Faith Baptist Church - Primrose, Ga - SONSOFTHUNDR

"I prayed for Faith, and thought that some day Faith would come down and strike me like lightning. But Faith did not seem to come. One day I read in the tenth chapter of Romans, 'Now Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God'. I had closed my Bible, and prayed for Faith. I now opened my Bible, and began to study, and Faith has been growing ever since. "

D.L. Moody

Charles Spurgeon

Many Christians may find this information shocking, and rightly so, however it is the truth. The facts and evidence herein are very real, and it is saddening that the situation has not only been allowed, but come to pass. The worst thing of all is that most Christians are totally unaware of the danger facing them, and it seems that few Christians are willing to talk about it.

The writters of the newer (meaning those after the original King James Bible (KJV / A.V.) versions of the Bibles have betrayed God and us by slipping corruptions into the manuscripts in which all the newer Bible versions were translated from.

Thank God that He has preserved His Word in the King James Bible which has been read, studied, and trusted for nearly four-hundred years. If you study from, or quote Scripture from any of the newer Bible versions, including the: New King James Bible (NKJV), or the NIV, NASB, NRSV, NAB, RSV, CEV, TEV, GNB, Living Bible, The Word, New Jerusalem, New Century, The Message, The People's Bible (the latest blasphemy on the market) then this page is a must read.

Certain men throughout time have gone about to corrupt the Word of the Lord, it started in the Garden of Eden when satan challenged God's Word in [Genesis 3:1]: "Yea, hath God said...?".

People have being told the newer Bible versions came out because the King James Bible was hard to read, but this was not the reason at all, nor is the King James version hard understand once you get used to the Old English words. In fact, the Flesch-Kincad Grade Level Indicator shows the King James version (KJV) is easier to understand in 23 out of 26 categories.

Flesch-Kincad Reading Grade Level for Comprehension of the Bible Versions:

The men who seek only to destroy and remove God's Word could not corrupt the King James Version Bible so they came out with the newer Bible versions, telling people that their version was 'easier' to understand. What they didn't tell you was what they ommited in the creation of their Bibles which was God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Trinity, important Salvation doctrines, etc...

They said that the newer Bibles were written so that people could easier understand, but what words did they replace the 'difficult' words with? And is it really easier to understand?

For example, in the preface to the New King James Version (NKJV), it says that they have replaced archaic words so that the Bible is easier to understand. The table below shows that they did in fact change words but, they certainly didn't choose words that are easier to understand. Following this table we will see the real reason why they changed the words.

It is clear that the word changes were not for ease of reading as we've been told. There is no reason to replace the word "fat" in order that it may be easier to understand, who doesn't know what "fat" means? But to replace "fat" with "verdant" What is "verdant"? Or how about getting those "sloops" of your vacation developed?

They didn't make the newer Bibles with easier words to read, so why did they change the words? The answer is simple but sickening: COPYRIGHT LAW$!

For them to be allowed to publish and COPYRIGHT a new version of the Bible, they had to substantially change the contents. The 'Derivative Copyright

Verse Comparisons: KJV Vs The New International Version (NIV):

Verse Comparisons: KJV Vs The Living Bible (TLB):

Verse Comparisons: KJV Vs New King James (NKJV):

The New King James Version (NKJV) omits the following words:

• "Lord" 66 times.
• "God" 51 times.
• "Heaven" 50 times.
• "Jehovah" entirely. *(Pronounced: 'Yah-heh-vay', not as widely and incorrectly pronounced: 'Jah-hoe-vah') *(Transliterated spelling: 'Y^ehovah', not as widely and incorrectly spelled: 'Yahweh') (The initials being 'YeHoVaH - YHVH', not as widely and incorrectly spelled: 'YaHWeH -YHWH'

Jesus Christ has somehow disappeared from the newer versions:

The following is an excerpt from "If The Foundations Be Destroyed" by Rev. Charles Salliby.

"While the Church was still in it's infancy, a heretical group was twisting God's Word into an entirely different meaning.

