legitimacy of these words and others deny they are part of Scripture, in spite of the massive evidence in favor of these inspired words.


John Calvin includes all these words in his Latin translation and then comments: "For thine is the kingdom"- It is surprising that this clause, which agrees so well with the rest of the prayer, has been left out by the Latins for it was not added merely for the purpose of kindling our hearts to seek the glory of God, and of reminding us what ought to be the object of our prayers; but likewise to teach us, that our prayers, which are here dictated to us, are founded on God alone, that we may not rely on our own merits."


Adam Clarke also says regarding the Doxology - "It should not, in my opinion, be left out of the text"


Barnes' Notes on the New Testament includes all these words with no hint that they are spurious and he expounds upon them in great detail.


David Guzik's Commentary on the Bible concludes - "we should regard it as Jesus truly said it."


Likewise Matthew Henry says - "Observe, how full this doxology is, The kingdom, and the power, and the glory, it is all thine." and then proceeds to expound upon them in great detail.


John Wesley believed these words form part of inspired Scripture and he both expounded upon them in his commentary and included them in his own translation made in 1755 - "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen." (Wesley translation 1755)


Some Bible critics I have run into try to tell us that the Doxology found in Matthew 6:13 should be omitted because it is not found in a similar prayer recorded in Luke 11:1-4. These critics fail to notice the obvious. The context of Luke chapter 11is very different from the context of Matthew chapter 6. In Matthew the Lord is giving the sermon on the mount to a great multitude. In Luke it is the disciples who come to our Lord at a different time and request that He teach them how to pray.


There are also some very serious textual changes found in the prayer pattern found in Luke 11:2-4. In the King James Holy Bible we read: "And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples. And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, OUR Father, WHICH ART IN HEAVEN, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. THY WILL BE DONE, AS IN HEAVEN, SO IN EARTH. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; BUT DELIVER US FROM EVIL."


All the capital lettered words have been omitted in such versions as the NIV, RSV, NASB, ESV. Every one of these omitted words are found in the vast Majority of all Greek manuscripts. The NIV, NASB and ESV omit them primarily on the basis of 4 manuscripts, yet among these four "oldest and best", out of the 45 Greek words found within just three verses, no two of them agree with each other in 32 out of the 45 words found here! And the new version editors call this a "science"!


The Lord Jesus Christ either said all these words and they are inspired Scripture, or they are not. Not all bible versions say or teach the same things.


Matthew 6:33


"But seek ye first the kingdom OF GOD, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."


The modern scholars continue to change both their Greek texts and their translations. They have no settled and firm words of God and continue to disagree with each other about what God wrote and how to translate it.


The words OF GOD (tou theou)in the phrase "the kingdom of God" are found in the Majority of all Greek texts, the Old Latin 150 A.D., which predates by 200 years anything we have in Greek, the Syriac Peshitta 250 A.D., Harkelian, Curetonian, Palestinian, Coptic, Georgian, Armenian, Ethiopian, and Slavonic ancient versions. These all read as does the King James Bible.


The RV, ASV, RSV 1952, NASB, NIV and the 2001 TNIV all omit the words OF GOD, and say: "Seek first His kingdom and His righteousness..."


According to the UBS critical text itself, ONLY Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit the words OF GOD, and these two "oldest and best manuscripts" even disagree with each other! Sinaiticus says "the kingdom and his righteousness", while Vaticanus reverses the reading and has: "the righteousness and his kingdom", and these are supposedly the "best", even though they differ from each other over 3000 times in the gospels alone.


Bible versions that correctly read as the King James Bible - "Seek ye first the kingdom OF GOD, and his righteousness" are: Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Bishop's, Geneva 1599, Wesley 1755, Webster's 1833, Douay 1950, Hebrew Names Version, and the brand new Holman Christian Standard, and the 2002 International Standard Version.


The former Nestle-Aland critical Greek text, upon which most modern versions are based, omitted the words OF GOD, but now they have put them back in their Greek text but still in brackets, indicating doubt as to their authenticity.


However as newer versions roll off the presses they keep changing the way Scripture reads. Other modern versions still based primarily on the Westcott-Hort text but having put the words OF GOD back into the English text include the NRSV 1989, ESV 2002, Good News Bible, New American Bible 1970, Contemporary English Version 1991, The Message 2002, Today's English Version 1992, Holman Christian Standard 2002, and the ISV.


Matthew 12:47 "Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee."


This entire verse is found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts, including C, D, Sinaiticus correction, the Old Latin, and the Syriac Peshitta. However this whole verse is missing from Vaticanus, and the modern versions are in disagreement with each other. It was originally missing from Sinaiticus also, but later was corrected and the verse was put back in the text of Sinaiticus.


The Revised Standard Version of 1952 was the first version to omit the whole verse, but then in 1989 the New Revised Standard put the verse back in their New Testament. But wait! In 2001 the English Standard Version once again removed this whole verse and the ESV jumps from Matthew 12:46 to 12:48. Goodspeed also omitted this verse in 1942 from his translation, and now in 1998 the brand new Complete Jewish Bible has come out and it too omits the entire verse jumping from 12:46 to 12:48.


So we see the RSV omitted it; the NRSV put it back in; and the ESV has once again removed it.


A similar fickle fate is found in the Catholic versions. The 1950 Douay version contains the verse. Then in 1968 The Jerusalem Bible removed it. Then in the St. Joseph New American Bible of 1970 it was placed back in the Catholic bible, but then in 1985 the New Jerusalem Bible once again removed the verse!


Westcott and Hort origianlly omitted the entire verse from their Greek text, all on the basis of the Vaticanus manuscript. Later on, the newer editors of the Nestle-Aland text decided to put it back in without brackets; but then later still, they decided to put brackets around it, thus indicating doubt as to its authenticity.


Other modern versions still include the whole verse. Among these are the NASB, NIV, ISV, NKJV, and the Holman Christian Standard. It is either inspired Scripture or it isn't, but the scholars today can't seem to make up their minds and they disagree among themselves. I don't know why it doesn't occur to them that the reason for such confusion is that the two so called oldest and best manuscripts - Sinaiticus and Vaticanus - are hopelessly corrupt and should be abandoned immediately.


Matthew 14:30 "But when he (Peter) saw the wind BOISTEROUS (iskupon), he was afraid".


The word "boisterous" is in the Majority, Vaticanus correction, C, D, the Old Latin, Syriac, Douay, NRSV, NKJV 1989, NEB 1970 and the brand new Holman Standard and the 2001 ISV. The previous Nestle's text omitted the word, but now they placed it back in their texts in brackets. The NASB, NIV and ESV continue to omit this word. It is interesting that the RSV omitted it, the NRSV then put it back in, and then the ESV took it out again. How is that for consistency?


Matthew 16:2-3. Here we see an example of how ridiculous it is to call modern textual criticism a "science" in any legitimate sense at all. Modern textual criticism has more in common with Voodoo or the Ouija board than science.


In Matthew 16:2-3 we read: "He answered and said unto them, WHEN IT IS EVENING, YE SAY, IT WILL BE FAIR WEATHER; FOR THE SKY IS RED. AND IN THE MORNING, IT WILL BE FOUL WEATHER TO DAY; FOR THE SKY IS RED AND LOWRING. O YE HYPOCRITES, YE CAN DISCERN THE FACE OF THE SKY; BUT CAN YE NOT DISCERN THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES?"


Before we get into the textual matters, I want to address the word "lowring". This is not an archaic word. Webster's 1999 dictionary defines it as meaning "frowning; dark and threatening, gloomy, or sullen." Lowring is also the English word found here in the RV, ASV, Wesley's translation, Geneva Bible, Douay, Darby, Webster's translation, the KJV 21st Century, Third Millenium Bible and even in the 2003 Updated Bible Version. Now, to address the textual issues.


All these words in capital letters from "When"...to "of the times?" are found in the Majority of all Greek texts, including C, D, the Syriac Peshitta and the Old Latin copies. However BOTH Sinaiticus and Vaticanus completely omit all 32 Greek words in these sentences.


The total inconsistency of modern textual criticism is seen here in all its absurdity. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of words and many whole verses omitted from most modern versions based primarily on the omissions found in Sinaiticus and/or Vaticanus, yet right here in Matthew 16:2-3, even though BOTH Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit all these words, versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, RV, ASV, ESV, ISV and the Holman Standard, continue to include these two verses in their versions.


Actually, there are a few modern versions that do omit all these 32 words from their translations. These include the New English Bible of 1970, Goodspeed's translation of 1942, and Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902.


Even in these two verses another absurdity is SIGNIFICANTLY to be observed. The words "O YE HYPOCRITES" is in all the Greek texts and versions mentioned before, except Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (which omit ALL the words), and manuscript D, which omits the words "O ye hypocrites" but contains all the other 31 words. So what do the NASB, NIV, ESV, ISV etc. do based on one manuscript that included all the other words but omitted the word "hypocrites"? They omit it too! If ever the omission of a reading spoke volumns, this is it. The words "O ye hypocrites" are missing from these modern versions. Do you think there might be a chance these "bible translators" will hear them loud and clear from the mouth of the Lord God Almighty in a coming day?


Matthew 17:15-21 Lunatick, Unbelief, Prayer and Fasting


This section of the gospel of Matthew is really messed up in many modern versions. There is one translational problem (lunatick), and two textual problems - 1. Unbelief versus Little Faith, and 2. all of verse 21 "Howbeit, this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."


In 17:14-15 we read: "And when they were come to the multitude, there came to him a certain man, kneeling down to him, and saying, Lord, have mercy on my son: for HE IS A LUNATICK, and sore vexed..."


This man's son was possessed of a devil, which caused the lad's mental illness. Jesus then casts out the devil and the boy is cured in that very hour. The word correctly translated as LUNATICK is the Greek word from which we get the word "moon" or "luna". Thus in English we have the lunar cycle. Lunatick means literally "moon-struck", and has to do with mental illness or madness. It is not the physical affliction of epilepsy.


Bible versions that correctly translate this word as Lunatick are the Vulgate in 425 A.D, Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1599, Wesley's translation 1755, Webster's 1833, the Douay-Rheims, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, Darby, Young's, the KJV 21, Third Millenium Bible, and Green's Modern KJV.


The NASB is interesting in that from 1960 to 1972 it translated this word as "for he is AN EPILEPTIC", with a footnote telling us that the word literally means moonstruck. But then in 1977 and again in the 1995 Update, the NASB now reads "he is a LUNATIC".


Many modern versions tell us the boy was an EPILEPTIC, including the NKJV, RSV, ISV, Holman Standard, and the ESV. The NIV in 1977 said: "he is an epileptic", but then in 1984 changed this to "he has seizures".


In case you miss the obvious, a lunatick is not the same thing as an epileptic. This boy's lunacy was a mental affliction caused by a devil. Epilepsy is a physical disease, and epileptics are not generally considered to be lunaticks. All bibles do not say the same things but with different words.


The next two problems are textual. The disciples ask why they could not cast out the devil and Jesus tells them the reason in Matthew 17:20. "And Jesus said unto them, Because of your UNBELIEF: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove."


The disciples had no faith in regards to healing this boy. The word found in the Majority of all texts including C, D, and translated as "unbelief" in the Old Latin, and the Syriac Peshitta is apistian, which means NO Faith, or "unbelief". Bible versions that correctly read that the disciples suffered from UNBELIEF are Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, Bishop's, Wesley, Webster, Youngs, Darby, NKJV, KJV 21, TMB, MKJV, and even the Catholic Douay version.


However both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have an obvious blunder and this error is carried over into the modern versions based on these corrupt texts. Instead of reading "because of your unbelief", Sinaiticus and Vaticanus read "because of your LITTLE FAITH".


"Little faith" would mean they had some faith but not enough. The word is quite different from apistian (no faith). It is oligopistian which means little faith. The versions that read this way are the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, ISV, Holman Standard and many others.


The reason it is a blunder is because if they had just a little bit of faith and not enough to cure this boy, then it makes no sense for Jesus to then tell them if they had faith as a grain of mustard seed, they would be able to remove mountains. Faith as a grain of mustard seed IS "a little bit of faith". Their problem was they had NO faith. The King James reading is correct; the other one is not.


The third problem in this section is the whole of verse of 17:21. Here we read Jesus saying: "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."


This entire verse is found in the Majority of all Greek texts, including C, D, and Sinaiticus correction. It is also found in at least 12 Old Latin copies as well as the Syriac Peshitta and Harclean ancient versions.


However Vaticanus and a few others omit the entire verse. Versions that omit the verse from the text of the Bible are the RV, ASV, RSV, NIV 1984, ESV 2001, The Message 2002, and the New Living Bible 1996.


The NASB includes the verse but puts it in brackets, indicating doubt as to its authenticity and so does the Holman Christian Standard. However the 2003 ISV (International Standard Version) puts the whole verse back in the text.


