Another King James Bible Believer

Subtitle

 

The True Character of the so called "oldest and best" manuscripts Part Two - John to Revelation.


John 3:25 “the JEWS” or “a JEW”?

The utter confusion of the so called “oldest and best” manuscripts upon which the modern Vatican supervised text versions are based.

King James Bible - “Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples and THE JEWS about purifying.”

ESV (NASB, NIV, NET, Holman, Jehovah Witness NWT, NET) - “Now a discussion arose between some of John's disciples and A JEW over purification."

The word for “the Jews” is ιουδαιων

The word for the singular “a Jew” is ιουδαιου

The last two letters are very different from each other and make all the difference between the plural or the singular in number.

The reading in the Reformation bibles of “with THE JEWS” is that found in the oldest known remaining Greek manuscript - P66, which dates to about 200 A. D. This is 150 years earlier than Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, and about 50 years earlier than P75. It is also the reading found in Sinaiticus original, G, Theta, the Old Latin a, aur, b, c, e, ff2, f, j, r1 and the Vulgate, Ethiopian, Syriac Palestinian, Coptic Boharic, Gothic and Georgian ancient versions.


The reading of “A JEW” (singular) is that found in P75, Sinaiticus correction, A, B, E, F, and several others.

So the differences are widespread, but with the Oldest remaining manuscript and the oldest version - the Old Latin, being in agreement with the KJB reading of “with the JEWS”. YET the modern Vatican Versions reject it.

The Catholic Connection

The older Catholic Douay-Rheims and the 1950 Douay agree with the KJB reading of “with the JEWS” but the modern Catholic versions, which are based on the same Vatican supervised Critical Text as the ESV, NIV, NASB, now read “with A JEW”.

The Greek Textus Receptus of Stephanus 1550, Beza 1598, Elzevir 1624 and Scrivener 1894 as well as the Modern Greek Version all read like the KJB with “the Jews” - μετα ιουδαιων

The Modern Greek version has με Ιουδαιους

Also reading like the KJB “with THE JEWS” are the Anglo Saxon Gospels 990 A.D. - “cum iudeis”, Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Douay-Rheims 1582, the Beza N.T. 1599, Whiston’s N.T. 1745, Wesley’s N.T. 1755, Worsley N.T. 1770, Haweis N.T. 1795, Thomson Translation 1808, The Revised Translation 1815, Young’s 1898, the Clarke N.T. 1913, the NKJV 1982, The Koster Scriptures 1998, God’s First Truth 1999, The Last Days N.T. 1999, World English Bible 2000, the Tomson N.T. 2002, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005 - “the Judeans”, The Faithful N.T 2009, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The Conservative Bible 2010, The New European Version 2010, The Work of God’s Children Bible 2011, The Hebrew Names Version 2014 - “with some Yehudim”, The Modern English Version 2014, The Pioneers’ N.T. 2014, The Hebraic Roots Bible 2015 and the New Matthew bible 2016.

Foreign Language Bibles

Foreign Language Bibles that read like the KJB “with THE JEWS” are The Latin Vulgate 305 A.D. - “cum Judaeis “, Luther’s German bible 1545, the German Schlachter bible 2000 - “zwischen den Jüngern”, Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, Reina Valera 1909-2011 - “y los judíos”, The Italian Diodati 1649, La Nuova Diodati 1991 - “con i Giudei”, the French Martin 1744 and the French Ostervald 1996 - “avec les Juifs”, and The Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada - “e os judeus”

Once again we see that the Critical text versions differ from the Reformation bibles in all languages and they don’t even follow the oldest known Greek manuscript we have - P66 nor the oldest translation - the Old Latin.
John 4:1-3 and the ever changing NIVs and UBS Greek texts -

A rather peculiar case of senseless and arbitrary textual changes is found in John 4:1-3. In the King James Bible, as well as the Majority of all texts including Vaticanus, P66, P75, A and C we read: 1. “When therefore THE LORD (ho kurios) knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, 2. (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) 3. He left Judea, and departed again into Galilee.”


The reading of “the Lord” was even in the Westcott-Hort Greek text and in the earlier critical text Nestle-Aland editions. I have a 4th edition Nestle text from 1934 and it reads “the Lord”. However Sinaiticus and D read “Jesus” instead of “the LORD” and later on the Nestle-Aland, USB critical texts changed their reading to “JESUS knew how the Pharisees had heard...” That is how the Nestle-Aland 27th edition and the UBS 4th edition now read.

This is an example of modern scholarship rejecting even their “oldest” manuscripts and following instead a very minority reading. But wait. There is much more going on here when we compare the various NIV editions to come down the pike lately and how the Catholic bible versions are exerting their influence by producing an “interconfessional” New Testament text through the United Bible Society.


Those Bible translations that read “the LORD knew...” are Tyndale 1525, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Revised Version 1885, the ASV of 1901, the RSV, NASB, NKJV, Darby, Youngs, Rotherham’s Emphasized bible and the NIV editions of 1973, 1977 and 1984, although quite curiously they put this whole reading in verse 3 instead of verse 1.

The NIVs from 1973, 77 and 84 read: 1. “The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, 2. although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples. 3. WHEN THE LORD LEARNED OF THIS {all taken from verse 1 in ALL Greek manuscripts; not one of them reads like the NIV has it} he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee.”

However the “new” NIV of 2011 now has changed their underlying Greek text once again. Instead of having the words “When the LORD learned of this” in verse 3 as all previous NIVs read, they have now put these words back into verse one and changed “the LORD” to “JESUS”. It now reads: 1. “Now JESUS learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John -”

Those versions that read “JESUS knew that...” (instead of “the LORD knew that...”) are the NRSV, ESV, NET, NIV 2011 and the Catholic versions like the Douay, the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985.

Once again we see the fickle and ever changing nature of the so called “science” of textual criticism at work and these Bible Babble Buffet versions don’t even agree among themselves.



John 4:11 KJB - “THE WOMAN saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?”

This example doesn’t have to do with a great change in meaning, but serves to show the utter fickleness of what is called “the science” of textual criticism and the true nature of the so called “oldest and best manuscripts” upon which the modern Vatican supervised text versions like the ESV, NASB, NIV, NET, Holman, etc. are based.

The reading of THE WOMAN - ἡ γυνή (he gunee)- is that found in the majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts including P66 (approx. 200 A.D.), Sinaiticus CORRECTION, A, C, D, E, F, G, H, L, N, Delta, Theta, Phi, the Old Latin a, aureoles, b, c, d, e, f, l, q, the Latin Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta, Palestinian, Harclean, Coptic Boharic, Armenian, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions.

However P75 and Vaticanus completely omit the words “the woman” and Sinaiticus original had the word ἐκείνη, which is the Greek word for “that one” feminine.

So, what we see is that neither Sinaiticus nor Vatianus agree with each other (this happens some 3000 times just in the 4 gospels), and neither P66 nor P75 agree with each other.

P66, which is the oldest remaining Greek text we have agrees with the reading found in the King James Bible and it is the majority reading backed up by multiple and widespread witnesses.

But did Westcott and Hort and their “science” of textual criticism go with the reading of ‘the woman”? Of course not. They chose the reading found in Vaticanus and simply omitted the words “the woman” and instead left the verb by itself and inserted the word “SHE” before it. (Which is fine as long as all you have is a verb by itself).

The Westcott-Hort Critical text looks like this - λεγει αυτω κυριε ουτε αντλημα εχεις και το φρεαρ εστιν βαθυ ποθεν ουν εχεις το υδωρ το ζων

The sentence starts off with the verb “says” standing all by itself. λεγει αυτω = “says to him”. They omitted the oldest and most widespread reading of “the woman says to him”.

But not even the Revised Version of 1881 nor the ASV of 1901 went along with Westcott and Hort but instead stuck to the tradition reading of “THE WOMAN”

Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901 - “THE WOMAN saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?”

So also read Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale, the Great Bible, Matthew’s bible 1549, the Bishops’ bible 1568, the Douay-Rheims bible, the Geneva Bible.

The Nestle Critical Greek text continued to read “she says to him” in the 4th edition 1934 and in the 21st edition 1975. I have hard copies of these and they continued to use the Westcott-Hort text.

However later on, using the same textual evidence they always had, the Nestle-Aland Critical text decided to put the words [ἡ γυνή] in brackets, indicating doubt, and that is the way it now appears in the Nestle-Aland 27th and 28th editions.

But the modern Critical text versions still don’t agree with each other.

Reading “SHE says to him…” are the NASB 1963 - 1995 editions, Rotherham’s bible 1902, Weymouth N.T. 1902, Goodspeed N.T. 1927, the Jehovah Witness NWT 1961 and 2013 editions, the Living Bible 1971, Complete Jewish bible 1998, The Voice 2012.

“THE WOMAN says to him” are the NIV, Holman Standard, RSV 1946-1971, NRSV 1989, NIV 2011, NET 2006, ESV 2001-2016 editions.

The Catholic Versions

Reading “THE WOMAN saith to him” are the Douay-Rheims bible 1610, the Douay Version 1950 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985.

But the 1970 St. Joseph New American bible reads: “SHE says to him”.

What we see here is that of the 4 so called “oldest and best manuscripts” there are three different readings, and the one that is right is not that of either Sinaiticus or Vaticanus.

And we also see that the Critical text editors are willing to change their minds at any time based on the same evidence they have always had before them.



John 5:2 - Bethesda, or Bethzatha, or Bethsaida, or Bedsaidan, or Belzetha?

John 5:2 KJB - “Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue BETHESDA, having five porches.”

BETHESDA (βηθεσδα) is the reading found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts including A, C, E, F, G, H, K, Delta, Theta, Pi, the Old Latin f, q, the Syriac Peshitta, Curetonian, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic and Diatessaron ancient versions.

However Sinaiticus basically alone reads BETHZATHA while Vaticanus has BETHSAIDA, which is no where near Jerusalem but is on the northeast side of the sea of Galilee.

The Catholic Douay Rheims says “called in Hebrew BETHSAIDA”.

P66 originally had Bedsaidan (Βηδσαϊδάν) but was then changed to read Bedsaida (Βηδσαϊδά)

Manuscript D has Belzetha (Βελζεθά)

And Vaticanus and P75, the so called oldest and best, have the absurd reading of Bethsaida, which again was no where near Jerusalem where this event took place.

Westcott and Hort rejected the reading of their favorite Vatican manuscript here because of its obvious error, and instead, rejecting the overwhelming textual evidence for the reading of Bethesda, chose to go with basically one manuscript - Sinaiticus - which reads BETHZATHA - (βηθζαθα)

BUT not even the Revised Version 1881 nor the ASV 1901 followed this reading but stuck to the traditional BETHESDA.

Dan Wallace’s NET version, however, reads: “Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool called BETHZATHA in Aramaic”, thus following the reading of Sinaiticus that still stands in the Nestle-Aland Vatican supervised Critical text.

Other versions that DO follow the Westcott-Hort/UBS/Nestle-Aland Critical text reading of BETHZATHA are the Jehovah Witness NWT, Today’s English Version, the RSV, NRSV, New Century Version, Bible in Basic English, the James Moffatt translation, Contemporary English Version 1995, International Children’s bible 2015, Lexham English bible 2012.

YET versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, ISV do NOT follow even their own UBS/Nestle-Aland reading here but say: “called BETHESDA”, thus agreeing with versions like Wycliffe, Tyndale, the Bishops’ bible, the Geneva Bible, Darby, Young’s, the NKJV and the Modern English Version to name but a few.
What we see in this instance is the total disagreement found among the so called “oldest and best” manuscripts upon which the Vatican supervised Critical text versions are generally based.

Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, P66, A and D all disagree with each other giving us 6 different readings for the name of this one town called Bethesda.



NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV - "How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from THE ONLY GOD?"

Besides mistranslating the verse, the so called “oldest and best mss.” - P66, P75 and Vaticanus omit the word GOD. But the versions retain the word anyway and it is found in Sinaiticus, A, D and the Majority of all Greek manuscripts.


John 5:44 - "How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from GOD ONLY?"

NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV - "How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from THE ONLY GOD?"

Besides mistranslating the verse, the so called “oldest and best mss.” - P66, P75 and Vaticanus omit the word GOD. But the versions retain the word anyway and it is found in Sinaiticus, A, D and the Majority of all Greek manuscripts.



See John 5:44 “the honour that cometh from God only?”



Did Jesus Lie?

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

Vaticanus, as well as P66, 75, and the majority of all texts read as does the KJB with: "I go not up YET unto this feast", and so do the Revised Version 1881, Geneva, Tyndale, Bishops', Coverdale, the NIV 1982 edition, Holman Standard 2003, the 2005 ISV (International Standard Version), Young, Weymouth, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902.

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

 And now the "new" NIV of 2011 has once again changed their underlying Greek texts and they now read "I AM NOT GOING up to this festival" and then He goes. The Catholic bibles read this way too, making Jesus a liar. These are the Catholic Douay-Rheims, the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985.

Daniel Wallace's NET version has the Lord saying He is NOT going to the feast, and then going. But the thinking of such "scholars" is revealed in his own footnotes where he says: " Most mss (P66,75 B L T W 070 0105 0250 Ë1,13 Ï sa), including most of the better witnesses, have “not yet” here. Those with the reading "not" (ouk) are not as impressive ( D K 1241 al lat), but "ouk" is the more difficult reading here, especially because it stands in tension with v. 10." So, in other words, because it absurdly makes our Lord Jesus a liar, it must be right!

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

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

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



John 7:10 More proof that the new Vatican Versions do not always follow the oldest known texts.

KJB - “But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but AS IT WERE in secret.


“But as in secret” .= αλλα ως εν κρυπτω

This little word ὡς means “as it were” and is the reading found in the Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts including P66, P75 and Vaticanus.

However Sinaiticus omits the word ὡς meaning “as it were”

So, once again the so called “oldest and best” manuscripts do not agree with each other and neither do the modern versions that are based upon them.

This again is not an example of extremely different meanings, but rather it shows the inconsistencies of the so called “oldest and best manuscripts” and the falsely called “science” of textual criticism.

Westcott and Hort originally had this word in their Greek text and NOT in brackets. So too with the Nestle 4th edition 1934 and the 21st edition 1975. But now the Nestle-Aland 27th and 28th editions put this little word [in brackets] indicating doubt as to its authenticity.

Why do they now put this word in [brackets] when they are looking at the same textual information they have always had?

Among those versions that read that Jesus went up to the feast, not openly, BUT AS IT WERE in secret.” Are the Geneva bible, Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, Young’s, Darby, Lamsa’s 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the NASB 1995, NKJV 1982, International Standard Version 2014 - “he went up himself, not openly but, as it were,[a] in secret.” Footnotes: [a] John 7:10 Other mss. lack as it were”

Those that omit these words are the ESV 2001-2016- “then he also went up, not publicly but in private.” The RSV 1946-1971, the NIV 1984 - 2011, Dan Wallace’s NET version 2006, Holman Standard 2009, and the Modern English Version 2014.

Notice that the RSV 1946-1971 omitted the words - “then he also went up, not publicly but in private.”

