KJV Workbook WEB

"And he spake a parable unto them, can the ______ lead the ______? shall they not both fall into the ditch? The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master." (Luke 6:39 & 40)

We also, as called ministers of the Word (even more so than those other Christians who are not) must be confident that our guide, the Word of God, is the PERFECTLY PRESERVED Word of God so that we can effectively teach His Word to those whom God has entrusted to our care and tutelage.

This is especially important for our calling, "For we are labourers ___________ with God." (I Corinthians 3:9) If we are to labour with God and, under His calling and guidance, be used by Him to "perfect," the saints, then we must have His perfect Word to guide us.

"And he gave some apostles; (now gone) and some, prophets; (also gone) and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the _____________ of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a ____________ man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the _______ in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ;" (Ephesians 4:11-15)

One- How can any Christian do the "... perfect will of God" if God has not revealed His "Perfect will," to us?

Two- How can any Christian be perfect in all of "God's ways," if we don't know perfectly what all of "his ways," are?

Three- How can pastors and teachers "perfect," the saints for the work of the ministry if we don't have a "perfect" textbook to teach from?

Four- How can God's church (always local in expression) be perfectly clean, "... without spot or blemish," if we leave out some of the water (His Bible) that God said He would use to accomplish the washing of it?

Since we have already shown that scripturally the church is the people, then this cleansing would have to be, specifically, the sanctification of the individuals who make up the body of Christ- the church.

If we do not believe that we have the "perfect," Word of God, then none of the things listed above, nor dozens of other things that God expects and even demands of us are possible!

NOTE: Homework- Find the four impossible things that God would be
if He did not preserve His Bible “perfectly” for us. (DCOT p. 16)

Because we Christians can only be as perfect as the tool that God uses to perfect us! Applied to those who minister in the Word; we can only function as co-laborers with God to edify the saints IF He has given us a PERFECTLY PRESERVED tool with which to carry out His work.

In addition, if God has not perfectly preserved His Word for our use today, then He expects us to do the impossible- carry out His "perfect will," as well as be perfectly "equipped," for the ministry of "perfecting," the saints!

Since God never asks the impossible, then He has made available to us His PERFECTLY PRESERVED Word- and it exists today, for English speaking people, ONLY in the King James Version of the Bible!

One of the first things we have to learn is the difference between the two doctrines: Inspiration and Preservation.

Probably the number one foundational scripture on Inspiration to be found in the Bible is in the book of II Timothy.

means, (God-breathed is the literal/main def.) or (from the reference) divinely inspired

NOTE: This will be a question on the test. (this definition is required for the test)

This combination (theopneustos) actually denotes more than "God-breathed," the idea is actually one of "God-breathed out;" i.e., the more correct answer is, “God-breathed out.”

Not only the fact of the Bible's inspiration has been hotly debated, but even the degree of that inspiration has been the subject of many volumes of dissertation. Therefore, we will only briefly address this subject also.

Since the first view, “Verbal-plenary,” is the correct one, we will confine this present segment to a short explanation of that view. Verbal (the very words), plenary (full in all aspects) i.e., every part of scripture is equally inspired.

This is the promise of JESUS CHRIST himself. Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33

Now we will address this issue of Preservation, which is somewhat akin to, but entirely different from Inspiration.

The inspiration of the original Scriptures (the originals, or "Autographs") is recognized, in one form or another, by most Bible scholars. Since, however, only those autographs were inspired and they have disappeared with the passage of time, then we Christians who want to serve God completely are in "deep soup" (hot water). If, as the liberal scholars and most of the cults claim, the true, complete, and accurate Word of God is no longer with us, and it is merely "contained" in the many different versions, then we are absolutely without hope of ever serving Him the way He commands us to. There is no hope, that is, unless the scholars are wrong and God has made a way for us to share in those original writings that we need to carry out His command; i.e. unless He has preserved His complete, perfect Word in its entirety.

Even leaving aside the tendency of written materials to deteriorate, it is a miracle that the Bible is still with us because every conceivable method has been used to attempt its utter extermination. These ranged from Imperial edicts commanding the destruction of every copy of it to commands calling for the destruction of those persons who own those copies. For nearly two millennia, men of power- not just common peons but KINGS, EMPERORS, POPES and PRINCES- from their pinnacles of power have carried out their campaigns of "bibliocide" with all of the power and frenzy of a shark rending its prey before utterly consuming it.

Unlike the words of men, we have the promise of the very Creator of the Universe that His Word, the Bible, will be preserved FOREVER.

The words of the Bible are THE WORDS OF GOD and the trinity inspired and preserved it!

NOTE: This will be a test question.

The words of the Bible are the words of God and it, the Bible, was inspired and preserved by God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

When you click the TEST link it will download to
your computer. When download is completed, click
"Open" or "Open when done". A window may pop up
stating that "Windows protected your PC". Click
"More info" and then click "Run anyway" in
the white rectangular box at the
bottom of that window.

At this time, please take
TEST ONE
If test fails to load, press F5 or click the refresh button on the webpage.

Be sure to submit a copy of the Results page
in order to have your score registered
to your file.

NOTE FOR FAILED TEST:
If you fail the test, then restudy the section, find
the correct answers to all of the questions
you missed, and then take the test
again on or after tomorrow.
You may NOT retake a failed test on the
same day that you failed it in any
of our courses. There is always
a one day wait required for
restudy of the material
before retaking
the test.

received a passing score, then restudy the
relevant section and find all of the
correct answers before continuing
on to the next lesson.

"The truth claims of Christianity are reliable ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THE SOURCE FROM WHICH WE DERIVE THESE TRUTHS IS ITSELF RELIABLE... Christianity can be no more reliable than the source from which it springs... The Christian faith then, stands or falls on the reliability of the revelation of God.” (caps are those of the source quoted)

At the end of the first century people had the originals or at least 1^st or 2^nd generation copies of the originals to guide them in the faith. By the end of the 2^nd century, however, textual criticism and emendations were already being undertaken by such heretics as Origen, and the shadow of doubt began to be cast over the Scriptures. Clement, Eusebius, and others followed over the next several centuries. This led to the fragmenting of the mainstream into three basic families of texts: Byzantine, Caesarean, and Alexandrian.

A fairly complete list (as of 1993-94) of the most important extant manuscripts, their number and/or abbreviation, and examples, can be found on pp. 41-42 of your textbook. These include Papyri, Uncials, Miniscules, Lectionaries

In addition to these important major attestations to the original text we also have quite a few lesser ones. Including some "... fragments of the New Testament text [from as early as] the second century.”

Two of the lesser ones are Ostraka, and Talismans. An explanation of these two types of lesser attestations are found on p. 42 of your textbook.

There are several different ways of classifying the texts. Over the years scholars have pretty much discarded all but one, In this remaining classification method the manuscripts are classified into three (3) general textual types:

THE CAESAREAN TEXT
This type is believed to have originated in Egypt and is believed by some to have been brought from Alexandria to Caesarea by Origen. It is essentially a blend of Western (a discarded classification) and Alexandrian texts.

THE ALEXANDRIAN TEXT
Representatives of this type are considered to have been prepared by scribes in Alexandria and the surrounding regions in Egypt.

THE BYZANTINE TEXT
This tradition contains far more MSS than all of the other traditions combined. In some cases the ratio is as high as 99:1 in favor of the Byzantine. (This is the tradition that stands in very large measure behind the King James Bible.) [A detailed explanation of the various text-types begins on p. 42 of your textbook.]

NOTE: This will be a test question.

The Byzantine Text contains far more manuscripts than all of the other traditions combined.

THE CORRUPTION IN ALEXANDRIA AND CAESAREA
Beginning in the seventh century B.C., regular commerce took place between Egypt and Greece. But it was only in the fourth century, under Alexander the Great, that Greek culture really gained a foothold in Egypt. By the time of the rule of the Ptolemies in Egypt, "Alexandria was a center of Hellenistic culture equal to Athens."A large collection of Greek literature existed there which eventually would become the world famous "Library of Alexandria." At first housing a growing collection of Greek literature, it would eventually become a tremendous storehouse of Greek translations of most of the "... standard texts of literature and philosophy,” from nations and cultures of the known world. One famous work undertaken there was the Septuagint, the translation of the Old Testament into Koine Greek. This, according to tradition, took place in the third century B.C. [Some current evidence suggests, however, that the actual date was several centuries AFTER the time of Christ. At this time, however, the evidence is not conclusive for such a late date. Dr. VBK]

Philo Judaeus and philosophical theism.
By the time of the birth of Christ, Alexandria was deeply steeped in various philosophies from around the world. Several centuries of intermixing of diverse religions and philosophies had made the city a religio/philosophical melting pot. Into this milieu was born the famous Jewish scholar Philo Judaeus. (20 B.C. - A.D. 50)

Philo claimed to believe the Scriptures; but he also tried to meld them with Greek philosophy. Although this was a Judeo/Greek synthesis restricted to the Old Testament it marked a focal point for the general tenor of the city and the development of what I call, "philosophical theism." From this tradition of religious thought grew a spreading tendency to boldly, and even wildly, allegorize scripture.

By the second century those who claimed Christianity had banded together to start training men in the theology of this offshoot of Judaism. The proliferation of writings, many false and heretical, and writers, gave this new religion growing pains as many sought to have theirs included to prove their heresies. Like most religions do, it was growing away from its pristine state and many believers, the number of which was growing daily, were convinced by some that it was necessary to have "learned men" teach them what the Bible really meant. This school at Alexandria trained many of the scholars, "[f]rom the second to the fourth century A.D."

In this Catechetical School, Scripture was taught to have three meanings: the literal, the moral, and the spiritual. From there, each generation expanded the borders of the body of their knowledge. This expansion and growth being expected, encouraged, and even demanded by their mentors. The problem in this case was that their expanding body of knowledge was built upon a base of heretical principles- philosophical theism.

"The school's use of allegory for biblical interpretation surpassed the complexity of similar methods used by earlier Hellenistic Jews."

In Clement's theology, Christ was seen as merely a divine example to mankind. He was presented as God come to man "... so that you might learn from a man how to BECOME God." In his theology, concerning God and Jesus Christ, we have two heresies being taught: the Logos of the Gnostics and salvation by works, not by grace, i.e.- "If Christians IMITATED Christ, they too [could] become deified: divine, incorruptible and impassable."^(ibid.) This cultivated converted pagan was not content with the merging of philosophy and the Bible but also sought to "... adapt the Semitic God of the Bible to the Greco-Roman ideal...”He thus added a third ingredient to the amorphous mess being made of the once pure crystalline coherence of God's Word.

From Philo, he borrowed the belief that the god of the Greeks was the God of the Bible. From Plato and Aristotle he gained a "God" characterized by His, "apaqeia," His apathy. This led him to a belief that participation in the divine life could be accomplished through an "[Imitation of] the calmness and imperturbability of God himself."

Following the methods and philosophies of teaching started by Philo, this "Catechetical School ... [gave] instruction ... not only in the Scriptures and religion, but in the Greek sciences as well. About the year 203, a man by the name of Origen was made head of this school.”

Immediately, he began to radically sculpt the scriptures to fit his own philosophy.

Dr. Philip Comfort (on Origen) - "The early manuscripts exhibit some very significant differences in the wording of the New Testament, text-differences pertaining to the titles of the Lord Jesus Christ, Christian doctrine and church practice as well as significant word variations ... Textual Corruption happened at such an early date ... Origen was the first New Testament critic.”

Dr. Edward Hills, (Harvard and Yale) - "Origen ... was not content to abide by the text which he received but freely engaged in the boldest sort of CONJECTURAL emendations." caps added)

Although his scholastic credentials were impeccable and his academic station as head of the Alexandrian Catechetical School had put him in a position of power and respect; still, he had made some powerful enemies. This eventually led to his being dethroned from his position at the school and his expulsion from Alexandria. (A.D. 230)

One must pause here to consider the fact that this first "New Testament critic" had been declared by his own church to be a "heretic," and here he is making "conjectural emendations" to God's Word.