The whole verse is found in all the older versions that preceded the King James Bible, including the Latin Vulgate 425 A.D, Wycliffe 1295, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishop's Bible, the Geneva Bible, and is found in such versions as the NKJV, New Life Version, Douay-Rheims (though the more modern Catholic versions omit it), Webster's, Young's, Darby, World English Bible, KJV 21 and the Third Millenium Bible.


The verse is either inspired Scripture spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ or it is not. The Lord said heaven and earth would pass away but His words would not pass away. All these bible versions cannot equally be the complete, inspired, infallible words of God. Some of them have either added to the words of God or taken away from His inspired words.


The "science" of textual criticism can't seem to get its act together and the various versions conflict with each other in both texts and meaning. The question to ask yourself is: Do we have a perfect Holy Bible today, or have some of God's words been lost or mixed up to where we cannot be sure about what He inspired to be written? Do we have an inspired Bible or just a mixture of conflicting readings that may or may not approximate what God might have said?


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


This entire verse is found in the Majority of all Greek texts, including D and at least 21 other uncial (capital letter) copies. It is also found in the Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Curetonian, and in some Coptic Boharic, as well as at least 13 Old Latin copies.


Westcott and Hort omitted the entire verse on the basis of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and now the whole verse is missing from the texts of the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, The Message, CEV, New Living Translation, and the more modern Catholic bible versions.


The Catholic Douay, and Douay-Rheims versions contain the whole verse without brackets, but the newer Catholic versions, the Jerusalem Bible and St. Joseph New American Bible, both omit the verse entirely.


The NASB puts the verse in the text but again in {brackets}, indicating doubt as to its authenticity, and so does the 2002 Holman Christian Standard.


However the whole verse is included as inspired Scripture spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ in the following Bibles: The Vulgate 425 A.D., Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1599, Wesley 1755, Webster's 1833, Young's, Darby's, World English Bible, Hebrew Names Version, New Life Bible 1969, NKJV, KJV 21, TMB, Green's Modern KJV, and it is placed back in the text without brackets by the new 2003 International Standard Version.


Again, we see the total inconsistency of the modern "scientific" scholars. What one denies as inspired Scripture, another affirms to be the very words of God.


Among the foreign language Bible versions that contain the whole verse of Matthew 18:11 "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost." are: the Albanian, Arabic, Bulgarian, Chinese, Danish, Dutch, French Louis Segond, Gaelic, German Luther, Modern Greek, Gypsy Rhomanese, Hatian Creole Bible, Modern Hebrew, Hungarian, Icelandic, Italian, Korean, Latvian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Rumanian, Russian, Spanish, Turkish, Ukranian, and Vietnamese bibles.


To demonstrate the fickleness and inconsistency of the modern version in following or not the variant readings of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, we will consider a few minor examples found in this same chapter of Matthew 18.


In Matthew 18:15 we read: "Moreover if thy brother sin AGAINST THEE (eis se), go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone." The words "against thee" are missing from both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, but they are found in the Majority of all Greek texts and in the Old Latin and the Syriac. The Nestles Greek text used to omit these two words entirely, but later they added them but put them in {brackets}.


In spite of the words "sin AGAINST YOU" being omitted by Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, only the NASB and the Jehovah Witness versions omit these words. Obviously their omission changes the meaning and application of the passgage. The NASB reads: "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private."


On the other hand, versions like the NIV, NKJV, RSV, ESV, ISV, and the Holman Standard all reject in this place the two texts which are responsible for the omission of hundreds of other words in their New Testament versions, and here follow the Traditional textual reading of the King James Bible - "If your brother sins AGAINST YOU, go and tell him his fault." And they call this willy-nilly process the "science of textual criticism".


In Matthew 18:19 Vaticanus adds an additional word which would make the beginning of the sentence say: "Again VERILY (amen) I say unto you...". But this extra word is not found in Sinaiticus and this time the NASB, NIV, RSV, RV, ASV do not follow Vaticanus, but omit the word.


In Matthew 18:26 we read: "The servant therefore fell down and worshipped him, saying, LORD, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all."


Here the word LORD is found in the Majority of all texts including Sinaiticus, and so read the Revised Version, American Standard Version, and the Revised Standard Version. But because Vaticanus omits the word "Lord", the NASB, NIV, ESV, ISV, and Holman omit it. Why was it "scientific" for the RV, ASV, RSV to include the word based on the same evidence, and then "scientific" for the NASB, ESV and NIV to omit it, still based on the same evidence? Go figure.


Finally in 18:34 we read: "And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due UNTO HIM." The words "unto him" are found in the Majority of all texts including Sinaiticus and the NASB. But Vaticanus omits these last two words and so does the NIV.


Do you see how both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus constantly differ from each other (over 3000 times in the gospels alone) and the modern versions are totally inconsistent in which text they chose to follow and they end up contradicting each other? If you focus on man and his faulty abilities, you will never have the sure words of God. Only if you believe God is faithful to keep His promises to preserve His infallible words, and has providentially done so in the King James Bible will you ever be able to say with confidence "Thus saith the Lord".


Matthew 19:16-17 "And, behold, one came and said unto him, GOOD Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, WHY CALLEST THOU ME GOOD? there is NONE good but one, THAT IS, GOD: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."


This same event is found three times in the holy gospels. It is also found in Mark 10:17 and in Luke 18:18 where even the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, and ISV say the same thing as recorded here - Matthew 19:17 - in the King James Bible. The reading found in the King James Bible is that of the Majority of all texts, including C plus at least 17 other uncial copies. It is also the reading of the Syriac Peshitta, Curetonian, Harkelian, the Coptic Sahidic, some Boharic, and the Old Latin copies of f and q.


However Sinaiticus and Vaticanus again are responsible for a very different reading which is followed by the Catholic versions and the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, ISV and the Holman Standard versions. Instead of the man calling Christ GOOD Master, and the Lord responding with: "WHY CALLEST THOU ME GOOD? there is NONE good but one, THAT IS, GOD", Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit the word "good" in verse 16 and in verse 17 unite in reading: "WHY ARE YOU ASKING ME ABOUT WHAT IS GOOD? There is only One who is good." This meaning contradicts the other two accounts found in Mark and Luke, where the same event is recorded, even in the NASB, NIV, RSV, and ISV.


Is it "textual science" for these modern versions to follow Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in Matthew 19:17 against virtually all other manuscripts, and yet to not follow these same two "oldest and best" in Matthew 16:2-3 where they omit almost two whole verses, but the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV include them?


Or how about Matthew 27:49? A very serious error occurs here in both of these manuscripts, which is not used by the NASB, NIV, ESV, ISV or the RSV, though the reading is noted in the RSV footnote as, *Other ancient authorities insert - "And another took a spear and pierced his side and there came out water and blood." This is the reading of both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. It has a man killing our Lord rather than He Himself commending His spirit into the hands of the Father and voluntarily giving up the ghost.


This reading has Christ being put to death at this time, yet we see from the very next verse and the other gospels that He continues to speak! In Luke 23:44-46 Jesus says, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit", and John 19:30 says, "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost".

It is not until AFTER our Lord said all these things, and He Himself voluntarily gave up His own life that we read in John 19:34, "one of the soldiers with a spear piered his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water".


Obviously some very careless scribes took this reading from John's gospel and placed it in Matthew 27:49, where it is completely out of order. Yet this reading is found in both of these "oldest and best" manuscripts upon which most modern versions are based.


In Matthew 19:20 we read: "The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept FROM MY YOUTH UP: what lack I yet?" The words "from my youth up" (ek neoteetos mou) are again found in the Majority of all texts, including C, D, and even Sinaiticus correction. They are also in the Old Latin and the Syriac texts. But once again, Vaticanus omits these words and so do the RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, and ISV.


The Catholic Douay-Rheims retains the words "from my youth", but the Douay omits them as do the other modern Catholic versions. The words "from my youth up" are found in Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishop's, Geneva, Wesley, Webster, KJV 21, NKJV, MKJV, TMB, World English Bible, Hebrew Names Version, and Young's.


To again show the fickleness and inconsistency of the modern versions and the texts they are based on, we will take a quick look at Matthew 19:29.


Matthew 19:29 "And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, OR WIFE, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive AN HUNDREDFOLD, and shall inherit everlasting life."


Here the word "wife" is found in most texts including Sinaiticus, but Vaticanus omits this word and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV. Likewise the word "hundredfold" (hekatontaplasiona) is found in all texts including Sinaiticus, and "hundredfold" is the reading of the NIV, RSV, ISV, ESV, RV, ASV etc; but Vaticanus reads "many times as much" (pollaplastonta) and only the NASB follows the Vaticanus reading in this verse.


So, in this one verse alone, both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus differ from each other twice, and most of the modern versions follow Vaticanus in one instance and Sinaiticus in the other, - but not all. The NASB differs from the others. And they call this "science"!


Matthew 21:28-31 "But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard. He answered and said I WILL NOT; BUT AFTERWARD HE REPENTED, AND WENT. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I GO, SIR; AND WENT NOT. Whether of the twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, THE FIRST."


This is the reading found in the Majority of all texts including Sinaiticus and is the reading not only of the KJB but also of the RV, ASV, RSV, ESV, NIV, NKJV. However the case with the NASB is quite interesting. From 1960 through 1977, a period of 9 revisions, the NASB followed the Vaticanus manuscript which reverses these two sons, but then in 1995 the NASB reversed themselves again from the previous NASBs and changed their readings back to match that of all the other versions. The NASB 95 Update now reads like the KJB.


From 1960 through 1977 the NASB read: "he came to the first and said, Son go work in the vineyard. And he answered and said, I WILL SIR, AND HE DID NOT GO. And he came to the second and said the same thing. But he answered and said, I WILL NOT, YET AFTERWARD HE REGRETTED IT AND WENT. Which of the two did the will of his father? They say, THE LATTER."


Matthew 23:4 "For they bind heavy burdens AND GRIEVOUS TO BE BORNE, and lay them on men's shoulders." All texts read "and grievous to be borne", (kai dusbastakta) including Vaticanus, except Sinaiticus which omits these words. Here the NASB and NIV chose to follow ONE manuscript (Sinaiticus) and omit these words; yet "and grievous to be borne" is found in the Revised Version, the ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, and the NKJV.


One last verse of interest in Matthew is 27:24 where Pilate washes his hands and says: "I am innocent of the blood of this JUST PERSON." The reading of this "just person" (tou dikaiou toutou) is in all Greek manuscripts including Sinaiticus; only three manuscripts omit the word "just" or "righteous", two very minor and Vaticanus. Even when the Westcott-Hort text first came out, the Revised Version and the American Standard Version kept this word in their texts and read as the KJB, Douay, NKJV, Lamsa's translation of the ancient Syriac, Tyndale, Geneva, and Wycliffe. The first English version to omit this word "just" was the liberal RSV and from then on the NASB, NIV, and ESV followed suit and now omit the word because of Vaticanus. So the NASB, NIV now read: "I am innocent of this man's blood", leaving out the testimony of Pilate that He was a "JUST PERSON".



Gospel of Mark - "science" of textual criticism


Mark 1:41 “A Leper in the Hands of an Angry Jesus”


One of the more curious changes Mr.Bart Ehrman thinks should be made in the Bible is found in this verse. The context is a leper coming to Jesus, kneeling down before Him and saying ‘If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.’ And Jesus MOVED WITH COMPASSION, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.”


“Moved with compassion” is the reading found in the Majority of Greek texts including Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus, and is the reading of the NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV, NRSV and Holman. However both manuscript D and the brand new TNIV tell us that instead of Jesus having compassion, HE WAS ANGRY. Ehrman thinks this is the true reading, and Daniel Wallace said he is thinking of changing his NET version to read this same way too.


Mark 2:16 and the silliness of the so called “oldest and best manuscripts”.


In the true Bible we read: “And when the scribes AND (kai hoi) the Pharisees saw him eat with PUBLICANS and SINNERS, they said unto his disciples, HOW IS IT (ti hoti) that he eateth AND DRINKETH with publicans and sinners.”


So read the Majority of all Greek texts as well as Alexandrinus and C. Also agreeing with every inspired word as well as the word order are Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops’s Bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible 1587-1602, and even the Douay-Rheims bible.


Foreign language Bibles that agree with the King James Bible are Luther’s German bible 1545, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960 and 1995, the Italian Diodati 1649 and the Rivudeta 1927, the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1902 and the French Ostervald 1996, as well as the Modern Greek texts used throughout the Orthodox churches today.


However the so called “oldest and best mss.” (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) are at odds not only with the Majority of Greek texts but with each other, and STILL the modern versions don’t even agree with each other.


Instead of reading “and when the scribes AND THE (kai hoi) Pharisees” Vaticanus says “the scribes OF (twn) the Pharisees” and so do Westcott and Hort, the NASB, RSV, ESV and NIV. However Daniel Wallace’s NET version does not, and instead in this place (but not the others) follows the KJB reading of “the scribes AND THE Pharisees.” Sinaiticus adds and extra word KAI here but nobody follows it since it makes no sense.


