Riders of the Wrecking Machine: Part Two

THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS

Bernard Pyron

The informationm on the textus receptus below is from John Cereghin at

http://watch.pair.com/erasmus.html

Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam (1469-1536) created what came to be

called the Textus Receptus from a few Byzantine Greek manuscripts.

Cereghin says the texts used by Erasmus for his first edition were:

1. 11th century text, contained the Gospels, Acts, Epistles. Erasmus did

not rely very much on 1 because it read too much like Codex

Vaticanus.

2. 15th century text, contained the Gospels.

3. 12th-14th century texts, contained Acts and the Epistles. Erasmus

depended upon these two texts because they were the best and most accurate

texts.

4. 15th century, containing Revelation.

John Cereghin also says that "Erasmus may have had as many as 10

manuscripts at his disposal, 4 from

England, 5 at Basle and one loaned to him by John Reuchlin."

His sources are: Samuel Gipp, The Answer Book. Shelbyville TN: Bible

and Literature Missionary Foundation, 1989, p. 151. And

David Cloud, Myths About the King James Bible: Erasmus was a Humanist.

Oak Harbor WA: Way of Life Literature, 1986, 1993, p. 16, 21.

The Erasmus Greek text went through five editions, starting with the

first edition in

1516. The second to fifth editions were in 1519, 1522, 1527 and 1535.

Samuel Gipp says that "Theodore Beza published several editions of the

Greek New Testament.

Four were published in 1565, 1582, 1588 and 1598. It is Beza's

edition of 1598 and Stephanus edition of 1550 and 1551

which were used as the primary sources by the King James translators."

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_48.asp

Beza used the Erasmus text as the basis for his editions.

WESTCOTT-HORT THEORY AS A TRADITION OF MEN

The Bible On Man-Made Understanding

Westcott-Hort and the new translations became the establishment in

many seminaries. Westcott-Hort, the NIV and other modern

translations based on that Greek text have become theologically

correct. The hive mind does not question theological correctness.

Loyalty to Westcott and Hort and their modern translation

offspring

has become a tradition of men. Mark 7: 8 warns that "For laying

aside the commandment of God ye hold the tradition of men..."

Mark 7: 13 goes on the say that "Making the word of God of none effect

through your traditions, which ye have delivered..."

Textual criticism, which developed along with loyalty to Westcott-

Hort, is a tradition of men. It is based upon man-made

assumptions,

logic and reasoning, not upon the word of God.

Paul asks in I Corinthians 1: 20, 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?" Textual criticism and loyalty

to Westcott and Hort is "the wisdom of this world."

Isaiah 29: 14 says "...for the wisdom of their wise men shall

perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid."

And the Lord mentions in Isaiah 44: 25 that he "...turneth wise men

backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish."

Job 5: 13 says "He taketh the wise in their own craftiness: and

the

counsel of the froward is carried headlong." There are still

other

Bible texts that warn of man-made knowledge.

It seems that some of the seminary trained people who will not

question Westcott and Hort have been blinded to the facts that

there

are some differences in doctrine between the new translations and

the Textus Receptus. As Isaiah 56: 10 says God's watchmen "...are

blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot

bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber." Here we have the

sleeping preachers trained in the seminaries on Westcott-Hort and

textual criticism.

I saw a post the other day talking about many Christians being

under

a kind of "hypnosis." I remember some years ago that the preaching

in

church and by some radio preachers presented the Bible in such a

way

that it did not interest me. I had to study it on my own a while

before I became very interested in it.

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER'S THE GREAT EVANGELICAL DISASTER (1984)

This is a quote from Chapter Two:

"There is a sense in which the problem of full biblical authority is

fairly recent. Up until the last two hundred years or so virtually

every Christian believed in the complete inerrancy of the Bible, or in

the equivalent of this expressed in similar terms...

Thus it is important to note that, up until recent times, (1) belief

in the inerrancy of Scripture (even when it was not practiced fully)

and (2) claiming to be a Christian, were seen as two things which

necessarily went together. If you were a Christian, you also trusted

in the complete reliability of God's written Word, the Bible. If you

did not believe the Bible, you did not claim to be a Christian. But no

one, until the past two hundred years or so, tried to say, "I am a

Christian, but at the same time I believe the Bible to be full of

errors." As incredible as this would have seemed to Christians in the

past, and as incredible as this may seem to Bible-believing Christians

today, this is what is now happening within the evangelical world."