Today, 1700 years later, we find these same heretical "emendations" being translated from those Greek texts corrupted by him. Today's translators have incorporated those corruptions into most, if not all, to one extent or another, (any corruption is too much) of the Modern Versions (per-versions) of God's Word.

This mixture of Greek philosophy and the Christian Scriptures spread from Alexandria to other places in Egypt and eventually through the world.

NOTE: This will be a test question.

Philo Judaeus, Clement, and Origen were the first corrupters of the Scriptures. Starting from before the birth of Christ and continuing on down until 230 A.D. when Origen was expelled from the Alexandrian school and declared a heretic.

The "Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics," commenting on what they call "Alexandrian Theology," begin the movement with Philo and move step by step forward through time until reaching the dazzling duo of the 19th century, Westcott and Hort In its history of Alexandrian mysticism it comments, "Those who would oust metaphysics from theology can have but scanty sympathy with the Alexandrian."In the "Encyclopedia of the Supernatural," we find; "At Alexandria the philosophies of Philo Judaeus joined the ideas of Plato with Judaism in a theosofic system. It persisted in the Cabala and Neo-Platonism ... all [of which] taught the essential base of theosophy.”

Tracing Satan's plan down through the years we come to the fourth century. By that time we see it is in full swing.

Emperor Constantine (supposedly a Christian) is in power. He decides, in the interest of peace in the Empire, to attempt a middle-of-the-road approach that he hopes will soothe both the Christians and the heathen. In addition, the festering disagreements between the differing Christian factions was also fast coming to a boil as the Gnostic and Orthodox factions argued about who Jesus was. Constantine assumed a "middle-of-the-road" stance that he hoped would help salve the broadening wound caused by this "Arian controversy" within the State (Roman Catholic) Church.

Consequently he enlisted Eusebius the scholar to prepare fifty copies of a corrupt "Bible" which presented a "... somewhat de-deified Christ and ecumenical theology [incorporating both Arian and semi-Arian doctrine] ... that Jesus was the ELDEST AND HIGHEST OF CREATURES, rather than God manifest in the flesh.” (caps added) (It is believed that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are quite possibly two extant copies of this corrupt “Bible.”)

Here, but three short centuries or less after the penning of the last book of the Bible, we find the devil's plan to attack the words of the Scriptures firmly ensconced in the power structures of both the religious and secular arenas.

As we saw earlier, Origen was made to leave the school in Alexandria and he subsequently relocated in Caesarea in A.D. 230. It is advanced as a probability by many scholars, both conservative and liberal alike, that it was at this time that he carried with him the Greek texts from his previous home, Alexandria, to his new home, Caesarea. Upon arriving in Caesarea, Origen set about starting a school that soon rivaled the one he had been forced to leave in Alexandria.

What we now have, basically, is one corrupted text with two outlets- Alexandria and Caesarea.

In Caesarea the text underwent further degradation as it was mixed with what is called the Western Text (now an obsolete term). This means that it was mixed with texts that had come from a diversity of scribal activity; most of which has been characterized as "wild" and "undisciplined.”

The last leg of the journey was when Clement left Alexandria and carried the corrupt manuscripts to Rome where they were incorporated into the Roman Catholic church.

1. Alexandria was the first area of infection.

It soon spread from there to Oxyrhyncus and Upper and Middle Egypt.

2. Caesarea was the second area of infection. The corrupted manuscripts
were brought there by Origen when, in dishonor, he left the school
at Alexandria.

3. Rome was the third area of infection. The corrupted manuscripts were
taken there by Clement from Alexandria, the original source of the infection.

As you can see, the infection that started at Alexandria was the source for the two major Greek text-types, Alexandrian and Caesarean, from which nearly all of the new Translations are taken. For all intents and purposes, even the “eclectic” text that is used in some of the New Versions agrees with the Alexandrian and Caesarean texts most of the time. Therefore, I naturally would conclude that they are from those texts. That then changes “nearly all,” to “all New Translations are taken,” from the corrupt Alexandrian texts and their offshoots.

This text-type was so named because it came to pre-eminence during the time-frame of the Byzantine Empire. In the Western Roman Empire, Latin was in the ascendancy as a language; whereas, in the East, Greek had retained its pre-eminence as the common language. This facilitated the continued use of the Greek texts and their resultant preservation and proliferation and enabled them to be preserved in their pristine state.

Because of this, and several other factors, there are more extant biblical manuscripts in this text-type than in all of the other text-types combined. In addition there is manifold attestation by other early writings confirming the accuracy of this family of texts. Together these cause the proofs for the Byzantine Text to far outnumber the evidences for the other types many times over.

The opposition to the Byzantine Text, which even its opponents admit is the traditional text-type, was propagated to modern mainline critical scholarship predominantly through the efforts of Westcott and Hort, two unsaved scholars. These opponents argue that the Byzantine textual tradition [from which comes the TR- the Textus Receptus] did not originate before the mid-fourth century, and that it was the result of a conflation of earlier texts... [the] Western and Alexandrian. Even though modern discoveries have proven this theory to be totally in error, the detractors of the Byzantine text stick their head in the sand and insist that it, “just ain’t so.”

If all of the evidences to the accuracy of the Byzantine text are considered, the total comes to nearly 1/10 of a Million witnesses. The overwhelming testimony is in agreement with the Byzantine text-type which is the general type of Greek texts from which the King James Bible is translated.

This text and its derivative King James parent text are variously known as:
The Textus Receptus; or the Received Text. (Elzever Brothers, 1624)
The Majority Text.
The Traditional Text.
The Syrian Text.
The Byzantine Text.
The K (Kappa) or Common Text.

This preponderance of evidences, nearly 1/10 of a million strong, pointing to this text as the one truest to the originals, can not and must not be ignored!

NOTE: This will be a test question.

The Byzantine text, from which the KJV is translated, is found to be the text type truest to the originals according to the preponderance of evidence nearly 1/10 of a million strong.

The following, “Bible Tree,” will show how the texts have come down to us through the centuries; and where the various English & Foreign language translations fit in.

As can be seen from the tree, the originals (the Autographs) were copied and then handed on from generation to generation as copies were made of the copies. Then the wedge at Alexandria split off a group of texts that deteriorated more and more as time went on. A short time later that limb itself sprouted an offshoot that developed into the Caesarean Text. The Western Text was simply a mingling of Alexandrian and Caesarean texts. The Apocrypha and the Spurious Writings co-mingled in with the off-shoots and became integrated into them and their theologies. (Although the Apocrypha leaked back into the mainstream texts, it was filtered out again.) Lastly we see the “sacred," writings of the other religions, Islam, Hindu, Pagan, etc.; and these will eventually be combined with the Alexandrian (New Versions) and Caesarean (Alexandrian off-shoot that became the Catholic Bibles) texts, eventually to produce the coming “One World Bible,” for the “One World Religion.”

Meanwhile, the Majority text (99 to 1) reigned supreme and eventually was collated into the Received text; and from that Greek text was translated the KJV and others such as Luther’s German Bible and the Spanish Old Velera.

The original Byzantine texts were used almost exclusively by all Greek speaking, non-Catholics for nearly two millennia. Comfort comments that the Byzantine was the, "[M]ost prevailing type of text throughout the Greek speaking world... From then on almost all MSS follow the Byzantine [Majority] text, including those MSS used by Erasmus in compiling the text that eventually would become the Textus Receptus [the text from which the King James was translated].”

As you can see from the chart, the predominant text from the autographs to the 20^th Century was the Majority Text from which the KJV was translated in 1611. Only since the late 19^th Century has the Minority Text (or texts) come into use. Currently (1997) the corrupt NIV (from the Minority Text) is threatening to displace the KJV as the number one selling Bible. (NOTE: in 2004 the NIV became the #1 selling Bible.)

The predominant text from the autographs to the Twentieth Century was the Majority Text from which the KJV was translated in 1611.

At this time, please take
TEST TWO
If test fails to load, press F5 or click the refresh button on the webpage.

Be sure to submit a copy of the Results page
in order to have your score registered
to your file.

received a passing score, then restudy the
relevant section and find all of the
correct answers before continuing
on to the next lesson.

Now that we have shown that the only reliable text type is the Byzantine, and the text derived from it, the Received Text, from which the KJV is translated, we will go on to see why the differences are so important. (A detailed explanation starts on p. 63 of your text-book.)

We have already studied why we need the perfect Word of God. Complete and trustworthy in all of its parts. Now let’s see why we cannot allow any change in even the smallest words in it.

The purveyors of the corrupt New Versions from the corrupt Greek texts (like father like son) would have us believe that between their Greek texts, and the new “Bibles” translated from them, and the Majority Texts from which the KJV is translated, that the differences are strictly minor ones. Concerning doctrinal differences they insist that, “[In] any textual tradition ... [t]he interpretation of individual passages may well be called in question; but NEVER is a doctrine affected.”

In fact they maintain that ALL changes are theologically INSIGNIFICANT! "[T]he omission of an individual title or phrase or verse does not constitute evidence for theological heresy ... most changes or omissions ... are quite trivial and wholly devoid of theological significance... Where they do affect the meaning of a passage in such a way that the passage can no longer be called upon to support a particular doctrine, nevertheless the doctrine itself remains unchanged because it is still supported by many other passages found in the same textual tradition.”

We will now proceed to show that these arguments are totally false, misleading, and/or irrelevant.

To start with, God’s Word, as we studied earlier, is necessary in all of its parts. Every doctrine is necessary and profitable; and even the liberals would agree with this fact. Where we part company is in the necessity of the very words of the text as well as in what verses should or shouldn’t be there. To illustrate, I will use the analogy of a wall.

God’s “Citadel of Truth,” the Bible is composed of many doctrinal walls. Each of these walls is necessary to the total strength and inviolability of the fortress. If even one wall is destroyed the enemy can enter and decimate the entire Bible “fortress.”

There are several ways to destroy one of those walls. Two of the most obvious are: batter it down, or destroy the foundation. We will concentrate on the latter, “destroy the foundation.”

Destroying the foundation can be done, also, in two ways: undermine it, or remove it. The purveyors of the drivel that, “no doctrine is affected,” have chosen the removal process. They know that most people are too smart to let some “scholar,” come in and rip out the foundation en masse. Therefore, they have chosen to do it surreptitiously (sneakily), one brick at a time. They maintain that one brick (a word or a verse) means, “nothing,” to a huge doctrinal wall with thousands of bricks in it. After all, “the other bricks (words and verses) will still be there to give strength to the wall.”

Let me ask you a question. Have you ever seen what happens when you take one brick out of a huge wall? If you take the brick off of the very top of the wall you can hardly even tell that one is gone. But what happens when you take a brick from down at the foundation? Right! The wall begins, with time, to sag and crack from the site of the missing brick upward and outward.

If maybe you haven’t personally seen this kind of slow destruction, I have- several times. Let me show you.

This is just a tiny portion of a massive wall. If you will notice, only two little bricks, out of thousands, have been removed from the bottom of the wall. What has happened? The weight of the bricks above has caused the entire wall to crack, and another brick has already fallen into the vacant spot. This will spread; and eventually this entire section of the wall will sag and topple because of the removal of those two little, seemingly insignificant, bricks.

This is exactly what is happening in the New Versions. Contrary to what they say, the words and verses that are being removed are foundational ones; not merely cosmetic ones, as they maintain.

Today there are many in the world who would love to see the Bible fall. And for any so-called "Christian" scholar to weaken its defenses in the face of these enemies is inconceivably and inexcusably irresponsible at best and consorting with the enemy at the worst.

NOTE: This will be a test question.

The irresponsible "scholars" that are producing the New Versions of the Bible are removing foundational words and verses and are, thereby, destroying God's Word as you would destroy a wall that has had the foundations weakened!

