Systematic Theology

Writing a Fundamental and Biblical Systematic Theology for the 21st Century REGISTER to comment at www.theology.gsbaptistchurch.com/wp-login.php?action=register

Part 02 Bibliology

A Systematic Theology for the 21st Century

Part 02 Bibliology

download at www.GSBaptistChurch.com/theology/21cent_vol02Bibliology.pdf

and www.GSBaptistChurch.com/theology/21cent_vol02theopneustia.pdf

Table of Contents

Part 02 Bibliology 2

Inspiration 6

Inspiration – A Designed Word 7

Reading L. Gaussen’s Theopneustia is Essential to Bibliology 10

Inspiration of ALL SCRIPTURE 10

The Compromise of the Doctrine of Inspiration 13

A Defense of Twenty Verses Erased from the NIV & NASV 15

Defense of Twenty Section 1 Introduction 15

Defense of Twenty Section 2 The Bible Doctrine That Textual Critics Abandoned 17

Defense of Twenty Section 3 The Twenty Verses Textual Critics Ripped Out 22

Defense of Twenty Bibliography 33

Verbal Plenary Inspiration vs Modernist Paraphrase 34

Inspiration vs Modernist Paraphrase Paraphrase Changes the Words. 36

Inspiration vs Modernist Paraphrase NAS’s Dynamic Equivalence in Matthew 24 40

Inspiration vs Modernist Paraphrase Subjective Word Substitutions 41

Inspiration vs Modernist Paraphrase Awkward Confusion of Tenses 42

Inspiration vs Modernist Paraphrase The Weaker ‘Will’ Replacing the Legal ‘Shall’ 43

Inspiration vs Modernist Paraphrase Inconsistency Produces Confusion 44

Inspiration vs Modernist Paraphrase Conclusion 45

Inspiration vs Modernist Paraphrase Bibliography 47

The Word Became Wycliffe’s Middle English 58

The Word Became Wycliffe’s Middle English -The Cost of Translating 59

The Holy Bible, From The Latin to Middle English 62

Wycliffe’s Bible Exposes Catholic Corruptions 64

Wycliffe’s Translation and Corrupted Repentance 67

Wycliffe’s Translation and Corrupted Presbyterian 70

Wycliffe and the Pure Words of God 71

The Word Became Wycliffe’s Middle English -Conclusion 76

The Word Became Wycliffe’s Middle English – Bibliography 77

In Defense of Learning Greek 78

Fundamentalists Improperly Frown on the Greek 79

Fundamentalist’s Need of Greek Studies 80

In Defense of Learning Greek The Linguistic Advantage 82

In Defense of Learning Greek Scholarship Advantage 85

In Defense of Learning Greek Conclusion 88

In Defense of Learning Greek Bibliography 89

Review & Critique of Chafer’s Bibliology 90

Chafer’s Bibliology’s Natural Divisions Are Not Natural 91

Chafer’s Bibliology Is Fractured Badly 93

Bibliography 101

 

Part 02 Bibliology

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

2Timothey 3:16-171

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the 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.

2Peter 1:19-21

The Bible is a book of books. It is a collection of sixty-six books written by forty-four authors over a period of 1,592 years.2 It has two major division with thirty-nine books in the Old Testament, and twenty-seven books in the New Testament. “Each book is complete in itself, and has its own theme and analysis”3 and yet the Bible is one book. C.I. Scofield amply illustrates this truth in his Panoramic View of the Bible.

The Bible is One Book. Seven great marks attest this unit. (1) From Genesis the Bible bears witness to one God. Wherever he speaks or acts he is consistent with himself, and with the total revelation concerning him. (2) The Bible forms one continuous story – the story of humanity in relation to God. (3) The Bible hazards the most unlikely predictions concerning the future, and, when the centuries have brought round the appointed time, records their fulfillment. (4) The Bible is a progressive unfolding of truth. Nothing is told all at once, and once for all. The law is, “first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn.” Without the possibility of collusion, often with centuries between, one writer of Scripture takes up an earlier revelation, adds to it, lays down the pen, and in due time another man moved by the Holy Spirit, and another, and another, add new details till the whole is complete. (5) From beginning to end the Bible testifies to one redemption. (6) From beginning to end the Bible has one great theme – the person and work of the Christ. (7) And, finally, these writers, some forty-four in number, writing through twenty centuries, have produced a perfect harmony of doctrine in progressive unfolding. This is, to every candid mind, the unanswerable proof of the Divine inspiration of the Bible.4

The word Bibliology is derived from two Greek words, Biblios and logos. The former, of coarse, is a book, and/or a written document and the latter a word, a discourse, a doctrine, a teaching, a matter under discussion, a thing spoken of or talked about, also the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, or reasoning about. Others have limited this suffix by equating it to the English word science, which is “The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.”5 There really is no English equivalent that can capture the depth of ology in Bibliology. This, of course, is true for theology, soteriology and all the other ologies. that are encountered in a Systematic Theology. Ergo, a Bibliology shall be thorough.

Such a thorough study is pertinent. Plenary, verbal inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture has been under continual and diabolical attack since God first uttered Word to man. Good men, with powerful pens have well defined the doctrine of inspiration and preservation, and have staunchly rebuked the diabolical attacks that have reared up in their day. The definitions and defenses which they put forth are to be recited here and there is no finer study and defense of Bible inspiration than found in Gaussen’s work Theopneustia.6 That work, repeated in its entirety in this section, is the basis for this Bibliology for the 21st century. The last century writing styles of theologians are more complex than the simple pens for sloven students of our day. But the effort to digest what Gaussen said in 1840 will be well worth the effort.

Dr. Gaussen begs a second question, “Can God preserve his infallible, inerrant, inspired words so that one can hold a copy in his hand in this twenty-first century?” In his defence of inspiration of Scripture Gaussen expertly weaves in the collateral argument for its preservation. Today’s point of attack against the Holy Bible, the main focus of hell and its minions, the driving call of modernist and liberal states, “Only the original autographs were inspired. And they are all lost to scribal error.” This fallacy is then acted upon by somewhat honest men who sincerely want to help God out with his problem. They begin to copyright English versions of what they think God meant to say in a lost inspired autographs. None of those copyright versions are trusted or used in this development of systematic theology.

The only English Bible trusted and used in this development is the Authorized King James Bible. It was translated by fifty-seven men who were divided into six companies which met in cities of Cambridge, Westminster, and Oxford, to take seven years, 1604 – 1611, to translate God’s inerrant, infallible, verbally inspired Old Testament and New Testament books into an authorized Holy Bible which answered only to the original Hebrew and Greek.7 There was never before, and never since been assembled a group of more scholarly men with a more hallowed purpose. Modernist translators and modern Greek students give no reason whatsoever for anyone to ever say, “A better English translation is…” There is no better English translation.

1The Holy Bible

2God and Moses wrote at Mount Sinai in 1492 BC (a memorable date for some), and the Apostle John penned in the last book in approximately 100 AD.

3C.I. Scofield, “Scofield Reference Bible,” Oxford University Press, Inc. 1909, pg v.

4Ibid.

5American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd ed., s.v. “Science.”

6Gaussen, L., Theopneustia – The plenary Inspiration of The Holy Scriptures deduced from Internal Evidence, and the Testimonies of Nature, History and Science, David Scott’s translation, Chicago, The Bible Institute Colportage ASS’N., 1840.

7D.A. Waite, Defending the King James Bible, A fourfold superiority: Texts, Translators, Technique, Theology, God’s Word Kept Intact in English” The Bible For Today Press, 1992, 62-66

In our present day, however, there has been a new and overwhelming falling away from the doctrine of inspiration and preservation. The compromise has engulfed all of Dallas Theological Seminary via the Bibliology of Dr. Chafer7 (1871 – 1952), and thereby impacted all of Evangelical Christendom. The compromise has been swallowed up by Los Angeles Baptist Bible Seminary (now Masters College) via the Bibliology of Dr. Theisen8 (1883 – 1947), and thereby has invaded every Baptist Church. The compromise is this, modernists suppose that: “Only the Original Manuscripts, called Autographs, were inspired, inerrant, and infallible.” They say that, “the autographs are long gone and there is no inspired, inerrant, infallible copy of the Bible in existence today!” Good Christians have been persuaded by gainsaying salesman to set aside the Words of God and pick up a bible cut and assembled, crafted and copyright by international ecumenical modernists who never did believe in the doctrine of inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility and preservation.

A new chapter of Bibliology needs to be penned. The Bible colleges and seminaries of our day are swallowed in this compromise and they cannot write it. A significant portion of this work is used to expose the diabolical compromise which in these last of the last days is engulfing Christendom and leading honest God fearing Christians down the dangerous path of using modernist ecumenical bibles.

But let’s not get the cart before the horse here. There are indeed enemies to God’s exhortation that “All Scripture is given by inspiration,” but their efforts should not be debunked before a viable working definition of inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility are well grounded.

Inspiration

The inspiration of Scripture is the very heart of Bibliology, but in the larger sense it is the kingpin of all theology, yeah, of all Christianity. In the 1800’s L. Gaussen, Professor of Systematic Theology, Geneva Switzerland, worded this truth thus:

I do not think that, after we have come to know that Christianity is divine, there can be presented to our mind any question bearing more essentiality on the vitality of our faith than this: ‘Does the Bible come from God? is it altogether from God? or may it not be true, as some have maintained, that there occurs in it maxims purely human, statements not exactly true, exhibitions of Vulgar ignorance and ill-sustained reasoning? in a word, books, or portions of books, foreign to the interest of the faith, subject to the natural weakness of the writers judgment, and alloyed with error?’ Here we have a question that admits one of compromise, a fundamental question, a question of life! It is the first that confronts you on opening the Scriptures, and with it your religion ought to commence.9

Indeed, with an uncompromised answer to these questions our whole theology ought to commence. Is the Holy Bible preserved as verbally inspired, inerrant, and infallible? Or is such a Bible, lost to multiple scribal additions to the text, additions which must be edited out in copyrighted versions made by arguing modern scholars and Bible critics? It is herein systematically contended that if a bible is copyrighted, the words are the words of, and property of, men, and they are not thus the words of God. Such a black and white simplicity behooves those building a systematic theology that hangs on every word of God as a sole authority.

I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

Matthew 11:25

Inspiration Defined

pasa grafh’ qeo’pneustos

It is worth exploring the original Bible languages to fully comprehend why the seventy seven highly skilled linguists, employed and paid by King James from 1603 through 1611, translated this Greek phrase “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.” The English word inspiration, carefully avoided by each ecumenical and modern bible translator, incorporates in its definition breath of life, as well as influence and stimulation of mind, feeling, and emotion, in order to produce an activity. It was also specifically crafted incorporating the word spirit. Indeed the English word inspiration is formed and framed around the concept contained in the Greek theopneustia. There is no better English capture of this concept. God created and breathed out the very wording of every sentence of what is written down as Scripture.

Although there is only one use of the Greek word for inspiration found in the Bible, the teams of translators funded by King James found another exact match in the Hebrew of the Old Testament Scripture. Its use is insightful to this argument. The Scripture is Job 32:8 , “But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration (Strong#05397, Hebrew hmvn nesh-aw-maw) of the Almighty giveth them understanding.” In context this is the opening argument of the younger Elihu, clarifying, that despite his junior status, he has some pertinent insights from God about the status of Job. He goes on to expound this unrefuted understanding for 165 verses in six chapters of the book of Job. The Hebrew word nesh-aw-maw, translated breath, 17 times, blast, thrice, and spirit, twice, is here translated inspiration. The English word, the Hebrew linguistic, and this present context, incorporates both breath and spirit: the breath of God and the spirit of man. This remarkable insight of the KJV translators, and the first use of the English word inspiration, is completely eliminated by all ecumenical modern English bibles. That despite the fact that the word inspiration was invented for this very purpose. One must ask, “Why? Why was this very word, which was designed to fit into 2Timothy 3:16, rejected by the modern English translators of the RSV, NIV, ASV, NASV, NEV, RNEV et.al.? Such investigation reveals that these translators were more concerned about securing lucrative copyrights than they were about clarity and exactness of their ecumenical translation. This is not immature trivia, as claimed by Schnaiter and Tagliapietra10, it is careful exposure of their compromise. The copyright bibles are not adequate for a sole source of a Biblical Systematic Theology.

Thus far we have entertained the linguistics of the word inspiration, and its avoidance by copyright conscious translators, but have not given inspiration a thorough definition. Inspiration is a miracle and its definition must entail explanation of what and how the miracle unfolds. Such a definition may tax the scope of the knowledge of the finite, but no one better captures this conundrum than does Gaussen.

This miraculous operation of the Holy Ghost had not the sacred writers themselves for its object – for these were only his instruments, and were soon to pass away; but that its objects were the holy books themselves, which were destined to reveal from age to age, to the Church, the counsels of God, and which were never to pass away.

The power then put forth on those men of God, and of which they themselves were sensible only in very different degrees, has not been precisely defined to us. Nothing authorizes us to explain it. Scripture has never presented either its manner or its measure as an object of study. What it offers to our faith is solely the inspiration of what they say – the divinity of the book they have written. In this respect it recognizes no difference among them. What they say, they tell us, is theopneustic: their book is from God. Whether they recite the mysteries of a past more ancient than the creation, or those of a future more remote than the coming again of the Son of man, or the eternal counsels of the Most High, or the secrets of man’s heart, or the deep things of God – whether they describe their own emotions, or relate what they remember, or repeat contemporary narratives, or copy over genealogies, or make extracts from uninspired documents – their writing is inspired, their narratives are directed from above; it is always God who speaks, who relates, who ordains or reveals by their mouth, and who, in order to this, employs their personality in different measures: for “the Spirit of God has been upon them,” it is written, “and his word has been upon their tongue.” And though it be always the word of man, since they are always men who utter it, it is always, too, the word of God, seeing that it is God who superintends, employs, and guides them. They give their narratives, their doctrines, or their commandments, “not with the words of man’s wisdom, but with the words taught by the Holy Ghost;” and thus it is that God himself has not only put his seal to all these facts, and constituted himself the author of all these commands, and the revealer of all these truths, but that, further, he has caused them to be given to his Church in the order, and in the measure, and in the terms which he has deemed most suitable to his heavenly purpose.

Were we asked, then, how this work of divine inspiration has been accomplished in the men of God, we should reply, that we do not know; that it does not behove us to know; and that it is in the same ignorance, and with a faith quite of the same kind, that we receive the doctrine of the new birth and sanctification of a soul by the Holy Ghost. We believe that the Spirit enlightens that soul, cleanses it, raises it, comforts it, softens it. We perceive all these effects; we admire and we adore the cause; but we have found it our duty to be content never to know the means by which this is done. Be it the same, then, with regard to divine inspiration.11

There is little more to be said about what inspiration is, than what Gaussen captures with excellence. His 360 page 150 year old public domain defense of the doctrine of inspiration stands alone. His thorough coverage is perfect for a Bibliology in a systematic theology which hangs on the verbal plenary, inerrant, infallible, inspired word of God for its sole authority.

In one more excerpt allow Gaussen to express here his insightful thoughts on what the inspired authors experienced:

And were we, further, called to say at least what the men of God experienced in their bodily organs, in their will, or in their understandings, while engaged in tracing the pages of the sacred book, we should reply, that the powers of inspiration, were not felt by all to the same degree, and that their experiences were not at all uniform; but we might add, that the knowledge of such a fact bears very little on the interests of our faith, seeing that, as respects that faith, we have to do with the book, and not with the man. It is the book that is inspired, and altogether inspired: to be assured of this ought to satisfy us.12

These excerpts of Gaussen’s Theopneustia cannot override the importance of evaluating his whole dissertation.

Reading L. Gaussen’s Theopneustia is Essential to Bibliology

In this Bibliology it is so important to get at the heart of the matter of Bible inspiration that Gaussen’s entire work should be read and digested. It is thus required as an exercise for the true student to close this Bibliology and open and read Gaussen’s work “Theopneustia – The plenary Inspiration of The Holy Scriptures deduced from Internal Evidence, and the Testimonies of Nature, History and Science.” It is found, formatted in this chapter’s format at www.GSBaptistChurch.com/theology/21cent_vol02theopneustia.pdf Please return to this chapter after reading and digesting all 200 pages of Gaussen’s work.

Inspiration of ALL SCRIPTURE

After allowing Gaussen’s dissertation on inspiration to do most of the work for our Bibliology, there are only a few loose ends that need to be tied.

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” (2Tim 3:16-17)

Several things are cleared up and nailed down in this single sentence of Scripture. Consider two things about “all Scripture.” A lawyer, Dr. Gipp, once clarified that “All means all and that’s all all means.” Ergo there is not a verse, not a thought, not a concept and/or not a phrase that is left out of the all. Dr. Thiessen, a genius Baptist theologian, committed sacrilege when he compromised his Bibliology when he said that 1Thes 5:2313 was only Paul’s opinion14. He was trying to defend his unbiblical belief that the human is only made up of the material and the immaterial. That is what excellent philosophers had taught the Roman Catholic clergy and Dr. Thiessen would not let go of that doctrine no matter what the Bible said about body, soul, and spirit. Indeed, contending that sometimes Paul only added his opinions in his writings is a categorical denial of the “all” in “all Scripture,” a categorical denial of inerrancy and infallibility, and a syndication of his previous stance that “there is no inspired Holy Bible in existence.15 Dr. Thiessen’s Systematic Theology is rock solid in Christology and dispensational truth, but his flawed Bibliology has cracked his foundation with dangerous compromise.

Second, consider that this “all Scripture,” must include the writings of Moses, who penned the Pentateuch, collected in the five books the Hebrews called the Torah16, include Job who by all evidence previously penned the epic Hebrew poetry book bearing his name, include the thirteen books collected in what the Hebrews called the Writings17, and include Isaiah, who penned his prophetic book 750 years after Moses and 750 years before Christ. Isaiah, is collected in the twenty-one books that the Hebrews called the Prophets18. Young Timothy who was the recipient of the instruction penned in 2Timothy 3:16, had no access to the original manuscripts, or autographs, of these Scriptures. All young Timothy could possibly have had, were copies of copies of copies; none were 1,492 years old, as were the Torah and Writings, none were 750 years old, as were the Prophets, none, other than possibly the letter he held in his hand, were autographs, and yet all were inspired, all were profitable for doctrine, all were profitable for reproof, all were profitable for correction, all were profitable for instruction in righteousness. It defies good logic or sound reason that just in the last hundred years, scholars-so-called, have convinced Christians, so called, that only autographs were inspired, only autographs were infallible, and only autographs were inerrant. But evangelicals led by Dr. Chafer and Dallas Theological Seminary have accepted such a position. Dr. Thiessen promoted such a position in Los Angeles Baptist Theological Seminary. It is fitting that they dropped the Baptist title and became Dr. John MacArthur’s Master’s Seminary.19 This brazen compromise on what inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy is all about, has opened a flood gate of compromised Bible copyright mongers who have perverted His Words in every conceivable way, and yet they find general acceptance in Evangelical Christianity. They have even infiltrated Independent Baptist Churches with this evil compromise.

In America the vast majority of “Christendom” are using compromised evangelical approved copyrighted bibles as their source of God’s truth. Can that many people be wrong? Could only a tiny remnant of KJV-only camps be holding out for the truth? Let’s look at the issue candidly.

