March 27, 2024
In the previous article, Part 5, we explored how and when we received our English-language Bible and the cost that men and women of God paid over the centuries to deliver this treasure. The second part of that article focused on the response by the Roman Catholic Church. The following excerpt is taken from the last article.
“The Roman Catholic Church needed to update its strategic plan. How could they control the people if they had they had a Bible in their language and believed that Bible? How could they reverse the Great Reformation? Their updated plan included the following goals.
- destroy the credibility of the Bible, which would then support the Catholic insistence on the critical role of traditions and church teaching and the authority of the Pope.
- undermine the credibility of the Reformation and the reformers.
- infiltrate Protestant schools, organizations, and churches. Move them in the direction of Rome.
Rome also understood the need to make people question the final authority of the Holy Bible. How do they sow doubt in the minds of Christians and the wider world about the truth and sufficiency of scripture? What strategies would help accomplish that?
1) Convince the Christian Church that the inspiration of the Word of God applies only to the original autographs and not to any other documents or copies.
2) Find older and contradictory ancient manuscripts.
3) Invent materialistic and naturalistic scientific theories contrary to Biblical beliefs. That would also work very well in undermining the credibility and authority of the Bible.”
Meaning of the word ‘church’
By now, you understand why I am calling the Catholic Church an organization. It is more of an organization than it is the one true church of Jesus Christ. Church in the Bible designates the body of believers wherever and whenever they meet together to worship and praise Jesus Christ. Jesus is the head of the body, not the Pope, not any man or organization.
Dr. John Dean Burgon, author of the book “Revision Revised”, and others were not buying the purpose or need to update the Authorized Version of the Bible, and wrote much against the new Greek Text of the New Testament proposed by Westcott and Hort. They had excellent reasons for doing so. But it was done over the objections of other Christians.
Unfortunately, a new Greek text for the New Testament was completed based on the two corrupt manuscripts discovered in the 19th century. Westcott and Hort convinced many scholars in different countries to embrace their lies and progressive scholarship. These traitorous translators violated the initial agreement about the scope of translation changes, which were to be limited to just ‘obvious and minor’ changes. They made tens of thousands of important changes. Their promise was worthless because they had little integrity. But we are to believe that their scholarship was first-rate. How gullible Christians are.
What message is being sent to the world with all the many new Bible translations?
Here we are today. There are many new translations of the Bible. Are all of them necessary? How accurate are they? Do they help resolve confusion or do they actually cause more confusion about what God has said and what He requires?
What message do the continual additions of new Bible translations communicate to the general public and to the Christian world? Is the message a good one, one that pleases God and instills confidence in His immutable word? I believe that this is the damnable message: We do not yet really know what God is saying to us and requiring of us! We may find new evidence in the coming years that will change what we believe about the Word of God and the God of the Word. This message is also saying that what is written in our present Bible can’t be trustworthy, inerrant, and infallible if all these translations are necessary. What else can it mean? Are we dependent on scholarship or the Holy Spirit? Did God preserve His word as He promised in Psalm 12:6,7? Are all these new translations and interpretations telling the world that God was not able to protect His word as He promised? Which scholars are we to believe?
But there are still a number of us who are standing firm on the Word of God as given to us in the King James Version of the Bible. We are students of the Word of God and believe that He did just as He promised. He preserved His word.
What comes next? The reformers believed the position or office of the Pope is the Antichrist. But according to the authors of this video series, some experts and or scholars are even talking about eliminating the Book of Revelation from the next Bible translation. I imagine the Roman Catholic organization would be delighted by that, should it occur. The Roman Church has never wanted the Bible in the hands of the people. As we know, they at one time killed people who read the Bible or who owned one, especially if they believed it. Now that the Bible is in the hands of ordinary people, their new tactic is to destroy the credibility of the Bible. “Hath God said?” Rome responds, “No, God hath not said that. Look to what the pope declares.”