If those scholars that are consorting with the enemy were in the army they would be shot for their treachery. We are at war with the devil and those who betray the very Word of our Lord and Saviour with such traitorous behavior should thank God that He is merciful and has given them time to repent instead of summarily executing them! It is very fortuitous for them that we live under Grace and not Law.

Satan has tried to breach the Citadel of God's Word. We must, I repeat, WE MUST stand firm! We must not only stand firm but we must also take the Sword of the Spirit in our hand and defend against the enemy as they did at the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem after the Captivity. We must labour with a trowel in one hand to repair the breaches, and the Sword in the other to fight off the enemy. Without the power of God we can neither fight nor build, so let us not forget that our greatest (and only) source of strength and guidance is from God, through the Spirit, asked for in the name of the Son.
Doc Van

The modern day corruption of the Greek texts can be traced to the focal point of the dazzling duo of Cambridge, B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort. From these scholastic co-hort’s efforts sprang the first widely used corrupt Greek New Testament that served as the basis for those used today to produce ALL of the New Versions.

There are at least four (4) criteria that a person must meet in order to be a New Testament scholar or translator; Westcott & Hort fail 3 out of the 4. The only one they meet is that they did have the scholastic ability, even though both of them used it in a heretical and disbelieving fashion.

NOTE: These will be test questions.

NOTE: Homework- Find the four criteria for a New Testament Scholar or Translator. (pp. 81+ in your textbook.)

1. They must be saved!

2. They must be separated (biblically speaking)!

3. They must believe the Bible is the inspired, infallible Word of God!

4. They must have the scholastic ability.

If any two people could be called the “fathers,” of the modern movement to replace God’s true Word with the perverted translations, it would have to be Westcott and Hort.

Their corrupt Greek text, which they secretly foisted off on the translators a section at a time, effectively, and summarily, set aside a Greek text that had been in use for eighteen centuries. In addition, it was a direct attack on the preserved Word of God for English speaking people, the King James Bible, as well as on the other foreign language Bibles translated from the Received Text and its parent, the Byzantine Text. This would include almost every foreign language non-Catholic Bible from the second century up to the nineteenth century.

Beginning with the ascendance of the Roman Catholic Church to power, persecution of Independent Churches began in earnest. Then, much later, with the Protestant Reformation, the safety of non-Catholics improved over a period of time; with one great exception, the true Independents. (At that time they were grouped together by both Catholics and Protestants under the name of Anabaptists.) With the formation of the Church of England in Britain and the various Protestant denominations on the continent, the Catholic Church eventually lost its stranglehold on Christianity. The single most noted anomaly of this move toward “religious freedom,” is that it never brought any real “religious freedom” at all. It simply shifted the persecution from the one epicenter of Rome, to many various epicenters in England, Germany, Switzerland, and other places on the European continent.

Immediately upon leaving the “Mother Church,” the various Protestant denominations began their own persecution of Catholics and Independents. Meanwhile the Catholics were persecuting Protestants and Independents. (See DCOT for details.)

The one common denominator in the persecutions was that the Independents were being persecuted from all sides. They were caught in both the Catholic Inquisition and the various Protestant persecutions. In fact Martin Luther added fuel to the fire by stating that, "For by this spiritual witchcraft that old serpent bewitcheth not men's senses, but their minds with false and wicked opinions: which opinions, they that are so bewitched, do take to be true and godly ... even those also which are professors of true Christianity, and well affected in religion ... we also at this day labour by the word of God against those fantastical opinions of the ANABAPTISTS, that we may set at liberty those that are entangled therewith ... they abuse and corrupt the scripture ... [Teaching] clean contrary to the Scripture; which is a manifest sign that they are BEWITCHED OF THE DEVIL."

NOTE: this will be a test question.

Which Protestant leader of the Reformation accused the Anabaptists of being "bewitched of the devil?" Martin Luther

This inflamed the already intense persecution of the Independents. Catholicism already had added witchcraft to the heretical offenses and offenders being slaughtered by the Inquisition. Now, Independents were being accused of being bewitched of the devil and were in even greater danger of being accused of heresy; the results of which were “purification,” (by torture) and execution by the Inquisition, and torture, imprisonment, hanging, and/or burning by the Church of England and the various Protestant groups.

Now, by the middle of the sixteenth century, we see Roman Catholicism and the Church of England, as well as the various brands of Protestantism spreading across Europe, all bitter antagonists apparently teamed together in persecution of the Anabaptists. "Both [the Lutheran Church and the Presbyterian Church] were soon in the persecuting business, falling little, if any, short of their Catholic mother."

NOTE: This will be a question on the test.

During this time, all three groups, Roman Catholic, Protestant, and the Church of England, were busy persecuting each other; and the Independents, who belonged to none of those groups, were getting it from all sides.

Obviously being a true Bible believer and insisting on: the inspiration of the Scriptures, the infallibility of the Scriptures, and the use of the Scriptures as the rule of faith and practice, did not make you a popular person during this time in history. Actually it did make you popular in a macabre sense, in that you were sought out zealously so that you could be burnt, hung, drowned, or otherwise executed in various excruciatingly painful and horrendous ways. Not the kind of popularity that a mom and dad would want for their children, or that any adult would want socially for themselves, wouldn’t you say?

The devil failed to deny possession of the Bible to believers during this time, so he changed direction. Instead of bonfires of Bibles and Believers, as happened during the Dark Ages on through to the Reformation, he decided to use a much subtler approach. If you can’t stop them from having a Bible, then replace that Bible, the Word of God, with a corrupted version that will be useless to them. This is where the going gets sneaky. You can’t just change it in toto, it must be done a little at a time. A word here, a word there. A phrase here, a phrase there. If he can create enough chaos within the Bible, in its various parts, then he can corrupt the whole and bring the “Citadel of Truth,” crashing to the ground. In the next section we will see just exactly how he is doing that very thing. One word or verse at a time.

At this time, please take
TEST THREE
If test fails to load, press F5 or click the refresh button on the webpage.

Be sure to submit a copy of the Results page
in order to have your score registered
to your file.

received a passing score, then restudy the
relevant section and find all of the
correct answers before continuing
on to the next lesson.

In this section we will see what kind of damage is done to several of the major Bible doctrines in the New Versions. We will do this by examining, doctrine by doctrine and scripture by scripture, what they say as compared to what the KJV says. We will also delve lightly into the underlieing Greek scriptures from the corrupt Alexandrian/Caesarean texts as well as the Received Text. Then we will make a comparison with several major doctrinal textbooks to see which of the various Greek texts and Bibles are in agreement with the doctrinal texts and which are not. From that we will attempt to discover if any doctrines are changed, threatened or even eliminated in the Greek texts and the New Versions drawn from them.

According to D.A. Carson, who mouthed once again the words that have echoed so sonorously down through the years, "The interpretation of individual passages may well be called in question, but NEVER is a doctrine affected."(caps added)

"The Bible, the inspired Word of God, is the fulcrum of the Christian faith. It is the medium of God's addressing man and the means of man's knowing of the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Since all intelligent faith in the supernatural rests ultimately upon the divine origin, plenary inspiration, and infallible authority of the Bible as the book of God, it is only natural that this book becomes the very center of both the attack and the defense of the whole system of Christianity." Jonathan Edwards

"To mutilate it or misrepresent it [the teaching of Scripture] is not only sin against the Revealer of it - it may prove the ruin of men's souls. The best safeguard against such mutilation or misrepresentation is the diligent study of the several doctrines of the faith in their relation to one another, and especially to the central theme of theology, the person and work of Jesus Christ." Strong

Let’s return, for a moment, to the analogy I used in the previous section, “a wall of doctrine.” In God's Citadel of Truth, the Bible, each individual doctrine is like a wall and each scripture is a brick in that wall. The amount of damage caused to a doctrinal wall by the removal of a particular scripture is dictated by the position of that scriptural "brick" in the doctrine. (We know that damage is done; we want to see the amount.)

If that scripture "brick" is a foundational one, it is like a brick removed from the bottom of a real wall. Removal of it will compromise the strength of the entire wall and will cause cracks all the way through to the top of it. Once this happens, the entire doctrine is irreparably compromised and becomes totally worthless.

Moving half-way up. If it is a supporting scripture, i.e., one somewhere above the foundational scripture "bricks," then the removal of it weakens the doctrine in varying degrees depending on its closeness to the foundational scriptures upon which it rests. Removal of any such scripture “brick,” even halfway up the wall would leave a weak spot and the doctrinal "wall" would then be susceptible to a concerted attack on that spot by an opponent.

Let me emphasize, every brick is important, even the ones from the very top row. These all contribute to the overall height and general stability of the wall (doctrine). If they were not necessary then God would not have put them up there. But He did! Therefore, they are needed to give the wall (doctrine) the exact appearance, height, and stability that God wanted.

II Timothy 3:16
"___________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________:”

However, for the purposes of our study, if we can prove that the doctrines are affected AT ALL, then we have proven our point. The claim made by those who oppose the KJV, and the Received Text from which it was translated is that, “[In] any textual tradition ... [t]he interpretation of individual passages may well be called in question; but NEVER is a doctrine affected.” If we can show that that is absolutely untrue, then their whole straw man will fall down.

Since they do not believe, “all scripture is profitable,” then we will not even address the issue of “minor” changes. Instead, we will go for the throat.

NOTE: This will be a test question.

We will prove that MAJOR damage is done to some of the most basic of all doctrines; such as Salvation, Christ, God, etc. and that, for some of the doctrines, this damage is terminal.

All verses or words in the Bible related to any particular doctrine can be divided into three categories:

NOTE: Homework:

Find the three categories from the Introduction to PART TWO of your textbook under, “THE MEANS OF ANALYSIS.” (The Introduction begins on p. 94.)

This will be a test question.

1. ___________

2. ___________

3. ___________

Dividing the related scriptures in this way allows us to determine the degree to which the particular doctrines (all of them major) are affected. For purposes of our study we are going to concentrate almost solely on foundational scriptures. This will allow us to see what kind of major damage is being accomplished by the changes.

The following texts will be used to define fundamentals and doctrines to discover if there are any changes made in the new “Bibles” to any of the scriptures given in them as foundational ones.

The first texts used will be “The Fundamentals,” released in 1902 & 1917, which set forth the “Fundamental,” of the faith. This set was recognized by those of every denomination that considered themselves fundamentalists as being true to the faith and a standard work for the purpose of defining “the Fundamentals.” Although this is not a doctrinal textbook as such, it still must be included as a basic teaching text on the fundamentals of the faith.

In his book, "Let's Weigh the Evidence," on p. 19, Barry Burton quotes the "New Standard Encyclopedia," vol. 5, p. 375: "The [conservative] movement beginning about 1910, opposed liberal attempts to reconcile the teachings of Christianity with the findings of science. ... [They] insisted on five fundamentals:

1) the inerrancy, infallibility, and literal truth of the Bible in every detail;

1. "Christian Theology," by Emery H. Bancroft.
This book is a classroom textbook hailed as "... thoroughly sound in

its teaching ... scholarly ... well classified ... apologetical," which was used at "Baptist Bible Seminary of Johnson City, New York." ^{(59 b)}2. "Major Bible Themes," by Chafer and Walvoord.
This book is "... designed for group and individual study ... Whether

3. "Outline Studies in Christian Doctrine," by Dr. George Pardington.
This book is, "... a synopsis of the lectures ... given [by Dr. Pardington] in the Missionary Institute at Nyack ... Bible school Teachers in this country and in foreign lands have made large use of them ... [They are] helpful not only to teachers, but also to other Christian workers." ^{(70 f)}

4. "The Great Doctrines of the Bible," by William Evans and expanded by
Dr. Coder with eighty additional entries.

This work is designed for "... students and teachers of the Bible... The Great Doctrines of the Bible ... will help Christians to know the fundamental facts and doctrines of the Christian faith."

