Our Bible Part 5

VII. It has become fashionable in modern Christianity to assume that a bonafide translation is impossible and the truth of God (Scripture) is confined to “original” languages. Consider: A. When someone is desperate to cling to an error which is refuted in the KJV, there is a tendency to appeal to the “original” Greek as found in an ancient manuscript. 1. Which Greek? There are two lines of Greek texts. a. One comes from apostolic sources through Syria and genuine N.T. churches, becoming the basis for the KJV (commonly known as Textus Receptus). b. The other is a corrupt one reflecting gnostic and platonic philosophy which comes from Alexandria, Egypt through the Roman Catholic Church. (1) This latter is the basis for virtually every modern English bible translation. (2) The predominant Greek manuscripts in this line of texts were written in classical Greek, not the common (koine) Greek of Christ and the apostles. (3) Thus, when someone appeals to this Greek text, he is not appealing to the original language. c. The KJV, as stated in its preface, can truly say that it was translated from the original tongues. 2. It is commonly said that the Greek underlying modern versions is closer to the original autographs. a. How can this be known? We do not have the original autographs. b. There is something suspiciously eerie about false appeals to authority that are manifestly impossible. See EZE 13:6. c. Further, when someone is trying to evade the obvious English of the KJV by going to Greek, if he is going to the Greek text underlying the KJV, it will also prove him wrong. B. When someone tries the Greek gambit to avoid the implications of the plain English, ask him if he believes whether his Greek text is the infallible Scripture or not. 1. If it is not, then what is the point? He may very well be citing a Greek error. 2. If he concedes that his Greek source is the infallible Scripture, then he also concedes that Scripture can be preserved in copies (since we have not the original autographs). 3. If it can be accepted by faith that God has preserved His word in a copy, then why not also in a translation? To deny that God could or would do so is to deny His omnipotence and deny also the internal evidence in Scripture where God specifically orders copies and translations of His words. C. God has ordained that saints should prove their teachers’ words with Scripture. ACT 17:11; 1TH 5:21. 1. This demands a level playing field where both parties have a common referent and Our Bible 12-1-24 Page 11  language. 2. Preachers that Greekify non-Greek speaking congregations are borderline barbarians. 1CO 14:11. 3. When an English-speaking preacher (or anyone else) “goes to the Greek” because he disagrees with the KJV, he must provide for his English listeners the English equivalent to his Greek resource. a. If he doesn’t even believe that the Greek he runs to is preserved inspired Scripture, he is deceitful and wasting his time. b. He must translate the Greek to English for the benefit of English-speakers. He therefore affirms translation as part of the transmission process of Scripture (if he even believes his Greek resource was Scripture). But this work has already been done by the KJV translators. c. He obviously assumes himself to be a better translator than the KJV translators (and they were top-notch). 3. Disregard of these facts is an open door to a separate, enlightened priest-class of adepts whom the masses must trust to explain the secret mysteries. 4. The spirit of Pharisaism does not die easily. LUK 11:52; EZE 34:2, 18-19. VIII. A major factor in the “Which Bible?” problem is the distinction between two lines of texts, one of which largely springs from Egypt and became the basis for the Roman Catholic bibles. A. Virtually every modern English bible since 1871 has been based (partially or entirely) upon Egyptian / Roman Catholic texts. B. Around 306 B.C., Ptolemy Soter, ruler of Egypt. established a school in Alexandria, Egypt. For the next 300 years, until Alexandria was subjugated by the Romans in 30 B.C., the intellectual activity centered around scientific and literary pursuits. 1. The second period of intellectual activity was from 30 B.C. to 642 A.D. when the Arabs destroyed Alexandria. The predominant movement of this period was of a “...character largely determined by Oriental gnosticism and containing Jewish and later, Christian elements. The second Alexandrian school resulted in the speculative philosophy of the Neoplatonists and the religious philosophy of the Gnostics and early church fathers.” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th Ed. Vol.1, p. 581) 2. Gnosticism is a system of philosophy that incorporates the basic tenets of pagan, mystery religions which boast a mystic revelation and secret knowledge. a. Gnostics believe that one must be equipped with sacred formulas and symbols in order to secure heaven. b. They profess the doctrine of emanations, to wit, the supreme being emanated a lesser being which in turn emanated a lesser being and so on. C. In Scripture, Egypt is seen as a place that opposes the interests of God. It was a highly sophisticated cultural and academic empire which wedded its idolatrous religion with its political structure, creating what was deemed a perfectly ordered society. It was the first viable world empire since the demise of Nimrod’s Babylon. 1. Egypt was renowned for its earthly wisdom. ACT 7:22; 1KI 4:30. 2. Egypt oppressed the O.T. church as well as resisting God, His word and His ministers. EXO 5:1-2; 2TI 3:8. 3. God called His church out of Egypt. HOS 11:1. 4. God commanded His church to not return to Egypt. DEU 17:16. 5. God commanded His church to not appeal to Egypt for help. ISA 30:1-3; 31:1. 6. Identifying with cursed Egypt is a questionable thing at best. c/w JOS 6:26. Our Bible 12-1-24 Page 12 D. Alexandria, Egypt was the source of major corruption of some scripture manuscripts. “Looking down into this poisoned well of the past reveals: 1.) the reservoir of ‘ideas’ spawning much of the ‘New’ Age and 2.) the course of contamination found in the ‘New’ versions. The well fed by Egypt, Greece, and Rome is today ‘dished out’ to New Agers and New Christians alike. The ‘New’ versions agree in many particulars with the ‘New’ Age because they flow from the same source. We will examine the philosophies of six men: Saccas, Philo, Plato, Clement, Origen and Eusebius – to see why new versions have New Age leaven. We will trace the origen of the handful of ancient papyrus and uncial New Testament manuscripts which were altered to agree with the esoteric philosophies of these men. These manuscripts (Aleph, B, D, P75, etc.) were resurrected by Westcott and Hort to ‘correct’ the Traditional Greek text [ed. the Received Text]. New versions are based on this corrupted Greek text.” (New Age Bible Versions, G.A. Riplinger, p. 516) 1. Philo. He was a Jew educated at Alexandria. He attempted to synthesize the O.T. with Greek philosophy. He allegorized the O.T. and believed God to be without quality. He thought God could not have contact with finite things without violating his purity and loftiness. God therefore generated the logos or supreme idea through whom the world is created and who is the mediator between God and man. This is gnosticism. 2. Clement of Alexandria. This man played a founding role in the school at Alexandria, around 200 A.D. a. He embraced the heresies of Tatian, who had already imbibed the gnostic position as witnessed in his work, “Christianity.” (The Diatessoron of Tatian, J. Hamlyn Hill, p. 9) b. Clement expressly intended to mix Christian teachings with pagan philosophies, which he did. (The Revision Revised, Dean Burgon, p. 336) 3. Origen. A student of Clement, educated at Alexandria. a. Origen was for some time the head of the philosophical school at Alexandria. He is the prime culprit of corruption of the few Old and New Testament manuscripts which were in Egypt. He did most of his corrupting work in the early third century. From p. 526 of New Age Bible Versions by Gail Riplinger we read the following, “The History of Heresy calls Origin a ‘Christian Gnostic’ who was pronounced a ‘heretic’ by a series of general synods.” b. “Blavatsky summons Origen dozens of times in her Isis Unveiled to pander her occult doctrines. Her Theosophical Glossary places him where he belongs, as a “disciple” of neo-platonism at the Alexandria School of Ammonius Saccas. She sees Clement and Origen as apologists for her occult world view: ‘It is maintained on purely historical grounds that Origen…and even Clement had themselves been initiated into the Mysteries, before adding to the Neo-Platonism of the Alexandrian school that of the Gnostics, under a Christian veil.’” (Ibid) c. There