Bible, is the English form of the Greek name `Biblia,' a diminutive from "biblos," which was exported from the ancient Phoenician port city of Biblos, and was from the inner bark of the papyrus, which was the material used in ancient times like we use paper today. "Biblia" meaning was "books," the name which in the fifth century began to be given to the entire collection of sacred books, the "Library of Divine Revelation." However, "Biblia" is a plural term, which better stresses the fact that the Bible is a collection of books and the fact that the word came to be used in the singular, emphasizes another fact, that behind these many books comprising the Bible, there lies a wonderful unity. The name Bible was adopted by Wickliffe, and came gradually into use in our English language. "In process of time this name, with many others of Greek origin, passed into the vocabulary of the western church; and in the 13th century, by a happy solecism, the neuter plural came to be regarded as a feminine singular, and `The Books' became by common consent 'The Book' (biblia, singular), in which form the word was passed into the languages of modern Europe." Westcott, Bible in the Church, 5. "Testament" literally means "a will," translated from the Greek word "diatheke" (Latin, "testamentum), and in the New Testament it is employed to translate the Hebrew word "berith," and thus in the same manner means, "a covenant." Applied to the Scriptures, therefore, "Old" and "New Testament" mean, strictly, "Old" and "New Covenant." The name is a continuation of the Old Testament designation for the law, "the book of the covenant," 2Ki. 23:2. In this sense Paul applies it (2Co. 3:14) to the Old Testament law; "the reading of the old testament." When, after the middle of the 2nd century, a definite collection began to be made of the Christian writings, these were named "the New Testament," and were placed as of equal authority alongside the "Old." The name "Novum Testamentum" (also "Instrumentum") occurs first in Tertullian writing's (190-220 AD), and soon came into general use. The idea of a Christian Bible may be then said to be complete.

The Bible was written over a period of about 1600 years (1500 B.C. - 100 A.D.), with a break of 400 years between the Old Testament and the New; written by 40 different authors (32 in the Old and 8 in the New). The Old Testament, it is well known, is written mostly in Hebrew; the New Testament is written wholly in Greek, which is "koine," or common Greek - that which was used in homes or the marketplaces. The parts of the Old Testament not in Hebrew, are namely, Ezra 4:8 through 6:18; Ezra 7:12-26; Jer. 10:11; Dan. 2:4 through Dan. 7:28, are in Aramaic (the so-called Chaldee), a related dialect, which, after the Exile, gradually displaced Hebrew as the spoken language of the Jews. The ancient Hebrew text was "unpointed," i.e. without the vowel-marks now in use. These are due to the labors of the Massoretic scholars (after the 6th century AD). Roman Catholics regard seven additional books (the Apocrypha) as being canonical, but these come from the questionable LXX written in Alexandria, Egypt, and are rejected by Protestants. The argument that the Greek texts are older does not hold water if they contain corruption's now does it? The pure facts are that No original copies or autographs exist. It is also to be remembered that "Targums" are not literal translations, but rather paraphrases or interpretations of the original.