From these doctrinal texts and definitive compilations of the fundamentals of the faith, we will check and cross reference the Received Text and the Alexandrian/Caesarean Text, to see if there are any major doctrinal differences. We will then take some representative verses from those given in the reference works to see if there are any doctrinal errors carried over into the new translations from the different Greek texts. We will be including the translations from the so-called “eclectic Text” as though they were from the Alexandrian. The reason for this is that the eclectic text follows the corrupt Alexandria/Caesarean text the majority of the time. If that is what they chose to follow most of the time, then they are as much an off-shoot of those texts as the Caesarean was of the Alexandrian. There’s an old saying, “Like father, like son,” and I think it is very appropriate; whether one is talking about people, cats, cows, or, as we are here, parent texts. I think it is very dishonest of those who promote the “eclectic” text to so vehemently claim it is not an Alexandrian text when the majority of the readings in it are definitely Alexandrian. I think that if you look like a duck, walk like a duck, quack like a duck, and run with other ducks, then you probably are a duck, no matter how hard you insist that you’re not. So much for the “eclectic text.”

We will now proceed to the first doctrine and see what kind of chaos is created by the “new” Greek texts and the “new” translations.

In all four of the doctrinal reference works used, many doctrines, as part of their foundational discussions, include the various names of God as part of the proof or corroboration for themselves.

The name of God that is translated in the King James Bible as "Jehovah," is a very important part of the doctrine of God.

From the reference works, it (the name Jehovah) is used, variously, as a foundational part of:

1. The Bible’s designation for, "the True God." (Chafer)

2. God's revelation of, "... His character and His manifold relations to His Creatures." (Pardington)

3. A means of denoting God as possessing, " personality .” (Evans)

God himself states that "JEHOVAH" is His personal name. "... but by my name _____________ was I not known unto them." (Exodus 6:3b)

He states in His Bible that He ALONE is the true God called by the name "JEHOVAH." "... thou, whose name alone is _____________." (Psalm 83:18)

His Word states that only the God named by the name "JEHOVAH," which we just saw is He alone, is both strength and salvation. "... JEHOVAH is my strength ... he also is become my __________." (Isaiah 12:2)

He also states in His Word that only the God named "JEHOVAH" will never run out of strength. "Trust ye in the LORD forever: for in the LORD _____________ is everlasting strength:" (Isaiah 26:4)

In all of these, and 99% of the other new translations, Jehovah has been changed to LORD. Now, in them, we don't know which god is being referred to. People of any nation and belief could (and do) maintain that the "LORD" being referred to is the same Lord as their "Lord." It could be any god from Shiva, (Hindu) to Lord Matreya, (New Age) to AL-LAH the god of Islam. (p. 103, DCOT)

The first aim given in the list is, "These publications shall be true to the original Hebrew and Greek."

"JEHOVAH" is the English equivalent for the word in the Hebrew Masoretic text - "Y^eHOVAH" meaning: “(the) self-Existent or Eternal; Jehovah, the Jewish national name of God.”

This name, which is used for the one true God, has been removed from the NASB by the Lockman Foundation because they maintain that it "... conveys no religious or spiritual overtones. It is strange, uncommon, and without sufficient religious and devotional background... Hence, it was decided to avoid the use of this name in the translation proper.”

To start with, this is an out and out LIE. The Jehovah’s Witnesses have kept the name Jehovah as part of the name of their religion. This has kept, “religious significance” quite attached to it. (Even though it is done so in a negative way it still is recognizable and in common usage.) In fact, worldwide, Christian and heathen alike know that Jehovah is the name of the Jewish and Christian god. (p. 109 DCOT)

It is not the job of any preacher, pastor, teacher, Bible scholar, or any other human being for that matter, to decide to throw out any part of God's Word simply because people may no longer understand it or attach any particular religious meaning to it. (pp. 104+, DCOT)

KJV - "... God is my salvation ... [what God? The KJV goes on to answer]
... JEHOVAH is my strength ... he also is become my ____________."

NKJV, NASB, et al - "... [the] LORD GOD is my strength ... He has become my salvation."

Again I ask, what Lord has become my salvation? What God, Jehovah or some other Lord?

Those who trust in Jehovah have perfect peace because they know that His unbounded strength will never fail them.

Exodus 6:3
KJV - "... By the name of God Almighty ... JEHOVAH ..."
RSV, NASB, NIV, NKJV - "... God Almighty ... the LORD..."

Isaiah 26:3-4
KJV - "Thou wilt keep him in ___________ ________, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee. Trust ye in the LORD forever: for in the LORD _____________ is everlasting __________."
MODERN LANGUAGE BIBLE - "... perfect peace ... because he trusts in Thee ... the LORD God is the Rock of Ages."
NIV - "... the LORD, the LORD is the Rock eternal."
NASB - "... in God the LORD, we have an everlasting Rock."

Again I ask the same question, WHAT Lord? Is it Jehovah or some other Lord? Only the KJV answers that question, whereas, the New Translations, by leaving out Jehovah, open the door to any number of other "Lords" of strength. Remember there are always other religions ready and willing to replace Jehovah, the name of the true God of strength, with their god and his name. Some, such as Islam, even claim (erroneously) that they worship the same God that we worship. We know that their god is not our God; but, when the New Versions take the true name of God (Jehovah) out of the Bible, then such false religions as they are ever ready to present their god in Jehovah's place. When they make these claims and encourage people to trust in their "Lord" the New Versions leave us with NO WAY to refute their claims.

Genesis 22:14
KJV - "And Abraham called the name of that place ____________-jireh ..."
NASB, RSV, NIV, et al - "... The LORD will provide."
According to Evans (GDOB,) Pardington (OSICT), and Chafer (MBT), "Jehovah-jireh" does indeed mean "the LORD will provide;" but, when it contains what God Himself says is His name, then the meaning would have to be understood to mean "JEHOVAH will provide." Only the KJV retains the name of the true God Jehovah who will do the providing. When the New Translations leave out the personal name of the Lord that will do the providing then, again, we are left with an ambiguous provider that could be any Lord. Is it Jehovah or some other? Who knows?

In all of the examples studied, only the King James Version leaves us with no doubt as to which God we are talking about. And that is the God that is recognized by His personal name, Jehovah, as He is correctly called in the KJV. None of the others in the examples above, gives us any inkling of which god we are talking about and leaves the door wide open for false religions to claim it is THEIR god; which they frequently do.

Chafer (MBT) calls "JEHOVAH" one of the, "... three PRIMARY names of God."^{(5 d)} (caps added)

According to Evans (GDOB) "All through Scriptures names and personal pronouns are ascribed to God which undeniably prove that God is a person... All the names given to God in the Scriptures denote personality.”

Leaving out the personal name of the true God, Jehovah, is to leave out seven of the best proofs that our God is a person and not just some impersonal "force" permeating the universe. That type of a "god" would be akin to "Brahma" of the Hindus or the "Universal Soul" of the New Age Movement as well as a variety of (if not all of) the gods presented by the world's major religions excepting Christianity.

Jehovah has been eliminated in the New Translations. They have arbitrarily made changes in what are foundational scriptures. Foundational to one of the major sections of the doctrine of God, i.e. The Nature of God as a "person" - possessing of personality. Therefore, only the KJV, which leaves Jehovah in, tells us of a personal God, not just some impersonal “Lord” of the heathen.

NOTE: These will be questions on the test.

- It is obvious that the name Jehovah is the true name of God.

- It is the Jewish national name for the one true God.

- It is the name that God says is His name.

- The use of the proper name, Jehovah, designates that God is a person (He possesses personality), not just some mysterious force in the universe as the Hindus and New Agers believe.

At this time, please take
TEST FOUR
If test fails to load, press F5 or click the refresh button on the webpage.

Be sure to submit a copy of the Results page
in order to have your score registered
to your file.

received a passing score, then restudy the
relevant section and find all of the
correct answers before continuing
on to the next lesson.

Now that they have totally wiped Jehovah from the Old Testament and turned Him into a generic "god," they go on and try to wipe out the distinction between the Father of the Christians (Jehovah, the "Our Father" of the Scriptures), and the father of the unsaved, the "your father," who is the devil.

NOTE: Homework and Test Question.

Find the name of the heretic that mutilated Luke’s gospel and started propagating the corrupt Greek text that is used in the New Versions to present God as a generic “Father,” i.e., the heresy that God is the “Father” of all rather than the “Creator” of all.
(p. 113-115, DCOT)

Marcion

There are 9 divisions to the Model Prayer as given in Luke and one more in Matthew, over half of which are left out in the New Versions. We will study only two of them at this time. (All of them are in DCOT. p. 115)

In the KJV, this delineates the father being addressed as being the Father only of Christ and Christians. The use of the word "Our" preceding "Father" restricts this prayer to only the family of God, not the family of man.

In the NASB, no such distinction is made. This leaves the door open for heresy.
2. "... which art in heaven."

In the KJV, this identifies the Father being spoken to as the true God of heaven rather than some generic "god" of the false religions. That false god being, of course, the god of this world, the devil, who is the father of all the unsaved.

In the NASB, this entire phrase is eliminated. This leaves the door open for the Devil, Al-lah, Krishna, Brahmin, or any one of a hundred other gods to jump in and claim to be the Father.

wp}000054.gif

NOTE: Homework.

If, as the New Versions portray Him, God is the generic
father of the whole world, saved and unsaved alike,
then the scriptures that say the contrary must be lies.
If that is true, then God, who wrote the Bible,

must also be a liar. Is that possible?
Read DCOT, pp. 116-118 and then go
to Ro 3:4 and find out who really is a liar.

"Let God be true, but every man a liar."

In some 800 places the New Versions have changed references to God (Father and Son) from the masculine gender to the neuter gender.

Whenever "One" or "one" is used in the New Versions to take the place of "He ... Him ... Son ... etc." the translators are not even being true to their own corrupted Greek texts. Even in those perverted texts that they used to translate the NASB, NEB, TEV, NIV, et al, the underlying word(s) that they translate as "One ... one" is always in the masculine and never in the neuter. In many places the purveyors of the new “Bibles” translated correctly; but, when it comes to God (Father and Son) they choose to translate in the neuter. What gives? If you’re going to use a particular Greek text, then USE IT! Don’t change words arbitrarily whenever it suits you.

The only references to God by people of this era (and past eras) as "the One," are by those who have been influenced by the New Age Movement, or Hinduism and other false "Eastern" Religions, Luciferianism (Satanists), Gnostics, Islam, and Platonic philosophy, and other false religions, philosophies, and heretical Christian movements. The only other people that use that term are either Feminists or followers of the Unisex movement who would rather refer to God as “the One” or as “Father/Mother.” The KJV has protected God’s Word, and us, from heresy and heathen religion.

For well over three centuries the KJV has retained the correct translation of the Greek by referring to God in the masculine, EXACTLY as it was given in all of the underlying texts, Majority and Minority. Now, with the advancement of the inferior translations, the old Gnostic neuter gender heresy has found a receptive ear from a world that is becoming increasingly infiltrated with all manner of heretical conceptions of God. (A complete discussion of “the One,” and other changes, are on pp. 126-164 in DCOT.)

These omissions and the others discussed in DCOT effect the following attributes of God:
1. Holiness and Righteousness
2. Truth
3. Sovereignty
Omnipotence & Providence
4. Personality

Also effected, for us as well as God, are:
1. Heaven
2. Our Subservience to God
3. Deliverance
4. Atonement & Adoption
5. His, and our, Kingdom and glory

The doctrine of God has been effectively destroyed by the removal of foundational words and segments; and their relevant scriptures have been nullified. This is equivalent to removing the foundational “bricks” from the wall of the doctrine of God. So many have been removed that the doctrine can no longer stand.....

NOTE: This will be a question on the test.

