Imagine an atheist is preaching
Christianity to you. The atheist claims that he has a far better understanding
of Christian teachings than many faithful pastors who you know. However, the
atheist does not believe in the contents of his own preaching and frequently expresses
doubts and scepticism as he preaches. Would you trust the atheist and his
preaching? Would you even bother to continue listening to what the atheist has
to say?
Dear reader, I am certain that you
would agree with me that it would be very ridiculous to trust and promote what
the atheist said. Tragically, many of you are unknowingly and unintentionally
doing something very much worse than that. Do you know that many modern Bible
versions are not the Word of God? In this treatise, I will endeavour to prove
to you using theological reasons that you should return to the Authorised
Version (KJV) and reject almost all modern versions published since 1881.
The Bible is the infallible Word of
God and is rightly the only rule of life and faith. Our Lord Jesus Christ said
God’s word is truth in His high priestly prayer (John 17:17). Man does not live
by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God
(Deuteronomy 8:3; Matthew 4:4; Luke 4:4). We know with certainty by faith, God
is the author of His Word (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21) and He will preserve
His Word throughout the ages and generations (Psalm 100:5, 117:2; Isaiah 40:8; Matthew
5:18, 24:35; Luke 21:33; 1 Peter 1:23-25). Christians will always have access to
the Word of God (Isaiah 59:21). These are the beliefs of the Reformers and Puritans
and they are reflected in the very first chapter of the 1646 Westminster
Confession of Faith. The Apostle Saint Paul taught us that faith comes by
hearing and hearing from the Word of God (Romans 10:17). It is then of absolute
importance to ensure the Bible version we are reading and holding in our hands is
truly the Word of God.
The New Testament is originally
written in koine Greek. Many of you may not know that there are two main Greek
texts in use today – the Traditional Text (Received Text / Textus Receptus)
and the Modern Critical Text. These two texts have significant differences that
they cannot both simultaneously be the true representative of the original New
Testament text. Only one of the two is the accurate and reliable New Testament
text that we can read and trust.
(i)
The Traditional
Text (Received Text / Textus Receptus)
The Traditional Text (Received Text /
Textus Receptus) is the Greek New Testament text that is passed down by
Christians from generation to generation throughout the ages and centuries. Editions
of this text were published by Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzeviers in
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It is very important to note that the
men who compared the manuscripts to publish editions of the Traditional Text
were Christians who believed in God and His Word. The Traditional Text was read by the
Reformers and used as the basis for New Testament translation for the
Authorised Version, Geneva Bible, William Tyndale’s New Testament, and other
Reformation era Bibles. This is also the text used for Bible translations until
the nineteenth century.
(ii)
The Modern
Critical Text
Unfortunately, from the nineteenth
century onwards and even including the present day, unbelievers have involved
themselves in the scholarship and publication of the Greek New Testament text. These
people do not believe the Bible to be the Word of God, neither do they believe
in the Divine Preservation, the truth, and the infallibility of the Word of
God.
The first widely used Modern Critical
Text was constructed by Westcott and Hort in 1881. This text is mainly based on
the then recently discovered Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts
that were said to have originated from fourth century Egypt. However, they were
lost for 1,400 years until their discoveries in the nineteenth century. Pages
of Sinaiticus were also said to be in a waste basket or were about to be
burned when they were discovered by von Tischendorf in 1844.
Sinaiticus
and Vaticanus displayed a so-called Alexandrian text type that is
different to the Traditional Text. The accuracy of the Alexandrian text is
highly questionable and that text type was used only in ancient Egypt before
the fifth century. The text also contains missing verses (examples include Mark
16:9-20, John 5:4, John 7:53-8:11, Acts 8:37) and readings (different from the
Traditional Text) that obscure the truth of the divinity of Christ (examples
include Romans 14:10, 1 Timothy 3:16). This is the reason you see in your
modern versions, notes and brackets with questionable comments that introduce
doubts to the reader such as ‘the most reliable manuscripts do not contain
these verses’ and ‘some manuscripts have [a certain reading]’.
Despite being clergymen of the Church
of England, Westcott and Hort did not believe the Bible to be the Word of God.
