A new look at an old Word: Textual criticisms history and the New Bible text

 Psalm 50:16-17

¹⁶ But unto the wicked God saith,
What hast thou to do to declare my statutes,
or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth?
¹⁷ Seeing thou hatest instruction,
 and castest my words behind thee.

1
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPWO7ClRcblTGH_FL9969iEtrFjuCathfROeSdVc8WSzCaZ1M3x8ubc9rFzvycT6QRFVTmjLD-pHooKKsV7-f8arncsDmuF3Jp8_PhiK-HAO3rurvivJh9I_vfZ1vym3Hd0Yp98eaNlddr/s400/Picture+3.png

Where did text criticism come from?

''Until the Latter part of the nineteenth century.biblical studies has usually taken the form of theological exegesis.   The prevailing view was that the Bible contained a timeless,Universal, and final teaching  which was fundamentally the same in all the various books."  Ultimately, studies were taken from the Christian world view. which believe the bible to be inspired, infallible, inerrant and holy.

''It required an entirely different approach to the Bible to expound it according to its original intention and meaning-a different conception of the nature of the Bible which would permit more objective principles of exposition.  Such a new conception  became possible when the tendency generated  by humanistic studies to regard all ancient literature as the product of human culture had removed  the old distinction between  sacred  and  profane writings." Herbert F Hahn Old Testament in Modern Research
     In other words, even prior to the evolutionary theory. this biblical criticism demanded one to disbelieve the inspiration of the Bible, before one could even study the scriptures!

Should we be intimidated by the majority of scholars?
  Many have approached the bible version debate like many scholars had approached the biblical criticism debate. Should we be intimidated by the majority of scholarship?
          "But most Biblical and theological  scholars still toe the party line established by seventeenth century rationalists.  If one decides who to follow by counting the number of recognized experts holding the various views, then one must be a liberal.  On the other hand, if one can maintain a healthy skepticism towards conventional wisdom ( Isn't this what they always, told us to do in college?) and a sense of humor about the really absurd nonsense that passes for scholarship in these circles, one might find himself or herself opening up to radically unfashionable approaches.
    "And if one is a Christian-if his loyalty is to Jesus-cannot one muster from that loyalty· the courage to stand against even the frail reed of modern biblical scholarship? Many ancient Christians (and  some modern ones) have had to do much more- to be burned  alive crucified or throne to the lions- rather than renounce Christ.  If Christ call us to love God with all our heart soul mind and strength, and to  follow Jesus in all our activities, how can we deny him the small favor of adopting unpopular but Biblical positions in Biblical Scholarship., John  M. Frame Apologetics to the Glory of God pg. 134

Naturalism                                                                                .
Throughout the enlightenment there was a slow but steady emphasis on human reasoning. Soon reason became the highest epistemology (meaning source of knowledge and truth).  Once reason became preeminent, the authority of the Biblical God was secondary to the authority of human reason. This philosophy (naturalism) soon became apostate from the Christian religion and a separate worldview. The sole tenets are 
1)  Reason and evidence are the sole forms of knowledge.

2)  There is no such thing as the miraculous, because all is natural.

3)  There is no absolute truth, nor is there such a thing as intelligent design.

 

Liberalism and  existentialism
"From the outset it is important to recognize that existentialism takes two basic forms.depending on its relation to previous worldviews. because existentialism is not a full-fledged  worldview.  Atheistic existentialism is a parasite on naturalism; theistic existentialism is a parasite on theism." James W. Sire The Universe Next Door pg. 95-96
"Neo-orthodoxy found an ally in Kierkegaard when Barth and his cohorts set out to present an alternative to both liberal theology and Protestant orthodoxy.  Both had swamped faith in a morass of rational and moralistic ideas. The Neo-orthodox thinkers sought to reassert the necessity of faith for authentic Christianity. Barth was opposed to the identification of Christianity with a coherent system of doctrines, whether based on reason or revelation or some combination of both.  For him, Christianity-as opposed to religion-is a relationship between the holy God who speaks from beyond the world and the finite, sinful human who bows before mysteries that reason cannot anticipate, let alone understand.  Kierkegaard's assertion of "truth as subjectivity" provided a philosophical foundation for Neo-orthodox's rediscovery of a theology of God's Word that places faith in the supreme position and mere faith and reason as a mere tool or instrument". Roger E. Olson 575-576 The Story of Christian Theology
             The Neo-Orthodox Movement was prevailing in academic circles as the modern Bible translation movement started.  Though it was a more spiritual than classic liberalism, it was an attack on logic based upon keirkegaard that would be grandfathered into modern evangelical thought and it's rejection of logical faith.

"These two worldviews stand as totals in complete antithesis to each other in content and also in their natural results...
"It is not that these two worldviews are different only in how they understand the nature of reality and existence.  They also inevitably produce different results.  The operative word here is inevitably."Francis Schae fer A Christian Manifesto pg. 18

Line of Apostasy

1.    Although the Bible is inspired we do not have the original documents, but close enough,
2.   The text types do not draw us to the absolute word of God.
3.   The competition of text, types through history is equivalent,
4.   There probably wasn't one original text.
5.   The Prophets laid down the writings as oral traditions, (which explains the text types)
6.   The Holy Spirit did not inspire the prophets word for word.
7.   The Prophets probably had editors, and may have been pseudo prophets,
8.   The Bible was not written with out error or infallibility
9.  Science/reason  is an equivalent if not better authority than scripture
10. Why should I stay an orthodox Christian'?  Especially if teachings get in the way of worldly wisdom'? 
11 . Christianity must submit to the authority of the world whenever they conflict. 
12. Why be a Christian?  No, answer.

The case of Bart Ehrmann

A professor of Religion who claimed to be a "born again" Evangelical in his youth and went to the Conservative Evangelical Moody Bible Institute. While there, he studied textual criticism.  Then he moved onto a less conservative Seminary Wheaten. Soon he changed his position to the point of becoming an agnostic altogether.   His most popular  book out today is "Misquoting Jesus: The story behind who changed the Bible and why".
Here are some excerpts.

“My personal opinion is that it's very hard to have the view of the Bible's inerrancy once you know the facts about the history of the Bible. When I talk about the hundreds and thousands of differences, it's true that a lot are insignificant. But it's also true that a lot are highly significant for interpreting the Bible. Depending on which manuscript you read, the meaning is changed significantly.”

“The more I studied the manuscript tradition of the New Testament, the more I realized just how radically the text had been altered over the years at the hands of scribes, who were not only conserving scripture but also changing it. ”

“My faith -- based on the inspired words of the Bible -- came under assault. That was especially true when I realized that in many cases, we don't have the original words. We have copies that were made hundreds of years later -- in most cases, many hundreds of years later. And these copies are all different from one another.”

   Some have argued that Bart Ehrmann only apostatized later over the problem of evil.  But denying the scripture could be considered apostasy and more importantly believing the whole Bible can solve the problem of evil, and ignoring major parts of scripture leaves one open to the problem of evil quite often.

Slippery Slope"With the exception of about 100 verses, every verse in both testaments has been attacked and altered by some verse somewhere." Peter Ruckman Problem Texts ch1 pg.1
  Once we see the level of scrutiny which textual critics have leveled against the Bible in general and the KJV in particular, we realize that there is no way that the field can be operating from an objective standpoint. Not even Mein Kampf experienced this level of criticism! Why? Because people understood the evil of the book and stopped reading it.  The Bible is the "good book" and it has power and influence over peoples lives.  The textual critics are not seeking to get rid of the bible, they are seeking to control it. Once you have permission to doubt some of the Bible you will doubt all of it, for the simple fact that you do not want any verse to have authority over you.