It is obvious from what we have seen so far, that the doctrine of God is totally destroyed by the Alexandrian texts and the New Versions translated from them.

No other doctrine of the Bible has a more direct bearing on mankind than the doctrine of Christ. Man's eternal destiny - Heaven’s bliss or Hell's torments - is inextricably bound up with this doctrine. If even one facet is wrong then we are doomed.

If it is twisted one iota away from the Scriptures and truth then the agony of the doctrine's destruction and fall will only be transcended by the eternity of the unending agony of our everlastingly damned souls. And the sound of its fall will be drowned by our agonized screams of torment echoing down through the unending ages of eternity.

The deity of Jesus Christ has been denied down through the centuries both from within Christianity (so-called) and from without.

Jews took up stones again to ________ him...”
Islam denies it vehemently in the Koran.

begotten a son... Verily they speak no other than a lie."
Atheism In one of its more idiotic and blasphemous moments:

From within:
There were those in the past who claimed to have been Christian and yet they denied the deity of Christ; such heretics as Servitus and Socinus.

Socinus (1539-1604) - "In his book 'Christ the Saviour,' Socinus repudiated the so-called orthodoxy of Nicea: the term 'Son of God' was not a statement about Jesus' divine nature but simply meant that he was specially loved by God... As for the doctrine of the Trinity, that was simply a 'monstrosity,' an imaginary fiction that was 'repugnant to reason' and actually encouraged the faithful to believe in three separate gods [rather than a true] Unitarian religion.

Many New Versions alter or abbreviate the titles for Christ following the lead of Clement, and Origen, and the Alexandrian text first corrupted and spread by them. Westcott, one of the fathers of the modern corrupted Greek New Testaments, stated, "Christ was and is perfect man... He never spoke directly of himself as God.... He does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ."

Today, the same heresy is still being propagated.
Edwin Palmer (NIV editor): "[There are] few clear and decisive texts that declare Jesus is God.”

Kenneth Copeland, (famous TV Preacher)- "He never made the assertion that He was the most High God... He didn't claim to be God when He lived on earth... Search the gospels for yourself. If you do, you will find what I say is true."

KJV "Hereby perceive we the love of _____ because ____ LAID DOWN HIS LIFE FOR US..." (caps added)

In this verse it plainly states that "God" laid down His life for us. Since we know that it was Christ that was crucified, it is obvious that He did so as Christ. Thus this scripture plainly ascribes deity to Christ.

In this New Version passage "God" is left out as the one who laid down His life for us. This leads one to the unchallenged conclusion that it was Christ that died for us, with which we all agree; but, it denies the fact that God died in the person of Christ. Thus this verse is now eliminated as a supporting scripture for the deity of Christ; and it is a major scripture used to support that doctrine- now it is useless.

In this version the substitution of the words "Jesus Christ" for the word "God" eliminates the possibility that this verse is even remotely suggesting that God laid down His life for us in the person of Christ. This can be nothing else but a PURPOSEFUL subversion of the true meaning of this verse.

NEB "It is by this that we know what love is: that Christ laid down his life for us."

RSV, LIVING, GOODSPEED, (and of course) the NWT (Jehovah's Witness "Bible") remove all reference to Christ's deity from this verse.

At the very least, in the NASB, the RSV, and others, the issue of Christ’s deity is clouded. In the NIV, the NEB, and others, however, a purposeful twist is added that makes the scripture say something that is not even in the Greek scriptures; and I mean in all of the Greek scriptures, corrupted ones and uncorrupted ones alike! In them the name "Christ, Gk CristoV," is not there, so why did they add it? You figure it out.

This verse teaches us that Christ is the God who will one day stand in judgment and to whom we will have to give an account.

This translation of the verse removes the oneness of Christ and God at the judgment.

NIV, NEB, LIVING, GOODSPEED, NAB, NWT (no surprise), et al - All of these deny Christ's deity by eliminating "Christ" from the reference as the NASB did.

The entire line of corrupted translations would rather follow the Minority (Alexandrian) Text than the overwhelming Majority text. In the Minority text, the word, CristoV, (Christ) in v:10, has been replaced, purposefully, with qeou (God). This corruption has totally eliminated the use of this verse as a proof-text for the deity of Christ.

Express Claims of the deity of Jesus Christ.
Two times in the Bible, express claims are made of the deity of Christ.

In John 5:18 the Jews accused him of making himself equal with God. This, however, could (by the scoffers) be explained away by ascribing the whole thing to a uniquely Jewish outlook on father/son relationships. To circumvent this very type of possible misunderstanding God gave us a corroborating and supporting reference, Philippians 2:6. This second reference shows us that the other reference, in John 5:18, is not a Jewish peculiarism but should be taken at face value.

Phil 2:6

KJV "Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be _______ with God."

NASB, RSV, NIV "... did not regard [count, consider] equality with God a thing [something] to be grasped."

The words in brackets are simply the dictionary definitions of the words preceding them.

Comparison-

KJV It is obvious that the meaning of this scripture, as found in the KJV, is that Christ is equal with God and that such a connection doesn't detract from God in any way. Also it teaches that being equal was not something that He (Jesus) had gained by any form of inappropriate assumption or stealing ("not robbery") but it was something that was rightfully His.

NASB, RSV, NIV, et al. The meaning of the verse in the New Translations, however, can not by any contortionistic stretch of your imagination be construed to mean anything positive regarding the question of the deity of Jesus Christ. In fact, whereas the translation from the Majority Text, as in the KJV, reinforces the doctrine, the New Version translations from the corrupt texts are directly and purposefully ANTAGONISTIC to the doctrine.

The New Version translations tell us that Christ regarded equality something that He thought was out of His reach. THIS IS EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF THE REAL MEANING OF THE VERSE! Now the anti-deists can point to this verse and say, "See! Even Christ wouldn't consider trying to be equal with God!"

The New Version translation of this verse not only destroys the use of it as a supporting verse for the deity of Christ, but has actually turned it into a statement, by Christ Himself, that He even thought that He couldn’t even consider being equal with God.

He received worship that was due only to God.
Bancroft- "Christian Theology ... The Deity of Christ ... He receives honor and worship due only to God."

This verse in the King James plainly shows that worship was given to Christ. Bear in mind that the Bible tells us that such worship is reserved ONLY for God. (Mt 4:10; Lk 4:8; Rev 19:10)
NASB, RSV, NEB "[OMITTED] And they returned to Jerusalem."

In these corrupted versions the reference to worship being given to Christ is completely omitted.

Marginal notes- The NASB gives this note in the margin, "Some mss insert worshipped him." The RSV and the NEB give footnotes that also read "some," or "other manuscripts read."

The reading followed in the New Versions is found in only one 5^th - 6^th century manuscript. Whereas the reading followed by the KJV is found in at least 33 manuscripts. To say that “some” manuscripts read “worshipped” is ridiculous when in actuality 97% of the manuscripts read, “worshipped him.” Obviously this is an attempt by the translators to prove their own heresy by changing the Bible to agree with them. What they ought to do is change their “theology,” to match the true theology of the Bible.

In the other references to Christ being worshiped, the New Versions try to redirect our thoughts from the spiritual act of worshiping to the physical act of bowing.

RSV, NIV, WILLIAMS, et al, "... knelt ... kneeling ... bowed ... prostrated ... fell on his knees"

This same trend is followed in all of the following references in Matthew and Mark: MT 9:18; 8:2; 15:25; 20:20; Mk 5:6.

In all of these, as translated in the KJV, worship is given to Christ. This worship, unrebuked by Christ, shows His deity. In the New Versions however, the move has been deliberately made to replace the spiritual act of worship with the merely physical acts of bowing, kneeling, or falling prostrate.

As Riplinger puts it, "... NASB substitutes 'bow,' a position of the body,
for 'worship' an attitude of the spirit.^{(23 t)}

The corroboration for the fact that worship is a spiritual act can be found in, John 4:24 "... they that worship him must worship him in _______ and in truth."

In Bancroft’s “Christian Theology,” we find that "The center and heart of the atonement of Christ is declared to be ... (1) His death ... (2) His cross ... (3) His blood..."

Evans, in "Great Doctrines of the Bible," agrees. In the section concerning "Reconciliation" he also lists those same three: "... death ... cross ... blood ..."

Foundational Scriptures- In the textbooks we find some common foundational scriptures concerning the blood atonement:

Mt 26:26; Mk 14:24; Lk 22:20; Eph 1:7; 2:13; Col 1:14; Heb 9:12 & 15; I Jn 1:7; Rev 1:5; 5:9.

Upon an examination of these scriptures I discovered that the New Versions make significant changes in 3 out of the 11 foundational scriptures. In fact they are now useless as scriptures relating to the Blood Atonement at all.

Luke 22:20

KJV - "... This cup is the new testament in my _______, which is ______ for you."

NASB, NIV, RSV, inclusive - "... this cup which is poured out for you ... new covenant in my blood." (Wording may vary but all are essentially the same.) ["which is shed for you" is OMITTED in all New Versions]

In the New Versions the cup is poured out for us but the blood is not; i.e., His blood is not "shed" for us. Therefore this foundational brick is removed from the doctrinal wall.

Obviously the blood is out in these verses in all of the New Versions. They say that the differences between the KJV and the New Versions are extremely minor ones; and yet, here we have three verses changed out of only eleven verses that make up the “heart and soul,” of the Atonement. These verses are not only changed, they are completely shot down as verses supporting the Blood Atonement. Shooting three holes in the heart of anything will kill it for sure. And just as surely, this living doctrine of the Blood Atonement is dead with three big holes shot right through the heart of it.

The New Versions are here refusing to recognize Jesus as the "Son" of God. Instead they refer to Him as the "Holy One.” (DCOT pp. 182+ will explain the problem.)

This again removes Jesus from His place as the "Son of God." For those who deny the exclusiveness of Jesus' sonship, this verse is tailor made in that it reduces Him to the level of any old servant. Many, including some New Version translators, are constantly hard at work trying to lower Christ from His exalted position. Here, once again, they remain true to form.

This New Version translation is an inexcusable revival of Gnostic heresy inherited from the first few centuries of the existence of Christ's church. This rejected and deservedly dead heresy that has lain dormant for 1500 years has once again been resurrected by the translators.

wp}000056.gif

NOTE: Homework. (DCOT p. 185)

Find the names of the two Alexandrian Texts from which the New Versions have resurrected the Gnostic reading of Jn 1:18.

1. Aleph
2. B

It is interesting to note that the Protestant Churches are beginning to reconcile with Rome. This particular perversion of Jn 1:18 will make that reconciliation much easier. The Catholic Church calls Mary the “Mother of God,” rather than the “mother of Jesus” the man, as the Bible truly portrays her. In essence, their portrayal of her makes her a “goddess.” By using the corrupt translations that call Jesus a “begotten God,” the translators are handing a proof text, from their own Protestant Bibles, to the Catholics to use as corroboration for their Mariolatrous heresy.

All of the attributes of God are ascribed to Christ in the KJV. In the New Versions, however, many of those attributes are specifically negated. Without every one of those attributes, Christ could not be God!

First we must understand that in order to be our Saviour, Jesus must be the lamb “without blemish... without spot,” (OT). In other words, He must be totally sinless or He cannot be our Saviour.

NOTE: Homework and Test Questions.

Find at least three scriptures that tell that Jesus never sinned.
(DCOT p. 259)

1. II Corinthians 5:21

2. Hebrews 4:15

3. I Peter 2:22

Therefore, as the sinless Lamb of God, He could pay for our sins with His life since He did not have any of His own to pay for. However, if He had ever committed one sin, then we are all doomed to Hell because He was not, and could never have been, the Saviour.

In this translation it is quite clear that Jesus was simply stating (7:8) that He was not YET going to go up to the feast. There was not even the slightest HINT of deception. He simply sent them on ahead, waited a time, and then later (7:10) went up privately and separately.

Now the New Version.