Hort even believed in Darwinian evolution. These two men hated the Traditional
Text and they dreamt of replacing the text with the Modern Critical Text. The textual
criticism method they developed based on unbelief unreasonably rejected the
Traditional Text while heavily favouring the Alexandrian text. Weaknesses of
the Alexandrian text such as difficult and shorter readings were ridiculously
turned into strengths based on unproven theories and illogical reasonings. Being
members of the Church of England committee that sought to revise the Authorised
Version, Westcott and Hort introduced their Modern Critical Text to be used to
produce the Revised Version in 1881. It is very important to note that the
actions of Westcott and Hort and their Modern Critical text were opposed by
Burgon and Scrivener, two Church of England clergymen in the same revision
committee who defended the Traditional Text.
Over the years, the Westcott and Hort
text evolved into the modern Nestle-Aland text widely in use today. More
unbelievers such as Metzger and Aland who did not believe the Bible to be the
Word of God, have continued to influence and direct the development of the
Modern Critical Text. Unsurprisingly, those unbelievers also reject the
Traditional Text while at the same time, use and develop textual criticism
methods based on that of Westcott and Hort. Beginning with the Revised Version in 1881,
the Modern Critical Text has been used as the basis for New Testament
translation for almost all modern Bible versions.
Dear reader, with the Traditional
Text and the Modern Critical Text, how do we know which text to read and trust?
We are not going to simply listen to the reasons given by the many modern
scholars who promote the Modern Critical Text. Why? Remember it is also the
modern scholars who question if St. Peter was the author of 2 Peter and who
claim that six Pauline Epistles were not written by St. Paul. This is despite
authorship is clear in the very first verse of these Epistles. If we cannot
trust an atheist preaching Christianity, why should we trust the theological
scholarship done by unbelievers?
The Word of God is the only rule of
life and faith and therefore, the infallible Scriptures alone will determine
the text that is the true representative of the original Greek New Testament text.
In this treatise, two biblical standards will be used, namely the doctrine of
the divine preservation of Scriptures and the requirement of faith.
1.
The doctrine of
the divine preservation of Scriptures
Only the Traditional Text meets this
standard. Christians throughout history always have access to this text. This
is the text passed down to us by generations of Christians. Over 90% of
discovered historical manuscripts also reflect the Traditional Text. Despite
fierce opponents such as Westcott, Hort, Metzger, and Aland, the Traditional
Text and translations based on this text (for example, the Authorised Version)
are still in popular use today.
It is ridiculous to think that God
would hide His Word for 1,400 years and during those years Christians had no
access to the Word of God. It is also ridiculous to think that man has to use
his own methods based on his own understanding to figure out the true New
Testament text. The effective disappearance of the Alexandrian text for 1,400
years clearly shows that the Modern Critical Text is not the Word of God and is
rejected by ancient Christians.
2.
The requirement of
faith
Hebrews 11:6 teaches that without
faith it is impossible to please God while Isaiah 64:6 teaches that our
righteousness is as filthy rags. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that
unbelievers have no right to be involved in any theological work and that the
works of unbelievers are certainly and absolutely rejected by our holy God.
Theological scholarship cannot be independent of faith.
While the Traditional Text is passed
down to us by Christians, the Modern Critical Text is a work of unbelievers.
Supporters of the Modern Critical Text have frequently failed to acknowledge
that the Alexandrian text came from a time (fourth century) and a place (Egypt)
of the Arian heresy. This would also be one of the reasons the Alexandrian text
contains readings that obscure the truth of the divinity of Christ. Therefore,
it is reasonable to call the Alexandrian text the Arian text. You may not know
that this Arian text is also promoted and used by the modern Arians, namely the
self-claimed Witnesses.
In conclusion, the Traditional Text
is the true representative of the Word of God. On the other hand, the Modern
Critical Text is not the Word of God and is rejected by God.
Have you wondered why Westcott and
Hort and the unbelieving modern scholars after them reject and even hate the
Traditional Text? The reason is very clear: The Word of God is quick, and
powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword and is a discerner of the
thoughts and intents of the heart (Hebrews 4:12). Men subconsciously know that
the Traditional Text is the Word of God and unbelievers are pricked in the
heart.
The Authorised Version is the most
accurate English translation of the Bible, faithfully translated by Christians
using the Hebrew Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Greek Traditional
Text of the New Testament. However, almost all modern versions since the
Revised Version of 1881, are not the Word of God because they are translated
from a Modern Critical Text that is not the Word of God. Since the Modern
Critical Text is a work of unbelievers, it is not surprising that the notes in
many modern versions are introducing doubts to the reader.
Dear reader, theological scholarship
cannot be independent of faith. You must now make a choice between the Word of
God and a work of unbelievers that is rejected by God. This is a decision you
must make and that would have very significant effects on your understanding of
Christianity.
No comments:
Post a Comment