Riders of The Wrecking Machine: Nine Part Series On The Textus Receptus-King James and the Westcott-Hort-NIV and Other Recent Versions: Parts One to Five - 7:59 AM, 2/5/2012 |
Riders of The Wrecking Machine: Nine Part Series On The Textus Receptus-King James and the Westcott-Hort-NIV and Other Recent Versions: Parts One to Five Bernard Pyron Riders of the Wrecking Machine: Part One: Fruit of the King James Version The Greek text of Desiderius Erasmus (1467-1536) - The Textus Receptus - was in large part what inspired the Protestant Reformation. Erasmus published five editions of the Textus Receptus, in 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527 and 1535. The English King James Version used in large part later editions of the Textus Receptus. The First Fruit of the Greek text created from five to ten Byzantine Greek texts by Erasmus was the Reformation itself. Martin Luther's German Bible, important for the Reformation, appeared in 1634. Luther used the Second Edition of the Erasmus Textus Receptus for his German New Testament, which he translated before the Old Testament. The King James Version has been used by English speaking peoples for almost four hundred years and has brought many to salvation. It was used in many great revivals. Gerald R. McDermott says of the 18th century Great Awakening that "Yet within a decade the greatest evangelical awakening since the Reformation broke out across America, England and the Continent. By the time it subsided, the political and social cultures of the Anglo-American world had been forever changed. Christian values had left their mark on the world beyond the church." That was fruit of the King James Version in action. There were two large 18th century revivals inspired by the King James Version, The Great Awakening in the American colonies, and the English Evangelical Revival. McDermott says "So in the 1720s and 1730s, after decades of feeling that true religion was dying, American and British evangelicals turned to prayer for such an anointing. The first answers seemed to come in 1734-35 with the Connecticut River Valley revivals, led by Jonathan Edwards' congregation at Northampton, Mass. Then the same pattern appeared elsewhere. Days of fasting and prayer preceded revivals at Gloucester, Halifax, and Middleborough, Mass. The first signs of revival at Portsmouth, N.H. and at Wrentham, Mass., appeared during fast-day services. And in August 1743 Rev. John Sutherland in Golspie, Scotland, started three prayer groups to pray for an outpouring of the Holy Spirit. A year later, revival fell. Seventy people were converted in his church alone." Jonathan Edwards was very likely using the King James. McDermott goes on to say that "George Whitefield was the catalyst for the largest explosion of religion in 1740. A mere 24 years old, he preached more than 175 sermons in a 45-day whirlwind tour of Massachusetts and Connecticut. Most of his sermons were preached to immense crowds; his farewell sermon in Boston was heard by 20,000." "But if some clergymen were responsible for first sharing the news, it was the laity who took the message and ran to their neighbors. Unlike awakenings in previous centuries, the 18th-century awakening was propelled primarily by laymen, not clergymen. Even Edwards, the awakening's first great leader, said the momentum came from below, especially young people, whose "lay testifyings" produced a "great noise" that was heard throughout the region." "The revivalists believed the Holy Spirit's presence would be palpably manifest. Edwards believed that the Spirit could be discerned, that he moved a congregation "by a mighty invisible power," and he sometimes caused a "visible commotion." The above is from: http://www.christianword.org/revival/wakeup.html Some historians say that the Great Awakening of the 1734-1740 period had such an impact upon the culture of colonial America that the colonists had the backbone to take on the British, who had the top Navy and Army in the world. In England, John Wesley (1703-1791), founder of Methodism, preached many sermons and led tens of thousands to Christ with the King James Bible. Francis Asbury (1745-1816), one of Wesley's contemporaries, carried the King James Version thousands of miles throughout the U.S. in his saddlebags and saved thousands. David Brainard (1718-1747), brought it to the American Indians. Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892) preached the KJV to millions more There was what is called a Second Great Awakening in New England, Kentucky, Tennessee and in other states from about 1800 to 1830. This great revival was started by the preaching of James McGready in Logan county, Kentucky in 1800. Charles G. Finney held revivals from 1824 to 1837 in New York state. This Second Great Awakening lasted about 30 years. In 1800 to 1830 American Christians were almost all using the King James Version. The first copy of the King James Bible known to have been brought into the colonies was taken by John Winthrop to Massachusetts in 1630. Gradually the King James Bible replaced the Geneva Bible among the New England Puritans and became the one English Bible of Americans until late in the 19th century. Teaching and Learning: American Religions to 1870: American Religions to 1870 Website Visuals And so the King James Version was used for the two great revivals in America, the first from about 1734 to 1740, and the second in 1800 to 1830. These revivals - which put the stamp of the King James Version on American culture of the 18th and 19th centuries - were not the only fruit of the KJV among English speaking peoples. Millions in England,South America, Canada, Australia, New Zeeland and elsewhere have been convicted of sin and saved by preaching from and personal reading of the KJV. Christians in England had sent out missionaries who used the KJV and translations of it into native languages to convert many people over the world. Following the second Great Awakening, the American world wide missionary movement continued. J. Hudson Taylor was the first American missionary to inland China in 1865. Tape Six: The Secret Society at the Church of Philadelphia Since then, thousands of American missionaries have gone to foreign lands, carrying the KJV, to "Go thee therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. (Matthew 28: 19)" Those who defend the new Bible versions might argue that Billy Graham"s preaching has led many to salvation, and he promotes the NIV. But they paint themselves into a corner if they bring up Billy Graham. He had an emotional appeal, but he made too many statements opposed to Bible doctrines. In addition, while Graham was holding his crusades, belief in the Bible was declining, America was moving farther into a post- Christian culture, gnostic mysticism was sometimes posing as Holy Spirit spiritual experiencing, the New Age Occult religion got going after about 1968 and even Christians were acting more and more in immoral ways. Can the advocates of the new Bible versions, based on the Westcott-Hort 1881 Greek text, claim to have produced the same kind and same amount of fruit produced by the Textus Receptus and the King James Version? Its true that the New International Version has been around less than thirty years. The New American Standard came out in 1971, and the Revised Standard in 1952. But the English Revised Version was published in 1881 and its American counterpart, the American Standard Version in 1901, enough time to generate some fruit. Have these versions produced fruit comparable to the KJV? On Chapter 1 it is said that "...the fundamental