March 29, 2024
Dating. How is it done, and how accurate is it?
How do we know how old anything or anyone is? Historical documents provide evidence for dating people. Birth certificates provide good evidence of our age. But birth certificates can be forged. Our physical appearance reveals something about how old we are, but that too can be augmented. The testimony of others indicates our age. There are several ways that we can ascertain the age of people. But how do we know the age of a shellfish, a whale, a bird, a rat, or another wild animal? Unless we were present at their birth, we do not know their age. How do we know how old a rock or a mountain range is? How do we know the age of the Earth and the universe? None of us was present except God. But scientists refuse even to consider God in their assessment. What blindness and hubris.
How do we know the date of old manuscripts, which do not indicate the date when they were written?Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are assumed to be older, but is that the case? No external evidence exists as to the age of these codices. External evidence is a primary source of evidence, yet none exists. How then does anyone know the date of an ancient manuscript?
No one knows when the Pope and Vatican received the Codex Vaticanus. It was first cataloged in the mid-15th century in the Vatican library, but where did it originate? We have no external evidence or witnesses. How do the experts know the dates? Is there a ‘scientific method’ to textual dating?
“Scholars” assume the origination dates based on their subjective opinions as to the use of the language and writing. Erasmus rejected the readings of the Vaticanus manuscript for good reasons, such as being at variance with the majority of Greek texts. Catholic Bishop Hug said it was written in the fourth century, but another Catholic said it was written in the sixth century. Were either of these two priests correct? The Vatican manuscript became the chief of all those used by Westcott and Hort. It was therefore assumed that all manuscripts must come from Codex B (Vaticanus) since it was assumed to be the oldest. See how this works? One assumption begats the following assumption. But if the assumptions are wrong, then nothing can be counted on. Tell me how anyone can trust the lying and dishonest Roman Catholic Church leadership. They have deliberately lied about so much of their history, theological doctrines, and evidence. Why would anyone believe anything they have to say? As we study the Jesuits and the Popes, this will be made abundantly clear if it isn’t already.
It is my understanding that the founders of manuscript analysis were, in fact, priests of Rome. Was it just a coincidence that the Pope’s people created the tests for examining Greek manuscripts? Burgon would have nothing to do with it. Good for him. We still don’t know about the origins of Vaticanus, and the Roman Catholic Church will not allow any outsider to examine the actual manuscript. One expert in dating old manuscripts said we couldn’t be sure of the origin or date of Vaticanus before the 15th century. (So much for the priestly assumption of the 4th or the 6th century just mentioned.) All this is according to the video series I mention at the beginning.
Estimating the date of historical manuscripts. Is the word “estimate” synonymous with the word “science”?
A simple Google search of this question reveals the following. “Estimating the date of a historical manuscript requires the inference of expert paleographers (the study of ancient writing systems and the deciphering and dating of historical documents). The paleographers rely on their knowledge and experience to make an estimation. This estimation process takes into account several aspects, including the writing style, the contents, and even the writing material.” (Emphasis added).
In other words, manuscript dating primarily relies on internal evidence, including direct references to historical events, if any. It also considers textual criticism of philological and linguistic indications. And finally, it requires the personal inference of “experts”. There are ‘experts’ on everything under the sun, many of whom never see eye to eye. Pick your expert and get any answer you desire.
The dating of the codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus is based on conjecture, experience, and possibly fraud, particularly in cases involving dishonest individuals, not a hard science. Sinaiticus was said to have been created by Simonides in the 1800s. Most scholars reject that idea, but not all, as there remain unanswered questions. (See appendix, Part 5 for more information and read the recommended books). But Tischendorf said the manuscript was from the 4th century. How did he know? I repeat myself, and what about the fact that this came from the Roman Catholic Church with its long history of forgeries, lies, fraud, deceit, and godless leadership. A catholic sympathizer, like Tischendorf, did not have a problem with any of that sordid history. The Roman Church gave him precisely what they wanted him to find, Sinaiticus. How did it get into the monastery to begin with? Where did that monastery obtain this codex? And why in heaven’s name were these dedicated ‘Christian’ monks using the pages of the Sinaiticus manuscript to start fires? Were they too stupid to realize its value?
It is a fact that both of these manuscripts were found. No one disputes that fact. But the interpretation of the discoveries is disputed. The age date given for these two ancient manuscripts should be denied until justified. The sole opinion of a Catholic sympathizer is not credible evidence. The value of these codices should be disputed, yet it seems that most scholarship, even today, is eager to validate them. I find that curious, not convincing.