"How did this all come about? During the last half of the first century, a belief system called Gnosticism had begun to develop in the Church. This was an attempt to produce a successful philosophy, by mixing previously failed philosophies with the spiritual disciplines of the new religion. Now, when one becomes a Christian, they must relinquish their old concepts of both the spiritual and the natural and learn afresh as the Holy Spirit guides them into all truth. Gnostics, however, were not willing to do this. Among the assortment of views they had pledged themselves to keep was the unfounded idea that all physical matter was inherently evil - which, naturally, left them confused as to how a good God could have manifested Himself in evil flesh.

Void of God's Spirit and quite on their own, the Gnostics attempted to harmonize this error with what was clearly opposing them in Scripture. Unable to accomplish this, they eventually settled on several theories that contradicted the Scriptures outright. Some taught that Christ had no body at all but that He was, in fact, a phantom. Others taught that He had a type of nonmaterial body. And still others taught that Jesus and Christ were two separate entities. The latter believed that Christ was the power that descended upon the man Jesus at His baptism, only to leave Him again just prior to His death.

With such error at the base, it became necessary for the Gnostics to construct an entirely new religion. As they re-defined the Scriptures - propping each lie against the truth upon the framework of another - an alternative 'faith' was made available to the Church, with a number of doctrinal changes.

As Christians began to explore the heresy, the clear revelation of Jesus given to them in Scripture became so confused that the Apostles themselves were forced to address the whole business in writing. Sparing neither the feelings nor the words, John branded all Gnostics "antichrists" and clearly saw them as forerunners of "the" Antichrist. "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us... Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world" (1 John 2:18, 19; 4:1-3).

Gnosticism was not the outcome of a sincere albeit misguided search for truth, but of a deliberate departure from it - whose chief ambition was to convert Christianity into just another pagan philosophy. It was satan's attempt not only to shatter the truth about Jesus Christ but, it would appear from Johns writings, that Gnosticism would also serve as a support base upon which satan, in time, could effectively position the Antichrist. It might be interesting for the reader to reexamine the New Testament while keeping in mind the presence of the Gnostics and their teachings in the early Church.

When the Apostles died, the Gnostics (along with other heretical factions) began making their most serious moves. In an effort to weaken their greatest remaining obstacle, the Bible, they began to rewrite it - and, apparently, without fear or conscience. To accommodate their mistaken ideas about Jesus and His doctrine, they added freely to the Scriptures and whatever truth they disagreed with was removed by the stroke of a pen. Eusebius, in Ecclesiastical History, LCS, Vol. 1, pp. 522-524, quoted another, who during the second century wrote:

"Wherefore, they have not fear to lay hands on the divine Scriptures under pretense of correcting them... As for their denying their guilt, the thing is impossible, since the copies were written in their own hand; and they did not receive the Scriptures in this condition from their teachers, nor can they show the originals from which they made their copies."

While there are those who speak highly of such second century fathers as Justin Martyr, Tatian, and Clement of Alexandria, there are others who find very little to commend them for since each of these, in their turn, contributed to this corruption of Scripture.

Perhaps the man who did the most, however, to blend the Scriptures with Gnosticism was Origen (185-254 A.D.). Also, to his discredit, no one ever championed more apostate teachings that found a permanent place in history, than he. Yet, his influence upon Christianity, from his day to ours, can hardly be measured by words. Not only did his ideas captivate the attention of the Catholic Church forever, but also nearly all of the Protestant scholars of this century have been swayed by the power of this one man's thinking. While his genius and insight into the Scriptures were extraordinary, his preference for Gnosticism, Platonism, Mysticism, and the early heresies made him anything but a safe guide or teacher. His doctrines were repulsive. Though considered the greatest theologian of the third century, he taught that stars have souls, devils would be saved, and such errors as purgatory and transubstantiation. He also taught (through his application of the Greek) that Jesus was created and did not eternally exist as God. Little wonder why such a man would have said: "The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written."