End Times, Eschatology. Could this be another strategy that the Jesuits and Rome are using to take the heat off the Roman Catholic Church organization? My research tells me that the preterist position was created by a 16th-century Jesuit priest. Many Biblical scholars of today, including Evangelicals, are embracing this teaching, which says that the Book of Revelation was all or mostly fulfilled by AD 70. Therefore, all the obvious references in the Book of Revelation to the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope are not accurate. That is just exactly what the Jesuits have been trying to do since the Reformation. Their objective is to take negative attention away from the Pope, as the man of sin, the son of perdition (antichrist), and the Roman Church as the whore riding the beast. It seems to be working very well. (See my End Times articles if you are interested in my initial research into the subject of the end times).
Rome and Evangelicalism
The Roman Catholic organization has continued to reach out to Protestant denominations. Liberal Protestant Churches are as ecumenical as the Roman Catholic Church. Many evangelical leaders and churches today embrace the Roman Church. (That was commented on in the last article.)
Many charismatic-oriented churches also embrace the Roman Church. Why? Do charismatic churches embrace Catholicism because they believe Catholics speak in tongues and walk in the signs and wonders like evangelical churches do? How do they know they are spirit-filled Christians? They speak in tongues, fall, laugh, and show other signs and wonders. They must be spirit-filled believers, or so they think.
Is that really how we know if a person is spirit-filled? Not even close. Read Galatians 5, which specifically addresses the fruit of the flesh (unrighteousness) and the fruit of the Spirit (righteousness). Gifts of the Spirit are not mentioned because they are not the fruit or evidence of being filled with the Spirit of God. Signs, wonders, and tongues may be a blessing, but are not evidence of spiritual life or fruit and the new birth. Wouldn’t a Catholic who had evidence of spiritual life and the fruit of the Spirit, leave the Roman Catholic Church organization’s idolatrous practices and false doctrines, which constantly grieve the Holy Spirit?
It is my understanding that many religious groups speak in tongues, Mormons, for instance, and have other manifestations as well. Surely these manifestations do not mean it is of the Holy Spirit of the living God. I fear that is why many evangelicals think there are spirit-filled Catholics; therefore, there can’t be anything wrong with the Roman Catholic religion. What a tragic mistake.
The Catholic origins of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus
Let us get back to these two older manuscripts: Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. I already mentioned that they do not agree with each other in thousands of instances, and that should be a big problem. But just as significant is where these two manuscripts were found. Although I have loved ones and friends in the Roman Catholic Church, the fact that these two corrupt manuscripts owe their existence to Rome gives me, and plenty of others, much pause. (This has already been addressed in earlier articles.)
I was born and raised a Roman Catholic and attended Catholic school through the eighth grade. After graduating from the university, I left my home state. And when I got right with God, I left the Roman Catholic Church because of its many unbiblical doctrines. I have spent considerable time comparing Catholic doctrine with Biblical doctrines. I have also read much about the history of the Roman Catholic Church. As a result, I have no confidence in the Roman Catholic institution and Vatican leadership.
What is being exposed today, the sexual abuse and rampant homosexuality within the Roman Church, for all the world to see, is nothing new within the Roman Catholic Church organization. It has been going on for many centuries. Only God knows how deep the corruption is actually. These two older manuscripts owe their existence to the Roman Catholic Church, which is deeply corrupted. Therefore their “authenticity and usefulness” is very doubtful.
Are there any other reasons to doubt the accuracy of the more recent translations of the Bible, such as the NIV, NAB, NASB, the NJB, the NRSB, the NKJV, the Message Bible, and the Living Bible? I realize the last two are paraphrases. I suggest that you buy a Parallel Study Bible and conduct your own research. I used a Ryrie NASB Study Bible for many years, after I got right with God. Only the strongest of evidence convinced me to switch to the KJV of the Bible after so many years using the Ryrie NASB study Bible. It was difficult to change, but I am so glad that I did. I have so much more confidence in the Word of God.