Schaeffer in Chapter two goes on to .say that the problem of the loss

of inerrancy or faith in the Bible "... is something that will

not simply go away, and it cannot be swept under the rug. What follows

in this chapter grows out of the study, thinking, and prayer, often

with tears, which I have done concerning this watershed issue during

my whole life as a Christian, but especially as I have dealt with this

in my speaking and writing during the past two decades."

Scripture Is Inspired, True and Has Authority:

Psalms 12:6 says "The words of the Lord are pure words;

As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times."

Psalm 119: 140 tells us "Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant

loveth it"

"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not

return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and

it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it" (Isaiah 55:11).

In Luke 4: 17-21 Christ quoted Isaiah 61: 1-2, and in verse 21 of Luke

4 he says "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." Jesus

tells us that the Scriptures are true, have authority and must be

fulfilled.

II Peter 1:21 tells us that "Prophecy came not in old time by the will

of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy

Ghost."

II Timothy 3: 16 notes that "All scripture is given by inspiration of

God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproff, for correction, for

instruction in righteousness."

John 10: 35 says "If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God

came, and the scripture cannot be broken."

In I Thessalonians 2:13 Paul says, "For this cause also thank we God

without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye

heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in

truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that

believe."

John 17: 17 says "Sanctify them through thy word: thy word is truth."

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by

the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever" (I Peter 1:23).

God Has promised To Preserve His Word Intact

"Know now that there shall fall unto the earth nothing of the word of

the LORD" (2 Kings 10:10).

"For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven " (Psalm 119:89).

"Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast

founded them for ever" (Psalm 119:152).

'The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall

stand for ever" (Isaiah 40:.

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one

tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled"

(Matthew 5:1.

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away"

(Matthew 24:35).

"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the

law to fail' (Luke 16:17).

The statements above say that God preserves his word. And if this is

true, then it makes no sense to say that only the original autographs

were inspired, had great authority, were true and inerrant and the

copies made from them were not. Of course, it is possible for men to

change some copies of the Scriptures, but God has protected the copies

true to his word.

DID EARLY BIBLE  COPISTS CHANGE SOME NEW TESTAMENT COPIES?

Satan tries to change the word of God. In Genesis 3: 1 he tried to

make Eve doubt that what God said was true. "Yea, hath God said, Ye

shall not eat of every tree in the garden?" The devil hates true

doctrine. And so he will seek to lead those who he can to change,

water down, abbreviate, weaken, make ambiguous, pervert, and twist

what the Bible says. His ultimate goal is to compromise the word of

God so much that readers of his changed versions will not be saved.

The quote below is from:

 http://www.nttext.com/christendom.html

Metzger, the contemporary follower of Westcott and Hort says that

"Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Eusebius and many other

Church Fathers accused the heretics of corrupting the Scriptures in

order to have support for their special views. In the mid-second

century, Marcion expunged his copies of the Gospel according to Luke

of all references to the Jewish background of Jesus. (The Text of the

New Testament, p201)."

Some Christian writers have claimed that Origen of Alexandria,

Egypt was responsible for making changes in some copies the Greek New

Testament to conform to his false doctrines. Here are a couple of

examples of this claim:

The quote below is from: http://crossspot.net/ldprophet/New-Wine-Babylon.htm

"Origin, who was an Arian, didn't believe Jesus was God almighty, but

a lesser god. In 184 to 254 he corrupted Bible manuscripts.

The quote below is from:

http://www.newsgroups-index.com/group/christnet_-bible_l31.html

"Origen traveled extensively and everywhere he found

a Greek New Testament, it was altered to fit his doctrine. He, of course,

felt that he was merely "correcting" the manuscripts. However, men of God do

not change original manuscript readings. If one does not agree with the text

of a manuscript, the place for change is at translation; but to alter the

original document - never.

Apparently it is not certain that Origen himself made changes in the Greek New Testament

 text.  There was, however, an Alexandrian version of the Greek New Testament

which differs from the Textus Receptus and similar manuscripts for some verses. Westcott and Hort used the Alexandarian text rather than the Textus Receptus,