System of modern text criticism

I)    Older is preferable to younger

2)   Difficult is preferable to easy reading

3)    Shorter text is preferred to longer text

4)    A text is better if alternatives have found their origin somewhere else.

5)    A text that matches the style of the Author

6)    A text that is not biased is preferable

I believe it  is important to notice the first three principles follow an evolutionary theory of Bible development.   Rule one implies that newer text necessarily changes or evolves.  Rule two implies that the worse the writing,  the earlier; moving from simple writing to complex.  Rule three states that shorter text is the original; showing the smaller text moves to larger over time.

"I am motivated with a sacred task to regain the original form of the New Testament." Constantine Von Tischendorf

  Obviously, before any extra manuscript was found, Tischendorf believed he didn't have the original New Testament and was looking for it.  Since the Textus Receptus was the manuscript of that time, it was already clear that Tischendorf  did not support its accuracy.  I doubt  it really mattered what the manuscript would say, as long it was ancient and different from the Received text.  Tischendorf would be more likely to go for it since it was different from the Received text.

Higher  criticism

"The gospels were seen as historical narratives, reporting what Jesus  said and did, based on eye-witness testimony" "Importantly,it did not require faith to see the gospels in this way; there was as yet no reason to think otherwise." "But over the last two hundred  years among historical scholars, both within and outside the church, this common image of Jesus has dissolved."  Marcus Borg The Meaning of Jesus:two visions chapter 1 pg.3

       Here, Jesus Seminar scholar Marcus Borg admits  that the very scholarship he rejects was in fact accepted as truth and fact until the last two hundred years.  He has become so convinced of his naturalistic worldview that he has conceded the historical context.  Higher textual criticism therefore is an alien element designed to destroy the truth of scripture. It does not regard objective historical facts, it simply dominates the facts into submission to their philosophy.


   "Evidently, therefore, those words of Jesus which are to be regarded as authoritative by modern Liberalism must first be selected from the mass of recorded words by a critical process. The critical process is certainly very difficult, and the suspicion often arises  that the critic is retaining as genuine words of the historical Jesus only those words that conform to his own pre-conceived ideas.  But even after the sifting process is completed, the liberal scholar is still unable to accept as authoritative all the sayings of Jesus; he must finally admit that even the "historical Jesus" as reconstructed by modern historians said some things that are untrue." J. Greshem Machen Christianity and Liberalism pg. 77

The nature of the form critic is to be free with determining what is and is not the natural part of the Biblical text.  If the critic has no problem casting doubt and challenging the substance of a manuscript without manuscript evidence then it would seem that less manuscripts support would be an easy text to disregard. If they do not prefer the text they can simply disregard it without challenge as long as they find a contradictory manuscript.

   "The evolution of the historical development was the chief contribution liberal critics to the exegesis of the Old Testament.  It is true, of course, this conception did not grow merely from an objective reading of the sources.  In a larger sense, it was a reflection of the intellectual temper of times. The genetic conception of the Old Testament history fitted in with the evolution principle of interpretation prevailing in contemporary science and philosophy.  In the natural sciences the influence of Darwin had made the theory of evolution the predominant hypothesis affecting research.  In the historical sciences and the religious and philosophical thought, the evolutionary concept had begun to exercise a powerful influence after Hegel had substituted the notion of "becoming" for notion of being. ed at the notion by a priori reasoning without testing it by scientific application to observable fact, but Hegel was none the less the intellectual progenitor of the modern point of view. In every department of historical investigation of development was being used to explain the history of man's thought institutions, and even religious faiths.  It was not strange that the same principle should be applied tot he explanation of Old testament History.  In every age exegesis has conformed to the time. and in the later half of the nineteenth century thought was dominated by the scientific methods and an evolutionary view of history."  Gleason Archer Quoted from Evidence that demands a verdict  Vol. II
  Here we have Old Testament Scholar Gleason Archer (definitely, not KJVO!) admit very candidly that the text criticism of the 19th century was based upon the principles of evolution.
"The higher criticism of an awakened critical faculty to a particular kind of material, and was encouraged by the achievement of this faculty to form it's bold conclusions.  If the biologists, the geologists, the astronomers, the anthropologist had not been at work, I venture to think that the higher critics would have been either non-existent or a tiny minority in a world of fundamentalist."  F.M. Powicke Modern Historians and the study of history(genesis record, Henry Morris)
    Evolutionary teaching in other fields of science encouraged textual critics to not only espouse their theories, but it was evolution that took down conservative scholarship.  Ultimately higher criticism is the basis for denying the authority of scripture.  Yet this criticism is only allowed to deny the authority of scripture because it is based upon the philosophy of naturalism.
   "On examining the evolution of the leaders of the critical school, I found that it was a naturalistic or practical deistic kind.  All natural and mental phenomena are in a closed system of cause and effect, and the hypothesis applies universally, to religion and revelation, as well as to mechanisms.
    "This type of evolution may not be accepted by all adherents  of the critical school, but it is substantially the view of the leaders, Reuss, Graf. Kuenan and Wellhausin.  To them all nature and history are a product of forces within and in process of development.  There has not been and could not be any direct action of God upon man, there could be no break in the chain of cause and effect, of antecedent and consequent.  Hence there can be no miracle or anything of what is known as the supernatural.  There could be no 'interference' in anyway with the natural course of events, there could be  no 'injection' of any power into the cosmic process from without, God is shut up to the one method of bringing things to pass.  He is thus little more than a prisoner in his own cosmos.  Thus I discovered that the critical movement was essentially and fundamentally anti-supernatural and anti miraculous.  According to it all religious movements are human developments along natural lines.  The religion of Israel and the Bible is no exception to this principle.  The revelation contained in the Bible is strictly speaking, no revelation; it is a natural development  with God in the cosmic process behind it, but yet as a steady straight-lined, mechanical development such as can be traced step by step as a flight of the stairs may be a foot-rule.  There could have been no epoch-making revelation, no revivals and lapses, no marvelous exhibitions of divine power, no real redemption.   With these foregone conclusions fixed in their minds, the entire question is practically settled beforehand."                                                                               
Prof. J.J.Reeve My personal experience with the higher criticism. Chapter 19 The Fundamentals vol.l  pg. 350-351

  Not only does Higher Criticism have a secular bias, but it had a secular presupposed doctrine.  In other words, to have done higher text criticism in the 1800's is almost a guarantee to have had an anti-Christian pro-evolutionary naturalistic viewpoint. 

The sad results of criticism on society

     What was the left over result of German higher criticism upon the country of Germany socially? We honestly just have to take a look at Hitler.  After the damage they had done was Hitler at all afraid of them?

"Will the masses ever again become Christian?   Nonsense.  Never again.  That film is worn out.  Nobody wants to see it anymore.  But we'll help things along ... Do you really think teach our God in their churches, these liberal priest-lings who have no belief any longer, merely an office?  I guarantee that, just as they turned Haekel and Darwin, Goethe and Stephan George into prophets of their Christianity, they will substitute our Hakenkreuz {swastika, hooked cross] for their own cross."   ' Talks  with Hitler' in Memoirs of Alfred Rosenberg by Herman Rauschning pg.89

In fact, if anything he was confident that their work had paved the way for him.  Sadly, he was correct.