Then the NRSV 1989 put them back in - “But after his brothers had gone to the festival, then he also went, not publicly but AS IT WERE[a] in secret.” Footnotes: [a] John 7:10 Other ancient authorities lack as it were


Then the ESV 2001-2016 editions have once again taken them out - “But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in private.”

The Catholic Connection

The older Douay-Rheims 1582, the Douay 1950 and the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 all include these words - “then he also went up, not publicly, but AS IT WERE privately.”

But the Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 now omits these words, reading - “he went up as well, not publicly but secretly.”

The Jehovah Witness Connection

The JW New World Translation is based on the same Vatican supervised Greek text as are the ESV, NASB, NIV, NET, etc.

The 1961 edition reads: “ then he also went up himself, not openly, but AS in secret.”

But the Jehovah Witnesses updated their NWT in their 2013 Revision and it now reads like the ESV, with: “then he also went up, not openly but in secret.”

This is the fickle nature of the corrupt and divergent textual readings found in the so called “oldest and best manuscripts” that don’t even agree with each other and upon which the modern Vatican supervised text versions are based.

These examples show the bogus nature of the so called “science” of textual criticism that is behind them.
John 8:16 - "And if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and THE FATHER that sent me."

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

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

However, Sinaiticus original (which was later corrected to include the words) as well as manuscript D (well known for its numerous oddities) omit the words "the Father" and so do a number of modern versions.

The interesting thing is that the Nestle-Aland critical texts keep on changing every few years and so does the NASB, which is based upon them.

When Westcott and Hort came out with their new critical text, they originally put the Greek words for "the Father" [in brackets], indicating doubt about their inspiration. Tischendorf completely omitted the word from his Greek text.


Then in many later editions of the Nestle-Aland critical texts, they completely omitted the words "the Father" from their text. I have hard copies of the Nestle Greek text 4th edition 1934 and the Nestle Greek text 21st edition 1975. In both of these the word for "FATHER" (πατήρ) is completely omitted. It is not even in [brackets]

BUT now, based upon the same evidence they have ALWAYS had, the critical text "scholars" have put the words "the Father" back into the UBS/Nestle-Aland 27th edition text, and this time not even in brackets. That makes for THREE changes in the critical text editions over the years concerning just one word in the Greek - Father - pater. (πατήρ)

The words "but I and THE FATHER that sent me" are found in the following Bible translations: Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the KJB, Douay, Darby, Youngs, the Revised Version of 1881 (though WH bracketed the words, the RV included them in their version), the ASV of 1901, the "Rock of Biblical Honesty" [What a joke!] of the NASB, the NKJV, NIV, NRSV 1989, and the ESV of 2001.

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

However, the NASB omitted the words "the Father" from all 8 of their revisions dating from 1963 till 1977. For all those years the NASB read: "for I am not alone in it, but I and HE WHO sent Me".

In other words, the NASB "scholars", in spite of all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, omitted the word "Father" and followed the reading of manuscript D in this place. But wait! Now once again in 1995 the NASB has changed and it now includes the word. The 1995 edition of the NASB now reads: "but I and THE FATHER who sent Me."

Other bible versions that omit the words "the Father" and read things like "the One who" or "he who sent me" are the Revised Standard Version (but the later NRSV, and ESV put the words "the Father" back in), the Revised English Bible of 1989, the New English Bible of 1970, the Catholic versions of New American bible 1970, the Jerusalem bible 1969 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985, the New Berkeley version, The Voice 2012, and ISV 2014 - International Standard Version.

These guys just can't seem to get their act together, can they.

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

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

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

The readings found in the King James Bible in verses 38-39 are those of the Majority of all Greek texts, and those found in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1599, King James Bible, the NKJV 1982, Noyes Translation 1869, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the ASV 1901, Green's Modern KJV, Hebrew Names Bible, the Spanish Reina Valera and Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta.

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

"I speak that which I have seen with MY Father" is the reading of the Majority of all texts including Sinaiticus, E, F, G, H, K, N, Delta, Theta, Psi, the Old Latin a, aur, e, f, ff2, the Syriac Peshitta, Palestinian, Herculean, the Gothic, Armenian, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions. It is also in the Diatessaron and is so quoted by Tertullian and Augustine.

However Vaticanus, along with P66 and P75, omits "MY" (μου) and reads "THE" Father (τῷ).

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

"that which ye have seen with YOUR father" (humoon- ὑμῶν) is the Majority reading plus Sinaiticus, D, E, F, G, H, N, Delta, Psi, the Old Latin a, aur, b, c, e, ff2, l, q, the Syriac Peshitta, Sinaitic, Palestinian, Herculean, Ethiopian and Slavonic ancient versions but Vaticanus reads "THE father" (tou).

John 8:39 - "IF YE WERE Abraham's seed, YE WOULD DO the works of Abraham."

The words "if YE WERE" (Εἰ ἦτε) are in the subjunctive mood in the Majority and C texts, and this means that they are NOT Abraham's seed. It is a contrary to fact construction. It's like the song - "IF I WERE a rich man..." But I'm not.

However Sinaiticus and Vaticanus read in the indicative mood "If YOU ARE Abraham's children" (ei este). This means that they could be his children.

Then in the second part of this verse the words "YE WOULD DO" (epoiete) again implies "contrary to fact" and agree with the previous verb in the subjunctive mood. So read the Majority, P75 and Sinaiticus, plus the Vaticanus correction.

However Vaticanus original and P66 read "YOU DO" (poiete) in the indicative mood, and make it a command "DO". The older Westcott-Hort, Nestle-Aland texts used to read "DO" (poieite - ποιεῖτε). I have hard copies of the Nestle 4th edition 1934 and the 21st edition 1975 and both clearly say DO ποιεῖτε. This is the reading of P66 and Vaticanus original.

BUT the Majority of all texts as well as the traditional Reformation Bibles, the TR, P75, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus correction read "If ye WERE Abraham's children YE WOULD DO the works of Abraham." ἐποιεῖτε = ye would do. This means that they were not doing them, and that is because they were not the true children of Abraham.

AND NOW the Nestle-Aland, UBS, Vatican Critical text has once again changed their Greek text and in the 27th and 28th editions they now have what the King James Bible had all along - "YOU WOULD DO the works of Abraham" - τὰ ἔργα τοῦ ἀβραὰμ ἐποιεῖτε


MODERN VERSION CONFUSION

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

ASV - "I speak the things which I have seen with MY Father, and ye also do the things which ye HEARD from your father. They answered and said unto him, Our father is Abraham. Jesus saith unto them, IF YE WERE Abraham's children, YE WOULD DO the works of Abraham."

Even though Westcott-Hort did NOT read this way in verse 39, yet the ASV followed the traditional Reformation text here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMPARISONS

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

THE Father - Catholic St. Joseph, Douay, NET, NIV, NRSV, Holman - Vaticanus

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

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

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

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

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

IF YOU ARE....DO --- Not contrary to fact. They are or could be Abraham's children, so they should do. - Catholic Douay, NASB - "do" - Vaticanus

The Catholic Connection

We see the typical total confusion in the ever changing Catholic versions as well. I will compare two of them so you can plainly see it.

The Catholic Douay Version 1950 reads in John 8:38-39 - "I speak what I have seen with THE Father; and you do what you have SEEN with your father." They answered and said to him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "IF YOU ARE the children of Abraham, DO the works of Abraham."

But the 1970 Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible reads: "I tell you what I have seen in THE Father's presence; you do what you have HEARD from your father." They retorted, "Our father is Abraham." Jesus told them, "IF YOU WERE Abraham's children, YOU WOULD BE following Abraham's example."

What we see here with this so called "science" of textual criticism, is that the so called "oldest and best manuscripts" are in constant disagreement with each other, and the textual "scholars" behind the ever changing UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican critical text are constantly changing their texts. And these textual changes are NOT due to some "further discovery of some ancient manuscripts", but rather to the fickle fact that they just changed their minds!

W. M. Pickering significantly notes that in the space of three years (1975-1978), "with no significant addition of new evidence, THE SAME GROUP OF FIVE SCHOLARS CHANGED THEIR MINDS IN OVER FIVE HUNDRED PLACES. IT IS HARD TO RESIST THE SUSPECION THAT THEY ARE JUST GUESSING." - The Identity of the New Testament Text, revised edition, Thomas Nelson, Nashville, p. 209, footnote 5 for chapter 1.



More “oldest and best” foolishness.

“YOUR God” or “OUR God”?

John 8:54 KJB - “Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is YOUR God”

YOUR God - θεος υμων

YOUR God is the reading of the Textus Receptus, P66, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus original, D, F, X, Psi, many Old Latin copies and the Diatessaron.

However P75, A and Vaticanus correction and D read OUR God - θεὸς ἡμῶν

Thus once again we see that the so called “oldest and best manuscripts” disagree with each other.

When Westcott and Hort came out with their new Greek text they originally had YOUR God (θεος υμων) which agrees with the Textus Receptus. And so read the Revised Version 1881 and the ASV of 1901.

You can see the original Westcott-Hort Greek text here -

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A54&version=WHNU

“ον υμεις λεγετε οτι θεος υμων εστιν”

But later on the Nestle Greek text changed this to now read OUR God - (θεὸς ἡμῶν) and that is how the Critical Text reads today.


Reading “that he is YOUR God” are Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, the Great Bible, Matthew’s Bible, the Bishops’ bible, the Geneva Bible, the KJV, Revised Version 1881, the ASV 1901, Weymouth 1902, Rotherham’s bible 1902, Goodspeed 1923, The RSV 1946-1971, THE NIV 1984 and 2011 editions - “whom you claim as YOUR God”, Young’s 1898, Bible in Basic English 1961, New Life Version 1969, NKJV 1982, New Century Version 2005, Modern English Version 2014 and The Passion Translation 2017.

BUT the ESV, NASB, NET, Holman Standard 2009, the ISV 2014 now read “of whom you say, ‘He is OUR God’, Footnotes: Some manuscripts YOUR God”. (ESV 2001 edition)

Even the RSV 1946-1971 read “of whom you say that he is YOUR God”, but now the ESV changed this to “whom you claim as OUR God”

The Catholic Connection

The older Douay-Rheims 1582, the Douay 1950 and the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 all read “of whom you say that he is YOUR God”, but the New Jerusalem bible 1985 now reads “He is OUR God.”


“HAST THOU SEEN ABRAHAM?” Or “HAS ABRAHAM SEEN YOU?”

John 8:57 KJB - “Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and HAST THOU SEEN ABRAHAM?”

So read the TR and the Westcott-Hort Critical text as well as P66, Sinaiticus correction, Vaticanus, A, C and D.

However P75 and Sinaiticus original actually say “HAS ABRAHAM SEEN YOU?

John 8:57 New Living Translation (NLT) - :The people said, “You aren’t even fifty years old. How can you say you have seen Abraham?[a]”. Footnotes: [a] 8:57 Some manuscripts read How can you say Abraham has seen you?

See also ESV 2001 edition - "and have you seen Abraham?" Footnote: "Some manuscripts "has Abraham seen you?"

The James Moffat translation of 1913, a Critical text version, actually adopted this reading and said: “You are not fifty years old, and ABRAHAM HAS SEEN YOU?”

And so did the J.B. Phillips New Testament of 1972 - “you are not fifty yet, and HAS ABRAHAM SEEN YOU?”

So does the Worldwide English New Testament 1998 - “The Jewish leaders said to him, `You are not fifty years old yet. HOW COULD ABRAHAM SEE YOU?”

And do does Eugene Peterson’s The Message of 2002 - “The Jews said, “You’re not even fifty years old—AND ABRAHAM SAW YOU?”

Folks, this is the mess you get yourself into once you become your own authority and engage in the “science” of textual criticism based on “the oldest and best manuscripts”, which are in constant disagreement with each other.


Get yourself the King James Bible and stick to it. You will never go wrong.


John 9:4 KJB - "I must do the works of him that sent ME, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work."

John 9:4 ESV - "WE must work the works of him who sent ME while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work."

The reading of "I" must do the works of him that sent "ME" (ἐμὲ δεῖ... πέμψαντός με) is that found in the Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts as well as Sinaiticus correction, A, C, E, F, G, H, K, N, Syriac Peshitta, the Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian and Slavonic ancient translations and the Diatessaron. It is so quoted by such early church writers as Hilary, Basil, Ambrose, Chrysostom and Augustine.

However Vaticanus differs from both Sinaiticus and P66 and P75. Vaticanus says "WE must do the works of him that sent ME", but P66 and P75 say "WE must do the works of him that sent US"! So what we see here is total confusion among the so called "oldest and best".

The Traditional Reformation Greek text read "I must do the works of him that sent ME" - Ἐμὲ δεῖ ἐργάζεσθαι τὰ ἔργα τοῦ πέμψαντός με .

However Westcott and Hort went with "WE must do the works of him that sent ME" - ἡμᾶς δεῖ ἐργάζεσθαι τὰ ἔργα τοῦ πέμψαντός με", but Tischendorf's Greek text went with "WE must do the works of him that sent US" - ἡμᾶς δεῖ ἐργάζεσθαι τὰ ἔργα τοῦ πέμψαντός ἡμᾶς

The Vatican Versions that follow the UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican critical Greek text and read "WE must do the works of him that sent ME" are the RSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, Jehovah Witness New World Translation and the Common English Bible. The Holman Standard has - We[a] must do the works of Him who sent Me[b] while it is day. Night is coming when no one can work." Footnotes: a. John 9:4 Other mss read "I". b. John 9:4 Other mss read "us".

Agreeing with the reading found in the King James Bible are the Anglo Saxon Gospels 900 A.D - 1200 A.D. - "Me gebyrað to wyrceanne þæs weorc þe me sende ", Wycliffe 1395 - "It bihoueth me to worche the werkis of hym that sente me", Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549 - " I must work the workes of hym that sente me", the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Douay-Rheims Bible 1582, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "I must worke the workes of him that sent me", The Beza N.T. 1599, Mace's N.T. 1729, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Worsley 1770, Living Oracles 1835, the Etheridge 1849, Murcock 1852 and Lamsa 1933 translations of the Syriac Peshitta - "I must do the works of him that sent ME", the Aramaic Bible in Plain English, Julia Smith Translation 1855, Darby 1890, Youngs 1898, the NKJV 1982, the KJV 21st Century 1994, Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Laurie N.T. 1998, The Last Days N.T. 1999, the Tomson N.T. 2002, the Apostolic Bible Polyglot Greek Bible 2003, the Emphatic Diaglott N.T., the Pickering N.T. 2005, A Conservative Version 2005, Bond Slave Version 2009, the 2009 English Majority Text Version, the Concordant Literal Version 2009, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, the Jubilee Bible 2010, Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, Conservative Bible 2010, Work of God's Children Bible 2011, the World English Bible 2012, Hebrew Names Version 2014, The Far Above All Translation 2014, the Modern English Version 2014 and the New Matthew Bible 2016.



