The Truth About Corrupt Bible Translations

If you are like me you have trusted the Bible translators to do their best possible work, and that the modern Bible versions were based on the same Greek text of the Bible as the King James Version. For many years I loved the NIV and used it as my primary Scripture text. Of course it troubled me when I would read a footnote that says the “best and oldest” copies of the text do not have this or that verse, but little did I know about the numerous passages that had been completely deleted or mistranslated. Now I feel cheated and lied to.

I came across two books, Unholy Hands on the Bible, Vol. 1 & II, by Sovereign Grace Trust Fund. These books contain the writings of several well-regarded scholars in the field of Bible translation and Textual Criticism, which is the analysis of Greek texts of the Bible. In short, all well known Protestant translations of the Bible other than a few like the KJV, New King James Version (NKJ), modern King James Versions, and literal translations, use Greek texts that have been corrupted by the Gnostics, Marcion, and many other heretics.

You may have heard of the King James controversy which condemns all translations except the King James Version. Because this controversy is very involved, it takes up several books and hundreds of web sites containing 1,000s of pages of information, so this chapter will merely introduce you to this important subject. I originally laughed at the whole King James Only idea, because I have used many different translations and also looked up words in the original Greek using Greek/English dictionaries, but I was not aware that the modern translations are based on adulterated Greek texts.

There are two main points in this issue: First, some persons insist that the KJV is itself perfect and inspired, which can be easily disproved, so I will not even discuss it in this chapter. Second, the Greek text on which the modern translations are made is vastly different from the Greek text on which the KJV was made, therefore, you cannot trust the modern translations. Some of the corruptions may seem small, but have great doctrinal significance. If you doubt that, just consider that modern translations are based, essentially, on the same Greek text that is used for the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witness.

For example, in Luke 2:33 the KJV says, “And Joseph and his mother marveled at those things which were spoken of him.” But the modern translations say, “The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him.” The modern translations say that Joseph was Jesus’ father, but the KJV does not say that Joseph was Jesus’ father, because as we all know, God was Jesus’ father.

I will not take the space necessary to explain the importance of all the adulterated passages, but merely list some of them here. The collective result is that the modern translations have watered down and significantly altered the text so as to weaken and even change and obscure the truth. Here is a sampling of passages that have been adulterated by most of the modern translations. There are many more than those listed here.

The underlined words in the right column have been removed from the NIV translation and most other modern translations.

	NIV	KJV
Matthew 5:44	…Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,	…Love your enemies, blessthem that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Matthew 6:13	And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.	And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen
Matthew 9:13	For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.	for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Matthew 9:18	a ruler came and knelt before him	. . . there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him.
Matthew 17:21	No such verse.	Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
Matthew 18:11	No such verse.	For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
Matthew 20: 16	So the last will be first, and the first will be last.	So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen .
Matthew 20:22	You don’t know what you are asking,’ Jesus said to them. ‘Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?’ ‘We can,” they answered.	But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and tobe baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.
Matthew 25:13	Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.	Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.
Matthew 27:35	When they had crucified him, theydivided up his clothes by casting lots.	And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.
Mark 3:15	And to have authority to drive out demons.	And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils:
Mark 7:16	No such verse.	If anyman have ears to hear, let him hear.
Mark 10:24	Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!	Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
Mark 11:26	No such verse.	But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
Mark 15:28	No such verse.	And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
Luke 4:4	Man does not live by bread alone.	Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
Luke 4:8	Jesus answered, ‘It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.	And Jesus said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord they God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Luke 4:41	Moreover, demons came out of many people, shouting, ‘You are the Son of God!	And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God
Luke 9:55	But Jesus turned and rebuked them,	But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are o f.
Luke 9:56	and they went to another village	For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.
Luke 11:4	Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us. And lead us not into temptation.	And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.
John 5:4	No such verse.	>For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped inwas made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
Acts 8:37	No such verse.	And Philip said, If thou believest with all le=”le”>thine heart, thou mayest.And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Acts 15:34	No such verse.	Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.
Acts 24:7	No such verse.	But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,
Romans 8:1	Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,	There is therefore now no condemnation tothem which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Romans 11:6	And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.	And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Romans 16:24	No such verse.	The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
Ephesians 5:30	for we are members of his body.	For we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.
Colossians 1:14	in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.	In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins.
Colossians 3:6	Because of these, the wrath of God is coming.	For which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience.
1 Peter 4:14	If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the spirit of glory and of God rests on you.	If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.
I John 5:7-8	For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.	For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one
Revelation 1:11	which said: “Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches …	Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches…