The Old Testament (from the Latin word for "covenant") - or the Bible that the Jews had and was used by Christ and His apostles - can be ascertained by the character and contents of the Jewish Bible. Apart from references in the New Testament itself, an important aid is here afforded by a passage from Josephus, in Apion, I, 8, which may be taken to represent the current belief of the Jews in the 1st century A.D. After speaking of the prophets as writing their histories "through the inspiration of God," Josephus says: "For we have not myriads of discordant and conflicting books, but 22 only, comprising the record of all time, and justly accredited as Divine. Of these, 5 are books of Moses, which embrace the laws and the traditions of mankind until his own death, a period of almost 3,000 years. From the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes, the successor of Xerxes, king of Persia, the prophets who followed Moses narrated the events of their time in 13 books. The remaining 4 books consist of hymns to God, and maxims of conduct for men. From Artaxerxes to our own age, the history has been written in detail, but it is not esteemed worthy of the same credit, on account of the exact succession of the prophets having been no longer maintained." He goes on to declare that, in this long interval, "no one has dared either to add anything to (the writings), or to take anything from them, or to alter anything," and speaks of them as "the decrees (dogmata) of God," for which the Jews would willingly die. Philo (20 BC-circa 50 AD) uses similar strong language about the law of Moses (in Eusebius, Pr. Ev., VIII, 6). In this enumeration of Josephus, it will be seen that the Jewish sacred books - 39 in our Bible - are reckoned as 22 (after the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet), namely, 5 of the law, 13 of the prophets and 4 remaining books. These last are the books or Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastics. The middle class includes all the historical and prophetical books, likewise Job, and the reduction in the number from 30 to 13 is explained by Judges-Ruth, First and Second Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Jeremiah-Lamentations. and the 12 minor prophets, each being counted as one book. In his 22 books, therefore, Josephus includes all those in the present Hebrew canon, and none besides; not even the books known as the APOCRYPHA, though he was acquainted with and used some of these. The most important, and generally most reliable, witnesses to the Hebrew scriptures are the "Masoretic texts," those produced by Jewish scholars (called the Masoretes) who assumed the task of faithfully copying and transmitting the Bible. These scholars, active from the early Christian centuries into the Middle Ages, also provided the text with punctuation, vowel points (the original of the Hebrew text contains only consonants), and various notes. The standard printed Hebrew Bible in use today is a reproduction of a Masoretic text written in AD 1088.

It was seen above that the main divisions of the Old Testament are recognized in the New Testament, and that, under the name "Scriptures," a Divine authority is ascribed to them. It is therefore highly significant that, although the writers of the New Testament were familiar with the Septuagint, which contained the Apocrypha, no quotation from any book of the Apocrypha occurs in their pages. The New Testament consists of 27 documents written between 50 and 150 A.D. The "acknowledged" books of the New Testament present little difficulty. They are enumerated by Eusebius, whose statements are confirmed by early lists (e.g. that of Muratori, 170 A.D.). The "disputed" books of the New Testament were the epistles of James, Jude, Second and Third John and Second Peter. These, however, do not all stand in the same rank as regards authentication. A chief difficulty is the silence of the western Fathers regarding James, Second Peter and Third John. On the other hand, James is known to Origen and is included in the Syriac Peshitta; and the Muratorian Fragment attests to Jude and Second John. The weakest in attestation is Second Peter, which is not distinctly traceable before the 3rd century. The complete acceptance of all the books in our present New Testament canon may be dated from the Councils of Laodicea (circa 363 A.D.) and of Carthage (397 A.D.), confirming the lists of Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome and Augustine.

The division of the Bible into chapters and verses was designed to facilitate reference to it. The ancient Jews divided the Old Testament into certain sections for use in the synagogue service, and then at a later period, in the ninth century A.D., into verses. Our modern system of chapters for all the books of the Bible was introduced by Cardinal Hugo about the middle of the thirteenth century (he died 1263). The Bible was first divided into chapters by Stephen Langton in about 1228 A.D. The Old Testament was divided into verses by R. Nathan in 1448 A.D. The New Testament was introduced and divided into verses by Robert Stephanus in 1551 A.D. and generally adopted, although neither Tyndale's nor Coverdale's English translation of the Bible has verses. The entire Bible first appeared divided into chapters and verses in 1560 A.D. in the "Geneva Bible."