Evolutionary dating methods by comparison
Evolutionary scientists and others find fossils in the dirt. That is a fact, which no one disputes. Dating the age of the fossil is greatly disputed. Interpreting the fossil found is also disputed. A number of these early fossil finds, which were interpreted as the ‘missing link’ between man and an ape-like ancestor, were found to be a fraud perpetrated by an eager and unethical “scientist.” He was helped, as you know now, by a dishonest Jesuit priest. Some scholars, scientists, and theologians looking for a “missing link” that never existed would stop at nothing to discover it or create one. There have been several well-known frauds in this area. Godless men and women are, by definition, dishonest, some much more than others.
Some evolutionary scientists have found the ‘missing link’ because that is what they are looking for. They assume it existed because they want to believe that Darwin’s theory of evolution is true. Finding the missing link would be a great discovery. It would go a long way toward convincing everyone that Darwin’s theory was accurate and the Bible was wrong. If the missing link is found, the person who finds it will be known all over the world. That person would be famous just like Charles Darwin. But there is no such thing as a missing link. Nothing is missing from the fossil record. Saying there is a missing link doesn’t make it accurate or true. Truth always corresponds with reality.
After Darwin, millions of fossils have been found. The fossil record is huge, tens of millions strong. More fossils may yet be found, but that in no way suggests that anything new will be found, and certainly not a missing link leading to the evolution of the first man and woman. You must assume something is missing and then set out to find something that doesn’t exist. Who can’t see that this will provide fertile soil for all kinds of fraud and wild speculation?
Isn’t it unbelievable that most ‘scientists’ today boldly and loudly proclaim that the age of the universe is around 18-20 billion years old? How do they know that with such confidence? They don’t. It is their best guess and what they hope the truth to be, and that is all. Someone once said that it is easier to get people to believe a big lie rather than a small lie. It was also noted that if you tell a lie loud enough, often enough, and long enough, people will believe it. Isn’t that the truth? People, just like sheep, are so gullible and easily led to slaughter. It is a fantastic and bewildering thing. I am trying not to be one of those sheep anymore.
One early Jesuit laid the groundwork for this in the mid-1500s when he wrote a book claiming that new evidence was found that put the date of man at 50,000 years and that Adam was not the first man. Therefore, the Bible can’t be trusted. The Bible is not historically accurate; therefore, it can’t be trusted. This work influenced Richard Simon. He used it in his attack against using the Bible as the source of final authority. He said we must join tradition to religion, or we know nothing. All this bluster is contrary to what the Bible says about itself, as the word of the living God.
How do scientists know the age of any fossil? You might be shocked to see that it is all based on circular reasoning. They date the fossil by the rock layer in which it is found. Then they date the rock layer based on the index fossil found in that rock layer. Wow, that is some voodoo science. Who can’t see that you can make the dates anything you want them to be using this sleight-of-hand methodology for dating?
Someone will reply, “But we now have scientific radiometric methods of dating old things such as fossils and rocks.” Name your scientific dating method, and there are many of them, and it, along with all others, contains assumptions or presuppositions. Those assumptions include such things as 1) the assumed rate of decay over time and if that rate has changed over time, 2) the amount of initial element in it and, 3) assumptions about external impacts over millions or billions of years, that the specimen has not been polluted in any way (something added to it or subtracted from it). All these things are impossible to know with any certainty. Dating rocks and fossils is not an exact or rigid science. It is much like the ‘soft science’ of textual criticism and manuscript dating.’
All this reminds me of financial forecasting, which most business people have some experience with. You can forecast any result you want and make the numbers say anything you want. It all depends on your assumptions about revenue and expense. Financial forecasting uses some hard science, but it is mostly just educated speculation and wishful thinking. If all the stars align, we will be able to make this much money over the next five years. Financial forecasting is your best guess as to what you can make happen despite all the unknowable and unchangeable circumstances of life.
Likewise, if you assume that older manuscripts are better, some people will seek out older documents and not pay attention to where these documents were found and by whom. They will not pay attention to the quality of the manuscripts inherently or by comparison with other old manuscripts. Substantial evidence will be overlooked because of the confirmation bias toward the older manuscript. Dating old manuscripts is “soft science” at best, subject to all kinds of subjective motives. That is especially true if no supporting external evidence can be found.
Next time you hear an evolutionary scientist proclaim that the age of a fossil or the earth or the universe is billions of years old, ask yourself if this person has any idea how old any of these things are. They do not. God does. Some of us think that God has told us how old the universe and the world are. Only a few kooks like me believe what the Bible says about these matters.
What did Bible critics, Westcott and Hort, delete from the Authorized Version of the Bible in creating their new Greek text?
These two textual critics assumed that the two newly found codices were the oldest and therefore the best. Part of what they did included omitting certain words, phrases, or passages because 2 out of 25,000 other texts did not contain those words, phrases, or passages. How pathetic does it get?