The Compromise of the Doctrine

Dr. Thomas M. Strouse, Dean of Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary, in Newington, CT., wrote an article on preservation entitled “Charity…Rejoiceth in the Truth: A Critique of Schnaiter and Tagliapietra’s Bible Preservation and the Providence of God20” In this critique Dr. Strouse captures five driving forces of this compromise on Bible inspiration and preservation. On compromise itself Dr. Strouse writes:

David Beale, in observing the inherent weakness of soft conservatives’ capitulation to Neo-Liberalism in their churches in the 1930’s, states, “The tolerant conservatives were quite willing to accept peaceful coexistence, though most did not realize that it would mean gradual extinction for them.” (In Pursuit of Purity [Greenville, SC:  Unusual Publication, 1986], p. 245).  Peaceful coexistence with those who deny the Biblical doctrine of verbal plenary preservation of the Words of God is certainly not what the Apostle Paul had in mind when he warned Timothy, stating,

If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness:   from such withdraw thyself  [all bold the reviewer’s] (I Tim. 6:3-5)21

On the compromise to the doctrine of the inerrant, infallible, verbal inspiration and preservation of Scriptures Dr. Strouse delineates five subtle venues:

Exemplary of the capitulation to theological error is the recent book entitled Bible Preservation and the Providence of God (Philadelphia:  Xlibris Corp., 2002, 349 pp.) by Bob Jones University professor Sam Schnaiter and Bob Jones University writer Ron Tagliapietra.  These authors, holding to different textual views, give an informative and perhaps helpful survey of seven textual theories, including representative proponents and translations, in the field of the transmission of the Bible text. However, this volume is both revealing and alarming as it purports to discuss Bible preservation and the transmission of the text.  It is revealing in that it demonstrates the apparent need that Bob Jones University has to give the final warning (“Christians espousing the KJV Only view should protect themselves against the charge of heresy by not majoring on minor issues,” p. 165) and the last word (“Is there not a place for charitability amongst Christians…We submit this book with the hope that God will be glorified for inspiration, preservation, and providence, and that God’s people will focus on obeying His Word instead of arguing over trivia,” pp. 280-281) on the subject of Bible texts and translations. 

It also reveals the desire for BJU to target fundamental churches that use the KJV and reassure them concerning the supposed orthodoxy of their faculty in Bibliology.  This book alarms by exposing several weaknesses of the Bible faculty of BJU and other Bible schools of their textual ilk.  The readers of the book should be alarmed because it manifests the deficiency of the Critical Text advocates to exegete Scripture for their Bibliological arguments.   Second, it reveals the obdurate attitude of the Critical Text devotees toward the TR/KJV proponents who do exegete Scripture for their position (i. e., E. Hills, D. Waite, and D. Cloud). 

Third, it emphasizes the limits of human scholarship in restoring the Words of God since only three (conservative eclecticism, majority text, independent text) of the seven textual theories (the remaining four are radical eclecticism, critical eclecticism, textus receptus, and King James Version Only) may be “offered to the readers for mature consideration” (p. 182).  Fourth, it suggests that the allies of the position of the book are moving further into the Neo-Orthodox practice of “term changing” while pleading for charity (p. 120).  Fifth, the authors attribute to the Lord Jesus Christ a cavalier attitude toward the Biblical doctrine of inerrancy by alleging that “he (sic) called the extant copies inspired in spite of any ‘typos’ in them” (p. 26)22

Lest one think this pressure to compromise the doctrine of an inerrant, infallible, verbally inspired and preserved Holy Bible is something new, or an artificial KJV-Only fabrication, examine the warnings of John William Burgon (1813-1888), author of “Early Church Fathers’ Witness to Antiquity of Traditional Text” and Louis Gaussen (1790-1863), author of “Theopneustia: The Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures.” …

Three descriptions of men, in these late times, … have thought themselves authorized to reject this doctrine (of inspiration).

Some of these have disowned the very existence of. this action of the Holy Ghost; others have denied its universality; others, again, its plenitude.

The first, like Dr Schleiermacher, Dr De Wette, and many other German divines, reject all miraculous inspiration, and are unwilling to attribute to the sacred writers any more than Cicero accorded to the poets –affiatum spiritûs divini – “a divine action of nature, an interior power resembling the other vital forces of nature.”

The second, like Dr Michaelis, and like Theodore of Mopsuestia, while admitting the existence of a divine inspiration, would confine it to a part only of the sacred books: to the first and fourth of the four evangelists, for example; to a part of the epistles, to a part of Moses, a part of Isaiah, a part of Daniel. These portions of the Scriptures, say they, are from God, the others are from man.

The third class, in fine, like M. Twesten in Germany, and like many divines in England, extend, it is true, the notion of a divine inspiration to all parts of the Bible, but not to all equally (nicht gleichmaessig). Inspiration, as they understand it, might be universal indeed, but unequal; often imperfect, accompanied with, innocent errors; and carried to very different degrees, according to the nature of different passages: of which degrees they constitute themselves, more or less, the judges. …

Our design then, in this book, in opposition to these three systems, is to prove the existence,the universality, and the plenitude of the divine inspiration of the Bible.23

When the inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of Holy Scripture is compromised there are fractures that cut deep into ones theology and erog ones christianity.

A Defense of Twenty Verses Erased from the NIV & NASV

This section is a December 2007 written project submitted to Dr. Phil Stringer in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the course BI-300 “Inspiration of Scripture I” of Landmark Baptist College, Haines City, Florida. That project is presented in its entirety below.

Textual critics that follow the leadings of Westcott and Hort, and delete twenty verses from the Holy Bible are wholly lacking in the Biblical doctrine of verbal, plenary, inerrant, infallible inspiration of Scripture.

Defense of Twenty Section 1 Introduction

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried

in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. (Psalm 12:6)

It is proven by scholars and accepted by liberals, cultists, modernists and now even by the popular evangelicals and fundamentalists, that Matt 17:21 is not supposed to be in my Bible. Should you take your pen knife and cut it out? Would you? You would have to also cut Matt 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, and 46; 11:26; 15:28. So too Luke 17:36; 23:17 and John 5:4. You would have to trash Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Rom 16:24; and of course I John 5:7. You would also have to rip out most of Matt 5:44 and Luke 9:56 and in Col 1:14 cut out the phrase “Through His Blood”. Why have leading fundamentalists and their Bible colleges, like Bob Jones University, accepted this anarchy and taken up their pen knives to cut verses out of the their Bible? What forces are in place that would cause these leading fundamentalists to follow after the liberals and cultists to cut out and discard Scripture verses that honest believers copied and held as sacred and inspired by God for the previous 1900 years? They have followed after modernists and liberals with a flawed method of textual criticism. The tracking of this audacity back to it’s diabolic source is strikingly clear.

At first glance it is often unbelievable that this list of deleted verses got here without an outcry from Christianity. The lukewarmness that would cause such apathy toward the very words of God spewed into the world through the veins of Westcott and Hort (W&H). Dr. Sam Gipp describes these two men well when he writes:

“Brook Foss Westcott (1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) were two non-Christian24 Anglican ministers. Fully steeped in the Alexandrian philosophy that ‘there is no perfect Bible’, they had a vicious distaste for the King James Bible and its Antiochian Greek text, the Textus Receptus.”25

Their misplaced loyalty to a family of corrupted texts was passed on to Nestle-Aland, who published several editions of “The Greek New Testament” The scholarly Nestle-Aland, and the textual criticism behind their work became trusted by the leading evangelicals and even some fundamentalists of Christianity. All this trust was given with little examination of what these textual critics believed about verbal inspiration. One can easily examine the the work of these textual critics and determine that their position on the Bible doctrine of verbal, plenary, inerrant, infallible, inspiration was sorely lacking and theologically dangerous. Their work has so much errant presupposition that fundamentalist should swiftly abandon their methods and their results. Their lax and unBiblical method of textual criticism is thus exposed as we examine their reasons for eliminating these 20 verses from God’s Holy Word.

Defense of Twenty Section 2 The Bible Doctrine That Textual Critics Abandoned

New Testament textual criticism is most simply defined as ‘recovery of the text of the New Testament.’ Dr. Scrivener justifies it’s necessity with the following observation:

“No one who has taken the trouble to examine any two editions of the Greek New Testament needs be old that this supposed complete resemblance in various copies of the holy books is not founded on fact. Even several impressions derived from the same standard edition, and professing to exhibit a text positively the same, differ from their archetype and from each other, in errors of the press which no amount of care or diligence has yet been able to get rid of. If we extend our research to the manuscript copies of Scripture or of its versions which abound in every great library in Christendom, we see in the very best of them variations which we must at once impute to the fault of the scribe, together with many others of a graver and more perplexing nature, regarding which we can form no probable judgment without calling to our aid the resources of critical learning. The more numerous and venerable the documents within our reach, the more extensive is the view we obtain of the variation (or VARIOUS READINGS as they are called) that prevail in manuscripts. If the number of these variations was rightly computed at thirty thousand in Mill’s time, a century and a half ago, they must at present amount to at least fourfold that quantity.26

The frustration of dealing with today’s textual criticism is that the battles or truth were fought so eloquently in the last two centuries that the straight and narrow path should be more fully occupied than it is today. Indeed the wide gate and the broad path following after W&H’s folly has invaded every avenue of evangelical circles. Today, men mindlessly reject the Received Text (TR) and pursue textual criticism with ‘older is better’ blinders on. Michael W. Holms, a well degreed Professor of Biblical studies at Bethel College in Saint Paul Minnesota, nod’s at Erasmus of Rotterdam’s excellent analytic tools for textual criticism, but then dismisses Erasmus’ effort with this slanderous accusation: “Consequently his (Erasmus) text ended up representing in printed form a late corrupt form of the Byzantine text-type.27 He goes on to point out that this ‘late corrupt form’ called the ‘Textus Receptus’ … “was the basis of all the major Europea Protestant translations prior to 1881, including especially the King James of 1611, and unwarrantedly dominated the scholarly scene for over three hundred years.28” Thus Holms, required reading at our evangelical seminaries, calls W&H’s extreme bias toward corrupted Aleph and B29 manuscripts, scholarly, while he calls those who would use the traditional text as having a ‘superstitious reverence accorded to the TR.30

The error that Holms, Black and Dockery are influentially passing on, that the TR is recent and corrupted while the W&H is the pure text based on older and better manuscripts, was birthed in the extreme textualism of Lachmann and Buttmann in 1842! Lachman’s “first principle, at which he had hinted in a small edition eleven years before, was to discard the readings of the ‘Received Text,’ as being in his opinion only about two centuries old; whereas they conflicted with what he conceived to be better authority.31” On this false premise, regurgitated by Michael Holms 149 years later, Lachmann errantly discarded the ‘recent’ TR and would only use “the guidance of the Alexandrian (A), the Vatican (B), the Parisian ( C ), and four fragments, (P, Q, T, Z) besides an occasional use of the Cambridge manuscript (D):-the old Italian manuscript in Latin :- and the quotation of St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, Origen, Lucifer, and Hilary.32” Lachmann, however, had only one manuscript, Vatican B, that reached back to the forth century. When Tischendorf discovered the Sinaiticus manuscript ( a Hbrw alp) four years later it was found to collaborate the massive deviations of the Vatican B. All the excitement of having two collaborating manuscripts from the forth century completely overthrew all the proper rules of textual criticism. From that time on the broad gate and wide path which discarded the TR as ‘recent and corrupted’ and blindly accepted that ‘older is better’ was paved and well trodden.

Little research is needed to discover the truth of the matter. There is a straight and narrow path that leads to the discovery that the TR is not recent nor corrupted. The clear and proven contention is that the Sinaicus a, and the Vatican B, are the corrupted text. Dean Burgon (1813-1888 AD) demonstrates over and over that the TR was not edited together in the 1500’s as Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort continually contend. He states:

“The strength of the position of the Traditional Text lies in its being logically deducible and to be deduced from all the varied evidence which the case supplies, when it has been sifted, proved, passed, weighed, compared, compounded, and contrasted with dissentient testimony. The contrast is indeed great in almost all instances upon which controversy has gathered. On one side the vast mass of authorities is assembled: on the other stands a small group. Not inconsiderable is the advantage possessed by that group, as regards numerous students who do not look beneath the surface, in the general witness in their favour borne by the two oldest MSS. of the Gospels in existence. That advantage however shrinks into nothing under the light of rigid examination. The claim for the Text in them made at the Semiarian period was rejected when Semiarianism in all its phases fell into permanent disfavour. And the argument advanced by Dr. Hort that the Traditional Text was a new Text formed by successive recensions has been refuted upon examination of the verdict of the Fathers in the first four centuries, and of the early Syriac and Latin Versions. Besides all this, those two manuscripts have been traced to a local source in the library of Caesarea. And on the other hand … the Traditional Text … has been discovered in the manuscripts of papyrus which existed all over the Roman Empire, unless it was in Asia, and were to some degree in use even as late as the ninth century before and during the employment of vellum in the Caesarean school, and in localities where it was used in imitation of the mode of writing books which was brought well-nigh to perfection in that city.”33

The rash assumption that an older manuscript like the Sinaicus a, and the Vatican B are free from corruption is likewise wholly unfounded and more so illogical. How long does it take to corrupt a manuscript? Especially with the corruptions prevalent throughout the Sinaicus a, and the Vatican B, wherein they continually drop the title ‘Lord’ and the position description ‘Christ’ from the name of the ‘Lord Jesus Christ.’ Dropping out the stuff you don’t like is not new. The early church leaders warned about these Bible corrupters.

“Eusebius cites the indignation of Dionysius, bishop in Corinth (c. 170 AD), for the heretics; tampering with his personal correspondence as well as the Scriptures: “As the brethern desred me to write epistles, I wrote them, and these the apostles of the devil have illed with tares, exchanging some things, and adding others, for whom there is wor reserved. It is not, thereore a matter o wonder, if some have also attempted to adulterate the sacred writings of the Lord, since they have attempted the same in other works that are not to be compared with these.34” .

“Ireneaus, a disciple of Polycarp, said o Marcion: “he (Marcion) mutilates the Gospel which is according to Luke, removing all that is written respecting the generation of the Lord, and setting aside a great deal of the teaching of the Lord, in which the Lord is recorded as most clearly confessing that the Maker of this universe is His Father … In like manner, too, he dismembered the epistles of Paul, removing all that is said by the apostle respecting that God who made the world, to the effect that He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and also, those passages from the prophetical writings which the apostle quotes, in order to teach us that they announced beforehand the coming of the Lord.”

Anyone who takes a text from Alexandria Egypt as pure, and the text that has stood solid for 1900 years as corrupt is camping with mislead fools. Indeed the Alexandrian family of texts, that is unduly weighted as pure by W&H of old, and Nestle Aland of late, is the corrupted text and these men have called good – evil, and evil – good. This is the brazen error of modern textual criticism and there is no excuse for it’s abiding with thinking, researching Christians, especially not with fundamentalists, more so still, not with Baptist’s of any stripe.

Before taking up a new Bible translation that has torn out and added words to God’s Words one should investigate where it’s authors stand on the textual criticism found in W&H’s Greek NT which is mimicked in Nestles Aland’s Greek NT. For 1,97935 years now Baptist have taken a solid position on verbal, plenary inspiration which would prevent the demise of these 20 verses. Such a position is well worded by J.B. Tidwell, a stalwart of Southern Baptists:

“ These writers certainly claimed that what they say is of God. To them the inspiration is not just plenary but verbal. They were not left to choose their words promiscuously. Their individuality was preserved, but the words used were given them of God. Not just the thought came from God, but every word with every inflection. Every verse and line, and even upon the tense of the verb, every number of the noun, and every little particle they regarded as coming from God and demanded in the pain of grave disaster that we should preserve it in its entirety.36

Armed with their faulty textual criticism methodology well intended scholars have reeked havoc with the Greek text. Their presumptuous error can be noted by looking at the manuscript evidences for the retention of these 20 verses, and contrasting it with the slim and presumed corrupted evidences for their removal. The unfortunate truth is that all modern English translations, and most foreign language translations (those sponsored by the Bible Societies) are based on the defective methodology, and the defective Greek contained in the Nestle Aland critical text.

Defense of Twenty Section 3 The Twenty Verses Textual Critics Ripped Out

In most of these instances for these 20 verses, the whole verse has been ripped out of each version herein illustrated. For some of the verses they have been ripped up, rather than ripped out. Below is a table of how each verse reads in the Holy Bible, then in the W&H Greek NT, both the New International Version (NIV) and the American Standard Version (ASV), and then the New American Standard Version (NASV).

Holy Bible Common Text

W&H

NIV/ASV

NASV

1

Mt 17:21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

Mt 17:21

Mt 17:21

Mt 17:21 [But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting] Note “Most ancient mss. omit this verse”

2

Mt 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

Mt 18:11

Mt 18:11

Mt 18:11 [For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.] Note “Most ancient mss. omit this verse”

3

Mt 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

Mt 23:14

Mt 23:14

Mt 23:14 [Woe to you, scribes, and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows houses, even while for a pretense you make long prayers: therefore you shall receive greater condemnation.] Note “This verse not found in the earliest mss.”

 

Holy Bible Common Text

W&H

NIV/ASV

NASV

4

Mr 7:16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

Mr 7:16

Mr 7:16

Mr 7:16 (See footnote.)

5

Mr 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Mr 9:44

Mr 9:44

Mr 9:44 (See footnote.)

6

Mr 9:46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Mr 9:46

Mr 9:46

Mr 9:46 (See footnote.)

7

Mr 11:26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

Mr 11:26

Mr 11:26

Mr 11:26 (See footnote.)

8

Mr 15:28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.

Mr 15:28

Mr 15:28

Mr 15:28 (See footnote.)

9

Lu 17:36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

Lu 17:36

Lu 17:36

Lu 17:36 (See footnote.) (NOTE: This whole verse also errantly omitted from online Bible copy of TR)

10

Lu 23:17 (For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)

Lu 23:17

Lu 23:17

Lu 23:17 (See footnote.)

11

Joh 5:4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

Joh 5:4

Joh 5:4

Joh 5:4 (See footnote.)

12

Ac 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Ac 8:37

Ac 8:37

Ac 8:37 (See footnote.)

13

Ac 15:34 Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.

Ac 15:34

Ac 15:34

Ac 15:34 (See footnote.)

14

Ac 24:7 But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,

Ac 24:7

Ac 24:7

Ac 24:7 (See footnote.)

15

Ac 28:29 And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.

Ac 28:29

Ac 28:29

Ac 28:29 (See footnote.)

16

Ro 16:24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

Ro 16:24

Ro 16:24

Ro 16:24 (See footnote.)

 

Holy Bible Common Text

W&H Greek NT

NIV & ASV

NASV

17

1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 1Jo 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

1Jo 5:7 oti treiV eisin oi marturounteV en tw ouranw o pathr o logoV kai to agion pneuma kai outoi oi treiV en eisin 1Jo 5:8 kai treiV eisin oi marturounteV en th gh to pneuma kai to udwr kai to aima kai oi treiV eiV to en eisin

1Jo 5:7 For there are three that testify: I Jo 5:8 The Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

I Jo 5:7 And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth. I Jo 5:8 For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

18

Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

Col 1:14 en w ecomen thn apolutrwsin [dia tou aimatov autou] thn afesin twn amartiwn

Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins:

Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

19

Mt 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Mt 5:44 egw de legw umin agapate touV ecyrouV umwn eulogeite touV katarwmenouV umaV kalwV poieite touV misountaV umaV kai proseucesye uper twn ephreazontwn umaV kai diwkontwn umav

Mt 5:44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

Mt 5:44 But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you

20

Lu 9:56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.