are many more details, but for sake of brevity he was a pagan gnostic who was declared a heretic because he held the following beliefs, all of which are contrary to the clear teaching of the Bible. These points are from p. 529 of New Age Bible Versions. (1) The Logos is subordinate to the Father and has some characteristics similar to the Logos of the Gnostics. (2) The soul is preexistent; Jesus took on some preexistent human soul. Our Bible 12-1-24 Page 13  (3) There was no physical resurrection of Christ nor will there be a second coming. Man will not have a physical resurrection. (4) Hell is nonexistent. Purgatory, of which Paul and Peter must partake, does exist. (5) All, including the devil, will be reconciled to God. (6) The sun, moon and stars are living creatures. (7) Castration affords superior spirituality. Origen castrated himself. d. He maintained a three-fold sense of Scripture: grammatico-historical, moral, and the pneumatic or allegorical sense, which he believed was the highest. (1) He stated that: “The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they were written.” (Origen, McClintock and Strong Cyclopedia) (2) On p. 528 of New Age Bible Versions, further information is given from Corrine Heline, author of New Age Bible Interpretation: “Cites Origen and his belief that ‘The entire bible is written so that it has one meaning for the masses of the people and another for occult students.’” e. Origen compiled the Hexapla, which was a multi-version O.T. in 6 columns and made a Greek translation of the O.T. in the 5th column (now called LXX or Septuagint). (1) He added the Apocrypha, which was never recognized in the Jewish canon of Scripture, nor by the Lord Jesus Christ. (2) He also added a translation of the N.T. with deletions and alterations. (3) He admitted to willful alterations of texts which did not conform to his reasonings. (Berlin, Origenes Werke, Vol.10, pp. 385-388) f. Some time needs to be here devoted to the subject of the Septuagint (LXX), a supposed Greek translation of the O.T. made prior to the incarnation of Christ. The LXX is one of the most important articles in the modern Bible- reviser's armament. This is one of the so-called “best and most ancient” manuscripts that have been used to undermine the A.V. 1611. Notice this interesting admission concerning it: “The LXX translators made some palpable mistakes; their knowledge of Hebrew was often inadequate; they occasionally interpreted as well as translated, and they sometimes introduced local colour.” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th edition, vol. 20, p. 336) (1) It is claimed that the LXX was translated by 70 or 72 Jews sent to Alexandria at the request of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (288-247 B.C.), and that it was done over a period of about 100-150 years. (2) Evidence for the LXX prior to Christ is based largely on the “Letter to Aristeas” a spurious record which purports that Ptolemy asked the translators philosophical questions to test their proficiency. Remember 1CO 1:19-21; COL 2:8. (3) Here is where we find some imaginative wizardry employed by modern scholars. The 5th column of Origen's Hexapla is deemed to be a revision of LXX while at the same time, in the absence of proof, is quoted as being LXX itself. Furthermore, whenever scholars resort to the fabled LXX, they virtually always quote from Codex Vaticanus, which is supposedly a copy or version of Origen's Our Bible 12-1-24 Page 14  5th column made 100 years after Origen! With quantum leaps in reasoning like this, is it any wonder that confusion abounds? (4) Scholars often maintain that Christ frequently quoted LXX during His life on earth. Problem: The O.T. which Christ used and would fulfil had jots and tittles, characteristic of Hebrew (MAT 5:18). The LXX is in Greek, which has no jots or tittles and Christ furthermore did not rely upon a “scripture” characterized by “palpable mistakes” (per Ency. Brit., above). He relied upon and quoted an unbroken Scripture which could be searched. JOH 10:34-35; 5:39. (5) The purported LXX was written in classical Greek, not koine or common Greek. Christ and the apostles' ministries were aimed at and received by the common people. MAT 11:25; MAR 12:37; JAM 2:5. g. Origen, probably more than any other man, poisoned the pen of the scribes who should have adhered to the existing apostolic