In these New Version translations the NASB and the RSV make a blatant LIAR out of the Lord Jesus Christ! In them they have Him plainly deceiving the others by lying to them and telling them that He IS NOT going to go to the feast; and then, after they leave He does the exact opposite of what He said and goes up to the feast.

If these translations of the scriptures are correct, then Jesus truly was a liar, and it is impossible for Him to be the spotless Lamb of God, the final Sacrifice. If that is true then that means that we all are still in a lost condition and going to hell, with NO HOPE of salvation. Unless! God has sent or one day will send another Saviour. But according to God's Word that could never happen.

	NOTE: Homework and Test Question. Find the scripture reference that makes it impossible for there to be another Saviour. (DCOT p. 260)
	Hebrews 10:12

NOTE: This will be a question on the test.

It is obvious that in the New Versions these two verses, John 7:8 & 10, make Jesus out to be a liar and that alone destroys the possibility of Him being God’s perfect lamb, our Saviour.

The KJV, on the other hand, preserves for us the correct reading. Be forewarned that not quite all New Versions use the errant reading. In addition, some that used to have it have changed the reading to the correct one in recent editions. The attempt to foist this heresy off on the public did not quite work; but you can bet that the devil will have it back in future editions when the public is a little more gullible. This has been their normal tack in the past.

My question is, why did they have it in there in the first place and then change it? Which time were they right, the first time or the second? How could anyone trust them ever again, seeing they already have made such a crucial, glaring, and devastating mistake as to make our Lord and Saviour out to be a blatant liar?

NOTE: This will be a question on the test.

It is obvious that the doctrine of Christ is totally destroyed in the new translations.

There are many more ways that the New Versions change the doctrine of Christ. These are found in Part Two, chapter 2, of your textbook. Read it!

At this time, please take
TEST FIVE
If test fails to load, press F5 or click the refresh button on the webpage.

Be sure to submit a copy of the Results page
in order to have your score registered
to your file.

received a passing score, then restudy the
relevant section and find all of the
correct answers before continuing
on to the next lesson.

Probably the single most important doctrine to mankind is Salvation; i.e., being reconciled to God. All other doctrines are secondary and essentially unknowable until we are saved.

Therefore, we will investigate the chaos created in the New Versions as concerning Salvation.

Except among a few radical splinter groups and the cultic Roman Catholic Church, the orthodox doctrinal view has always been that Baptism does not save.

Now let's see what the New Versions teach; and compare that to the KJV and the scriptural view.

Hebrews 9:14 tells us that our conscience was "purged" by the "blood of Christ." Therefore, in Christ, we already have a good conscience toward God. When the New Versions change "answer of" to an "appeal ... for" they are adding Baptism to the blood for a good conscience and thus making it part of some saving PROCESS.

KJV - "... Philip ... preached unto him Jesus ... the eunuch said ... what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, ___ thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest. And he answered and said, __ __________ that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. ... and they went down both into the water ... and he baptized him. ... and he [the eunich] went on his way rejoicing."

It is obvious that belief in Christ (salvation) preceded his baptism and that the eunuch then went away rejoicing in his salvation, not merely his baptism.

NASB - "... Philip preached Jesus to him. ... the eunich said. ... What prevents me from being baptized? [then verse :37 is entirely omitted] and they both went down into the water ... and he baptized him. ... the eunich ... went on his way rejoicing."

RSV, NEB, et al - [Say essentially the same thing and OMIT verse :37, and relegate it to the margin as unreliable.]

This is absolute heresy! In the true Scriptures: the eunuch asked a question, Philip answered him, the eunuch got saved, he was then baptized and went on his way rejoicing in his salvation. But! In the New Versions: the eunuch asked a question, Philip did not answer him, the eunuch DID NOT get saved, Philip baptized him anyway, and then the eunuch went on his way rejoicing in what had happened to him (he had gotten baptized).

If the eunuch was baptized but lost, then I wonder how many of those who are baptized members of those churches that use the New Versions, and their twisted account of this story, are also baptized but just as lost as the eunuch in the New Versions' twisting of his story?

Some groups also try to include "the Church" as an essential part of Salvation. According to the Bible, that is impossible since (KJV) only Christ saves.

it is the ______ of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8 & 9)

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the _______ shall be saved." (Romans 10:13)

As is easily seen from these scriptures, contrary to the teachings of several mainline, supposedly Christian, denominations, there is nothing in the scriptural teachings on Salvation that mention anything about either Baptism or the Church being able to save anyone. This fact is plainly taught in the KJV; but, in the New Versions that fact is either impenetrably clouded or eliminated altogether.

Probably the most predominant sin of our day is sexual sin, i.e., sexual relations outside of the bounds of marriage. Contrary to what many heathens as well as carnal Christians think, the original and unchanged bounds set by God on the sexual act is still ONLY within the bounds of marriage.

Fornication: "Voluntary sexual intercourse on the part of an unmarried person ..."

Read pages 209+ in DCOT and it will become obvious that the world's view of morality is simply behavior that is acceptable in the society in which one lives. Without the guiding and shaping influence of an absolute authority, man's morality, as shaped by the collective of society, can very easily be swayed, changed, or even reversed by the prevailing behavior of his fellow citizens. From history alone it is easy to see that man's natural tendency is one of degeneration.

What do the various "Bibles" used by many churches to teach morality to their member's children have to say about the sin of Fornication?

wickedness, covetousness, ..."
NASB - "... being filled with all unrighteousness, [fornication is

OMITTED] wickedness, ..."
NIV - "They have become filled with every kind of wickedness,

[fornication OMITTED] evil, greed, ..."
RSV, NEV, NAB, et al - "... [fornication is OMITTED] ..."

In the KJV it is plain that fornication is one of the sins on God's list; but, in the New Versions nothing at all is mentioned in this passage naming fornication as sin.

I Corinthians 5:9, 10, 11
KJV - "... fornicators ..."
NASB, NIV, RSV, et al - ".. immoral [or] sexually immoral [or]

The KJV lists the unmistakable sin of "fornication" in many places in this chapter while the NASB, NIV, RSV, etc. list some ambiguous sin of "immorality." This, as we have already seen, is (according to society) only the transgression of whatever the prevailing morals of the day might be. Even when they add the word "sexual" to the phrase that is still a term that is relative to whatever the prevailing sexual morals of the day might be.
The NEB makes the sin even more ambiguous and ephemeral. It merely censures something called "loose living." Now what in the world is that supposed to be defined as?

I Corinthians 6:13
KJV - "... Now the body is not for ____________, but for the Lord ..."
NASB, NIV, RSV, et al - "... not for immorality [or] sexual immorality ..."

The KJV plainly states that the body is not made for fornication, i.e., sex outside of a marriage union. The others merely refer to some type of sexual activity or immorality contrary to society’s standards. That would mean that in today's society and its "standards" nothing much would be prohibited.

I Corinthians 6:18
KJV - "Flee _____________. Every sin that a man doeth ..."
NASB, NIV, RSV, et al -"... immorality [or] sexual immorality..."

The KJV is warning that we should flee from sex outside of marriage. This would, of course, be directly applicable as a warning to the unmarried to flee from sex before marriage. On the other hand, the New Versions merely warn that one should flee from any sexual activity that would offend society.

II Corinthians 12:21
KJV - "... have not repented of the uncleanness and _____________ and lasciviousness ..."
NASB, NIV, RSV, et al - "... immorality [or] sexual sin ..."

Again God's true Word, the KJV, is warning us that fornication is wrong, it's categorized with "uncleanness." Meanwhile, the New Versions merely warn us about immorality or sexual sin. Once again it is left up to the reader and society to decide what is immoral or sexually sinful.

let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints."
NASB, NIV, et al, - "Do not let immorality ..."

Once more, the specific sin of "fornication" is out, and the ephemeral sin of, "immorality," is in.

earth; _____________, uncleanness, ..."
NASB, et al - "Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality ..."

In the KJV we once again have a clear warning, from God, to OBEY Him in the area of extra-marital sex. We Christians are to let those sins, specifically FORNICATION, not some ephemeral society defined "immorality," have as much sway over us as they would if we were dead!

In the New Versions however, we Christians again have a warning to not transgress the prevailing morals of the day.

In case someone tells you that the chaos created concerning this portion of the doctrine is minimal, There is a list in your textbook of every place where they have changed the plain old sin of "fornication" to some sort of ephemeral "immorality."

NOTE: Homework.

Find the list of changes in your textbook and tell me what page it is on.

Also: how many times the KJV changes the word to “immorality.”

Page # 218

Changes in the KJV, none

First, let's find out who's brainstorm a typical one of the New Versions is. Specifically the NIV, one of the most widely used New Versions.

"[Edwin Palmer,] coordinator of all work on the NIV ... [who] selected all of the personnel of the initial translation committee. ... [stated that] the great error that is so prevalent [is] ... that regeneration depends upon faith ... and that in order to be born again man must first accept Jesus Christ as his Saviour."

Did you get that? The orthodox view (which happens to be the scriptural view) of Salvation is considered by Palmer to be, "great error."

Now let's see what Palmer's brainchild, the NIV, does to the doctrine of Salvation.
Luke 21:19

This is absolute HERESY! It is obvious that Palmer has had his way and removed God's ABSOLUTE and ONLY plan of Salvation through Jesus Christ and replaced it with a humanistic plan of Salvation through Self.

Other New Versions - Is Palmer’s type of salvational heresy restricted only to his own ungodly offspring, the NIV, or is it a common corruption in the other versions also? Again, let's see.
Luke 21:19

It is quite obvious from these quotes and the previous one from Palmer's NIV, that in the New Versions' scheme of things the way to be saved is by: PERSEVERANCE, ENDURANCE, STANDING FIRM, or by SAVING YOURSELF!

Salvation - Process or Instantaneous- The KJV teaches throughout that when we are saved it is always an accomplished, final, unchangeable fact. There is absolutely NO BASIS anywhere in the Bible for a belief that you can be half-saved, on your way to salvation, or any hint that you're anything other than SAVED - or LOST. There is no other scriptural teaching on the doctrine of Salvation as concerning when or how it takes place. It is presented as an accomplished fact, for the saved in Christ, or an unaccomplished fact for the lost; and there IS NO IN-BETWEEN!

Now let's see what the New Versions do to this one.
I Corinthians 1:18 (Caps will be added for emphasis.)

NEW VERSIONS: "are being [or] on the way,"- a continuing process.

II Corinthians 2:15 (Caps will be added for emphasis.)

The Final Blow- This next scripture will roll the lid on the coffin of their doctrine of dead works for Salvation.

I Peter 2:2 (Again, caps will be added for emphasis.)

Again, in the KJV, salvation is an accomplished fact. In the New Versions however, it is also again presented as a continuing process.

As I said, WHAT gospel are we talking about? Who does it present? Buddha, Ishtar, Baal, Christ, Allah, or some other Saviour? The New Versions may present a gospel of some type, but we have no way of knowing if it is or is not the right gospel, the gospel of Christ.

From this verse it is easy to see that the New Versions have carried through with their idea of a gospel that is not necessarily "the gospel." The non-exclusive gospel of their translations leaves the door wide open for the possibility of other gospels. This idea of a non-exclusive gospel is in total contradiction to the true Biblical concept of the gospel which is, and always shall be, an exclusive gospel; and yet it is an all embracing one to those that believe. (Romans 1:26) It is "the gospel of Christ" as presented in "the" preserved Word of God, the King James Bible. It is the ONLY Bible that does not remove words in order to make it feasible and even easy to embrace other religions and false Christian sects and their false gospels and saviours that shine forth with all of the lying glitter of fool's gold.