Lu 9:56 o gar uioV tou anyrwpou ouk hlyen qucaV anyrwpwn apolesai alla swsai kai eporeuyhsan eiV eteran kwmhn

Lu 9:56 and they went to another village

Lu 9:56 and they went to another village

It is obvious in the table above that 16 of the verses have been completely eliminated by the shoddy and bias textual criticism of Westcott and Hort. Four of the verses have been butchered and gutted by their penknife. These two were scribes like Jehudi37 was scribe for Jehoiakim, very quick with a penknife and fire. Eager to rip out and destroy God’s Words. They are esteemed and verbally mimicked by Nestles and Aland who gave us the corrupted Greek text that is used in ALL modern English translations. It is diabolical that every Bible Society has welcomed this corrupted Greek text for every Bible translation effort that they undertake. At first glance it looks like a tremendous Satanic victory party for the corruption of God’s Words. Nestle and Alan compel people of all stripes to pass through the wide gate and traverse the broad path to holding up a gutted Bible and saying “The bibles say, … perhaps, … we think … which is better interpreted.” There is, however, a narrow gate and straight path wherein a few still stand and say “Thus saith the Lord!” Don’t leave that path, and if you have ‘labor to enter into that gate’ and use that phrase.

Nestle and Aland used an apparatus to justify their elimination and gutting of these verses from your Bible. They thereby attempt to legitimize the faulty assumptions of made by Lachman and swallowed by Westcott and Hort. From an uneasy stance of trusting their manuscript work it is still clear they retained the bias toward the corrupted texts of Origin from Alexandria Egypt. The table below shows each verse’s manuscript evidence for retention and deletion. This data is taken directly from The Greek New Testament Nestle-Aland 4th revised edition38. If it were to be weighed without knowledge of the corruption in the Alexandrian line of texts nor the bias against the Bysantine family of texts, it would still be obvious that they had no business nor justification for ripping God’s Words from the Holy Bible. Take a moment to understand the various designations of manuscript evidences before perusing the table.

NOTES on the designations of the manuscript evidences referenced39:

1) Papyri – The 97 fragile papyri sheets that they accessed are designated as P1,2,3,… 97 Here they call upon evidence from six of these: P75 containing just the gospels and dated early III century, P66 containing just the gospels and dated about 200, P45 containing just the Gospels and Acts and dated III century, P74 containing just the Acts and General Epistles and dated VII century, P46 containing just the Pauline Epistles and dated about 200 AD, P61 containing just the Pauline Epistles and dated about 700 AD.

2) Unicals – The 300 Unical manuscripts are designated by numbers 01 through 0300 with the leading zero, or with the capital letter of the old designation. The Greek capital letters of D (delta), Q (theta), X (chi), S (sigma), Y (phi) are also used, and the Hebrew letter a(alph) is used to designate Unical 01, the corrupted Sinaiticus rescued from the trash can by Tischendorf in 1844. The letter B (03) designates the infamous but corrupted Vaticanus unical manuscript.

3) Minuscules – The over 2,800 minuscules manuscripts are designated 1-2818 without the leading zero. Nestle and Aland separated out two families of designated f1, f13, in these instances I included the family lists. Nestle and Aland also designated the vast majority of minuscules as category III, i.e. having a “considerable Byzantine influence.”40 These they designated as “Byz” and considered them corrupted by that influence.41

4) Lectionaries – The over 2,000 lectionaries available were pared down to 70 ‘representative’ ones by Nestle and Aland. This paring down, again showed the bias against the Byzantine influence mentioned for the minuscules.42

5) Early Versions – The early versions are important witnesses for the Greek texts and are designated as follows:

– Latin Itala, designated ‘it’. The Old Latin version used and proliferated by the Waldenses43. with 63 of the over 80 manuscripts included by Nestle and Aland.

– Latin Vulgate designated ‘vg’. The Catholic revised version of Jeromes (born 340 A.D.) Latin Bible. Jeromes Vulgate was first commissioned by Pope Damasus I (366-389 A.D.) as the new official Catholic Latin translation to replace the Itala and several other Latin translations then in existence44. It is tainted with corruptions and Catholic revisions and Nestle and Aland referenced 3 of the fifth century versions.

– Syriac designated as ‘syr’. Eight versions of the Syria language versions were referenced. The s and c of the 3rd/4th cent., the p and ph of the 5th cent. the h, hmg and hgr, of the 6th cent. and the palestinian, pal, of the 6th cent.

– Copic designated as ‘cop’. Eight versions of the Copic language versions of the 3rd cent. were referenced. These are the sa, bo, pho, meg, mf, fay, ach, ach2 manuscripts.

– Armenian designated ‘arm’ from the 5th cent.

– Georgian designated ‘geo’ from the 5th cent. Two revisions are referenced as 1 and 2. The A and B manuscripts are cited as two lines of the latter when they differ.

– Ethiopic designated ‘eth’ from about 500 A.D. There are 4 versions of the Ethiopic language translation referenced and listed as ro, pp, TH, and ms. The latter having only Matt 1-10.

– Slavonic designated ‘slav’ from the 9th cent.

6) Greek Church Fathers – There were 116 Greek Church Leaders referenced and these are designated herein by name in alphabetical order. Parentheses, ( ) indicate a deviation in minor detail. Superscripts indicate some statistic, language deviation or variant not in their quotation. When both present the Greek Leaders are separated from the Latin with a semicolon.

7) Latin Greek Fathers – There were 61 Latin Church Leaders referenced and these are designated herein by name in alphabetical order. Parentheses, ( ) indicate a deviation in minor detail. Superscripts indicate some statistic, language deviation or variant not in their quotation.

Ref

Retention Evidence

Deletion Evidence

Agreement

1

Mt 17:21

C D E F H N S L W D f1(1 118 131 209 1582 ++) f13(13 69 124 174 230 346 543 788 826 828 983 1689 1709 ++) 28 157 180 205 1505 l 1074 565 597 700 892c 1006 1010 1071 1241 1243 1292 1342 1424 Byz (indicating the majority of 5000 Byzantine Greek manuscript evidence! Including E F H N S above.) Lect (the majority of them)(L84 L514) ita, aur, b, c, d, f, ff2, g1, l, n, q, r1 vg (syrp, h ) cop(meg), bopt arm ethpp, TH geoB slav Origen Asterius Basil Chrysostom; Hilary Ambrose Jerome Augustine

a* B Q 33 579 892* l 253 ite, ff1 syrc, s, pal copsa, bopt ethms geo1, A

[A] Nestle Aland team concurs the deletion to be CERTAIN.

Bible believers holding to verbal inspiration of the Scriptures do not concur.

2

Mt 18:11

D E F G H N S Lc W D Q c 078vid 1c 28 180 205 565 579 597 700 892c 1006 1010 1071 1241 1243 1292 1342 1424 1505 Byz (indicating the majority of 5000 Byzantine Greek manuscript evidence! Including E F H N S above.) Lect, AD it(a), aur, (b), c, d, (f), ff2, g1, (l, n), q, r1 vg syrc, p arm eth geo slav Chrysostom; Hilary Chromatius

a* B L* Q* f13(13 69 124 174 230 346 543 788 826 828 983 1689 1709 ++) 1* 33 892* ite, ff1 syr s, pal copsa, meg, bopt Origenvid Eusebian Canons; Juvencus Jerome

[B] Nestle Aland team concurs the deletion to be ALMOST CERTAIN.

Bible believers holding to verbal inspiration of the Scriptures do not concur.

3

Mt 23:14

E F G H O S W D 0102 0107 0233 f13(13 69 124 174 230 346 543 788 826 828 983 1689 1709 ++) 28 157 180 565 579 597 700 892c 1006 1010 1071 1241 1243 1292 1342 1424 1505 Byz (indicating the majority of 5000 Byzantine Greek manuscript evidence! Including E F G H O S above.) Lect (the majority of them) l547 (l6731/2) lAD 1/2 itb, c, f, ff2, h, l, r1 vg cl syrc, h, p, palmss ) cop bopt, bomss eth slav Chrysostom; Hilary

a B D L Q f1(1 118 131 209 1582 ++) 33 205 892* ita, aur, d, e, ff1, g1 vg syr s, (palms) copsa, meg, bopt arm geo Origengr, lat Eusebian Canons Cyril; Jerome

[A] Nestle Aland team concurs the deletion to be CERTAIN.

Bible believers holding to verbal inspiration of the Scriptures do not concur.

4

Mr 7:16

A D E F G H S L W Dc Q f1(1 118 131 209 1582 ++) f13(13 69 124 174 230 346 543 788 826 828 983 1689 1709 ++) 33 157 180 205 565 579 700 892 1006 1010 1071 1241 1243 1292 1424 1505 Byz (indicating the majority of 5000 Byzantine Greek manuscript evidence! Including E F G H S above.) Lect1/2 LAD L681/2 L761/2 L1841/2 L6731/2 L8131/2 L12231/2 ita, aur, b, c, d, f, ff2, i, l, n, q, r1 vg syrs, p, h, pal cop samss, bopt arm eth geo2 slav

a B L D* 0274 28 1342 2427 Lect1/2 copsamss, bopt geol

[A] Nestle Aland team concurs the deletion to be CERTAIN.

Bible believers holding to verbal inspiration of the Scriptures do not concur.

5

Mr 9:44

A D E F G H N S Q f13(13 69 124 174 230 346 543 788 826 828 983 1689 1709 ++) 157 180 579 597 700 1006 1010 1071 1241 1243 1292 1342 1424 1505 Byz (indicating the majority of the 2818 Greek manuscript evidence! Including E F G H N S above.) Lect (the majority of them) ita, aur, b, c, d, f, ff2, i, l, q, r1 vg syrp, h (eth) slav Irenaeuslat; Chromatius Augustine

a B C L W D Y 0274 f1(1 118 131 209 1582 ++) 28 205 565 892 2427 itk syr s, pal copsa, bo, fay arm geo

[A] Nestle Aland team concurs the deletion to be CERTAIN.

Bible believers holding to verbal inspiration of the Scriptures do not concur.

6

Mr 9:46

A D E F G H N S Q f13(13 69 124 174 230 346 543 788 826 828 983 1689 1709 ++) 157 180 579 597 700 1006 1010 1071 1241 1243 1292 1342 1424 1505 Byz (indicating the majority of the 2818 Greek manuscript evidence! Including E F G H N S above.) Lect (the majority of them) ita, aur, b, c, d, f, ff2, i, l, q, r1 vg syrp, h, pal (eth) geo slav Augustine

a B C L W D Y 0274 f1(1 118 131 209 1582 ++) 28 205 565 892 2427 itk syr s copsa, bo, fay arm

[A] Nestle Aland team concurs the deletion to be CERTAIN.

Bible believers holding to verbal inspiration of the Scriptures do not concur.

7

Mr 11:26

A C D E F G H N S Q f1(1 118 131 209 1582 ++) f13(13 69 124 174 230 346 543 788 826 828 983 1689 1709 ++) 28 33 157 180 579 1006 1010 1071 1241 1243 1292 1424 1505 Byz (indicating the majority of the 2818 Greek manuscript evidence! Including E F G H N S above.) Lect (the majority of them) ita, aur, b, c, d, f, ff2, i, l, q, r1 vg syrp, h copbopt eth slav Cyprian Speculum

a B L W D Y 157 205 565 597 700 892 1342 2427 itk, l syr sl copsa, bopt arm geo

[A] Nestle Aland team concurs the deletion to be CERTAIN.

Bible believers holding to verbal inspiration of the Scriptures do not concur.

8

Mr 15:28

E F G H D Q 083 0250 f1(1 118 131 209 1582 ++) f13(13 69 124 174 230 346 543 788 826 828 983 1689 1709 ++) 28 33 180 205 565 579 700 892 1006 1010 1071 1241 1243 1292 1342 1424 1505 Byz (indicating the majority of the 2818 Greek manuscript evidence! Including E F G H above.) L L841/2 L2111/2 L2922/3 L384 L5241/2 LAD itaur, c, ff2, l, n, r1 vg copbopt syrp, h, pal arm eth geo slav Diatessaronarm Origenvid Eusebius; Jerome

a AB C D Y 157 2427 Lect (the majority of them) itd, k syr s copsa, bopt

[A] Nestle Aland team concurs the deletion to be CERTAIN.

Bible believers holding to verbal inspiration of the Scriptures do not concur.

9

Lu 17:36

D f13(13 69 124 174 230 346 543 788 826 828 983 1689 1709 ++) 180 579 700 1006 1071 1243 Lect(64 of them including L68 L76 L673 L813 L1223 LAD) ita, aur, b, c, d, e, f, ff2, i, l, q, r1 vg syrc, s, p, h arm eth TH slav Ambrose

P75 a A B E G H N Q L W D Q Y f1(1 118 131 209 1582 ++) 28 33 157 205 565 597 892 1010 1241 1292 1342 1424 1505 Byz (indicating the majority of the 2818 Greek manuscript evidence! Including E G H N Q above.) L184 L292 L514 L950 L1552 vgms copsa, bo ethpp geo Basil; Jerome Maximus

[A] Nestle Aland team concurs the deletion to be CERTAIN.

Bible believers holding to verbal inspiration of the Scriptures do not concur.

10

Lu 23:17

a D E F G H N W D Q Y 083 0250 f1(1 118 131 209 1582 ++) f13(13 69 124 174 230 346 543 788 826 828 983 1689 1709 ++) 28 157 180 205 565 579 597 700 892 1006 1010 1071 1243 1292 1342 1424 1505 Byz (indicating the majority of the 2818 Greek manuscript evidence! Including E F G H N above.) Lect (the majority of them) itaur, b, c, d, e, f, ff2, l, q, r1 vg syrc, p, s, h copbomss arm eth geo slav Eusebian Canons; Augustine

P75 A B L T 070 892 1241 ita vgms copsa, bopt

[A] Nestle Aland team concurs the deletion to be CERTAIN.

Bible believers holding to verbal inspiration of the Scriptures do not concur.

11

Joh 5:4

A C E F G H L D Q Y 047 078 0233 f1(1 118 131 209 1582 ++) f13(13 69 124 174 230 346 543 788 826 828 983 1689 1709 ++) 28 180 205 565 579 597 700 892 1006 1010 1071 1241 1243 1292 1342 1424 1505 Byz (indicating the majority of the 2818 Greek manuscript evidence! Including E F G H above.) Lect (the majority of them) ita, aur, b, c, e, ff2, j, r1 vgcl syrh, p, pal copbopt eth slav Didymusdab Chrysostom Cyrillem ; Tertullian Hilary Ambrose

P66, 75 a A B C* D T Wsupp 0141 33 157 itd, f, l, q vgww, st syr c copsa, pbo, bopt, ach2 arm geo Amphilochius

[A] Nestle Aland team concurs the deletion to be CERTAIN.

Bible believers holding to verbal inspiration of the Scriptures do not concur.

12

Ac 8:37

36 307 453 610 945 1678 1739 1891 L1178 LAD itar, c, dem, gig, i, p, pb, ro, t, w vgcl syrh copmeg arm ethTH geo slav Irenaeus; Cyprian Ambrosiaster Pacian Chromatius Augustine Speculum

P45, 74 a A B C L P Y 33vid 81 181 614 1175 1409 2344 Byz (indicating the majority of the 2818 Greek manuscript evidence! Including L P above.) Lect (the majority of them) vgww, st syrp copsa, bo ethpp Chysostom; Ambrose

[A] Nestle Aland team concurs the deletion to be CERTAIN.

Bible believers holding to verbal inspiration of the Scriptures do not concur.

13

Ac 15:34

C D 33 36 181 307 453 610 945 1175 1409 1678 1739 1891 2344 L1178 itc, d, ar, gig, l, ph, ro, w vgmss, cl syrh copsa, bomss arm eth geo slav Cassiodorus

P74 a A B E Y 81 Byz (indicating the majority of the 2818 Greek manuscript evidence! Including L P above.) itdem, e, p vgww, st syrp copbo Chysostom

[A] Nestle Aland team concurs the deletion to be CERTAIN.

Bible believers holding to verbal inspiration of the Scriptures do not concur.

14

Ac 24:7

E Y 33 36 181 307 453 610 614 945 1409 1678 1739 1891 2344 2464 Byz Pt (indicating part of the majority of the 2818 Greek manuscript evidence!) itar, c, dem, e, gig, p2, pb, ro, w vgcl syrp, h arm eth slav Chrysostom mssacc, to Bede

P74 a A B 81 1175 Byz Pt (indicating part of the majority of the 2818 Greek manuscript evidence! Including L P above.) L1178 itp*,s vgww, st copsa, bo geo

[A] Nestle Aland team concurs the deletion to be CERTAIN.

Bible believers holding to verbal inspiration of the Scriptures do not concur.

15

Ac 28:29

36 307 453 610 614 945 1409 1678 1891 Byz (indicating the majority of the 2818 Greek manuscript evidence! Including L P above.) Lect (the majority of them) itar, c, gig, p, ph, w vgcl syrh armms ethTH slav Chrysostom; Cassiodorusvid

P74 a A B E Y 048 33 81 181 1175 1739 2344 2464 L60 itdem, c, ro, s vgww, st syrp copsa, bo arm ethpp geo

[A] Nestle Aland team concurs the deletion to be CERTAIN.

Bible believers holding to verbal inspiration of the Scriptures do not concur.

16

Ro 16:24

D F G P Y 6 33 104 256 263 365 424 436 459 1175 1241 1319 1573 1852 1881 1912 2200 Byz (indicating the majority of the 2818 Greek manuscript evidence! Including L P above.) Lect(about all 69 of them) itar, d, f, g, mon, o vg cl, ms syrh, p cop boms arm eth geo slav Theodoret; Pelagius Ambrosiaster

P46, 61 a A B C 0150 81 1739 1962 2127 2464 itb vgww, st copsa, bo Origgenlat

[A] Nestle Aland team concurs the deletion to be CERTAIN.

Bible believers holding to verbal inspiration of the Scriptures do not concur.

17

1John 5:7-8

61 629 88v.r. 221v.r. 429v.r. 629 636v.r. 918 2318 LAD vgcl arm mss itl, q vgmss (Cyprian) (Ps-Cyprian) (Priscillin) Apeculum Varimadum Ps-Vifilius Fulgentius

a B 048vid 33 81 322 333 436 945 1067 1175 1241 1243 1292 1409 1505 1611 1735 1739 1846 1881 2138 2298 2344 2464 Byz (indicating the majority of the 2818 Greek manuscript evidence! Including K P L above) itar vgww, st syr p, h copsa, bo armmss, eth geo slav Clementlat (Origenlat) (Cyril) Ps-Dionysiusvid (John-Damscus); Rebaptism Ambrose Augustine Quodvultdeus Facundus

[A] Nestle Aland team concurs the deletion to be CERTAIN.

Note that the assertion that this reference is ‘recent’ or from Erasmus’ effort is completely unfounded and false.

18

Col 1:14

424 1912 2200 2464 L147 L590 L592 L593 L1159 vgcl syrh arm slav Gregory-Nyssa; Victoinus-Rome Sassiodrus

a A B C D1 F G Y 075 0150 6 33 81 104 256 263 365 436 459 1175 1241 1319 1573 1739 1852 1881 1962 2127 Byz (indicating the majority of the 2818 Greek manuscript evidence! Including K L P above.) Lect(64 of them) itar, b, d, f, g, mon, o vgww, st syr p, pal copsa, bo eth geo Athanasius Didymusdub Chrysostom Theodorelat Cyril; Ambrosiaster Ambrose Pelagius Augustine

[A] Nestle Aland team concurs the deletion to be CERTAIN.

Bible believers holding to verbal inspiration of the Scriptures do not concur.

19a

Matt 5:44a

D E L W D Q S f13(13 69 124 174 230 346 543 788 826 828 983 1689 1709 ++) 28 33 157 180 565 579 597 700 892 1006 1010 1071 1241 1243 1292 1342 1424 1505 Byz (indicating the majority of the 2818 Greek manuscript evidence! Including E S above.) Lect (the majority of them) L866 L1016 it a, aur, b, c, d, f, ff1, g1, h, l vg armmss syrh, p, pal copbopt geo1, 2 slav ethpp, TH slav Athenagoras Clement Eusebius Arsenius Chrysostom Theodoret; Ambrose Chromatius Jerome Augustine Tertullian Lucifer Speculum

a B f1(1 118 131 209 1582 ++) 205 itk syrc, s copsa, bopt Theophilus Irenaeuslat, vid Origen Adamantius; yprian Faustus-Milevis

[A] Nestle Aland team concurs the deletion to be CERTAIN.