Now that I have your attention, here is more information on the issue. All copies of the Bible books had to be hand written until 1455 when the first Bible was printed on a printing press. Because of being hand copied, mistakes exist in all copies of the Bible, such as a missing word, or missing line, or a word written twice, or a different word that is spelled similar to the original word. Therefore, most errors are insignificant and easily detectable when you compare many copies together. The problem is that because of hand copying, it was very easy for heretics to simply leave out or alter the statements they did not like. Bible translators should ignore those corrupted copies but they do not.

His essential Godhood is oftentimes either denied, or doubt thrown upon it by the NIV. And all too often this is caused by their [translators] reliance on the unfounded theories of textual criticism which they have adopted. And most of the time it is caused by their reliance on two heresy-filled, Gnostic manuscripts, the Vaticanus (known as B), and the Sinaiticus (known as Aleph). The translators ignore the obvious blunders in these two manuscripts, and even insert them in their versions. These two manuscripts promote the view that Jesus is a created god, for the Gnostics taught that, and it should be no surprise to hear that they changed manuscripts to reflect their belief, whenever they were given the opportunity. (Unholy Hands on the Bible, Vol. 2, page 225)

Church historian Eusebius, in the fourth century, knew that heretics were corrupting the Bible text:

Eusebius quotes a second century father, writing shortly after the death of the apostle John: “Wherefore, they have no fear to lay hands on the divine Scriptures under pretence of correcting them . . . As for their denying their guilt, the thing is impossible, since the copies were written in their own hand; and they did not receive the Scriptures in this condition from their teachers, nor can they show the originals from which they made their copies” – Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, LCS, Vol. 1, pp. 522-524. (The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, Jay P. Green, page viii-ix)

Several of the Early Church Fathers in the second and third centuries spoke out against the corruption of Biblical books by heretics. Yet, the modern translators take two to four manuscripts and give them the label, “oldest and best” and take what they say above all the thousands of other copies of the Bible. They operate under the assumption that oldest is closest to the original and therefore more accurate, and ignore the facts about the heretics altering texts. What’s more, the texts the modern translators love came from Egypt, which was dominated by Gnosticism in the first several centuries of Christianity.

They go by the assumption that if one of their beloved Gnostic Bibles has part of a verse deleted, then that is proof that the Orthodox Christians must have added those words to support the claim that Jesus is God. They never assume that words were taken away by heretics, only that words were added by Orthodox. They do this because they are themselves unbelievers.

Is it not absurd to charge the orthodox with making changes which glorify Christ Jesus, while at the same time saying that none of the changes which denigrate Him, and now supported by the textual critics, are due to heretics[?] (Unholy Hands, Vol. 2, page 321)

Because of mistakes in coping, in order to translate the Bible from Greek to English we must consult numerous copies, comparing one with another to insure that we translate the correct words, and not a mistaken word or an intentional corruption by a heretic. So the texts used for the KJV were compiled into one complete text that is called the Textus Receptus (TR), or Received Text. The texts used for the TR differ only slightly from 95% of the more than 5,000 known manuscripts of the Bible; which are referred to as the Majority Text.