''It is not just that they happen to bring forth different results, but it is absolutely inevitable that they will bring forth different results"  Francis Schaefer A Christian Manifesto pg. l8

The bridge to lower criticism

"At  precisely the time when liberalism  was carrying the field in the English churches the theory of Westcott and Hort received wide acclaim.   These are not isolated facts. Recent contributions on the subject-that is, in the present century-following mainly the Westcott-Hort Principles and method, have been made largely by men who deny the inspiration of the Bible." (Alfred Martin,''A critical Examination of the Westcott­-Hort Textual Theory." Th.D. Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary,  May 1951, p.70

We must not look at the formation of higher and lower criticism as an isolated coincidence  of academia, but as obviously related.

             C.S. Lewis trained with many textual critics during his time at Oxford University.  Though  he was not a conservative evangelical  he easily understood the critics to be fraudulent due to their inability to exegetic the scriptures, which they would tear apart. He made an interesting observation though.

"All theology of the liberal type involves at some point  ... the claim that the real behavior and purpose and teaching of Christ came very rapidly to be misunderstood  and misrepresented by his followers, and has been recovered or exhumed only by modern scholars." C.S. Lewis Christian reflections pg.158

''The fourth theme of the English Bible histories, therefore was evolutionism, or the idea that Protestant biblical scholarship was an ever ascending march toward a more perfect Bible"

''The English Bible's evolution. as Simms and other historians conceived of it, was a paradoxical  process. On the one hand was the inexorable march toward perfection, the gradual removal of errors and obscurities. Yet this progression required  retrospection, or ever more precise conjecture about the long­ lost original biblical manuscript.. The twin enterprises of textual criticism and English Bible revision were therefore simultaneously evolutionary (imagining textual development toward a higher form) and primitivist (imagining textual restoration of an earlier form). At it's height of evolution, the translated English Bible paradoxically  would mirror the primitive Greek and Hebrew texts."  " ln discordance with the scriptures : American Protestant Battles over translating the Bible. Peter J. Thuesen pg. 39-40 (Regarding text-critic and Bible Historian  P.Marion Simms)

Lower text criticism much like higher text criticism displayed an evolutionary philosophy.

   Here is the question: Doesn't the lower text criticism fit the same description as the higher text criticism?

Johann Salomo Semlar has been called one of the fathers of theological liberalism.  He lived in Germany from 1725-91. Bruce Metzger has said that Semlar is 'often regarded' as the father of German rationalism* and that he 'made noteworthy contributions to the science of textual criticism.' Semlar was also noted as 'the leader of the reaction in germany against the traditional view of the canon of scripture.** David H. Sorenson touch not the Unclean thing pg. 163
*Bruce Metzger, The text of the New Testament: It's Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration(New York: Oxford University Press, 1964), 185.
** Marvin Vincent, A history of the textual criticism of the New Testament(New York: Macmillan Co., 1899), 92. 

  The fathers of higher criticism directly taught the heroes of lower criticism.  It is obvious that this would have had a profound influence on them.  Therefore it is proper to see higher and lower text criticism as the logical extension of the other.

 Text critics will use the majority reading for the preferred text.
 "Several other editions of the Greek text appeared but Eberhard Nestle's Greek Text, the Novum Testamentum Graece. Published in 1898 by the Wurttemberg Bible Society, Struttgart, Germany dealt the final blow to the Textus Receptus  .  Kurt Alund and Barbara Alund explain the importance of the Nestle text.
      "What Eberhard Nestle did was actually quite simple (a radical break-through is always simple in retrospect): he compared the text of Tischendorf... and of Westcott-Hort.  When the two differed he consulted a third edition for the deciding vote (at first Richard Francis Weymouth's second edition of 1892, and after 1901 Burnard Weiss' 1894-1900 edition). This made a majority decision possible: the agreement of the 2 editions, determined the text, while the reading of the third was placed in the apparatus, and a series of symbols enabled the reader to reconstruct with accuracy the texts of the editions used (indicating that even the marginal readings in Wescott-Hort's edition together with their evaluations)... In effect, this purely mechanical system of a majority text summarized the results from nineteenth-century textual scholarship.  It eliminated the extremes of Tischendorf (due to his partiality to {Sinaiticus}) and of Westcott and Hort (and their partiality to B), especially afte Weiss' edition was adopted.  It produced a text that not only lasted  seventy years, but on the whole truly represented the state of knowledge at that time..'"   Paul D. Wegner From the text to the translation pg. 221 
 

  It is ironic that Modern Text critics rail against the majority text critics for the idea of counting the majority of the texts.  The only difference is that they take the minority text (alexandrine) and then count the majority out of them.



Is the difficult reading the best?
  If we believe that God inspired the Bible, why would he have his message been hard to read? If God is ultimately the Author of the universe would not it Challenge His almighty nature to have errors in communication? Since when do readings get better?  If they do get better it is usually through a drastic reform. In other words,  all readings would have to be replaced and n ot just a few words either.  The only reason that we would believe that the difficult reading was earlier if we had an evolutionary view with religion evolving.  The Christian view is that society devolves.  The 2nd law of thermo dynamics states that things fall apart.  And the ancient view is that further back in time  we go the better things get.
    "What was Old was considered far superior than to what was recent or new.  This was based on the view that the world, like a human being, wears out with the passage of time and deteriorates from the better state it once had." Introducing the New Testament pg 284. Achtmeier, Green, Thompson.
    If the earliest manuscript was best written and society does devolve then changes to the text would not be superior readings.  How could they?  Whereas the ingenius message of the New Testament has one intent, how could the scribe several centuries later have equal intent, and in fact improve with the exact same original meaning in mind?
Older texts may deteriorate over time, but the better text will have a superior genius, especially if the original text are inspired of God. 

Background of text critics

Westcott & Hort

    Many evangelical scholars and pastors have concluded that B. F. Westcott and F.A. Hort were both conservative born-again Christian scholars. Yet this does not fit into the environment scheme and world­ view of these men. These men were of high ministerial rank in the Anglican Church and had full access to the altar. However, I challenge you to find any evidence of a single evangelistic crusade or invitation led by these men, they were surrounded by occultist (early new age), Deists, and Atheist, so why were they silent?

 

Bible

A good summary is found in the tribute given B.F. Westcott when he succeeded Lightfoot as Bishop of Durham in 1890:

"Before all things a Biblical student, bringing  to the text of the Bible all the habits and resources of most accurate linguistic scholarship, along with a reverential affection  to which no detail,  however slight, was insignificant; unsurpassed in his command of all the statistics of text and matter, yet never mastered by them. never mechanical nor dry; resolute in insisting that exegesis must be first and foremost, historical, yet never content with history as an end in itself:  free from all verbal or mechanical ideas of inspiration, yet treating every syllable of Scripture with a reverent care which no maintainer of verbal inspiration could excel."  Alec R. Vidlar The Church in an Age of Revolution pg. 131

     From here it is obvious that Westcott did not have a reputation of being an inerrantist or fundamentalist.  If we  were going to classify Westcott and Hort, the best title would be "moderate".

Classical Liberalism denied most of the fundamental beliefs of Christianity.  Yet the theological moderate would still hang on to several articles of Faith.

There has been several statements regarding Westcott's rejection of infallibility.

"I too 'must disclaim setting forth infallibility' in the front of my convictions. All I hold is that the more learn, the more I am convinced that the fresh doubts come from my own ignorance, and at present I find presumption in favor of the absolute truth-I reject the infallibility-  of Holy Scriptures overwhelming." 
It is important to notice the direction of Westcott's thought.  While Christians think of absolute in terms of scripture, Westcott thinks of absolute truth in terms of rejection of infallibility of the scripture."If you make a decided conviction of the absolute infallibility  of the N. T. practically a 'sine qua non' for co-operation, I fear I   could not join you, even if you were willing to forget your fears about the origin of the gospels." 
Here Westcott talking to Dr. Lightfoot, threatens of separation if be continues to espouse the doctrine of an infallible Bible.
Evolution

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/03/25/14/328CA57700000578-3509434-image-a-58_1458915048203.jpg

"Likewise in March I860 F.J.A. Hort wrote to B.F  Westcott  'Have you read Darwin?   How I should like to talk to you about it!  In spite of difficulties I am inclined  to think it unanswerable.  In any case it is a treat to read such a book.· Pg. 119 Alec R. Vidlar The Church in an Age of Revolution pg.