Let me mention a couple of very significant deletions or changes made by Wescott and Hort’s team of Bible translators. Let us look at Ephesians 3:9.
“My task is to bring out in the open and make plain what God, who created all this in the first place, has been doing in secret and behind the scenes all along.” Typical English translation.
“And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ.” KJV, emphasis added.
If you do not see the deficiency of the newer English translation omission of “created all things by Jesus Christ,” then I am not sure you can be helped. Did you know that certain cults today claim that Jesus is not the creator? See why this phrase is so crucial? The new translation is much worse than the KJV, which verifies the deity of Jesus Christ as creator. Here is another example, where their tampering with the Authorized Bible made the Bible worse off, not better off. Let us look at 1 Timothy 3:16.
“Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.” 1 Timothy 3:16 ESV.
“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” KJV, emphasis added.
The KJV says that “God was manifested in the flesh.” The other version says, “He was manifested in the flesh.” Again, if you do not see the significant difference between the two, then I am not sure you can be helped. You may indeed be unteachable. The ESV uses the word ‘He’. That could be anyone, any person, and not be God. But the Word of God proclaims this: ‘God was manifested in the flesh.’ This word tells the reader that Jesus Christ is God come down to earth in the form of a man. The last example of many other deletions and or changes is this one, which angered me when I discovered it years ago.
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” KJV 1 John 5:7.
In my NASB Ryrie Study Bible, that entire verse was omitted. It was deleted. Even worse was the fact that Ryrie did not even footnote the fact that the KJV of the Bible and some other versions had this verse in their Bible. I was angry and very disappointed. (It is my understanding that later editions of the NASB have added this back in. Pathetic scholarship that can’t make up their minds.)
This verse in the KJV gives testimony to the deity of Jesus Christ as the Word of God, as well as the triune Godhead made up of the Father, the Son (the Word of God), and the Holy Ghost. Maybe I am crazy, but that seems like a pretty important truth that should not have been deleted.
What possible explanation is there for this deletion? You have probably already guessed the reason.The two older manuscripts didn’t have this verse. Never mind the fact that the majority (25,000 plus) of codices do have it. But since these two supposedly older Catholic manuscripts do not contain this verse, that is reason enough to eliminate it from their new translation. If you do not think that is a problem, I am at a loss to know how to explain it any better. Not only do the cults make Jesus out to be only a man, but some deny the triune nature of the Godhead. Do you understand why this verse is so very important?
One expert, on this video I mentioned at the outset, said that Jesus is separated from Christ in about 86 places in the New Testament. Jesus represents the man, and Christ represents the deity. Separating the two is meant to sow doubt and confusion about Jesus Christ. What is the explanation for these changes from Westcott and Hort? Why don’t the translators give us an answer? Maybe we are all too stupid to understand the need to mangle the Word of God.
Okay, because you insist, one more example just for the heck of it. Newer translations either delete the last verses in the Book of Mark or footnote those verses (9-20) with a big question mark about their authenticity. As you might have already guessed, the two older manuscripts end with verse eight, while the KJV ends with verse 20.
This is an excellent example of how to sow doubt in the Word of God. Many study Bibles footnote this passage and tell the reader that this passage is not found in two of the most trustworthy manuscripts; therefore, it is not a good idea to take this passage literally. Honestly, does that instill confidence in you, that the Bible is the God breathed word to us, or does it shake your confidence that this is God’s word? It most definitely tells the reader that, even the guy who created the study Bible, doesn’t believe that God fulfilled His promise to preserve His word forever, Psalm 12:6-7. I trust you understand better why this constant attack on the Word of God is harmful.
Could there be other explanations for the printing of so many Bible translations?
As explained already, newer translations up to today are produced by Bible translators and Bible publishers who are possibly more interested in cash flow than in the proclamation of the truth. Other explanations might include the fact that some are supporters of the Roman Catholic Church, ecumenism, and higher criticism in general. In these many new Bible translations, there are continual additions and subtractions to the Word of God. Sometimes they add back into the translation something they deleted in the prior translations. This is done, not based on new evidence, but based solely on changing ‘expert’ opinions or hostile feedback. Who are these people, and why should we believe them? Some of them, I have read, are very liberal and have a very low view of scripture. I repeat myself. These people should not be trusted with translating the Word of God or interpreting God’s word.
What about conservative Bible teachers and textual criticism?