Bible believers holding to verbal inspiration of the Scriptures do not concur.

19b

Matt 5:44b

D E L W D Q S f13(13 69 124 174 230 346 543 788 826 828 983 1689 1709 ++) 28 33 180 565 579 597 700 892 1006 1010 1071 12 41 1243 1292 1342 1424 1505 Byz (indicating the majority of the 2818 Greek manuscript evidence! Including E S above.) Lect (the majority of them) l76 L241 L253 l524 L547 L563 L858 L1223 it a, aur, b, c, d, f, ff1, g1, h, l vg armmss syrh, p, pal copbopt geo1, 2 ethpp, TH slav Theophilus Clement Origen1/6 Eusebius Basil (Gregory-Nyssa) (Nilus) Arsenius Chrysostom (Ambrose) (Chromatius) Jerome1/3

a B f1(1 118 131 209 1582 ++) 205 itk syrc, s copsa, bopt coptsa, bopt ethms, pp (Athenagoras) Origen5/6 (Adamantius); Tertullian Cyprian Lucier Jerome2/3 Faustus-Milevis Augustine (Speculum)

[A] Nestle Aland team concurs the deletion to be CERTAIN.

Bible believers holding to verbal inspiration of the Scriptures do not concur.

20

Luke 9:56

D K Q f1(1 118 131 209 1582 ++) f13(13 69 124 174 230 346 543 579 788 826 828 983 1689 1709 ++) 180 205 597 700 1006 1243 1292 1505 Byz pt (indicating part of the majority of 2818 Greek manuscript evidence! Including E S above.) Lectpt, AD, 2/3 it a, aur, b, c, d, e, f, q, r1 vg cl, ww syrc, h, p, pal copsa, bopt geo ethTH slavmss Ambrosiaster Ambrose (Epiphanius) Chrysostom Theodoretvid

P45, 75 a A B C E G H L W D X Y 28 33 157 565 892 1010 1071 1241 1342 1424 Byz pt (indicating part of the majority of the 2818 Greek manuscript evidence! Including E G H above.) Lectpt, AD, 1/3 itl vgst syr s copsa, bopt ethpp slavmss

[A] Nestle Aland team concurs the deletion to be CERTAIN.

Bible believers holding to verbal inspiration of the Scriptures do not concur.

There are 1,486 references for the retention of these 20 verses and 687 references for their deletion. This overwhelming numerical imbalance is evident despite the Nestle and Aland twisted bias about the ‘considerable Byzantine influence’ covered in the notes above. Easily over twice as many manuscripts attesting that these 20 verses should be completely in our Holy Bible, although they are not in Westcott and Hort’s bible, not in Nestle and Aland’s bible, and, consequently not in the NIV, ASV, NASV nor other modernist, cultist and Catholic bibles. Shame on them for believing these ‘textual critics’ with corrupted bibles. Shame on evangelicals for following after their misleading. And shame shame on the fundamentalists who left the straight and narrow path for this broad path of diabolical deception.

Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me,

Defense of Twenty Bibliography

The Bible

Aland, Kurt, Aland, Barbara “The Greek New Testament” Fourth Revised Edition, United Bible Society, @ 1966, 1968, 1975, 1983, 1993, 1994, 1998,

Black, David Alan, & Dockery, David S., “New Testament Criticism and Interpretation” Zibdervan Publishing Housem, @1991, (This compromising book on NT criticism was required reading at Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary, Landsdale Pa, after Dr. Jordon’s control was overthrown by an influx of Bob Jones graduates.)

Burgon, John William, “The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels” Burgon, John William (1813-1888 AD), Miller, Edward (1825-1901 AD) (Editor),Publisher: Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, Publication History: Cambridge: Deighton, Bell and Co. 1896 AD, Rights: Public Domain,Date Created: 2006-05-13 accessed at http://www.ccel.org 11/07/07

Eusebiu Pamphilus, “The Ecclesiastical Histor of Euseius Pamphilus”, pp160 as quoted in BI-300 Inspiration of Scripture I, Syllabus, Landmark Baptist College, Haines City, FL, pp60

Miller, Edward, “A Guide to Textual Criticism of the New Testament”, Dean Burgon Society Press, Collingswood NJ, 1886 AD

Scrivener, Frederick Henry “Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament Vol 1”, Oxford, London, George Bell & Sons, Your Street Covent Garden and New York , 1894, 4th Edition edited by Rev. Edward Millar, M.A. Christian Classics Ethereal Library, Public Domain, accessed at http://www.ccel.org 11/07/07

Stringer, Phil, Dr. “BI-300 Inspiration of Scripture I, Syllabus”, Landmark Baptist College, Haines City, FL 33844

Tidwell J.B., Chairman, Bible Department, Baylor University, (1910-1946),“Thinking Straight About the Bible, or Is the Bible the Word of God” (1935), from Southern Baptists Site http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/heritage/tidwell.asp accessed 11/01/07

Wilkinson, Benjamin G., “Our Authorized Bible Vindicated”, 1930, (Wilkinson was SDA who wrote an excellent poplar history of the textual lines.) as quoted in BI-300 Inspiration of Scripture Syllabus.

The Word Became Wycliffe’s Middle English

This section is a December 2007 written project submitted to Dr. Phil Stringer in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the course BI-301 “Inspiration of Scripture II” of Landmark Baptist College, Haines City, Florida. That project is presented in its entirety below.

John Wycliffe’s English translation of the Scriptures was the commencement of God’s presence in the English world and it should now have a place on your book shelf. Wycliffe (1324-1384) was historically the first to translate the Holy Scriptures into the English language. Thus he is called “The Father of the English Bible.” In this day anyone with a computer could read Wycliffe’s English Bible. Few have. Christians should. Weigh the value of such an experience with the knowledge of the cost in effort and persecution that Wycliffe paid. “And alle men that wolen lyue feithfuli in Crist Jhesu, schulen suffre persecucioun” (2Tim 3:12 Wycliffe Bible). Weigh the greater blessing he provided to dying saints who never before got to read of David’s journey through the valley of the shadow of death. “For whi thouy Y schal go in the myddis of schadewe of deeth; Y schal not drede yuels, for thou art with me. Thi yerde and thi staf; tho han coumfortid me” (Psalm 22:4 Wycliffe Bible). Weigh the great blow to Satan, the opposer of God, that this broken Middle English Bible delivered. “ Be ye sobre, and wake ye, for youre aduersarie, the deuel, as a rorynge lioun goith aboute, sechinge whom he schal deuoure” (1Pet 5:8 Wycliffe Bible). The book most hated by the Roman Catholic Church and most loved by the 14th century saints of the Church that Jesus built, is this first English translation of the Holy Bible. In English, it also exposes the vile condition of the Latin Vulgate in the 14th century. It shows the Latin Vulgate corruptions from the continual tampering of the Roman Catholic scribes. It emphasizes Wycliffe’s accuracy over and above today’s Unitarian/Roman Catholic/Modernist Critical Greek text. It is easily available for examination in your study from the web site: http://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/imported_site/biblical_studies/wycliffe 45. Knowing the impact of Wycliffe’s Bible on saints and Satan is a valuable heritage.

The Word Became Wycliffe’s Middle English -The Cost of Translating

Those influenced by the Wycliffe Bible in English soon took up the cause of preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ and were tagged by their opponents as “Bible men.” Wycliffe’s Bible, by reason of its clarity, beauty, and strength, influenced both the English language and the English people. This influence is aptly described in an article on the antique Bible web site, GreatSite.com:

Wycliffe aimed to do away with the existing hierarchy and replace it with the “poor priests” who lived in poverty, were bound by no vows, had received no formal consecration, and preached the Gospel to the people. These itinerant preachers spread the teachings of Wycliffe. Two by two they went, barefoot, wearing long dark-red robes and carrying a staff in the hand, the latter having symbolic reference to their pastoral calling, and passed from place to place preaching the sovereignty of God. The bull of Gregory XI impressed upon them the name of Lollards, intended as an opprobrious epithet, but it became a name of honour. Even in Wycliffe’s time the “Lollards” had reached wide circles in England and preached “God’s law, without which no one could be justified.46

It is always interesting to see what The Catholic Encyclopedia says about the martyrs that it hated, tortured and killed. Of Wycliffe, they confound the search by using a derivative name spelling, but their bias history says of him:

Thus by 1380 Wyclif had set himself in open opposition to the property and government of the Church, he had attacked the pope in most unmeasured terms, he had begun to treat the Bible as the chief and almost the only test of orthodoxy, and to lay more and more stress on preaching. Yet he would have protested against an accusation of heresy. Great freedom was allowed to speculation in the schools, and there was much uncertainty about clerical property. Even the exclusive use of Scripture as a standard of faith was comprehensible at a time when the allegiance of Christendom was being claimed by two popes. It must be added that Wyclif frequently inserted qualifying or explanatory clauses in his propositions, and that, in form at least, he would declare his readiness to submit his opinions to the judgment of the Church. It seems to have been a time of much uncertainty in matters of faith, and the Lollard movement in its earlier stages is remarkable for a readiness of recantation. Wyclif’s heretical position became, however, much more pronounced when he denied the doctrine of Transubstantiation. His own position is not quite clear or consistent, but it seems to approach the Lutheran “consubstantiation”, for he applied to the Blessed Eucharist his metaphysical principle that annihilation is impossible. To attack so fundamental a doctrine tended to define the position of Wyclif and his followers. Henceforth they tend to become a people apart.47

The Roman Catholics spoke forthrightly about Wycliffe’s “heretical position” but it was not Wycliffe’s positions that inflamed their hatred. It was Wycliffe’s English Bible translation that was their main irritant. The Black Death killed 50 million in England and Europe between 1351 and1358.48 Coming out of that there was a peasant revolt against the money mongering, financially depleted Roman Catholics by 1380. Wycliffe was very outspoken against the monetary pursuits of Catholicism but never pursued violent means against them. Instead, Wycliffe taught the power of the written word of God to deliver the peasants from their enslaving Catholic priest craft. Wycliffe declared the authority of Scripture over that of the Church. They hated this exposure, his English Bible translation, and what he was doing to their coffers. He said of the Scriptures:

The authority of the Holy Scriptures infinitely surpasses any writing, how authentic soever it may appear, because the authority of Jesus Christ is infinitely above that of all mankind. The authority of the Scriptures is independent on any other authority, and is preferable to every other writing, but especially to the books of the Church of Rome.49

In the 1360s Wycliffe, a pupil, a graduate, a master, a doctor, and a professor in Oxford University, said “Friars draw children from Christ’s religion into their private Order by hypocrisy, lies and stealing.”50 In the years following his translation of the Bible, Wycliffe became more and more outspoken against Roman Catholicism. Eventually writing “It is supposed, and with much probability, that the Roman pontiff is the great Antichrist.”51

One must consider that those men who went through great Roman persecutions in order to provide an English Bible were of one general mind about the matter. Evangelist Bill Bradley captures well that mindset when considering those who penned their thoughts in the margins of the Geneva Bible. He says of them:

These and other thoughts from the hearts of these great Christian men … show us that they not only found hope for the future in the Word of God, but they also found answers for their present predicament in the sacred Scriptures. They saw in the Bible that what the church f God was experiencing, the exile, the imprisonment, the torture, the burnings, the executions, the bloodshed at the hands of the clergy and the established religion of their day, was not the temporary triumph of Satan, nor the judgment hand of God upon a rebellious and backslid people, but the will of God, the trying and proving of God’s people, allowed to happen to them by the Sovereign hand and Providence of God, and intended to strengthen their faith and resolve, and draw them into a closer, more intimate relationship with their Maker and Master.52

In 1382, in Blackfriars London, amidst falling castle walls and pinnacles of an earthquake, forty-seven bishops and monks condemned Wycliffe for ten heresies and sixteen errors. Wycliffe called it the “Earthquake Counsel under the judgment of God.” He died two years later seeing his books banned and burned by the Roman Catholic Church. It is amazing that 150 copies of his English Bible translation, and many of his words and works survived the scathing hatred of Roman Catholicism. Wycliffe’s English Bible caused such a widespread Bible belief, and his ‘Bible Men’ preached with such fervency from England to Bohemia, that forty-one years after his death the Roman Catholic Pope had his bones exhumed and burnt with his Bibles. It makes the reading of his Middle English Bible an act of audacity reminding one of the ugly history and hatred of Roman Catholicism. You can get a copy of his hated Bible at http://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/imported_site/biblical_studies/wycliffe/ or for wimps needing the corrected spellings at http://biblehub.com/wycliffe/

The Holy Bible, From The Latin to Middle English

The Middle English of John Wycliffe could be called Medieval English as it was the English of the period of 1100-1500.53 Middle English is still present and popular in America because of literary works like “The Canterbury tales” by Geoffrey Chaucer, 1400 AD, and “The vision of Piers Plowman” by William Langland, 1330?-1400?54 This was the English used between “the Norman invasion of 1066 and the mid-to-late 15th century, when the Chancery Standard, a form of London-based English, began to become widespread. …. The language of England as spoken after this time, up to 1650, is known as Early Modern English”.55

The shaping of the polyglot English language cannot be fully appreciated without consideration of the rich history of the Celtic Europeans.

At its height in 300 B.C. the Celtic realm extended all the way across Europe from todays countries of Romania and Hungry into Britain and Ireland and from Belgium south into Portugal and Spain. Its people introduced the use of iron technology to the lands north of the Alps – the vast territories called ‘Celtica’ by the ancient Greeks.56

Historian Kevin Duffy shows the effect that these Celts had on language development:

The Romans introduced Latin to France’s Celts, who shaped it into French. The Normans, assisted by French Celts, invaded and assumed control of Saxon England in 1066 A.D. Norman French, with its roots in a Romanized, Celtic land, enriched the English tongue and helped make it the worlds major language.57

The English language during this period was a very dynamically expanding polyglot. It did not really solidify until it was grounded with a Biblical English of the 1611 authorized version of the English Bible. The dynamics of the early English language can be further seen in this article on its history:

Middle English (1100-1500): In 1066 William the Conqueror, the Duke of Normandy (part of modern France), invaded and conquered England. The new conquerors (called the Normans) brought with them a kind of French, which became the language of the Royal Court, and the ruling and business classes. For a period there was a kind of linguistic class division, where the lower classes spoke English and the upper classes spoke French. In the 14th century English became dominant in Britain again, but with many French words added. This language is called Middle English. It was the language of the great poet Chaucer (c1340-1400), but it would still be difficult for native English speakers to understand today.58

It is likely called Middle English because it fell between Old English (450-1100 AD) and Early Modern English (1500-1800) but as Wycliffe uses it for expressing Scripture truths it may there be called the middle of Middle English. There are always three dynamic levels of diversity in a language, an upper, middle and lower stratum. Middle English had this stratum in dialect as well. In this stratum of language the ‘middle’ ground is the common language of the average and is the most stable of the three. This division is described well by Dr. Ian Paisley as he establishes the preeminent language used for the 1611 King James Authorized Version of the Bible:

Every living language is communicated in three levels of speech. First, there is the level of intelligentsia – the cleverest scientists, the clearest thinkers and most careful writers. We would call that the upper level. This level is remote in many ways from the habitual speech of common life.

Second, there is the level of the least educated of our people. Their speech is rough, often incorrect grammatically, well flavoured with what is called ‘slang’. It is uncouth and unkind, the language of the backstreet corner, the speech of the back street gutter snipes and the gutter press. We would call that the lowest level. Between the upper level of the first and the lowest level of the second there is a great gulf fixed. What is food and drink to one is poison to the other and what is poison to the one is food and drink to the other.

There is, however, another level. It is the language of the vast majority of the populace. It is the language of the church, the school, the study, the home, the parlour, the shop, the business and the press.

We would call that the middle level. It has little to do with the peculiarities and distintiveness of the other two levels. It is not a slave to where a man lives his life and does his business. What is important, however, is that those of the other two can both meet here.59

Wycliffe’s Bible translation was this middle of Middle English and it can be readily deciphered today, especially when examining familiar Scripture portions. “For God louede so the world, that he yaf his `oon bigetun sone, that ech man that bileueth in him perische not, but haue euerlastynge lijf. For God sente not his sone in to the world, that he iuge the world, but that the world be saued bi him. He that bileueth in hym, is not demed; but he that bileueth not, is now demed, for he bileueth not in the name of the `oon bigetun sone of God” (John 3:16-18 Wycliffe Bible). In fact, it is so familiar you can see Tyndale’s wordings 100 years later, from which you see the Authorized Version wordings 100 years later again. It is so easy and interesting reading that in the remaining of this paper the Roman Catholic corruptions and then the Gnostic and Unitarian corruptions of Westcott and Hort’s Critical Greek text shall be examined from Wycliffe’s Middle English translation of the Holy Bible.

Wycliffe’s Bible Exposes Catholic Corruptions

It is of interest that Wycliffe did not translate from the original Greek, and Hebrew Scriptures, but from the Catholic Latin Vulgate of Jerome. The very first English translation of the Bible had it’s profound and Godly effect on English speaking people despite the fact that it was translated from the corrupted Roman Catholic Latin version. In his book “Annals of the English Bible,” Anderson captures this wonder well:

It was the Latin Bible, therefore, long buried in cloisters, or covered with the dust of ages, which must now be brought forth to view. Confessedly imperfect, it was of importance first to prove that it had all along contained enough for mortal man to know, in order to his eternal salvation; and once translated into any native tongue, not only will the language touch the heart, but the people at last know what that mysterious book was, from which they had been debarred, so wickedly and so long. Although, therefore, the nation was yet an hundred and fifty years distant from the English Bible, properly so called, the present should be regarded as the first preliminary step. An all-disposing foresight, far above that of any human agent, is now distinctly visible in drawing first upon that very language which had been employed for ages as the instrument of mental bondage. It shall now be made to contribute to the emancipation of the human mind60 (Anderson, I, p. xl).