131

"If we feel that the balance of evidence favors the belief in the evolution of life, or more truly of the organisms through which the life reveals itself, according  to the action of uniform laws, we do not lose but gain by the Conclusion"  Westcott 112 The Church in an Age of Revolution

"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."

"I am inclined to think that no such state as 'Eden ' (I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants. as Coleridge justly argues."

" But the book  which has most engaged me is Darwin.   Whatever may be thought of it. it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with ... my feeling is strong  that the theory is unanswerable." Hort 


Platonic philosophy

"He urged me to give the greatest attention to the Plato and Aristotle, and to make them the central points of mv  reading and other books subsidiary." Dr. Hort influence from Dr.Frederick Maurice

"I can never look back on my Cambridge life with sufficient thankfulness. Above all, these hours which were spent over Plato and Aristotle have wrought in me which I pray never be done away." Dr. Westcott pg 220 Final Authority
   Now I think it should be remembered that the Alexandrine school was deeply affected by Platonic philosophy also the theosophy cult in Westcott's day was also effected.  While Aristotelian philosophy permeated the Catholic Church.  It is no wonder a Platonist would want a text affected by ancient Platonists.

United Bible Societies

  The most rich and powerful of Bible publishers  the UBS started as the British Bible Society, in which very early on liberalism and apostasy were welcomed into membership.
  "When the constitution of the British and Foreign Bible Society was first formulated, it was understandably not foreseen that the question of Unitarianism would have much relevance to the society's work.  Before long, however, Unitarians gained substantial influence upon the affairs of the Bible Society, particularly in Europe, where some auxiliary societies were run almost exclusively by persons of Unitarian Beliefs". ( Brown, The Word of God Among all Nations, p.12)

Nestle and Alund
  "The present state of affairs of Christianity splintered into different churches and theological schools, is THE wound in the body.  The variety in the actual canon in it's different forms is not only the standard symptom, but simultaneously also the real cause of it's illness. This illness= which is in blatant conflict with the unity which is fundamental in it's nature- can not be tolerated. ...along this road [of solving this supposed problem] at any rate, the question of the Canon will make it's way to the center of the theological and ecclesiastical  debate.   ... Only he who is ready to question and take the other person seriously can find a way out of the circuus vitiosus in which the question of the Canon is moving today. ... The first thing to be done, then, would be to examine critically one's own selection from the formal canon and it's principle of interpretation, but all the time remaining completely alive to the selection and principles of others.... This road will be long and laborious and painful....  If we succeed in arriving at a canon which is common and actual, this means the achievement of the unity of the faith, the unity of the church." (Aland, The problem of the New Testament Canon, 1962., pp. 30-33).gathered by W.O. Cloud "Editors of the UBS Greek New Testament")


Bruce Metzger
Reader's Digest Bible
"In the course of time, I was invited to serve as general editor of the reader's Digest Bible.  My responsibilities were to advise which block cuts could be made in a given biblical book."
"The final result was that the Old Testament was cut by about 50 percent, and the New Testament by about 25 percent." Bruce Metzger The Bible in Translation pg. 169
  How can we trust Bruce Metzger to honor the Biblical Mandate, when he had no problem removing 1/4 of the New Testament and 50% of the Old Testament?

Anglican Apostasy

Throughout the eighteenth century the Anglican church became permeated with the heresy of deism.
"After 1689 both the church of England and the protestant bodies settled down to a period of comparative security.The battles had been fought and a religious settlement had been reached. But the new and unchallenged stability in the church was itself open to the possibility of stagnation and loss of vitality.  Within the Church of England a rationalistic form of religion increasingly manifested itself.
  Now there appeared outright opposition between Christianity and a form of naturalistic religion called deism.  In many respects antagonism centered in the understanding of the Bible, including resurrection as mythological.  And by mythological, they meant fanciful and devoid of truth. ( as we shall see, modern protestants have to thank groups of this type for the development of the biblical criticism which is now taken for granted.)"   Dillenberger a nd Welch Protestant Christianity: Interpreted through its Development  2nd ed pg. 115,116
   Wesleyan-ism brings Revival to the Anglican church, Yet is rejected by the Anglican hierarchy.  "Contrary to his expectations, Wesley's work was not well received in the Anglican Church would neither cooperate nor participate.  As a result Wesley would have to depend upon a number of lay preachers... The result of Wesley 's work was that deism and natural religion  were effectively  challenged in the church.  New vitality had entered the Anglican church''  Dillenberger a nd Welch Protestant Christianity: Interpreted through its Development  2"d ed.pg.  121

Obviously deism had a firm foothold already and, despite the valiant efforts of some, it would grow stronger. During the age of Westcott & Hort the Church of England had been going through a massive apostasy.

"In  I 860 the Master of Wellington  College was Edward White Benson (1829-96),  a future Archbishop of Canterbury.  He presented a copy of Essays and Reviews, soon after its publication to the assistant masters'  Library."

It  should be remembered E.W.Benson would be archbishop of Cantebury, which is the highest position in the Anglican Church.  Essays and Reviews became infamous as a publication for denying the essentials of Christianity. Yet it was indoctrinated to all the Episcopalian hierarchy.

"The essay by Rowland Williams (1817-70)  professor of Hebrew at Lampeter, was ostensibly  a review of Bunsen's Biblical researches'....  The subject enabled Williams to commend the critical approach to the Bible, already well-established  in Germany, and to suggest a more acceptable interpretation of some Christian doctrines,  for example 1he atonement should be taken to mean 'salvation  from evil through sharing the savior's spirit' not a purchase from God through the price of his bodily pangs'.,.
                                                                                                                               
Here not only is the inspiration of the Bible criticized but salvation itself is criticized, The question I would have is if salvation were simply sharing the savior's spirit what would entice a Holy God to share his spirit with a sinner like you? Secondly, how can that wipe away the sins that you have committed? If God is just he will repay all evil.         

''H.B. Wilson wrote on 'the national church'.  It should aim at embracing all the elements of spiritual life in the nation and allow the greatest possible flexibility in the interpretation of its formularies. He also questioned the Belief that non-Christians would be eternally lost."

Here we see the elimination of Hell from the Anglican mind. The question that 1 have is if there is no punishment of Hell then why is Jesus supposed to be a savior?  And what scientific instruments have determine the spiritual realm of Hades to stop existing?

''The essay by C.W Goodwin (1817-78),  a Cambridge man, on  'The Mosaic Cosmogony', said that the story of creation should be regarded as a simple Hebrew Myth adapted to the needs of those for whom it was written, "

If we can't trust God with creating the earth, then why would we trust him to create heaven? So basically we see the teaching at the time was heretical.