As gentiles we ought to thank God that He has, as He stated in this verse in the KJV, "opened _____ door of faith" unto us, else we would still be lost, "strangers from the covenants of promise, having ___ hope, and without God in the world." (Eph 2:12)

The New Versions, however, have God opening "a" door unto us. But, as in the previous section dealing with "a" gospel, we are again left asking the same question, "Which one?" Which "door" is being opened? Is there more than one door? According to their translations, asking this question becomes not only prudent, but necessary. They leave us with, at the least, a good possibility that there are other doors. And with the inflooding of false religions and heretical sects of Christianity, we are told that it is a very good possibility (according to them) that there ARE other doors of faith, and so we HAVE to ask the translators, "WHAT DOOR?"

The scriptural doctrine of hell is completely removed from nearly all of the New Versions. The removal is because of preconceived theological notions on the part of the translators which agrees with the modern trend of thought among supposed Christians, Pastors, and teachers.

Translators and Unbelievers- In this matter of hell the New Translations and translators follow the trend of today’s religious unbelievers.

According to NIV editor Larry Walker,

"The committee did not feel absolutely bound to the Hebrew text... The other Canaanite deity, mot (death) ... is personified ..."

Two words in the New Versions, one word from the OT and one from the NT, are transliterated into English instead of being translated, as they are in the KJV, as the word, "Hell."

The word “hell,” is totally removed from the New Versions. Therefore, it is obvious that the doctrine of Hell has also been totally negated in them. This means that men no longer have to fear God’s judgment and eternal punishment, since, in the New Versions, there is no longer a place where God’s judgment of punishment for sins can be carried out. To put it another way, Hell is out, judgment is out, punishment is out, and the unsaved have a way out. If there is no hell, then you don’t need Jesus because there is nothing for Him to save you from.

In the KJV it is obvious that there is a real hell and you need a real Saviour to keep you from going there.

To escape God's wrath, must we "believe" in/on Jesus Christ; or, as the New Versions say, must we simply "obey" Him?

It is obvious here that for these New Version translators, simple, biblical, "belief," is not enough; but obedience is. That is a doctrine of works no matter how you slice it!

Eternal "sin" and eternal "damnation" are not even CLOSE to meaning the same thing. The first (sin) is an act committed by a created being; specifically, man. The second (damnation) is the resultant punishment enacted because of the judgment of God on those who commit such an act. That's kind of like mixing up the condemnation to the electric chair (the resultant execution of judgment) with the original physical act (the murder) committed by the criminal that earned him the death penalty in the first place. The second is the carrying out of judgment BECAUSE of the first, not the same thing AS the first. You can not interchange an effect with its cause!

There are other references to judgment and damnation, both individual and societal, in your text, DCOT. READ IT!

NOTE: Homework. (DCOT p. 250)

Give me at least 6 references that show that God is Saviour.

1. Jude :25

2. Is 43:3

3. Is 43:15

4. Is 45:21

5. Is 43:11

6. Is 45:22

Give me at least 2 of those that show God is the ONLY Saviour.

1. Is 43:11

2. Is 45:21 or :22

Test Question.

Give me 2 that show that God is both Saviour and Redeemer.

1. Is 49:26

2. Is 60:16

According to what we studied earlier, the New Versions make Jesus out to be a liar and that alone would negate the possibility of His deity. (No attribute of “Truth,” no deity.) However, we studied many other ways that the New Versions negate His deity. If we add that fact to the scriptural doctrine that God is the ONLY Saviour, then that forces us to draw but one conclusion. That conclusion is as follows:

As concerning the doctrine of Salvation it is obvious that the New Versions have destroyed the possibility of Jesus Christ being our Saviour. They have effectively destroyed the doctrines of the inspired infallibility of the Scriptures, God, Christ, Baptism, the Church, the Deity of Christ, Salvation, and the true doctrine of man.

THERE ARE STILL A FEW PLACES WHERE THE DESTRUCTION IS NOT QUITE COMPLETE. MOST OF THE DOCTRINAL WALLS ARE DOWN BUT A FEW SMALL STRETCHES REMAIN RELATIVELY INTACT. WILL THE NEW VERSIONS LEAVE THEM STANDING?

At this time, please take
TEST SIX
If test fails to load, press F5 or click the refresh button on the webpage.

Be sure to submit a copy of the Results page
in order to have your score registered
to your file.

received a passing score, then restudy the
relevant section and find all of the
correct answers before continuing
on to the next lesson.

Of the proliferation of errors, half-truths, misleading translations, and outright lies perpetrated on the unsuspecting Bible reader, probably the subtlest attack of all is in the area of the very idea of doctrine itself.

In the New Versions there is a consistent avoidance of the very word "doctrine" in any POSITIVE sense. Instead, there is a comprehensive replacement of the word, when used in any kind of such positive context, with "teachings." When however the context is a negative one, the word doctrine is left in the text.

Doctrine(s), teaching; a lesson; also, that which is taught, teachings collectively; a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject; a system of beliefs advocated; a particular principle taught or advocated; a tenet or dogma.

Teaching(s), ... that which is taught; instruction; a doctrine or precept.

Dogma, A settled opinion; a belief; a principle; esp. a tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church; also, a system of principles or tenets, as of a church, prescribed doctrine.

2. Doctrines, in general, are a body of beliefs, teachings, or statements given as authoritative precepts, and/or those authoritative precepts individually.

3. Doctrines of God, as stated in His Bible, must therefore be the authoritative statements, tenets, principles or dogma of God. These were spoken and/or written by His scribes, His Prophets, His Apostles, and His Son, and recorded and preserved in His Holy Word.

Concerning #3, “Doctrines of God,” as being “the authoritative statements, tenets, principles or dogma of God,” there are 4 entities through which God has given His authoritative doctrines. Those are found on pp. 262-264 of your textbook. (DCOT)

NOTE: Homework & Test Question.

What are the four ways (entities) that God used to give
His authoritative “doctrines” to mankind. (DCOT pp. 267+)

1. Through His prophets .

2. Through His Apostles .

3. Through His Word .

4. Through His Son .

The KJV uses the word “doctrine” whenever authoritative teachings or body of beliefs is meant. The New Versions, however, are very selective in their use of the word.

Doctrines of men- Whenever the word doctrines is used in the context of the "false doctrines" of men and religion, the usage of "doctrine" is left unscathed by the new Versions. This automatically misleads the reader into thinking that the very idea of doctrine carries with it the inherent connotation of falsehood or evil.

To see if their negativization of the concept of doctrines is uniform rather than just localized here in Matthew, let's go to the same account as recorded in the gospel of Mark.

Does that mean that "regulations and precepts" are also bad since here they are connected with the "negative" word doctrine?

Now we have the word doctrine inextricably wound up with the words "trickery... craftiness... deceit... and scheming."

NASB - "... in order that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines."

The inconsistency of their application of their own methods of translation is very apparent in this third chapter of I Timothy.

In verse :3 the NASB translates the words "mh eterodidaskalein" (mh- not; eteros- other; didaskalia- doctrine) as, "not to teach other [or] different doctrine." In accordance with their negativization of the word, here it is used to denote what is foreign to Christianity. Thus they again give the word doctrine a negative connotation by equating it with false beliefs as contrasted to the true tenets of Christianity.

In verse :10 however, they translate the very same underlying Greek word "didaskalia" as "teaching." According to their pattern it is necessary to do so because in this verse the context is positive; i.e., "sound." Therefore, they use what they want us to perceive of as a positive word, "teaching."

By following this through these scriptures, their subterfuge and inconsistency is easily found out. When speaking of what is rightly translated as "doctrine" in the KJV, they immediately take up their charade and translate exactly the same underlying Greek word in two different ways in order to promote certain of their own preconceived ideas. This purposeful twisting and word manipulation is for the express purpose of giving the reader a conscious or subconscious bias. That bias being that "teaching" is both truth and positive, and "doctrine" is both negative and false. This charade is nigh unto succeeding. Because of the various false doctrines promoted by the Roman Church over the centuries the word has been given a bum wrap as it is. Now with the New Version's promotion of teachings as positive and doctrine as negative they promulgate this common feeling (wrong though it may be) that there can not be such a thing as TRUE, RIGHT, SOUND, or GOOD, authoritative "doctrine." Since it has been removed from God's Word as a positive word then even authoritative doctrine from God is no longer a force for good in our lives.

RSV - "... that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine ..."

Here, even the RSV joins the charade of the NASB crowd and promote the idea that doctrine can only be bad or "different" from proper and accepted "teachings."

NOTE: This will be a test question.

The Bible definitely teaches that “Doctrine,” is a good thing. The New Versions obviously disagree, both with God and with the King James Version, as to whether there can be such a thing as “good doctrine.”

The KJV says, “YES,” and they say, “NO.”

NOTE: Homework and Test Question.

What verse tells us that the time would come (like it has right now) when people would not want sound doctrine but would rather have ear-tickling teachers?

II Tim 4:3

Why do the translators of the New Versions try so hard to get rid of "doctrine" and train us to accept "teachings" in its place? The answer is simple. We are being manipulated in a larger overall plan of which some of the translators either are not aware of, or do not believe in. On the other hand some do know, do believe, but just do not care.

As God tells us in II Timothy 4:3 & 4, the next step on the road of the great apostasy, (II Thessalonians 2:3 - "apostasia" ah-pos-ta-see-ah, from "afisthmi" ah-fist-ay-me, a defection, apostasy) which is already under way today, is a turning away from the revealed, sound, authoritative doctrines of God's Word and a turning toward feel-good "ear-tickling" preaching and teaching. Today's manifestations of those who are tools of this apostasy are as varied as breeds of cats and dogs. Some are fat-cats preaching a prosperity gospel and some are pneumatists preaching a stroke-the-cat, feel-good, religion. Others, however, are simply dogs chewing and rending the Bible from their pulpits as if it were some kind of prey to be killed and devoured or maybe as just an old chew bone that isn't any good for anything else except something to gnaw on.

On the top of today's hit parade have to be the purveyors of drivel that tell their listeners "You're OK, I'm OK- your religion is your way to God and mine is my way to God- the heathen, the heretic, and the Hindu have all found their own way to God and one way is as good as another." This is nothing more than "spiritual feel-goodism." According to them: no one is lost, there is no Hell, and heaven is just a state of mind. This festering combination of Hinduism, New Age, and apostasy has to be the seeds of that final bastard religion that God says is yet to come. It will claim to be His, but it will not be Christian nor Messianic Jewish, at all. Rather than God's offspring as it claims, it will, in reality, be the spawn of Satan himself.

In order to prepare us for this One World Religion, Satan has to replace our Bibles with watered-down counterfeits. Any, like the KJV in English, that teach us the authoritative doctrines of God must be replaced with new ones that give us "teachings" instead. Along with that, there has to be a shift, which we have seen has already begun with the New Versions, away from the concept of Jesus as the only begotten Son of God, and who is the ONLY Saviour, as well as a commonizing of His work and words, and finally, the most devious of all, giving Him a place of honor in the illustrious ranks of the "Masters" and stripping Him of His rightful and exclusive deity.

NOTE: Homework.

The New Versions strip Jesus Christ of His rightful place as a proclaimer of authoritative “doctrine,” and turn Him instead into just another teacher.

List at least 6 of the 8 scriptures where they do so. (DCOT, p. 283)

1. Mt 7:28-29

2. Mt 22:33

3. Mk 1:22

4. Mk 1:27

5. Mk 4:2

6. Mk 11:18

7. Mk 12:38

8. Lk 4:32

What they may not realize is that whether they believe in the deity of Christ or not, when they strip His doctrines of authority by changing them into mere teachings they are actually stripping not just Christ's but God's doctrines of their authority.

NOTE: Homework and Test Question.

Find the scriptures that prove that Christ’s doctrine is God’s doctrine. (DCOT p. 284)

Jn 7:16-17

The verses given in DCOT are all of the verses in the Bible that talk about Jesus' “doctrine.” In the New Versions, every single verse is changed to make it present us with his "teaching(s)" rather than His "doctrine(s)" This places Him on the same level as ANY OTHER TEACHER! This is the first step on the New Age trail of commonizing the words and work of Jesus Christ.