Higher Criticism of the Bible led scholars to rewrite the Greek New Testament. The Church ended up with a new Greek Text, which is neither better nor needed. Keep in mind that literally thousands of manuscripts, 25000 to be more precise, were set aside because two supposedly older manuscripts were found after the KJV translation. Really? Critical scholars are always looking for ways to great doubt about the authority and credibility of the Word of God. Who are they to critique the Word of God? Who appoints them judge and jury?
Scholars believed that these two older manuscripts must be used to create a new Greek New Testament. Why did they think that? Where did that idea come from? Did it come from German Higher Criticism, which got it from the Roman Catholic Church? Did it start with Origen?
How to create a Bible critic?
The frequent Jesuit attacks on England a couple of centuries ago were not as successful as they had hoped. Their long-range plan was adapted accordingly. They decided to go to Paris and take over colleges and seminaries in the 1670s. That way, they could train the next generation of Bible scholars. That training would include lodging doubts in their minds about the truth of the Protestant Bible in particular and all Bibles. Hath God said? They would sow doubts about the Bible’s inspiration, history, accuracy, and so on. They began to question all this and to leave grave doubts in the minds of their students. Critics of the Bible began to gain a foot hold in academics and seminaries. You have read some of these stories already.
Let us go back to England in July of 1833. The “Tractarians” issued tracts sowing doubt about the KJV of the Bible and the Church of England, and supporting the Catholic understanding of the Bible. Confidence in the received text waned. Protestantism was hurt. As an outspoken Protestant, very critical of Rome, John Newman (1801-1890) was a Jesuit agent, and he controlled the Tractarians. In 1845, his true colors were revealed as a Roman Catholic sympathizer. He was good at what he did and many went with him to Rome. He took some 250 ministers and theologians and almost 625 professors with him. One year later John Newman became a Roman Catholic priest. In 1879, he was made a Catholic Cardinal. It pays very well to work with Rome. Wescott and Hort were already on the scene doing their work as Bible translators and Bible critics. They resurrected Origen’s Bible.
Newman, this Protestant “man of God,” thought the preaching of Booth, Whitefield, and Wesley was “detestable and diabolical heresy.” I am pretty familiar with all three of these saints of God. Any person, especially someone claiming to be a Christian, who could think such a horrible thing and utter such damnable words against these giants of the faith, is a person who is completely deceived or given over to serve the devil. The Catholic influence in the Protestant and evangelical world continues even today. Many more Catholic names might be mentioned.
The new Bible translators used the corrupt text from Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745-1812), a Unitarian, a German scholar, and founder of textual criticism. Without evidence, it is argued, they assumed that the early Bible was corrupted almost immediately after the apostles passed on. Supposedly, the Bible was revised with more words inserted but without historical or supporting evidence. They asserted that the Bible was supposedly revised in AD 250, yet history mentions nothing of this. Some believe that they just made this up to establish the need to update the Textus Receptus. Hort was the leader, and under Dr. Hort’s guidance, the project moved forward.
Why would Hort create or support this theory? At the age of 23, in 1851, Hort said he had no idea of the importance of the text, and he hated the Textus Receptus because it relied on late manuscripts. At the time, he knew very little of Greek. Early on, his mind was poisoned by German higher criticism. This is how it works even today. University students have their minds corrupted by their professors. This happens in all disciplines.
Westcott and Hort hid their theological views so they would not be revealed for the heretics they were.
Hort (same with Wescott) kept most of his heretical views private so as not to impede this new translation. Both Wescott and Hort were supportive of the Oxford movement, which was an effort to bring the Anglican church back under the authority of Rome and the Pope. This is seen as part of the ongoing Jesuit counter-reformation plan.
During the Oxford movement, the Jesuits infiltrated the Protestant churches, media, business, and universities. They hated the Bible’s supreme authority. Jesuits believed that Biblical Christianity was from the devil. If the Bible is proved to be fraudulent or untrustworthy, then aside from people’s faith being destroyed, the importance of the role of the Pope is asserted. Who is going to iron out all the difficult questions and settle theological matters if the Bible can’t be trusted? That is why the pope and the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church are needed.