The Catholic corruptions in the Latin Vulgate were prevalent but it is amazing that the source contained so many profound truths that God loved and Catholicism hated. Dr. Gaussen puts it well in one profound sentence:

When one thinks that the Bible has been copied during thirty centuries, as no book of man has ever been, or ever will be; that it was subjected to all the catastrophes and all the captivities of Israel; that it was transported seventy years to Babylon; that it has seen itself so often persecuted, or forgotten, or interdicted, or burnt, from the days of the Philistines to those of the Seleucidæ; -when one thinks that, since the time of Jesus Christ, it has had to traverse the first three centuries of the imperial persecutions, when persons found in possession of the holy books were thrown to the wild beasts; next the 7th, 8th, and 9th centuries, when false hooks, false legends, and false decretals, were everywhere multiplied; the 10th century, when so few could read, even among princes; the 12th, 13th, and 14th centuries, when the use of the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue was punished with death, and when the books of the ancient fathers were mutilated, when so many ancient traditions were garbled and falsified, even to the very acts of the emperors, and to those of the councils; – then we can perceive how necessary it was that the providence of God should have always put forth its mighty power, in order that, on the one hand, the Church of thee Jews should give us, in its integrity, that Word which records its revolts, which predicts its ruin, which describes Jesus Christ; and, on the other, that the Christian Churches (the most powerful of which, and the Roman sect in particular, interdicted the people from reading the sacred books, and substituted in so many ways the traditions of the middle ages for the Word of God) should nevertheless transmit to us, in all their purity, those Scriptures, which condemn all their traditions, their images, their dead languages, their absolution; their celibacy; which say, that Rome would be the seat of a terrible apostasy, where “the Man of Sin would be seen sitting as God in the temple of God, waging war on the saints, forbidding to marry, and to use meats which Gods hand created;” which say of images, “Thou shalt not bow down to them” – of unknown tongues, “Thou shalt not use them” – of the cup, “Drink ye all of it” – of the Virgin, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?” – and of marriage, “It is honourable in all.”61

It is clear that corruptions were present in the source text, and these corruptions are not taken lightly. The amazing truth to unfold here is that Roman Catholicism was holding enough of God’s Scriptures to initiate the overthrow of all they were teaching. This Bible still taught that Jesus is the only mediator, “For o God and a mediatour is of God and of men, a man Crist Jhesus” (1Tim 2:5 Wycliffe Bible); that you should not bow to Catholic images, “Y am youre Lord God; ye schulen not make to you an ydol, and a grauun ymage, nether ye schulen reise titlis, nether ye schulen sette a noble stoon in youre lond, that ye worschipe it; for Y am youre Lord God” (Lev 26:1 Wycliffe Bible); that Mary did have other children, “Whether this is not a carpenter, the sone of Marie, the brother of James and of Joseph and of Judas and of Symount? whether hise sistris ben not here with vs? And thei weren sclaundrid in hym” (Mark 6:3 Wycliffe Bible); and that you should have no pope here on earth, “And nyle ye clepe to you a fadir on erthe, for oon is your fadir, that is in heuenes” (Matt 23:9 Wycliffe Bible). Although it was Catholic corrupted it had enough Scripture to reach people with truth in a powerful way. In his book called “The English Bible” John Eadie notes that:

Any attempt to translate from a Greek original at that period, had it been practicable, might have led to confusion and misunderstanding; for ignorance would have branded such a book as heretical and misleading, if it was found to differ in any way from the ecclesiastical text. The common people could not have appreciated these variations, and such prejudices would have been created against the new version as the priesthood could easily foster and spread. Yet the translation of the Latin Scriptures had been a first step to something higher, an intermediate gift to the nation. The effect had been like the first touch of the Blessed Hand upon its vision—‘it saw men as trees walking;’ and when at length the second touch passed over it, it looked up, and then it ‘saw every man clearly’62” (Eadie, I, p. 101).

So the Latin Bible was translated to Middle English in 1380 giving the English speaking world their first look at Scripture in their own tongue. It had a profound effect though it was a translation of the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate. Two major corruptions involved the substitution of ‘penance’ for ‘repentance’ and the substitution of a ‘priesthood’ for a ‘presbyter.’ The tables below amply display these two corruptions from the Latin Vulgate in Wycliffe’s Bible translation:

Wycliffe’s Translation and Corrupted Repentance

The Holy Bible on Repentance

Wycliffe’s Translation from The Vulgate

substituting ‘penance’ for ‘repentance’

Mt 3:2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

2 and seide, Do ye penaunce, for the kyngdom of heuenes shal neiye.

Mt 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

8 Therfor do ye worthi fruyte of penaunce,

Mt 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

11 Y waische you in water, in to penaunce; but he that shal come after me is strongere than Y, whos schoon Y am not worthi to bere; he shal baptise you in the Hooli Goost and fier.

Mt 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

17 Fro that tyme Jhesus bigan to preche, and seie, Do ye penaunce, for the kyngdom of heuenes schal come niy.

Mt 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

13 But go ye, and lerne what it is, Y wole merci, and not sacrifice; for I cam, not to clepe riytful men, but synful men. [OMISSION]

Mt 11:20 Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not:

20 Thanne Jhesus bigan to seye repreef to citees, in whiche ful manye vertues of him weren doon, for thei diden not penaunce.

Mt 11:21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

21 Wo to thee! Corosaym, woo to thee! Bethsaida; for if the vertues that ben doon in you hadden be doon in Tyre and Sidon, sumtyme thei hadden don penaunce in heyre and aische.

Mt 12:41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

41 Men of Nynyue schulen rise in doom with this generacioun, and schulen condempne it; for thei diden penaunce in the prechyng of Jonas, and lo! here a gretter than Jonas.

Mt 21:29 He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.

29 And he answeride, and seide, Y nyle; but afterward he forthouyte63, and wente forth.

Mt 21:32 For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.

32 For Joon cam to you in the weie of riytwisnesse, and ye bileueden not to him; but pupplicans and hooris bileueden to hym. But ye sayn, and hadden no forthenkyng64 aftir, that ye bileueden to hym.

Mt 27:3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

3 Thanne Judas that bitraiede hym, say that he was dampned, he repentide, and brouyte ayen the thretti pans to the princis of prestis, and to the elder men of the puple, [EXCEPTION 1]

Mr 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

4 Joon was in desert baptisynge, and prechynge the baptym of penaunce, in to remissioun of synnes.

Mr 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

15 and seide, That the tyme is fulfillid, and the kyngdoom of God schal come nyy; do ye penaunce, and bileue ye to the gospel.

Mr 2:17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

17 Whanne this was herd, Jhesus seide to hem, Hoole men han no nede to a leche, but thei that ben yuel at eese; for Y cam not to clepe iust men, but synneris. [OMISSION]

Mr 6:12 And they went out, and preached that men should repent.

12 And thei yeden forth, and prechiden, that men schulden do penaunce.

Lu 3:3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

3 And he cam in to al the cuntre of Jordan, and prechide baptym of penaunce in to remyssioun of synnes.

Lu 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

8 Therfor do ye worthi fruytis of penaunce, and bigynne ye not to seie, We han a fadir Abraham; for Y seie to you, that God is myyti to reise of these stoonys the sones of Abraham.

Lu 5:32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

32 for Y cam not to clepe iuste men, but synful men to penaunce.

Lu 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

7 And Y seie to you, so ioye schal be in heuene on o synful man doynge penaunce, more than on nynti and nyne iuste, that han no nede to penaunce.

Lu 15:10 Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.

10 So Y seie to you, ioye schal be bifor aungels of God on o synful man doynge penaunce.

Lu 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

30 And he seide, Nay, fadir Abraham, but if ony of deed men go to hem, thei schulen do penaunce.

Lu 17:3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.

3 Take ye hede you silf; if thi brothir hath synned ayens thee, blame hym; and if he do penaunce, foryyue hym.

Lu 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

47 and penaunce and remyssioun of synnes to be prechid in his name `in to alle folkis, bigynnynge at Jerusalem.

Ac 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

38 And Petre seide to hem, Do ye penaunce, and eche of you be baptisid in the name of Jhesu Crist, in to remissioun of youre synnes; and ye schulen take the yifte of the Hooli Goost.

Ac 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

19 Therfor be ye repentaunt, and be ye conuertid, that youre synnes be don awei,

[EXCEPTION 2]

Ac 8:22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.

22 Therfor do thou penaunce for this wickidnesse of thee, and preie God, if perauenture this thouyt of thin herte be foryouun to thee.

Ac 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

18 Whanne these thingis weren herd, thei helden pees, and glorifieden God, and seiden, Therfor also to hethene men God hath youun penaunce to lijf.

Ac 13:24 When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.

24 whanne Joon prechide bifor the face of his comyng the baptym of penaunce to al the puple of Israel.

Ac 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

30 For God dispisith the tymes of this vnkunnyng, and now schewith to men, that alle euery where doon penaunce; for that he hath ordeyned a dai,

Ac 20:21 Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

21 and Y witnesside to Jewis and to hethene men penaunce in to God, and feith in to oure Lord Jhesu Crist.

Ac 26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

20 but Y tolde to hem that been at Damask first, and at Jerusalem, and bi al the cuntre of Judee, and to hethene men, that thei schulden do penaunce, and be conuertid to God, and do worthi werkis of penaunce.

The sacramental system of Catholicism depends extensively on penance to the detriment of repentance. If one could repent and be saved from sin without works, as the Bible says, the whole Roman sacramental system would be in danger of collapse, … it is, … it needs be. This corruption of the text occurred when Jerome translated the Scripture into the Latin, or, in the vast changes made to his translation work upon his death. Penance promoted priest craft. With only two exceptions here in 31 verses penance is substituted for repentance, as a brazen corruption of the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate, captured by Wycliffe’s 14th century translation work.

Wycliffe’s Translation and Corrupted Presbyterian

The corruption of the Greek word ‘presbuteros’ into the Roman Catholic priest was not as prevalent, but was just as brazen a corruption.

The Holy Bible on Presbyter (Elder)

Wycliffe’s Translation from the Vulgate

often substituting ‘priest’ for ‘presbyter’

1Ti 5:17 Let the elders <4245> that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

17 The prestis that ben wel gouernoures, be thei had worthi to double onour; moost thei that trauelen in word and teching.

1Ti 5:19 Against an elder <4245> receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.

19 Nyle thou resseyue accusyng ayens a preest, but vndur tweyne or thre witnessis.

Tit 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders <4245> in every city, as I had appointed thee:

5 For cause of this thing Y lefte thee at Crete, that thou amende tho thingis that failen, and ordeyne preestis bi citees, as also Y disposide to thee.

Heb 11:2 For by it the elders <4245> obtained a good report.

2 And in this feith elde men han gete witnessyng.

Jas 5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders <4245> of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

14 If ony of you is sijk, lede he in preestis of the chirche, and preie thei for hym, and anoynte with oile in the name of the Lord;

1Pe 5:1 The elders <4245> which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

1 Therfor Y, an euene eldre man, and a witnesse of Cristis passiouns, which also am a comynere of that glorie, that schal be schewid in tyme to comynge; byseche ye the eldre men,

1Pe 5:5 Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder <4245>. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

5 Also, ye yonge men, be ye suget to eldre men, and alle schewe ye togidere mekenesse; for the Lord withstondith proude men, but he yyueth grace to meke men.

It is interesting that the online Bible program that has a version of Jerome’s 405 A.D. Latin Vulgate, as posted in 2005 has all these verses properly translated, while the Latin Vulgate that Wycliffe translated from in the 1300s included priest craft in 4 of these 7 verses. The Latin Vulgate maintained by the Roman Catholics was dynamic not static. The corruptions are purposeful and some of their excursions into error were so brazen that they were later withdrawn under the less audacious supervision. This insight into these changes would make an interesting study in itself. What is seen here is that Wycliffe caught them at their own craft of Scripture corruption, showing that the Latin Vulgate maintained at Oxford in the 1300s contained corruptions to promote Catholic priest craft. Despite their corruptions, the Latin Vulgate translated into the language of the English people was a powerful liberating force against the yoke of Roman bondage.

Wycliffe and the Pure Words of God

The holiness of the Word of God was understood better by John Wycliffe than it was by Brook Foss Westcott (1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892). These two eliminated words that did not ‘ring true’ to their ear and their ear did not believe in infallibility of Scripture, nor in the atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Wycliffe knew not to add nor subtract from the words of God, for his translation read: De 4:2 “Ye schulen not adde to the word which Y speke to you, nether ye schulen take awei `fro it; kepe ye the comaundementis of youre Lord God, which Y comaunde to you” and De 12:32 “Do thou to the Lord this thing oneli which Y comaunde to thee, nethir adde thou ony thing, nether abate.” Wycliffe knew the power of the Scripture, even when translating from Latin he records the purity of the words of Psalm 11(12):7 “The spechis of the Lord ben chast spechis; siluer examynyd bi fier, preued fro erthe, purgid seuen fold. 8 Thou, Lord, schalt kepe vs; and thou `schalt kepe vs fro this generacioun with outen ende.” John Wycliffe knew that God had magnified his truth above all things:

Wycliffe Ps 137:2 Y schal worschipe to thin hooli temple, and Y schal knouleche to thi name. On thi merci and thi treuthe; for thou hast magnefied thin hooli name aboue al thing.

Below is a table of the 20 omissions of Westcott and Hort, the omissions that never show up in the NIV and ASV, and any other modernist bible translated from their ‘critical Greek text.’ Included in the table are the verses from the Authorized Version and the Wycliffe Middle English translation of the Bible. Wycliffe, who translated Proverbs 30 in his Bible included the verse: “Ech word of God is a scheld set a fiere, to alle that hopen in hym. 6 Adde thou not ony thing to the wordis of hym, and thou be repreued, and be foundun a liere” ( Wycliffe Pr 30:5). He was careful to capture ‘ech word of God’ in all his translation work. Would that the modernist were so careful. Note their slanderous work and Wycliffe’s careful translation of 20 verses in the table below:

Holy Bible Common Text

NIV/ASV

Wycliffe Middle English

1

Mt 17:21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

Mt 17:21 [Omit]

20 but this kynde is not caste out, but bi preiyng and fastyng.

2

Mt 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

Mt 18:11 [Omit]

11 For mannus sone cam to saue that thing that perischide.

3

Mt 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

Mt 23:14 [Omit]

13 But wo to you, scribis and Farisees, ipocritis, that closen the kyngdom of heuenes bifore men; and ye entren not, nether suffren men entrynge to entre.65

4

Mr 7:16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

Mr 7:16 [Omit]

16 If ony man haue eeris of hering, here he.

5

Mr 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Mr 9:44 [Omit]

44 And if thi foote sclaundre thee, kitte it of; it is betere to thee to entre crokid in to euerlastynge lijf, than haue twei feet, and be sent in to helle of fier, that neuer schal be quenchid,

6

Mr 9:46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Mr 9:46 [Omit]

46 That if thin iye sclaundre thee, cast it out; it is betere to thee to entre gogil iyed in to the reume of God, than haue twey iyen, and be sent in to helle of fier, where the worme of hem dieth not,

7

Mr 11:26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

Mr 11:26 [Omit]

26 And if ye foryyuen not, nether youre fadir that is in heuenes, schal foryyue to you youre synnes.

8

Mr 15:28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.

Mr 15:28 [Omit]

28 And the scripture was fulfillid that seith, And he is ordeyned with wickid men.

9

Lu 17:36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

(NOTE: This whole verse also errantly omitted from online Bible copy of TR; it is in the real TR, as it is in the KJB)

Lu 17:36 [Omit]

35 twei wymmen schulen be gryndynge togidir, `the toon schal be takun, and `the tother forsakun; twei in a feeld, `the toon schal be takun, and `the tother left.

10

Lu 23:17 (For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)

Lu 23:17 [Omit]

17 But he moste nede delyuer to hem oon bi the feest dai.

11

Joh 5:4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

Joh 5:4 [Omit]

4 For the aungel `of the Lord cam doun certeyne tymes in to the watir, and the watir was moued; and he that first cam doun in to the sisterne, aftir the mouynge of the watir, was maad hool of what euer sijknesse he was holdun.66

12

Ac 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Ac 8:37 [Omit]

37 And Filip seide, If thou bileuest of al the herte, it is leueful. And he answeride, and seide, Y bileue that Jhesu Crist is the sone of God.67

13

Ac 15:34 Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.

Ac 15:34 [Omit]

34 But it was seyn to Silas, to dwelle there; and Judas wente aloone to Jerusalem.

14

Ac 24:7 But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,

Ac 24:7 [Omit]

7 But Lisias, the trybune, cam with greet strengthe aboue, and delyuerede hym fro oure hoondis;

15

Ac 28:29 And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.

Ac 28:29 [Omit]

29 And whanne he hadde seid these thingis, Jewis wenten out fro hym, and hadden myche questioun, ethir musyng, among hem silf.

16

Ro 16:24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

Ro 16:24 [Omit]

24 The grace of oure Lord Jhesu Crist be with you alle.68

Holy Bible Common Text

NIV/ASV

Wycliffe Middle English

17

1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 1Jo 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

1Jo 5:7 For there are three that testify: I Jo 5:8 The Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

7 For thre ben, that yyuen witnessing in heuene, the Fadir, the Sone, and the Hooli Goost; and these thre ben oon.69

18

Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins:

14 in whom we han ayenbiyng and remyssioun of synnes.70

19

Mt 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Mt 5:44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

44 But Y seie to you, loue ye youre enemyes, do ye wel to hem that hatiden you, and preye ye for hem that pursuen, and sclaundren you;

20

Lu 9:56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.

Lu 9:56 and they went to another village

56 for mannus sone cam not to leese mennus soulis, but to saue. And thei wenten in to another castel.71

These verses speak for themselves when Westcott and Hort, Nestle and Aland, Lockman72 and Metzger73 scratch them from their Bibles but John Wycliffe of the 1300s assures of their presence in his Middle English Bible translation. Attention is given to 1John 5:7 called by modernists the ‘Johanne Comma.’ It is errantly taught that Erasmus added this without cause, but John Wycliffe knew it’s place in the Holy Scriptures 200 years earlier. John Wycliffe knew also that Matt 24:35 said “heuene and erthe schulen passe, but my wordis schulen not passe.” and he knew the Judge that gave these words from Joh 12:48 “He that dispisith me, and takith not my wordis, hath hym that schal iuge hym; thilke word that Y haue spokun, schal deme hym in the last dai.” This ‘trinity proof text’ was first translated into the English language by John Wycliffe in the 1300s. How unfortunate and asinine that it is eliminated from all the modernist English translations.

The Wycliffe English Bible as translated from the Latin Vulgate in 1380 contained 19 of these 20 verse omissions brazenly torn from the modernist Bibles translated from the Westcott and Hort Critical Greek text. The Nestle-Aland Greek apparatus indicated that some copies of the Latin Vulgate supported 11 of the 20 rip-torn omissions. But 10 of these 11 were indeed found in The Wycliffe English Bible, translated from the 14th century Latin Vulgate. The only omission that Wycliffe indicated from the his Oxford version of the Vulgate of the 1300s was for the phrase “through His blood” from Colossians 1:14, and that verse is supported by some later copies of the Latin Vulgate itself, four Greek manuscripts , five Lectionaries, Syriac, Armenian and Slavonic versions, and Early (so called) Church Fathers Gregory of Nyssa; Victoinus of Rome and Sassiodrus. All in all a very good showing of the work of John Wycliffe refuting the bias textual criticism of modernist Westcott and Hort, Nestle and Aland, Lockman and Metzger, and their slanderous omissions of these 20 verses.

Not only did Wycliffe include the trinitarian proof text, (1John 5:7) he clearly stated Phillipians 2:9-10 “For which thing God enhaunside hym, and yaf to hym a name that is aboue al name; 10 that in the name of Jhesu ech kne be bowid, of heuenli thingis, of ertheli thingis, and of hellis;” Even as Timothy knew the Scriptures from his youth John Wycliffe knew from his youth 2Timothy 3:15-16 “15 for thou hast knowun hooli lettris fro thi youthe, whiche moun lerne thee to heelthe, bi feith that is in Crist Jhesu. 16 For al scripture inspirid of God is profitable to teche, to repreue, to chastice, to lerne in riytwisnes, that the man of God be parfit, lerud to al good werk.” And John Wycliffe knew better than Westcott and Hort the dangers of removing Scriptures from the Holy Bible for his translation closes with “And I witnesse to ech man herynge the wordis of prophesie of this book, if ony man schal putte to these thingis, God schal putte on hym the veniauncis writun in this book. 19 And if ony man do awei of the wordis of the book of this prophesie, God schal take awei the part of hym fro the book of lijf, and fro the hooli citee, and fro these thingis that ben writun in this book. 20 He seith, that berith witnessyng of these thingis, Yhe, amen. I come soone. Amen. Come thou, Lord Jhesu. 21 The grace of oure Lord Jhesu Crist be with you alle. Amen.” (Rev 22:18-21)

The Word Became Wycliffe’s Middle English -Conclusion

In this brief excursion through the first English translation of the Holy Bible it is seen that every word of God is pure and precious. John Wycliffe translated from a corrupt Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate version of the Holy Scriptures but his work in middle English of the 1300s shows more care for the infallible, inerrant, inspired words of God than the leading modernist scholars who tote along after faulty textual criticism, Alexandrian Gnostic corruptions, depraved Unitarian theology, and decrepit modernist thinking. Some Roman Catholic corruptions are present in this middle English translation, but the very readable translation work of John Wycliffe is well worth the effort of securing the free copy and gleaning the truths of God in the broken awkward spellings of this archaic English Bible. It is more accurate than the modernist of English translations which spring from the modernist minds of man. Copies are readily available online and it is well worth the study in ones study.