Foreign Language Bibles

Numerous foreign language bible follow the Traditional Reformation text and read "I must do the works of him that sent me" are Luther's German Bible 1545 and the 2000 German Schlachter Bible - "Ich muß Wirken die Werke des, der mich gesandt hat", the French Martin 1744, French Ostervald 1996 and the Louis Segond of 2007 - "Il me faut faire les oeuvres de celui qui m'a envoyé, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602 and Reina Valera 1909-1995 - " Me es necesario hacer las obras del que me envió", the Italian Diodati 1649, La Nuova Diodati 1991 and the Riveduta of 2006 - "Bisogna che io compia le opere di colui che mi ha mandate", the Russian Synodal Version - "Мне должно делать дела Пославшего Меня", the Tagalog Ang Dating Biblia 1905 - "Kinakailangan nating gawin ang mga gawa niyaong nagsugo sa akin" , the Afrikaans Bible 1953 - "Ek moet die werke doen van Hom wat My gestuur het", the 2009 Romanian Fidela Bible - "Eu trebuie să lucrez faptele celui ce m-a trimis cât este ziuă",

the Modern Greek Bible - "Εγω πρεπει να εργαζωμαι τα εργα του πεμψαντος με"

and the Modern Hebrew Bible - עלי לעשות מעשי שלחי בעוד יום יבוא הלילה אשר בו לא יוכל איש לפעל


The Catholic Connection

"I must do the works of him that sent ME" is the reading found in the Catholic Douay-Rheims of 1582, the 1950 Douay Version and even the 1968 Jerusalem bible read this way.



However since the new Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB and the modern Catholic versions are all based on the same "inter confessional" texts set up by the Vatican, the more modern St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 now read "WE must do the works of him that sent ME." But they are not done yet. Now the latest 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version and come out and it goes back to " I must work the works of him who sent ME."

Tertullian, Against Praxeas - trans by Peter Holmes (1870)
http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-43.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=nlcPAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA383

"In like manner He declares, in the case of the man born blind, "that He must do the works of the Father which had sent Him; and after He had given the man sight, He said to him, " Dost thou believe in the Son of God?" (ch. xxii)

John Gill comments: "I must work the works of him that sent me,.... This shows, that the works of God, that were to be manifest, were to be done by Christ: many were the works which the Father gave him to do, and which he undertook to perform; and therefore there was a necessity of doing them, as principally the work of redemption, by fulfilling the law, and satisfying justice: and besides this, there were the preaching of the Gospel, and doing of miracles, and among these was this of giving sight to the blind, see Isaiah 35:5, both in a natural and spiritual sense: and with a view to this he speaks of the works he mast do."


Jamieson, Faussett and Brown - " I must work the works of him that sent me, &c.—a most interesting statement from the mouth of Christ; intimating, (1) that He had a precise work to do upon earth, with every particular of it arranged and laid out to Him."

John Calvin - "I must work the works of him who hath sent me. He now testifies that he has been sent for the purpose of manifesting the kindness of God in giving sight to the blind man...He therefore employs the word Day to denote the time which the Father had fixed, during which he must finish the work assigned him."

The King James Bible is right, as always.

John 9:38 - The blind man healed and his response to Jesus. In John 9:38-39 we read: "AND HE SAID, LORD, I BELIEVE. AND HE WORSHIPPED HIM. AND JESUS SAID, For judgment I am come into the world, that they which see might not see; and that they which see might be made blind."

This again is just one more of the multiple examples of where the fickle and contradictory "oldest and best" manuscripts upon which most modern versions like the ever-changing NASB, and others like the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, and Holman Standard are based.

The entire verse and part of the next one read: "And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him. And Jesus said..." This is the reading found in the Majority of all Greek texts including P66, A, Vaticanus, D, Sinaiticus correction, plus numerous other uncial copies. It is also the reading found in most Old Latin copies, the Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Palestinian, Coptic Sahidic, Boharic, Gothic, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic and Ethiopian ancient versions.

The entire verse is found in every Bible version I have consulted, including the NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NKJV, and Holman Standard.

However both P75 and Sinaiticus original (it was later corrected to include the verse) omit the entire verse of John 9:38 and part of 9:39. So too do the Diatessaron, and a few of the Old Latin witnesses, though it is included in most of them.

Daniel Wallace's NET version places all these words in brackets, thus casting doubt as to their authenticity. He then footnotes: "Some early and important witnesses lack the words, “He said, ‘Lord, I believe,’ and he worshiped him. Jesus said,” (vv. 38-39a). THIS IS WEIGHTY EVIDENCE FOR THE OMISSION OF THESE WORDS. " (Caps are mine). He then continues: "It is difficult to overstate the value of P75 here, since it is the only currently available papyrus ms. extant for the text of John 9:38-39." (Note: this is a lie. P66 also exists and it includes the words Daniel Wallace would have us doubt).

He goes on: "Further, Sinaiticus is an important and early Alexandrian witness for the omission." (Note: Then why was it later altered to include the verse?) He continues: "The versional testimony and codex W also give strong support to the omission. Nearly all other mss, however, include these words. The omission may have been occasioned by parablepsis (both vv. 37 and 39 begin with “Jesus said to him”), though it is difficult to account for such an error across such a wide variety of witnesses. On the other hand, the longer reading appears to be motivated by liturgical concerns (so R. E. Brown, John [AB], 1:375), since the verb proskunew, “I worship”) is used in John 4:20-25 of worshiping God, and again with the same sense in 12:20. If these words were authentic here, this would be the only place in John’s Gospel where Jesus is the explicit object of proskunew. Nevertheless, a decision is difficult, and the included words may reflect a very early tradition about the blind man’s response to Jesus."

Daniel Wallace and men like him are willing to overlook all the evidence, and even to lie about it, and then conclude that the whole verse and more "appears to be motivated by liturgical concerns" and "may reflect a very early tradition". In other words, it probably isn't inspired Scripture, but was later added by well meaning men, so let's keep it in our versions, but continue to cast doubt about its authenticity! This is the type of thinking of we find in the men who continue to churn out the ever changing modern versions, none of which any of them believes to be the complete, inspired and inerrant preserved words of the living God.


More examples of how the so called "oldest and best" manuscripts constantly disagree with each other.



John 10:17-18 - “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man TAKETH IT from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.”

It is obvious that the Lord had not yet died and He emphatically states that “no man TAKETH IT from me, but I lay it down of myself.” This is the reading found in the vast majority of all Greek manuscripts including P66, Sinaitic correction, A, D, K, L, W, X and the Majority of all cursive as well as uncial manuscripts. It is the only reading that makes logical sense.

However, believe it or not, the Vatican manuscript B as well as the Sinaitic original (before it was corrected by another scribe) and P45 have the non-nonsensical reading of a past tense verb here and say “No man HAS TAKEN it from me, but I lay it down on my own initiative” and this is how the NASB actually reads. The only other version I am aware of that reads this way is the Jehovah Witness Watchtower version of 1961.

The “science” of textual criticism does it’s usual “change at any moment” routine with this verse. Westcott and Hort originally adopted the past tense reading from Vaticanus and had “no man TOOK it from me” and so too the previous Nestle-Aland texts (4th edition 1934 and 21st edition 1975) adopted the reading of Vaticanus and said “no man HAS TAKEN it away” = eeren (ηρεν).

But later on the same Nestle-Aland text ‘scholars’ (27th edition) and the UBS I and UBS IV editions went back to reading the present tense verb “no man TAKES IT AWAY” = airei (αιρει). This is how the present day critical text reads and it is the reading that has always been in the King James Bible.


Agreeing with the King James Bible’s “no man TAKETH it away from me, but I lay it down of myself” are the following Bible translations: Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Bishops’s Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the King James Bible, the Revised Version 1881 (even though Westcott and Hort had “took” the Revision committee did not go with the WH reading), the ASV of 1901 - the predecessor to the NASB .

Also agreeing with the reading found in the King James Bible are all Catholic versions including the Douay-Rheims, the Douay, the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985. After all, this is how the present Nestle-Aland, UBS critical texts now read.

Also in agreement with the KJB reading are Darby, Youngs, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the RSV, the NRSV, ESV 2001, the NKJV 1982, the Holman Standard 2003, the NIV 1984 and 2011 editions, Daniel Wallace’s NET versions and the brand new ISV - International Standard Version.

The manuscript tradition is overwhelmingly on the side of the reading found in the King James Bible - “no man TAKETH it away” as opposed to the very minor reading found in the Vatican manuscript B and P45. Once again, the only versions that seem to follow this non-nonsensical reading are the NASB and the Jehovah Witness New World Translation put out by the Watchtower Society in 1961.

Even the Jehovah Witness 2013 edition has now changed this to read: "No man TAKES IT AWAY from me".

Let's examine just SOME of the textual differences between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in this one chapter of John 10.

In John 10:4 we read: "And when he putteth forth his SHEEP..."

Instead of "his sheep" Vaticanus reads "ALL HIS OWN" (NASB, NIV, ESV, omitting "sheep"), while Sinaiticus simply reads "his own", omitting both ALL and SHEEP.

10:7 "Then Jesus said UNTO THEM AGAIN, Verily, verily, I am the door of the sheep." Here Sinaiticus omits AGAIN but has "UNTO THEM", while Vaticanus omits UNTO THEM, but has AGAIN.

10:8 "All that ever came BEFORE ME (pro emou) are thieves and robbers." Here Sinaiticus omits "before me" but it is found in Vaticanus.

10:10 "I am come that they may have life." Here Sinaiticus adds ETERNAL life, but no version follows it here.

10:12-13 "and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth THE SHEEP. THE HIRELING FLEETH because he is an hireling." Here both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit all the capitalized words, and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV replacing them with made up words like "they" or "he".

10:16 "and THERE SHALL BE one fold, and one shepherd." "There shall be" is the singular geneesEtai, and this used to be the Nestle text reading as well as the Majority, P66, A, and Sinaiticus original. It is still the reading of the NIV, ESV.

However, the Nestle text has once again changed and now the verb is plural geneesONtai, following Vaticanus, and the NASB says: "and THEY SHALL BE one flock, and one shepherd."

10:18 "No man TAKETH IT from me, but I lay it down of myself." So read the majority of texts, P66, A, D, Sinaiticus correction and the newer Nestle text. This is also the reading of the NIV, ESV. The older Nestle texts used to follow Vaticanus and the NASB still does which has the absurd reading of "no man TOOK IT from me, but I lay it down of myself."

10:26 "But ye believe not, because ye are not my sheep, AS I SAID UNTO YOU."

The words "as I said unto you" - καθως ειπον υμιν - refer back to John 8:39-47, and are found in the Majority of all texts, A, D, E, F, G, H, X, Delta, Psi, and P66 original, which is the oldest known Greek manuscript we have.

These words are also found in the Old Latin a, b, d, e, f, ff2, l, r1, the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, some Coptic Boharic, the Ethiopian, the Diatessaron, the Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions.

But Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and P75 omit these words and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV, NET, Jehovah Witness New World Translation, the Catholic versions, Holman Standard.

Bibles that include all these words are Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ bible 1568, the Geneva bible 1587, Beza N.T. 1599, Whiston’s N.T. 1745, Worsley N.T. 1770, Haweis N.T. 1795, Pickering N.T. 1840, Julia Smith Translation 1855, Sawyer N.T. 1858, The Revised N.T. 1862, Noyes N.T. 1869, The Alford N.T. 1870, The Revised English Bible 1877, Darby 1890, Young’s 1898, Lamsa’s Syriac Peshitta translation 1933,the NKJV 1982, Worldwide English N.T. 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, Laurie Translation 1998, God’s First Truth 1999, World English Bible 2000, Tomson N.T. 2002, Apostolic Polyglot bible 2003, Complete Apostle’s bible 2005, the Pickering N.T. 2005, Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, the Mebust Bible 2007, The Conservative Bible 2010, the Jubilee bible 2010, The Hebrew Transliteration bible 2010, The English Majority Text 2013, Modern English Version 2014, The Far Above All Translation 2014, Hebrew Names Version 2014, The Hebraic Roots Bible 2015, The Passion Translation 2017 and the Evangelical Heritage Version 2017.

Foreign Language Bibles

Foreign language bibles that include these words are Luther’s German bible 1545, the German Schlachter bible 2000 - “wie ich euch gesagt habe.”, the Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, Reina Valera 1960-1995 - “como os he dicho.”, the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1998 and the French Louis Second 2007 - “comme je vous l'ai dit.”, the Italian Diodati 1649, La Nuova Diodati 1991 and the Italian Nuova Riveduta 2006 - “come vi ho detto.”, the Portuguese A Biblia Satgrada and the Almeida Corrigida 2009 - “como já vo-lo tenho dito.”, the Hungarian Karoli bible - “A mint megmondtam néktek”, the Polish Updated Gdansk Bible 2013 - “jak wam powiedziałem.”, the Russian Synodal Version - “как Я сказал вам.”, the Czeck Kralicka bible - “jakož jsem vám pověděl.”, the Dutch Staten Vertaling bible - “gelijk Ik u gezegd heb.”, the Smith & van Dyck’s Arabic bible - “ولكنكم لستم تؤمنون لانكم لستم من خرافي كما قلت لكم.”, Veren’s Contemporary Bulgarian Bible - “както ви казах.”

The Modern Greek Version - “καθως σας ειπον.”

And the Modern Hebrew Version - אבל אתם לא תאמינו יען לא מצאני אתם כאשר אמרתי לכם׃

10:29 "My Father, WHICH GAVE THEM ME, is greater than all." These words are missing from Sinaiticus, but found in Vaticanus.

10:38 "that ye may know AND BELIEVE, that the Father is in me, and I in him." Here the majority, A, and Sinaiticus read "that ye may know and BELIEVE", but Vaticanus says "that you may know AND KNOW, that the Father is in me" - (ινα γνωτε και γινωσκητε) - and the NASB, NIV, ESV have followed Vaticanus rendering it as "that you may know and UNDERSTAND that the Father is in me..."

These are just A FEW of the textual differences in this chapter alone between "the oldest and best manuscripts" that form the ever changing and conflicting texts of the modern bible versions.

John 12:1 KJB and the Reformation Bibles - “Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, WHICH HAD BEEN DEAD, whom HE raised from the dead.”

“WHICH HAD BEEN DEAD” - ο τεθνηκως

ESV (NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, Jehovah Witness NWT, Catholic St. Joseph NAB 1970, New Jerusalem bible 1985) - “Six days before the Passover, Jesus therefore came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom JESUS had raised from the dead.”

This is another case where the modern Vatican supervised text versions do NOT follow the oldest reading we know of.

The words that mean “WHICH HAD BEEN DEAD” - ο τεθνηκως- are found in the Majority of all remaining manuscripts as well as A, D, E, G, H, K, Delta, Pi, Psi, the Old Latin b, d, f, ff2, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Sinaiticus, Harclean, Coptic Boharic, Gothic, Armenian, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions as well as in P66 which is about 150 years older than the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus mss.

This is the text of the Reformation bibles in all languages as well as the earlier Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims 1582 and the Douay Version 1950.

Agreeing with the King James Bible reading of “WHICH HAD BEEN DEAD” are Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, Douay-Rheims 1582, the Geneva Bible 1587, Wesley’s N.T. 1755, Young’s 1898, the NKJV 1982, The Koster Scriptures 1998, World English Bible 2000, The Pickering N.T. 2005 the Apostolic Polyglot bible 2003, The Conservative Bible 2010, The Hebrew Transliteration Bible 2010, Modern English Version 2014, and the Evangelical Heritage Version 2017 to name just a few of them.