Then instead of reading in both places the word order of “PUBLICANS AND SINNERS” Vaticanus reverses the word order and has “SINNERS and PUBLICANS” in the first part, and “publicans and sinners” in the second part, even though Sinaiticus as well as the Majority of all texts read “publicans and sinners” in both places.


The question the Pharisees ask is all mixed up in the various texts. “HOW IS IT THAT” (Ti hoti) becomes only “that” (hoti) in Vaticanus, while Sinaiticus has “Why” (dia ti), but Westcott and Hort, and now Nestles chose to follow Vaticanus here and not Sinaiticus, nor the Textus Receptus texts that underly the King James Bible.


But more importantly in the question “HOW IS IT that he eateth AND DRINKETH with publicans and sinners.” - Vaticanus omits the words AND DRINKETH (kai pinei) which are found in the majority of all Greek texts as well as A and C. However Sinaiticus not only omits the words “and drinketh” BUT it also ADDS extra words not found in either Vaticanus or the majority of texts. Sinaiticus says: “YOUR TEACHER EATS (esthei ho didaskalos humoon) with publicans and sinners.” But so far, nobody has followed the Sinaiticus reading.


But the amazing thing is that even though Westcott and Hort, along with the modern critical texts of Nestles-Aland, and UBS still omit the words “AND DRINKETH” from their texts, yet the new versions still do not agree with each other.


Those versions that follow the Critical Texts, as opposed to the texts that underlie the King James Bible, that have altered both the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text FOUR TIMES IN THIS ONE VERSE by following Vaticanus (even though all four examples are different in Sinaiticus) and yet still do not follow the Critical text when it comes to omitting the words “and drinketh” but instead include “AND DRINK” are the Revised Version, the American Standard Version, the NASB, the Amplified bible and the ISV (International Standard Version).


However versions like the RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman Standard and the NIV omit the words “and drinketh”, as well as altering the Greek text in the other three places by following Vaticanus - and this is only in ONE verse!


Mark 9:41 - "For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink IN MY NAME, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward."


"IN MY NAME" is the reading found in the Majority of all Greek texts as well as Sinaiticus original, C correction and D. This is also the reading of Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Darby, Young's, the Hebrew Names Bible, the NKJV and the Spanish Reina Valera.


The NIV, TNIV 2005 also include the reading as do the Holman Standard 2003: "anyone who gives you a cup of water IN MY NAME because you belong to Christ..."


However, the NASB omits the word MY and adds the word YOUR which is not found in any text, saying: "For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because of YOUR name as followers of Christ..."


The ASV simply omits the whole phrase and so do the ESV, ISV saying: "For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink, because ye are Christ's, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward."


The previous RSV includes the word "name" but rearranges the words and adds the verb "you bear" which is not found in any text, saying: "whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because YOU BEAR THE NAME of Christ..."


Mark 9:42 - "And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe IN ME, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea."


The all important words "believes IN ME" are again found in the Majority of all texts including Vaticanus, A, the Old Latin, Syraic, Gothic, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic and Ethiopic ancient versions. The words "in me" are omitted by Sinaiticus and D, but D reads differently than all other texts in that it says "has faith" instead of "believes". The Westcott-Hort text and the previous Nestle-Aland critical texts used to omit these words from their text but more recently have once again "changed their minds" and restored them to their critical Greek texts, though still placing them in {brackets}.


Among the versions that contain these words and read "one of these little ones that believe IN ME" are: Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops's Bible, Geneva Bible, Youngs, the RV, ASV, NKJV, NIV, TNIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV and Holman. Even Wallace's NET version includes the words "believes in me".


However the NASB stands practically all alone in omitting these two words and reads: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble..."


Mark 10:6 -"But from the beginning of the creation GOD made them male and female."


The word GOD is found in the Majority of all Greek texts as well as A and D, and the Old Latin, Vulgate, Syraic, Georgian, Slavonic and Gothic ancient versions.


Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit the word GOD AND so do the Westcott-Hort, Nestle-Aland critical texts, yet most of the versions based on this ever changing eclectical text do not follow it in this instance.


The Revised Version, ASV and now the ESV and Wallaces NET version all omit the word God and say: "Male and female made HE them.", but the NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, Holman Standard, NKJV, Hebrew Names Bible, Complete Jewish Bible, Tyndale, Wycliffe, Bishops', Geneva, Youngs and the Spanish Reina Valera all include the word and say "GOD made them male and female", thus not even following their own critical text.


Notice how the RV, ASV previously omitted the word but now the NASB includes it, but then the previous RSV, NRSV included it but the newer ESV omits it - just the reverse in the ever changing process of "revision".


Mark 10:7 - "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, AND CLEAVE UNTO HIS WIFE."


The fickleness of the modern versionists is seen in how they deal with the textual issues of this verse. The words "and cleave unto his wife" are found in the the vast Majority of all Greek texts as well as A, C, D, the Old Latin, Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Gorgian, Slavonic and Ethiopic ancient versions.


However Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit all these words, and so did Westcott-Hort and the previous Nestle-Aland critical texts. But now once more they have changed their minds and put these words back into their Greek text but {within brackets}.


Basically the only versions that OMIT all these words are the NASB and Daniel Wallace's NET version.


The Bible versions that contain the words "and cleave unto his wife" are the following: Geneva, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops', the Revised Version, American Standard Version 1901, Weymouth, Youngs, Darby, Spanish Reina Valera, the NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman, NIV, TNIV and the brand new ISV.


Mark 10:24 - "...But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it FOR THEM THAT TRUST IN RICHES to enter the kingdom of God."


Brother Marty Shue has written an excellent article dealing with this verse. It can be found at his King James Bible defense site here:http://www.geocities.com/avdefense1611/terribly.html


"For them that trust in riches" - This is the reading found in the Majority of all Greek texts including Alexandrinus, D and C, the Old Latin copies which witness to a text written long before Sinaiticus and Vaticanus saw the light of day, the Latin Vulgate of 382 A.D. and 425 A.D., the Syriac, Coptic Boharic, Gothic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions.


The first major English version to come out that omitted these words was the liberal RSV of 1952. Not even the previous "revisions" based on the Westcott-Hort critical text went along with this innovation. The Revised Version of 1881 and the American Standard Version of 1901 BOTH kept these words in their English texts.


The whole meaning of the passage is radically changed when omitted by such versions as the NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV and Holman Standard. They end up saying: "Children, how hard is it to enter the kingdom of God." It is not hard at all; we enter the kingdom by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.


The phrase "for them that trust in riches" is also found in the following Bible translations: Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Weymouth 1913, Douay 1950, Hebrew Names Version, Darby, Young's, the New Life Bible 1969, Bible in Basic English 1960, the NKJV 1982, KJV 21st Century 1994, Third Millenium Bible 1998, and Green's MKJV 2000.


It is also found in a multitude of foreign language Bibles including Luther's German, the French Louis Segond, the Portuguese Almeida, the Spanish Reina Valera, the New Italian Diodati 1991, and the Modern Greek New Testament.


What is funny to see is how even some of the more modern versions that usually follow the Westcott-Hort texts are now rejecting the Sin-Vat readings and going back to the Traditional text used in the King James Bible. The Amplified bible of 1987, which is put out by the same Lockman Foundation that prints the NASB, includes the phrase "those who trust in riches", and now there is a brand new bible version coming down the pike that usually follows the W-H texts called the ISV (International Standard Version) of 2006. Guess what. It has now put these words back into the text where they belong reading: ""Children, how hard it is FOR THOSE WHO TRUST IN THEIR WEALTH to get into the kingdom of God!"


"Scholarship" is an amazing thing to behold, isn't it.


Mark 10:26 Who's talking to whom?


In Mark 10:26 we read: "And they were astonished out of measure, saying AMONG THEMSELVES, Who then can be saved?"


So read the Majority text, Alexandrinus, D ( codex Bezae), the Old Latin, Syriac, and the Gothic ancient versions. Agreeing with the reading of "among themselves" are Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1687, Wesley 1755, Weymouth 1913, and today we have in more modern times the NKJV 1982, NIV 1984, TNIV 2005, Holman Standard 2003, and the brand new 2006 ISV (International Standard Version) that isn't even finished yet.


However when Westcott and Hort first came out with their totally revised N.T. Greek, they originally followed the very different reading found in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, though later on in the 4th edition of the Nestle-Aland text, and today in the 27th edition they decided to go back to the reading found in the King James Bible.


The versions that still follow this very different reading of W-H, but is not even the text of the latest Nestle-Aland editions are the NASB, RSV, NRSV and the 2001 ESV. In these versions we read: "And they were even more astonished and said TO HIM (not "among themselves"), Then who can be saved?" (NASB).


This is just one more of literally hundreds of examples of where the modern versionists are in disagreement among themselves as to which readings are truly inspired of God.


Mark 13:33 "Take heed, watch AND PRAY; for ye know not when the time is." The words "and pray" are found in all texts including Sinaiticus. Only three are listed as omitting these words, two very minor and Vaticanus. The Revised Version, ASV, Catholic Douay, Lamsa's Syriac translation, NKJV all contain the words "and pray". But following the RSV the NASB, NIV, ESV now omit these words mainly because of Vaticanus.


Mark 14:68. I mention this one because it is of interest to see the changing nature of what the modern scholars like to call "the science of textual criticism". Here we read: "But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch; AND THE COCK CREW." These last words "and the cock crew" are found in the majority of all texts including A, C and D, the ancient Syriac, Gothic, Armenian, Ethiopic and Georgian versions. They are also in the Revised Version and the American Standard Version. When the Nestle text first came out, they omitted these words, but later put them back in. The first English version to omit these words was the RSV and the NIV also omits "and the cock crew". The NASB again is interesting in that from 1960 to 1977 they omitted these four words, but then in 1995 the NASB put them back in and so does the NRSV, ESV, the upcoming ISV and Holman Christian Standard versions.


What is a point of great curiosity here is that it is both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus that omit the words "and the cock crew". Now the modern versions are starting to put these words back in the New Testament but they still omit literally thousands of words and several whole verses precisely because of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omissions. Does this make any kind of rational sense to you?


You see the modern versions have no settled text at all but it is in a state of constant change and flux. If the bibles didn't change from one edition to the next, then the professional scribes would all be out of work and would have to get a real job.


Mark 14:72 "And THE SECOND TIME the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus had said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And WHEN HE THOUGHT THEREON, he wept."


Two things to notice about this verse. The words "the second time" are found in Vaticanus and the majority, yet they are omitted by Sinaiticus, but most versions retain the reading. Secondly, the words "when he thought thereon" (epibaloon) are found in all texts, including Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, yet omitted by manuscript D. This manuscript D says "he began to weep" thus adding the word "began" and omitting "when he thought thereon". ONLY the NASB omits "when he thought thereon" which is found in the RV, ASV, NKJV and the upcoming Holman Christian Standard. The NASB simply says: "And he began to weep."


The NIV, RSV and ESV have retained the reading of epibaloon and not followed D with its "BEGAN to weep", but they translate the whole phrase differently by saying: "And he broke down and wept." Here it is only the NASB that follows D and rejects all the others, including Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.


Mark 16 verses 9-20. These last 12 verses are entirely omitted by the RSV and many other modern versions either place these 12 entire verses in brackets (NASB) or with a footnote telling us "The most reliable early manuscripts do not contain Mark 16:9-20" (NIV). The truth is only three manuscripts, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and one obscure witness omit these words while they are found in over 2000 manuscripts, lectionaries, ancient versions and early Church Fathers.


For my article showing the true nature of these two "most reliable early manuscripts" see http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/oldbest.html


Dean Burgon wrote a book called The Last 12 Verses of Mark 16 which utterly destroys the arguments for omitting or questioning these words. Brother Marty Shue has written a brief article showing the overwhelming proof that these verses are authentic. Here is his article: http://www.avdefense.com/mark16.html


If the new versionists were honest and consistent in their "science of textual criticism", they would either not include these 12 verses in such versions as the NASB, NIV, ESV, ISV because they are not in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, or else they would properly include them and then restore the other 14 entire verses and multiple whole sections which they have deleted from the New Testament based on the readings found in Sinaiticus and or Vaticanus. It is that simple. As Dr. Gordon H. Clark wrote, "If a version brackets these verses, than you know that they are not going by the evidence."


Gospel of Luke


Luke 4:44 Geographical blunder in many modern versions


In Luke 4:44 we read: "And he preached in the synagogues of GALILEE." The immediate context clearly shows that the Lord Jesus was in Galilee, which is far north of the region of Judea. In fact, the very next verse tells us: "And it came to pass, that, as the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he stood by the lake of Gennesaret." Gennesaret is another name for the Sea of Galilee. See Matthew 4:18 and Mark 1:16.


Galilee and Judea are two distinct and separate regions in the land of Israel, with Decapolis and Samaria standing between them. (See Matthew 4:25; 19:1; Mark 3:7; Luke 2:4; 3:1; 5:17; John 4:3 and Acts 9:31)


"He preached in the synagogues of GALILEE" is the reading found in the vast Majority of all Greek manuscripts, including A and D, and the Old Latin copies of a, aur, b, c, d, e, f, ff2, l, q, and r1. It is also the reading of the Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, the Gothic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian, many Coptic, and the Slavonic ancient versions.