difference between the New Testament in the American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, New English Bible, Today's English Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, etc., on the one hand, and in the AV (King James Version) and NKJV on the other is that they are based on different forms of the Greek text. (There are over 5,500 differences between those two forms." The NKJV may be based on the Textus Receptus instead of Westcott-Hort but it also has problems in its doctrines and in the way it states them. PART TWO Part Two: Riders of the Wrecking Machine, Westcott and Hort Versus the Textus Receptu Part Two: Riders of the Wrecking Machine, Westcott and Hort Versus the Textus Receptus and KJV CREATORS AND DRIVERS OF THE WRECKING MACHINE Two 19th century English professors created the new Greek text which became the basis for almost all the new Bible versions. These were: Brooke Foss Westcott 1825-1901, professor of divinity at Cambridge. With F. J. A. Hort, he published The New Testament in the Original Greek (2 vol., 1881) Fenton J. A. Hort 1828-1892, was also a Professor at Cambridge In 1881 when Westcott and Hort published their Greek text, the English Revised Version of the New Testament was published, based on the Westcott-Hort Greek text, instead of the Textus Receptus. Westcott and Hort used two main Greek texts as their sources for their Greek text: THE VATICANUS: The Vaticanus was discovered in the Vatican library in the year 1481. It was written in the 4th century. Yet it omits Genesis 1:1 to 46:28, Psalms 106 to 138, Matthew 16:2-3, all the Pauline Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy through Titus) Hebrews 9:14-13:25 and all of the book of Revelation. THE SINIATICUS: Siniaticus is a manuscript which was found in 1844 by Constantin (von) Tischendorf on a trash pile outside the walls of St. Catherine's Monastery, at the base of what some believe is the mountain where Moses was given the Ten Commandments, Mount Sinai. The riders of the Wrecking machine are the followers of the seminary trained professional Christians who have promoted the new Bible versions. Westcott and Hort (1881) wrote that the Bible is to be considered as an ancient manuscript, no better and no worse than other ancient manuscripts. This starting point denies that the Bible is inspired by God, and that God has control over all that goes on in this world. The reference (1881) above is: B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1881, and Introduction and Appendix, authored by Hort, appeared in 1882 (revised edition by F. C. Burkitt in 1892). In it Hort gives the theories, or assumptions, they used as the basis for selecting the Greek texts.. But the problem with starting from the assumption that the Bible is just like any other old book is that the meaning of Scripture is given by the Holy Spirit. And if a textual critic does not have the Holy Spirit, he is likely to make mistakes in handing the word of God. John 16: 13 says "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth..." Westcott and Hort did not believe in many of the teachings of the Old and New Testaments and very likely were not inspired by the Spirit. John Burgon, Dean of Chichester in England during the late 19th century said the following about the inclusion of a Unitarian on the 1881 Revision Committee led by Westcott & Hort that: "But even if the Unitarian [Vance Smith] had been an eminent Scholar, my objection would remain in full force; for I hold (and surely so do you!), that the right Interpretation of God's Word may not be attained without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whose aid must first be invoked by faithful prayer." The 1881 committee's purpose was to consider the issue of revising the King James translation. Dean Burgon and F. H. Scrivener lost their battle with Westcort and Hort over the revision of the King James Version. Textual criticism is concerned with finding errors in texts. Supposedly, the goal of textual criticism of the New Testament is to recreate, as closely as possible, the original writings of the apostles. This is the smokescreen that Westcott and Hort used to pull off their great swindle. They managed to establish as a basis for translation a Greek text based on Alexandarian manuscripts which dilute, abbreviate leave out, and cast doubt upon many New testament doctrines and teachings. Westcott and Hort set out to discredit the Textus Receptus. And before they began to create the machine to wreck the Textus Receptus, Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745-1812), an earlier textual critic, published some critical rules for accepting or rejecting New Testament wordings. One of Griesback's critical rules was that "the hardest reading is best." Another was"the shorter reading is best, based on the idea that scribes were more likely to add than to delete. These are really assumptions which have little if any empirical evidence to support them. Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton J. A. Hort in the 1881 edition of their Greek New Testament also proposed critical rules, including the rule, or assumption, that the shorter reading is best, meaning it is assumed to be closer to the original writing of the apostles. In part, with this and other assumptions,Westcott and Hort justified to their many followers the undermining of the text of the King James Version and the Textus Receptus. In time the substitution of their 1881 Greek text for the Textus Receptus led mainstream evangelicals to turn to the new translations and reject the King James Version. A summary of the assumptions of Westcott and Hort that they used to select the Alexandrian Greek texts and reject the Textus Receptus can be found in the book by Eldon Jay Epp and Gordon D. Fee, Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. http://www.biblebeliever.co.za/King James/believes_westcott_hort.htm The stuff below is from this link: ASSUMPTIONS OF WESTCORT AND HORT: 1. Earlier Greek manuscripts are closer to the original writings of the Apostles 2. A scribe usually went about blending the texts available to him trying to make improvements to the text; This is what they call conflation. 3. Older manuscripts have fewer corruptions. 4. Shorter readings are preferred. 5. More awkward sentence grammar is preferred. Westcott and. Hort claimed that a shorter reading of a New Testament verse is closer to the original autograph and should be used in translation. But what they did, in effect, was set up their critical rules to reject many longer verse readings in the Textus Receptus and accept the shorter readings of the Alexandrian Greek texts, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. They rationalized this rule by claiming a shorter reading is more accurate because of the assumed blending together of two or more different shorter Greek verses practiced by the scribes. The scribes, they assumed, merged verse wordings from different Greek texts into one new reading. But typists, or ancient scribes who copied manuscripts by hand, it would seem, are more likely to leave out words than they are to add words to merge two different versions of a Bible verse into a new verse. In the theory they concocted to justify their use of the Alexandrian Greek texts, Westcott and Hort implied that Christian scribes had deliberately changed some verses of the Scriptures. But the problem with their Greek text is that some verses, different in wording from the Textus Receptus, appear to be in agreement with gnostic theology, which existed in Alexandria, Egypt at the about