Origen deliberately changed the Scriptures to suit his own confused philosophy and, in the process, made many of the deletions we now find in modern translations of the Bible. It was Origen who mightily influenced Jerome (about 340-420 A.D.) who translated the Latin Vulgate which was made the official Bible of the Catholic Church by the Council of Trent in 1546. And it was Origen again who was to play such a large role in the affairs of twentieth century Protestantism, as we will see in the following.

When Constantine (280?-337 A.D.) became the Emperor of Rome, he endeavored to form a union between Christianity and paganism. Since Origen had successfully blended Christianity with pagan philosophy, Constantine commissioned Eusebius, a great admirer of Origen, to prepare fifty Bibles based upon Origen's corrupted Scriptures for use in the churches.

Skipping past many centuries filled with attacks upon the true Word of God and persecution of its followers, we come to the year 1481 A.D. In this year a very old manuscript (Codex Vaticanus) was discovered lying dormant on a shelf of the Vatican library. Then in 1844, another old manuscript (Codex Sinaiticus) was discovered in a wastebasket in St. Catherines monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai. Both of these manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, date back to the time Eusebius produced those fifty Bibles for Constantine and are believed by many to be survivors of that lot.

Here, is where the drama begins to really unfold. In the year 1853 two Cambridge professors, Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort (better known as Westcott and Hort), began preparing a Greek text based primarily on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts.

Now, when the student arrives at the subject of Westcott and Hort, he should not pass too quickly. Because it was through these men that our long link to the apostate past was connected. Westcott and Hort, who might well be called the "intellectual descendants of the ancient heretics," with skill and great subtlety, delivered to the Church of the twentieth century, the religion of their fathers. Let us, for a moment, pay them the attention they deserve.

Though they were masters of communication and hardly rivaled for their knowledge; their scholarship nevertheless, was strikingly outweighed by their theological ineptness. Neither Westcott nor Hort ever stated that the Bible was verbally inspired or inerrant. On the other hand, while Hort praised in writing Darwin's theory of evolution and seriously questioned whether Eden ever existed; Westcott, in his writings, flatly denied the Genesis account of Creation. To put it in his own words: "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history - I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did."

Also, though Protestants would prefer to think otherwise, Westcott and Hort gave almost every indication of being Catholics under cover. As a case in point, they seemed equally as comfortable worshiping Jesus or Mary. "I have been persuaded for many years (Hort wrote) that Mary-worship and Jesus worship have very much in common in their causes and their results." (Notice, he had held this opinion 'many years.') Concerning a statue of Mary and a crucified Christ that Westcott happened on in a remote little chapel, he wrote: "Had I been alone I could have knelt there for hours." And, to prove that his reverence for Mary, like Hort's, was no passing fancy, he also wrote some eighteen years latter, "I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness." [Editor's note: Mariolatry is the idolatry of worshiping Mother Mary. Mary + idolatry = Mariolatry]

Westcott and Hort's preference for Catholic dogma was evident elsewhere as well. While Hort, for example, felt it proper to call the doctrine of Evangelicals "perverted," he revealed his own perverse creed by proudly calling himself a "staunch sacerdotalist." This is one who requires a priest to mediate between himself and his Divine needs, or one who cannot spiritually function without the authority of the priesthood. It is easy to understand, then, why one of Hort's stated concerns was that "Protestants unlearn the crazy horror of the idea of priesthood."

Revealing more of the dark side of his convictions, Hort also warned, "We dare not forsake the sacraments or God will forsake us." The sacraments are, of course, what all good Catholics are never to forsake.

Now, if there remains any doubt as to which side of the fence both Westcott and Hort stood on, the following should settle the matter. Hort wrote to Westcott, "Protestantism is only parenthetical and temporary." Hort also wrote to John Ellerton, "The pure Romish [Roman from Roman Catholicism] view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical."

Such was the man who also dared to put in writing: "The popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit...Certainly nothing could be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to his death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy."