However the Westcott-Hort text, as well as the Nestle-Aland and UBS Critical texts actually read: "and he preached in the synagogues of JUDEA." So read the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, the Catholic New American Bible and Jerusalem bible, and the NIV. This is a clear geographical blunder. This erroneous reading is found in P75, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, the so called "oldest and best" manuscripts which differ from each other in significant ways more than 3000 times in the gospels alone.


It is of more than passing interest that even the Revised Version of 1881 and the American Standard Version of 1901, both of which generally followed the W-H texts and omitted some 4000 words from the New Testament, did not follow the Westcott-Hort text in this place, but rather saw the blatant blunder of this false reading, and instead went with "in the synagogues of GALILEE."


Not only this, but now there are three more modern bible versions that have recently come down the pike, and which are also based on the UBS critical text. All three have now gone back to the correct reading of "in the synagogues of GALILEE". These are the Holman Standard of 2003, the Message 2002 and the 2004 ISV (International Standard Version)


Agreeing with the correct reading of "he preached in the synagogues of GALILEE" are Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, the NKJV, RV, ASV, Douay, Bible in Basic English, Young's, Weymouth, Darby, New Life Bible, Spanish Reina Valera, Italian Diodati, German Luther, French Louis Segond, and the Modern Greek versions.


Among the silly reasons for adopting the bogus reading of "the synagogues of JUDEA", Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary, whose NET version also reads this way, says: "Judea is probably the original reading since it is both the harder reading and supported by the best witnesses. “Galilee” is an assimilation to Mark 1:39 and Matt 4:23."


Now this is interesting. According to Mr. Wallace, we should adopt this "probably original reading" because it is the harder reading and supported by the "best witnesses" which disagree with each other literally thousands of times in the N.T. alone. The reading of "Judea" is not only "the harder reading" but it is the IMPOSSIBLE reading. It is just flat out wrong. According to men like Daniel Wallace, if the reading doesn't make any sense and is contrary to all historical evidence, then it must be right! Go figure.


Luke 8:43 "And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, WHICH HAD SPENT ALL HER LIVING UPON PHYSICIANS, neither could be healed of any..."


All the words in capital letters are missing only in Vaticanus and 2 other manuscripts (P75 and D, though D also contains readings in this verse not found in any of the others), and are omitted by the RSV 1952, NASB 1963-1995, the NIV 1982 and the TNIV of 2005. Other versions that omit these words are the New English Bible of 1970, the Catholic Jerusalem bible of 1968 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985. The earlier Catholic versions like the Douay and the Douay-Rheims include them.


Daniel Wallace and company's NET bible version also omits all these words, and then the good Doctor informs us in his footnotes: " Uncertainty over its authenticity is due primarily to the fact that certain important witnesses do not have the phrase. This evidence alone renders its authenticity unlikely. It may have been intentionally added by later scribes in order to harmonize Luke’s account with similar material in Mark 5:26. NA 27 includes the words in brackets, indicating doubt as to their authenticity."


Of course Mr. Wallace fails to mention the fact that the overwhelming witnesses of ancient versions, manuscripts (including his beloved Sinaiticus), and even many modern English versions disagree with his "uncertainty over its authenticity", and the Greek found in Mark 5:26 doesn't match that found in Luke 8:43, but if you follow men like Wallace, this is all you end up with - uncertainty.


However all these words are found in the majority of all texts including Sinaiticus, A, C, the Old Latin copies of aur,b, c, ff2, l, and q, the Syriac Peshitta and Harkelian, the Vulgate, some Coptic, the Ethiopic, Slavonic and the Gothic ancient versions.


Even though Westcott and Hort and all earlier editions of the Nestle-Aland critical Greek texts completely omitted these words, the Revised Version of 1881 and the American Standard Version of 1901 included them anyway. The first major version to omit them was the liberal RSV of 1952, and now the NASB, NIV and TNIV follow suite. The most recent Nestle-Aland, UBS Critical Greek texts have once again changed their texts and now include these five Greek words, but place them in [brackets] indicating doubt as to their authenticity.


The NIV is not always the same when translated into foreign languages. The Portuguese Nova Versao International of 2000 now includes all these words that the English NIV omits! It reads: "E estava ali certa mulher que havia doze anos vinha sofrendo de uma hemorragia E GASTATA TUDO O QUE TINHA COM OS MEDICOS; mas ninguém pudera curá-la."


But wait. There's more. Now many of the other modern versions coming on the scene are going back to including the words "which had spent all her living on physicians". Among these modern and previous Bible versions are the following: Wycliffe ,Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, RV, ASV, Weymouth, Young's, Darby, Hebrew Names Version, World English Bible, New Life Bible 1969, Amplified version, the Contemporary English Version, the New Living Bible 1996, Bible in Basic English 1961, the NRSV 1989, the ESV 2001, NKJV, Holman Standard Version 2003, The Message 2003, and the ISV of 2005.


Yet many of these newer versions continue in the main to follow the Westcott-Hort texts. Even the footnotes are deceptive. The NASB omits all these words and then tells us in a footnote "SOME mss. add...", while the NIV says "MANY mss. add..." Isn't scholarship a kick in the head!?!


Luke 9:2 "And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God and to heal THE SICK." Again we see the same fickleness in the "science of textual criticism" as before. The words "the sick" are "tous asthenountas" and they are found in every known manuscript including Sinaiticus except ONE, and that is Vaticanus. The words "to heal THE SICK" are found in the RV, ASV, NIV, ISV, Holman, but the RSV, NASB and ESV all continue to omit "the sick", based on one manuscript. The earlier Nestle text omitted the words but now they are back in their text again.


70 or 72?


Luke 10:1 "After these things the Lord appointed other SEVENTY also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come."


The reading of 70 is found in the Majority of all Greek texts as well as Sinaiticus, A, and C. It is also the reading of the Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Gothic, many Old Latin copies, Ethiopic, and Slavonic ancient versions.


However Vaticanus reads: "After these things the Lord appointed SEVENTY TWO and sent them...." So, which is it, 70 or 72? The confusion is seen not only in the various English translations but in the Nestle-Aland texts as well. The reading of 72 was first included in the Westcott-Hort text of 1881, but later the Nestle-Aland text read 70. I have a NA 4th edition 1934 edition and it reads just like the King James Bible - 70. But later on, the Nestle-Aland text once again changed and now the more recent NA text read 72 with the number two in brackets.


The confusion is further seen by the different translations that in the main follow the ever-changing Nestle-Aland critical texts. The reading of 70 is found in the RV 1881, ASV 1901, NASB 1963-1995, RSV 1952, NRSV 1989, Holman Standard Version 2003, Weymouth, New Life Version 1969, Bible in Basic English 1961, The Complete Jewish Bible 1998, The Message 2002, and the ISV (International Standard Version) of 2005.


However, the NIV, TNIV, ESV of 2001, the Catholic versions and Daniel Wallace's NET version all read SEVENTY TWO. Both numbers obviously cannot be what God inspired. Either the KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, Holman, and ISV have the correct number, or the NIV, ESV do. You can't have it both ways.


Luke 10:41-42 "And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful about many things, BUT ONE THING IS NEEDFUL, and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her."


"but one thing is needful" is the majority reading of all texts including P45, P75 and Alexandrinus, but a curious thing happens when we look at both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Instead of saying "but one thing is needful", these two "oldest and best" read: "but few things are needful, the one". ONLY the NASB from 1960 to 1977 and the Amplified version read: "BUT ONLY A FEW THINGS ARE NECESSARY, REALLY ONLY ONE, for Mary has chosen the good part."


Not even the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, ISV read as does the NASB from 1963 through 7 revisions to 1977. Ah, but then in 1995 the NASB scholars decided to go back to the other reading of "but one thing is needful" and so now the 1995 NASB Update reads like all the others. Likewise the older Nestle-Aland texts used to read: "but FEW THINGS are needful, THE ONE", but now have once again changed their NA critical texts to read as does the King James Bible. But wait! It gets worse. Now that the latest Nestle-Aland critical texts have gone back to the KJB reading, the brand new 2005 Today's NIV has instead reverted back to the previous Nestle-Aland text and now reads: "FEW THINGS ARE NEEDED - REALLY ONLY ONE". It just gets better and better, doesn't it?!?


A few additional notes on Luke 10:38-41. In 10:38 we read: "and a certain woman named Martha received him INTO HER HOUSE (eis ton oikon autees). The words "into her house" are found in the Majority of all texts, including Sinaiticus, A and C. Even the earlier Nestle-Aland texts included these words, and so do the RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, RSV, ESV, and NIV. However, Vaticanus omits these words and now the Nestle-Aland text has once again changed and they now omit them from their text. In other words, not even the modern versions are "up to date" with the latest "scientific" changes.


Two other similar changes are found in verses 39 and 41. In both verses we read: "and sat at JESUS' feet" and "JESUS answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha...". In both verses the word JESUS is found in the Majority of all texts including Vaticanus, but Sinaiticus reads LORD instead of JESUS, and this time the NASB, RSV, ESV, Holman and NIV decided to follow Sinaiticus instead of Vaticanus and put LORD.


Then in Luke 11:2-4 modern versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman omit all the capital lettered words: OUR Father, WHICH ART IN HEAVEN, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. THY WILL BE DONE, AS IN HEAVEN, SO IN EARTH....And lead us not into temptation; BUT DELIVER US FROM EVIL." All these words are found in the vast Majority of all remaining Greek texts, and in Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops' Bible, Geneva Bible, Lamsa's translation of the ancient Syriac Peshitta, the NKJV, Youngs, the Spanish Reina Valera, German Luther, Italian Diodati, the Hebrew Names Version, and the Third Millenium Bible.


Of the 45 Greek words found in Luke 11:1-4, among the so called "oldest and best" manuscripts of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, A and C, no two are alike in 32 out of the 45 words! For example, the words "Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth" are found in the Majority of all texts including Sinaiticus, A, C and D, but because Vaticanus omits them so do versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman and all Catholic bible versions. This is the true nature of "the science of textual criticism".


Luke 11:11 "If a son shall ask BREAD of any of you that is a father, WILL HE GIVE HIM A STONE? OR IF HE ASK a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent."


This is the reading found in the majority of all texts, as well as Sinaiticus, A, C, D, the Syriac Peshitta, Revised Version, American Standard Version, and the brand new International Standard Version. Keep in mind that the RV, ASV and ISV are all generally based on the Westcott-Hort texts.


However Vaticanus omits all the capitalized words above and so do the NASB, NIV, and ESV. The NASB reads: "Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he?"


Luke 12:39 "if the good man of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would HAVE WATCHED AND not have suffered his house to be broken through." "he WOULD HAVE WATCHED" is found in the Majority and Vaticanus, and is the reading of the RV, ASV and again the new ISV. However Sinaiticus omits these words and so do the NASB, NIV and ESV. Even Westcott and Hort originally retained these words, but later on, the Nestle text decided to omit them, but now they are appearing once again in the ISV. Our noted modern versions scholars are nothing if not consistently inconsistent.


Luke 14:5 "Which of you shall have AN ASS or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?" AN ASS (onos) is the reading of the traditional Textus Receptus, and Sinaiticus. Even the first English revisions based primarily on the Westcott-Hort texts continued to follow the reading of "ass" and so read the RV 1881, the ASV 1901 and even the RSV of 1952. This has been the traditional reading of Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale, Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, Young's, the NKJV, the Spanish Reina Valera, Italian Diodati, Bible in Basic English, the Douay version 1950, and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.


Manuscript D has neither "ass" nor "son" but "sheep" (probaton). However Vaticanus reads SON (huios) instead of "an ass" and the NASB, NIV, Holman, ISV, and ESV read: "Which of you having a SON or an ox that has fallen into a well..." The earlier Catholic Douay read "ass", but the newer ones agree with the NASB, NIV and have "son".


Luke 15:21 - A significant testimony to the total fickleness and absurdity of the so called "science of textual criticism" is the next verse of Luke 15:21. Here we read: And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son."


So read the Majority of all Greek texts, the Old Latin and the Syriac Peshitta. Even the modern versions that have omitted or added literally THOUSANDS of words from the New Testament, based mainly on the readings or omissions found in either Sinaiticus, Vaticanus or D - Codex Bezae, such as the NASB, NIV, RSV, ASV, ESV, and Holman Standard, still read the same way as does the King James Bible.


However, it should be noted that not just one or two, but all three of these perverted texts - Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and D - ALL conspire to add several more words to this verse. All three of these "textus corruptus" manuscripts add the additional words: "MAKE ME AS ONE OF YOUR HIRED SERVANTS", yet none of the modern versions adopts this reading.