the time the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus came into existence. The main assumption of Hort in his Introduction and Appendix (1882) to the Westcott-Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881) was that the Textus Receptus was a late Greek text and therefore not as close to the original writings of the apostles as the fourth century Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. A key part of Hort's theory was his argument on the lateness of the Byzantine text which was used to create the Textus Receptus. To treat the Scriptures as any other book means that Westcott and Hort and their followers who ride their Wrecking Machine (1) ignored the reality of Satan who tries to change God's Word (2) had little faith in God's promise to preserve His Word. Since Satan has tried to inspire scribes and theologians to change the word of God, we might expect to find that some copies of the New Testament were changed to support gnostic or other false doctrines - at least some changes were made. Large changes in doctrines might have been rejected even by Christians in Egypt in the fourth and fifth centuries and so the changes had to be subtle. In II Corinthians 2:17 Paul says "For we are not as many which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ." Colwell,(1952), who once was a follower of Westcott and Hort, but who changed his position, says that: "The majority of the variant readings in the New Testament were created for theological or dogmatic reasons. Most of the manuals and handbooks now in print (including mine!) will tell you that these variations were the fruit of careless treatment which was possible because the books of the New Testament had not yet attained a strong position as 'Bible.' The reverse is the case. It was because they were the religious treasure of the church that they were changed ... most variations, I believe, were made deliberately. ... scholars now believe that most variations were made deliberately"4 E.C. Colwell, What is the Best New Testament?(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1952), pp. 53, 58 & 49. J. Gresham Machen in his book, Christianity and Liberalism, warned what would happen if the liberals gain control of the evangelical churches. They would retain the name and some of the trappings of genuine Christianity but the substance would be lost. The liberals, or academics, who, for the most part, do not have the Holy Spirit, and do not believe all the teachings of the Bible, have not only taken over the evangelical churches, they have also taken over the seminaries that train the preachers. The Declension of American Revivalism Apparently the Church of England theologians, Westcott and Hort, would have qualified as liberals. PART THREE Part 3: Riders of the Wrecking Machine, KJV Wordings KJV HAS ARCHAIC LANGUAGE, SO SAY ITS ENEMIES Many seminary trained people say the 17th century English of the King James is not understandable. There are at least 827 words and phrases in the days of King James that have changed their meaning or are no longer used in our modern, everyday English language, such as suffer, filthy lucre, quick, lunatick, wax, charity, But the meaning of these words can be understood, sometimes by the context in which they are used. Suffer means to allow something to occur. Filthy lucre is money. Wax is grow, and charity is the translation of agape love. It meaning is not limited to doing work for someone for free. 2 John 10 is one example some opponents of the King James use as an example, which reads: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed" (KJV). "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him" (NIV). D. A. Carlson says "The plain truth of the matter is that the version that is so cherished among senior saints who have more or less come to terms with Elizabethan English, is obscure, confusing, and sometimes even incomprehensible to many younger or poorly educated Christians...For any preacher or theologian who loves God's Word to allow that Word to go on being misunderstood because of the veneration of an archaic, not-understood version of four centuries ago is inexcusable, and almost unconscionable' " (The King James Version Debate: A Plea For Realism, D. A. Carlson, Baker Book House, 1979, pp. 101,102) But some King James Version people say: The King James enemies are also wrong on its Elizabethian English. After nearly four centuries, so little can be found to be archaic. Certainly there are "profound differences" between current and Elizabethan English. But, the language of the King James is not exactly Elizabethan English! As a comparison will show, there is a great difference between King James English and the wordy, complex and often ambiguous Elizabethan style. The English language after 1611 owes its development in part to the Authorized Version! "The King James Version was a model for the development of the English language. Its elegant but simple style had an influence on English-speaking writers" (World Book Encyclopedia). This partially explains why the King James English is more alive and explicit while most other literary-type texts from that period are more difficult to read. The English of the King James Version is not the English of the early 17th century. It is biblical English, which was not used on ordinary occasions even by the translators who produced the King James Version. As H. Wheeler Robinson (1940) pointed out, one need only compare the preface written by the translators with the text of their translation to feel the difference in style. The King James Version owes its greatness not to 17th-century English - which was very difficult - but to its faithful translation of the original. Its style is that of the Hebrew and of the New Testament Greek. Even in their use of thee and thou the translators were not following 17th-century English usage but biblical usage, for at the time these translators were doing their work these singular forms had already been replaced by the plural you in polite conversation (The King James Version Defended, Des Moines: Christian Research Press, 1984, pp. 218). Ye is a more exact word, for example, that calling a bunch of people you, because we use you to address a single individual. Here is the beginning of the preface to the KJV written by the KJV translators: "Zeal to promote the common good, whether it be by devising anything ourselves, or revising that which hath been laboured by others, deserveth certainly much respect and esteem, but yet findeth but cold entertainment in the world. It is welcomed with suspicion instead of love, and with emulation instead of thanks: and if there be any hole left for cavil to enter, (and cavil, if it do not find a hole, will make one) it is sure to be misconstrued, and in danger to be condemned. This will easily be granted by as many as know story, or have any experience." This is not the writing style the KJV translators used for their translation. The words of the King James version are often more lucid than those of the NIV. The writing style in the Preface is more complex than that of the 1611 King James Version Bible, whose wording is less complex and often more exact. The style of the preface is more ambiguous to a modern reader, though it has some interesting points. Cavil they say "if it do not find a hole, will make one," for example. Cavil means to find a fault in something without good reason, to quibble. The advocates of the new translations say the King James Version is flawed for modern readers because of its archaic language. And they say that the new