It actually puts a strain upon the mind to realize that these are the men who not only produced the Greek text that modern Bibles are based upon, but also invented all of the reasons why the Church today should no longer rely on the true text.

What took place after Westcott and Hort finished their text was nothing less than outrageous. In one of the most infamous moments in Church history, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (by way of the Westcott and Hort Greek text) were slipped into the hands of liberal theologians who, in the latter part of the nineteenth century, convinced the Protestants that these very old manuscripts were, in fact, the real Scriptures. One theologian after another succumbed to the lie and have been translating Bibles from them ever since. All of which causes Christians today to mistakenly assume that for the greater part of Church history (around 1550 years since the writing of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) Christianity was without the real Word of God, until it was recently reintroduced in our modern translations, the first of which was the Revised Version of 1881.

This, then, is the history behind our modern translations of the Bible. To sum it all up in a line: From the ancient Gnostics to Westcott and Hort, like a product passed through the skillful hands of an assembly line, a new set of Scriptures had been developed.

There are those who, while unable to disprove this evidence, nevertheless, insist that no matter what transpired years ago, the Church today is far too knowledgeable to have in its possession Scriptures that are flawed. But consider this: If within a scarce sixty years or so of the day of Pentecost, the Church of Pergamos could have the doctrine of Balaam; the Church of Thyatira, a Jezebel for both prophetess and teacher; the Church of Sardis, a name that it lived but was dead; and the Church of Laodicea, such a lukewarm spirit that Christ had threatened to vomit it out of His mouth, is it too hard to believe that the Church, some nineteen hundred years later, could have a corrupted set of Scriptures?

We do well to remember that the first apostasy took place in Heaven, in the very presence of God Himself, when Lucifer turned a myriad of angels against Him. Should we be surprised then to witness this defection from truth in His Church.

For a point of interest: In 1853 Westcott and Hort began preparing their Greek text. Interestingly, six years later Darwin published his Origin of Species. Consider the parallel: As the world was being offered an entirely new science, the Church was being furnished with an entirely new Bible. A Coincidence? Not at all. It was all part of a satanic strategy. Both works have done such damage to humanity that only the return of Jesus can repair it."

What are the so-called 'majority of texts' mentioned in the footnotes of the newer Bible versions?:

What many of the newer Bible versions do is, place the correct reading into the Scripture but they refer the reader to the margin or a foot note that says something to the effect of " This verse (or word) does not appear in any of the best manuscripts, or (not in the oldest manuscripts), or (not in the majority of manuscripts)." When they do this they are basically telling the reader to disregard a particular verse or word.

What they are really saying is that the particular verse or word is in the Manuscripts in which the King James Bible had been translated from (in 1611), but, it is not in the manuscripts that they translated their newer version from (in 1881-1990^'s).

They mention this because of the fact that the newer version Bibles are 10% shorter than the King James Version. In fact, the NIV version has 64,098 fewer words than the King James Bible. Instead of admitting that their Bibles have gross omissions, they make it look like the King James Bible added a bunch of stuff about Jesus Christ, God, The Trinity, salvation by faith, which they deemed unnecessary.

The NEW King James Version Bible (NKJV), including all the other newer versions were translated from DIFFERENT manuscripts than those of the regular King James Version (being the Received Text - Textus Receptus). They call their Manuscripts the "Majority of Texts," but that is a misleading statement.

The New King James Version (NKJV) footnotes erroneously point to a 'majority of texts', when in fact they are referring to the faulty Greek Text. They fall short of the full collation of manuscripts since it is based primarily on Von Soden's collation of only 414 of the over 5000 manuscripts. When they say the majority, what they in essence are saying is the majority of 414 texts, not the majority of the over 5000 Texts available.

The percentage of extant (existing) Manuscripts !

• Original autograph (the actual first manuscript) - None Extant.                    

     * Accurate copies - 95% of 5,309 manuscripts.

• Corrupted copies - 5% of 5,309 manuscripts.

ACCURATE COPIES !