New Age Paganistic influence on popular critics

 

" Were they occultist? Westcott's  involvement  in a club called the 'Ghostlie guild'  has led to all sorts of such charges, but the club was formed to investigate strange occurrences not engage in devilish activity." James R. White The King James Only Controversy pg.245
 I had neglected to investigate charges of Westcott and Hort in the involvement of paganism,because it seemed sensationalist. Yet since I had read James White admit to some controversy with their involvement in this group I decided to investigate.

http://www.squamousstudios.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Occult-Seance.jpg

Now we must understand the era of time.  Darwinian Evolution had spread across Europe like wildfire. The Anglican denomination was hit very profoundly throughout the 1800s. One can imagine how this would lead to a massive movement of apostasy.  This was a disease for the educated British. Since evolution at this point is entirely materialistic it leaves a great spiritual void in it's wake. So what is the answers to this problem? Mysticism and the occult!

So there was a great influx of occult practices in the second half of the nineteenth century. Some of them would  gather in clubs and many educated elite engaged in these pagan practices. Were Westcot1 and Hort engaged as well?

What was the Ghostlie guild?

The Ghostlie guild was a group founded among others by Westcott & Hort to investigate supernatural phenomena this would build a foundation to similar groups like the Hermes club and the Society for Psychical Research which continues today.

"The interest and importance of a serious and earnest inquiry into the nature of the phenomena which are vaguely called 'supernatural' will scarcely be questioned.  Many  persons believe purely natural causes, or to be delusions of the mind or senses, or to willful deception.  But there are many others  who believe it possible that the beings of the unseen world may manifest themselves to us in extraordinary ways, and also are unable to explain many facts the evidence for which cannot impeached.  Both parties have obviously a common interest in wishing cases of supposed 'supernatural' agency to be thoroughly sifted.  If the belief of the latter class should be ultimately confirmed, the limits of human knowledge respecting the spirit world has hitherto reached might be ascertained with some degree of accuracy.  But in any case, even if it should appear that morbid or irregular workings of the mind or senses will satisfactorily account for every such marvel, still some progress would be made towards being ascertaining the laws which regulate our being, and thus adding to our scanty knowledge of an obscure but important prince of science." Final Authority pg. 218

^{Leviticus 19:31} Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the Lord your God.
Deuteronomy 18:¹⁰ There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, ¹¹ or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. ¹² For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee."

What is the Society for Psychical Research?

The period which saw the formation of the Society for Psychical Research was a time of intense intellectual ferment and uncertainty, with natural sciences making great strides in explaining the world in terms which challenged the traditional, religious views. At the same time, since the 1850s, there was a virtual explosion of extravagant paranormal claims and interest in them, in all strata of society throughout the Western world, related to the spread of the new religion of Spiritualism. While stories of apparitions, clairvoyant visions, precognitive dreams and other miraculous events have accompanied mankind since time immemorial, the new mediums (of whom there were many) were very influential in gaining credence for their claims of being able to contact the dead, and the issues raised by both science and spiritualism were the subject of fierce debate.
The SPR, the first learned society of its kind, was founded in London on 20 February 1882, following initial discussions between William Barrett and Edmund Dawson Rogers, and then a conference convened in London in January to discuss the viability of such a Society. Its stated purpose was to investigate “that large body of debatable phenomena designated by such terms as mesmeric, psychical and "spiritualistic”, and to do so “in the same spirit of exact and unimpassioned enquiry which has enabled Science to solve so many problems” (quoted after Gauld, 1968, p. 137).
Working in that scientific spirit, the leaders of the SPR quickly created a methodological and administrative framework for investigating the phenomena, including the foundation of a scholarly journal for reporting and discussing psychical research worldwide. Owing to their efforts, “psychical research was becoming a science, with disciplined experimental methods and standardised methods of description, established by some of the finest minds of the day”. (Broughton, p. 64)

The Founders

The first President of the SPR was Henry Sidgwick, Professor of Moral Philosophy at Cambridge University, who had enormous standing and moral authority in the intellectual circles of the day. Apart from a prodigious amount of work, he contributed “the weight which his known intelligence and integrity gave to the serious study of the subject” (quoted from Broad’s obituary after Haynes, p. 176). His chief associates in the early stages were Frederic Myers, a classical scholar but also a man of lively and wide-ranging interests, and the brilliant Edmund Gurney, the main author of what is now the classic of psychical research, Phantasms of the Living."http://www.spr.ac.uk/page/history-society-psychical-research-parapsychology

   These clubs may have been said to have been for  scientific purpose.  Yet it is obvious that these groups were filled with practitioners of spiritism.  But can one argue that it is biblical to experiment with witchcraft?  If I were to experiment with drugs I would be a drug user, so if these groups experiment with witchcraft why can't we acknowledge them in their witchcraft?  Now before I go on to explain this movement.  I must say directly as of my current research I do not believe nor claim that Westcott and Hort were fully-fledged New Agers or Occultists.  In fact I read one article where they found Madame Blavatsky  to be fraudulent of a miracle.  However, you can not live on the beach without getting a tan, in other words it is my belief that Westcott anBd Hort were influenced by paganism in the same way that the Alexandrine church was effected by Gnosticism.  These Character flaws are not the kind of flaws we need in men responsible for the Holy Texts of Scripture..

What was Theosophy?                              
                         
"From theos meaning 'God' and sophia meaning 'wisdom,' it means divine wisdom.  However as title it has been assumed by a cult that has been described as the apostate child of 'spiritism' mixed with 'Buddhism'.
"In 1875 the Theosophic Society was founded in New York by 'Madame' Blavatsky and Colonel Olcott.  After they had visited India, they added Hindu and Buddhist elements to their original ideas, which Blavatsky described as 'Spiritualism, but under another name.'
"Madame Blavatsky's most famous follower was Mrs. Annie Besant, who like founder, left her husband and later converted to theosophy. Mrs. Besant had an adopted son, Krishnamurti or Krishnaji, whom she claimed was the new Messiah, The reincarnation of the world teacher.  This World Teacher stands as the Supreme Teacher at the head of the great brotherhood of teachers who are 'divine men made perfect' and 'the finished products of human evolution....  When the Supreme teacher becomes incarnate, we have a Christ on earth."

"Theosophy's notion of God is pantheistic.  God is the great impersonal  IT.  Theosophy postulates the evolution of humanity over a period of 18 million years.  It believes in the pre-existence of souls and their reincarnation  countless times, until each soul is fit to be absorbed by the Great impersonal  IT.  This absorption is the Buddhist idea of Nirvana.  Theosophy. therefore, is autosoteric.

''The source of theosophist's alleged knowledge  and the inspiration of his evolution is spiritistic. Theosophy holds the notion that the natural body is threefold, consisting of a physical body and in his astral and mental bodies dwells on the astral world. whence he obtains deeper knowledge and advances in his evolution toward perfection. It uses the practice of yoga to hasten the perfection of the souls evolution.

"'Theosophy is at once heathen and truly ecumenical, for it views as fundamentally one.  Mrs. Besant wrote: "Every religion has a note of its own, a colour of its own, that it gives.for the helping of the world ...; blended  together they give the whiteness of the truth, blended together. They give a mighty chord of perfection." Contrast John 14:6; Acts 4:12 Alan Cairns Dictionary of theological terms (theosophy) pg.487-488.

Theosophy is a revival of Gnosticism

"Theosophy may be recognized as a pantheistic form of ancient Gnosticism, which attempts to embrace religious, philosophical. and scientific truth as it is found in all religio-philosophical sources."

"'Theosophist are great admirers of the gnostics. and this is not at all surprising, since they have adopted  much of the vocabulary of ancient gnosticism, which looked with disdain upon the material properties of both the world and man, depersonalized  God. and created various planes of spiritual progression, culminating in universal salvation and reconciliation  through reincarnation  and the wheel concept of progression borrowed unblushingly from Buddhism."

Walter Martin The Kingdom of the Cults pg. 285,287

Theosophy started the new age movement.