The most important, and generally the most reliable, witnesses to the Hebrew, are the Masoretic texts, those produced by Hebrew scholars (called the Masoretes), who assumed the task of faithfully copying and transmitting the Bible. The standard printed Hebrew Bible in use today is a reproduction of a Masoretic text written in 1088 A.D. From Christ to 100 A.D. all the original Manuscripts were used. By 170 A.D. 20 New Testament books had been accepted by the early Christians. By 400 A.D. all 27 books of the N.T. were accepted. From 452 - 1453AD the "Textus Receptus" was used by the Greek Church. In 1516 A.D., Erasmus edited the first printing of the Greek N.T. This was in agreement with the Textus Receptus. In 1526 A.D. Tyndale's N.T. in English was printed. Next, in 1550 A.D., Stephens Greek New Testament (Textus Receptus). Lastly, in 1611 A.D., The King James or Authorized Version was translated from the Greek Textus Receptus. From 1611 A.D. to 1881 A.D., or rather, from 312 to 1881AD, the only accepted source for the world's authorized Bible was the Byzantine Text (Textus Receptus). In addition to these Greek sources scholars have recovered copies of ancient translations in Latin, Syriac, Ethiopic, Armenian, Gothic and many others, some of which originated before our oldest existing Greek copies and thus testify to the contents of still earlier manuscripts and the spread of Christianity beyond the regions where Greek prevailed. The great weight of this evidence is favorable to the Byzantine or Received or Traditional Text.

The KJV comes to us from over 5000 manuscripts, 170 papyrus fragments (2nd to 7th century); 212 Uncial (capital letter) copies (4th - 10th); 2,429 Minuscules (smaller script) (9th - 16th); and 1678 Lectionary copies. However, the new versions (new version = any Bible after 1881 A.D.) come from a fraction of 1% of the extant Manuscripts, and that from one geographical area - Alexandria, Egypt. The Greek Vulgate, or Majority Text comes from Manuscripts from Greece, Constantinople, Asia Minor, Syria, Alexandria, Africa, Gaul, South Italy, Sicily, England and Ireland. In addition to the second and third Century papyri, which show that the KJV text-type dominated the early church. Codex W (4th century) and Codex A (5th century), the Gothic Version (4th century) and the Peshitta Syriac (now dated much earlier than the 5th century) agree with the KJV. Codex stands for, "book form."

Of the four Uncials, Aleph, B, C and D, which our days [per] new versions are based upon, Burgon writes: "All four are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from the 99 out of 100 of the whole body of extant manuscripts, but even from one another," The Revision Revised, p.12. But of the 5366 manuscripts and 2209 lectionaries extant today Hill says: "The vast majority of these extant Greek New Testament manuscripts agree together very closely, so closely indeed that they may fairly be said to contain the same New Testament," Which Bible, p. 104. E.C. Colwell informs us that as early as 200 A.D. scribes were altering manuscripts [P75 for one], see The Origen of Textypes of New Testament Manuscripts, pp. 128-138. In these pages Colwell tells us that "The Brodmer John (P66) is also a witness to the early existence of many of the" scribal alterations. Historians admit manuscript "D" was truncated by Marcion, New Age Bible Versions, by G.A. Riplinger, p. 487 [from now on referred to as NABV]. "Protestant theologians question its [Vaticanus (B)] lack of use by anyone for 1300 years - then its sudden `discovery' in the Vatican in 1481 A.D. Its immediate use to suppress the Reformation and its subsequent release in 1582 A.D., as the Jesuit-Rheims Bible, is logical, considering the manuscript's omission of anti-Catholic sections and books," [i.e. Dan. and Rev.], NABV, p. 552.

Dr. Nolan, who acquired fame for his Greek and Latin scholarship, spent 28 years in tracing the Received Text (Textus Receptus) back to its apostolic origin. His searching led him to investigate the Bible texts of the Waldenses who were the lineal descendants of the Italic Church. He states: "It has supplied me with the unequivocal testimony of a truly apostolic branch of the primitive church." This means that the Textus Receptus has been proven to be in harmony with translations, which go back to the second century. It is important to note here that the Sinaitic and Vatican Manuscripts were not brought into existence for many years following the Textus Receptus, when Eusebius copied them for Constantine. Besides this information, the International Bible Encyclopedia, p. 2955, says plainly that the latter copies that the King James Bible were taken from, really represent a more ancient reading. Codex Vaticanus differs from the Received Text such as: It omits at least 2,877 words; It adds 536 words; It substitutes 935 words; It transposes 2,098 words; and it modifies 1,132; making a total of 7,578 verbal divergences. So the present controversy between the King James Bible and the modern perversions is the same old contest fought out between the early church and rival sects [Antioch verses Alexandria]; and later, between the Waldenses and the Papists from the fourth to the thirteenth centuries; and later still, between the Reformers and the Jesuits in the sixteenth century.