translations with their modern English have all the doctrines of the Bible. ELABORATION IN THE KING JAMES If you compare verses from the King James to those of the modern translations, you will find that many verses in the NIV and other modern versions are shorter, more abbreviated and not amplified or elaborated as much. The reason why the verses in the new versions are shorter, though not always, is because the Greek text behind the new versions generally has shorter wordings. I will show this later with such texts as I John 5: 7-8 as examples. Westcott and Hort set up their critical rules so that the shorter wording of verses in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus would be used rather than the longer and more amplified or elaborated wordings of the Textus Receptus. In the Bible, God often amplifies a thought as he chooses words to connect to the mind, and to communicate the holiness and the inspiration linked with holiness. The human mind can more easily learn and remember a thought that is amplified and elaborated than a thought that is presented only in a very brief way. I know that sometimes we can communicate more clearly with statements that are brief, but if we know our subject matter and can use words well, we can be more clear by expanding on that thought and associating it with different other ideas. A person who at first knows little of New Testament doctrines should be better able to learn and remember those doctrines from reading them in the King James than from the NIV or other modern versions. In part, this is because of the greater elaboration of the thoughts in the King James. So, after becoming more familiar with the 17th century English of the King James, a person wanting to learn New Testament teachings can learn them more fully from the longer and more elaborated verses in the KJV than from the shorter verses of the new versions. The King James reader may also be better able to remember the gist meanings of those doctrines than the reader of the NIV. This is really an empirical question, and could be tested in experiments. Now, a person who has not read the Bible over and over for a time will have some difficulty in remembering exactly what verses say and exactly how a New Testament doctrine is stated. Here again, the longer, more elaborated verses of the King James should help that person re-learn the verses and the doctrines, while reading them in the NIV should be of somewhat less help in the re-learning process. Remember that the new versions play down, dilute, abbreviate and weaken some New Testament doctrines. The teaching that Christ who is fully God and is always omnipresent but took on the flesh of man in the material world to save us from our sin is one of these doctrines that is played down and weakened in the new translations. This is because it is weakened in the Westcott-Hort Greek text. The longer wording of some verses in the King James, its greater amplification and elaboration of meanings is one quality. The actual individual words used is another issue dividing the King James Version from the modern versions. THE SPIRITUALLY POWERFUL WORDS OF THE KING JAMES Isaiah 66: 5 "Hear the word of the Lord, ye that tremble at his word: your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said Let the Lord be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed." The English words that the King James translators chose to use in translating Hebrew and Greek words describe the nature of God and the doctrines God wants us to follow. The words the translators chose work well upon the human mind, on our intellect as well as on our emotions. The words of the King James are effective and powerful in arousing awe for the Lord and in creating faith, at least in those who fully believe in that word of God. The King James English words can put believers into a closer relation to God, to his greatness and can lead us to become more holy as God is holy. The words can inspire us to separate from our own sins and from sinners and those who hold false doctrines. The KJV's words can help put us into a spiritual relation with Jesus Christ, who is "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher..." Hebrews 7: 26 says "For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens." On the other hand the words of the NIV tend to be more the uninspired and secular words of modern people in the world of the universities, the media, government and big business. Of course, the promoters of the new Bible translations will say this is one of the reasons we should use the NIV, since it uses the language of our time which we understand and not the "archaic" language of the old King James. Many of the words used in the NIV and in other new versions are shown by Edinburgh University's Associative Thesaurus to be unholy, harmful, defiled, and anything but separate from sinners. That is, the associations these words evoke tend to be more unholy, harmful, and defiled. The KJV fulfills Tyndale's wish that the final English Bible "seek in certain places more proper English" (Dore, 2nd ed, pp. 23-24). Tyndale scholar, David Daniell agrees that "the Authorized Version's scholars tended to remove the Bible safely away from daily life" (Daniell, p. xiii). To fulfill God's requirement that man, "tremble at my word," it must be recognizable as his word. A close look at words such as " unto, ought, nought, wrought, twain, holpen, shambles, wist, hath, hough, flower, and servant " gives the reader insight into some of the qualities words in the King James use to put readers into contact with the Holy Spirit's communication to us. How many have gone 'to' church, but not "unto" Christ? Although the KJV has a few special big words, like "atonement" and "remission," most of its words are shorter than those in new versions and old English Bibles. . Isaiah 49: 2 says "And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword: in the shadow of his hand hath he hid me, and made me a polished shaft: in his quiver hath he hid me." Isaiah 49: 2 is saying that God can give us words to speak that penetrate sharply into minds and spirit. And that is what happened to the King James translators who were inspired as they chose English words to translate those of Hebrew and Greek. Hebrews 4: 12 teaches that "...the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Are the words of the NIV as faithful to Hebrews 4: 12 as are those of the King James? Do the words of the NIV penetrate our minds, hearts and spirit to awaken us spiritually as those of the KJV do for those who fully believe? And - don't forget, that the words of the NIV may not arouse us to fully believe as well as those of the KJV. H.L. Mencken says , "The prevalence of very short words in English...