John 13:18 “eateth bread WITH ME” OR “eats MY bread”?

KJB and Reformation bibles - “ I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth BREAD WITH ME hath lifted up his heel against me.”

ESV (NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, Jehova Witness NWT) - “ I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But the Scripture will be fulfilled, ‘He who ate MY BREAD has lifted his heel against me.’

This is a textual difference. Not just a different way of translating the same Greek text.

The reading of “eateth bread WITH ME” is (μετ εμου)

The other variant reading is MY bread - (μου)

The reading of “bread WITH ME” is that of the Majority of all Greek manuscripts including P66 (which is the oldest), Sinaiticus, A, D, E, F, G, H, K, W, Delta, Theta, Pi, Psi, the Old Latin a, aur, b, c, d, f, ff2, l, r1, the Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Palestinian, some Coptic Boharic, the Gothic, Armenian, Slavonic ancient versions, the Diatessaron.



The ones that say MY bread, instead of WITH ME are Vaticanus, C and L. So once again the so called “oldest and best” do not agree among themselves.

Reading like the KJB and the Reformation bibles - “he that eateth bread WITH ME” are Tyndale 1525, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s bible 1549, the Bishops’ bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Beza N.T. 1599, Mace N.T. 1729, Whiston’s N.T. 1745, Wesley’s N.T. 1755, Worsley N.T. 1770, Haweis N.T. 1795, Sawyer N.T. 1858, Alford N.T. 1870, Darby 1890, Young’s 1898, Lamsa’s 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, Bible in Basic English 1961, NKJV 1982, The Koster Scriptures 1998, World English Bible 2000, Tomson N.T. 2002, The Pickering N.T. 2005, Complete Apostle’s bible 2005, The Hebrew Transliteration Bible 2010 - “He that eats Lechem with Me has lifted up his heel against Me.”, Hebrew Names Version 2014, International Standard Version 2014, Modern English Version 2014 and the Evangelical Heritage Version 2017.

Even though the English NIV reads “he who eats MY Bread”, yet the Spanish NIV - read like the KJB - ““El que comparte el pan CONMIGO me ha puesto la zancadilla””

The Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, Reina Valera 1909- 2015 - “El que come pan CONMIGO”, the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996 and the French Louis Segond 2007 - “Celui qui mange le pain AVEC MOI”, the Italian Diodati 1991 - “Colui che mangia il pane CON ME”, the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada and the Almeida Bible 2009 - “O que come o pão COMIGO”.

And The Modern Greek Version - Ο τρωγων μετ' εμου τον αρτον εσηκωσεν επ' εμε την πτερναν αυτου.

So once again it is a choice between the Reformation Bible text or the new Vatican supervised text versions.
John 13:32 KJB - "IF GOD BE GLORIFIED IN HIM, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him."

ASV 1901, RV 1881 - "and God shall glorify him in himself, and straightway shall he glorify him."

We see both the fickleness of the "science" of textual criticism and the corruptions of the so called "oldest and best manuscripts" in this verse. The words "IF GOD BE GLORIFIED IN HIM" - εἰ ὁ θεὸς ἐδοξάσθη ἐν αὐτῷ - are omitted in Vaticanus, P66, Sinaiticus original, C original and D. Westcott and Hort omitted them from their Greek text, but Tischendorf included them in his. Tregelles put them in [brackets].

Among the various Critical Text versions that omitted the words "If God be glorified in him" are The Revised Version of 1881, the ASV of 1901, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, Weymouth 1902, James Moffatt Translation 1926, Williams N.T. 1937, Goodspeed N.T. 1943, the Jehovah Witness New World Translation 1961 and 2011 editions and the Living Bible of 1971.

The UBS 28th edition places them in [brackets], thus indicating doubt as to their authenticity, and Dan Wallace (though he includes the words in his NET version) footnotes: "A number of early mss. do not have the words “If God is glorified in him,” while the majority of mss have the clause. Although the mss that omit the words are significantly better witnesses, the omission may have occurred because of an error of sight due to homoioteleuton. it is difficult to explain how such a wide variety of witnesses would have accidentally deleted this clause, and arguments for intentional deletion are not particularly convincing. NA27 rightly places the words in brackets, indicating doubt as to their authenticity." (Dan Wallace)

This is the typical Bible Agnostic double-speak jibberish we get from the Vatican version promoters like Dan Wallace. He can't bring himself to admit that it is his so called "oldest and best mss." are actually the ones that are corrupt, and he still ends up creating doubt as to what God REALLY said.

The NIV likewise footnotes: "Many early manuscripts do not have If God is glorified in him."

The Catholic Versions The older Douay-Rheims 1582 and the Douay Version of 1950 both read exactly like the King James Bible with no footnotes. However the 1970 St. Joseph New American bible puts the words in [brackets] indicating doubt as to their authenticity. It says: "[If God has been glorified in him], God will, in turn, glorify him in himself, and will glorify him soon." Then the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 has the words in the text with no brackets, but it then footnotes to "omit 'If God has been glorified in him.' Then once again in 2009 the Catholic Public Domain online Version has come out, and it goes back to including all these words and does not have either the brackets or the footnote telling us to omit these words!


The words ARE found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts including Sinaiticus and C corrections, A, E, F, G, H, K, Delta, Psi and in the Syriac Peshitta, Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions.

The words "If God be glorified in him" are included in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, ISV and basically every Bible that has ever been printed. But notice that the Revised Version and the ASV both omitted these words (along with Rotherham, Goodspeed, Moffatt, Williams, J.W. version and Living Bible) but then the RSV and NASB put them back in again.

This is the true nature of the so called "science of textual criticism" - Fickle and constantly changing, and it is NOT based on any supposed "new discoveries of manuscript readings". They just keep changing their minds even with the same textual evidence in front of them.


John 16 - A few examples. 

In John 16:9 we read of the Comforter coming into the world to reprove of sin, righteousness and judgment - "Of sin, because they believe NOT on me". However Sinaiticus original says: "Of sin, because they believe on me". Not quite the same, is it? Sinaiticus original also omitted the entire verse of 16:15 -"All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you."

In John 16:16 we read: "A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, BECAUSE I GO TO THE FATHER." These last 6 words are found in the Majority of all texts, A, plus at least 23 other uncials, the Old Latin, Syriac, Gothic, Armenian, and Coptic manuscripts. All these words are found in the Latin Vulgate 405, Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the NKJV, Darby, Youngs, KJV 21st Century Version 1994, Third Millenium Bible 1998, the Modern Greek Bible used by the Orthodox churches all over the world today, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac, the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910, French Ostervald 1998, the Italian Diodati 1649, Riveduta 1927, New Diodati 1991, Luther's German Bible 1545, and the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995 and the Reina Valera Gomez of 2004.

Among the Catholic versions we see the usual confusion. The 1582 Douay-Rheims version and the 1950 Douay version include the words in John 16:16 "because I go to the Father", but then the 1968 Jerusalem bible, the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem omit these words. But now once again in 2009 the Catholic Public Domain Version has once again put the words back in the text. You can see it online here -

http://www.sacredbible.org/catholic/NT-04_John.htm#16

We see the disciples refer to these words again in the very next verse when they ask: "What is this that he saith unto us, A little while and ye shall not see me: and again, and little while, and ye shall see me: and, BECAUSE I GO TO THE FATHER?"

However both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit "Because I go to the Father" in verse 16 and so do the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman versions, but yet they include these words in the next verse when the disciples repeat what Jesus had just got done saying. Why would they ask what Jesus had meant by saying "Because I go to the Father", when, according to the NASB, NIV, ESV, He didn't just say it? 

 Those trying to defend these modern versions tell us that Jesus referred to "I go to my Father" way back in 16:10. However if you read through all the verses here, the KJB reading makes the most sense. Jesus just got done saying in 16:16 "A little while, and ye shall see me no more: and again, a little while and ye shall see me, BECAUSE I GO TO THE FATHER." THEN in the very next verse the apostles ask: "Then said some of his disciples among themselves, What is this that he saith unto us, A little while and ye shall not see me, and again, a little while, and ye shall see me: and Because I go to the Father?" 

This is what He just got done saying when we include all the words in John 16:16. Not only this, but Sinaiticus also omits the words "A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again" in John 16:16 itself, but are included in Vaticanus and the modern versions. Keep in mind, that these two manuscripts are "the oldest and the best" upon which most modern versions are based.

We see again the fickleness of modern scholarship in John 16:27. Here we read: "For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from GOD." The word GOD is found in the Majority of all texts including the Old Latin, and Syriac. Sinaiticus first read GOD, then a scribe changed it to "the Father", and then another one changed it back to "God". Vaticanus reads THE FATHER and so does the NASB, ASV and the RSV. However the "updated" UBS critical text now goes with "I came out from GOD" and so do the NRSV, ESV, NIV and the Holman Standard.

John 17:15- "I pray not that thou shouldest take them OUT OF THE WORLD". Vaticanus says: "I do not pray that you should take them FROM THE EVIL ONE."



John 18:5 - “oldest and best" confusion

John 18:5 KJB - “They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. JESUS SAITH UNTO THEM, I AM HE. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.”

This is another example, not of a great change in meaning, but of utter confusion found in the so called “oldest and best” manuscripts.

The reading found in the KJB and the Reformation bibles - λεγει αυτοις ο ιησους εγω ειμι- is that found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts including Sinaiticus, A, C, E, G, K, L, N, W, X, Delta, Theta, Pi, Psi, the Old Latin, the Syriac Peshitta, Coptic Boharic and Sahidic, Gothic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian, and Slavonic ancient versions.

This was also the reading adopted by both Tregelles and Tischendorf.

However Vaticanus reverses the word order and says - “he said to them I AM JESUS.” - λεγει αυτοις ἐγώ εἰμι Ἰησοῦς.

BUT Westcott and Hort and the UBS Critical text follow neither Vaticanus nor Sinaiticus here, but the reading found in P60 (a 7th century manuscript) and D and reads: “HE SAYS TO THEM I AM HE - λεγει αυτοις εγω ειμι - and completely omits the name JESUS.

And STILL the modern versions do not agree with each other.

The NASB follows the Westcott-Hort reading and says: “They answered Him, “Jesus the Nazarene.” HE SAID TO THEM, “I AM HE.” And Judas also, who was betraying Him, was standing with them.”

Agreeing with the Westcott-Hort/UBS, NASB reading are the NET, Jehovah Witness NWT and the modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985, even though the previous Catholic Douay-Rheims 1582 and the Douay Version 1950 read like the King James Bible with “JESUS saith unto them, I am he.”


However the ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman Standard, ISV 2014 and NIV include the name of Jesus and have - “They answered him, “Jesus of Nazareth.” JESUS SAID TO THEM, “I AM HE.” Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them.” (ESV)

Also reading like the KJB are Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Douay-Rheims 1582, the Geneva bible 1587 and all Reformation bibles in multiple languages.

As I said, there is no major change in meaning here, but the point is to show that the so called “oldest and best” manuscripts upon which the modern Vatican supervised text versions are based do not even agree with each other.

John 19:16 KJB - “Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, AND LED HIM AWAY.” - και απηγαγον

ESV (NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, Jehovah Witness NWT, Catholic St. Joseph NAB, New Jerusalem bible) - “ So he delivered him over to them to be crucified. So they took Jesus.”

Once again the so called “oldest and best” manuscripts disagree with each other.

The words translated as “AND LED HIM AWAY” ( και απηγαγον) are found in the Majority of all manuscripts as well as Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and the Syriac Peshitta, but Vaticanus omits them.

The Catholic Versions

As usual, the older Catholic bibles like the Douay-Rheims 1582 and the Douay Version of 1950 include the words, but the more modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 omit them.

Reading like the King James Bible are Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s bible 1549, the Bishops’ bible 1568, the Douay-Rheims 1582, the Geneva Bible 1587, Whiston’s N.T. 1745, Haweis N.T. 1795, The Revised Translation 1815, Pickering N.T. 1840, The Revised N.T. 1862, The Alford N.T. 1870, Darby 1890, Young’s 1898, the Godbey N.T. 1902, Clarke N.T. 1913, Lamsa’s Translation of the Syriac Peshitta 1933, New Life Version 1969, the Koster Scriptures 1998, the NKJV 1982, The Last Days N.T. 1999, the World English bible 2000, Tomson N.T. 2002, The Pickering N.T. 2005, The Conservative Bible 2010, The Hebrew Transliteration Bible 2010, The Aramaic Bible in Plain English 2013, The English Majority Text 2013, the Modern English Version 2014, The Hebrew Names Version 2014.

Foreign language bibles

Foreign language bibles that include these words are the Italian Diodati 1649, the Nuova Diodati 1991 - “e lo condussero via.”, the French Martin 1744, French Ostervald 1996 and French Louis Segond 2007 - “et l'emmenèrent.”, Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569 - “y le llevaron.”, Cipriano de Valera 1602, Reina Valera 1960-1995 - “y se lo llevaron.”, Luther’s German bible 1545, the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada and the Almeida Corrigida 2009 - “e o levaram.”

And The Modern Greek Version - Τοτε λοιπον παρεδωκεν αυτον εις αυτους δια να σταυρωθη. Και παρελαβον τον Ιησουν και απηγαγον·

So once again it comes down to the Reformation bibles versus the new Vatican supervised text versions.

Acts 7:46 "The GOD of Jacob" or "the HOUSE of Jacob"?

An interesting anomaly that shows the utter inconsistency of the modern Critical Text/Vatican Versions is found in how they deal with the TEXT of Acts 7:46.

In the King James Bible we read: "Who found favor before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the GOD of Jacob."

Both the text and the immediate context are talking about a dwelling place for GOD, not for His people.
The reading "GOD of Jacob" τω θεω ιακωβ is found in the majority of all texts, including Sinaiticus correction, A, C and many ancient versions like the Old Latin ar, c, dem, e, gig, h, p, ph, ro, w, the Syriac Peshitta, harkelian, Coptic Boharic, Sahidic, Ethiopian, Georgian, Slavonic and Armenian.

Yet the Critical text UBS 1-4 editions and the Neslte-Aland editions dating from at least the 4th edition 1934 to the present day 28th edition 2012 all read "the HOUSE of Jacob" in their Greek text. τω οἴκῳ ιακωβ. These are two very different words; not even close in spelling or meaning. In spite of the FACT that the UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican Critical text reads "the HOUSE of Jacob", yet the vast majority of all Critical text versions chose not to follow this reading, which comes from the Vatican manuscript as well as Sinaiticus original, D and H.
Following the traditional Reformation reading of the "GOD of Jacob" are the Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, NIV 1973, 1984 and 2011 editions, the NASBs 1963-1995, RSV 1946, 1971 and ESVs 2001 - 2011 editions.

But again Vaticanus reads differently and says: "to find a tabernacle for the HOUSE of Jacob." The NASB, even though it reads "God of Jacob", has this footnote: "the earliest mss. read 'house' and not 'God'". Well, if they think this is the closest to the original reading, why not put it in their version?