John Henry Newman became a Catholic priest and eventually a Cardinal. Hort loved him. Hort thought the Roman Catholic Church was closer to the truth than the Evangelicals. Yes, you heard that right. He must have been ignorant of his Bible, the history of the Roman Catholic Church, and its doctrines. He leaned toward Mary worship, thinking it was good. He hated the idea of the priesthood of the believers that the Bible declares. Christ is our great high priest, and we do not need priests, Mary, or the saints.
Hort hated the idea that the Bible was the final authority. He denied absolute infallibility and inspiration. Westcott also denied it. Both reject the word inspiration, which most evangelicals believe. Can you imagine the arrogance of these two scholars? They did not care that great Christians before them or who lived with them believed that the Word of God had been preserved throughout the centuries. In their pride, they thought that they must correct the Word of God because they did not believe it was the Word of God.
Around this time, Darwin’s book on the Origin of the Species was published, as I mentioned earlier. It called into question the first few chapters of the book of Genesis. Charles Darwin once professed Christianity and then denied it. Why? Because if Christianity were true, then his father, family, and others he cared about are in hell; therefore, it can be true. This is how people still decide what is true and what is not! “People prefer to believe what they prefer to be true.” Not what is true, but what they wish was true. Unless we abandon that false belief, we will never know the truth.
In 1859, The Origin of Species was released. Hort thought Darwin’s book was unanswerable. That is pathetic coming from a supposed scholar, especially a Christian scholar. Westcott wrote a few years later that he thought no one could believe in the Genesis account of creation. I am pleased to report that many Christians did then and still do today. Wescott’s pride shines forth with brilliance.
They both disagreed with Evangelicals and Reformers in almost every area of doctrine, even the atonement. Hort kept his views secret so that his view of the new Greek Text would be acceptable. He sold this new Greek text to scholars around the world. Turns out scholars are sheep too. That new Greek text replaced the Authorized Greek text, which he called vile. Their wicked and unbiblical ideas, which they espoused, came from other nonbelievers before them.
What is the real source of textual criticism and other false ideas? What, if any, role did the Roman Catholic Church play?
R.L. Dabny said all this questioning of the text and critical theory came from the mint of rationalism. Rationalism denied miracles as they argued that no rational mind could believe in miracles. Since the Bible cites many examples of miracles, it is automatically branded as suspicious and doubtful. You will remember that one strategy of Rome is to get people to think that the Bible is not a supernatural book but a book like any other ancient manuscript. That opens the door for critical scholarship to tell the world what God did and did not say. Ultimately, these men think themselves god-like.
This is much like the evolutionists and materialists of today, who assert that physical processes must explain everything. In other words, if their minds can’t understand it, then it can’t be true. How is that rational? Do they think they know everything or can know everything? They must believe that they are God. Yet they are but finite creatures, and only the omniscient knows all the truth about how spirit, mind, and body work together to create and sustain life. They assert that no supernatural explanation can be considered in the sciences, but that assertion reveals their bias, unteachability, and arrogance. They would need to be omniscient (i.e., God) to know everything to make that assertion with any credibility. They know very little. They may know much more than I or the average person, but they are but insects compared to God. Pride goeth before the fall, and a haughty spirit before destruction. If they do not humble themselves, they will be lost in hell forever.
The serpent questioned, “Hath God said?” These great scholars represent an ancient heresy that God did not inspire the Bible. The Bible is just like any other book. Dr. James White and many others believe that the Bible is just like any other book, even though they argue for its inspiration. Therefore, the Bible must be subject to textual criticism. But the Bible is not just like any other book; God inspired men to give us the Bible. The Bible is His book.