Many conservative Bible teachers are supportive of the critical method. Dr. James White, author of the book, ‘KJV Only Controversy,’ was interviewed in this three-part YouTube video series. Mr. White was asked about accepting Metzger, who rejected the Mosaic authorship of the first five books of the Bible. He was asked, “How can you accept him?” Dr. White said most Old Testament scholars today don’t believe Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. He indicated that probably 80% of Old Testament scholars do not believe Moses is the author. White does believe it and continues to defend the Mosaic authorship. White said that conservatives gave over the scholarship of the Old Testament years ago to the liberals. Conservatives are just now taking some of that ground back, according to Dr. White. What a sad and frustrating story, and I have little doubt that Dr. White is telling the truth. Where were these conservative Christians who allowed this to happen?
Liberal or progressive politicians and theologians destroy everything good they come into contact with. A few Christians have never given up the fight, but compromise has crept into even conservative Christian groups. This is the sad story of mankind.
White also said that any Bible commentary in the last 50 years will discuss the authorship of the first five books, but many assume that Moses did not write it. They believe others wrote the first five books long after Moses died. That is Metzger’s view, which White disagrees with. White does accept Metzger on some of his other views. In other words, James White doesn’t see this as a problem. Just because Metzger, a Bible translator, doesn’t believe Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, that doesn’t necessarily mean he has a low view of scripture. But what else doesn’t Metzger believe? Dr. White, why didn’t you ask him what his views on other important doctrines are? If he rejected a few critical Christian doctrines, would you then think he should not be put in charge of Bible translations? What line must he and others cross before evangelicals reject the teachings of men who compromise the Word of God? How quickly we forget Westcott and Hort, who were heretics at best.
Does the denial of the Mosaic authorship of the first five books of the Bible present any other problems? Is it that big of a deal?
The denial of Moses’ authorship calls into question the entire Bible, including the New Testament. How so? In the New Testament, Jesus and the other writers quoted Old Testament scripture as if it were the very word of God. Anyone familiar with the New Testament knows and can probably quote scripture that states that Moses was the author of the portions of scripture they quoted from. Did they make a mistake? In the Old Testament, other books cite Moses as the author of the first five books. Is that a mistake?
Jesus said, ‘Moses gave you the law’. And many other similar statements were made by Jesus. Jesus confirmed Moses as the author. Moses got it directly from God and, in turn, gave it to the nation of Israel. If Jesus was wrong about this, then can Jesus be trusted? Jesus can’t be the savior and creator of the world if He lied about this or didn’t know, can He? If the Mosaic authorship is not as actual as Jesus and the apostles claimed, then Jesus is just a teacher of fables. How can we then trust Jesus? Good question. Guess what? Some critical scholars today are not sure what Jesus said. Much of what is attributed to Jesus in the gospels, they believe, may not have been spoken by Jesus at all. Hard to believe such unbelief coming from people who claim to love God. My Bible tells me that Jesus said the following.
“For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe Me, for he wrote of Me.” John 5:46.
There are many such New and Old Testament scriptures. Some scholars and teachers say this doesn’t prove that Moses actually wrote the first five books, but only that Moses is credited with receiving the information. But the word says that Moses wrote of Jesus. The Jew certainly believed Moses was the author of most of the first five books. Joshua wrote the last eight verses, according to some. So, what is the big deal? This critical view of scripture opens the door to question many more beliefs in the Bible, as just explained. Critics deny the miracles of the Bible; they deny that Jesus said the things attributed to Him in the gospels; they deny many of the foundational doctrines of the Word of God. There is no end to this corruption unless real believers say enough.
Higher criticism questions or flatly denies the flood of Noah and the creation epic in the Book of Genesis. Many so-called theologians try to merge evolution with the creation story in the Genesis account. Genesis, they say, can’t be taken literally. These theologians created theories like the Day/Age Theory, the Gap Theory, Progressive Creation, among others, to accommodate the theory of evolution. ‘Science’ tells us that the universe is billions of years old, but that Bible of yours says it is thousands of years old. Only ignorant fools, like me, believe such nonsense. Intelligent theologians find ways to make the Bible agree with what godless scientists claim is science. But Godly uncompromising theologians stand on the Word of God and make science provide evidence that convincingly supports their theories. Evolution has not done that, not even close.
If Genesis and the world-wide flood are myths, why should we believe and practice the morality in the 10 commandments?
Again, the question arises. Yea, hath God said? If we can question the authorship of the first five books, the miracles, the words of Jesus, and the Genesis account of creation, then why can’t we question the sexual morality of the Bible? This is what has happened in our day because the Word of God has been criticized and attacked continuously over many centuries. We have “Christian” theologians attempting to argue that God does not condemn homosexuality, baby killing, or any sexual immorality. Today, very few people believe in or accept Christian sexual morality, and that is the result of textual criticism, unnecessary Bible translations, continual tampering with the Word of God, and unbelief. Where does it all end? It ends with no one believing the Bible. It ends with lost and suffering souls held in the grip of sin. It ends with much of the world descending into chaos forever.