The modern translations are not based on the Majority Text or the TR, but on a compiled text created by two men who were Unitarians. In the early-mid 1800s there was a small group of Unitarians who did not believe that Jesus was divine and believed that the texts of the Bible then in use (TR) had been doctored by Trinitarians to make it look like Jesus was the Son of God, born of a virgin, etc. So Brooke Westcott and Fenton Holt set out to make one complete Bible using the two incomplete texts, the Vanaticus (B) and Sanaticus (Aleph), and a handful of others. Their text, known as Westcott-Holt, is the bases of all modern translations, starting with the Revised Standard Version (RSV) in 1881. They continued work which had been started by other disbelievers, especially Germans.

In the biography of Dr. Hort, written by his son, Hort states that he believes the atonement of Christ is “a fictitious substituted penalty” (Life & Letters of F.J.A.Hort, Vol. 1, page 120). In a letter to Westcott, Dr. Hort  calls the atonement “an almost universal heresy” (Ibid, page 430). Westcott was in agreement with Hort. They were also believers in Darwin’s theory of evolution, which means they did not believe God created the world:

“But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. I must work out and examine the argument more in detail, but at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable.” (Life & Letters of F.J.A. Hort, page 416)

Hort called the Textus Receptus, “villainous” (Ibid, page 211) because it showed the virgin birth, that Jesus was the Son of God, etc. Do you think that such men compiled a Bible text that was not slanted to their point of view? Not a chance. These wolves conspired to release their corrupted text upon the world before people found out just how bad it was:

“Also -but this may be cowardice- 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 in finding its way into regions which it might otherwise hope to reach and whence it would not be easily banished by subsequent alarms.” (Ibid, page 445)

His plan worked, and his prediction has proven correct; now that his terrible text has been accepted, it is nearly impossible to convince people of how bad it is. The so-called “experts” who promote the corrupted text are loathe to admit that they were wrong.

Not only did the Gnostic manuscripts often disagree with the TR, they often disagreed with each other, so Westcott and Holt could choose whichever reading of a verse they wanted, which often included leaving it out completely if one of the two left it out. The corrupt manuscripts which were used to make the modern translations are from Egypt, and known as Alexandrian:

Each of the early manuscripts that is assigned to the Alexandrian text-type is in itself a poor copy – demonstrably so. Not only that, they disagree among themselves to an astonishing extent. Not to mention the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of times they disagree, as a group, with the rest of the world. (Wilbur N. Pickering, Unholy Hands on the Bible, Vol. 2, p. 616)

Since the Westcott-Hort compiled Greek text came out there have been several revisions of it by the Bible societies. These newer texts are called the Nestle Aland and the UBS (United Bible Society); when both are used they are called the NU. It is bad enough that corrupted Bible texts were used to create one bad Greek text, but because of all the revised editions of this text, what the Bible says is constantly changing. The modern Bibles that use one of these compiled texts do the same thing that Westcott and Hort did. One will decide to accept the reading of the NU or may accept the reading of the TR, so comparing the modern translations is like comparing the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, they often disagree.

Here is what Jay P. Green in The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, which uses a revision of the TR, says about the texts used for the modern translations:

What then is the evidence these Bible-alterers offer to persuade you to give up the precious words they have removed from their versions? Mainly they cite two manuscripts, admittedly old, from the fourth century A.D., but also admittedly carelessly executed. One, the Sinaiticus, was so poorly executed that seven different hands of ‘textual critics’ can be discerned as they tried to impose their views on this already corrupted manuscript. They twisted it like a nose of wax to meet their purposes at the time. It is no wonder that it was discarded, finally found in a wastebasket fourteen centuries after it was executed. The other, the Vaticanus, manuscript lay on a shelf in the Vatican library at Rome until 1431, and was considered so corrupt that no one would use it. Erasmus, the noted Roman Catholic scholar, refused to consider it as a source when he formed the Received Text. This Vaticanus manuscript has errors so absurd that the books purporting to teach ‘textual science’ carefully avoid mentioning these gross errors in their favorite manuscript. They take these two corrupt, carelessly executed manuscripts, and add a handful of later manuscripts from the Alexandrian textbase – all of them loose and disrespectful in their handling of the Scriptures, and from these they give you their never-ending theories, hypotheses, glosses, and doubts. (page vii)