"A vast organizational  network today, the New Age Movement received it's modern start in 1875 with the founding of the Theosophical Society  by Helena  Petrovna Blavatsky. A basic teaching of the organization was that all world religions had 'common truths' that transcended potential differences." Constance Cumbey The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow: The New Age movement and the coming the of Barbarism" pg 44

Arianism and Jehovah's witness/Watch Tower

"Why are such expressions missing from the New World translation?   In brief  it is because they appear in the ''Received  Text" upon which the King James Version is based, but not in the Westcott! and Hart text upon which the New World Translation is based; both of which texts. incidentally, are in the original Greek."

··as late as 1734, J.A.Bengal of Tubingen. Germany. apologized.for again printing the Received Text, doing so only "'because he could not publish a text of his own. Neither the publisher nor the pub/it would have stould for it," The Watchtower Society  Why is it missing from the New World Translation? pg 88-92. February 1, 1962

With the age of criticism there was a revival of Arianism. Many have argued that Arianism has

nothing to do with the critical text and that it doesn't lean in that direction. However, if this is so, then it's very odd that a separatist cult like the Jehovah's Witnesses were such ardent supporters of the critical text.

Famous Critical Versions

Revised Standard Version  and new versions
   a.       Liberal translators

Chairman Luther Allen Weigle "as an undergraduate  he took four years o.l classical  Greek,

studying  Plato and other philosophers.  A biology course introduced  him to the evolutionary theology, which in turn led him to Spencer and Huxley: he penned his reactions in an essay whose "modest title" (as he later quipped) was "Some notes on the Genesis of Sin." Having convinced himself of the compatibility of evolution and Christianity, young Weigle enrolled in Seminary, where he imbibed "the Christocentric view of the scriptures that was characteristic of Luther."Weigle's professors" "disavowed mechanical  theories of inspiration, and taught that divine revelation is progressive, not because Cod holds back truth, but because it is relative to occasions and suited to the capacity of man the recipient'  Ordained as a Lutheran Pastor in 1903, Weigle enrolled in a graduate school at Yale, Where He Studied philosophy and worked as a research assistant in experimental psychology.  Weigle's dissertation was on Kant, from whom he learned that no reason 'based upon the facts only can reach incontrovertible conclusions" concerning the ultimate character of Reality."   In discordance with the Scriptures: American Protestant Battles over translating the Bible.  Peter J. Thuesen
  Throughout the 1950's the translators of the Revised Standard Version had been accused of communist affiliation
"The unseemliness and, in the case of government-sponsored McCarthy-ism, the unconstitutionality of 1950's Red-hunting would eventually be established by a series of 1950's supreme Court decisions.  Yet in the heat of the RSV controversy, Luther Weigle concentrated not on demonstrating the inappropriateness and irrelevance of communist charges to Bible translations but exposing the falsity of the accusations.  This proved a difficult strategy, for just enough of the translators had supported liberal causes- Henry Joel Cadbury, for example had chaired the anti-war American Freinds  Service Comittee-to convince Red-hunters that the RSV had 'subversive' intentions. Weigle recognized this problem, noting a letter to Cavert that anything short of complete disavowel of all left wing sympathies would 'be seized upon by enemies and held up to derision as additional evidence that we are a bunch of 'pinks' who are either spineless and weak minded or subtil and .cunning'. But Weigle was absolutely loath to 'embark on calling the roll' to determine the patriotism of each committee member and National Council Official.  Weigle and Cavert consequently rejected a suggestion by a committee member William Irwin to invite the FBI to investigate the backgrounds of the translators. 'It is probably experience for Dr. Irwin to be denounce as a 'subversive' Cavert wrote to Weigle, ' I sympathize with his desire to do something about it.' Ultimately Cavert issued a pamphlet, Plain Facts, answering some of the communist charges, While  responded to selected Inquiries from the public and the press. (as evidence of his own patriotism,  Weigle unearthed a statement he made in 1941  as president of the Federal Council of Churches criticizing the lack of religious freedom in the Soviet Union.)"
    .
New American Standard Translation   

  What were the values of the American Standard Version?  After reading the preface I found something interesting as what they did not insist upon!
   After reading the preface you will never find the bible to be declared: Inerrant, Infallible, Preserved,Inspired, Revealed, Authoritative, Holy or even God's Word!  Nothing!  How can you translate a Bible which will be at the heart of millions of souls and forget to mention the fact that this is God's Word unless you did not believe it?  Here is the closest recognition of the preface. 
   In the preface of the New American Standard we see conservative Evangelical presuppositions.  There is Isaiah 40:8 which states that the word of the Lord will last forever.  Then confess their faith in inerrancy. "The New American Standard Bible has been produced with the conviction that the words of scripture as originally penned in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek are inspired by God."
Now obviously throughout the rest of the book the Bible teaches that it is
inspired and this is still with us today.  Yet at least they are recognizing inspiration.  However, there is something a bit more pervasive underlying the intent of this translation.  "Recognizing the values of the American standard version, the Lockman Foundation felt an urgency to preserve these and other lasting values of the ASV by incorporating recent discoveries of Hebrew and Greek textual sources and by rendering it in more current English."


 

"The present volume. it is believed, will on the one hand bring a plain reader more closely into contact with the with the exact thought of the sacred writers than any version now current in Christendom. and on the other hand prove itself especially serviceable to students of the Word."

Now here there are some key words in this statement. First there is a contrast between 'plain reader' and 'students of the Word'.  This version was built not simply for Christians but for non-Christians

as well. But if the Bible is not for religion only, then it is a secular book.   Then he uses the phrase 'sacred authors". Sacred implies that the authors were Holy or to be religiously venerated but it does not say that they were inspired. They were simply holy religious men. Not to mention the fact that they are wanting to find the origin of the Bible within the Apostles and prophets but not in God. Therefore I believe it was the intent of the ASV to present an uninspired secular book and not God's Holy Word. This is a value that contradicts the statements of the Lockman foundation.
   In fact, the author of the NASV preface gave this recantation in public some time before his passing:

“I must, under God, renounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I’m afraid I’m in trouble with the Lord… We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface… I’m in trouble; I can’t refute these arguments; its wrong, terribly wrong… The deletions are absolutely frightening. . .there are so many. Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?
Upon investigation, I wrote my dear friend, Mr. Lockman (editor’s note: Mr. Lockman was the benefactor through which the NASV was published) explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV (editors note: This is the same as the NASB)…” Dr. Frank Logsdon (audio) (this quote is broken up from the sermon but all taken from the sermon.  The whole sermon wholly supports the premise and is encouraged to be listened to.)
https://www.sermonaudio.com/saplayer/playpopup.asp?SID=121091938230   [beginning minute 35-39] Dr. Frank S Logsdon

CHICAGO TRIBUNE Aug. 14, 1987.

Dr. S. Franklin Logsdon, 81, onetime pastor of Moody Church, 1609 N. LaSalle St., died Thursday in Largo, Fla., his home for several years. He was Moody Church`s pastor from 1951 to 1953. Originally from Maryland, he came to Chicago from London, Ontario, where he had been pastor of a Baptist church. After leaving Moody Church he was a pastor of a church in Holland, Mich., and conducted a traveling Bible teaching ministry. He is survived by his wife, Anne; a daughter, Betty Bowman; and two grandchildren. No services are planned.

Can a translation be a modem update and still be considered the most literal?