Referring to the Traditional Greek Text Westcott states: "I am most anxious to provide something to replace them," Historic Faith p. 91. And he admits his drastic changes in "our proposed recension of the New Testament," 1852, Ibid., p. 229. "I reject the word `infallibility' of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly," 1860, Ibid., p. 207. "All the questionable doctrines which I have ever maintained are in it," speaking of their New Greek Text, 1866, Ibid., p. 290. "From my Cambridge days I have read the writings of many who are called mystics with much profit," Ibid., Vol. II, p. 309. Dr. Newth, one of the Revisers affirms "that they did not have before them, or give any consideration to, the weighty matters of fact, affecting the character of those two `ancient witnesses,' which we are now putting before our readers," Which Bible Can We Trust p. 161. He also states: "A passage being under consideration, the Chairman asks, `Are any Textual changes proposed?' If a change be proposed then `the evidence for and against is briefly stated.' This is done by `two members of the Company - Dr. Scrivener and Dr. Hort.' And if those two members disagree `The vote of the Company is taken, and the proposed Reading accepted or rejected. The Text being thus settled, the Chairman asks for proposals on the Rendering' (i.e., the Translation)." Ibid. 163. Thus, we can see clearly that they "created" their own New Greek Text.

Westcott and Hort were necromancers. For proof of this see NABV's chapter entitled "The Necromancers," and some of the following quotes. Westcott was called a spiritualist by his own son, NABV p. 380, and "began doing research into psychic activity," A Crash Course on the New Age, p. 163, by Elliott Miller. Westcott and Hort were known underground occult members of "The Ghost Club" or "Ghostly Guild" launched in 1851, The Occult Underground, p. 8, and both had a "love for contacting `the dead,' " NABV, p. 418. Hort's letter to Mr. A. MacMillian, the publisher, announces Plato as, "the center of my reading while creating the New Greek text," [note the word "creating"] Life of Hort, Vol. 1, p. 425. Hort admits (1853), "that he should take part in an interesting and comprehensive `New Testament Scheme,' " Ibid. p. 264.

Moody's Alfred Martin cites, "Origen's... influence in promoting the spiritualizing method of Bible interpretation has done untold damage. Hort relied on him perhaps more than any Father," Which Bible, by David Otis Fuller, p. 146. Philo (BC20 - 42AD) of Egypt's LXX, "held that the scriptures held an occult or hidden meaning,' Hort's personal letters disclose his penchant for Philo. His biographer said, `There are no writers on whom Dr. Hort spent more time than Josephus and Philo,' " NABV, p. 518. "I have a sort of craving that our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean, a text, issued by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy will have great difficulty finding its way to regions which it might otherwise hope to reach, and whence it would be banished by subsequent alarms," Life of Hort, Vol. 1 p. 445. Hort admits he made changes in this statement: "…we dare not introduce considerations which could not reasonably be applied to other ancient texts," the New Testament in the Original Greek, London 1881, Vol. 2, p. 277.

The fact that Westcott and Hort did change the Greek Text is admitted by Bishop Ellicott, chairman of the revisers committee in his book The Revisers and the Greek Text of the N.T. by two members of the N.T. Company, pp. 11-12. Ellicott, who was chairman of the Revision Committee, in his book, On Revision (1870), declares that: "Lachmann's was `a Text composed on the narrowest and most exclusive principles,' that it was `really based on little more tan four manuscripts,' " Which Bible Can We Trust p. 181. Robert Young, author of Young's Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible, proved that there were 8,000 changes from the Westcott and Hort NT in his book Concise Concordance of the Revised Testament.