Higher criticism and rationalism deny the miracles in Genesis along with the Mosaic authorship of Genesis. By the way, the Bible calls this denial the sin of unbelief. These men all denied miracles as irrational, and they became the higher critics of the Bible. They asserted that Moses didn’t write the Pentateuch or Torah (the first five books of the Bible), despite claims by Jesus and other apostles that Moses did. There is no limit to their arrogance.
One such higher critic was a man named Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918). He was a German Biblical scholar and a higher critic of the Bible. Years ago, when I attended seminary, I was told that he was considered the father or one of the fathers of higher criticism. He did not believe in the miracles or that Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament. Higher criticism of the Bible gained momentum and revealed itself in the making of modern Bible translations and the growing skepticism about the Bible’s credibility.
“The impressive-sounding designation conferred upon this process of scrutinizing the preserved word of God became known as the “science of textual criticism” Contrary to common belief, higher criticism did not begin with German rationalists but with Jesuit “fathers.” The first scholar to employ “scientific methods” to the so-called textual and literary problems of the Bible was a Catholic priest by the name of Richard Simon (1638-1712). He is generally regarded as the founder of Old Testament criticism.” This guy got his start under a Jewish philosopher by the name of Baruch Spinoza 1632-1667. (Dr. Grady’s book, page 207). Those of us who know and believe the Word of God can trace this back to the Garden of Eden!
Another person connected with the historic Catholic foundations of textual criticism is Jean Mabillon (1632-1707). He was of the Benedictine Catholic order. He wrote a book critical of the Textus Receptus. The Catholic physician and theologian, Jean Astruc (1684-1766), was also a critic. He concluded that two different men wrote the Pentateuch. I wonder if God is pleased with these geniuses who feel called to question and correct His Word?
Having successfully recruited “Protestant” scholars critical of the Bible, the Catholic Church could now hand the “science of textual criticism” off to others to carry the plague even further. One of the first German scholars was Johann Salomo Semler (1725-1791). One apostate Lutheran scholar after another adopted this new “science of textual criticism”. Julius Wellhausen, who died in 1918, was in a long line of them, bringing us into the 20th century.
This entire process of reeducation by the Catholics reminds me of the birth of the “science of climate change.” A novel proposition is proposed to explain weather patterns and anticipate future material changes. It spreads, and others get on board. The momentum grows and more “scholars” adopt positions advocated by their teachers, who are men held in high regard as scholars. More and more scholars join in because of the influence of preceding scholars and scientists. Funding and employment are now more easily obtained. Soon enough, a majority of ‘experts’ believe the novel theory that is based more on conjecture and political opportunism than on hard science. Anyone today who doesn’t think that climate change is an existential threat to mankind is labeled ignorant or a climate-denying kook. Likewise, if you are a Christian theologian who rejects the “science of textual criticism,” you are looked at as a religious kook or a hard-headed fundamentalist.
God promised to preserve His word in Psalm 12:6-7. I read it for myself. If these Bible scholars had believed God, things would have been different. New translations change this promise and eliminate it, as I have already demonstrated. Woe unto them who add or subtract from the word of God.
Based on a novel critical theory and a rationalistic mindset, these Bible critics questioned the authority and trustworthiness of the Bible. Higher critics encourage Christians to accept the theory because that is what intelligent people do. Do you not want to be known as a competent and thoughtful person? Then you must question and criticize the Bible. The tyranny of the expert scholar is their proof, because they have no hard proof. The mere fact that these scholars believe in textual criticism should be sufficient evidence that you should too. Nonsense! Trust God and His Word before all others.
Some of the new translations
From the new Greek text authored by Hort and Westcott in 1881, the world was changed, and a series of new Catholic Bibles prepared for Protestants flooded the market.
1881 English Revised Version
1901 American Standard Version
1946 Revised Standard Version
1963 New American Standard Version
1971 The Living Bible, a paraphrase
1978 New International Version rev. 1984 and 2011
1989 New Revised Standard Version
2001 English Standard Version
A simple Google search tells me that there are 900 different English Bibles to choose from. I still find that hard to believe. If you have the time, you can create one yourself and see if you have what it takes to sell it. It seems that publishers want to keep the flow of money strong by minimizing offensive passages. Maybe someday all of the offensive passages will be gone. If you do not see the problem, I’m at a loss for words. I will pray for you.