According to the authors of this video, Spurgeon said something to this effect, “We will not believe that God made mistakes about history or science or His word. If He is in error in any of these areas, He can’t be trusted in anything”. I agree with him and I know of many others who do too. God said He created everything in six literal days, not over millions or billions of years. He created man on day six. If evolutionary theories are correct, then the Bible is wrong and there is no God. If there is no God, there is no law giver. Man decides what is right and what is wrong. This is exactly why the theory of evolution is so popular. Many mass murders, like Hitler and Stalin, loved the theory of evolution because it provided justification for their evil plans.
Doubts about Moses being the author came not from genuine believers. On the video, Dr. John White says something to the effect of, “If one must have a Christian world view about scripture before that scholar is qualified to translate the Bible, then does a M.D. need to have a Christian world view to be qualified to be an M.D.?” I mentioned this already, but it bears repetition. Dr. White talked about his heart issues and the fact that he wanted an M.D. first, even if this guy was not a believer in Jesus Christ. He didn’t ask if he was a believer; he didn’t care. None of us would criticize the doctor for that thinking. We agree with him.
However, the idea that textual criticism is a ‘science’ like medicine is where some of us draw the line. Therefore, it does concern us if the Bible theologian or translator is a believer or an unbeliever. It is hard for me to believe that Dr. White can’t see the obvious problems with his position. Trusting a nonspiritual person with spiritual surgery makes no sense at all. That is like trusting an MD with no medical training credentials or experience. It makes no sense. Only real men and women of God should be consulted in theology, Bible translation, and Christian education. Those who have a low view of the inspiration of the Bible and Christian truth are not qualified to speak on behalf of God. Please don’t listen to them.
We have seen that textual criticism is not hard science but a soft science at best, just like the dating of manuscripts. There are few provable facts about this soft science. Much of it is based on speculation, context, experience, and one’s subjective ideas and values.
Early warnings about textual criticism
In the nineteenth century, R.L. Dabney and other scholars warned us about placing too much confidence in textual criticism. ‘Conjecture and subjectivity’ are present in this soft science, he warned. One scholar said, “Textual criticism is not a branch of mathematics nor indeed an exact science at all. It deals with a matter not rigid and constant, like lines and numbers, but fluid and variable. It is therefore not susceptible to hard and fast rules. It would be much easier if it were, that is why people try to pretend that it is, or at least, behave as if they thought so.” (The Classic Paper of A. F. Horsman, volume 3, pp 1058-1059). If this is true, then the beliefs of the critical scholar will undoubtedly contaminate his or her work. Can there be any doubt about this?
Dr. Wilbur Pickering, in his book, The Identity of the New Testament Text, quoted Dr. Metzger, who said, “It is understandable that in some cases different scholars will come to different evaluations.” The truth is, according to Pickering, “In fact, even the same scholars will vacillate, as demonstrated by the ‘more than five hundred’ changes introduced into the third edition of the Greek Text produced by the United Bible Societies, as compared with the second edition, the same committee of five editors prepared both. It thus appears that in the space of three years, with no significant accretion of new evidence, the same group of five scholars changed their minds in over 500 places. It is hard to resist the suspicion that they were guessing.” (Emphasis added). And we are trusting this kind of scholarship?
In light of this fact of history, what kind of textual changes might a doubter in the Bible find throughout his study? And what if that person is looking to discredit the Bible? What might that person see? What “expert” opinion might they come up with? Moorman said this is the remarkable thing about error: it spreads. In my not highly regarded opinion, this is precisely what we see in our present day when textual criticism, evolution, and climate change are regarded by most as ‘settled science.’ Someone once said, “If the blind follow the blind, both will fall into the pit.”
Years before the revision of the Greek text in 1881, there were warnings about textual criticism of the Bible, and into what hands might this task be given? Great care must be taken for the idea of a new translation of the Bible is an excellent opportunity for the devil to bring us a mutilated and false Bible. Enemies of the Bible were already at work in the field of academics, and thus the warning. (Jesuits being prominent.) Many of the scholars were unbelievers or tainted with Popery, according to the warning. Where were the men of God, scholars, that this work of translation might be entrusted to? For this great work can’t be entrusted to men spiritually dead, no matter how great their scholarship and learning. This warning was written in the mid-1800s. The author said we have no hope at present that this great work would be entrusted to godly men, qualified for this work, such as those godly men who gave us our present Bible”. (Book by J. C. Philpot, 1857, “Desirability of Keeping the Authorized Version”).
King James translators were humble, godly, and spiritual scholars of the most extraordinary piety and learning. Men unequaled. The process of translation was deep, with some 40 -50 scholars involved with multiple checks and balances, as already mentioned. Not a small group of scholars whose Christian commitment is suspect, such as was just mentioned earlier.