Ah, but wait, the NRSV 1989, the ISV (International Standard Version), Dan Wallace's NET version 2006 have done just that and now read "for the HOUSE of Jacob." Notice that the RSV said "the GOD of Jacob", the the NRSV went with "the HOUSE of Jacob", but then the revision of the revision of the revision - the ESV, went back to "the GOD of Jacob" even though their own UBS/Nestle-Aland Critical text has "HOUSE" in the text!
Yet other Critical Text versions continue to reject the UBS reading of HOUSE and still go with "the GOD of Jacob." Among these are the Holman Standard 2009 edition, the 2011 Common English Bible and the Lexham English bible 2012.

The reading of "the GOD of Jacob" is that of the traditional Reformation texts and is that found in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1534, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, RV, ASV, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the NKJV 1982 as well as the NASB, NIV and ESV.

The Catholic Connection

The earlier Douay-Rheims 1582 and the 1950 Douay Version both follow the traditional text here and say: "that he might find a dwelling place for the GOD of Jacob".

But now the 1968 Jerusalem bible, the 1970 St. Joseph New American bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem have once again changed their text and now read: "who found favor with God and begged that he might find a dwelling place for THE HOUSE of Jacob."

Get yourself the King James Bible and stick with it. Friends don't let friends read fake bible versions that nobody believes are the inerrant words of the living God.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acts 12:25 - The Devil is in the Details

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

This is the reading found in a multitude of Greek manuscripts and Bible versions including P74, Alexandrinus, the Textus Receptus, the Modern Greek N.T., the Vulgate 425, Wycliffe 1395, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, Weymouth 1902, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac 1933, Douay 1950, Darby, Young’s 1898, J.B. Phillips 1962, Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969,the NKJV 1982, NASB 1963-1995, RSV 1952, ESV 2001-2011 editions, The Message 2002, Bible in Basic English 1969, New English Bible 1970, Complete Jewish Bible 1998, the NIV 1984 -2011 editions, and Common English Bible (another critical text edition like the ESV, NIV, NASB that does NOT follow the UBS text here), the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, and The Voice (another Critical text version" of 2012 - "the time Barnabas and Saul spent in Jerusalem came to an end, and they reported back to Antioch, bringing along John, who was also called Mark."

The Names of God Bible 2011 says -" they returned TO Antioch FROM Jerusalem."


Foreign language bibles also read "returned FROM Jerusalem" such as the Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991 - "ritornarono di Gerusalemme, Luther's German Bible 1545 and German Schlachter bible 2000 - "Barnabas aber und Saulus kehrten wieder von Jerusalem" = "returned FROM Jerusalem", the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910, Ostervald 1996 - " s'en retournèrent de Jérusalem", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Reina Valera 1602 - 1995 and Reina Valera Gómez 2010 - "Y Bernabé y Saulo volvieron de Jerusalén " and the Portuguese Almeida Bible - Barnabé e Saulo, havendo terminando aquele serviço, voltaram de Jerusalém, levando consigo a João" 

the Modern Greek Bible - "Ο δε Βαρναβας και ο Σαυλος υπεστρεψαν εξ Ιερουσαλημ αφου εξεπληρωσαν την διακονιαν αυτων" = "FROM Jerusalem", and the Modern Hebrew Bible - "וישובו בר נבא ושאול מירושלים אחרי כלותם את השמוש"

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

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

However the corrupt manuscripts of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus tell us in Acts 12:25 that both Barnabas and Saul (Paul) now returned TO Jerusalem, even though they had already been there as recorded in Acts 11:29-30, and were now in Antioch along with John Mark as recorded in Acts 13:1-6.



The total fickleness and inconsistency of the modern Critical text is seen in that Westcott and Hort originally went with the erroneous reading of “returned TO Jerusalem” (eis) -

"Βαρνάβας δὲ καὶ Σαῦλος ὑπέστρεψαν εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ"

but then the Nestle text 4th edition 1934 and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 1962 and the Nestle Greek text 21st edition 1975 all read “returned FROM Jerusalem (ex) - "ὑπέστρεψαν ἐξ Ἱερουσαλὴμ." There are other variant readings here too. Manuscript D has"ἀπὸ Ἰερουσαλὴμ", which would translated as "from Jerusalem" and Mss. E has "from Jerusalem TO ANTIOCH" - ἐξ Ἰερουσαλὴμ εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν" which nobody followed.


But wait; it gets worse. Now the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum 27-28th editions and the UBS 4th edition have once again rejected the previous Nestle critical text and have gone back to the reading originally adopted by Westcott and Hort that comes from both the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts...You know...those "oldest and best" ones that today's Vatican Versions are based on.

The UBS 4th edition and the Nestle Aland 28th edition once again say: “returned TO (eis) Jerusalem.” - " ὑπέστρεψαν εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ"

Versions that contain this erroneous reading - “returned TO Jerusalem” - and thus contradict the whole context of Acts 11 through 13 are Tyndale 1525 - (one of many reasons why Tyndale was not the perfect English Bible - see http://brandplucked.webs.com/tyntrorkjb.htm ) Coverdale 1535, Bishops’ bible 1568, and in modern times Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902, the Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, Hebrew Names Version, the NRSV 1989, Holman Christian Standard Version 2003, the ISV (International Standard Version 2003), Lexham English bible 2012 and Dan Wallace's NET version. The CEV (Contemporary English Version) 1995 has: "they WENT BACK TO Jerusalem".

Notice that the RSV 1952 and the ESV 2001 both read “FROM Jerusalem” but the NRSV 1989 read “TO Jerusalem”. These three are revisions of each other. Can’t seem to make up their minds, can they?

The Catholic Connection

As usual we see confusion and change among the Catholic versions. The older Douay-Rheims 1582 and Douay of 1950 both read "returned FROM Jerusalem". But then the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible changed this to "returned TO Jerusalem." But then the 2009 Catholic Public Domain version has now gone back to "returned FROM Jerusalem."

Dan Wallace of the NET version chosen to read follow the corrupt reading and says: - "So Barnabas and Saul returned TO 85 Jerusalem when they had completed their mission, bringing along with them John Mark."

He then gives us these remarkable footnotes: "There are a number of variants at this point in the text: εἰς (eis, “to”) in א B Ï sams syhmg;ἀπό (apo, “from”) in D E Ψ 36 323 453 614 1175 al; ἐξ (ex, “from”) in Ì74 A 33 945 1739 al; ἐξ ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ εἰς ᾿Αντιόχειαν in a few later manuscripts and part of the Itala. A decision on this problem is very difficult, but for several reasons εἰς can be preferred. It is the most difficult reading by far in light of the context, since Paul and Barnabas were going to Jerusalem in 11:30. It is found in better witnesses, א and B being very strong evidence. ...This problem is so difficult that some scholars resort to conjectural emendation to determine the original reading. All in all, the reading εἰς should be preferred as original, recognizing that there is a good measure of uncertainty with this solution."

In other words, even though his so called oldest and best and "can be preferred" reading of "returned TO Jerusalem" makes absolutely NO sense and contradicts the entire context of chapters 12 and 13, he just can't bring himself to admit that his so called "oldest and best" are actually among the most corrupt manuscripts imaginable.

The saying is true, if you mess with the Book, God will mess with your mind." Or as the Bible puts it - "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" 1 Corinthians 1:19-20

Acts 17:28. An interesting textual blunder is found here in the Vaticanus manuscript, but no version I am aware of has followed this unusual reading. In the context the apostle Paul is speaking to the Athenians and he quotes from their own poets. He says: "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of YOUR own poets have said, For we are also his offspring."

Clearly the apostle was referring to certain pagan poets and not Jewish writers. The reading of YOUR own poets is that of the majority of all texts, including Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus. However P74 and Vaticanus actually have the Jewish apostle Paul referring to this saying as coming from "certain of OUR poets".

Acts 19:16

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acts 27:37 - “216 souls” or “about 76”?

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

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

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

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

Romans -

The book of Romans, just as every other New Testament book, is full of examples where the two so called oldest and best manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) are at odds with each other. I could show numerous examples, but for the moment here are a couple of them.

To see the complete study on Textual Criticism and the Book of Romans See -

http://brandplucked.webs.com/textcritromans.htm

Romans 11:6 KJB - "And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. BUT IF IT BE OF WORKS, THEN IT IS NO MORE GRACE; OTHERWISE WORK IS NO MORE WORK."
ESV (NIV, NASB, NET, Catholic Versions, Jehovah Witness NWT) - "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace."

The words that are omitted are BUT IF IT BE OF WORKS, THEN IT IS NO MORE GRACE; OTHERWISE WORK IS NO MORE WORK." - ει δε εξ εργων ουκετι εστιν χαρις επει το εργον ουκετι εστιν εργον

The absurdity of calling Sinaiticus and Vaticanus the "best" manuscripts is fully revealed in this great verse. All the capitalized words are found in the majority of all Greek texts, and even in the Sinaiticus correction.

When we examine the Vaticanus manuscript we find an amazing blunder right on the surface. Vaticanus turns things on its head saying: "But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no longer GRACE."!!!

Vaticanus has - οὐκέτι χάρις, ἐπεὶ τὸ ἔργον οὐκέτι ἐστὶν χάρις

To see that I am not making this up, just check out the Nestle-Aland Critical text footnotes on this verse, or go to an online New Testament Greek site like this one and see for yourself this totally bogus reading found in the Vatican manuscript.
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php




Romans 13:9 "...Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS, Thou shalt not covet..."

The words "Thou shalt not bear false witness" are found in multiple manuscripts and ancient versions like the Old Latin, the Syriac Harkelian, Coptic Boharic, Armenian and Ethiopic. They are also in Sinaiticus. They are included in all English Bibles from Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops', and the Geneva. However Vaticanus omits these words and so do the versions from the Revised Version, to the NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV and Holman Standard.

Romans 14:21 - "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, OR IS OFFENDED, OR IS MADE WEAK."

The capitalized words are again found in the Majority of all Greek texts and even in Vaticanus, plus the Sinaiticus correction. They are found in Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops, Geneva, Douay-Rheims, NKJV and the Spanish Reina Valera. Even some modern versions that usually follow the Westcott-Hort text include the words. Among these are the Amplified Bible (put out by the same people who give us the NASB), and the brand new ISV (International Standard Version). However Sinaiticus original had a different reading that said "or is grieved". Then it was corrected to agree with the KJB reading. In spite of all this evidence, versions like the RV, NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV and Holman omit "or is offended, or is made weak" - all done on a strict "scientific method", don't ya know.

For a mind blowing study showing the utter foolishness of the "art and science of textual criticism" please see this factual study of the book of Romans here: http://brandplucked.webs.com/textcritromans.htm

Romans 15:19 - Bible Babble Buffet Versions in Action

In the King James Bible we read: "Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit OF GOD; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Chirst." The NIVs of 1973, 1978 and the 1984 editions all omitted the words "of God" and read: "by the power of signs and miracles, through the power of the Spirit." However once again in 2011 the new NIV has changed its underlying Greek text and now reads: "by the power of signs and wonders, through the power of the Spirit OF GOD."

Textually speaking, this is a very interesting verse in that it reveals a great deal about the mindset of the men behind the multitude of conflicting modern versions. The reading of "the Spirit OF GOD" is that of the Majority of all texts, including Sinaiticus, D correction and P46, which is about 200 years older than Vaticanus. "Spirit of GOD" (pneumatos theou) is found in Tyndale, 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the King James Bible 1611, the NKJV 1982 and Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta. The modern versions of the NRSV, ESV, ISV, Holman Standard all read "Spirit of GOD", just as the King James Bible.

When Westcott and Hort first came out with their totally revised Greek text in the 1881 Revised Version, their text read: "power of the HOLY SPIRIT" (pneumatos hagiou) and so read the Revised Version of 1881, the ASV 1901, the RSV of 1952 and the 1989 Revised English Bible. "HOLY Spirit" is the reading found in codex Alexandrinus and D original.


I have in my possession three different Nestle-Aland Greek texts, which is basically the Westcott-Hort text that underlies most modern versions since 1881. All three of these are different here in Romans 15:19. The one from 1934 (4th edition) says: HOLY Spirit. The one dated 1962 changed this to simply "the SPIRIT", thus omitting "Holy" and "God". This reading , the one found in the NASB, comes from only one manuscript and that is Vaticanus. The NASB and the NIV 1984 both follow only one Greek manuscript here and read: "through the power of the SPIRIT".

Then sometime between the 1962 edition and the 1993 edition, the Nestle-Aland text changed for the third time and now reads: "the Spirit OF GOD", as has the King James Bible for almost 400 years now. We can clearly see here the constantly changing opinions of the noted scholars behind the modern versions.

Here is a brief chart showing the conflicting readings of just this one phrase. The Catholic versions are very much like the "new" Vatican Versions (NIV, ESV, NASB, Holman, ISV, NET) in that they are constantly changing their underlying Greek texts and in the main follow the Vatican manuscript. The 1582 Douay-Rheims and the 1950 Douay and the 1968 Jerusalem bible went with "the Holy Ghost" (1582) and "the Holy Spirit" (1950, 1968). Then in 1970 the St. Joseph New American Bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem read "the Spirit OF GOD", BUT the latest Catholic Public Domain Version of 2009 has now gone back to "the HOLY Spirit".

"power of the SPIRIT OF GOD" -Tyndale, Geneva, KJB, NKJV, NRSV, ESV, ISV, Holman and now the NIV 2011 edition.

"power of the HOLY SPIRIT" - RV, ASV, RSV, Jerusalem Bible 1968, 2009 The Sacred Bible Catholic Public Domain Version

"power of the SPIRIT" - NASB 1963-1995 editions, NIV 1973, 78 and 1984 editions.


1 Corinthians 2:1 - "...declaring unto you the TESTIMONY of God." The critical text editions show their utter confusion and the fickle nature nature of their "science" of textual criticism here. The word "testimony" (marturion) is that found in the Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts as well as Sincaitcus correction, Vaticanus, D, F, G and the Traditional Greek text of the Textus Receptus. However Sinaiticus original, A and C read "MYSTERY" (musterion). 

 Besides the King James Bible, other early translations that read "the TESTIMONY of God" are Tyndale 1525, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1587 as well as Darby and Youngs. When Westcott and Hort came out with their critical text they went with the reading found in the KJB of "testimony" and so did the Nestle text 4th edition of 1934 as well as the Nestle text 21st edition of 1975.

However now the latest Nestle-Aland 27th edition and the UBS 1st and 4th editions (United Bible Society) printed Greek texts have changed their minds and have now gone with the other reading of "MYSTERY". The confusion is seen from the very beginning among the critical text "scholars". The ASV of 1901 read "TESTIMONY of God" but the Revised Version of 1881 went with "the MYSTERY of God". The RSV went back to "TESTIMONY of God", but then the NRSV of 1989 has "MYSTERY of God" and then once again the revision of the revision of the revision - the ESV of 2001 has now gone back to "the TESTIMONY of God", thus not even following their own 'updated' UBS critical Greek text.