The manuscripts that make up the Receive Text (Textus Receptus (TR)) and the Majority Text were frequently read and, therefore, were worn out, which is why no very old copies remain; while those of the Gnostics were either destroyed or put on the shelf and that is why some survived to be found and labeled “oldest and best” by unbelieving, yet professing Christian scholars. Another reason the Gnostics manuscripts are very old is because the dry conditions in Egypt helped to preserve them. But they are no longer the oldest:

But now the manuscript portions from the second century are being unearthed, and lo and behold, many of the readings of the Received Text which had been tagged scornfully as ‘late readings’ by nearly unanimous consent of the ‘textual scientists’ are now showing up in these earliest manuscripts. Readings which were before being called late and spurious have been found in these early-date manuscripts. . . . Yet strangely, in textual criticism classes, such discoveries are swept under the rug, not being reported to the students. (Ibid, p. x)

The modern Bibles and translators claim they have tried to make the best possible translation, but they are lying, they only want to create Bibles that reflect their unbelief in the Word of God. Some of the textual critics even admit that they do not believe the Bible is the Word of God and desire that you also stop believing in the Bible. Bart D. Ehrman, in Misquoting Jesus, openly admits to this very thing:

A turning point came in my second semester . . . my faith had been based completely on a certain view of the Bible as the fully inspired, inerrant word of God. Now I no longer saw the Bible that way. The Bible began to appear to me as a very human book. Just as human scribes had copied, and changed, the texts of scripture, so too had human authors originally written the texts of scripture. This was a human book from beginning to end. . . they had their own perspectives, their own beliefs, their own views, their own needs, their own desires, their own, understandings, their own theologies . . . (p. 8, 11)

He was a believer until the second semester at s-e-m-i-n-a-r-y. What a surprise. Textual criticism began in Germany shortly after the Protestant Reformation, and caused people to stop believing in the Bible as God’s Word. Could this have lead directly to Germans thinking of themselves as the supper race and following Hitler?

Truly God in His mercy did not leave His people to grope after the true New Testament text. Through the leading of God the Spirit He guided them to preserve it during the manuscript period. God brought this to pass through the working of His preserving and governing providence. First, many trustworthy copies were produced by faithful scribes. Secondly, these were read, used, and recopied by true believers when those original copies were worn out. Thirdly, untrustworthy copies (such as the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) were laid aside, not copied, but consigned to oblivion. Today there are more than 5,000 manuscripts and lectionaries in Greek as witnesses to the New Testament text. And 95% or more of these witness to the Received Text readings. (The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, by Jay P. Green, page x)

Here are a few more examples of how the NIV is corrupted in ways you would not suspect.

[T]he NIV joins the conspirators who rob Him of His virgin birth by leaving out the word “First-born” from Matthew 1:25. With every one of the RSV translators (as reported by one of them) not believing in the virgin birth, and ungodly scholars going about some of the seminaries saying that Jesus was the son of a German soldier, why would 100 ‘conservative’ scholars who supposedly believe in the virgin birth agree to delete this important reference? Not one of the six major new versions being reviewed in this Series includes the word “First-born” in Matt. 1:25. Why?

Is the evidence overwhelmingly against it? Not at all! Again it is a case where the two oldest manuscripts now extant (B and Aleph) do not have the words. But both of these were produced in Egypt at a time when virtually everyone, including some of the most revered textual critics of our day, admits that the Gnostics dominated that country. (Unholy Hands on the Bible, Vol. 2, page 238-239)

As savior of the world, Jesus came to save those who are lost, which he clearly states in the Bible. However, the NIV deletes all words that make that statement from Matthew 18:11 and also in Luke 9:55-56. Ask yourself why such words would be removed?