This issue was raised with Dr. James White about today, when the spiritual condition of the men translating the Bible is thought to be unimportant. Dr. White doesn’t see this as a problem. Should those people who are skeptical of the Bible be allowed to translate the Bible? White had no idea what the theological ideas of a particular Bible translating scholar were, as if it was unimportant. That right there is the issue and the problem. The theological view of those scholars who presume to translate the Bible is of the utmost importance. The fact that Dr. White didn’t know or care is the problem.
No one knew the theological views of Westcott and Hort. They keep their view a closely guarded secret for obvious reasons: they were unbelievers. Westcott and Hort knew that if the Christian community knew what they believed, they would never have agreed to put them in charge of translating the Bible. What dishonesty comes from the two men put in charge? We now see why it matters. The views and moral and spiritual character of the Biblical scholar must be known. It is like not knowing that your medical doctor got their credentials from a legitimate school or out of a box of breakfast cereal. It should be known. Someone on the video said, “Would you put a fox in charge of your chickens and a thief in charge of your money?” Of course, not. Yet that is what we did in terms of Bible translating work with Westcott and Hort, and all subsequent translations up to our present day. If men and women do not believe the Bible is the word of God, then what is their faith based on? Catholic Tradition? Papal pronouncements? New revelation from God? Scholarship? Heaven please help us.
“Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God”. Romans 10:7.
A skeptic does not have faith in God because a skeptic does not believe the word of God, the source of faith. It is as simple as that. Scholars, who are skeptics, are men and women of no faith. They should never be in a position to influence the translation of the Word of God.
“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy. Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good. Traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.” 2 Timothy 3:1-5, emphasis added.
How many Bible scholars and experts fit the underlined descriptions in this section from 2 Timothy 3? Are they proud, heady, high-minded, and traitors? Those vices are particularly applicable to many left-leaning “scholars.” We are told that “from such turn away.” Don’t put them in leadership to translate the Word of God for heaven’s sake. “From such turn away”. Another way of saying this is, turn these godless scholars out, don’t put them in charge of Bible translation, preaching, teaching, or Christian education.
We know now, and others must have known back then, that Westcott and Hort were just such men that should have been ‘turned out,’ not put in charge. No surprise that these two men found others just like themselves to join their small team. And what a team it was! Too bad it did not have a strong Bible believing Christian on it. This small team of scholars agreed to keep the changes to the absolute minimum and only to the essential changes. Being the ‘godly’ men that they were, they violated the agreement and made thousands of changes to the Greek Text. Many of those changes were substantial changes to the meaning of scripture. (We went over a few of them already.) That is what you get when you let the fox run the chicken coop: dead chickens.
Dr. James White and many others believe that textual criticism is a science, so that it doesn’t matter if unbelievers handle the Word of God. Dr. Wilbur Pickering and many others do not believe textual criticism is a science, or at least not a hard science. Much speculation goes into textual criticism.
This example is worth repeating. More than 500 changes were made to the Greek text in the 3rd edition. In these three years, scholars have changed their minds; so much for an exact science. Within 3 years, the same group of scholars changed their minds, not based on new evidence. They were guessing, inferring, speculating, and thinking out loud. Apostates and skeptics can’t be trusted to handle the Word of God as they are opposed to it from the get-go.
Into whose hands might the task and responsibility of translation fall? And what harm could unbelievers cause to confidence in the Bible? Scholars, like others, can be easily corrupted by worldly desires and may not perform the task righteously. The translators of the Authorized Version were great scholars, but more importantly, they were also righteous, humble, faithful, and godly men, unlike Westcott and Hort. In this video interview, Dr. White would not acknowledge this problem. (To his credit, Dr. White is an outspoken critic of the apostate Roman Catholic Church. He has many videos on YouTube. Check him out.)
We must never believe that skeptics and critics will handle the word of God as it should be handled. Dr. White didn’t agree. Would you put a thief in charge of your bank account? Never. The Old Testament has examples of God rebuking his children, Israel, for putting godless men in charge of handling the temple or the word of God.
On Westcott and Hort’s revision committee, they involved a Unitarian, which should have disqualified him. (Maybe this was a D.E.I. hire?) And as far as I am concerned, inviting a Catholic onto the committee is equally as bad. They asked a Jesuit on the translation team. A Catholic’s first loyalty is to the Roman Catholic Church and the pope, not the God of scripture. Wescott and Hort did not have a high view of scripture, and they should never have been in charge of a new translation.
Is the Bible just like any other ancient book, which should be subject to textual criticism?