Also agreeing with "the TESTIMONY of God" (and going contrary to the latest and ever changing UBS, Nestle-Aland critical texts) is the NASB 1995, NIV 1984 and 2011, Holman Standard 2003 and the NET versions. However the ISV (International Standard Version and the 2011 critical text Common English Bible have now adopted the reading of "the MYSTERY (or SECRET) of God". The NASB 1995 gives us a totally false and misleading footnote here. It says "ONE early manuscript reads "mystery". This is completely false. Even the previous NASBs of 1960, 1972 and 1977 footnoted "MANY ancient manuscripts read "mystery".

Among the Catholic versions we see the same confusion. The earlier Douay-Rheims of 1582 as well as the Douay of 1950 and the 1970 St. Joseph NAB read "the TESTIMONY of God" but the 1985 New Jerusalem now reads "the MYSTERY of God". Oh, but wait... Now the latest 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has come out and it reads "the TESTIMONY of CHRIST", thus going back to "testimony" but changing "God" (which is the reading in all texts) to "Christ" (which is not found in ANY text at all).


Another place in this same chapter of 1 Corinthians 2 where the so called "oldest and best manuscripts" are in disagreement is found in verse 16 where it says: "But we have the mind of CHRIST." The word "Christ" is found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts including Sinaiticus, A, C and D correction, but Vaticanus, D original and a couple of others say "the mind of the LORD" (kuriou). But nobody I am aware of follows the Vatican manuscript reading in this place. This is the true character of these so called "oldest and best manuscripts" and the falsely called "science" of textual criticism.


The Constantly Changing Critical (Condition) Text Versions in Action.


In 1 Corinthians 13:3 we read in the KJB - "and though I give my body to BE BURNED, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing”.

ινα καυθησωμαι

This is the reading found in the Majority of all Greek texts, the Textus Receptus, K, Psi, the Old Latin ar, b, d, dem, e, f, g, m, o, t, tx, the Syriac Peshitta (Lamsa), the Gothic, Armenian, Ethiopic, and Slavonic ancient versions.

It is also quoted like this by such early church writers as Tertullian, Methodius, Cyprian, Ambrosiaster, Zeno, Basil, Pacian, Gregory-Nyssa, Theodoret, John-Damascus and Jerome.

But the so called “oldest and best” manuscripts of P46, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and A, as well as the constantly changing Nestle-Aland, UBS Critical Greek texts, have put on a dizzying display of continuous change and absurdity.

These “oldest and best” mss. actually say “If I give my body THAT I MAY BOAST, and have not charity it profits me nothing.”

ινα καυχησωμαι . kauXEEsomai.

This was the original reading put in the text by Westcott and Hort in 1881. BUT not even the Revised Version of 1885 nor the ASV 1901 followed it. Instead, both rejected this reading and continued to read just like the KJB and all earlier Bibles with “if I give my body TO BE BURNED.”

However, just a few years later they changed the Nestle Greek text to read “if I give my body TO BE BURNED, and have not charity…”

I have hard copies of the Nestle 4th edition 1934 and the Nestle 21st edition 1975 and they both read this way - ἵνα καυθήσομαι - kauTHEEsomai. It is an irregular form to follow the word “hina” (ἵνα) but it translates the same way as found in the KJB - If I give my body TO BE BURNED. - ινα καυθησωμαι

This is the reading - καυθήσομαι - found in C, D, F, G and L and it is still the reading found in the SBL (Society of Biblical Literature) Greek New Testament of 2010.

However, in recent years the Nestle-Aland Critical text has now once again changed their text, and have gone back to read as Westcott and Hort first had it. The Nestle-Aland Critical text now reads “If I give my body THAT I MAY BOAST, and have not love, it profits me nothing.”

This means that so far the Critical Greek text has had THREE different readings in it for this one single Greek word.

BUT, this reading is so absurd, that many of the modern versions still do not follow it.

The NASB 1995 does not, nor does the ESV 2001-2011. The NASB reads: “If I deliver my body TO BE BURNED, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.” Then it footnotes: “Some ancient mss. read THAT I MAY BOAST.

And the ESV 2011 has: “If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body TO BE BURNED, but have not love, I gain nothing.”

It then Footnotes “Some manuscripts - THAT I MAY BOAST”

However the NIV DOES keep changing its TEXT. The NIVs 1973, 1978 and 1984 editions say: “If I give all I possess to the poor and SURRENDER MY BODY TO THE FLAMES, but have not love, I gain nothing.”

Then they footnote: “Some early manuscripts - THAT I MAY BOAST.”

BUT now the NIV 2011 has come out and it changed its text and now reads; “If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body THAT I MAY BOAST, but do not have love, I gain nothing.”

And this time it footnotes: “Some manuscripts BODY TO THE FLAMES.”

The “Reliable” NIVs.

Even though the recent NIV English version of 2011 has changed its TEXT to read “THAT I MAY BOAST”, yet the NIV Spanish edition, La Nueva Versión Internacional of 2015 still reads like the KJB and the TR reading.

It says “y si entregue mi cuerpo para que LO CONSUMAN LAS LLAMAS…. = TO BE BURNED.

And so also does the NIV Portuguese edition of 2000 - “e entregue o meu corpo para ser queimado” = TO BE BURNED.

The Holman Standard.

The Holman Christian Standard Bible has done the same thing as the NIV. I have a hard copy of the Holman Standard 2003. The Holman Standard has already come out with different editions in 1999, 2000, 2003, 2009 and now they are working on another one with great Fanfare.

The 2003 Holman “Standard” (I guess the new “Standard” with today’s Bible Babble Buffet Carousel is one of “constant change”) reads: “…and I give MY BODY TO BE BURNED…”

BUT the Holman “Standard” of 2009 now says: “and if I give my body IN ORDER TO BOAST, but do not have love…”

Also following this most recently changed Critical text reading is (big surprise) Dan Wallace’s NET version 2006 - “if I give over my body IN ORDER TO BOAST…”

“IN ORDER THAT I MIGHT BOAST”

Other bibles that follow this latest textual change in the Critical (Condition) versions are THE JEHOVAH WITNESS New World Translation 1961 edition and the 2013 Revised Jehovah Witness NWT - “and if I hand over my body SO THAT I MAY BOAST”, Rotherham’s 1902 (thus following the original Westcott-Hort reading), the NRSV 1989, New Living Translation 2015 (even though the “old” Living Translation 1971 said “to be burned”)

The brand new International Standard Version 2014 just made up their own translation that says: “Even if I give away everything that I have AND SACRIFICE MYSELF, but have no love, I gain nothing.”

THEN it gives this very misleading Footnote, saying: “Other mss. read sacrifice my body to be burned; or myself so that I may boast.”

By saying “other manuscripts read…..” they are implying that THEY actually followed SOME manuscript, when in fact they just MADE THIS UP out of thin air. NO manuscript reads “and sacrifice myself”


Those Bibles that read like the King James Bible (and many of these are themselves Critical Text versions) with “and though I give my body TO BE BURNED” are Tyndale, Bishops’ Bible, the Geneva bible, Darby, Youngs 1898, R.V. 1885, ASV 1901, Weymouth 1902, Living Bible 1971, Revised Standard Version 1972, J.B. Phillips 1972, NKJV 1982, NASB 1995, Complete Jewish Bible 1998, God’s Word 2000, The Message 2002, New Century Version 2005, The Conservative Bible 2010, ESV 2011, the Names of God Bible 2011, Mounce N.T. 2011, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Lexham English Bible 2012, The Voice 2012, The Biblos Bible 2013, The Modern English Version 2014, The Modern Literal N.T. 2014, The Pioneers’ N.T. 2014 and the International Children’s Bible 2015.


If you think the Vaticanus manuscript is the best to follow here, you should take note of the fact that in 13:5, just two verses later, instead of reading "charity...seeketh not her own", Vaticanus reads: "charity does not seek that which is NOT her own".

As for Sinaiticus, among its many other blunders, in 1 Corinthians 15:51 instead of saying: "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed" Sinaiticus actually says: "we shall sleep but we shall NOT all be changed."

These are the "oldest and most reliable manuscripts" the modern scholars are so fond of, that form the Vatican supervised, ever changing Greek text that is the basis of versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, the Jehovah Witness New World Translation and the modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985.

Their ever changing “Science” of Textual Criticism is about as scientific as playing the Lottery or throwing darts at a dartboard in a drunken stupor.

Get yourself the King James Bible and stick with it. You will never go wrong.


I Corinthians 13:5- ". . .charity seeketh not HER OWN". Vaticanus alone reads "love does not seek that which IS NOT HERS" - the opposite meaning.

I Corinthians 15:51- "We shall NOT all sleep, but we shall all be changed" in Sinaticus reads: "we shall sleep but we shall NOT ALL be changed" - the exact opposite.

1 Corinthians 15:54-55- "Death is swallowed up in VICTORY. O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your VICTORY." In Vaticanus this verse reads, "Death is swallowed up in CONTROVERSY. O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your CONTROVERSY."



2 Corinthians 8:7 - "Therefore, as ye abound in every thing, in faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and in all diligence, and IN YOUR LOVE TO US, see that ye abound in this grace also."

The words "in YOUR LOVE TO US" ὑμῶν ἐν ἡμῖν" are found in the Majority of all texts as well as Sinaiticus, C and D, but Vaticanus and P46 read "in OUR love to YOU (or in us) ἡμῶν ἐν ὑμῖν. Even Tischendorf went with the KJB reading. But not Westcott and Hort.

Galatians 3:21 - "Is the law then against the promises OF GOD?"

So read the Majority, Sinaiticus, A, C and D, yet P46 and Vaticanus omit "OF GOD"



Galatians 6:12 "...persecution for the cross of CHRIST."

The is in the Majority, Sinaiticus, A, C and D. But both P46 and Vaticanus read "the cross of Christ JESUS."



Galatians 6:17 - here we read: "for I bear in my body the marks of the LORD Jesus."

This is the Majority reading as well as C correction and D correction, K, L and others. Vaticanus and Alexandrinus omit the word "LORD" and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV. But Sinaiticus actually says "the marks of the LORD JESUS CHRIST."


Galatians 6:18 - here we read: "Brethren, the grace of OUR Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen."

This is the Majority reading and that of Vaticanus, but Sinaiticus omits the word OUR.



Ephesians 1:1 - "to the saints which are at EPHESUS, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus."



Both Sinaiticus original and Vaticanus original omit the word EPHESUS, but both were later corrected to include the word. It is found in the Majority of all manuscripts including A and D as well as the Old Latin, Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Coptic Sahidic and Boharic, the Gothic and the Armenian ancient versions.



Ephesians 4:32 - "forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven YOU." YOU is the reading of the TR, P46 (200 A.D.), Sinaiticus. However Vaticanus says "has forgiven US."



Ephesians 6:1 - "Children, obey your parents IN THE LORD: for this is right." The words "IN THE LORD" are in the Majority, P46 and Sinaiticus, but Vaticanus omits these words.

1 Thessalonians 1:1- " Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, FROM GOD OUR FATHER, AND THE LORD JESUS CHRIST."

All the capital lettered words are found in the Majority of all Greek texts AS WELL AS SINAITICUS, A, D, the Old Latin d, e and mon, the Syriac Harclean, Georgian, Slavonic and Coptic Boharic ancient versions and Lamsa's translation of the Syriac/Aramaic. This is the reading found in Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible (John Rogers) 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Mace's N.T. 1729, the Living Oracles 1835, Young's 1898, Websters 1833, the Emphatic Diaglott 1865, Julia Smith Translation, Concordant Literal Translation, Emphatic Diaglott N.T., Analytical Literal Translation, Green's literal, A Conservative Version, Anderson N.T., Complete Apostle's Bible 2005, English Jubilee Bible 2000, the NKJV 1982, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994 and the Third Millenium Version 1998. Even the brand new ISV (International Standard Version) which is usually a critical text edition, has included these words in 2010.

Among foreign language bibles all these words are found in Luther's German bible 1545, the German Elberfelder 1905 and the 2000 German Schlachter Bible - "Gnade sei mit euch und Friede von Gott, unserm Vater, und dem HERRN Jesu Christo!", Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera 1602-1995, the R.V. Gómez 2010 - "Gracia y paz tengáis de Dios nuestro Padre y del Señor Jesús, el Cristo.", the Basque-Navarro N.T., the French Martin 1744, French Ostervald 1996 - " La grâce et la paix vous soient données de la part de Dieu notre Père, et du Seigneur Jésus-Christ.", the Italian Diodati of 1649 and the New Diodati of 1991 - "grazia a voi e pace da Dio nostro Padre e dal Signore Ges Cristo.", the Afrikaans Bible 1953, the Russian Synodal version 1876, the Lithuanian Bible, the Hungarian Karoli Bible, the Polish Gdanska Bible, the Finnish Bible 1776, the Romanian Cornilescu - "Har şi pace dela Dumnezeu, Tatăl nostru, şi dela Domnul Isus Hristos.", the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada and the Almeida Corrigida E Fiel 1681 - "Graa e paz tenhais de Deus nosso Pai e do Senhor Jesus Cristo." and in both the Modern Hebrew Bible פולוס וסלונוס וטימותיוס אל קהלת התסלוניקים באלהים האב ובאדון ישוע המשיח חסד לכם ושלום מאת אלהים אבינו ואדנינו ישוע המשיח and the Modern Greek used in the Orthodox churches all over the world - "χαρις ειη υμιν και ειρηνη απο Θεου Πατρος ημων και Κυριου Ιησου Χριστου." Both the Modern Hebrew Bible and the Modern Greek Bible can be seen at the Biola University webstie called the Unbound Bible here - http://unbound.biola.edu/

However Vaticanus omits the words "from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ" and so do versions like the RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NET and Holman Standard. ALL Catholic versions omit these words - the Douay Rheims 1610, Douay 1950, St. Joseph NAB 1970, the New Jerusalem bible 1985 and the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version. So, the words ARE found in Sinaiticus but not in Vaticanus and once again these so called "oldest and best manuscripts" are in disagreement with each other. So once again, it comes down to either following the biblical text of the Reformation Bibles or the Vatican Versions.

1 Thessalonians 2:7- One of the silliest readings in the New Testament is found primarily in the Vaticanus manuscript in 1 Thessalonians 2:7. This reading was even rejected by the Critical Text editors that came after Westcott and Hort until very recently, when things are now just getting goofier and goofier.

The Majority of all Greek texts as well as Alexandrinus and the corrections to Sinaiticus, C and D all have the apostle Paul telling the saints: "But we were GENTLE among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children".

This is the reading found in Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Cranmer 1539, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Wesley’s translation 1755, the Revised Version 1885, the ASV of 1901, Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902, Darby, Young’s, the Bible in Basic English 1960, the New English Bible 1979, the NASBs 1963 through 1995, the NIVs of 1973, 78 and 84, the NKJVs, the RSV, NRSV 1989, the ESV 2001, the Revised English Bible 1989, the Message of 2002 and the Holman Standard of 2003, the Modern Greek version used all over the world in the Greek Orthodox churches as well as the up and coming ISV (International Standard Version) in 2010.