Westcott and Hort originally included these extra seven Greek words in their text, but not even the Revisers adopted this reading, and the later Nestle-Aland critical texts omitted them too. The only version I have seen so far that included this bogus reading is Rotherham's 1902 Emphasized bible, which was based on the Westcott-Hort text. All versions from that time to the present continue to omit these extra words found in those "oldest and best manusripts" we hear so much about today.


It should logically and consistently be asked: Why have they omitted thousands of other words based on one or more of these same "oldest and best" texts, and yet here they all fail to follow their idols in this place? Such is the nature of the "science" they call textual criticism.


Luke 23:17 "FOR OF NECESSITY HE MUST RELEASE ONE UNTO THEM AT THE FEAST."


This entire verse is found in the Majority of all texts including Sinaiticus. However Vaticanus omits the whole verse and so do the ASV, NIV,TNIV, RSV, ESV, Wallace's NET version. The NASB pulls its usual trick, and from 1960 to 1972 the NASB likewise omitted the verse, but then in 1977 and again in 1995 the NASB scholars decided to put the verse back in the text, even though the UBS, Nestle-Aland critical text still omits the verse from their text.


The whole verse is found in the Old Latin as well as the Latin Vulgate 380 A.D., and the Syriac Peshitta. The verse is in Tyndale, Geneva, NKJV, Hebrew Names Bible, Modern Greek, Hebrew New Testament, Luther, Spanish Reina Valera, Chinese, Russian, French Louis Segond, Italian Diodati, and an host of other foreign language bibles. But wait! Now the brand new ISV and Holman Christian Standard also retain the verse and place it in their versions. Aren't you glad we have the latest sure findings of modern scholarship to help us find out what God REALLY said?


Luke chapter 24 is a real mess, especially in the NASB.


Luke 24:36 "And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, AND SAITH UNTO THEM, PEACE BE UNTO YOU."


This is the reading found in all texts, including Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Only ONE manuscript omits the words "and saith unto them, peace be unto you" and that is the notorious manuscript D. Yet on the basis of this one manuscript the RSV and the NASB from 1960 through 1977 omitted all these words. The whole phrase is retained in the RV, ASV, NRSV, ESV and the NIV. Then in 1995 SOME of the NASBs decided to put them back in the text. The particular NASB 95 Udate I have still omits them, but I have heard that other NASBs 1995 now place the words back in.


Luke 24:40 "AND WHEN HE HAD THUS SPOKEN, HE SHEWED THEM HIS HANDS AND HIS FEET." Again, ALL texts, including Sinaiticus and Vaticanus contain this verse, but on the basis of only one manuscript (D) the RSV omitted the entire verse as well as the NASBs from 1960 through 1972. Then in 1977 the NASB put this whole verse back in their version. The NRSV, ESV and NIV do contain this verse.


Luke 24:51-52 "And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, AND CARRIED UP INTO HEAVEN. And they WORSHIPPED HIM AND returned to Jerusalem with great joy." Once more, all the words "and carried up into heaven" and "worshipped him and" are found in all texts except one manuscript - D again. Yet the RSV as well as the NASBs from 1960 through 1977 omitted these words. Then in 1995 the NASB added them back to the text. They have always been in the RV, ASV, and they are in the NRSV, ESV as well as the NKJV.


Verse 51. “And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, AND CARRIED UP INTO HEAVEN.” These last 5 words, “and carried up into heaven” are found in Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops, the Geneva Bible, the NIV, the Revised Version, the ASV, NRSV, ESV and the Holman. But they are omitted by the RSV 1952 edition and all seven editions of the NASB from 1963 to 1977.


These words are found in P75, Majority, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Only manuscript D omits these words. The Critical Texts again are in a state of constant change. Westcott and Hort originally double bracketed the words “and carried up into heaven” and “worshipped him and” in the next verse. Then in 1961 the Nestle-Aland critical text COMPLETELY REMOVED from their texts all these words. But once again in the latest Nestle-Aland they have put all these words back in their texts and this time not even in [brackets]! Go figure. Yet the NASB’s first seven editions from 1963 to 1977 omitted the fact of the ascension of our Lord by removing the words “and carried up into heaven” and removed the words “and worshipped Him” from verse 52. The 1989 Revised English Bible, and the 1970 New English Bible still omit all the words “and was carried up into heaven” and “and worshipped Him”.


But wait, now the 1995 edition of the new and improved NA$B has put them back in for us. Now we can get the late$t in $cholar$hip. So, were the previous NASBs not the inspired words of God, but now in 1995 it is?


We are not quite done beholding the marvels of modern scholarship. Just a couple more brief examples.


In the next verse the reaction of the disciples at seeing our risen Lord ascend into heaven was that “they WORSHIPPED HIM AND, returned to Jerusalem with great joy.” Here again the NASBs from 1963 to 1977 (Seven distinct editions) omitted the words WORSHIPPED HIM AND, and have merely “And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy.”


Nothing about worshipping Jesus Christ, which of course is a strong testimony to the fact that He is God in the flesh, because we may only worship God. The RSV 1952 also omits this phrase and so does the Revised English Bible 1989 and the NEB 1970, but the NRSV, ESV and Holman put it back in and so does the 1995 NASB. Again only D omits these words. The new ISV (International Standard Version) still manages to sow confusion and doubt by the notes found within the text. Notice these verses: 24:3: but when they went in, they didn't find the body of the Lord Jesus. (Other mss. lack of the Lord Jesus) Lk 24:6: He is not here but has been raised. (Other mss. lack He is not here, but has been raised) Lk 24:12: Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. He stooped down and saw only the linen cloths. Then he went home wondering about what had happened. (Other mss. lack verse 12.) Lk 24:36: Jesus Appears to the Disciples While they were talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” (Other mss. lack and said to them, “Peace be with you.”) Lk 24:40: After he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. (Other mss. lack verse 40).


The truth of the matter is that only one manuscript lacks all these words and whole verses, all of which are omitted by the RSV, NEB (New English Bible 1970) and most were omitted by the NASB from 1960 till either 1972 or 1977. That single manuscript is D. Dear saints, it should be obvious that this mysterious process is not a "science" but the strange brew of modern-day textual alchemists.




Gospel of John

John 7:8-10 Is Jesus Christ a liar?


John 7:8-10 Here we read of Jesus telling his brethren to go up unto a feast and He says: "I go NOT up YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Gallilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." He did in fact go up to the feast.


Vaticanus, as well as P66, 75, and the majority of all texts read as does the KJB with: "I go not up YET unto this feast", and so do the Revised Version 1881, Geneva, Tyndale, Bishops', Coverdale, the NIV, Holman Standard, the 2005 ISV (International Standard Version), Young, Weymouth, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902.


However Sinaiticus says: "I DO NOT GO to this feast", and so do the NASB, ASV, RSV, ESV and Wallace's NET version thus making our Lord a liar. The fickle nature of this so called "science" is also seen in that Westcott and Hort originally read "NOT YET" and so did the previous Nestle-Aland critical texts up until a few years ago. But the more recent ones have "scientifically" changed to now read "I do NOT go to this feast."

Daniel Wallace's NET version has the Lord saying He is NOT going to the feast, and then going. But the thinking of such "scholars" is revealed in his own footnotes where he says: " Most mss (66,75 B L T W 070 0105 0250 1,13, sa), including most of the better witnesses, have "not yet" here. Those with the reading "not" (ouk) are not as impressive ( D K 1241 al lat), but "ouk" is the more difficult reading here, especially because it stands in tension with v. 10." So, in other words, because it absurdly makes our Lord Jesus a liar, it must be right!


Wilbur Pickering, who himself is not even a KJB onlyist, comments on this blunder: Serious Anomalies/Aberrations -John 7:8 oupw--P66,75,B,E,F,G,H,L,N,T,W,X,D,Q,Y 070,0105,0141,0250,f1,13,Byz,Lect,syrp,h,pal,cosa "NOT YET" ; ouk --,D,K,P,lat,syrs,c,cobo "NOT" Problem: Since Jesus did in fact go to the feast (and doubtless knew what He was going to do), the UBS text has the effect of ascribing a falsehood to Him.


Some modern version textual critics actually come right out and tell us that Jesus either lied or he later changed His mind.

Canons of Criticism - Bob Waltz http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/CanonsOfCrit.html Sinaiticus, D K 1241 1071 1241 a b c e ff2 vg sin cur bo arm geo al read "I am not going to this festival."
P66 P75 B L T W Q 070 0250 33 892 Byz have "I am not yet going to this festival." The first reading is to be preferred because it implies that Jesus either lied or changed his mind.
Arthur Schopenhauer (likely using a Tregelles or Tischendorf text) "Jesus Christ himself is reported on one occasion to have intentionally told an untruth" (The Two Fundamental Problems of Ethics - English translation of 1881 German edition)


Discussion: Since the UBS editors usually attach the highest value to P75 and B, isn't it strange that they reject them in this case? Here is Metzger's explanation: "The reading ["not yet"] was introduced at an early date (it is attested by P66,75) in order to alleviate the inconsistency between ver. 8 and ver. 10" (p. 216). So, they rejected P66,75 and B (as well as 99% of the MSS) because they preferred the "inconsistency". NASB, RSV, NEB and TEV stay with the eclectic text here. (end of comments by Dr. Pickering.)


Also in just these three verses we see that the word "this" of THIS FEAST is omitted by B but found in Aleph, but the NASB and NIV both omit the word, while "UNTO THEM" is in the NASB and B, but not in the NIV or Aleph, and "AS IT WERE" is in B and the NASB, but not in Aleph and the NIV. This is the character of these two manuscripts and bible versions in a nutshell.


John 7:53-8:11 - the woman taken in adultery. These entire 12 verses are included in the Majority of all texts, the Old Latin and the Syriac Peshitta translated by Lamsa; as well as the Coptic Boharic, Armenian and Ethiopic ancient versions. However both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit these 12 entire verses and so does the Revised Standard Version. At least the RSV was being consistent in their method of adopting the Westcott-Hort Greek text. However the NASB, NIV and ESV all include these verses in their versions. Why? If they already have rejected 14 other entire verses in the New Testament on the basis of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, then why retain these extra twelve?


The NASB, NIV and ESV all contain footnotes for these verses saying: "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11" (NIV 1978 edition.) However, the NIV Scofield edition 1982 says: "Although not found is some ancient manuscripts, the immediate context, beginning with Christ's declaration, "I am the light of the world" (8:12) seems clearly to have its occasion in the conviction wrought in the hearts of the Pharisees as recorded in 8:9, and also helps to explain the Pharisees' word in 8:41. It is therefore to be considered a genuine part of the Gospel."


If the NASB, NIV, ESV scholars really believe Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are the best and most reliable texts, then they should follow them and not include these 12 verses in their versions. Why omit some 5000 words from the New Testament primarily because of Sinaiticus-Vaticanus, not follow them in Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11, and then call this whole textual process "scientific"?


The 2003 Holman Christian Standard bible tells us in their Introduction: "In a few places in the N.T., large square brackets indicate texts that the HCSB translation team and most biblical scholars today believe WERE NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT." They say they include them for "their undeniable antiquity" and their "value for tradition".


These "few places in the N.T." include at least 39 entire verses that, by their own admission, "were not part of the original text"!!! Among these are Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 15:28; 16:9-20; Luke 17:36; 22:43-44; 23:17; John 5:3-4; 7:53-8:11; Acts 8:37; 24:6-7, and Romans 16:24.


If the HCSB people are so committed to inerrancy and are "champions for absolute truth against any compromise with inaccuracy" (as they claim), then why do they include in their new version at least 39 entire verses that they don't think were "part of the original text"? These Scriptures are either inspired of God and belong in the Holy Bible, or they are spurious additions that have no place in any bible version at all.


John 8:16 - "And if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and THE FATHER that sent me."�


The purpose of this little study is not so much to point out a huge difference in the meaning of the text, but rather to expose the fickleness upon which the so called "science of textual criticism"� is based. This is just one of a hundred typical examples found in the New Testament.


There is a very definite textual difference in the reading of this verse. The words "the Father"� are found in the vast Majority of all Greek texts as well as in P39, 66 and 75, and in the Sinaiticus correction, Vaticanus, many Old Latin copies, as well as the ancient versions like the Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Palestinian, Coptic Boharic and Sahidic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Georgian, Latin Vulgate and Slavonic. So one would naturally think that there should be absolutely no doubt about the inclusion of the words "the Father"� in this text.


However, Sinaiticus original (which was later corrected to include the words) as well as manuscript D (well known for its numerous oddities) omit the words "the Father"� and so do a number of modern versions. The interesting thing is that the Nestle-Aland critical texts keep on changing every few years and so does the NASB, which is based upon them.


When Westcott and Hort came out with their new critical text, they originally put the Greek words for "the Father"� [in brackets], indicating doubt about their inspiration. Then in many later editions of the Nestle-Aland critical texts, they completely omitted the words "the Father"� from their text. BUT now, based upon the same evidence they have ALWAYS had, the critical text "scholars" have put the words "the Father"� back into the text, and this time not even in brackets. That makes for THREE changes in the critical text editions over the years concerning just one word in the Greek - Father - pater.