[a] succinct, straightforward and simple tongue - in some of its aspects, in fact almost as a kind of baby-talk" In fact, English often does use fewer words and syllables than other languages to describe something. And it can be more lucid, explicit and specific in the meanings it conveys. I Peter 1: 23 speaks of being born again by the incorruptable word of God. The words of the King James can not only put us more easily into a spiritual contact with the Lord of glory, but the rhythms of the King James language are inspiring and help us remember scripture better. Children like the speech rhythms of the King James. Although T. S. Eliot may not have been the best Christian, he was a poet and understood language. He said that elevated writing, like that seen in the Bible, has a "...feeling for syllable and rhythm, penetrating far below the conscious levels of thought and feelings, invigorating every word" (Adam Nicolson, God's Secretaries, NYC: HarperCollins, 2003, p. 223). Eliot is not talking about the writing style of the NIV, but about the King James. Albert Cook states that, "When we think of the high repute in which the Authorized Version is held by men of learning and renown, we must remember, too, that in a special sense it has been the great book of the poor and unlettered. The one book that every household was sure to possess was the Bible [KJV]...To many a poor man the English Bible has been a university, the kindly mother from whom he has drawn...a way of great speech" (The Cambridge History of English Literature, vol. 4, pp. 178-180). Again, H.L. Mencken, who was an unbeliever, has this to say about the King James: "It is the most beautiful of all the translations of the Bible; indeed it is probably the most beautiful piece of writing in all the literature of the world...[M]any learned but misguided men have sought to produce translations...in the plain speech of everyday. But the Authorized Version has never yielded to any of them, for it is palpably and overwhelmingly better than they are, just as it is better than the Greek New Testament, or the Vulgate, or the Septuagint. Its English is extraordinarily simple, pure, eloquent, and lovely. It is a mine of lordly and incomparable poetry, at once the most stirring and the most touching ever heard of" (Paine, p. viii). Here is an unbeliever praising the King James, while many of those who say they are believers stick to the Westcott-Hort derived new versions, and do not agree with H. L. Mencken. The advocates of the Westcott-Hort Wrecking Machine call us "King James Only" people and imply that we are authoritarians. They say we want to control them. PART FOUR Part 4: Riders of the Wrecking Machine: Alexandarian Gnosticism Riders of the Wrecking Machine: Alexandarian Gnosticism and the Westcott-Hort Text In order to determine the extent to which there are gnostic influences in the particular wordings of the Westcott-Hort Greek text, and in its recent English translations, some knowledge of the gnosticism of the second and third centuries A.D. is necessary. Often the omission of words and parts of sentences in the Westcott-Hort Greek and in its English translations - as compared to the Textus Receptus and the KJV - is consistent with gnostic teachings. There were different versions of gnosticism that made some use of Christian terminology and which deceived some Christians in the second and third centuries. And even a few early church fathers like Origen of Alexandria, Egypt may have been in part influenced by gnosticism. The effect of believing gnostic teachings is to bring doubt about the basic doctrines of the Bible, which must have been Satan's reason for inspiring the gnostics to hold forth as they did. Gnostics thought that the Supreme Father is remote and unknowable. He/she created supernatural beings called Aeons. One of the Aeons was Sophia - wisdom in Greek - who gave birth to the "inferior" creator being gnostics call the Demiurge. The Demiurge then created the material world gnostics said was evil, corrupt and flawed. To gnostics, the demiurge is the God of the Old Testament, seen by them as evil, rigid, and lacking in compassion. Many gnostics said the pride, ignorance and incompetence of the demiurge caused the sorry state of the world as we know it. Valentinus, a gnostic leader in Alexandria, Egypt taught that the supposedly evil physical universe was created because of a mistake by Sophia. But in Genesis 1: 4-25 God says several times that the material universe and the earth which he created was good, not evil. For the gnostics to say the physical earth and material universe are evil is an insult to God. One of the major gnostic movements was founded by Valentinus whose dates are about 100 to 153 AD. Tertullian (about 155 to 230) AD wrote a book opposed to the teachings of Valentinus, Adversus Valentinianos. Irenaeus (about 130 to 200 AD) writes about the gnosticism of Valentinus in his book Against Heresies. See Early Church Fathers for online texts of the five books of Against Heresies. Irenaeus' Against Heresies contains a number of quotes from the New Testament, many of which are identical or almost exactly the same as wordings in the King James Version. Scholars say he wrote this book in about 180 AD. Only fragments of the original Greek text of Against Heresies have survived, though one web site claims much of Book One has survived. A complete Latin translation from 380 AD has survived. There are more than one English translations of the Latin, such as that by Alexander Roberets and James Donald (1867). Esoteric or secret teachings were passed on in private by Jesus to his apostles, so says Valentinus. Valentinus quotes Luke 8: 9-10 "The knowledge about the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but to the rest it comes by means of parables so that they may look but not see and listen but not understand."(Luke 8:9-10 See. Ireneus Against Heresies 1:3:1). This information is found at: Brief Summary of Valentinian Theology - Valentinus and the Valentinian Tradition Also, Valentinus claims that when Paul met the risen Christ on the Road to Damascus (Acts 9:9-10), he received this secret knowledge from Jesus. Valentinus says Theudas gave Valentinus the secret knowledge and that Theudas received it from the Apostles. The gnostic Valentinus taught that the scriptures are not easily understood and their truth can only be had by those who have the secret gnostic knowledge (Irenaeus Against heresies Book Three, Chapter Two, paragraph One). Valentinian gnostics thought that the secret knowledge is understood only by those who are spiritually mature. The Valentinians claimed that the gnostic knowledge is nonsense to those who are not ready to receive them. They said Paul and other Apostles only gave these teachings to those who were spiritually mature. What Valentinus and his followers created was a false religion which stole some of the terminology of Christianity. The gnostics tried to make themselves an elite caste who were the only ones having the correct knowledge which was said to be necessary to be saved at death from the evil material world. Since they were not spiritually regenerated by the Holy Spirit, they were arrogant in their assumed elite status as the sole bearers of the truth. In Revelation 2: 15 Christ says the church at Pergamos held to the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which he hates. It may be that Christ hated the doctrine of the Nicolaitans because they engaged in pagan ceremonies and orgies and because they were proud in their assumed status as a religious ruling elite. Irenaeus and some other early Fathers said some of the gnostics engaged in pagan practices and did not follow Christian morals. As a movement that claimed to be a religious elite possessing secret knowledge, the gnostics were probably like the Nicolaitans in trying to rule as an elite group over others as. The lesson for us from this is that there should be no elite, no priesthood, among Christians. Valentinian gnostics made a distinction between the human Jesus and the divine Christ. They thought the human Jesus was born as the biological son of Mary and Joseph. When he was baptized by John the Baptist, the "Spirit of the Thought of the Father" descended on him in the form of a dove, He was born of the Spirit. Brief Summary of Valentinian Theology - Valentinus and the Valentinian Tradition This account seems to suggest that the gnostics thought