Among foreign language Bibles, the reading found in the Traditional Greek Texts and the King James Bible of “GENTLE among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children” are the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602, 1909, 1960 and 1995, - “nos portamos con ternura”, the 1997 Biblia de las Américas put out by the Lockman Foundation - “benignos entre vosotros” as well as the Traducciôn en Lenguage Actual of 2000 put out by the United Bible Society- “los tratamos con mucho cariño”, and the Reina Valera Gomez Bible of 2004. Also agreeing with “were gentle among you” are the Italian Diodati 1649 and 1991 New Diodati, the Riveduta of 27, the Italian1997 La Parola é Vita - “gentili con voi”, the French Martin 1744 - “French Louis Segond 1910, the Ostervald 1996 and the 1999 La Bible du Semeur - “tendresse”, and the 2000 Portuguese O Livro.


However Vaticanus actually says: "But we were BABIES among you, as a nursing mother cares for her own children." Westcott and Hort first adopted this absurd reading, but very soon the critical text editors deleted this reading and replaced it with the correct reading of “gentle among you”. This reading lasted through at least 21 separate editions of their ever changing Greek Critical text. However the 27th edition of the Nestle - Aland text 1993 as well as the UBS 1 through 4 editions texts have now removed the previous reading of “GENTLE” and replaced it with the Vaticanus, Westcott-Hort reading of “we were BABES among you”.

Even though the more recent Nestle - Aland, UBS Greek texts have adopted this strange reading, still most modern versions that usually follow the critical text readings have not gone along with them on this.

But there are a few notable exceptions like Daniel Wallace’s NET version. Daniel Wallace’s NET version has actually followed this strange reading. His NET version reads: “although we could have imposed our weight as apostles of Christ; instead we became LITTLE CHILDREN among you. Like a nursing mother caring for her own children..." But there is more! The new NIV 2011 has come out and they have changed the underlying Greek text they followed in their first three editons (1973, 78 and 1984 - "but we were GENTLE among you") and now the late$e$t in Scholar$hip edition now reads: "Instead we were LIKE YOUNG CHILDREN among you."

This is similar to the Catholic Douay-Rheims version of 1582 which reads - “but WE BECAME LITTLE ONES IN THE MIDST OF YOU, as if a nurse should cherish her children”, but this reading is obviously absurd since it defies all reason and logic and turns the apostles into little children and the new believers into their care givers.

The Catholic version of 1979 called the Saint Joseph New American Bible went back to the reading of “we were GENTLE among you”, but then once again in 2009 the latest Catholic version, the Catholic Public Domain Version, has once again changed their underlying texts and have gone back to the reading of - “we became LIKE LITTLE ONES in your midst, like a nurse cherishing her children.”

The New Living Translation of 1998 has “we were as GENTLE among you as a mother feeding and caring for her own children.” But the 2004 New Living Translation has once again changed their text to now read - “we were like children among you.”

It is interesting that even though the NIV 1984 keeps the reading of “but we were gentle among you, like a mother caring for her little children. “ the now discontinued TNIV (Today’s NIV) of 2005 went with the Vaticanus reading and has: “Instead, we were like YOUNG CHILDREN among you. Just as a nursing mother cares for her children.” It will be interesting to see what the New NIV does when it’s upcoming revision comes out in the next year or two.


2 Thessalonians 2:13 Another mind-blower!

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath FROM THE BEGINNING chosen you to salvation..."

"From the beginning" is the reading found in the majority of all texts, as well as Sinaiticus, the Old Latin, Syriac Peshitta, Coptic Sahidic, Armenian, and Ethiopic ancient versions. It also was the reading of the previous Nestle-Aland Greek editions, and is still found in the NIV 1973, 1984 editions, NASB, RV, ASV, NKJV, RSV, NET version and the 2003 Holman Christian Standard.

However, the latest Nestle-Aland texts have once again changed their reading, based on Vaticanus, and now reads: "God has chosen you AS THE FIRST FRUITS to be saved" and this is how the NRSV, ESV and the NIV 2011 edition now read! 

So again, it looks like those old NASB, NIV's 1973, 1984 and 2003 Holman Standards are once again out of date and follow the wrong texts according to the late$t $cholarly finding$.

Hebrews 2:7 "Thou madest him A LITTLE LOWER than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour,AND DIDST SET HIM OVER THE WORKS OF THY HANDS."

Here Vaticanus omits the whole phrase "and didst set him over the works of thy hands" and so too do versions like the NIV, ESV, ISV, NET, Common English Bible and the Holman Standard all OMIT these words.
However the phrase is found in the majority of Greek manuscripts and in Sinaiticus, A, C, D correction, the Old Latin ar, b, comp, d, v, the Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, the Coptic Sahidic, Boharic, Armenian, Ehtiopic, Georgian and Slavonic ancient version. So once again (and there are some three to four THOUSAND places where this occurs in the New Testament between these 2 "oldest and best manuscripts" ) we see that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do NOT agree even with each other.

This time even the NASB, RV, ASV and NKJV include all the words "AND DIDST SET HIM OVER THE WORKS OF THY HANDS. "See how the "scholars", even among those using the ever changing Critical Greek text, don't agree among themselves. This same confusion is constantly repeated in the new Bible of the Month versions that continue to pour off the presses.

We see this even in the constantly changing Vatican Versions like the NIV. The 1984 NIV edition of Hebrews 2:6-7 reads: "What is MAN that you are mindful of HIM, THE son of man that you care for him? You made HIM a little lower than the angels; you crowned HIM with glory and honor and put everything under HIS feet." But the NIV 2011 edition now reads: "What is MANKIND that you are mindful of THEM, A son of man that you care for him? You made THEM a little lower than the angels; you crowned THEM with glory and honor and put everything under THEIR feet." And when quoting from Psalm 8:5 the NIV 1984 edition says: "You made HIM a little lower than the HEAVENLY BEINGS." But the 2011 NIV edition now says: "You have made THEM a little lower than the ANGELS."

The words "AND DIDST SET HIM OVER THE WORKS OF THY HANDS" are found in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Wesley's translation 1755, the Douay-Rheims 1582, the 1950 Douay, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902 (a critical text edition), the Revised Version 1881, the ASV 1901, J.P. Phillips translation 1962, Weymouth, NASB 1995, Darby, Youngs, the Bible in Basic English 1961, the NKJV 1982, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, the Knox Bible 2012, the KJV 21st Century 1994, the Third Millennium Bible 1998.

We see the same confusion among the Catholic versions. The earlier Douay-Rheims of 1582 included these words "and didst set him over the works of thy hands" as well as the 1950 Douay, but the 1968 Jerusalem bible, the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible all now OMIT this phrase. But wait! Now the latest 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has come out, and it now once again includes these inspired words of Scripture - "and you have set him over the works of your hands."

Among foreign language Bibles the words are found in the Italian Diodati 1649 and the New Diodati 1991 - "e lo hai costituito sopra le opere delle tue mani", Luther's German bible 1545 and the 2000 Schlachter Bible - "und hast ihn gesetzt über die Werke deiner Hände.", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, La Biblia de Las Américas 1997 (Lockman Foundation), the Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, La Nueva Biblia de los Hispanos 2005, the Reina Valera Contemporánea 2011 and the 2010 Reina Valera Gómez Bible - "Y le pusiste sobre las obras de tus manos", the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996 and the French Louis Segond 2007 - "et tu lui as donné la domination sur ce que tes mains ont fai.", the Aramaic Bible in Plain English 2010 - "and you have authorized him over the works of your hands.”, the Norwegian: Det Norsk Bibelselskap 1930 - "og satte ham over dine henders gjerninger", the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible - "en Gij hebt hem gesteld over de werken Uwer handen", the Chinese Union Bible, the Hungarian Karoli Bible, the Polish Gdanska Bible, the Russian Synodal Bible and the Russian Zhuromsky N.T., the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel 1681 and A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués - "e o constituíste sobre as obras de tuas mãos." and the Modern Greek Bible used in the Greek Orthodox churches all over the world - "και κατεστησας αυτον επι τα εργα των χειρων σου·"

"Thou madest him A LITTLE LOWER THAN the angels" is quoted from Psalm 8:5. "A little lower" is the reading of the RV, ASV, NKJV and NIV, but the NASB, ESV and the Holman say God made man "FOR A LITTLE WHILE lower than the angels".

The interesting thing is when you look back at Psalms 8:5 the King James Bible correctly reads: "For thou hast made him a little lower than THE ANGELS." This is also the reading of the NKJV, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, Lamsa, Webster's, New American Bible, Douay, Douay-Rheims, Spanish, Diodati, Darby, Living Bible, New Century Version, Modern Greek translation, KJV 21 and the Third Millenium Bible.

However the NASB and the Holman Standard actually read: "Thou hast made him a little lower THAN GOD." One could combine the NASB and Holman readings to say: "Thou hast made him for a little while lower than God", and thus imply that man will some day be equal to God. Isn't this the ultimate apostasy that fallen man will embrace?

The NIV 1984 edition and the ESV differ yet from both the KJB and the NASB in that they read in Psalm 8:5 "You made him a little lower than the HEAVENLY BEINGS." However the NIV 2011 has now changed once again and now reads: "You have made them a little lower than THE ANGELS." So, is it angels, heavenly beings, or God?

Do you think James White is correct when he says we can get a sense of the real meaning by comparing all the different versions together? All we really end up with is total confusion which leads to unbelief and apostasy.

Peculiarities of Vaticanus in First Peter.

Codex Vaticanus is highly exalted among modern scholars as being the best Greek manuscript, and its readings are primarily responsible for the omission of hundreds and hundreds of words from the King James Bible.

The following is a list of readings or omissions that are found ONLY in Vaticanus. Sinaiticus, the other darling of the Textus Corruptus crowd, does follow the KJB readings in these few instances.

This information is not found in the UBS, or Nestle-Aland texts. It is not to their advantage to let you know these things. This information comes from the book Codex B and its Allies, A Study and an Indictment, by Herman C. Hoskier, Volume #1 pages 417-418.

1 Peter 1:1 to the strangers in ....Asia, AND BITHYNIA. - Vaticanus alone omits AND BITHYNIA

1:11 the Spirit OF CHRIST which was in them - Vaticanus alone omits OF CHRIST.

1:21 who by him DO BELIEVE (pisteuontas) - Vaticanus and A read: who by him FAITHFUL (pistous), against all others.

2:1 laying aside all...hypocrisies, and ENVIES, and all evil speakings - Vaticanus alone reads MURDERS instead of ENVIES.

2:6 he that believeth ON HIM shall not be confounded - Vaticanus alone omits ON HIM (ep autoo)

2:24 who his own self bare OUR sins - Vaticanus alone reads YOUR sins

2:25 FOR YE WERE (eete gar) as sheep going astray - Vaticanus alone omits FOR YE WERE.

3:4 of a MEEK and QUIET spirit - only Vaticanus reverses and reads: of a QUIET and MEEK spirit.

3:18 suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us TO GOD (τω θεω) - only Vaticanus omits these two words.

5:3 "Neither as being lord's over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock." μηδ ως κατακυριευοντες των κληρων αλλα τυποι γινομενοι του ποιμνιου
Vaticanus omits the entire verse, though it is found in all the others.

5:8 the devil...seeking WHOM (tina) he may devour - Vaticanus alone omits WHOM.

5:12 by SilVanus, a faithful brother - Vaticanus alone reads: by SilBanus.


Vaticanus also omits the entire verse of 1 Peter 5:3 but it is found in Sinaiticus and the Majority of all manuscripts and Bible translations throughout history - "Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock."

2 Peter 3:10- . . ."the earth also and the works that are therein SHALL BE BURNED UP", reads in both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, "the works that are therein SHALL BE FOUND". The old RSV stayed with the reading of "shall be burned up" as does the NASB, but the NIV, ESV say the works "will be exposed" (ESV) or "will be laid bare" (NIV), while the Holman Standard says "the works on it will be disclosed". The Holman then footnotes that the Greek text they are following, which is the Sinaiticus/Vaticanus reading, says "found" and then tells us "some manuscripts read 'will be burned up' ". "Some"?! How about the vast Majority of all Greek texts including Alexandrinus, the Old Latin, the Syriac, Coptic and Ethiopian ancient versions.

1 John 4:3 KJB - "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."

ESV - 1 John 4:3 - "and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already."

You will notice here that the words "CHRIST IS COME IN THE FLESH" - χριστον εν σαρκι εληλυθοτα - are omitted by versions based on the UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican critical text versions.

All these words are found in the Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts including the Old Latin l, the Syriac Peshitta, Ethiopic and Slavonic ancient versions, and is so quoted by such early church writers as Origen, Cyprian, Priscillian, Tyconius, Tyconius, Ambrose, Augustine, Fulgentius and Theophylact.

Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not even agree with each other in this verse. In fact, they are not even close. Sinaiticus says "every spirit that does not confess Jesus LORD IS COME IN THE FLESH" - παν πνευμα ο μη ομολογει τον Ἰησοῦν κύριον ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα [א] - but Vaticanus does not have the word "LORD" in it (nor does any other manuscript) AND it omits the words "IS COME IN THE FLESH."

So the omission of these words in the modern Vatican versions like the ESV, RSV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, Jehovah Witness New World Translation and the modern Catholic versions are basically due to Vaticanus, A and the Latin Vulgate.

The Catholic Connection -

The Catholic versions all omit this phrase "is come in the flesh" and some of them are very weird. The early Douay-Rheims of 1582 says: "And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God." (That's really what it says!). The 1950 Douay is almost as bad with: "And every spirit that SEVERS Jesus, is not of God." Then the St. Joseph NAB 1970 drops even the word Jesus from the text and has: "every spirit that fails to acknowledge him does not belong to God." And now the 1985 New Jerusalem reads just like the NIV with: "and every spirit which does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God."

The words "Jesus CHRIST IS COME IN THE FLESH" are found in the Reformation Bibles including Tyndale 1525 - "Iesus Christ is come in the flesh", Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549 - "And euerye spyryte þt confesseth not that Iesu Christe is come in the fleshe, is not of God.", Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "Iesus Christ is come in the flesh", Mace 1729, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Worsley Version 1770, Webster's 1833, Darby 1890, Youngs' 1898, Etheridge 1849, Murdock's 1852 and Lamsa's 1933 translations of the Syriac Peshitta - "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh", the Aramaic Bible in Plain English - "And no spirit that does not confess that Yeshua has come in the flesh is from God.", the World English Bible, God's Word Translation, the NKJV 1982, Amplified Bible 1987, Third Millennium Bible 1998, Names of God Bible 2012 (a normally critical text version), the Jubilee Bible 2000-2010 - "And every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ, is come in flesh is not of God." and the Natural Israelite Bible 2012 - "and every spirit that does not confess that Yah’shua the Messiah has come in the flesh is not of Yahweh."