Constantine requested the production of manuscripts B and Aleph, NABV, p. 339. Keep in mind his agenda was to unite Christianity with Paganism (4th century AD). The Gospel of Luke has approximately 1000 verses and the New Greek Text makes 1000 or so changes to this book alone, Ibid. p. 431. In 1943 Jesuit scholars moved on to editorial positions in the previously Protestant Journal of Biblical Literature. "Their work on the UBS/Nestle's [UBS = United Bible Society] Text and influence in biblical scholarship has biased so many `new' readings that the recent Catholic New American Bible was translated directly from UBS/Nestle, rather than the traditional Catholic Latin Vulgate." Ibid. p. 498. John R. Kohlenberger, spokesperson for Zondervan discloses, "all subsequent versions from the Revised Version (1881) to those of the present... have adopted their basic approach... [And] accepted the Westcott and Hort text," Words About the Word, p. 42. In The King James Version Debate, p. 41, author D.A. Carson of Baker Book House admits: "the theories of Westcott and Hort... [are] almost universally accepted today... It is on this basis that Bible translators since 1881 have, as compared with the King James Version, left out some things and added a few others." Marcion's contemporaries, Tertullian, Epiphanius and Irenaeus wrote, "Where also Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all; and curtailing the gospel according to Luke; and the epistles of Paul, they assert that these alone are authentic, which they themselves shortened," When Humanity Comes of Age, p. 39. John Burgon, who was Dean of Westminster and the pre-eminent Greek textual scholar of the day, said, "For the Greek Text which they [Westcott and Hort] have invented proves to be depraved throughout... it was deliberately invented... the underlying Greek... is an entirely new thing, is a manufactured article throughout... the new Greek Text... is utterly inadmissible... the underlying Greek Text had been completely refashioned throughout... The New Greek Text... was full of errors from beginning to end: had been constructed throughout... to meddle with the original Greek at all... by your own confession - you and your colleagues knew yourselves to be incompetent... falsifying the inspired Greek Text." The Revision Revised, pp. 114-122.

The Jehovah's Witnesses of Westcott and Hort's day and today saw in "The New Greek Text," a text to "promote the doctrine of the Watchtower," Understanding the Cults, p. 81. To this day their NWT is "a modern language translation of the Westcott-Hort Greek text," The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, pp. 3-5. The NIV and NASB users need to realize that they are using essentially the same Bible as JW's. "Unitarian editor of the New Greek Text, Vance Smith urges new versions to replace `Holy Ghost' with `the Spirit'," The Revision Revised, p. 124, or "the Holy Spirit," or "the Spirit," to "A Spirit" (Example Rom. 8:15). The minority Greek New Testament Text shifts words around "Babylon" so that it is not a religious system (as portrayed in the KJV), but a geographic location. "Even the NAB Catholic Bible and official Knights of Columbus, pamphlet #51, agree that this `city of seven hills' is Rome." NABV, p. 132. Watch the new versions refer to the KJV's translations of the word "The," when speaking of "The God," "The Son," or "The Savior," as in their translation, "A God," "A Son," or "A Savior" (example see NIV, NASB, 1 John 4:14).