The ACCURATE COPIES represent the manuscripts from which the 'Textus Receptus' or the Received Text, was taken. They are the majority of Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and, have been accepted by Bible-believing Christians down through the centuries. It is from those manuscripts that the King James Bible was translated in 1611.

CORRUPTED COPIES !

The CORRUPTED COPIES represent the corrupted copies of the Manuscripts, known as the Alexandrian manuscripts. These manuscripts, in many instances don't even agree with each other. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are part of that group. These are the manuscripts on which Westcott and Hort and the modern versions rely so heavily.

There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all, or part, of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree 95% of the time with the Received text of the King James Version. The other 5% (Vaticanus and the Sinaicticus) account for the differences between the King James and the modern versions.

The modern versions had to use the Textus Receptus readings in many places because their corrupt manuscripts were incomplete. A problem arises when the Textus Receptus disagrees with the Vaticanus or the Sinaiticus, they preferred the corrupted manuscripts PLUS the Textus Receptus. This accounts for the 5% corruption in the modern versions. Even these two manuscripts agree with the Textus Receptus much of the time. When they do not agree, it is because Marcion (A.D. 120-160), Origin (A.D. 184-254), Westcott & Hort (1853), and others CORRUPTED them.

It's not that the Vaticanus and the Sinaicticus (newer Bible version manuscripts) disagree with the Textus Receptus (King James version manuscript) but, they do not agree with EACH OTHER either.

In the four Gospels of Matthew and John alone the Vaticanus and the Sinaicticus will disagree with EACH OTHER in over 3,000 places. Let's take a closer look at these two Manuscripts in which all the newer Bible versions are based upon.

The dubious origin of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus:

The Vaticanus:

The Vaticanus was written on fine vellum (tanned animal skins) and remains in excellent condition. It was found in the Vatican Library in 1481 AD. In spite of being in excellent condition, it omits Genesis 1:1-Gen. 46:28, Psalms 106-138, Matt. 16:2-3, the Pauline Pastoral Epistles, Hebrews 9: 14-13:25, and all of Revelations.

In the Gospels alone it leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses and 748 whole sentences, which hundreds of later copies all agree as having the same words in the same places, the same clauses in the same places and the same sentences in the same places.

The Vaticanus was available to the translators of the King James Bible but, they didn't use it because they knew it is unreliable. The Vaticanus also contained the Apocrypha which is a pre-New Testament writing that did not appear in the Hebrew Old Testament. The Apocrypha cannot be considered realiable Scripture as a whole, but it is included in the Catholic Bible to this very day.

The Sinaiticus:

The Sinaiticus is a manuscript which was 'found' in 1844 in a trash pile at St. Catherines Monastery near Mt. Sinai by a man named Mr. Tischendorf. It contains nearly all of the New Testament plus, it adds the to the New Testament, the "Shepherd of Hermes" which says we are to take the "mark of the beast" as well as the "Epistle of Barnabas."

• In the "Shepherd of Hermas" it states: "I gave myself up to the beast", and in another place it says: "Receive his name".
• In the "Epistle of Barnabas" it states: "satan...is Lord".

There is an effort underway to remove the book of "Revelation" from the newer Bible versions (the vaticanus does not have it) and replace it with "Shepherd of Hermas." Need I say more on that? Christian beware!! Our own so-called people are selling us out to satan.

The Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable. This can be proven simply by examining the manuscript itself. John Burgon spent years examining every available manuscript of the New Testament. In regards to the Sinaiticus he writes the following:

"On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters, words or even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause proceeding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament."

With nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people. Some of these were corrections made about the same time that it was copied (probably in the 4th Century), but most of them were made in the 6th or 7th century.

Phillip Mauro was a brilliant lawyer who was admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court in April 1892. He wrote a book called "Which Version" in the early 1900's. In regards to the Sinaiticus he writes the following:

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

*Thus we see the character of the two manuscripts that all the newer Bibles were translated from. ! see our pamphlets page for "188 omissions in the NIV "