It is another case of allowing age-old heretics to determine what God has said, buttressed by Westcott and Hort, the supposed textual critics who never collated a single manuscript before issuing their opinions as to what is and what is not Scripture. (Unholy Hands, page 248).

John W. Burgon was a Dean at Cambridge University and wrote several books included in Unholy Hands on the Bible Vol. 1. He said those words of Jesus were removed even though:

… it is attested by every known uncial manuscript except B, Aleph, and the ninth century L, and every known cursive except three. It is vouched for by the Old Latin (c. 150), the Vulgate, and the Peschito (c. 150), Cureton’s and the Philoxenian Syriac versions, by the Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian and Slavonic versions; by Origen, Theodorus Heraclaean, Chrysostom, and Jovius  the monk; by Tertullian, Ambrose, Hilary, Jerome, pope Damasus, and Augustine. Above all it is attested by the universal Eastern Church, for it has been read in all assemblies of the faithful on the morrow of Pentecost from the beginning. Why then have the Revisionists expunged this verse? We can answer: it is because Drs. Westcott and Hort consign it to the limbus of their Appendix, classing it among their ‘Rejected Readings’ of the most hopeless type. But they add, ‘Interpolated either from Luke 11:10, or from an independent source, written or oral.’ Will the English church suffer herself to be defrauded of her priceless inheritance in this way through the irreverent bungling of well-intentioned, but utterly misguided men?” (Quoted in Unholy Hands on the Bible Vol. 2, page 248)

We know the motives of Westcott and Hort; they were not well-intentioned, for they were creating a Bible text that only reflected what “they” believed was the truth, which is why they disregarded the amount of evidence and accepted the corrupted readings. But why have the modern translators followed these two unbelievers of truth? Perhaps they are like most people and merely believe what they are told to believe in seminary! It is surprising to what degree people will go along with whatever the standard line happens to be, rather than speaking out and doing what is right. They go along to get along, so that they can have employment.

Yet it seems that the whole scholarly world has been tainted by the spiritually poisonous theories of Westcott and Hort, even taking on their belief that two Gnostic manuscripts replete with massive and numerous errors are sufficient to establish which are, and which are not, the living words of God. . . . Too many scholars, we fear, having crawled out on this rotten limb, will not admit to having been deceived by Satan’s emissaries lest they risk losing their precious reputations. (Unholy Hands, Vol. 2, page 249)

The translators will say that no doctrines are changed by their new Bible versions, well, if no doctrines are changed by removing words from the Bible, then why remove them? Why remove words from the Lord’s Prayer if it changes nothing? Why remove statements that Jesus came to save the lost? Who would not want those statements in the Bible? Only Satan. Is there harm in leaving them in? No, therefore, the only reason for chopping up the Bible is to weaken the overall impact of what the Bible teaches.

Satan has been shedding doubt on God’s Word from the beginning. The first time we hear of Satan, he says, “has God really said?” That is what modern textual criticism and the resulting translations are doing, causing people to doubt that the Bible really is the Word of God. Psalm 12:6-7 says:

The words of the LORD are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times. 7 You, O LORD, will keep them; you will guard us from this generation forever. (Psalm 12:6-7) (ESV)

The NIV does not want you to believe that God has preserved his Word, but changes it to refer to people:

And the words of the Lord are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times. O Lord, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever.

The NIV not only follows the corrupted Greek texts, it also engages in a lot of faulty translation.  For example, in 2 Corinthians 6:7, “the word of truth” becomes “truthful speech.” Take a look at another verse in the ESV:

By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised. (Hebrews 11:11) (ESV)

Now take a look at what the NIV says:

By faith Abraham even though he was past age – and Sarah herself was barren – was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise.

There is nothing in the Greek about Abraham in this verse! As you can see, like the Gnostic manuscripts, these modern versions do not agree with each other. One will take liberties with translation in one place, and another will take liberties with translation in another place, making these Bibles all saying different things, and making them unreliable.