Jesus became fully spiritual as a savior at his baptism. Other gnostics said that the savior, who came from the spiritual world of the Eternal Father, could not have entered the material world and taken on human flesh because the material world and human flesh are evil. See: Gnostic Corruptions in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament The gnostics differentiated between the human Jesus and the spiritual Christ. Some said that the evil material world causes a corruption of the spiritual state and so Christ as pure spirit could not become human flesh in the material world. Those of the gnostic movements who followed the Docetism of Julius Cassianus believed that Christ was pure spirit and only appeared to be in human flesh. Arianism, as taught by Arius, said that Jesus was a created being and not God. These false teachings about Jesus Christ are also blasphemy, as is the teaching that salvation is not by the blood atonement of Christ, but by obtaining secret knowledge. And remember, for the gnostics, salvation is not being set free from the domination of sin and given eternal life with Christ. For them, salvation is liberation at death from the bondage to the material world. This implies a form of reincarnation which some gnostics taught. There is some hint that Origen (184"253 A.D), the Alexandarian Christian theologian who influenced Augustine, and the Catholics, elevated the immaterial or spiritual world far above the material world, and his opposition to the Chiliasm, or belief in a thousand year reign of the saints with Christ on the material earth, is part of this regard for the material world as being "crude." Its possible the Alxandarian gnostics influenced Origen to reject the material world more than did the earlier Church Fathers who generally held to the view that Christ would reign on the physical earth following the end of the age. Marcion (about 85 to 160 AD), another important gnostic, said Jesus was a spirit and was not in the flesh. Marcion rejected the baby stories about Jesus and on his crucifixtion and resurrection. Marcion thought the Eternal Father took pity on humanity and sent Christ, as spirit alone, to rescue some men from the material world and from the God of the Old Testament. Gnostics did not want to acknowledge that Jesus Christ took on human flesh in the material world. If it was some of the gnostics who removed words and phrases from some verses of the Greek New Testament, in the copies associated with Alexandria, Egypt then this rejection of the teaching that Christ took on human flesh could account for some of these omissions on the topics of the deity of Christ and his incarnation. The omission of some words and parts of sentences from the Alexndarian Greek texts, the Sianaticus and Vaticanus could have been the word of Christian scribes who might have been influenced to some extent by the Gnostics. But the shorter wordings of the Alexandarian type Greek manuscripts, and the omission of certain key words that is consistent with gnostic theology occurs earlier than the fourth century as shown by earlier Papyri fragments of the New Testament. See http://www.uv.es/~fores/programa/majorityvscritical.html Many Papyri fragments of the New Testament contain Byzantine readings, that is, the verse wordings are more similar to the Byzantine Greek text than to the Alexandarian text, used by Westcott and Hort. "Harry Sturz discusses these "distinctively Byzantine" readings in his book, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism." "The most important of these discoveries was several Egyptian papyri. Sturz lists "150 distinctively Byzantine readings" found in these papyri. Included in his list are papyri numbers 13, 45, 46, 47, 49, 59, 66, 72, 74, and 75 (pp.61, 145-159)." What Sturz is saying is that many early Papyri Greek texts agree with the verse wordings of the Byzantine or Textus Receptus type Greek text more than with the Alexandrian or Westcott-Hort type Greek text. "Sturz concludes, "In view of the above, it is concluded that the papyri supply valid evidence that distinctively Byzantine readings were not created in the fourth century but were already in existence before the end of the second century and that, because of this, Byzantine readings merit serious consideration" (p.69)." "Aland says all but one of the these early papyri, "... are from Egypt where the hot, dry sands preserved the papyri through the centuries." Meanwhile, in Asia Minor and Greece (eastern areas), "... the climate in these regions has been unfavorable to the preservation of any papyri from the early period" (pp.59,67)." The writer of this site then says "So it is not surprising many early papyri have been found which reflect the Alexandrian text since this text existed in Egypt. But even some of these Egyptian papyri, as mentioned above, contain Byzantine and even Western readings." The Papyri fragments indicate that Alexandarian wordings existed prior to the fourth century - and importantly, the more recently discovered papyri going back as far as the second century show Byzantine or Textus Receptus type wordings, something which Westcott and Hort did not know. The second and third century gnostics did not accept the Genesis account saying that man and the earth degenerated as a result of the sin of Adam and Eve. For the gnostics, the material world was evil from its creation. Again, this insults the Lord. There may have been some gnostics around during the first century when Paul, John and other apostles wrote. Irenaeus in Against heresies, Justin Martyr in Apologies and Hippolytus in Philosophemena all wrote abut a Simon Magnus who was a heretic and perhaps an early gnostic. Irenaeus in Against Heresies (wrote about 182-188 A.D.) devotes all of chapter 23 of Book One to Simon Magus. He said that Emperor Claudius honored Simon Magus with a statue because of his magic. Irenaeus says that Simon taught that he appeared to the Jews as the Son, to the Samaritans as the Father, and to other nations as the Holy Spirit. Tertullian in Against All Heresies (200-210 A.D) also devotes the first chapter to discussing Simon Magus. Tertullian says that Simon called himself "The Supreme Virtue", and that his successor was Menander. Tertullian also says in A Treatise on the Soul ch.34, that Simon devoted his energies to destroying the truth after Peter rebuked him. Hippolytus in The Refutation of All Heresies book 6 chapters 2-7, (225-235/6 A.D.) goes into Simon's pseudo-Platonic nonsense. In Book One Chapter 23 of Against Heresies, Irenaeus has a lot to say about Simon Magnus. He said: "Simon the Samaritan was that magician of whom Luke, the disciple and follower of the apostles, says, "But there was a certain man, Simon by name, who beforetime used magical arts in that city, and led astray the people of Samaria, declaring that he himself was some great one, to whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This is the power of God, which is called great..." Irenaeus goes on to say " In fine, they have a name derived from Simon, the author of these most impious doctrines, being called Simonians; and from them "knowledge, falsely so called," received its beginning, as one may learn even from their own assertions." "They" are the followers of Simon. Here Ignatious is quoting part of I Timothy 6: 20. Irenaeus ends his discussion of Simon in saying "The successor of this man was Menander, also a Samaritan by birth, and he, too, was a perfect adept in the practice of magic. He affirms that the primary Power continues unknown to all, but that he himself is the person who