Textual critics believe the Bible is just like any other ancient text and should be examined in the same fashion. There is some truth to that idea, but it is only partially true. The Bible is the Word of God, preserved by the promise of God. As such, it is a divinely inspired and preserved message from God, and it contains things that are metaphysical, supernatural, or miraculous by definition. God is not bound by natural law; He created it. But critics discount the supernatural origin and preservation of God. Only the spiritually minded can comprehend the Word of God.
Understandably, liberal theologians believe in textual criticism. However, it is not understandable when evangelical and conservative Bible believing Christians embrace the tenets of higher criticism. Several evangelicals say they believe in the inspiration of scripture, yet they embrace higher criticism of the Word of God. The premise behind textual criticism is that the Bible must be viewed like any other ancient manuscript. At first glance, that might seem reasonable, but on careful examination, the folly becomes obvious. The Bible is the Word of God Almighty, and it is not like any other book written by man. To suggest that it is, is unbelief and is sin. The Bible is the very word of the living God. All of it is to be believed, even the part that says, “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth”. God promised to preserve His word for His people. Satan came to Eve and put a doubt in her mind about what God said. “Yea, hath God said?” Textual critics provide the same ungodly guidance for us today by getting us to question the Word of God.
I understand why unsaved scholars, like Westcott and Hort, embraced higher criticism of the Bible because they do not believe the Bible is the Word of God, and they do not have confidence in it. They are unbelievers, so naturally they doubt everything. But for an evangelical Christian to fall back on textual criticism is a great travesty and the sin of unbelief, most likely. The only other explanation is ignorance.
In like manner, as we have discussed already in these articles, evolutionists demand that only naturalistic explanations can be considered in explaining our existence and the origins of matter and energy. For example, they refuse to admit to supernatural explanations for the origins of life. Their unbelief and pride blind them to the truth. To demand only naturalistic explanations is to assume that they are omniscient, all-knowing. As long as humanity acknowledges our finite powers, then we must admit to explanations beyond our present knowledge and abilities. To refuse this admission is the height of arrogance.
“And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Genesis 2:7
It is easy to miss what the passage is telling us. The message of this passage is that the supernatural (God) breathed into natural man’s nostrils the breath of life. Then and only then did man become a living soul. There is no physical life for man, apart from the supernatural life of God, who is spirit. The supernatural life (God) is the source of natural life. There can be no natural life without ‘God breathing into our nostrils the breath of life’. No great scientist can explain where and how life began. Dr. James Tour has a wealth of valuable information regarding this issue. Look him up on YouTube. He has lots of videos.
God is spirit and not physical. He is the spark who brings life to physical elements. God created man from the dust of the earth, and man was not yet a living soul. Man was only a physical body with no life in him at all. God is life, and life only comes from life (Him). Only when God breathed life into Adam’s nostrils did Adam come alive and become a living soul. All the false theories about evolution believe that life is the result of physical or material processes over significant periods. Nothing could be further from the truth. For scientists and others to create theories about life, without considering the supernatural (God), is the height of arrogance. Arrogant people should not be trusted with such important questions.
Scholarship and science are valuable and essential, but they have their limits. When science and scholarship question and then reject the Word of God, it is sinful. Much of evangelical scholarship today is the sin of unbelief.
Do not be unequally yoked.
A Bible that both Catholics and Protestants might agree with is an unequally yoked work. Christians are not to be unequally yoked. Liberal Protestant scholars changed to the new Bibles and became more ecumenical. That is a Jesuit goal. Evangelicals, Charismatics, and Pentecostals also joined up with Rome. Another win for the Jesuits and Rome. The modern ecumenical movement is an effort to bring evangelicals back to Rome. The video mentions a number of Jesuits by name who were involved in this effort. (In the following article, we will focus on the Jesuits and, after that, the Papacy.)
Charismatics and Bible translating organizations move toward Rome.
David Johannes du Plessis (1905-1987), a South African Pentecostal minister, was known as Mr. Pentecost. He is considered one of the principal founders of the charismatic movement, in which the experience of the baptism of the Holy Spirit was prominent. This baptism spread to non-Pentecostal churches around the world. David also attended Vatican 2. He was supposedly sent there by the founder of Wycliff Bible translators, W. Cameron Townsend, 1896-1982.
Mr. Townsend was dedicated to translating the Bible into other languages. The video indicates that he was also dedicated to ecumenism. (Warning lights should be flashing right now.) He welcomed all, even nonbelievers. Compromise has set in, and even the once great bastions of the Protestant Reformation have moved closer to Rome and a one-world religion with a one-world Bible. The video producers tell a story about how Bible translation became compromised, which is a sad story indeed. There is no telling what kind of missionary and gospel truth is on the mission field today.
New Bible Translations give the reader ideas, not words. Is that a good thing?