Valentinus' productions papyri, 72 and 66, change "begotten Son" to "begotten God." The NWT agrees wholeheartedly. Alan Wikgren of the UBS Greek New Testament committee admits: "It is doubtful that the author would have written `begotten God' which may be a primitive, transcriptural error in the Alexandrian [text] tradition," A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 198. However the critical apparatus of the UBS Greek New Testament cites, P66, P75, Aleph, B, C and L, as well as Valentinians, Theodotus, Clement, Origen and Arius, as support for their use of "begotten God." Consider this though, that nowhere is this idea supported in the over 5000 Manuscripts backing the KJV. Vance Smith, Unitarian editor of the New Greek Committee writes, "the NT contains neither precept nor example which really sanctions the religious worship of Jesus Christ," Texts and Margins, p. 47 (examples Phi. 2:10; 4:13; Rom. 1:3,16; Eph. 3:14). Of the 300 Greek Manuscripts containing 1Ti. 3:16, only five late Manuscripts (9th, 12th and 13th centuries) omit "God." The Uncials, Aleph and especially A and C, have been altered here so that either "God" or "who" can be deduced. See NIV, NASB, NWT and Phillip's. Of writers before 400 A.D., only Origen stands alone in omitting "God." The omission of "God" in the new versions is based on its deletion in 1881 by the Westcott and Hort's revision which Metzger says, "Was taken as the basis for the present United Bible Societies edition," A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. XVII. D.A. Carson, new version advocate responded in his book, The King James Version Debate, p. 42: "This theory [that Christ is not God] is being presented in popular literature to pastors and laymen every where, many of whom have never read a rebuttal at the same level and who are not equipped to do the more advanced work that demonstrates the theory to be false. The KJV translators obscured the NT witness to that truth [the deity of Christ]... if we compare all of the verses of the new testament that can be translated in such a way that they directly call Jesus God, we would find that the KJV missed half of them." The KJV actually has most, if not all and it is the New Versions that delete half of them.

Tischendorf (1865-1872AD), discoverer of Codex Sinaiticus, had a dominating influence in the formation of the modern Text. His plan, in his own words: "The text is to be sought only from ancient evidence [meaning using only the oldest Manuscripts], and especially from Greek Manuscripts [LXX from Egypt], but without neglecting the testimonies of Versions and [Catholic] Fathers." Ibid. p. 144. But whether the Codex Sinaiticus is the most ancient of all is "beyond any doubt whatever, the most defective, corrupt, and untrustworthy... the worst and most `scandalously corrupt' of all the Greek Texts now known to exist." Ibid. Tregelles was a contemporary with Tischendorf and he wanted "to give the text on the authority of the oldest Manuscripts and Versions," Ibid. This was precisely the plan proposed by Lachmann, whose precedents mainly influenced Westcott and Hort. "Dr. Scrivener [in his book A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus (1864)] says (Introduction p. 342): `Lachmann's text seldom tests on more than four Greek Codices, very often on three, not infrequently on two, sometimes on only one.' His fallacy, which was adopted Tregelles, necessarily proved fatal to the text prepared by the latter, who in fact acted upon the astounding assumption that `eighty nine ninetieths' of our existing manuscripts and other authorities might safely be rejected, in order that we might be free to follow a few early documents of bad repute. This tendency in a wrong direction found a still further development in Tischendorf, and came to full fruition in Westcott and Hort, who were allowed to fashion according to their own ideas the Greek Text of the R.V." Ibid. p. 144-145. Also " `the worst corruption's to which the New Testament has ever been subjected originated within a hundred years after it was composed,' and `Irenaeus and African fathers used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens, thirteen centuries, later, when molding the Textus Receptus.' " Ibid.

Canon Cook in his authoritative book The Revised Version of the First Three Gospels states: "By far the greatest number in innovations, including those which give the severest shocks to our minds, are adopted on the testimony of two manuscripts, or even of one manuscript, against the distinct testimony of all other manuscripts, uncial and cursive... The Vatican Codex, sometimes alone, but generally in accord with the Sinaitic, is responsible for nine-tenths of the most striking innovations in the R.V." Ibid. 148. "It is not too much to say that in nine passages out of ten - nay, to go further - in every passage of vital importance as regards the integrity of Holy Scripture, the veracity of the sacred writers, and the records of our Lord's sayings, nearly all ancient versions, and with very few exceptions, all ancient fathers, support the readings rejected by the Revisers." Ibid. p. 169.