The words "but I and THE FATHER that sent me"� are found in the following Bible translations: Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the KJB, Douay, Darby, Youngs, the Revised Version of 1881 (though WH bracketed the words, the RV included them in their version), the ASV of 1901, the "Rock of Biblical Honesty"� [What a joke!] of the NASB, the NKJV, NIV, NRSV 1989, and the ESV of 2004.


As for foreign language Bibles, the words "the Father"� are found in Luther's German, the French Louis Segond, Martin, and Ostervald, the Spanish Reina Valera, the Portuguese Almeida and the Italian Diodati, just to name a few.


However, the NASB omitted the words "the Father"� from all 8 of their revisions dating from 1963 till 1977. For all those years the NASB read: "for I am not alone in it, but I and HE WHO sent Me".� In other words, the NASB "scholars"�, in spite of all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, omitted the word "Father"� and followed the reading of manuscript D in this place. But wait! Now once again in 1995 the NASB has changed and it now includes the word. The 1995 edition of the NASB now reads: "but I and THE FATHER who sent Me."�


Other bible versions that omit the words "the Father"� and read things like "the One who"� or "he who sent me"� are the Revised Standard Version (but the later NRSV, and ESV put the words "the Father"� back in), the Revised English Bible of 1989, the New English Bible of 1970, the Catholic versions of New American bible 1970, the Jerusalem bible 1969 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985, the New Berkeley version, and the up and coming ISV - International Standard Version. These guys just can't seem to get their act together, can they.


This one example serves to illustrate the fickle and ever-changing nature of what the Bible Agnostics like to call the "science"� of textual criticism.


John 8:38-39 "I speak that which I have seen with MY Father; and ye do that which ye have SEEN with YOUR father. They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye WERE Abraham's children, YE WOULD DO the works of Abraham."


There are two spiritual families. The children of God and the children of the devil. In John 8:44 the Lord Jesus tells these same Pharisees: "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do."


The readings found in the King James Bible in verses 38-39 are those of the Majority of all Greek texts, and those found in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1599, King James Bible, the NKJV 1982, Darby, Young's, Green's Modern KJV, Hebrew Names Bible, the Spanish Reina Valera and Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta.


However the so called "oldest and best" manuscripts upon which most modern versions are based are in continual disagreement among themselves and so are the modern versions based on them.


"I speak that which I have seen with MY Father" is the reading of the Majority of all texts including Sinaiticus. However Vaticanus omits "MY" (mou) and reads "THE" Father (tw).


"Ye do that which YE HAVE SEEN" (heoorake) is the Majority reading plus that of P66 and Sinaiticus. However Vaticanus reads: "you DO that which you HAVE HEARD" (eekousate), while P75 says "you SPEAK what you have heard"


"that which ye have seen with YOUR father" (humoon)is the Majority reading plus Sinaiticus, but Vaticanus reads "THE father" (tou).


"IF YE WERE Abraham's seed, YE WOULD DO the works of Abraham." The words "if ye were" (ean eete) are in the subjunctive mood in the Majority and C texts, and this means that they are NOT Abraham's seed. It is a contrary to fact construction. However Sinaiticus and Vaticanus read in the indicative mood "If you are" (ei este).


Then in the second part of this verse the words "YE WOULD DO" (epoiete) again imply "contrary to fact" and agree with the previous verb in the subjunctive mood. So read the Majority, P75 and Sinaiticus, plus the Vaticanus correction. However Vaticanus original and P66 read "YOU DO" (poiete) in the indicative mood, and make it a command "DO". The older Nestle-Aland texts used to read like the KJB and Majority with "ye would do", but they recently have once again changed their Greek texts to now read as a command "DO", but not all the modern versions follow this present reading.


MODERN VERSION CONFUSION


The NET version by Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary - "I am telling you the things I have seen while with THE Father; as for you, PRACTICE the things you have HEARD from THE Father!" They answered him, (omits "and said") "Abraham is our father!" Jesus replied, (omits "unto them") "If you ARE Abraham's children, you WOULD BE DOING the deeds of Abraham."


ASV - "Jesus saith unto them, IF YE WERE Abraham's children, YE WOULD DO the works of Abraham."


NIV - "I am telling you what I have seen in THE Father's presence, and you do what you HAVE HEARD from YOUR father. "Abraham is our father," they answered. "IF YOU WERE Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then YOU WOULD DO the things Abraham did."


NASB - "I speak the things which I have seen with [MY] Father; therefore you also do the things which you HEARD from [YOUR] father." They answered and said to Him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "IF YOU ARE Abraham's children, DO the deeds of Abraham."


RSV - "I speak of what I have seen with MY Father, and you do what you have HEARD from YOUR father." They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "IF YOU WERE Abraham's children, YOU WOULD DO what Abraham did."


NRSV - "I declare what I have seen in THE Father's presence; as for you, you SHOULD DO what you have HEARD from THE Father." They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "IF YOU WERE Abraham's children, you WOULD BE DOING what Abraham did."


ESV - "I speak of what I have seen with MY Father, and you do what you have HEARD from YOUR father." They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "IF YOU WERE Abraham's children, YOU WOULD BE DOING what Abraham did."


Holman Standard - "I speak what I have seen in the presence of THE Father, and therefore you do what you have heard from YOUR father." "Our father is Abraham!" they replied."IF YOU WERE Abraham's children," Jesus told them, "YOU WOULD DO what Abraham did."


COMPARISONS


MY Father - KJB, NKJV, NASB, RSV, ESV - Sinaiticus


THE Father - NIV, NRSV, Holman - Vaticanus


SEEN - KJB, NKJV, Tyndale, Geneva, Youngs, Darby - P66, Sinaiticus


HEARD - NIV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman - P75, Vaticanus


YOUR father - KJB, NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, Holman - Sinaiticus


THE Father - NRSV, NET version (Daniel Wallace)- Vaticanus


IF YE WERE...YE WOULD DO --- Contrary to fact. They are not Abrahams seed. - KJB, NKJV, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman - "ye would do" -Sinaiticus


IF YOU ARE....DO --- Not contrary to fact. They are so they should do. - NASB, NET version. - "do" - Vaticanus


John 9:4 "I must do the works of him that sent ME, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work." Both "I" must do the works, and "him that sent ME" is the reading in the Majority of all texts as well as Sinaiticus correction, A, C, the Syriac Peshitta, Old Latin, Coptic, Gothic, Arminian and Ethiopic ancient versions. However the NASB, NIV, ESV scholars got themselves in a bit of a bind here because their "oldest and most reliable" texts are in total disarray.


The NASB, NIV, ESV say: "WE must work the works of him that sent US." They came up with this reading because Vaticanus says "WE must work"; but then Vaticanus also ends with "him that sent ME", while Sinaiticus has "him that sent US". So they adopted the scientific method of winging it as long as it differs from the King James Bible. But now the new ISV is coming out and guess what? They have gone back to the KJB reading of "I must do the works of him that sent ME."


John 10:17-18 "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man TAKETH it from me, but I lay it down of myself."


Here obviously the Lord Jesus is still alive and He states that no man would take His life but that He would lay it down of Himself. "No man TAKETH it from me", (present tense - aipei) is found in all texts including Sinaiticus, except two, one of which is Vaticanus. "No man taketh it from me" is the reading of the RV, ASV, NIV, ESV, RSV, and ISV. The Vaticanus reading is absurd but that didn't stop the previousNestle-Aland scholars from following Vaticanus in their text. ONLY the NASB has adopted the Vaticanus reading which puts this verb in the past tense (eeren) and says: "No one HAS TAKEN IT AWAY from me, but I lay it down..." Duh, wouldn't it be obvious that no man had taken His life is He were still alive and speaking to them? The NASB 95 still reads this way, but the Nestle text has once again changed their scholarly opinions and gone back to the KJB reading.


The following is just a sampling of some of the divergent readings found in the few conflicting manuscripts that many modern scholars follow in their attempt to overthrow the traditional Received Text of the New Testament.


This handful of older manuscripts are often in complete disagreement among themselves. The ones I will mention are Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, P66, P75, and sometimes C or D too.


In John 3:3 we read "Jesus answered AND SAID UNTO HIM". So reads Vaticanus, but Sinaiticus omits the words "and said unto him". In John 3:8 we read "so is every one that is born of the Spirit", but Sinaiticus says: "BORN OF WATER and of the Spirit". In John 3:5 "he cannot ENTER into the kingdom of GOD", but Sinaiticus says "he cannot SEE the kingdom of HEAVEN."


In John 3:20 Sinaiticus omits the words "neither cometh to the light" and it omits all of verse 21: "But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.", but they are found in Vaticanus.


In John 3:25 there was a question with THE JEWS (Sinaiticus), but Vaticanus says it was with A JEW.


In John 3:28 we read Jesus's words saying: "Ye yourselves bear ME witness", and so read P66, Vaticanus, A and D, along with the NASB, but Sinaiticus and P75 omit this word and so does the NIV.


In John 3:31 the Majority, Vaticanus and P66 say "he that cometh from heaven IS ABOVE ALL", but Sinaiticus original and P75 omit these words.


In John 3:34 we read that "GOD giveth not THE SPIRIT by measure unto him", yet Vaticanus, Sinaiticus omit the word GOD and so does the NASB, but the NIV retains it, and Vaticanus omits the words THE SPIRIT, but Sinaiticus and the others retain it.


In John 4:1 we read that THE LORD knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus baptized, and this is the reading of P66, P75 and Vaticanus along with the NASB, but Sinaiticus says JESUS and so does the NIV.


In John 4:41 we read: "...his servants met him, AND TOLD HIM, saying THY son liveth." P75 and Vaticanus omit the words "and told him" and the NASB omits them too, but they are found in the Majority of texts, Sinaiticus and P66 and are included in the NIV. "THY son liveth" is the Majority reading, as well as that of P66 correction, but P75, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus read HIS son lives, and so too the NASB, NIV.


John 5:17 - "But JESUS answered them...". So read the Majority, P66, A, C, and D and the NIV, but P75, Sin and Vat omit "Jesus" and the NASB simply says "he". This may seem minor, but the inconsistency is seen in John 5:19 where again we read: "Then answered JESUS and said unto them...". This time the word JESUS is in the Majority, P66 and A, while Vaticanus and P75 omit the word JESUS again, but this time the NASB decided to keep it in. They just reversed themselves in their "scientific" method of textual criticism.


John 5:30 "but the will of THE FATHER which hath sent me." So read the Majority and P66, but Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit "the Father" and so do the NASB, NIV.


John 5:44 - "and seek not the honour that cometh from GOD only." Here Vaticanus, P66 and P75 all unite in omitting the word GOD, yet it is in Sinaiticus, A and D and this time the NASB, NIV include it too!


John 6:69 - "we believe and are sure that thou art THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD." So read the Majority of all texts including at least 17 uncials, the Old Latin copies, Syriac, Peshitta, Harkelian, Palestinian, some Coptic Boharic, the Gothic, Armenian and Ethiopic ancient versions. However P66 reads "THE CHRIST, the HOLY ONE OF GOD", while P75, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus all omit "the Christ" and have instead "the holy one of God". So read the NASB, NIV.


John 7:8 - Here the Lord says: "I go not up YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet come." So read the Majority of all texts including P66, P75 and Vaticanus, and so too does the NIV. However the NASB makes Jesus a liar by following the Sinaiticus reading where it says "I go NOT to this feast" and yet two verses later He does indeed go up to the feast.


John 7:10 - "then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but AS IT WERE, in secret." So read the Majority, Vaticanus, P66 and P75 and the NASB. But this time Sinaiticus omits the words "as it were" and so does the NIV.


John 7:39 "...for the HOLY Ghost was not yet given". So read the Majority of Greek texts, plus P66 correction and Vaticanus. However Sinaiticus and P75 omit the word "holy" and so too do the NASB, NIV.


John 7:53 all the way through John 8:11. These entire 12 verses are missing from Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, though they are found in the vast Majority of all Greek texts including D plus at least 15 other uncials, many Old Latin copies, the Vulgate, Syriac Palestinian, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, some Coptic Boharic, and the Ethiopian versions. It is quoted or referred to by many early church Fathers. However since P66, P75, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus all omit these entire 12 verses, we can well ask, Why do the NASB, NIV, ESV, and Holamn versions all keep them in their bibles?. Why not be consistent and delete all 12 verses from their texts just like the old RSV did? Hello? Is any body there?


John 8:16 - "for I am not alone, but I and THE FATHER that sent me." Here the reading of THE FATHER is found in Vaticanus, P66, and P75 and in the NIV. But the NASB used to follow Sinaiticus and D which omit "the Father" and from 1963 to 1977 the NASB simply said "HE who sent me." But now in 1995 the NASB has changed once again and now adopts the reading of "the Father that sent me."


John 8:28 - "Then said Jesus UNTO THEM, When ye have lifted up..." The words "unto them" are found in the Majority, P66, P75, and Sinaiticus, but Vaticanus omits them and this time the NASB, NIV go along with the Vaticanus reading instead and omit the words.