The original Greek and most translations of Luke 4:44 say that Jesus was preaching in Galilee, but the NIV says Judea, as does the ESV and GW. All others say Galilee. One Bible says one thing, another Bible says something else; this is just causing doubt about the Word of God.

In 1 Corinthians 11:16, the original text says, “we have no such custom,” but the NIV says, “we have no other practice” which is a totally different meaning! This is what happens when translators attempt to give the reader what they think the text means, rather than what it says word for word in the Greek; “the attempt to achieve an equivalent effect also will lead to the incorporation of the translator’s own wishes, preferences, and interpretations” (Unholy Hands, Vol. 2, page 302). God said about his Word:

“You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you.” (Deut. 4:2) (ESV)

“Thus says the LORD: Stand in the court of the LORD’s house, and speak to all the cities of Judah that come to worship in the house of the LORD all the words that I command you to speak to them; do not hold back a word.” (Jeremiah 26:2) (ESV)

Now read some good excerpts from Unholy Hands on the Bible Vol. 2:

In tens of thousands of verses in the NIV  . . . their concepts of what those verses mean is quite different from what the original manuscripts literally say. (page 128)

However, in quite a few of the corruptions which are carried forward into Codices B and Aleph, Origen witnessed against them. The most famous of these is Luke 23:45 where B and Aleph have the sun being eclipsed at a time when the Moon was 180 degrees apart from the sun – Origen plainly identifies this as a corruption inserted by heretics in order to make the Scriptures contain a ridiculous statement. Sadly, modern day textual critics are neither as keen nor as honest as Origen regarding this verse, for they follow B, and the translators of the six major translations under review in this volume follow B also, re-inserting into the Scriptures a patient heresy, one which makes those versions ridiculous in the eyes of unbelievers. (Unholy Hands, Vol. 2, page 316-317)

[T]here can scarcely be found three verses in a row which are the same in Aleph and B, that in fact there are more than 3,000 differences between them in the Gospels of the New Testament alone. (Unholy Hands, Vol. 2, page 320-321)

And another fact is that they only hold up these principles [of textual criticism] as criteria when it suits their purpose. A good example is Luke 6:1 where they eject from the text the word deuteroproto (the second chief sabbath), even though it meets two of their principles: (1) it is the shortest reading, and (2) it is the most difficult reading. So what? Codex B does not have it, so out it goes. (Unholy Hands, Vol. 2, page 322)

Here are some excerpts from The History of Gnosticism’s Influence Upon the English Bible, by Luther W. Martin, printed in Unholy Hands on the Bible Vol. 2:

The “Christian” Gnostics, with their center of influence at Alexandria, had their own doctrinal reasons for rejecting the virgin-birth of Christ. They, in turn, influenced the choice of words used in some of the Greek Manuscripts, in Isa. 7:14, Matt. 1:23, and John 1:18, with the goal of diminishing the Deity of Christ, and according Him a secondary status of Divinity. (page 360)

. . . neither Lachmann nor his immediate successors, Westcott and Hort, would recognize that their great yearning for the oldest manuscript evidence would cause them to fall into the Gnostic – trap, of highly esteeming doctored documents. Hence, Lachmann greatly encouraged those who followed him to ignore the Byzantine Text and the Textus Receptus. (page 366)

Within less than a century, Gnosticism and Orthodoxy were pitted against each other, each calling the other “Heretic.” The Gnostics, in particular, were influential in Egypt, and resorted to the writing of fanciful Gospels, which were less than Canonical. They also engaged in the ‘re-touching’ of copies of Scripture in their immediate area. (page 381)

“The Antichrist of the First Epistle of John is docetic Gnoticism.” (page 396, from the International Standard Bible Encyc.)