One of the greatest and most renowned scholars is Dean Burgon. On this subject his works should be sought with the utmost diligence. He writes, "The impurity of the text exhibited by these codices is not a question of opinion but of fact… In the Gospels alone Codex B (Vatican) leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of careless transcription on every page. Codex Sinaiticus `abounds with errors of the eye and pen to an extent not indeed unparalleled, but happily rather unusual in documents of first-rate importance.' On many occasions, 10,20,30,40 words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled: while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause proceeding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament." Ibid. p. 151. Notwithstanding, they differ "not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant Manuscripts. Besides, but even from one another. This last circumstance, obviously fatal to their corporate pretensions, is unaccountably overlooked. As said of the two false witnesses that came to testify against Christ, so it may be said of these witnesses who are brought forward at this late day to testify against the Received Text, `But neither so did their witness agree together'." Ibid. Summing up the case Dean Burgon assures us, including the Codex Beza, and " `without a particle of hesitation, that they are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant;' That they `exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with;' that they `have become (by whatever process, for their history is wholly unknown) the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of truth, which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of God." Ibid. p. 152. Dr. Edward Vining of Cambridge, Mass. "has produced evidence tending to show that they were copies (and most carelessly made) of an original brought by Origen out of Egypt, where, as is well known, the Scriptures were corrupted almost from the beginning in the interest of the same ascetic practices as now characterize the church of Rome." Ibid. p. 159. In his Preface to Revision Revised, Burgon states: "use has been made of that margin to insinuate suspicion and distrust, in countless particulars as to the authenticity of parts of the Text which have been suffered to remain unaltered." Ibid. p. 163. In his book The Revision Revised he states: "I rose from the investigation profoundly convinced, that however important they may be as instruments of criticism, codices A, B, C, D are among the most corrupt documents extant. My contention in, - not that the Theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort rests on an insecure foundation, but, that it rests on no foundation at all." Ibid. p. 232.

CHRIST'S DIVINITY ATTACKED: Is Christ a created being as in Proverbs 8:22 and Daniel 3:25? Does your version eliminate the word "Lord" or "God" or "The" when referring The Christ or Jesus and/or place a question as to His Divinity at all? Psa. 8:5; Mic. 5:2; Mat. 1:16; 8:6; 12:42; 18:11; 21:44; 24:36; 27:54; 28:6; Mark 9:24; Luke 2:33,43; 7:31; 9:57; 22:31; 23:42; 24:52; John 6:69; 8:20; 9:25; 14:12,28; 16:10; Acts 9:5;6,29; 19:10; Romans 1:3; 6:11; 16:24; 1Co. 11:29; 12:3; 15:47; 2Co. 4:10; Gal. 6:17; Eph. 3:14; Col. 1:2; 1Th. 1:1; 2Th. 2:4; 1Ti. 1:1; 3:16; 8:21; 2ti. 4:1,22; Tit. 1:4; 2Jo. 1:3; Jude 5,14; Rev. 1:1,8,11; 15:4; 16:5; 19:1.

Remember, less than 1% of the extant Manuscripts available to us today were used by today's New Versions and of those, none agree with themselves. No Hebrew (the true original) was used. (Note: making up over 70% of the Bible). The scholars behind the New Versions admit to not even following exactly the already adulterated Manuscripts. The New Version scholars admit to putting into their versions their own agenda (such as "once saved always saved" and the non-belief in the deity of Christ). The New Version scholars were/are known necromancers, occultists, lesbians, et cetera. In addition, the New Version scholars should have (being scholars) taken the Greek word and translated it into English (as they claim to the public they did). Think about it! You and fifty other Americans are German scholars, and the word you are to translate for your American Bible edition is, "GOTT," meaning God. Some may choose to translate it as "Father, Almighty," et cetera. Nevertheless, if you are a New Version, New Greek Text scholar and it is speaking about Christ, you alter it (example: "a god," or "non-god"), or omit it altogether (example: _____).