The Word Became Wycliffe’s Middle English – Bibliography

The Holy Bible

New American Standard Version (NASV), 1973 Revision, copyright by The Lockman Foundation, 1960,1962,1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, and 19732, La Habra, Calif, with all rights reserved.

The New International Version, Copyright © 1978, by New York International Bible Society.

Greek Bible, 1550- Textus Receptus, Online Bible Foundation, 12 Birkfield Place, Carluke, Lanarkshire, Scotland, M184PZ, © 15-2006

Greek Bible, 1881 Wescott Hort Greek Text, Online Bible Foundation, 12 Birkfield Place, Carluke, Lanarkshire, Scotland, M184PZ, © 15-2006

Anderson, “Annals of the English Bible”, as quoted by David Cloud in www.wayoflife.org/articles/johnwycliffe.htm

“Antique Bible Dealers”, http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/john-wycliffe.html, last accessed Mar 2008.

Bradley, Evangelist Bill, “Pruified Seven Times, The Miracle of the English Bible”, Landmark Baptist Press, Haines City FL, © 2001, pp 88

“The Catholic Encyclopedia” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen, last accessed Feb 2008

Cloud, David W., “JOHN WYCLIFFE AND THE FIRST ENGLISH BIBLE” Copyright 1996, Way of Life Literature, Oak Harbor,www.wayoflife.org/articles/johnwycliffe.htm, last accessed Feb 2008

Duffy, Kevin, “Who Were the Celts?”, Barnes & Nobel Books, New York, © 1996

Eadie, John, “The English Bible”, 1876 as quoted by David Cloud in www.wayoflife.org/articles/johnwycliffe.htm

Gaussen, L. D.D., Theopneustia: The Plenary Inspiration of The Holy Scriptures, Converted to pdf format by Robert I Bradshaw, August 2004. http://www.biblcalstudies.org.uk Accessed Dec 2007.

Noble, Terence P., “WYCLIFFE’S NEW TESTAMENT Translated by JOHN WYCLIFFE and JOHN PURVEY” , Published by Terence P. Noble Copyright ©August 2001 by Terence P. Noble from http://www.ibiblio.org/tnoble, last accessed Feb 2008

Paisley, Ian R.K., “My Plea For The Old Sword”, 1997, Ambasador Productions Ltd., Belfast, Northern Ireland

IN DEFENSE OF LEARNING GREEK

This section is a December 2007 written project submitted to Dr. Phil Stringer in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the course BI-301 “Inspiration of Scripture II” of Landmark Baptist College, Haines City, Florida. That project is presented in its entirety below.

One can more fully embrace the vast wisdom of God with a knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew languages with which God communicated to mankind!

A pastor can more fully embrace the vast wisdom of God with a knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew languages with which God communicated to mankind! He can also more fully appreciate the travesty done to our Bibles by the ‘modern scholars’ of the Westcott and Hort only ilk. Further, the attacks against fundamental Christianity and orthodox doctrines are no longer primarily done in our mother tongue of English, they are done with a misrepresentation of what the Bible supposedly says in it’s mother tongue. A Baptist preacher of the gospel of Jesus Christ should therefore be about learning Greek and Hebrew, and Landmark Baptist College should have a Greek and Hebrew department developing a strong language curriculum for that process.

Learning anything about linguistics is an essential help for a good communicator. A pastor is to be a good communicator. Learning the linguistics that God used is the more valuable for one who is to stand in a pulpit and say “Thus saith the Lord.” Gaussen reminds that: “Learning is a doorkeeper who conducts you to the temple of the Scriptures. Never forget then, that she is not the God, and her house is not the temple.”74 Proverbs 9 says, “Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars. “ Those seven pillars were hewn in Hebrew and Greek.

From 13th Century BC “Linear B” Greek, through the “Classical Greek” of Homer’s 8th century, and Plato’s 4th century, up to the “Konie Greek”, or common man’s Greek, of the Bible the Greek language is a marvelous form of language, capable of exact expression and subtle nuances. Christ came when the fullness of time was here (Gal 4:4), and the universal language used to capture and record and preach his arrival and the New Testament he came to offer, was Koine Greek.75 Every Christian can benefit from the study of this language.

Under educated, underfunded and underestimated British missionary William Carey without even a high school education, taught himself Latin, Greek, Hebrew, French and Dutch and started over 100 Christians Schools in India! He was called ‘the greatest linguist ever’76 and he had no Seminary Greek department to spur him into his studies. If the words of God are important, they are important in the language in which he provided them to man, and no matter the education, funding, or estimation of a Baptist preacher of the gospel, he should be about the study of God’s language. Landmark Baptist College has the attention of the whole world when it comes to the defense of the King James Bible and the TR. It should be using that attention to develop a powerful linguistics department that would encourage students to pursue the valuable study of the Greek and Hebrew languages. Such study requires a discipline, and for any non-Careys such discipline comes from undergraduate and graduate requirements being held high enough to require the Greek and Hebrew Biblical languages.

Fundamentalists Improperly Frown on the Greek

Today, some nervously trained in King James Only controversy repeat with Dr. Sam Gipp “If the AV1611 is the perfect, preserved word of God, there is no need ‘to go to the Greek.”77 This comment was prompted after a word search using the Strong’s Greek numbering system revealed several different translations of a common Greek word. The ‘knee jerk’ paranoia to separate from any Baptist preacher that might use the Greek language is ignorant, dangerous, and prevalent. There have been some one year Greek students who disparagingly use the cliché, ‘a better translation of the Greek would be …’ but that is no cause for fundamentalists to flee from the Greek language, and mock or scorn those who would take up it’s study.

Proverbs 3:19 says “The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens.” Understanding is lifted to a higher plane by studying the Greek and Hebrew languages of the Bible. Although many a modernist and hood winked evangelical has used their Greek studies to slam the Authorized Version of the English Bible, their misleading is not initiated nor even aggravated by their studies of the Bible languages. Indeed the salvation from their error may come from such a study. Instead of castigating those who would use the Greek and Hebrew language in their studies and understanding of the Scriptures, Daystar publishing and their sort, might investigate the real issues of where a person stands on the verbal, plenary, inerrant, infallible, inspiration of Scripture. Some fundamentalists are forwarding a misplaced paranoia thinking that anyone who knows or uses Greek or Hebrew are enemies of King James Only issue, and that is an altogether inappropriate and dangerous litmus test.

Fundamentalist’s Need of Greek Studies

Why then, should a Baptist preacher learn Greek and why should Landmark Baptist College have a Greek department? In favor of the study of Greek several have previously answered well. A.T. Robertson begins this answer with an apt description favoring the language itself:

The most perfect vehicle of human speech thus far devised by man is the Greek, English comes next, but Greek outranks it. … The cultural and spiritual worth of the Greek N.T. Is beyond all computation. In the Renaissance the world woke up with the Greek Testament in its hands. It still stands before the open pages of this greatest of all books in wonder and rapture as the pages continue to reveal God in the face of Jesus Christ.78

Men of old had a grand appreciation of the value of learning and Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531) expands this answer for the advantage of Greek in his pre-King James work “Proper Godly Education of Youth”:

Languages are Gifts of the Holy Ghost Once a young man is instructed in the soul virtue which is formed by faith, it follows that he will regulate himself and richly adorn himself from within: for only he whose whole life is ordered finds it easy to give help and counsel to others.

But a man cannot rightly order his own soul unless he exercises himself day and night in the Word of God. He can do that most readily if he is well versed in such languages as Hebrew and Greek, for a right understanding of the Old Testament is difficult without the one, and a right understanding of the New is equally difficult without the other.

But we are instructing those who have already learned the rudiments, and everywhere Latin has the priority. In these circumstances I do not think that Latin should be altogether neglected. For an understanding of Holy Scripture it is of less value than Hebrew and Greek, but for other purposes it is just as useful. And it often happens that we have to do the business of Christ amongst those who speak Latin. No Christian should use these languages simply for his own profit or pleasure: for languages are gifts of the Holy Ghost.

After Latin we should apply ourselves to Greek. We should do this for the sake of the New Testament, as I have said already. And if I may say so, to the best of my knowledge the Greeks have always handled the doctrine of Christ better than the Latins. For that reason we should always direct our young men to this source. But in respect of Greek as well as Latin we should take care to garrison our souls with innocence and faith, for in these tongues there are many things which we learn only to our hurt: wantonness, ambition, violence, cunning, vain philosophy and the like. But the soul … Can steer sagely past all these if it is only forewarned, that is, if at the first sound of the voices it pays heed to the warning” Hear this in order to shun and not to receive.

I put Hebrew last because Latin is in general use and Greek follows conveniently. Otherwise I would willingly have given Hebrew precedence, for in many places even amongst the Greeks, those who are ignorant of Hebrew forms of speech have great difficulty in attempting to draw out the true sense of Scripture. But it is not my purpose to speak exhaustibly of these languages.

If a man would penetrate to the heavenly wisdom, with which no earthly wisdom ought rightly to be considered, let alone compared, it is with such arms that he must be equipped. And even then he must still approach with a humble and thirsting spirit.79

Only an emphasis on English or Spanish can be added to Zwingli’s enthusiasm, perhaps to the de-emphasis of the Latin. On English because of the persistent attack of the modernists on the authenticity and superiority of the King James Bible, because the extensive study tools available for English Bible study, and because of the great care of God to preserve verbal plenary inspiration in the Authorized Version of the Bible. On Spanish because of the power of the Spanish language which parallels the Greek form, (while the English parallels the Hebrew form) and also because of the current lack of an accurate Spanish Bible80. Because modernist’s critical errors have invaded every Spanish Bible, and every modern English Bible, the studies of the original languages and the original texts is the more vital. The hypercritical Nestle-Aland Greek text which mirrors the inflammatory critical Greek work of Bishop Westcott and Professor Hort also needs to be exposed for the gnostic Alexandrian work that it is. This will be done by Bible Believers who know and trust the real Words of God in the languages they were given in.

In Defense of Learning Greek The Linguistic Advantage

In defending the doctrines and Words of God the use of the Greek and the Hebrew has always been of paramount importance and value. Those gifted in the languages are always better equip to refute the apostasy of the day whether it be the gnostics of 2nd and 3rd century, the errant Augustinian theology of the 4th through 15th or the modernist and universalist of these last four. Notice the strong reliance on the languages used by champions of the truth who are contending for the faith today.

In his book “The Lord God Hath Spoken, Introduction: Inerrancy and the Text of the KJV,” Dr. Strause uses his excellent Greek background to point out 3 powerful errors of the Critical Text:

The CT(Critical Text) is laden with major philosophical difficulty; its Greek text records at least three errors which in turn undermines the doctrine of inerrancy.

The first error is a historical error. In Matt. 1:7, 10, the CT opts for an erroneous reading which substitutes for the two kings of Asa and Amon in Christ’s kingly lineage the psalmist Asaph and the prophet Amos. Metzger speaks for the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (UBSGNT) committee, initially emphasizing their apostasy. He unashamedly declares, “Since, however, the evangelist may have derived material for the genealogy, not from the Old Testament directly, but from subsequent genealogical lists, in which the erroneous spelling occurred, the Committee saw no reason to adopt what appears to be a scribal emendation [Asa and Amon].81

The second error is a scientific error. In Luke 23:45, the CT uses the variant eklipontos, “was eclipsed,” instead of the TR reading eskotisthe, “was darkened.” It would have been a scientific impossibility for the sun to have been eclipsed during the Passover since the moon was full.

The third error contradicts Christ. In John 7:8, the Lord Jesus states that He is not going to the feast and then He goes to the feast. The CT uses the negatice ouk, “not,” instead of the TR reading oupo, “not yet.” Jesus obviously was stating that he was “not yet” going to the feast.

These three errors, a historical error, a scientific error and a Christ-contradicting error, demonstrate that the textual critics of the Greek edition have a very low view of inspiration and inerrancy, and they also prove that they cannot be trusted with God’s inerrant Word. … the TR is superior textually to the CT and MajT.82

There is little question here of the power of Dr. Strauses arguments against the Critical Greek apostate text. The insight is that his extensive knowledge of the Greek language is the empowerment of the argument.

When defending God’s accuracy in a seven day creation account it is often a clarification of the very words of God in the Hebrew language that is most powerful, and most maligned by the infidels. This could be illustrated by the arguments of the late Dr. Morris of the Creation institute, but perhaps closer to home with an independent fundamentalist. Arv Edgeworth, defending truth, and contending for the faith, puts out a truth and science newsletter and in his March 2008 letter he writes this defense:

As a follow-up to my last newsletter, I would like to add a few more comments concerning Genesis 1:1. Several pastors have contacted me about the dual ending to “shamayim,” translated “heaven” singular in the KJB. Some believe it should be “heavens” plural because of the ending. This same word is translated “heaven” singular over 225 times, even in the modern versions, just not in Genesis 1:1. There are a number of verses where it is translated singular and plural in the same verse (Deut. 10:14; Psalm 115:16; Isa 34:4, etc.) There are times when it is actually translated plural in the KJB, but singular in modern versions (2 Chron. 6:25 for example).83

Arv could have argued his truth without going to a working knowledge of the Hebrew language, just because he stoutly believes in the translation work done by 47 genius scholars in 1611, but his clearer presentation against skeptics who think themselves scholars of the Hebrew language, is better attained with this working knowledge of Hebrew. When the gainsayers of the truth know the languages, the defenders of the truth need to know them better.

The false cults and isms are using the current ignorance of the languages to twist the Word of God and promote their own disbelief. In a recent encounter with a charismatic dismissing the rapture of the Church, he insisted that “in the Greek, en nefelaiv does not really mean in the clouds, and eiv aera does not really mean ‘in the air.” A good trust in the the King James translators would certainly keep one from his error, but it did not refute his error. The realization that there was another present who knew Greek, completely overwhelmed his false and shallow accusation. Charismatics and JWs both try for this false appeal to the languages. A recent letter received from a missionary asked for some help in Greek and read as follows:

A Jehova’s (false) witness was talking to a lady my wife has been working with. He had a copy of a page of a Greek/Spanish interlinear Bible. The page was the first chapter + of the Gospel of John, but specifically for v. 1. He was using it to show this lady that when the NT refers to Jehova God, it uses theoV and when it refers to “the Word was God” that that “God” is theoS and shouldn’t be capitalized (attacking Christ’s Deity). I don’t find any reference of this in my Strong’s–in English or in Spanish. Admittedly, he did not know from what Greek text his copied page was from. Is this something from the Nestle’s text (isn’t that the false one used a lot today?) I know that this JW is wrong, but I want to prove it to this lady Biblically–and I think she doesn’t believe him. I also don’t find this theov word in the concordance. Is this even a word in Greek? Any info would be a help. Thanks.

This JW onslaught against truth cannot be remedied with the use of a Strong’s concordance and its Greek dictionary; it requires a working knowledge of the Greek language. Even a ‘C’ student in Greek will find great value in this rudimentary linguistic expertise. There is a need for Pastors and Missionaries who have completed at least a year of Greek and Hebrew, and some upcoming Dr. Waites and Dr. Strouses, strong independent fundamental Baptists, who can hold their own amongst scholarly modernists and mislead Critical Text evangelicals.

In Defense of Learning Greek Scholarship Advantage

When considering what our Greek and Hebrew Bible has already been through it is negligent to abandon them in their original languages just because one has an equivalent in accuracy in the English language. The remarkable accuracy and preservation of our Bible is elaborated eloquently here by Dr. Paisley:

When one thinks that the Bible has been copied during thirty centuries, as no book of man has ever been, or ever will be; that it was subjected to all the catastrophes and all the captivities of Israel; that it was transported seventy years to Babylon; that it has seen itself so often persecuted, or forgotten, or interdicted, or burnt, from the days of the Philistines to those of the Seleucidæ; -when one thinks that, since the time of Jesus Christ, it has had to traverse the first three centuries of the imperial persecutions, when persons found in possession of the holy books were thrown to the wild beasts; next the 7th, 8th, and 9th centuries, when false hooks, false legends, and false decretals, were everywhere multiplied; the 10th century, when so few could read, even among princes; the 12th, 13th, and 14th centuries, when the use of the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue was punished with death, and when the books of the ancient fathers were mutilated, when so many ancient traditions were garbled and falsified, even to the very acts of the emperors, and to those of the councils; – then we can perceive how necessary it was that the providence of God should have always put forth its mighty power, in order that, on the one hand, the Church of thee Jews should give us, in its integrity, that Word which records its revolts, which predicts its ruin, which describes Jesus Christ; and, on the other, that the Christian Churches (the most powerful of which, and the Roman sect in particular, interdicted the people from reading the sacred books, and substituted in so many ways the traditions of the middle ages for the Word of God) should nevertheless transmit to us, in all their purity, those Scriptures, which condemn all their traditions, their images, their dead languages, their absolution; their celibacy; which say, that Rome would be the seat of a terrible apostasy, where “the Man of Sin would be seen sitting as God in the temple of God, waging war on the saints, forbidding to marry, and to use meats which God hind created;” which say of images, “Thou shalt not bow down to them” – of unknown tongues, “Thou shalt not use them” – of the cup, “Drink ye all of it” – of the Virgin, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?” – and of marriage, “It is honourable in all.84

Now, although all the libraries in which ancient copies of the sacred books may be found, have been called upon to give their testimony; although the elucidations given by the fathers of all ages have been studied; although the Arabic, Syriac, Latin, Armenian, and Ethiopian versions leave been collated; although all the manuscripts of all countries and ages, from the third to the sixteenth century, have been collected and examined a thousand times over, by countless critics, who have eagerly sought out some new text, as the recompense and the glory of their wearisome watchings; although learned men, not content with the libraries of the West, have visited those of Russia, and carried their researches into the monasteries of Mont Athos, Turkish Asia, and Egypt, there to look for new instruments of the sacred text; – “Nothing has been discovered,” says a learned person, already quoted, “not even a single reading, that could throw doubt on any one of the passages before considered as certain. All the variantes, almost without exception, leave untouched the essential ideas of each phrase, and bear only on points of secondary importance;” such as the insertion or the omission of an adjective or a conjunction, the position of an adjective before or after its substantive, the greater or less exactness of a grammatical construction.

The continued accurate preservation of the Scriptures, in a day of the accurately printed page and computer distributions, is not likely dependent on a few independent fundamental Baptist preachers learning the Greek and Hebrew languages. But a Baptist appreciation of what is now available, and an articulated defense of these old paths might very well depend on such training. Landmark should have a Greek and Hebrew department because they have already proved consistent at sticking with the old paths concerning plenary inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility, and preservation of Scripture. The training in Greek delivered from Baptist Bible College and Seminary (BBS), Clarke Summit PA, was truly superb linguistically, but was pervasive in its attack of the TR, demand for the CT, and attitude that any first year Greek student could improve on the Authorized Version’s translation. The bias was sickening and diabolical.

Landmark College could also easily install a directed studies Greek and Hebrew language curriculum to support hundreds of language hungry Baptist pastors and missionaries. The Reformed Theological Seminary (RTS) says of their virtual Greek/Hebrew Online study programs:

RTS Virtual’s Approach to Languages: Our biblical language courses offer many advantages to students.