Westcott-Hort, in their 1881 Greek New Testament text, selected a Gnostic-rendering in John 1:18: “. . . the only begotten God” (theos), was substituted by them for “. . . the only begotten Son” (huios). A Divinity that was ‘begotten,’ was therefore inferior or second-rank; so reasoned the Gnostics. . . . Because of their Gnostic adulteration, the orthodox Christians of the early centuries had nothing to do with what became known as the Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (Aleh) manuscripts. Consequently, through non-use, these two (oldest) texts continued to exist until modern times. . . . (page 399)

We have learned that most textual critics are not even believers in God’s Word. How then can such people make an accurate translation of the Bible?

To assume that the editorial choices of an unbelieving scholar will not be influenced by his theological bias is naïve in the extreme. . . . An unbelieving textual critic may have a reasonable acquaintance with the relevant evidence, he may have knowledge of the facts, but that by no means implies that he knows what to do with it. (Wilbur N. Pickering, in Unholy Hands on the Bible, Vol. 2, page 570-571)

Even the so called conservative translators have given into the claims of the unbelieving scholars because they want to be recognized as scholars by the established unbelieving scholars:

To accept the world’s value system is basically an act of treason against King Jesus, a type of idolatry. Those conservative scholars who place a high value on “academic recognition,” on being acknowledged by the “academic community,” on being known for “scholastic excellence,” etc., need to ask themselves about the presuppositions that lie behind such recognition. Please note that I am not decrying true scholarship – I have three earned graduate degrees myself – but I am challenging conservatives to make sure that their definition of scholarship comes from the Holy Spirit, not from Satan, that their search for recognition is godly, not selfish. I rather suspect that were this to happen there would be a dramatic shift in the conservative Christian world with reference to the practice of NT textual criticism and to the identity of the true NT text. (Wilbur N. Pickering, in Unholy Hands on the Bible, Vol. 2, page 574)

The unbelieving scholars tell us that the manuscripts which were used to make the King James Version were terrible, but they were not.

The manuscripts which Erasmus used differ in the most part only in small and insignificant details from the great bulk of the cursive manuscripts. By this observation the pedigree of the Received Text is carried up beyond the manuscripts used by Erasmus. . . . That pedigree stretches back to remote antiquity. The first ancestor of the Received Text was at least contemporary with the oldest of our [existing] manuscripts, if not older than any of them. (Peter J. Johnson, Ph.D., quoted in Unholy Hands, Vol. 2, page 583)

You may ask, given all this information, which translation is the best? Since all the modern translations use the corrupted texts and leave out verses and parts of verses, there is not one single modern translation which has the potential to become the most used and reliable translation as the KJV once was. They all have problems, which can be easily discovered by comparing translations and by consulting the literal translations, such as Young’s Literal Translation and the Literal Translation by Jay P. Green (LIT).

One modern translation may have a good translation of most of a chapter or most of a Bible book, then you run across one or two verses that are poorly translated, so there is not one that is good enough to become the standard, plus they are all corrupted. Because of this, when I quoted a verse in this book, I chose the best one from those I consulted.

The English Standard Version (ESV) is more literal than the NIV but it is not always the best translation for clarity and understanding. Sometimes these modern translations actually take a step backwards in their clarity and understanding of a passage, but most of the time they are still better than the archaic King James Version. The International Standard Version (ISV) includes most, if not all, the passages which the other modern Bibles leave out, but it is not always the best translation, but still better than the KJV.

What about the New King James Version? It has all the verses, but the translation is not always the best, which is why I only consulted it sometimes and used it only a few times. And it includes footnotes which say “not in the oldest and best manuscripts” thereby spreading doubt, but it is still better than the KJV. Also, it is not available to use for free with the popular Bible study computer program, eSword. At least the CEV, ESV, GW, GNB, and ISV are available with eSword which can itself be downloaded free. The NIV, NKJ, and many other new translations charge a large fee before you can use their text with eSword.