John 8:28 Again -Then in the very same verse, the "scientific" method of textual criticism has led the NASB, NIV people to completely reverse themselves just a few words later. Here we read: �but as MY Father hath taught me, I speak these things." MY Father is the reading of the Majority of texts and Vaticanus. But P66, P75 and Sinaiticus omit the word "my" and this time the NASB, NIV reverse themselves180 degrees and now reject the reading found in Vaticanus, whose text they just got done accepting for the first part of the verse, while rejecting the others. Go figure.


John 8:38 - "I speak that which I have seen with MY Father: and you do that which ye have SEEN with YOUR Father.". So read the Majority of all texts, but the "oldest and best" are all over the board. MY Father is found in Sinaiticus, but P66, 75 and Vaticanus omit it and so too the NIV, with the NASB putting "MY" in italics. Then SEEN is the reading of Sinaiticus and P66, while Vaticanus and P75 say HEARD, and the NASB, NIV go for this errant reading. YOUR Father is found in the Majority and Sinaiticus, but Vaticanus, P66 and 74 omit it and end up with the ridiculous reading like the one found in the NRSV and the NET versions with "you do that which you have heard with THE father."!!!


Daniel Wallace's goofy NET version actually reads like this: "I am telling you the things I have seen while with the Father; as for you, practice the things you have heard from the Father!"


John 8:39 - "If ye WERE Abraham's children, YE WOULD DO the works of Abraham." Clearly Jesus is telling the Pharisees that they are children of the devil and not of God, and that they are not the children of Abraham. "If ye were" is contrary to fact; they weren't Abraham's children. YE WOULD DO is also contrary to fact and is the reading in the Majority, P75 and Sinaiticus. But Vaticanus original and P66 say DO, and the NASB has adopted this reading "If you ARE the children of Abraham, DO the deeds of Abraham." Not even the NIV reads this way but says: "If you WERE Abraham's children, then YOU WOULD DO the things Abraham did."


John 8:54 - "it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is YOUR God." YOUR God is found in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and P66 original, and in the NIV, RV, ASV, Douay, RSV, NKJV and of course the KJB. However P75 and P66 third correction read OUR God, and so the NASB now reads: "of whom you say, He is OUR God."


John 8:57 - "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and HAST THOU SEEN ABRAHAM?" So read the Majority, Vaticanus and P66, but P75 and Sinaiticus actually read: "AND HAS ABRAHAM SEEN YOU?"


John 9:4 " I must work the works of him that sent ME, while it is day." Both "I" and "him that sent ME" are the Majority reading, and Sinaiticus correction, A and C, but P66, 75, Sinaiticus original and Vaticanus say "WE must work the works...." The NASB, NIV have adopted this reading. But wait. Instead of "him that sent ME" which is even the reading of Vaticanus (and so in the NASB, NIV), the Sinaiticus, P66 and 75 actually say " of him that sent US."


John 9:38 - "And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him." This entire verse is omitted by Sinaiticus original and P75, yet it is found in the Majority, Vaticanus and P66. So far as I know, only Daniel Wallace proposes getting rid of this entire verse. It is still found in the NASB, NIV.


John 10:10 - "All that ever came BEFORE ME are thieves and robbers." The words BEFORE ME are in Vaticanus and P66 and the NASB, NIV, but Sinaiticus and P75 omit them.


John 10:26 - "But ye believe not, because ye are not my sheep, AS I SAID UNTO YOU." So read the Majority of texts including P66, A and D, but Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and P75 omit these words and so do the NASB, NIV.


John 10:29 - "My Father, WHICH GAVE THEM ME, IS GREATER THAN ALL." So read the Majority, Sinaiticus, and P66. So to the NASB, NIV. However Vaticanus reads: "WHAT MY FATHER HAS GIVEN ME IS GREATER THAN ALL ELSE" and this is actually the reading found in the NRSV.


John 11:50 - "Nor consider that it is expedient FOR US, that one man should die for the people." So read the Majority and A. However Sinaiticus omits the words "for us" altogether, and Vaticanus and P66 read "it is expedient FOR YOU", and so the NASB, NIV.


John 12:1 - "came to Bethany, where Lazarus was WHICH HAD BEEN DEAD." So read the Majority, D and A and P66. But Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit these words and so do the NASB, NIV.


John 12:28 - "Father, glorify THY name." So read most texts including Sinaiticus and the NASB, NIV, but Vaticanus says: "Glorify MY name". So far no one has followed this reading yet.


John 13:6 and 9 - Peter saith unto him, LORD, dost thou wash my feet?...LORD, not my feet only..." In both these places Sinaiticus omits the important word LORD, but it is in Vaticanus.


John 13:18 - "He that eateth bread WITH ME hath lifted up his heel against me." So read the Majority of texts including P66, A, D and Sinaiticus. However Vaticanus reads "he that eats MY bread" and so do the NASB, NIV.


John 13:32 - "IF GOD BE GLORIFIED IN HIM, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him." This is an interesting case. It is the reading of the Majority of texts, A, and Sinaiticus correction. These words are still found in the NASB, NIV, but the previous Revised Version and American Standard Versions omitted all these words because not found in Vaticanus, D or P66. So why do the NASB, NIV now go back to including them?


John 14:11 - "or else believe ME for the very works' sake." So read the Majority, A and Vaticanus. So too did the Revised version, and so do the RSV, NRSV, ESV and the brand new ISV. However P66, 75 and Sinaiticus omit the word ME and so do the NASB, NIV and Holman Standard. And they dare call this "science".


John 14:17 - "for he dwelleth with you, and SHALL BE in you." The future tense verb is found in the Majority and P75 and Sinaiticus. So read the NASB, NIV. However Vaticanus and P66 have a present tense verb which would make the sentence read: "for he dwells with you, and IS in you."


John 15:18 - "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated YOU." So read the Majority and Vaticanus and the NASB, but Sinaiticus omits the word YOU and so does the NIV.


John 16:27 - "because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from GOD." So read the Majority, Sinaiticus correction, P 5 which dates from the 3rd century, A and the NIV, ESV, NRSV and Holman. However Vaticanus and D read THE FATHER and so does the NASB and the RSV.


John 17:7 - "Now THEY have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee." Sinaiticus reads: "Now I have known...."


John 17:12 - "While I was with them IN THE WORLD (Vat and Sin omit and so too the NASB, NIV) I KEPT THEM IN THY NAME; THOSE that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost..."


"THOSE THAT THOU GAVEST ME I have kept" is the Majority reading, A and D, but Vaticanus has a very different reading and the NASB, NIV have adopted this, saying: "While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your NAME WHICH YOU HAVE GIVEN ME." In the meantime, Sinaiticus original and P66 omit the words "those thou gavest me" from the text entirely.


John 17:17 - "Sanctify them through thy truth: THY WORD IS TRUTH." Sinaiticus omits these last words "Thy word is truth".


John 17:21 - "...that they also may be ONE in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." The important word ONE is in the Majority, A, C and Sinaiticus, but Vaticanus and P66 omit it and so do the NASB, NIV.


John 17:24 = "Father, I will that THEY also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am. So read the Majority of texts, but both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus say "I will that THAT also, whom you have given me, be with me where I am" but neither the NASB, NIV has yet to adopt this strange reading.


John 18:5 - "JESUS SAITH UNTO THEM, I AM HE." So read the Majority, A, C and Sinaiticus. The NIV also followed this reading. Vaticanus reads: "HE SAYS TO THEM, I AM JESUS", but nobody has yet followed this reading. The NASB instead chose to follow D saying: "HE SAID TO THEM, I AM HE."


John 19:16 - "And they took Jesus, AND LED HIM AWAY." So read the Majority of texts including A and Sinaiticus. However Vaticanus omits the words "and led him away" and so do the NASB, NIV.


John 19:20-21. Sinaiticus original was missing all of these two whole verses, but they are found in Vaticanus. Sinaiticus was also missing the words: "When Jesus therefore saw his mother" from John 19:26.


In John 19:30 we read: "When JESUS therefore had received the vinegar...". JESUS is in Sinaiticus and the NIV, but not in Vaticanus nor the NASB. But then when we get to John 19:39 we see Nicodemos which "at the first came to JESUS by night". Here JESUS is in the Majority and Sinaiticus and the NIV, but Vaticanus omit JESUS and so does the NASB.


Likewise Sinaiticus omits the words "AND CAME TO THE SEPULCHRE" in John 20:3 and the words "AND THE OTHER DISCIPLE" from John 20:4, but they are found in Vaticanus.


John 21:16 - "He saith to him again THE SECOND TIME, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?" Here Sinaiticus omits the word "the second time" and so does the NIV, but it is found in Vaticanus and in the NASB.


John 21:23 - "If I will that he tarry till I come, WHAT IS THAT TO THEE?". Sinaiticus omitted these last capitalized words as well as omitting the entire last verse of the gospel of the evangelist - John 21:25, but they are found in the Vaticanus copy.


If these "oldest and best manuscripts" are in fact the best, then we are in a world of hurt and God has failed to preserve His pure words anywhere on this earth in a true Book of the LORD, which is in any real way the complete, inerrant and perfect words of God. You either believe the King James Bible is the pure and perfect words of God or you simply do not believe in the inerrancy of any Bible in any language on the face of this earth.


Acts of the Apostles


Acts 3:6 "Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, RISE UP AND walk."


Here the words "rise up and" (eyeire kai) are found in the Majority of all texts, including A, C, the Syriac Peshitta, Old Latin, Coptic, and Armenian ancient versions. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit these words and so do the RSV, NASB, NIV, and the ISV. The Nestle-Aland text originally omitted these words too, but then later added them back to the text again. The words "rise up and" are now included in the NRSV, ESV, and even in the upcoming Holman Christian Standard. Are you beginning to get the picture of how our scientific scholars constantly disagree among themselves?


Acts 7:46 "Who found favor before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the GOD of Jacob."


Here the reading "GOD of Jacob" is found in the majority of all texts, including Sinaiticus correction, A, C and many ancient versions like the Old Latin, Syriac Peshitta, Coptic Boharic, Sahidic, Ethiopian, Georgian and Armenian. The "GOD of Jacob" is the reading of the RV, ASV, NIV, NASB, and ESV. But again Vaticanus reads differently and says: "to find a tabernacle for the HOUSE of Jacob." The NASB, even though it reads "God of Jacob", has this footnote: "the earliest mss. read 'house' and not 'God'". Well, if they think this is the closest to the original reading, why not put it in their version? Ah, but wait, the NRSV and the upcoming ISV have done just that and now read "for the HOUSE of Jacob."


Acts 9:12 - "And hath seen IN A VISION a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight." The words "in a vision" are in the majority of Greek texts as well as in Vaticanus and C. They are also found in Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops' bible and the Geneva Bible.


However the words "in a vision" are omitted by Sinaiticus and A. The new versions are all over the board. Westcott and Hort originally put the words in brackets. Then later Nestle -Aland editions took it out, but then later on they put it back in again, but in brackets. That's their "science" at work.


The RV, ASV, RSV all omit the words, but then the NASB, NRSV and ESV put them back in. Typical bungling nonsense of today's Bible Agnostics.


More on Acts 9:12 and the mindless mumblings of today's textual scholars. Daniel Wallace and company's goofy NET version reveals the double minded uncertainty behind what passes as the "science" of textual criticism.


Wallace's NET version includes the words, but notice his mind bending footnotes of "explanation". The NET version reads: "9:12 and he has seen IN A VISION (26) a man named Ananias come in and place his hands on him so that he may see again."


Then we see his footnote 26 where he says: - "The words (en oramati, "in a vision") are not found in some of the earliest and best mss (74 A 81 pc lat sa bo), but are implied from the context. The phrase is included, although sometimes in a different order with (andra, "man") or omitting altogether, by B C E 33 1175 1739 . The order of words in NA27 is supported only by B C 1175. Generally speaking, when there are three or more variants, with one an omission and the others involving rearrangements, the longer readings are later scribal additions. Further, the reading looks like a clarifying note, for an earlier vision is explicitly mentioned in v. 10. On the other hand, it is possible that some scribes deleted the words because of perceived repetition, though this is unlikely since it is a different vision two verses back...Perhaps the best argument for the authenticity of the phrase is that B C 1175 preserve a rare, distinctively Lukan word order, but this is not nearly as harsh or unusual as what Luke does elsewhere. A decision is difficult in this case, but on balance the omission of the phrase seems to be authentic. The words are nevertheless added in the translation because of contextual considerations. NA27 places the words in brackets, indicating doubts as to their authenticity."


Well, I'm certainly glad ol' Dan Wallace cleared that up for us! "looks like a clarifying note", "possible some scribes deleted the words", "perhaps...authenticity"; "omission seems be authentic"; "the words are added because of contextual considerations", "doubts as to their authenticity" - Who really knows or even cares?


Acts 10:19 "three men", "two men" or just " some men"?