* Move at your own pace in an ample six months to complete each course

* Attain exemplary language instruction from exceptional instructors

* Prepare for long-term usage of the Biblical languages in life and ministry

* Pursue masters-level coursework anywhere in the world

* Become a better student and teacher of the Scriptures with a solid grasp of the original languages … The Virtual Campus approach to teaching language uses textbooks and online material, practice exercises and exams, and online interaction with our instructors via web-conferencing. Students and professors from the RTS residential campuses agree that online language instruction can be just as effective as learning in a traditional classroom setting.85

Such an online Greek and Hebrew capability is sorely needed amongst those who believe in the Bible as Dr. Carter does. Such a bold move is today required in fundamentalist circles who must get their linguistic training from compromised sources such as RTS, BBS, (above) or perhaps other non Baptists like Pensacola Christina College, or even stooping so low as to take languages from BJU.

In Defense of Learning Greek Conclusion

The importance and need for Bible believing Baptists to learn the languages of God’s word cannot be overemphasized. Learning any linguistics is a valuable tool to good communication and understanding, but learning the Greek and Hebrew of the Bible is essential to those who would effectively contend for the faith in this day. When the very words of God are continually under attack, the importance of referencing the very words that God used is essential. The insight into the accuracy, the plenary inspiration, the infallibility, the inerrancy and the preservation, that one can receive in the carefully directed study of these languages is paramount. If there are not a few independent fundamental Baptist who will become expert, a staunch KJV only Baptist college that will undertake it’s promotion, and the Holy Spirit of God that will intercede in our learning of Greek and Hebrew, fundamentalism may well go down the compromised evangelical trail of BJU.

Ps 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words:

as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

And they were given to man in Hebrew and in Greek.

In Defense of Learning Greek Bibliography

The Bible

Edgeworth, Arv, “Truth and Science Newsletter”, Wed , 26 March, 2008, www.truthandscience.net, accessed March 2008

Gaussen, L. D.D., Theopneustia: The Plenary Inspiration of The Holy Scriptures, Converted to pdf format by Robert I Bradshaw, August 2004. http://www.biblcalstudies.org.uk Accessed Dec 2007.

Metzger, B.M., “A Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament” (London: United Bible Societies, 1975)

Mounce, William D., “Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar”, Zondervan, © 2003

Robertson, A.T., “The Minister and His Greek N.T.” Zondervan, © 2003

Stringer, Dr. Phil, BI-301 Inspiration of Scriptures II – Syllabus

Strouse, Dr. Thomas M., “THE LORD GOD HATH SPOKEN: A GUIDE TO BIBLIOLOGY”, © 1992, Tabernacle Baptist Theological Press, VA

Waite, Pastor D.A., Th.D., Ph.D., “Defending the King James Bible”, 3rd Edition, The Bible for Today Press, Collingswood NJ

Zwingli, Huldrych, “On the Education of Youth” in Zwingli and Bullinger, The Library of Christian Classics: Ichthus Edition,

Review & Critique of Chafer’s Bibliology

In this author’s seminary training Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer’s eight volume work of Systematic Theology was the wholly inadequate focus of ones theological study. I was dismayed to find that his verbose volumes were considered premier for Systematic Theologies. When I contrasted his neglectful work with Dr. Henry Clarence Thiessen’s work of Lectures in Systematic Theology, I was the more dismayed to find that even a Baptist’s Systematic theology had major failings in Bibliology. I mean no disrespect to the genius or legacy of these two men, but their Bibliology is ripe for some very pointed and harsh criticisms. This section, lifted from my TH801 written report, rings with that poignant criticism.

Bibliology is the thorough systematic study of the doctrine of the Holy Bible. Not the doctrines of the Holy Bible; but the doctrine of the Holy Bible. Exactly what does one have in their mind when they hold the sixty six books of the Holy Bible, written by forty authors over a period of 1592 years?86 Chafer claims that such a study “falls naturally into seven divisions, namely”:87

  1. Revelation, chapter 11, detailed in 13 pages, 48-60
  2. Inspiration, chapter 12, detailed in 28 pages, 61-88
  3. Canonicity, chapter 13, detailed in 16 pages, 89-104
  4. Illumination, chapter 14, detailed in 9 pages, 105-113
  5. Interpretation, chapter 15, detailed in 5 ½ pages, 114-119
  6. Animation, chapter 16, detailed in 3 ¼ pages, 120-123
  7. Preservation, chapter 17, detailed in 1 ¼ pages, 124-125

Consider 1) that these are not natural divisions by any means, 2) that there is a total dismissal (and omission) of the preservation of the plenary verbally inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God, and 3) the “proof or disproof that the Bible is God’s inerrant message to man”88 is dismissed from systematic theology, dismissed from Bibliology, and placed into the hands of the Biblical Critic.

Chafer’s Bibliology’s Natural Divisions Are Not Natural

That Chafer has improperly organized his outline for Bibliology is obvious because Illumination and Preservation should be subcategories of Inspiration, and Interpretation and Animation have no part in Bibliology at all. The science of interpretation, called hermeneutics, has more to do with how we use Scripture than it does Bibliology, which is how we got, and what we have as Scripture. Such a doctrine is important, of coarse, but would find better organization in theology’s consideration of how we properly build a systematic theology.

Charles Hodge, a most organized and systematic of theologians, does not even include a section called Bibliology. But he expertly words one in “The Protestant Rule of Faith”89 Therein he organizes his Bibliology as follows:

    1. The statement of the doctrine and Canon, 2pgs, 151-152.
    2. The Scriptures given by Inspiration of God, 20pgs, 153-171.
    3. Adverse Theories (Rationalistic, Gracious Inspiration, Partial Inspiration) 10pgs 172-181.
    4. Completeness of Scripture 6pgs 182-187.
    5. Perspicuity of Scripture (clearly expressed and presented) 1pg 188.
    6. Rules of Interpretation 1pg 199.

Another Presbyterian/Reformed Theologian, William Shedd organized his Systematic Theology with a section on Bibliology which was structured with:

  1. Revelation and Inspiration; 51 pages.
  2. Authenticity of Scripture; 5 pages.
  3. Credibility of Scripture; 27 pages and
  4. Canonicity of Scripture; 1 page.

Even John Miley, a nineteenth century Methodist Theologian, organized a thorough Bibliology in his Systematic Theology. His structure included:

  1. Threefold operation of the Spirit, 2 pages.
  2. Erroneous Theories of Inspiration, 4 pages.
  3. The Dynamical Theory, 1 page.
  4. Inspiration and the Scriptures, 2 pages.

These hundred year old systematic theologies present a concise, clear, direct and authoritative presentation of Bibliology which centers solely on a solid Biblical explanation of Inspiration. Chafer has none of that.

Reasonable consideration is due to Dr. Chafer. His preface made it clear that his driving purpose was to set the record straight concerning dispensational theology. However, when the authority and inspiration of Scripture is under direct attack, when modernist contend that there is no inspired Bible in existence, all was lost with the demise of those original manuscripts. Dr. Chafer presents a wholly unorganized Bibliology, an indefinite, excessively wordy, pointless verbiage, and then He sings all four verses of the modernists theme song.. This lack of Bibliology effort by Chafer was such a frustration that a cleaned up and concise chapter needs to be worded in his stead. Appendix one of this effort shall constitute a draft of that Bibliology need.

Detailing the shortfalls of this crucial section called Bibliology must begin with Dr. Chafer’s unclear introduction and side stepped responsibility. He begins with a staunch and accurate declaration that “Systematic Theology must proceed on the bases of belief that the Bible is, in all its parts, God’s own Word to man.”90 And again, “the theologian must be a ‘Biblicist’ – one who is not only a Biblical scholar but also a believer in the divine character of each and every portion of the text of the Bible.”91 And again, “the theologian is appointed to systematize the truth contained in the Bible and to view it as the divinely inspired Word which God has addressed to man.”92

Chafer’s Bibliology Is Fractured Badly

Despite the apparent directness of each of Dr. Chafer’s charges here there is a fracture in each context which exposes his error. “The Bible is, in all its parts God’s own Word to man.” The description “the plenary verbally inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God” became the most complete, most thorough capture of the doctrine of Bibliology, and this description would be perfectly fitting in Dr. Chafer’s concluding sentence; Dr. Chafer avoids its use entirely in this chapter. Why? This omission is symptomatic of a systematic failure in his Bibliology. In his preface Dr. Chafer establishes the challenge and value of detecting and exposing grand omissions from flawed systematic theologies. His detection of the completely omitted dispensational periods was his theme in that preface but in his Bibliology chapter he has completely omitted the defense of the plenary, (i.e. completely all) verbal, (i.e. every word) inspired, (i.e. God breathed) inerrant, (i.e. incapable of holding to error) infallible, (i.e. Incapable of ever failing) Word of God. (Scripture made up of words and these words are, every one, part and parcel, the words belonging to, and coming from, Jehovah God.) Let alone that Dr. Chafer never defined or defended this description, he never even addressed it: His omission is a slander to those who so gallantly defended it in years gone by, and a condoning of the modernist’s allegation that “nobody today has an inspired Bible,” and the world’s allegation that “there are three hundred versions and nobody knows what the Bible says.”

Secondly Dr. Chafer declares that “the theologian must be a Biblicist,”93 but then in the same breath, he completely dismisses the theologian’s responsibility to be that. Examine if you will, this very wordy, subtle and round about dismissing sentence pair:

Primarily, the theologian is appointed to systematize the truth contained in the Bible and to view it as the divinely inspired Word which God has addressed to man. Therefore, such investigations as men may conduct in the field of proof or disproof that the Bible is God’s inerrant message to man are, for the most part, extra theological and to be classified as pertaining to Biblical criticism rather than Systematic Theology.94

There is an old double negative adage that comes to mind here: “Don’t waist your time not diagramming this sentence.” It is appropriate here because it takes analytical effort to comprehend what is said by Dr. Chafer. (This problem with Chafer’s writing style will be the subject in a later paragraph.)

Chafer here states that the theologian does not need to do Bibliology because he can trust the Biblical Critic to do it for him. All post modern Christendom is jeopardized when the president of Dallas Theological Seminary surrenders all Bibliology over to to the ecumenical modernist Bible critics in this fashion. It is appalling to read this declaration even when it is so verbose and carefully categorized with a guarded pen. First off, the theologian can not surrender their Bibliology to anybody and retain the position of theologian, especially when he is embarked on a calling to be systematic. But then to surrender to the Bible critic who vocally contends that there is no inspired Bible in existence, and if there ever was it went extinct the day its ink dried. Such surrender is worse than oversight, it is preposterous.

The modernist scholars vehemently deny this analogy but a Bible critic is first a critic. A movie critic picks apart a movie to find every flaw and shortcoming. A literary critic picks apart a prose to find every inadequate expression and faulty clause. A Bible critic, whether practicing higher criticism or lower criticism does not start out with a Bible founded belief in the plenary verbal inspiration of inerrant infallible Scripture. The job description of a critic is to find and expose the flaws and short comings. To trust the infallible Scriptures to such a job description is incorrigible. One cannot hold to plenary verbal inspiration while blessing the critic who is casting aside all the verbs that Catholic Saint Origin dropped out of his Alexandrian manuscripts95. It seems that Origen carelessly omitted sections from his Bible, but Alexandria was man sanctioned as the international wisdom center of the world, and the corruptions may not be just careless. It is obvious that they sanctioned Origen’s corrupted text and that corrupted text is passed on in the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, the manuscripts inordinately preferred by W&H and all modernist textual critics.

The responsibility of Bibliology, the thorough study of how we got our Bible, and of what we are ever holding as our final authority, is squarely centered on the shoulders of the theologian who is compiling a systematic theology. Dr. Chafer did not do an adequate exploration of this very crucial doctrine.

In his third declaration Chafer says the theologian is “to view (the truth of the Bible) as the divinely inspired word which God has addressed to man.” Again, this sounds solid enough at first, but it fractures horribly as his explanation progresses. What is omitted here is, again, the doctrine of the plenary, (each and every ) verbal, (down to the individual word) inspiration (God breathes) of Scripture (all sixty-six books penned by forty authors over 1,592 years) Here Chafer only admits to the truths being inspired. Chafer lists four objections to verbal plenary inspiration, and, unfortunately, he leaves the last one unrefuted. Chafer’s listed objection to the doctrine of inspiration is stated: “The claim for verbal, plenary inspiration is made only for the original writings and does not extend to any transcriptions or translations,”96 That false objection continues: “It is also true that no original manuscript is now available.” Chafer admits these two statements as indisputable facts. Shame on him.

And then Chafer quotes Westcott and Hort, the textual critics who set aside all other manuscripts in favor of the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt, and Dr. Phillip Schaff, the chairman of the American Committee of the Revisers, but who state that their deletions won’t really effect any major doctrines. Their omissions and or changing of 100,000 or 150,000 words, by Dr. Schaff’s own count, does indeed effect a Biblical Doctrine, it effects the Biblical Doctrine of plenary verbal inspiration. They are changing those 100,000 words based on what Roman Catholic Saint Origen of Alexandria Egypt, Father of Textual Criticism, and Father of the Roman Catholic Allegorical Method, placed in his library copy. None of these modernist ecumenical infidels even stop to consider that maybe the Alexandrian family of texts were all (i.e. both) corrupt! Only a little investigation by one believing in plenary verbal inspiration of inerrant, infallible, Scripture, demonstrates that these two outliers, which contradict thousands of Byzantine texts, are indeed the corrupted ones. Chafer backs away from this obvious solution and bows to majority opinions. Again, Shame on Dr. Chafer.

A second shortfall of Chafer’s Bibliology section is his lack of systematic organization and structure of the section. Acknowledging Bibliology even before covering Theism, i.e. God’s Existence, which is the more traditional first coverage of a Systematic Theology, is a strength, not a shortfall of Chafer, but his organization within this section itself is not adequate.

In his introduction to Bibliology there is an extensive introduction to the works of God, i.e. the seven dispensations of God and the twelve covenants of God; an introduction to the trinity; an introduction to types and anti-types; and an introduction to the structure of the Bible; but there is no introduction to Bibliology. Bibliology is not a study of all that the Bible says, it is a study of the Bible itself, i.e. the Scriptures, what they are, and how we got them. Chafer’s Bibliology does have a wealth of information in it: all of it has a place in a systematic theology, but none of it, per se, belongs in a Bibliology introduction. A good introduction to Bibliology must include a definition of the study, a justification of the study, a preview of the doctrine, and a preview of the opposition to the doctrine In other words an introduction needs to contain all that is to be in the body of the section . Chafer’s introduction has none of that.

With no introduction to provide his direction or purpose in this section it can still be stated that thirteen pages of ramblings about revelation is not a proper start for Bibliology. Very little of this information has place in a Bibliology section. Some of it might find a place in Prolegomena, intimating how information for systematic theology was initiated, but in the Bibliology section the infallible Scripture as the sole source for our Systematic Theology is the theme; ergo, revelation may be discussed in its role of providing Scripture, without expending significant effort on revelation as an entity in itself.

Further structural and organization problems with Chafer’s Bibliology section are seen in his chapter divisions. Inspiration should be central with his chapters titled “Revelation”, and “Illumination” as only subtitles. His “Preservation” is gutless and hollow. It should be greatly expanded to debunk the autograph tom-foolery, and his “Cannonicity and Authority” chapter should be bolstered with Biblical truths. Finally, his “Interpretation” and his “Animation” chapters have no place in a Bibliology section. It is likely that Dr. Chafer was trying for seven significant chapters to represent a completeness of the coverage, seven being God’s number of completeness. Chafer often tries this tack. It was a folly here. This whole section needs to be thought out again, and given a suitable organization and coverage.

Lastly, in the critique of Dr. Chafer’s Bibliology section, something must be said about his elaborated use of the English language. A politician often fails as a statesman because he applies the art of rambling on and answering not. A theologian is not systematic unless he can summarize concisely the symptoms, overview, source and use of mis-truth and/or half truth. “Listen” to his three concluding sentences on Bibliology – Scriptures Preservation:

The Scriptures are the legal instrument by which God obligates Himself to execute every detail of His eternal covenants and to fulfill every prediction His prophets have made. The legal instrument which secures this vast consummation must continue, and shall continue, until the last promise, for which it stands as surety, has been realized. Not one jot or tittle of the divine disposition can pass until all is fulfilled.97

Does it not bother anyone else that some editor, perhaps secretary or typist, allowed these seventy words to be strung together and typed when, after analysis, they say nothing at all? Especially nothing about the preservation of God’s verbally inspired, inerrant, infallible, words!

Granted, Dr. Chafer wanted this chapter on preservation to pass without providing any doctrinal clarification, and this verbose wording does the job. He has already surrendered authority to Westcott and Hort and their follow on teams of Bible critics, who took 1John 5:7 out of the Words of God. Not to mention taking their penknife out to cut out and throw away Mathew 17:21, 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, and 46; 11:26; 15:28. So too Luke 17:36; 23:17 and John 5:4. They trashed Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Rom 16:24; as well. Bible Critics Westcott and Hort, followed by all ecumenical modernist translators actually did that! They also ripped out most of Matt 5:44 and Luke 9:56 and in Col 1:14 cut out the phrase “Through His Blood!” Chafer would find it pretty challenging to write an exposition on preservation or on Psalm 119:89 “LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven,” or to detail what Christ meant about jot and tittle preservation when you let the textual critics, who do not believe in an inerrant, infallible, inspired Bible, toss aside 349 words from these twenty verses alone!

In this chapter Dr. Chafer has taken an ability to say nothing concrete in his very long sentences, to a whole new level. It is good English, but bad writing and faulty Systematic Theology.

L. Gaussen worded the seriousness of this subject thus:

I do not think that, after we have come to know that Christianity is divine, there can be presented to our mind any question bearing more essentially on the vitality of our faith that this: ‘Does the Bible come from God? is it altogether from God? or may it not be true, as some have maintained, that there occurs in it maxims purely human, statements not exactly true, exhibitions of Vulgar ignorance and ill-sustained reasoning? in a word, books, or portions of books, foreign to the interest of the faith, subject to the natural weakness of the writers judgment, and alloyed with error?’ Here we have a question that admits on no compromise, a fundamental question, a question of life! It is the first that confronts you on opening the Scriptures, and with it your religion ought to commence.98

Still, Dr. Chafer and Dr. Thiessen contend that Westcott and Hort were perfectly justified in removing these 349 words from our Bible, and indeed many many more in their total criticism. They contend that ripping these verses out of the Bible, i.e. all of Mathew 17:21, 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, and 46; 11:26; 15:28, Luke 17:36; 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7, 28:29, Rom 16:24, will not modify or detract from our faith at all. This grotesque compromise of faith and fidelity has rendered Dr. Chafer incapable of defining a doctrine of inspiration, canonization, and preservation. and has indeed rendered his whole section entitled “Bibliology” feckless.

Bibliography for Theology

The Holy Bible

Bancroft, Emery H., Elemental Theology, 1932, Baptist Bible Seminary, 1945, 1960, Zondervan 1977, [In 1932 Emery H. Bancroft became the first Dean of Baptist Bible Seminary, Johnson City, NY and published his text for his course Elemental Theology. In 1968 the Seminary relocated to Clark Summit PA. In 1970 this author attended Practical Bible Training School on the Johnson City campus and studied Bancroft’s text. In 1999 – 2000 this author attended Baptist Bible Seminary to take Greek (NT502 and NT503) via a 3 hour commute from Hammondsport NY to Clark Summit PA, and was reintroduced to Bancroft’s exceptional work.]

Cambron, Mark G. Bible Doctrines. Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan Publishing House, 1954, [Independent Baptist, Professor, Tennessee Temple Bible School, 1954].