The New International Version (NIV) is used in many Christian schools, colleges, and seminaries. Students are often taught that the NIV is better than the KJV. Isn’t it interesting that the NIV was reprinted in 1984 with minor changes and then again with significant changes in 2011? Why is that? Were there discoveries of ancient fragments of scripture? I don’t think so. Did the scholars change their minds, necessitating a major revision? Or was the push back so great that they felt they must capitulate? If all this manipulation of the Word of God doesn’t weaken your confidence in His Word, maybe you had very little confidence to begin with. And if you don’t think that making significant changes, within a few years, reflects poorly on these leading Biblical scholars, you are very gullible and probably deceived.
I am not sure this is still the case. Still, Rupert Murdoch, who received a papal knighthood for promoting the Catholic Church and the pope’s interests, owns the publishing companies (HarperCollins and Zondervan) that produce the NIV and other such ecumenical material. At one time, the NIV was a best seller, with excellent cash flow. Maybe that is why it needs to be revised from time to time. Cash flow is a big incentive.
When I was getting right with God, I went into a bookstore to buy a Bible (my very first one) and asked them which Bible was the best. I was not told anything about the KJV, but was sold a New American Standard Bible, NASB. I suspect that very few churches use the KJV in favor of a newer version like the NIV. Bible commentaries, theological books, and other Christian books are written with new Bible versions, which flow out of Higher Criticism thinking. This is a big part of the reeducation of Christians to use a modern translation. All modern translations are as corrupt as the Greek Text they are based on. They weaken or destroy confidence in the Word of God. This may explain why there has not been a nation-changing revival of holiness in over 100 years and why our culture is becoming worse than Sodom. The ‘church’ has lost its light and its power.
The Roman Catholic Church’s counter-reformation strategy has been highly effective. Jesuits and other Catholics have infiltrated Christian education. Today, most of our seminaries use Catholic friendly Bibles and avoid unbiblical Catholic doctrines. Most sow unbelief into their students who leave seminary and teach it to their church members or other seminary students. If you look around, much of the Christian Church is a morally bankrupt organization with few exceptions. The salt has lost its savor. The light is growing dimmer each decade throughout the 1900s and now into the 21st century.
The most recent corruption being taught in seminaries and churches is all about wokeness, white privilege, critical race theory, and social justice. Trust and confidence in the word of God is now replaced with easier-to-read Bibles, with fewer offensive passages and a new and improved focus on social issues. It is a big success at destroying our Christian churches and souls that Jesus Christ died for. Yet a remnant of believers is being awakened to the situation, and those who still hold on to the truth of the Bible know it is the very Word of God that He promised we would always have. These believers know that social issues can only be solved by the truth of God and repentance from sin. Attempting to solve social problems using only politics is a dead-end street.
One sign of the end times great apostasy the Bible refers to is the departure from the truth and the departure from faith and confidence in the Word of God. The true Bible was given to us through God’s messengers and prophets. The false or corrupt Bible was given to us by scholars. The first yields trust in God while the second option begets trust in man (your seminary-trained pastor or priest). What is the better choice?
God is against you if you add to or subtract from His Word.
“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” Deuteronomy 4:2.
“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” Revelation 22:19.
I have repeatedly stated that the Roman Catholic organization is in constant violation of these two passages. The Catholic organization adds to the Word of God things that are contrary to that very word. They also add to God’s word because they think they, not God, are the final authority. The Roman Catholic organization will continue to do this unless it repents. Rome’s war on the Bible continues notwithstanding their protestations to the contrary.
The following article, Part 7, will dig into dating and textual criticism (Higher Criticism), which we have touched on a few times already.