"When it was felt that the word-for-word literalness was unacceptable to the modern reader. a change was made in the direction of a more current English idiom in the instances where this has been done, the more literal rendering has been indicated in the notes."NASB Preface "Principles of Translation"

So how often has the the NASB been less literal than the translation?  I will count from the book of Genesis alone!  Just to give us an idea of how often the NASB is not the most Literal.  According to their own text notes, after an exhausting study, I have counted about  715 places in the Book of Genesis, that the NASB admitted to not using the most literal translation! Now considering that this was just the first book of the Bible, I do not believe it would be a stretch of the imagination to say that this occurs multiple thousands of times throughout the entire Bible.  Now this is not including passages that they admit could be translated differently. It is also not including the many textual difference in the Old and New Testament.  Now imagine if the NASB is the standard of literal Bible translation among modern bible translation then how loose are the others?

Placing scientific errors in the Bible???
James 3:¹² Can a fig tree, my brethren, produce olives, or a vine produce figs? Nor can salt water produce ^[h]fresh."  NASB
James 3:¹² Can a fig tree produce olives, my brothers and sisters, or a grapevine produce figs? Neither can a saltwater spring yield fresh water." CSB
James 3: ¹² Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh." KJV
   So KJV and modern versions generally agree that a spring for saltwater does not make fresh water.  This makes sense because the spring will gather salt around the edges.  But science refutes the NASB because our rain cycle gathers fresh water from salt water.  What's worse is that NASB is performing a more general translation to create this error! The text never needed to be altered and the result is to make the reader believe that the bible has errors!!

r

        

 The reason the NASB is so loose in a literal translation is that the King James English used was  closer to the thought patterns of the Greek and Hebrew languages.  But in order to have contemporary language NASB and all other Bibles must translate less literally. In fact, the KJV is more archaic in its language than the 1560 Geneva Bible! This was done for the specific purpose of getting closer to the original manuscript!  But, If you want a literal translation it has to have ancient language.                                                                                                                   ·

                                                                                                                                         

"The sheer fact of the matter is that the Bible is an ancient book. not a modern book. To translate it into English in such a way as to make it appear modem is to distort it." Leland Ryken, The Word of God in English.pg.74

New International Version: Dynamic translation and more liberalism 

          A. more liberalism accepted

Not only docs the NIV disagree with the TR on words but it openly disagrees with it's own Aland/Nestle Greek text thousands of times using the translation philosophy

of "formal equivalence". Essentially in this philosophy the exact words are not important only the idea. so each verse is a small paraphrase.  Yet verbal inspiration teaches that the words themselves are inspired of God therefore every word should be translated.

b.    liberal understanding of God's Word

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words:as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, 0 LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation

for ever.

Psa. 12:6"And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of ,

clay purified seven times.  70 LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from  such people forever." NIV

       Here we see the NIV attack the doctrine of verbal inspiration.  Pure Words being removed from the texts the previous use of"words·'may now be spiritualized into the general message being inspired by, not actual words.  Verse seven changes the text entirely only preserving Jews and not the Bible.

Revelation 22:18-19  (AKJV)

¹⁸ For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: ¹⁹ and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Revelation 22:18-19 (NIV)

¹⁸ I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. ¹⁹ And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in_ the tree of life and in_ the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

    Surely the NIVwould heed the warning passage in the book of revelation wouldn't they? Unfortunately they not only messed with the text, but in fact with the warning itself!  Here we see about 6 word changes, one word change with the manuscripts and about two words replaced with the opposite words.  So much for the idea of fidelity to the scripture!

     C. Not so orthodox understanding of salvation

kjv ROMANS 3:²² even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
^{NIVrom 3:22} This righteousness is given through faith in^[a] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile,

   Here we have a warping of the passage for a specific verse in order to change doctrine. What doctrine you might ask? The doctrine of Christ imputed righteousness.  This doctrine is core to how we understand salvation and makes our doctrine of "by grace through faith alone" distinct from Catholicism. Instead of "righteousness of God" we now have "righteousness from God"  Instead of by the "Faith of Christ" we have only our own pathetic "faith in Jesus Christ" which is apparently our righteous work enabling us access to Heaven.  This righteousness is no longer "upon all" since it is our act it must therefore be "in all" as Rome has dictated.

 KJV Romans 3:²⁵ whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

NIV romans 3:25²⁵ God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,^[a] through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 

    This verse I dealt with in the previous chapter on Catholicism. Needless to say the NIV presents us with a gospel of cheap grace and ultimately no assurance of salvation.

d. footnotes

In terms of text criticism the NIV is one of the staunchest translations in the sense that they will erase words  and take passages which are in the TR and declared them spurious.  There are no options to the NIV text it is strictly Westcott and Hort unless they wanted to add and take away words through there translation philosophy.

Today's English Version/Good News for Modern Man 

  The Good News Bible had a high popularity and sold over a hundred million copies. Most recently the movie "The Gospel of John" used the "good news Bible" for it's script.

Main translator Robert Bratcher an apostate.

"Only willfull ignorance or intellectual dishonesty can account for the claim that the Bible is inerrant and infallible... To invest the Bible with the qualities of Innerrancy and infallibility is to idolatrize it, to transform nto a false god ..." (The Baptist Courier, April 2, 1981.The South Carolina Baptist SBC state paper.)

"Jesus Christ would not enjoy omniscience.  That is an attribute of God... Jesus did not claim the Father to be one- which would be absurd" Originally spoken in the Brazillian 'O Jornal Batista'or Baptist Journal: July 9, 1953]  M.L. Moser, Jr.The Devils Masterpiece pg. 7(little Rock Ark.: Challenge Press., 1970.

"If we build our faith wholly on the Bible, then we are building our faith on shifting sand. We must follow the facts or there is nothing else to believe.  We can not literally follow Jesus, only go in his direction'." [The Greenville News (nov.8, 1970).]

  Now unless there was some recantation statement and repentance any one of these statements could only to be held coming from and apostate or non-christian. No one could have the hope of salvation without recognizing Jesus as Lord.

The Message and contemporary paraphrasing

   A.Liberal passage cutting

      Here one of the dangerous aspects of "The Message" is that in his zeal for paraphrasing Eugene Peterson decided to do away with the verse numbering system.  This is supposedly for easy reading but it conceals the specific number of word changes and verses removed from the common reader.  I have come to the point after close revision to believe that "The Message" is even more spurious a translation of the Bible than the Jehovah's Witness "New World Translation"!

  B. Propaganda

KJV Matthew 5:¹⁷ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. ¹⁸ For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. ¹⁹ Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Message Matthew 5:

^17-18 “Don’t suppose for a minute that I have come to demolish the Scriptures—either God’s Law or the Prophets. I’m not here to demolish but to complete. I am going to put it all together, pull it all together in a vast panorama. God’s Law is more real and lasting than the stars in the sky and the ground at your feet. Long after stars burn out and earth wears out, God’s Law will be alive and working.

^19-20 “Trivialize even the smallest item in God’s Law and you will only have trivialized yourself. But take it seriously, show the way for others, and you will find honor in the kingdom......