Carroll, James Milton, The Trail of Blood, 1932, open source, public domain, from https://archive.org/details/TheTrailOfBlood.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. Dallas Seminary Press, 1948.[Lewis Sperry Chafer was an American theologian. He founded and served as the first president of Dallas Theological Seminary, and was an influential founding member of modern Christian Dispensationalism. Born: February 27, 1871, Rock Creek, Died: August 22, 1952, Seattle, Education: Oberlin College, Wheaton College. For my Doctorate of Philosophy in Theological Studies through LBTS, I was tasked to analyze all six volumes of his Systematic Theology]

Satan, 1909, Free ebooks – Project Gutenberg,2004, http://www.gutenberg.org accessed 06/01/2013

Christian, John T., A History of the Baptists, Vol 1&2, The Baptist Bible Institute, New Orleans, Louisiana, first published in 1922, public domain, soft copy http://www.pbministries.org/History/John T. Christian/vol1/ or http://www.reformedreader.org/history/christian/ahob1/ahobp.htm.

Dollar, George W., A History of Fundamentalism in America, Bob Jones University Press, 1973.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI, 1985.

Finney, Charles G., Power from On High, Christian Literature Crusade, public domain, from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/finney/power.html

Gaussen, L., Theopneustia – The plenary Inspiration of The Holy Scriptures deduced from Internal Evidence, and the Testimonies of Nature, History and Science, David Scott’s translation, Chicago, The Bible Institute Colportage ASS’N., 1840.

Geisler, Norman L, Systematic Theology in One Volume, Bethany House, 2002, 3, 4, 5, 11 [Geisler, also a neoevangelical, sharply contrasts with Lewis Sperry Chafer in that Geisler 1) admits what he is, neoevangelical, 2) admits what he is attempting, a compilation of evangelical theologies, 3) shows superb organization and structure of thought, 4) contains depth, and 5) is a masterful communicator. This author cannot endorse all that Geisler believes to be true, but can endorse that he seems to capture all that has been believed by conservative evangelicals.]

Hodge, Charles, Systematic Theology: Volume I-IV, Charles Scribner & Company, 1871, Hardback- Grand Rapids, Mich., Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1940, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, http://www.ccel.org, public domain. [The Internet Archive www.archive.org/details/systematictheolo01hodg], [Charles Hodge, 1797-1878, Presbyterian Minister, Princeton Theologian].

Larkin, Clarence. The Spirit World, Published by the Clarence Larkin Estate, 1921, Cosimo, 2005

Miley, John, Systematic Theology Vol. 1 & 2, The Library of Biblical and Theological Literature, New York: Eaton and Mains, 1894, The Internet Archive http://www.archive.org/details/systematictheolo01mile, [John Miley (1813-1895, Methodist Theologian].

Rice, Edward G., The 357 Magnum Errors of the Modernist’s Critical Texts, Public Domain, http://www.gsbaptistchurch.com/baptist/bible/texterror.pdf, http://www.lulu.com/shop/pastor-edward-rice/the-357-magnum-errors-of-modernists-critical-texts/paperback/product-5586759.html

Ryrie, Charles C., Basic Theology. Victor Books, Wheaton, Illinois, 1981.

Schaff, Philip. The Creeds of Christendom. Three volumes, 1877, reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1977.

———-. History of the Christian Church. Third edition, revised in eight volumes, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1910.

Schofield, C. I., Prophecy Made Plain, Photolithoprinted by Grand Rapids Book Manufacturers, Grand Rapids, MI, 1967.

Shedd, William G. T., Dogmatic Theology, Roosevelt Professor of Systematic Theology in Union Theological Seminary, New York, Charles Scribner & Sons, 1888. [The Internet Archive www.archive.org/details/dogmatictheology01sheduoft], [William G.T. Shedd, 1820-1894, Old School Presbyterian & Reformed Theologian].

———-. Calvinism: Pure and Mixed, A Defense of the Westminster Standards. 1893, reprint, Edinburgh, UK: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1986.

———-. Commentary on Romans. 1879, reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980.

Strong, Augustus H., Systematic Theology:Three Volumes in 1, Philadelphia, Valley Forge PA, The Judson Press, 1907, 35th printing 1993. [Augustus H. Strong, 1836-1921, American Baptist Pastor & Theologian].

Thiessen, Henry Clarence, Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Mich., William B. Eerdman Publishing Company, 1949. [Henry Clarence Thiessen, ? -1947, President of Los Angles Baptist Theological Seminary, later renamed John MacArthur’s The Master’s College].

Lectures in Systematic Theology. Revised by Vernon D. Doerksen, Grand Rapids, Mich., William B. Eerdman Publishing Company, 2006.

Waite, D.A.. Defending the King James Bible. The Bible For Today Press, 1992 & 2002.

1The Holy Bible

2God and Moses wrote at Mount Sinai in 1492 BC (a memorable date for some), and the Apostle John penned in the last book in approximately 100 AD.

3C.I. Scofield, “Scofield Reference Bible,” Oxford University Press, Inc. 1909, pg v.

4Ibid.

5American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd ed., s.v. “Science.”

6Gaussen, L., Theopneustia – The plenary Inspiration of The Holy Scriptures deduced from Internal Evidence, and the Testimonies of Nature, History and Science, David Scott’s translation, Chicago, The Bible Institute Colportage ASS’N., 1840.

7Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, – Vol 1, Dallas Seminary Press, 1948, 21-125.

8Henry Clarence Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Mich., William B. Eerdman Publishing Company, 1949

9Gaussen, Theopneustia, 5-6

10 Schnaiter and Tagliapietra, Bible Preservation and the Providence of God, (Xlibris Corp, 2003), 182

11Ibid., 24-26

12Ibid., 26

13 “And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

14Henry Clarence Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology (Eerdmans, 1949), 227, “In the second place, Paul seems to think of body, soul, and spirit as three distinct parts of man’s nature (1Thes 5:23)”

15Ibid., Thiessen, p 107, “Inspiration is affirmed only of the autographs of the Scriptures, not of any of the versions, whether ancient or modern, nor of any of the Hebrew or Greek manuscripts in existence, nor of any critical texts known. All these are either known to be faulty in some particulars, or are not certainly known to be free from all error. Some one will remark, but the autographs are all lost! True, but textual critics tell us that the number of words that are still in doubt, whether in the Old Testament or in the New, is very small, and that no doctrine is affected by this situation.”

16The Hebrew Torah containing the 5 books – Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy.

17The Hebrew Writings containing the 13 books – 1Chronicles, 2Chronicles, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah.

18The Hebrew Prophets containing the 21 books – Joshua, Judges, 1Samuel, 2Samuel, 1Kings, 2Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Exekiel, Hosea, Joel Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi.

19 The Master’s College was founded as Los Angeles Baptist Theological Seminary on May 25, 1927 to meet the need for a fundamentalist Baptist school on the West Coast. The intention was to provide a biblical and Christcentered education consistent with those doctrines of the historic Christian faith. Dr. William A. Matthews, pastor of Memorial Baptist Church of Los Angeles, became the founder and first president. The seminary was extended an invitation to be temporarily housed at Calvary Baptist Church in the Los Angeles area. Several more moves followed until the seminary moved onto its own property in Los Angeles in 1942. Dr. Mathews died at his home on August 18, 1943. He was succeeded by presidents C. Gordon Evanson, Floyd Burton Boice, and Henry C. Thiessen. In 1946, the seminary became a graduate-level school and initiated a separate undergraduate and liberal arts program. Following Dr. Thiessen’s death in 1947, Dr. Herbert V. Hotchkiss and Dr. Milton E. Fish, a Harvard graduate, strengthened the school scholastically and spiritually. August 14, 1959 marked a change, as Dr. John R. Dunkin became president, succeeding Dr. Carl M. Sweazy, who returned to full-time evangelism. The new president continued the scriptural position of the school’s leadership. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Master’s_College, (all bold added by author) although wikipedia is not a trusted source for citing one’s research, it was the only available source that so revealed Dr. Thiessen, as a past president of Master’s College.

20Thomas M. Strouse, “Charity…Rejoiceth in the Truth”, Published at http://www.biblefortoday.org accessed 1/22/2008

21Ibid.

22Ibid.

23L. Gaussen, Theopneustia – The plenary Inspiration of The Holy Scriptures deduced from Internal Evidence, and the Testimonies of Nature, History and Science (David Scott’s translation, Chicago, The Bible Institute Colportage ASS’N., 1840), . 26-28

24 [The infidelity of Westcott and Hort is well documented in Dr. Gipp’s work entitled “An Understandable History of the Bible”, 1987, Bible Believer’s Press, P.O. Box 1249, Pottstown, PA. 19464]

25Gipp, Dr. Samuel C. Th.D. “The Answer Book” Question Number 44, Internett http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158cont.asp accessed 10/16/07

26 Scrivener, Frederick Henry “Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament Vol 1”, Oxford, London, George Bell & Sons, Your Street Covent Garden and New York , 1894, 4th Edition edited by Rev. Edward Millar, M.A. p B2

27Black, David Alan, & Dockery, David S., “New Testament Criticism and Interpretation” Zibdervan Publishing Housem, @1991, pg 109 Textual Criticism essay by Michael Holms, (This compromising book on NT criticism was required reading at Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary, Landsdale Pa, after Dr. Jordon’s control was overthrown by an influx of Bob Jones graduates.)

28ibid Black, pg 109

29Aleph (a) and B manuscripts are the Greek Uncial manuscripts (mss) called Sinaicus and Vaticanus discovered and purchased by Constantine Tischendorf . In 1844 in the Convent of St. Catherine, on Mount Sinai, Tischendorf found monks lighting their stove with a discarded Greek unical manuscript now nomenclatured a .

30ibid Black, pg 109

31Miller, Edward, “A Guide to Textual Criticism of the New Testament”, Dean Burgon Society Press, Collingswood NJ, 1886, pg 20 Chapter III “History of Textual Criticism.”

32Ibid Miller, p 21

33 Burgon, John William, “The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels” Burgon, John William (1813-1888),Miller, Edward (1825-1901) (Editor),Publisher: Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, Publication History: Cambridge: Deighton, Bell and Co. 1896, Rights: Public Domain,Date Created: 2006-05-13 accessed at http://www.ccel.org 11/07/07

34Eusebiu Pamphilus, “The Ecclesiastical Histor of Euseius Pamphilus”, pp160 as quoted in Landmark Baptist College, Haines City, FL, BI-300 Inspiration of Scripture I, Syllabus pp60

35For demonstration that Baptist are not a denomination and have been in existence for 1,979 years since Christ’s resurrection see Baptist perpetuity in Mason, Ron, “The Church that Jesus Built” also Carroll, J.M., “The Trail of Blood”, Christian, John T. “A History of the Baptists Volume I” , and/or Stringer, Phil, “The Faithful Baptist Witness”

36Tidwell J.B., Chairman, Bible Department, Baylor University, (1910-1946),“Thinking Straight About the Bible, or Is the Bible the Word of God” (1935), from Southern Baptists Site http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/heritage/tidwell.asp accessed 11/01/07

37Jer 36:23 And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth.

38Aland, Kurt, Aland, Barbara “The Greek New Testament” Fourth Revised Edition, United Bible Society, @ 1966, 1968, 1975, 1983, 1993, 1994, 1998

39Aland, ibid pp 1*-37*

40Aland, ibid pp 5*

41They followed the unsupported reasoning of Lachmann and then W&H that there was a man made 2nd and 3rd century conspiracy to unify the Scriptures and exclude the deviants that they favored. We would contend that no such man made conspiracy is evidenced and any unification was Supernatural not man made.

42Aland, Ibid pp 20*-21*

43Wilkinson, Benjamin G., “Our Authorized Bible Vindicated”, 1930, (Wilkinson was SDA who wrote an excellent poplar history of the textual lines.) as quoted in BI-300 Inspiration of Scripture Syllabus pp 81-82 “Since Italy, France, and Great Britain were once provinces of the Roman Empire, the first translations of the Bible by the early Christians in these parts were made into Latin. The early Latin translations were very dear to the hearts of those primitive churches, and as Rome did not send any missionaries toward the West before A.D. 350, the early Latin Bibles were well-established long before those churches came into conflict with Rome. Not only were such translations in existence and well-established long before the Vulgate was adopted by the Papacy, but the people for centuries refused to supplant their Old Latin Bibles with the Vlgate. God in His wisdom invested these Latin versions by His Providence with a charm that outweighed the learned artifiiality of Jerome’s Vulate. For nine hundred years, we are told, the Old Latin held its own after the Vulgate appeared. The critical version of Jerome never displaced it, and only repleced it when the Latin ceased to be a living language.”

44Stringer, Phil, Dr. “BI-300 Inspiration of Scripture I, Syllabus”, Landmark Baptist College, Haines City, FL 33844 pp 81

45Accessed 12/28/2016 or for wimps needing the corrected spellings at Online Bible http://biblehub.com/wycliffe/

46Antique Bible Dealers, http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/john-wycliffe.html, accessed Mar 08, GREATSITE.COM is the online showroom of The Bible Museum, Inc. Since 1987, we have been the world’s largest dealer of rare & antique Bibles, ancient Biblical manuscripts, and antiquarian theology books. .

47“The Catholic Encyclopedia” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15722a.htm

48Cloud, David W., “JOHN WYCLIFFE AND THE FIRST ENGLISH BIBLE” Copyright 1996, Way of Life Literature, Oak Harbor, WA p. 2

49Cloud, Ibid p. 2

50Cloud, Ibid p. 3

51Cloud, Ibid, p..4

52Bradley, Evangelist Bill, “Pruified Seven Times, The Miracle of the English Bible”, Landmark Baptist Press, Haines City FL, © 2001, pp 88

53http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/med/ The free online electronic Middle English Dictionary (MED) “the greatest achievement in medieval scholarship in America.” Last updated 18 December 2001. © 2001, the Regents of the University of Michigan

54http://etext.virginia.edu/collections/languages/english/mideng.browse.html

55http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_English Accessed 02/02/2008

56Duffy, Kevin, “Who Were the Celts?”, Barnes & Nobel Books, New York, © 1996 p. XIII

57Duffy, Ibid p. XIV

58http://www.englishclub.com/english-language-history.htm accessed 02/19/08

59Paisley, Ian R.K., “My Plea For The Old Sword”, 1997, Ambasador Productions Ltd., Belfast, Northern Ireland pp 49-50

60Anderson, “Annals of the English Bible”, I, p. xl as quoted by David Cloud in www.wayoflife.org/articles/johnwycliffe.htm quoted with this preamble “Christopher Anderson, who meditated deeply upon God’s sovereignty in history, gives an interesting thought on why it was the Latin Vulgate that was first translated into the English language.”

61Gaussen, L, D.D., “THEOPNEUSTIA: THE PLENARY INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES” pp 170-171

62John Eadie, “The English Bible”, 1876 as quoted by David Cloud in www.wayoflife.org/articles/johnwycliffe.htm

63The word forthouyte from Nobel’s modernization of Wycliffe’s Middle English means ‘stirred by penance’ Nobel, Terence P., WYCLIFFE’S NEW TESTAMENT Transla ted by JOHN WYCLIFFE and JOHN PURVEY, A modern-spelling edition of their 14th century Middle English translation, the first complete English vernacular version, with an Introduction by TERENCE P. NOBLE,(Editor and Publisher), Published by Terence P. Noble Copyright ©August 2001 by Terence P. Noble

64The word forthenkyng, from Nobel’s modernization of Wycliffe’s Middle English means ‘had not penance afterward’

65The Nestle Aland Greek apparatus shows the Latin Vulgate omitting Matt 23:14 but Wycliffe’s English Bible translated from the Latin Vulgate in 1380 includes this verse.

66The Nestle Aland Greek apparatus shows Latin Vulgate copies omitting John 5:4 but Wycliffe’s English Bible translated from the Latin Vulgate in 1380 includes this verse.

67The Nestle Aland Greek apparatus shows Latin Vulgate copies omitting Acts 8:37,15:34,24:7, and 28:29 but Wycliffe’s English Bible translated from the Latin Vulgate in 1380 includes these verses.

68The Nestle Aland Greek apparatus shows Latin Vulgate copies omitting Rom 16:24 but Wycliffe’s English Bible translated from the Latin Vulgate in 1380 includes this verse.

69The Nestle Aland Greek apparatus shows Latin Vulgate copies omitting 1John 5:7, the Trinitarian Proof Text commonly called the Johanne Comma, but Wycliffe’s English Bible translated from the Latin Vulgate in 1380 includes this key verse of Scripture.

70The Nestle Aland Greek apparatus shows Latin Vulgate copies omitting the phrase “through His blood” in Col 1:14 and Wycliffe’s English Bible translated from the Latin Vulgate in 1380 did indeed leave this off.

71The Nestle Aland Greek apparatus shows Latin Vulgate copies omitting Luke 9:56 but Wycliffe’s English Bible translated from the Latin Vulgate in 1380 includes this verse.

72Lockman Foundation holds the 1960, 62, 63, 68, 71, 72 and 1973 copyright on the NASV

73Bruce M. Metzger is an editor of the © 1993, © 1994, © 1998, Fourth Revised Edition of the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament.

74Gaussen, Louis, Dr., “Theopneustia” page 338

75Mounce, William D., “Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar”, Zondervan, © 2003, pp xi

76Stringer, Dr. Phil, BI-301 Inspiration of Scriptures II – Syllabus, pg 82

77Daystar Publishing Manuscript Review Comments “If the AV1611 is the perfect, preserved word of God, there is no need ‘to go to the Greek’ – the author repeatedly ‘goes to the Greek’. Does he really believe the Book?… We believe in the superiority of the King James and see no value in one man’s limited opinion of the proper Greek translation against those of 47 men of much higher qualifications. This is not meant as an insult. We simple know that five different men can come up with five different changes to the King James using the SAME process in the SAME passage so we simply accept what was given in 1611. Thus, I fear that no matter what changes you may make to your manuscript it is most likely going to be rejected again. Nothing personal, just a different view of the Book….” Dr. Samuel C. Gipp, Ph. D. 2/10/007

78A.T. Robertson “The Minister and His Greek N.T.” Pp 28

79Huldrych Zwingli, “On the Education of Youth” in Zwingli and Bullinger, The Library of Christian Classics: Ichthus Edition,

80The RVG just released seems a highly commended solution to this dilemma, see www.ricefamilyministries.com/spanish-bible/ (Accessed 12/29/2016)

81B.M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Societies, 1975), p.1. as quoted by Dr. Strouse, in “The Lord God Hath Spoken” p 17

82Strouse, Dr. Thomas M., “THE LORD GOD HATH SPOKEN: A GUIDE TO BIBLIOLOGY”, © 1992, Tabernacle Baptist Theological Press, VA, pp 17-18

83Arv Edgeworth <aedgeworth@comcast.net> , Truth and Science Newsletter, Wed , 26 March, 2008, www.truthandscience.net, accessed March 2008

84Gaussen, L, D.D., “THEOPNEUSTIA: THE PLENARY INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES” pp 170-171

85http://virtual.rts.edu/site/virtual/promo/study_greek_hebrew_online.asp last accessed 04/01/08

86Moses came to Mount Sinai and John the last of the Apostles penned his last epistle in the close of the 1st century.

87Ibid., 47.

88Ibid., 21, para 1.

89Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology: Volume I-IV (Charles Scribner & Company, 1871), (Hardback- Grand Rapids, Mich., Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1940), 151.

90Chafer, Systematic Theology Vol. 1, 21.

91Ibid.

92Ibid.

93Ibid.

94Ibid.

95The Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are manuscripts that came directly from Alexandria Egypt, where Origen (182-254 A.D.) was Father of Biblical Criticism, and Father of the Allegorical Method.

96Ibid., 87.

97Ibid., 125.

98L. Gaussen, Theopneustia – The plenary Inspiration of The Holy Scriptures deduced from Internal Evidence, and the Testimonies of Nature, History and Science (David Scott’s translation, Chicago, The Bible Institute Colportage ASS’N., 1840), 5-6.