has been sent forth from the presence of the invisible beings as a saviour, for the deliverance of men. The world was made by angels, whom, like Simon, he maintains to have been produced by Ennoea." Hasting's Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Vol. 2, p. 496: "But it need NOT be supposed that when Simon broke with the Christians HE RENOUNCED ALL HE HAD LEARNED. It is more probable that he carried some of the Christian ideas with him, and that he wove these into a system of his own. This system did contain some of the later germs of Gnosticism. Thus he became a leader of a retro-grade sect, perhaps nominally Christian, and certainly using some of the Christian terminology but in reality anti-Christian and exalting Simon himself to the central position which Christianity was giving to Jesus Christ" I Timothy 6: 20 and I John 4: 3, at least, seem to deal with the problem of gnosticism. I Timothy 6:20 says "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called." "Science" is from "gnosis" and could have been translated as "knowledge." Paul might be warning Timothy to stay away from gnosticism which promotes a kind of "knowledge" that is false. Then, I John 4:3 could be warning about the gnostic teaching that Jesus Christ could not have taken on the flesh of man in the incarnation. John says "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is the spirit of antichrist..." The gnostics of the second and third centuries had the spirit of antichrist. And - though there are many different kinds of gnosticism -the contemporary New Age Occult Movement is a continuation of aspects of that early gnosticism. And so it too is the spirit of antichrist. It has infiltrated some of the churches as a kind of religious mysticism that is not authentically led by the Holy Spirit. Here is the link for all five of the Irenaeus Books of Against Heresies: Early Church Fathers. PART FIVE Part 5: Riders of the Wrecking Machine: Different Wordings in Westcott-Hort (one) Part 5: Riders of the Wrecking Machine: Different Wordings in Westcott-Hort (one) Discussion of the Westcott-Hort and Textus Receptus Greek texts and the English translation offspring of the Westcott-Hort in posts that are like short chapters is not very popular on Christian Chat. At least for the four parts so far, there have been few readers and few responses. But the issue of the Westcott-Hort versus the Textus Receptus remains a matter of opinion unless people are willing to read and understand posts longer than a few sentences. This is especially true for understanding which verses are left out of the Westcott-Hort, as compared to the Textus Receptus, and which verses have obviously different wordings when the two Greek texts are compared. You have to see a number of verses to get any idea about the differences between the texts, and what these differences can mean. DOCTRINE: THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST Mark 1: 1 Textus Receptus: arch tou euaggeliou ihsou cristou uiou tou qeou Mark 1: 1 Westcott-Hort: arch tou euaggeliou ihsou cristou "uiou tou qeou" or Son of the God is left out of the Westcott-Hort text for Mark 1: 1 Mark 1: 1 King James Version: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; The American Standard Version, New American Standard, New revised Standard, NIV and Douay-Rheims all have "...Jesus Christ, the Son of God." But - the NIV for Mark 1: 1 has a footnote saying "Some manuscripts do not have the Son of God," which casts some doubt on whether this belongs in the verse. Since some gnostics would not have wanted to say that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, implying strongly that he is also God, the omission of "Son of God" in the Westcott-Hort and the doubt cast on it in the NIV are in line with gnostic teachings. ohn 1: 18: Textus Receptus: qeon oudei ewraken pwpote o monogenhs uios o wn eis ton kolpon tou patro ekeino exhghsato John 1: 18: Westcott-Hort: qeon oudei ewraken pwpote monogenhs qeo o wn eis ton kolpon tou patro ekeino exhghsato Note that the Textus Receptus has "monogenhs uios" or only begotten Son," while the Westcott-Hort has "monogenhs geo," or only begotten God. The Greek word monogenes is a little tricky. It is Strong"s Exhaustive Concordance number 3439, where it says "from 3441, or monos, "remaining, i.e, sole or single...only." On Bible Study Online - Bible Monk for Thayer's Lexicon the definition of Strong's number 3439, or monogenes, is "single of its, kind, only..." Christ is a one of a kind begotten Son of God. He is unique as being a Son of God. Above, the transliteration of the Greek letters into Latin letters of the alphabet spells "only begotten" as "monogenhs," The "h" in the Greek alphabet it is an eta, which can also be transliterated as an e. So the word can be written also as monogenes. John 1: 18: King James Version: No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. John 1: 18: NIV: No man has ever seen God, but God the one and only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. Young's Literal Translation has: God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father -- he did declare. And Green's translation has: No one has seen God at any time; the Only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. Both of these are from the Textus Receptus. Of the English translationns, one that closely follows the Westcott-Hort Greek is The New American Standard which has the "only begotten God" wording. The Greek texts that have the "only begotten God" wording are the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, p66 , p75 and four other less known texts. Most Byzantine and many other Greek texts have "Only begotten Son>" The King James, The American Standard, the Douay-Rheims, and, of course, the Young's Literal and the Green's translation all follow the Textus Receptus wording, "the only begotten Son." The change from "only begotten Son" to "only begotten God" is consistent with gnostic teaching because it does not say Jesus Christ was the son of God and existed before the incarnation. Some gnostics, especially the followers of Arius, said Jesus Christ was a created being and not fully God.. T. Holland in Crowned With Glory: The Bible From Ancient Text To Authorized Version, on page 24 (note number 30) says that in the writings of gnostics and "heretics" like Tatian, Arius and Valentinus "only begotten God" rather than "only begotten Son appears. The "only begotten God" seems to have become a kind of tradition among the gnostics. John 9: 35: Textus Receptus: hkousen o ihsou oti exebalon auton exw kai eurwn auton eipen autw su pisteuei ei ton uion tou theou John 9: 35: Westcott-Hort: hkousen ihsou oti exebalon auton exw kai eurwn auton eipen su pisteuei ei ton uion tou anthropou The Textus Receptus has "uion tou theou," 'Son of God, 'at the end of the sentence. But the Westcott-Hort has "tou anthropou," "son of man." John 9: 35: King James Version: Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? We might expect to find that the new Bible versions has "son of Man" instead of "Son of God." But the American Standard Version, which came out in 1901 does follow the textus Receptus and has "son of God, " and so does the Douay-Rheims, the Green and the Young's Literal translation. The New American Standard, The New Revised Standard and the NIV all follow Westcott-Hort and have "son of man." The web site Gnostic Corruptions in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament lists twenty-three Greek texts in addition to most Byzantine texts and the fifth century Alexandrinus that have the