Numerous foreign language bibles contain all these words. Among them are Luther's German Bible 1545 and the German Schlachter bible 2000 - "und ein jeglicher Geist, der da nicht bekennt, daß Jesus Christus ist in das Fleisch gekommen, der ist nicht von Gott. ", the Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991 - "E ogni spirito che non riconosce che Gesú Cristo è venuto nella carne, non è da Dio", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, Reina Valera 1909-1995 and the R.V. Gómez 2010 - "y todo espíritu que no confiesa que Jesucristo ha venido en carne, no es de Dios.", the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996 and Louis Segond 2007 - "Et tout esprit qui ne confesse point que Jésus-Christ est venu en chair, n'est point de Dieu", the Portuguese Almeida Corregida E Fiel 1681 and A Biblia Sagrada - "E todo o esprito que no confessa que Jesus Cristo veio em carne no de Deus", the Hungarian Karoli Bible - "És valamely lélek nem vallja Jézust testben megjelent Krisztusnak, nincsen az Istentõl", the Russian Synodal Version - "а всякий дух, который не исповедует Иисуса Христа, пришедшего во плоти, не есть от Бога", the Afrikaans Bible 1953, the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos of 1998 - "Ang bawat espiritung hindi kumikilala na si Jesucristo ay nagkatawang tao sa kaniyang pagparito ay hindi mula sa Diyos.", the Modern Greek Bible - "και παν πνευμα, το οποιον δεν ομολογει οτι ο Ιησους Χριστος ηλθεν εν σαρκι, δεν ειναι εκ του Θεου·" and the Modern Hebrew Bible - "וכל רוח אשר איננו מודה בישוע האדון כי בא בבשר לא עליו כי"

Get the Bible with ALL of God's words in it; the only English Bible believed by multiplied thousands to be the complete, inspired and infallible words of the living God - the King James Holy Bible.



1 John 4:19 KJB - "We love HIM because he first loved us."

ESV, NIV, NASB - "We love because he first loved us."

There are several textual variants in just this one verse with so few words in it, and once again, the so called "oldest and best" do not agree with each other. The Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts read as does the King James Bible and the Reformation bibles - "We love HIM because he first loved us." - Ἡμεῖς ἀγαπῶμεν αὐτόν.

However Sinaiticus actually reads "We love GOD because he first loved us." - Ἡμεῖς ἀγαπῶμεν τὸν θεόν - whereas the Vatican manuscript simply has "We love because he first love us." - ἡμεῖς ἀγαπῶμεν - and thus the modern Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman, NET and ISV.

The New Living Translation 2007 just made up their own text and says: "We love EACH OTHER because he loved us first." There is NO Greek text that reads this way. But the Living Bible of 1971 had it right even though it was a paraphrase with - " our love FOR HIM comes as a result of his loving us first."

Agreeing with the King James Bible "We love HIM because he first loved us." are Tyndale 1525 - " We love him for he loved vs first.", Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - " We loue him, because he loued vs first.", Mace N.T. 1729, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Worsley N.T. 1770, Living Oracles 1835, Youngs 1898, J.B. Phillips Translation 1962, New Life Version 1969, NKJV 1982, Amplified Bible 1987, Green's literal Translation, Third Millennium Bible 1998 and the Jubilee Bible 2000-2010 - " We love him, because he first loved us."

Foreign language Bibles that have the same reading as the KJB are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1549, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Reina Valera 1909-2011 - "Nosotros lo amamos a él, porque él primero nos amó.", Luther's German Bible 1545 and Schlachter Bible 2000 - "Lasset uns ihn lieben; denn er hat uns zuerst geliebt.", the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996 and Louis Segond 2007 - "Nous l'aimons, parce qu'il nous a aimés le premier.", the Portuguese A Sagrada Biblia and O Livro 2000 - " Ns o amamos a ele porque ele nos amou primer.", the Italian Diodati 1649, La Nuova Diodati 1991 and Nuova Riveduta 2006 - "Noi lo amiamo, perch egli ci ha amati per primo."


Those that have adopted the Vaticanus reading and say merely "We love because he first loved us." are the RV, ASV, NASB,NIV, RSV, ESV, ISV, NET, the Jehovah Witness New World Translation and the modern Catholic Versions like the Douay 1950, St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem 1985.

The earlier Douay-Rheims of 1582 followed the Latin Vulgate, and not the Greek texts, which had the word "God" in the verse 2 times. The Douay-Rheims reads -" Let us therefore love God: because God first hath loved us. and the Latin Vulgate of 407 A.D. said "Nos ergo diligamus Deum, quoniam Deus prior dilexit nos." However, in typical fashion the Catholic church has now "updated" the New Latin Vulgate 1979 and it reads just like the modern Vatican Versions - " Nos diligimus, quoniam ipse prior dilexit nos." = "We love, because he first loved us." (Just a "coincidence", right?)

Even though the English version of the NIV says "We love, because he first loved us.", the NIV Spanish version -Nueva Versión Internacional 1999 - follows a different text and says "We love GOD because he first loved us." - Nosotros amamos a Dios porque él nos amó primero."

So you have a choice to make, either the Reformation text of the King James Bible or the new Vatican Versions. God did not inspire three different readings in the same verse in the same place. One is right and the others are wrong. Guess who wants you to be in continual doubt as to what God really said in His Book. The same serpent we see in Genesis 3 who asks the first question recorded in the Holy Bible - "Yea, hath God said..." (Genesis 3:1)



Revelation- The Vaticanus manuscript is missing ALL of the book of Revelation as well as I and II Timothy, Titus, and from Hebrews 9 to the end of the book. However Sinaiticus give us some really strange readings in the book of Revelation.

Revelation 4:8 - "HOLY, HOLY, HOLY, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come." But Sinaiticus says: " Holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty..."

Revelation 7:4 and 14:3- Both verses mention the number of 144,000. However Sinaiticus has 140,000 in 7:4 and 141,000 in 14:3.

Revelation 10:1 - "And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and A RAINBOW was upon his head..." Sinaiticus says: "clothed with a cloud with HAIR on his head."

Revelation 21:4- "For THE FORMER THINGS are passed away". Sinaiticus reads: "For THE SHEEP are passed away."

Revelation 21:5- "Behold, I make all things NEW", while Sinaiticus says: "Behold, I make all things EMPTY."

These are just a few samples from these two "oldest and best" manuscripts which so many modern versions are based on. It is my firm conviction that God has preserved His inspired, pure, and perfect words as He promised and they are found today in English only in the Authorized King James Bible.

"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls." Jeremiah 6:16

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Luke 8:8

Will Kinney

"The Oldest and Best Manuscripts" ?

These portions are taken from an article found at

http://www.truthquest.free-online.co.uk/vs_a_mss.htm#history

Most modern Versions have followed to a large extent the Greek Text prepared by Westcott and Hort in 1881. The Text of the Revised Version 1881 was influenced greatly by these scholars and the Nestlé Text is a collation of three (3) texts, Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf and Bernhard Weiss.

Westcott and Hort recognised, as their supreme authorities, only two (2) manuscripts, Aleph and B, and these are among the five (5) ancient manuscripts appealed to by modern versions.

In contrast to this Westcott-Hort text which first appeared in the Revised Version of 1881 and is now generally followed by such versions as the NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV, and Holman Standard, the older English Bibles like Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Bishops's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, and later on the King James Bible, Webster's, Young's, and the NKJV are based on what is called The Traditional Text or the Textus Receptus.

Dr. Edward F. Hills states that "in all essentials, the New Testament text first printed by Erasmus, and later by Stephens (1550) and Elzevir (1633) is in full agreement with the traditional text (Byzantine text) providentially preserved in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament Manuscripts .... It is from this Textus Receptus that the King James version was made" (Believing Bible Study, Page 37).

Westcott and Hort could not understand why the Alexandrian manuscripts were not copied in vast numbers, as were the Byzantine manuscripts. They propounded the theory that somebody must have produced the Byzantine Text about the 4th Century. Westcott and Hort called it the "Syrian Text." This theory has absolutely no historical foundation. It is a figment of their imagination to excuse them for rejecting the vast majority of manuscripts. Surely such a major recension of the text, if it had occurred, would have been documented in church history. This is especially so, as major doctrinal issues of that period are recorded in considerable detail, e.g. Council of Nicea 325 AD, which dealt with the Arian heresy. History is silent about any revision of the Text in Syria, Antioch or Constantinople!!

While Westcott and Hort were introducing their so-called "neutral text" to the Revised Version Committee 1881, the true text was strongly defended by such scholars as Dean Burgon and Dr. Scrivener.

Those who have examined the ancient manuscripts, indicate that some of the oldest manuscripts are most carelessly written.

Five of the oldest codices are Aleph, A, B, C, and D, and it is upon the evidence of these, and their small company of allies, that the Greek texts of Lachmann 1842-50; Tischendorf 1865-72; Tregelles 1857-72; Westcott and Hort 1881, rely.

In fact Westcott and Hort, who dominated the Revised Version Committee of 1881, accepted what they called a neutral text. Only Codex Aleph and Codex B, in their opinion, preserve this text in its purest form. Of these two, when they differ, B is preferred to Aleph, in which "the scribe's bold and rough manner has endured all the ordinary lapses due to rapid and careless transcription more numerous than in B. " Scrivener, Page 289, Volume II.

But how carefully written were these great UNCIALS on which our modern versions are based. Let us look at Aleph, B and D.

Codex Sinaititus (Aleph) (4th Century) "From the number of errors, one cannot affirm that it is very carefully written. The whole manuscript is disfigured by corrections, a few by the original scribe, very many by an ancient and elegant hand of the 6th Century whose emendations are of great importance, some again by a hand a little later, for the greatest number by a scholar of the 7th Century who often cancels the changes by the 6th Century amender, others by as many as eight (8) different later writers. " Scrivener, Page 93, Vol. I.

Codex Vaticanus (B) (4th Century) "One marked feature is the great number of omissions which induced Dr. Dobbin to speak of it as an abbreviated text of the New Testament. He calculates that whole words or clauses are left out no less than 2556 times." Scrivener, Page 120, Volume I.

This explains why the modern versions have omitted so much of the scripture -- a fact which is not always apparent due to the practice of grouping verses.

Codex Bezae Graeco-Latinus (D) (5th or 6th Century) "The manuscript has been corrected, first by the original penman and later by 8 or 9 different revisors." And again: "No known manuscript contains so many bold and extensive interpolations (600 in ACTS alone) Scrivener, Pages 128 and 130, Volume I.

The Alexandrian School however, is recognised as one of the greatest sources of corruption, and it is Alexandrian influence which permeates some of the oldest manuscripts (particularly Vaticanus B, Sinaiticus Aleph) upon which the modern versions are based.

Scrivener states: "it is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within 100 years after it was composed: and that Irenaeus and the African Fathers, and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used manuscripts far inferior to those employed by Stunica, Erasmus or Stephens, thirteen centuries later when moulding the Textus Receptus."

THE OLDEST MANUSCRIPTS ARE IN PERPETUAL DISAGREEMENT If we were to believe that the manuscripts became more corrupt each time they were copied, we would therefore expect the oldest to be the best and also to be in greatest agreement with each other.

THE FACT IS THEY ARE NOT -- as the following quote will show: "Ought it not, asks Dean Burgon, sensibly to detract from our opinion of the value of their evidence, (Codex B and Codex Aleph) to discover that it is easier to find two consecutive verses in which the two manuscripts differ, the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree? .... On every such occasion only one of them can possibly be speaking the truth. Shall I be thought unreasonable if I confess that these perpetual inconsistencies, between Codd B and Aleph -- grave inconsistencies and occasionally even gross ones -- altogether destroy my confidence in either?"

Or as Srivener writes: "The point on which we insist is briefly this: that the evidence of ancient authorities is anything but unanimous, that they are perpetually at variance with each other, even if we limit the term ancient within the narrowest bounds. Shall it include, among the manuscripts of the Gospels, none but the five oldest copies of Codices Aleph, A, B, C, D? The reader has but to open the first recent critical work he shall meet with, to see them scarcely ever in unison, perpetually divided two against three, or perhaps four against one."

The following figures provided by Kirsopp Lake and his associates (1928), demonstrate that Codices Aleph, B and D are in greater disagreement among themselves than they are with the Received Text!

In Mark Chapter 2 alone-- Aleph, B and D differ from the Received Text 69, 71 and 95 times respectively. B differs from Aleph 34 times B differs from D 102 times D differs from Aleph 100 times.

Hoskier, who studied the differences between the texts of Aleph and B, lists the following differences in the 4 Gospels. These numbers show how often Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus (B) DIFFER FROM EACH OTHER!

Matthew: 656 differences, Mark: 567 differences, Luke: 791 differences, John: 1,022 differences. Total for four (4) Gospels 3,036 differences.

In the light of the facts stated above it is clear that we cannot have confidence in any modern version or Greek text which rejects the concordant testimony of the vast majority of manuscripts in favour of a small company of ancient, but discordant witnesses.

TWO STREAMS OF MANUSCRIPTS HAVE ALWAYS EXISTED The foregoing comments serve to show that the claim of some modern translations and paraphrases, that the oldest manuscripts are the best, is altogether based on a wrong foundation.

Dr. D. Otis Fuller, in his book "WHICH BIBLE," has shown that Christians of all ages have recognised that two streams of manuscripts have always existed.

The muddy stream of the corrupt text, including the Western family (characterised by interpolations), and the Alexandrian family {characterised by omissions) has flowed through channels such as Origen (who denied the deity of Christ) Eusebius, Jerome (who produced the Latin Vulgate), and in the last century, through Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort.

The pure stream of the New Testament has flowed to us through the Received Text, which Dr. D. Otis Fuller tells us: "had authority enough to become either in itself, or by its translation, the Bible of the great Syrian Church, of the Waldensian Church of northern Italy, of the Gallic Church of Southern France, and of the Celtic Church in Scotland and Ireland, as well as the official Bible of the Greek Church (BYZANTINE TEXT)." The reformers stood firmly by the Received Text, Luther's German Translation and Tyndale's magnificent English Translation were from it. When 47 scholars translated the Authorised Version in 1611, by Divine Providence the Received Text was used.

Manuscript discoveries since 1611 have NOT altered the picture. The number increased to 3791 in 1881, and since then to about 5,000, BUT STILL ABOUT 90% AGREE WITH THE RECEIVED TEXT!

Here is another good site that documents what Sinaiticus actually looks like. You can see for yourself the actual scribal corrections that litter this so called "oldest and best manuscript"-

http://www.preservedword.com/article.php?id=237



Are the Older Manuscripts More Reliable?

http://www.textusreceptusbibles.com/Are_Older_Manuscripts_More_Reliable

Good article that explains a lot about the older, Egyptian manuscripts that are primarily used in the modern Vatican versions like the ESV, NASB, NIV, NET, etc. It shows some of the readings found in Sinaiticus and how they got that way. Good information.


Modern Textual Criticism

Refutes James White from the Reformed point of view. Lots of factual information

Why the “oldest manuscripts” may not be the best.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3gfLDDb0zc&feature=youtu.be&fb_ref=Default&fb_source=message



Will Kinney

Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm


Notes from the Internet -

Are the Earliest manuscripts the best?

Gnostic Corruptions in the Critical Texts

A Case Study On the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 21st Edition

http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/gnostic.html


Didn't Erasmus and the Reformation Editors Use Textual Criticism?

http://libertyparkusafd.org/lp/Burgon/reports%5CDidn%27t%20Erasmus%20and%20the%20Reformation%20Editors%20Use%20Textual%20Criticism.htm


ALL of grace, believing the Book - the King James Bible,

Will Kinney