How Relilable Are These Modern Versions Of The Bible?

Now the Spirit expressly says

that in latter times some

will depart from the faith,

giving heed to deceiving spirits

and doctrines of demons, 

speaking lies in hypocrisy,

having their own conscience

seared with a hot iron,

1Timothy 4:1-2

     Paul's warning to Timothy is relevant for us today; there will be those who are hypocrites, that is, their actions belie stated belief. They say they love God, they say that they are Christians, and this fact is between them and God and I cannot, and you cannot, or should not judge them in regards to their being of the elect, but we are to judge them on the basis of their fruits, and upon the doctrines that they purpose is the truth. Paul admonishes and advises Timothy to: "Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you" (1Timothy 4:16). When you became a Christian, did you put away those things that are surely not Christian: i.e., going to bars and drinking, carousing, getting drunk? Did you continue going to movies that depict sexual scenes? Did you not measuring your clothing, what you wear bathing, or dressing, was your dress permitting yourself to be sexual, desirable by others, or did you dress properly as one who is a child of God? Did you not leave those things in favor of the truth? So when you knew the truth you changed. Will you do the same if what you find with your present beliefs, your Bible that may not actually teach what the Apostles and other writers taught? If your Church holds to doctrines that are not Biblical will you remain or find a Church that teaches the Bible? These questions are important. This life on earth is temporary, as the the hymn states: "I'm just a passing through," all things we hold dear, those material things, as another hymn states: "They are borrowed for awhile," is this what you believe? Is this your attitude? As I discuss the various manuscripts and how they became the source for many of the modern versions, ask yourself, decide for yourself, are they the ones you want to teach the doctrines that we are, as Timothy was told, to hold onto, to teach us, to be the guide for our life?

     Should we be distrustful of these so-called "modern" version of the Bible, i.e., the New International Version, the New American Standard Version, The Revised Version, the Revised Standard Version, The E.S.V, the Message Bible, and so on? What about the older versions, the King James Version, or as known the Authorized Version, and the New King James Version? Do you know how these version came to be in existence, how and from what manuscripts they came into being, and more importantly, do they teach the truth, or have they been influence by manuscripts that have been influenced by Gnosticism, or other heretical views? It is the truth that we seek! Remember this old saying: "The first time the dog bites you it is the dog's fault...." 

     Many of the changes within the manuscripts are of minor importance, but some are not, they are very serious as they are doctrinal changes, changes that exist between the King James There are a number of reasons for the informed Christian to be distrustful of the so-called "modern" versions of the Bible, such as the New International Version, the New American Standard Version, the Revised Version, the Revised Standard Version, and so on. 

     Some of the changes between the manuscripts are of minor importance, others are very serious as they are doctrinal changes between the King James Version, the New King James Version and these so-called "modern" versions. It then is important for a person to take the time to sit down and compare the King James Version, (the New King James Version is the Authorized Version written in our language rather than the older form of the English language) against these older versions: this I will attempt to do so that you can have the information and be able to decide for yourself. Why are there differences? Are not all manuscripts, those texts used to translate our Bible(s) the same or nearly the same? This is what has been taught and accepted by many in the Church, but this is not the case. The King James Version of the New Testament is translated from the Textus Receptus, a Greek textual edition and is found to be closely the same as to the Majority text which makes up some 90% of all the existing Greek manuscripts. These so-called "modern" versions of the New Testament are translated form a textual set which have many manuscripts that are older than the majority texts, but are comprised of manuscripts which are very disparate in individual readings which show all the signs of corruption. There are many pastors who have little or no training in the original languages, even having a poor understanding of grammar that teach as though they do have such knowledge but do not exegesis the Bible in their sermons or teachings, rather import their presuppositions, or beliefs, in other words they are being hypocrite when they teach from their own beliefs, they belie the truth.

     Let us then examine these texts used for those "modern" versions, and those that are used for the older versions, the King James Version, which will include the New King James Version. The first to examine is The Alexandrian Manuscripts, are they reliable? If you listen to some textual scholars you will find that they claim that the Alexandrian unicals, relating to a style of writing characterized by somewhat rounded capital letters and found especially in Greek and Latin manuscripts of the fourth to the eighth century a.d., who often minimise and ignore those scribal problems contained in these supposed "oldest" and "best" manuscripts. One such scholar, George Eldon Ladd (1911-1982) had this to say: "Codex Vaticanus contains both Testaments, with only three missing portions, and most of the Apocrypha. Its excellent text is very close to that of Codex Sinaiticus" (G.E. Ladd, The New Testament and Criticism, p. 63). Is this fact? The actual facts of the matter contradict this claim. Upon examination of the Alexandrian texts, the basis of all "modern" Greek editions, a person will find that they are notorious for  their unreliability and general poor quality of transmission. Herman Charles Hoskier (1864–1938), was a biblical scholar, British textual critic, noted over 3,000 points in the Gospels alone of which Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, these are the two major texts used by modern textual critics to translate the newer "modern" versions, differ between themselves, and this is not taking into account those spelling errors and variants between synonyms which could be attributed to "provincial exchange" (H.C. Hoskier, Codex B and Its Allies, Vol. II, p.1). The Reverend Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, LL.D. (1813-1891) who was an important textual critic of the New Testament and a member of the English New Testament Revision Committee which porduced the Revised Version of the Bible said, concerning the Vaticanus (Known as Codex B): "One marked feature, characteristic of this copy, is the great number of its omissions...That no small portion of these are mere oversights of the scribe seems evident from the circumstance that this same scribe has repeatedly written words and clauses twice over, a class of mistakes which Mai and the collators have seldom thought fit to notice...but which by no means enhances our estimate of the care employed in copying this venerable record of primitive Christianity." (F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Vol. I, p. 120). As for other representatives of the Alexandrian texts used to critically challenge the Textus Receptus are not found to be any better. A well known text, Codex D (Bezae Cantabrigiensis) is found to be slipshod with scribal errors and is generally unreliable, still there are those scholars that give it weight and is used as a determiner when other preferred texts are found to differ at a point. Another text, Codex C (Ephraemi Rescriptus) likewise has many transmission issues, and is actually a parchment(s) from which writing has been partially or completely erased to make room for another text. These parchments have been found to have the original text rubbed off and replaced with copies of sermons from the 5th century Syrian patristic Ephraem Syrus, and we can see how the 5th century Christians held this text, by what esteem, a low esteem, given to these texts. Another textual scholar, Pickering, sums up this matter of reliability with the Alexandrian texts:

"The variation between two 'Byzantine' MSS will be found to differ both in number and severity from that between two 'Western' MSS or two 'Alexandrian' MSS -- the number and nature of the disagreements between two 'Byzantine' MSS throughout the Gospels will seem trivial compared to the number (over 3,000) and nature (many serious) of the disagreements between Aleph and B, the chief 'Alexandrian' MSS, in the same space.^" (W.N. Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, p.54).
      These blogs may be very scholarly, and not as exciting as studying the attributes of God, etc., but they are important as the Bible we used as our guide and for doctrine must contain the truth, be preserved in truth by God. But why do the so-called "modern" Greek editions that have been translated by renowned textual scholars be based upon such poor texts? This too will be answered in the upcoming blogs. Hang on, we entered into a discussion that is void among many Churches, but are of the most importance.

I urge you in the sight of God
    who gives life to all things,
and before Christ Jesus who
    witnessed the good confession
before Pontius Pilate, that you
    keep this commandment without 
spot, blameless until our Lord 
    Jesus Christ's appearing,
                     1Timothy 6:13-14

Guard the Faith

Richard L. Crumb