[Note: By "commonizing," I mean the lowering of His word and work to make them attainable; i.e., something within the reach and abilities of any common man.]

This all pervasive twisting of God's Word has but one purpose: That is to change Jesus into a mere "teacher" of knowledge rather than the authoritative proclaimer of the "doctrines" of the Word of God!

OUT OF THE 50 PLACES WHERE THE AUTHORITATIVE WORD "DOCTRINE" IS USED IN A POSITIVE WAY, THE NEW VERSIONS REPLACE IT WITH THE GENERIC WORD "TEACHINGS." LOOK! QUICK! SEE AS ANOTHER SECTION OF THE WALL SAGS AS EVERY FRAGMENT OF DOCTRINAL MORTAR ROTS AND CRUMBLES AT ONE TOUCH AND THE ONCE COHESIVE STRENGTH OF AUTHORITATIVE DOCTRINE NO LONGER BINDS THE VARIOUS BRICKS TOGETHER.

BY NOW EVEN THE MOST PESSIMISTIC OF OPPONENTS CAN SURELY SEE THAT THE DAMAGE IS NOT MINOR BUT ONE OF MASSIVE, IRREPARABLE CHAOS.

GOD IS GONE, CHRIST IS GONE, SALVATION IS GONE, AND THE SAVIOUR, ONCE THE "ONLY-BEGOTTEN" SON OF THE FATHER, WHO IS THE PROCLAIMER OF AUTHORITATIVE "DOCTRINE" HAS BEEN REPLACED WITH A MERE "TEACHER," WHO IS ONLY "A" SON OF GOD INSTEAD OF "THE" SON OF GOD.

THE WALLS CRACK AND CRUMBLE, DISINTEGRATING FROM THE BOTTOM UP AND THE GLITTERING SPIRES OF GOD'S WORD FRAGMENT AND SHATTER INTO SLIVERS AS THEY FALL ONE UPON ANOTHER. WATCH AS IT ALL COMES CRASHING LOUDLY TO THE GROUND.

THE ONCE TOWERING CITADEL OF GOD'S WORD NOW LIES IN A DUST WREATHED, TUMBLED AND USELESS HEAP. EVERY SCRAP OF DOCTRINAL MORTAR IS REMOVED AND NOT ONE SINGLE BRICK LIES UPON ANOTHER. THE DEVASTATION IS COMPLETE, RIGHT DOWN TO THE FRAGMENTATION OF THE FOUNDATIONS. AND ONCE AGAIN WE CAN SEE THE WRAITHLIKE SHAPE OF THE DEVIL AS HE DANCES AND PRANCES GLEEFULLY THROUGH THE RUIN AND THE RUBBLE. CLAPPING HIS HANDS AS HE HOWLS MOCKINGLY, ALL THE WHILE MAKING MERCHANDISE OF LOST MEN'S SOULS AS THEY ARE LEFT COMPLETELY AND HELPLESSLY EXPOSED AND VULNERABLE BY THE DESTRUCTION OF ALL OF THE DOCTRINES OF GOD'S SAVING, PROTECTING, AND GUIDING WORD!

We must "... earnestly _________ for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." (Jude :3) And the "faith" of the New Versions is not "THE faith." We have also seen that in those new so-called "bibles" their god is called "the One," which is that supposedly "universal God" of Hindu/New Age religion. Impersonal and unfeeling, it is some ephemeral yet cohesive "It" that permeates the universe, which is its body, and like some sort of "godly" glue, binds it together. And in their particular brand of theology, the two are inextricably dependent, one upon the other, for continued existence. (Look out Luke Skywalker! Shades of, "May the force be with you.")

Their "Christ" is "a son" of "a god" and he is merely a human being, inherently no different from any other, who, strictly through his own efforts, ascended to Christhood and became "the Christ." He is presented as merely one of many Avatars who came to earth to help man. That "Christ," is definitely NOT the true Christ of the true Bible who is the true and only Saviour of mankind.

Their "Trinity" is some Gnostic manifestation of the "emanations" originating from some kind of "Universal Self," which used those emanations, (or to some, those emanations acted entirely and even rebelliously on their own) to bring about the creation of the universe. This whole thing, in reality, was nothing but a fantasy concocted up so that their Gnostic "god," who is perfect and sinless, would not have to actually "touch" this "evil, material creation." Also, their "Trinity" is a manifestation, again, of some type of Hindu/New Age "force" instead of "the Godhead " (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) that is taught in God's true, preserved, Bible- the KJV.

Their Salvation is totally one of works. You must "persevere... strive to attain... hold on...” and read your bible for growth up “into” complete salvation, and someday, somehow, you just might "grow up" and be saved. If this be the true way, then what of God's GRACE? It is in vain. What of God's MERCY? It is not needed. What of Christ's BLOOD? It is shed without meaning. What of the CRUCIFIXION? It is a beautiful but sad story of the death of a mere man. What of our REDEEMER? We were never sold into sin, we are just sin-sick; therefore, we have no need to be redeemed, we can get better on our own. In fact NO ONE, in their perverted presentation of the scriptures, is EVER saved, we are merely "being saved." What of all of these things? According to them all of our beliefs are theological nightmares that the newly-wakened readers of the New Versions are told can be put away as mere childish fears.

OUR FAITH was "once" delivered unto the saints. Not once to the Orthodox, and once to the Gnostics, and once to the Hindus, and once to the New Agers: but ONCE to the saints! And that faith is given in only ONE book of writings, the Bible. And that Bible was Inspired and Preserved by its author, GOD! And the ONLY example of that Preserved Word for those who call English their native tongue is the 1611 King James Version of the Bible.

We had that faith written for us in God's inspired Word and delivered to us once and for all upon the completion of it nearly two millennia ago.

We have had that faith "preserved" for us in one set of texts down through the centuries.

Those texts have been attacked many times down through the centuries. But God has always had Christians to carry and protect those texts through the fire and the blood.

NOTE: This will be a test question.

Those texts have been translated correctly in only one version for us in the English language - the KJV.

At this time, please take
TEST SEVEN
If test fails to load, press F5 or click the refresh button on the webpage.

Be sure to submit a copy of the Results page
in order to have your score registered
to your file.

received a passing score, then restudy the
relevant section and find all of the
correct answers before continuing
on to the next lesson.

In these last days Satan has mounted a concerted effort to try and steal the Bible from us. With a plethora of false, twisted, and devilish per-versions, (buried under a guise of being New Versions) the devil has tried to not only obscure God's true Word, but has tried instead to actually BURY IT under a veritable mountain of verbal rubbish and dung.

God has warned us of the famine to come. Oh, not a famine for food, although that will come too, but a famine for the Word of God. The TRUE Word of God!

"Behold; the days will come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, ___ a famine of bread, ___ a thirst for water, but of __________ the _______ of the LORD: And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and _______ _____ ______ ___."

HE HAS GIVEN US THIS WARNING BECAUSE HE KNEW IT WAS COMING AND HE WANTS US TO BE PREPARED FOR IT.

HE ALSO EXPECTS US, EVEN COMMANDS US, TO EARNESTLY CONTEND FOR THE FAITH EXACTLY AS IT WAS DELIVERED, "ONCE" IN HIS WORD, FOR AS LONG AS WE ARE HERE! AND WE ARE TO CONTINUE DOING SO FOR AS LONG AS WE ARE STILL ABLE TO DRAW BREATH!

II Timothy 1:13 "______ ______ the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus."

II Timothy ch. 2 (key words) "... be strong ... endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ ... strive ... laboureth ... suffer trouble ... even unto bonds ... endure all things ... suffer ... Study ... a workman ... rightly dividing the word of truth."

II Timothy ch. 3 (key phrases) "... Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution... But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned ..."

II Timothy ch. 4 (keys again) "... I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ ... Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine... they shall turn away their ears from the truth... But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith:"

Paul knew he was going to die and he is here telling Timothy, and us, that he had contended right to the very end. And we should do the same - NO MATTER WHAT THE COST!

God expects us to strive for perfection; to be "throughly furnished unto all good works." That means we are to be perfected for the ministry. And the only way that is possible is through His perfect Word. To further that end, He has perfectly preserved it for us and makes it available to us for our perfection.

We have that perfect Word preserved for us in the only English Bible that is true to the autographs, as attested to by history, time and a preponderance of evidences, the King James Version. In it, the KJV, we have the only Bible translation in English attested to by the Spirit of God and the spirit of man. This attestation is in two ways: In its effects on men's lives since it was first published over three centuries ago; and through the witness of 1/10 of a million written attestations of both saints and sinners over a two millennia span to the textual tradition from which it sprang.

And that is the King James Bible. It has stood the test of time. It has stood the test of fire. And it has stood the test of life changes in the millions who have read and practiced the things written in it.

Test Questions.

THE KJV DOES NOT SIMPLY CONTAIN THE WORD OF GOD, IT IS THE PRESERVED WORD OF GOD FOR ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLE!

We have proved the unreliability of the New Versions and have shown that they create such major doctrinal chaos that in them the living Word of God is reduced to nothing but a dead compendium of the ungodly heresies of the last two millennia. They are unreliable and unusable, so stick with the Bible that is living and true, the King James Version.

who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his
kingdom; _______ ____ _______; be instant in season, out of
season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
For the time will come when they will ____ endure sound doctrine;
but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers,
having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth,
and shall be turned unto fables. But watch thou in all things, endure
afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry."

At this time, please take
TEST EIGHT
If test fails to load, press F5 or click the refresh button on the webpage.

Be sure to submit a copy of the Results page
in order to have your score registered
to your file.

received a passing score, then restudy the
relevant section and find all of the
correct answers before continuing
on to the next lesson.

When you click the FINAL TEST link it will download to
your computer. When download is completed, click
"Open" or "Open when done". A window may pop up
stating that "Windows protected your PC". Click
"More info" and then click "Run anyway" in
the white rectangular box at the
bottom of that window.

At this time, please take
FINAL TEST
If test fails to load, press F5 or click the refresh button on the webpage.

Be sure to submit a copy of the Results page
in order to have your score registered
to your file.

received a passing score, then restudy the
relevant section and find all of the
correct answers before continuing
on to the next lesson.

After you have passed all of the tests and found all of the correct answers to any questions you missed on any of the tests, and completed reading the textbook, The Doctrinal Chaos of the Translations, then you are finished with this class.

2nd CENTURY	B Y Z A N T I N E T E X T S	copies of originals	NON-ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS (FROM THE MAJORITY TEXT) INTO VARIOUS LANGUAGES
3rd CENTURY		copies of
4th CENTURY		copies
5th CENTURY		copies
6th CENTURY		copies
7th CENTURY		copies
8th CENTURY		copies
9th CENTURY		copies
10th CENTURY		copies
11th CENTURY		copies
12th CENTURY		copies
13th CENTURY		copies
14th CENTURY		copies	14th CENTURY and following	ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS Wycliff, Tyndale, Coverdale, Great Bible, Geneva Bible, etc. KJV, A.D. 1611 - (This was then the predominant Bible until the 20th Century.)
15th CENTURY		copies
16th CENTURY		copies
17th CENTURY		copies
18th CENTURY		copies
19th CENTURY (Late 19th Century) 20th CENTURY Usage of the Alexandrian Text - 21st CENTURY which is the Minority Text.			NIV, NASB, TEV, LIVING, RSV, WILLIAMS, NWT, etc.
				KJV
				Thru end of 20th CENTURY - KJV
			21st - NIV is top selling Bible	21st CENTURY - KJV losing ground

	NOTE: Homework. Name 7 early Christian “isms” that denied the deity of Jesus Christ. (DCOT, p. 170)
		Ebionism Cerenthianism Docetism Arianism Appolinarianism Nestorianism Eutychianism or Monophysites