For example, the video relates the story of Eugene A. Nida (1914-2011). Eugene would alter the method of Bible translation into other languages around the world and greatly expand ecumenical emphasis within Wycliffe. Nida went to the Jesuit School to teach Jesuits how to improve the ‘science’ of Bible translation. (Calling something scientific is like casting a magic spell over it.) Eugene finally resigned when it came to agreeing to Biblical inerrancy. He would not agree to that. No surprise there.
In 1955, Townsend complained about the word inspiration. Again, no surprise. Nida went elsewhere and started translating using dynamic equivalency. In other words, he stopped translating the Bible literally. Nida taught ‘idea translation’ and not ‘word translation’, for if you preferred the word over the idea, you are guilty of worshiping words. The devil is very clever. He wanted to tell people the meaning of the words, not the words. You and I are not smart enough to determine the meaning of words or the idea words convey. We need ‘scholars’ to tell us what to think and what to believe—sick stuff.
“Idea translation” is another term for commentary or opinion. They wanted Bible translators who focused on the message for the reader. Disgusting! Now ideas, not the actual words, are considered authoritative. But who can miss that ideas come from individuals with bias and prejudice.
Do you think that a dedicated Roman Catholic priest or a progressive Protestant pastor can be objective in the ideas he presents? If you do, you are already deceived, maybe hopelessly. God never commanded us to stop thinking. I have given much evidence already, with more to come, that the Roman Catholic Church and its leaders were and are godless men. If you blindly believe these impostors, you will most likely die in your sins. The word of God is inspired, not the ideas of men, especially godless men. If you want to be told what to think and believe, you will love their approach to translation and religion in general.
Nida came many times to the Jesuit school and trained them. He also trained Protestants. Jesuits said to him he was doing the most important work since the Reformation. That should have socked him into his senses, but it did not. That is like going to a shaman for heart surgery advice. A compliment from a Jesuit is a kind word from the beast. It is like a compliment from Democrats and most Republicans. A compliment from a typical politician means you are far from righteousness, truth, and the God of the Bible.
Now, not offending anyone, is the goal of Bible translation (and Bible teaching). How far have we fallen? The Bible translator would now rewrite the Bible to appeal to the broadest section of humanity. Sounds like a great ‘seeker sensitive’ idea. Don’t mention sin, or hell. Just talk about heaven and what a great person everyone is.
We now have a Protestant and a Catholic Bible that both groups use. The United Bible Society came up with a one-world Greek text. According to the video, every Bible society from 1979 on has a one-world Bible in Greek and Hebrew that both Catholics and Protestants agree on. What amazing progress. Are we walking or running towards Armageddon? A one-world Bible is just what the Jesuits wanted. Eventually, they hope that will result in a one-world religion under the Pope. There is light at the end of the tunnel, but unfortunately, the light is a train.
Frank Logsdon, of the Moody Bible Institute, was a proponent of a new Bible translation, the New American Standard Bible. He was involved in its production. You may recall that I used the NASB Ryrie Study Bible for years. Before he died, he repented of his involvement in this one-world Bible. He said that it is frightfully wrong, and he wrote a letter saying he could no longer ignore these problems with this NASB. The problem was the underlying Greek text. He referred back to the KJV when godly men dedicated themselves to the Greek Text. The Jesuits’ goal was to supplant the Erasmus text by putting their men into teaching positions in universities and schools. The plan worked very well.
The assault on the Bible continues even today. Dr. White holds to the modern critical theory. Another proponent of the critical theory method, Dr. Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary, says it is a myth that the words of Jesus are recorded in the gospels. This is where all this leads: to a direct denial of the word of God. First the doubt, then the denial (Did the serpent invent textual criticism?) This is where the critical theory leads in way too many instances.
If that is true, that we do not have the words of Jesus in the gospels, then how can we defend and practice what Jesus said and commanded? How can anyone be accountable to obey Jesus if we know not what He said? I pray you find this as ridiculous as it is disgusting. Dr. Peter Ruckman called out Dr. White as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Ruckman is a big sword with a dull edge, so be prepared if you read his books or watch what he has on YouTube. There is a lot of great material in them, but he is forthright and exceedingly blunt.
God promised to preserve His word, Psalm 12:6,7. Do you believe it or not? Why do we have so many new translations, some of which change essential Biblical doctrines? Is it all part of an effort to unite the world in a one-world religion with a one-world Bible? Or is it money-related? Perhaps it is both.
Follow the money
Who owns the publishing companies that print theological, religious, and spiritual material? Might that have an impact on what is printed? Might that help explain why there is no end to Bible translations and commentaries? If you follow the money, you will open your own eyes.
In the following two articles, we will look more closely at the Papacy and the Jesuits and examine the fruit of these branches.