     ^{The first thing to The Message paraphrase is that it changes "fulfill" to "complete".  Taking away the idea of Jesus fulfilling the  Law personally to earn the righteousness require to impute and save souls. Instead, we have the implied idea of a Lawgiver who is nothing more than a new Moses.  Then we have an extra sentence added regarding how Jesus will put "it" or revelation together in "panorama" which means a complete view.  This could imply that the Old Testament(law and prophets) was not clear revelation.  In verse eighteen "jots and tittles" are removed and replaced with the general term "God's Law" as a result the doctrines of plenary inspiration, infallibility and preservation are removed with only the shadow of "God's Law" lasting until the destruction of the Earth.  Then the word "commandments" is replaced with "law".  Commandments can imply all of the commandments of scripture: yet "God's Law" implies only the Ten Commandments of the first five Books.  The term trivializes and destroys the meaning  of "least" and "great" in the Kingdom of Heaven, abolishing the idea of rank and rewards.  Instead we are warned that not following the makes us basically insignificant. ( so much for unconditional love!)}

    ^{Essentially if Peterson can not translate the doctrine of inspiration from the text of scripture then how can we expect Mr. Peterson to be faithful to God's Word?}

^{C.  Not so fundamental}

^{Here I just want to give a few examples reader to grasp the misleading nature of the Message.  After reading the verses ask yourself if this is the gospel.}

^{kjv colossians 1: 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;"}

^{message Col. 1:19}  So spacious is he, so roomy, that everything of God finds its proper place in him without crowding."

kjv John 1: ¹² But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: ¹³ which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

message John 1:12-13
But whoever did want him,
    who believed he was who he claimed
    and would do what he said,
He made to be their true selves,
    their child-of-God selves.
These are the God-begotten,
    not blood-begotten,
    not flesh-begotten,
    not sex-begotten."

 

^{kjv john 1: 18} No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

 ^{message john 1:}
No one has ever seen God,
        not so much as a glimpse.
    This one-of-a-kind God-Expression,
        who exists at the very heart of the Father,
        has made him plain as day.

^{John 3:16-18} “This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life. God didn’t go to all the trouble of sending his Son merely to point an accusing finger, telling the world how bad it was. He came to help, to put the world right again. Anyone who trusts in him is acquitted; anyone who refuses to trust him has long since been under the death sentence without knowing it. And why? Because of that person’s failure to believe in the one-of-a-kind Son of God when introduced to him.

 John3: ¹⁶ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. ¹⁷ For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. ¹⁸ He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

 Please do not miss the switch from the "everlasting life" being exchanged for "whole and lasting life", Is heaven still part of the Gospel?

KJV John 20:28And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God."

Many Bible College students will remember this as a key verse regarding the debate over the deity of Christ.  Obviously, Jehovah's Witness will have to counter this in their New World translation.

NWT john 20:

²⁸  In answer Thomas said to him: “My Lord and my God!”

The jehovah's witnesses make thomas appear to be saying an expletive! Trying to convince us that thomas was simply shocked and cussing not making a rational declaration.  So whose side will the Message take?

Message John 20:28
²⁸ Thomas said, “My Master! My God!”

 d.  idiomatic erasing of history

  By trying to put the Bible with modern idioms we lose a great deal of the meaning and thought patterns of the Hebrew people.  While I don't feel I have time to deal with these subjects exhaustively.  No Bible Scholar worth their salt could declare this particular "Bible" an authoritative translation, and not a good paraphrase either.

Theology of the text critic position:

Practical Pelagianism

   The neo-evangelical movement has place trust in the objectiveness intellectual honesty  non-christian liberal scholarship.  The fact is that humans are not just people capable of making mistakes but people intent on crime.  If the text is damaged, then it is obvious that people very likely intent on damaging it.

 

"The tragedy of Pickering's work, I believe, is that his important  pertinent questions will tend to be overlooked and dismissed by scholars of textual criticism, who will find many reasons to reject his reconstruction and therefore his Questions..."  the King James Version Debate Don Carson pg. 108

  In this passage Carson is concerned with the viewpoint of liberal scholars acting as if they had fidelity to the truth. Yet if humanity is corrupt and people who follow false gospels are not born again. Then as those who are unregenerate should not they be looked at with more suspicion than christian scholars and not vice-versa?  Yet evangelicals still promote the scholarship of the Hell bound, as if it were superior to the scholarship of the saints.

  Certainly, one may think that there are exceptions to the rule. But how can the opposite be true?  How can moral and spiritual retardation make one by nature more intelligent and reliable? Evangelicals deny fundamentals of the faith on the practical level.  They assume the depravity of man has no effect in reality.

Is Jesus a liar??? 

John 7:⁸ You go up to the feast. I am not^[c] going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come.”
ESV
John 7:⁸ Go up to the festival yourselves. I’m not going up to this festival,^[b] because my time has not yet fully come.”
CSB
    Both translations have the same note.   "7:8 Other mss add yet" So the assumption here is that the alexandrian text is the correct text and the byzantine text adds this word.   Byzantine translations like the NKJV, MEV, KJ21, and Geneva Bibles all have this text.

John 7:⁶ Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready. ⁷ The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil. ⁸ Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. ⁹ When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee.¹⁰ But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret. ¹¹ Then the Jews sought him at the feast, and said, Where is he? ¹² And there was much murmuring among the people concerning him: for some said, He is a good man: others said, Nay; but he deceiveth the people. ¹³ Howbeit no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews." akjv

  So, in the King James Version, the passage is clear and consistent.  Christ was not coming at the same m time as the disciples because if he had they would murder him then and his time had not yet come.  But the critical translations have Christ promise he will not go up.  Then he breaks his promise and secretly goes up.  The pharisees claim he deceives the people.  If he did break his promise then he was deceiving people.  But more than that if he was deceiving people then he was a sinner and not the sinless spotless lamb of God unfit to take away the sin of the world.  Thus by removing 3 letters the gospel of Christ is entirely compromised.

Neo-evangelical versions of Bible Preservation

 "the same thing is true regarding the protection and preservation of the text of the Bible.  One might well see a tremendous amount of divine wisdom in the way in which God worked over the years, By having the text of the New Testament in particular 'explode' across the known world, ending up in far flung corners of the Roman Empire in a relatively short period of time.  God protected that text from the one thing that we could never detect: The wholesale change of doctrine or theology by one particular man or group who had full control over the text at any one point and time in its history.  You see, because the New Testament books were written at various times, and were quickly copied and distributed as soon as they were written, there was never a time when any one man, or group of men, could gather up all the manuscripts and make extensive changes in the text itself, such as cutting out the Deity of Christ or inserting some foreign doctrine or concept. No one could gather up and make them all say the same thing by 'harmonizing' them, either.  If someone had indeed done such a thing, we could never know for certain what the apostles and written, and what the truth actually is.  But such a thing did not and could not happen.  Indeed, by the time did obtain ecclesiastical power in the name of Christianity, texts like p66 or p75 were already long buried in the sands of Egypt, out f reach of anyone who would try to altar them.  The fact that there is nearly identical to even the most 'Byzantine' manuscripts of 1,000years later is testimony to the over-all purity of the New Testament Text." James R. White 'The King James Only Controversy pg. 47-48

     Here James White explains the new-evangelical view of preservation in light of modern critical scholarship methods.  He ends up explaining two different forms of preservation.  Although he doesn't state this clearly, it is obvious the different approaches to text preservation within the camp.

  On the one hand, being hidden away in Egypt and apparently the Vatican specifically preserves the text.  On the other hand text differences are downplayed and the majority of the text was available to the public.  Both of these views are problematic both together and separately.

The Bible shows the text is to be preserved for believer's Assurance of Salvation, which means that they should have access to the Uncorrupted Word.  

1 peter 1:
²³ being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. ²⁴ For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: ²⁵ but the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

  We see from this passage that it is the incorruptible word of God, which gives us the assurance of salvation, not the story with anonymous flaws.  Secondly this word lives and abides forever.  If it is living and enduring then the Word of God has to be active. It can't be locked in a tomb.
   Finally we can not take the Word of God in two different ways.  One in which the word is OK to be flawed with common believers, but without much, if any, error with monks or the Pope.  Since every Believer is a spiritual priest, they deserve equal access to God's Word.