Received Text. 4. Eusebius. He was an admirer of Origen and a student of his philosophy. He was ordered by Constantine to publish fifty copies of the Bible to be used in the churches of the empire. He chose Origen's translations for the task. 5. Jerome. About 380 A.D., he produced a Latin version of the Bible known as the Vulgate. It was based on the corrupted texts as well, containing the Apocrypha. Jerome admitted that the Apocrypha was not Scripture, but the Pope endorsed them. 6. The Jesuits eventually produced a Bible in English based on the Vulgate to counteract the Waldensian-influenced English Bibles which were gaining great acceptance. The N.T. appeared in Rheims, France around 1582; the O.T. from Douay being compiled in 1609-1610. The Douay has been continually up-dated to keep pace with the King James Version. Catholic Cardinal Wiseman acknowledged this. (“Douay Bible,” The Catholic Encyclopedia) 7. The Codex Vaticanus (B) turned up in 1481 A.D. In 1859, Tischendorf discovered Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) in a wastebasket in a convent (he should have left it there.) They are thought to be two surviving copies of Eusebius' fifty. a. Believing B and Aleph to be the purest texts, Westcott & Hort prepared a Greek N.T. They dominated the Revision Committee of 1871 which produced the Revised Version of 1881. Their Greek N.T. altered the Traditional or Received Texts in more than 5700 places. b. Westcott and Hort were admitted evolutionists, aeonists, and Mariolaters, which would account for their tenacious clinging to the two Catholic texts when they had 3000 manuscripts available. c. Furthermore, Westcott and Hort were spiritualists who had strong leanings towards occult philosophies. They founded at least two societies which were steeped in “new-age” pursuits: the Hermes Club and the Ghostly Guild (Hermes is acknowledged among occultists as another name for Satan). (1) The manuscripts which they preferred, interestingly enough, were from the pens of corrupted individuals like Origen and Marcion, who were principals of the Gnostic theology which sought to synthesize occult, pagan religion with Christianity. (2) It is also interesting that Madame Helen Blavatsky, one of the most important occultists of all time, derived much of her Luciferian doctrine from Philo's Alexandrian school. She has nothing but praise Our Bible 12-1-24 Page 15  for the efforts of Westcott and Hort, believing them to have done great service for the cause of Lucifer by revising the bible to reflect the “secret doctrine.” d. Hort--On the coming Revision: “The errors and prejudices, which we agree in wishing to remove, can surely be more wholesomely and also more effectively reached by individual efforts of an indirect kind than by combined open assault. At present, very many orthodox but rational men are being unawares acted on by influences which will assuredly bear good fruit in due time, if the process is allowed to go on quietly; but I cannot help fearing that a premature crisis would frighten back many into the merest traditionalism.” (Life and Letters, Vol. 1, p. 400) (1) Later Hort would write, “I am in favor of indirect dealing.” (2) Contrast this with JOH 18:20; 2CO 4:2; 8:21. e. Hort--On the textual changes: “I do not think the significance of their existence is generally understood. It is quite possible to judge the value of what appears to be trifling alterations merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have often important bearings which few would think of at first....It is, one can hardly doubt, the beginning of a new period in Church history.” (Life of Hort, Vol. 2, p. 102) e. Westcott--On the Revision: “The value of the Revision is most clearly seen when the student considers together a considerable group of passages, which bear upon some article of faith. The accumulation of small details then produces its full effect.” (The Four Gospels, Streeter, p. 30) 8. Westcott and Hort's Greek Text, based upon the corrupt Roman Catholic (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, etc.) texts which are based upon the corrupt texts of Origen, are essentially the rootstock of modern bibles. a. This includes the NASB and the NIV. b. The NKJV is a hybrid which purports to be in the same family of texts as the KJV, but has numerous readings from the Catholic manuscripts. Our Bible 12-1-24 Page 16