In addition to the modern unbelievers in God’s Word, we have conservatives who also help to cause people to doubt the truthfulness of God’s Word. Many conservative Christians insist that every single word in the KJV, or at least the Greek, is the inerrant Word of God and that it is perfect in every detail. They insist that if the Bible is inspired by God that it cannot contain a single error of any kind, so when people learn about errors which the Bible certainly has, they stop believing that the Bible is God’s Word.

Such an all-or-nothing belief system is not reasonable. God created me and I am not perfect, and he created you and you are not perfect. God “inspired” the writers to write what he wanted them to write, but God did not dictate the words to them. The writers did not go into a trance when they wrote the Bible books. God used humans to write his words, but they also included a few of their own words, such as Paul telling Timothy to drink wine for his stomach problem.

King David committed adultery and murder. Did God make a mistake when he chose David to be king or when God called him a man after his own heart? No, he was still God’s chosen king, but David was human and not perfect. Anytime humans are involved, mistakes will happen.

God most likely inspired Clara Barton to create the Red Cross, but that does not make it a perfect organization. God most likely inspired John Wesley to found the Methodist Church, but that does not mean they have perfect doctrine. Who would ever doubt that Martin Luther was inspired to rebel against the Roman Catholic Church, but his doctrine was not perfect, and he even hated Jews.

The believers in inerrancy claim they believe every word in the Bible, but they turn around and say, “oh that was just for the first century,” or “that was just a cultural issue.” They claim they believe everything in the Bible yet at the same time they clearly do not believe it. How many preachers have preached that people with stomach problems should drink wine, it is in the Bible, or that women should not have short hair or wear a veil when they pray?

On the one hand we have those who do not believe the Bible is the Word of God, and on the other hand we have people who say they believe the Bible is the Word of God out of one side of their mouths but out of the other side of their mouths they say they do not believe it. I assert that if you believe the Bible is inspired and infallible in every word then you must believe every word of it. It is absolute hypocrisy to do otherwise. Don’t you think that unsaved people can see your hypocrisy?

The truth is that God inspired the Bible, therefore 99% of it is God’s Word, but it also contains a few words from the minds of the writers, and was altered in a few places by early Christians. It can contain minor errors and still be the truthful Word of God. Has God’s Word been refined seven times to remove the errors of men?

The words of the LORD are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times. (Psalm 12:6) (ESV)

The most glaring minor error of which I speak is found in 1 Corinthians 14. Paul is speaking about the correct use of prophecy in a church service, and then veers off for two verses that say women should keep silent in church, then returns to the subject of prophecy. If you remove those two verses the discussion flows smoothly, suggesting that the verses were inserted. In fact, “In three Greek manuscripts and a couple of Latin witnesses, they are found not here, after verse 33, but later, after verse 40” (Ehrman, page 183).

Not only do the verses seem intrusive in the context of chapter 14, they also appear anomalous with what Paul explicitly says elsewhere in 1 Corinthians. For earlier in the book, as we have already noticed, Paul gives instructions to women speaking in the church: according to chapter 11, when they pray and prophesy – activities that were always done aloud in the Christian services of worship – they are to be sure to wear veils on their heads (11:2-16). In this passage, which no one doubts Paul wrote, it is clear that Paul understands that women both can and do speak in church. In the disputed passage of chapter 14, however, it is equally clear that “Paul” forbids women from speaking at all. It is difficult to reconcile these two views – either Paul allowed women to speak (with covered heads, chapter 11) or not (chapter 14). As it seems unreasonable to think that Paul would flat out contradict himself within the short space of three chapters, it appears that the verses in question do not derive from Paul. (Ehrman, page 184)

Sorry if this bursts your belief in a text without a single error of any kind, but it is still the Word of God. His Word also likely includes a few books which were not included in the Bible. The Catholic Bibles and the first Protestant Bibles, including the KJV of 1611, contained the Apocrypha (which means “hidden,” not “false”).

The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever. (Isaiah 40:8) (ESV)