wording at the end of the sentence the Son of God. The Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, p66, p75, two coptic (Egyptian) texts and three others have the wording son of man. In the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Jesus does refer to himself as the son of man, pointing out that he had taken on human flesh. But son of man referring to Christ is rarely used in the New Testament outside of the Gospels which quote Jesus calling himself by that name. In addition to the use of "son of man' in Hebrews 2: 6, the son of man clearly refers to Christ in Revelation 1: 13. Christ is called the Son of God many times in the four Gospels, and in John he is called Son of God more than son of man, especially if we count the number of verses which imply he is the Son of God. Christ is referred to as the Son of God several times in Acts, in Romans, in II Corinthians, Galatians,, Ephesians, implied in Philippians, and Colossians, I Thessalonians, Hebrews, II Peter, I John, II John, and in Revelation. While Jesus often called himself the son of man, his apostles writing in the New Testament books other than the four Gospels, nearly always called him the Son of God, indicating he is fully God. Gnostics sometimes called the Eternal Father the "Primal Man" or "First Man". This is part of the gnostic confusion of the godhead. Early Christians familiar with gnostic teachings might recognize this change from "Son of God" to "son of man" as being in agreement with that teaching. Acts 2: 30: Textus Receptus: profhth oun uparcwn kai eidw oti orkw wmosen autw o qeo ek karpou th osphuos autou to kata sarka anastesein ton christon kathisai epi tou thronou autou Acts 2: 30: Westcott-Hort: profhth oun uparcwn kai eidw oti orkw wmosen autw o qeo ek karpou th osphuos autou kathisai epi ton thronon autou The Westcott-Hort Greek leaves out "to kata sarka anastesein ton christon," or "to raise up Christ according to the flesh." Note that the Westcott-Hort does have "ek karpou tes osphuos," or "of the fruit of his loins." Acts 2: 30: King James Version: Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; Acts 2: 30: American Standard Version: Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins he would set one upon his throne. Acts 2: 30: New Revised Standard: Since he was a prophet, he knew that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would put one of his descendants on his throne. Acts 2: 30: NIV: But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Acts 2: 30 is a good example of the reducton of a verse in the NIV, which is not a clear statement of the doctrine of Acts 2: 30 While the KJV, Young's Literal, and Green's translation all have "of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne, " following the Textus Receptus, the other translations are closer to the Westcott-Hort Greek. The Douay-Rheims and American Standard follow Westcott-Hort in saying "of the fruit of his loins," they both omit, "according to the flesh, to raise up Christ." But the NIV, the New American Standard and New Revised Standard for Acts 2: 30 leave out even more than the Westcott-Hort Greek leaves out of Acts 2: 30. None of these three translations have "of the fruit of his loins," and certainly do not have "according to the flesh, to raise up Christ." In saying God would "place one of his descendants on his throne," the NIV is not as explicit as the King James Version which says "of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne." It is not clear at all in the NIV that it is Christ, as one of the descendants of David, who will sit on David's throne. Acts 2: 30 points to the fulfillment of II Samuel 7: 12, God's promise to David that "...I will set up they seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom." The NIV does not seem to want to acknowledge that by the revelation of the Holy Spirit to Peter, came the knowledge that it is Jesus Christ who was to sit on the throne of David. "Thy seed" in II Samuel 7: 12 is not there identified in an explicit way to be Jesus Christ. The removal of the statement - "according to the flesh, to raise up Christ" - from the Westcott-Hort and from the new translations following Westcott-Hort fits with second and third century gnostic doctrines that Christ was a purely spiritual savior from the Everlasting Father. To say that Jesus Christ was incarnated in human flesh as a physical descendant of David opposes gnostic teachings. Gnostics generally held that the Christos was an Aeon created by the Eternal Father. Also, since many of the gnostics said that the evil Demiurge, created by the Aeon Sophia, was the God of the Old Testament, the gnostics might not want to acknowledge that a prophecy from the Old Testament was fulfilled in the New Testament period. "According to the flesh, to raise up Christ" is not found in the Greek texts associated with Egypt, the Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus. This statement is also not found in the Ephraemi Rescriptus. The Ephraemi is a mixed type Greek text from the fifth century, and is not an Alexandrian type text. Apparently, there are as many Alexandrian as Byzantine wordings of the Gospels in Ephraemi, but elsewhere in this New Testament Greek text, the Byzantine wordings outnumber the Alexandrian. The Textus Receptus wording of "according to the flesh, to raise up Christ" is found, according to Gnostic Corruptions in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament in the majority of Byzantine texts, as well as in other Greek texts. Romans 14: 10: Textus Receptus: su de ti krinei ton adelfon sou h kai su ti exouqenei ton adelfon sou pante gar parasthsomeqa tw bhmati tou christou Romans 14: 10: Westcott-Hort: su de ti krinei ton adelfon sou h kai su ti exouqenei ton adelfon sou pante gar parasthsomeqa tw bemati tou qeou The Textus Receptus has "Christou", or Christ. But the Westcott-Hort has "geou," or God. The King James Version for Romans 14: 10 says "But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ." Guess what? The American Standard version, the New American Standard Version, the New Revised Version, and the NIV all say we will stand before the judgment seat of God. The Douay-Rheims, the Young's Literal Translation and Green's translation say we will stand before the judgment seat of Christ. You might say that since Christ is God, what difference does it make to say we will stand before the judgment seat of Christ or before that of God? The problem is that Christ said in John 5: 22 that "...the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the son." Then in II Corinthians 5: 10 Paul explains that "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." In Romans 2: 16 Paul says "In that day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." I know that in Romans 2: 3 Paul says "And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?" We have to be suspicious of the Westcott-Hort wording of Romans 14: 10 in saying we will stand before the judgment seat of God rather than of Christ who was given the job of judgment by the Father. Many verses that speak of the deity of Jesus Christ and of his incarnation in human flesh have wordings in Westcott-Hort that agree with the gnostics. The gnostics cast doubt on the Christian doctrine that Jesus Christ was fully God and saying that judgment belongs to God rather than to Jesus Christ is in line with this gnostic doctrine. PART SIX Part 6: Riders of the Wrecking Machine: More On Different Wordings of Westcott-Hort Part Six is continued in a different post on Journal Home |
Post Comment |
 |
| « Last Page | Next Page » |