Further textual confusion both by Westcott-Hort and the two so called "oldest and best" manuscripts is further seen in Acts 10:19. In the King James Bible we read: "While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, THREE men seek thee." The three men refers back to verses 10:7-8 where we read that Cornelius "called TWO of his household servants, AND a devout soldier of them that waited on him continually...he sent THEM to Joppa." Thus there were three men altogether who went to find Peter.


The reading of "THREE men" is again confirmed in chapter eleven verse eleven where Peter is rehearsing the events that previously occurred in chapter ten. There Peter relates: "And, behold, immediately there were THREE men already come unto the house where I was, sent from Caesarea unto me."


THREE men (andres treis) is the reading found in the TR, Stephanus, Beza, Elziever, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, C, E, many Old Latin copies, Coptic Sahidic, Boharic, Syriac, Georgian, Vulgate and the Ethiopian ancient versions. It is also the reading of Spanish Reina Valera and the Modern Greek N.T.


THREE men is also the reading found in Wycliffe 1395, Bishops' bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NKJV, NIV and the Holman Standard.


Quite a few manuscripts completely omit any number here and simply say "Men seek thee". Among these are D, L, P and a few Old Latin copies. Among those versions that omit any number at all are Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535 and the New English Bible 1970.


However where the real confusion comes in is when we look at the Vaticanus manuscript and the early Westcott-Hort, Nestle Aland critical texts. ONLY the Vaticanus copy reads TWO men (andres duo) and Westcott and Hort as well as the Nestle 4th edition 1934 and the Nestle-Aland 1962 editions read "TWO men seek thee", all based solely on the Vaticanus mss.


Later on the Nestle-Aland crtical text once again changed their previous reading and the current one now reads "THREE men", and so too do the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman Standard.


There are only two bible translations I have found so far that actually contain the Vaticanus reading of "two men". One is Rotherham's 1902 Emphasized bible that says: "Behold, TWO men seek thee.", and the other one is the Catholic New American Bible St. Joseph 1970 which reads: "There are TWO men in search of you."


The Catholic versions present us with the usual hodge-podge of confusion, with the previous Douay 1950 correctly reading "three men", then the 1968 Jerusalem bible came out with the reading "SOME men". Then in 1970 the St. Joseph NAB 1970 went with the Vaticanus reading of "TWO men", but now the latest Catholic bible, the New Jerusalem bible of 1985, has come out and it just omits the number altogether and once again reads: "SOME men have come to see you."


This is the fickle nature of the so called "oldest and best manuscripts" and the men who support them.


Acts 12:25 - The Devil is in the Details


In Acts 12:25 we read: "And Barnabas and Saul returned FROM (ex) Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark."


This is the reading found in a multitude of Greek manuscripts and Bible versions including P74, Alexandrinus, the Textus Receptus, the Modern Greek N.T., the Vulgate 425, Wycliffe 1395, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Italian Diodati 1649, Riveduta 1927, French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910, Ostervald 1996, the Spanish Reina Valera 1602 - 1995, the Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, Weymouth, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac 1933, Douay 1950, Darby, Young's, the NKJV 1982, NASB 1963-1995, RSV 1952, ESV 2003, The Message, Bible in Basic English, New English Bible, the NIV 1984, and the TNIV 2005.


Clearly the whole context tells us that Barnabas and Paul had already gone TO Jerusalem and had now returned FROM Jerusalem. In Acts 11:29-30 we read: "Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea: Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of BARNABAS AND SAUL."


Then in 13:1 we again pick up with both Saul (Paul) and Barnabas already at Antioch, and not in Jerusalem. "Now there were at Antioch certain prophets and teachers: as Barnabas....and Saul."


However the corrupt manuscripts of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus tell us in Acts 12:25 that both Barnabas and Saul (Paul) now returned TO Jerusalem, even though they had already been there as recorded in Acts 11:29-30, and were now in Antioch as found in Acts 13:1.


The total fickleness and inconsistency of the modern Critical text is seen in that Westcott and Hort originally went with the erroneous reading of "returned TO Jerusalem" (eis), but then the Nestle text 4th edition 1934 and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 1962 both read "returned FROM Jerusalem (ex). But wait; it gets worse. Now the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum 27th edition and the UBS 4th edition have once again rejected the previous Nestle critical text and have gone back to the reading originally adopted by Westcott and Hort. The UBS 4th edition once again says: "returned TO (eis) Jerusalem."


Versions that contain this erroneous reading - "returned TO Jerusalem" - and thus contradict the whole context of Acts 11 through 13 are Tyndale 1525 - one of many reasons why Tyndale was not the perfect English Bible - see Tyn,TR or KJB?



Coverdale 1535, Bishops' bible 1568, and in modern times Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, the Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, the NRSV 1989, Holman Christian Standard Version 2003, the ISV (International Standard Version 2003), and Daniel Wallace's NET version. Notice that the RSV 1952 and the ESV 2001 both read "FROM Jerusalem" but the NRSV 1989 read "TO Jerusalem". These three are revisions of each other. Can't seem to make up their minds, can they?


Acts 19:16


In Acts 19 we are told of SEVEN sons of Sceva, who were vagabond Jews, exorcists, which "took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, WE adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth". There are two blunders found here in the "oldest and best" texts of both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, against the majority of all others. The Majority of all texts, as well as the Syriac Peshitta, read as does the KJB with these seven sons saying "WE adjure you by Jesus". The word "we" is obviously plural, and the evil spirit answers in verse 15 "Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who are YE?". Now, the word "ye" is plural in all texts answering to the plural "we" of "We adjure thee".


However Sinaiticus and Vaticanus both have only one individual saying: "I" adjure you by Jesus, and so read the NASB, NIV, and ESV. Nevertheless, the evil spirit still answers addressing a plural number of persons rather than one individual even in the corrupted Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts.


The more striking blunder is found in Acts 19:16. There we read: "And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame THEM, (autoon) and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded." There were seven sons and the spirit leaped on THEM.


The single word "them" is the reading of the majority of all texts. However both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus tell us that the evil spirit "overcame BOTH OF THEM, (amphoteros autwn) and prevailed against them."


The Amplified bible brings out this errant reading and even tries to tell us that it is found "in the best texts". The Amplified reads: "Then the man in whom the evil spirit dwelt leaped upon them, mastering TWO OF THEM, and was so violent against them that they dashed out of that house in fear, stripped naked and wounded." Then in a footnote is says: "The best texts read "both of them."


The word for "both" is amphoteros, and always means "both". Yet the word "both" can only refer to the number two, not the SEVEN sons of Sceva. In fact, the NASBs from 1963 through 1972 read "and overcame BOTH OF THEM", and so also do the Revised Version 1881 and ASV 1901.


Not even the RSV, NRSV or ESV followed this bogus reading found in the "oldest and best manuscripts", though they do mention it in their footnotes. The RSV and ESV read "mastered ALL of them", but then footnote: "Or BOTH of them." Even to this day the ever changing Nestle-Aland critical Greek text used in making up most modern versions still reads "overcame BOTH of them".


Finally, after several years and numerous editions, it apparently occured to the NASB scholars that there was a clear blunder in their "oldest and most reliable texts", so in 1977 and again in 1995 the NASB changed their versions to read that the evil spirit overcame "ALL OF THEM" instead of "both of them". The NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman Standard also say "all of them". Actually, the word "all" is not found in any text whatsoever, but the NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV put the extra word in anyway.


Again, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are clearly wrong. The NKJV correctly footnotes that the Nestle and UBS text says "both of them" instead of "overcame them".


Acts 20:28


"Feed the church of GOD, which he hath purchased with HIS OWN BLOOD."


This verse is under attack by many modern versions because it clearly shows that the Lord Jesus Christ is GOD, and that GOD shed His blood to purchase the church. Those who oppose the full Godhead of the Lord Jesus Christ will alter this verse in several ways to either change, hide, or obscure the truth that it was GOD'S blood that purchased the church.


The Traditional Byzantine Text that underlies the King James Bible says: poimainein thn ekklhsian tou qeou hn periepoihsato dia tou idiou aimatoV - feed the church of God which He purchased with His own blood."


The Westcott-Hort text has a slight variation which says:dia tou aimatoV tou idiou- by the blood of His own", which opens the door to several of the renderings we will see in some modern versions based on the Westcott-Hort text.


There are a wide variety of readings found for this verse. Many texts say "the church of THE LORD AND GOD", and this is actually the reading of the Hebrew Names Version, and the World English Version. Then there is Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac which reads: "feed the church OF CHRIST which he has purchased with his blood." Many other texts have the absurd reading of: "the church of THE LORD OF GOD", while Alexandrinus, C original, D and P74 read "the church OF THE LORD which he purchased with his own blood." This last reading would say it was only the Lord (not God) who shed his blood, and thus not clearly teach the deity of Christ.


In fact, this last reading is found in the American Standard Version of 1901 based on the Westcott-Hort texts, the Revised Standard Version of 1952, the Worldwide English New Testament, and the New English Bible of 1970. They say: "Feed the church OF THE LORD which he obtained by his own blood." The new ISV (International Standard Version) shows both readings with this: "to be shepherds of God's (Other mss. read the Lord's) church, which he purchased with his own blood."


It should be of interest here to point out that when the English Bible was first being "revised" by the Westcott-Hort committee, the Revised Version of 1881 actually came out reading exactly like the King James Bible - "feed the church of GOD, which he purchased with his own blood". However it was the American committee of the ASV 1901 that first changed this traditional reading instead to that of "feed the church of the LORD, which he purchased with his own blood."


Other versions deny the full deity of Christ by keeping the word "God" in the phrase "the church of God", but they add an extra word to the sentence, not found in any Greek text, and thus again deny the Godhead of Christ. Among these are the modern versions like the Jehovah Witness New World Translation (based on the Westcott-Hort texts), the New Revised Standard of 1989, the New Jerusalem Bible, the 21st Century New Testament, The Contemporary English Version 1991 by the American Bible Society, Today's English Version 1992 put out by the American Bible Society and the United Bible Society, which also publish the Westcott-Hort Greek text that underlies most modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV.


The NRSV, Jehovah Witness' New World Translation, Today's English Version, the Good News Translation, the New Jerusalem Bible, and the Contemporary English Version all say: "Feed the church of God which he obtained by the blood OF HIS SON". This fabricated reading denies that it was the blood of GOD which purchased the church, but affirms only the blood of His Son. The word "Son" does not occur in any manuscript at all.


The Bible versions that correctly read "Feed the church OF GOD which he purchased with HIS OWN BLOOD", are Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the King James Bible, NKJV, Revised Version of 1881, NASB, NIV, the Modern Greek N.T. used by the Greek Orthodox church today, Green's Modern KJV, Webster's translation, the KJV 21, Third Millenium Bible, and the ESV. This is the reading of the Tradtional Byzantine texts that underlies the King James Bible. It is also the reading found in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, the Old Latin, Syriac Harclean, Vulgate, some Coptic versions, the Italian Diodati, the Spanish Antigua Version of 1569, and Luther's German Bible.


Notice that the RSV, NRSV and ESV, all of which are revisions of each other, each gives a different rendering of this same verse, and the ASV differs from both the Revised Version 1881 and the NASB's from 1963 to 1995. Isn't modern scholarship exciting to watch! Hey, all bible versions have the same "message", and no doctrines are changed, right?


Acts 27:37 - "216 souls" or "about 76"?


Vaticanus alone has a silly reading in this verse. The Holy Ghost is relating the shipwreck that occured when Paul was on his way to Rome. The Scripture says: "And we were in all the ship two hundred and sixteen souls."


So read the majority of all texts as well as Sinaiticus and C. Alexandrinus uniquely reads "275" instead of "276", but Vaticanus alone reads "we were in all the ship ABOUT 76 souls". Now, you can have about 200 or about 300, but it is more than a little silly to say ABOUT 76. The number 76 is an exact number, not a round number.


Westcott and Hort initially followed the erroneous reading of Vaticanus and placed "about 76 souls" in their critical Greek text, but later revisors decided to reject this unique reading, and changed their texts to read 276 souls.


The only version I am aware of that actually followed this bogus reading found in the Vaticanus manuscript is Rotherham's Emphasized bible of 1902. It reads: "Now we were, in the ship, in all, ABOUT SEVENTY-SIX souls."


Acts 28:29 "AND WHEN HE HAD SAID THESE WORDS, THE JEWS DEPARTED, AND HAD GREAT REASONING AMONG THEMSELVES."


This entire verse is found in the Majority of all texts, as well as the Old Latin, and the Syriac Peshitta, both of which predate Sinaiticus and Vaticanus which omit this whole verse. What is of interest here is that while the NIV, RSV, ESV omit the verse, the NASB put it back in the text in 1977 and again in 1995, whereas from 1960 to 1972 they had omitted it. Now the new Holman Christian Standard version is coming out and it includes the verse while the ISV does not! If you get ten scholars in a room, you will come out with 12 different opinions.


External Link

Personal tools