m

uring the last several years of the life of the apostle Paul (Hebrew “Saul Paulus,” c. 2-68 AD), heresy already was developing a
stronghold in an attempt to thwart the sacred teachings and doctrines as the very books of the New Testament of the Holy Scriptures
were being penned through the verbal inspiration of God. Wrote Paul about six to seven years before his martyrdom, “O Timothy,
keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called” (1
Timothy 6:20). Paul also spoke against several heretics, among them Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Timothy 2:17), and Alexander the coppersmith
(2 Timothy 4:14). In Titus 3:10 Paul wrote, “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject.” And also the apostle Peter (c.
1 BC to 68 AD), who wrote in 2 Peter 2:1, “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among
you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”
Some of these “heretics” represented the early yield of “Gnosticism,” a movement comprising an amalgamation of various sects whose
chief belief was that special secret knowledge was apportioned to some elect persons, who thereby were allocated special spiritual status and
glory.a The word gnosis means knowledgeb (or science), hence Paul’s early reference to a “science falsely so called.” Thriving during the second
and third centuries, Gnosticism was designated by second century Church Fathers Irenaeus (c. 130-202), Tertullian (c. 160-220), and Hippolytus
(c. 170-236) as an aberrant Christian teaching resulting from the syncretism of unsound Christian doctrine with pagan philosophy, or even
astrology and Greek mystery religions. These three Church Fathers attributed Gnosticism to the magician Simon Magus, who is mentioned in
Acts 8.c
By the fourth century, however, 37 Fathers’ written contributions outweighed those represented in the misguidedly celebrated Greek ma ­
nuscripts Aleph (Sinaiticus) and B (Vaticanus), dated 325-360 AD, by 65.7 percent to 34.3 percent. d Nevertheless, heretical teachings based on
this tiny sampling of tainted documents (about 43 all told, eventually) evolved into not only the accepted Christian teachings of the day, but also
the official establishment of the fledgling Roman Catholic Church (fourth century). However, this false doctrine embedded within this minuscule
collection of manuscripts was abandoned almost entirely by the Church Universal by about the end of the seventh century. Hence, the
manuscripts and critical text editions underlying nearly every contemporary Bible version published today were abandoned from the seventh
century until a text critic named Friedrich Constantine von Tischendorf (1815-1874) first discovered the NT manuscript Aleph in a waste heap in
the St. Catherine’s Monastery, on Mt. Sinai in Egypt, in 1844. e Vaticanus B was the first entry appearing in the Vatican Library, back in 1475.f
Now these 43 or so minority manuscripts, represented foremostly by Aleph and B, remain the foundation of critically edited Greek
versions used by modern translators to produce contemporary Bibles. This has been the case since the release of the first new-age pseudo-Bible
in 1881, the English Revised Version (or “RV”) New Testament. g Most modern biblical text critics remain entangled in the fourth century web
perpetuated by some heretics and scribes of that time, but the inspired real truth of God’s Word has incontrovertibly been proved. Never has any
opponent triumphed over God’s wisdom having appeared in the “unanswered and unanswerable” arguments of the few stalwart orthodox
Christian scholars of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries—John W. Burgon (1813-1888), Edward Miller (1825-1901), Frederick Henry
Ambrose Scrivener (1813-1891), Herman C. Hoskier (1864-1938), Edward F. Hills (1912-1981), Floyd Nolen Jones, Donald A.Waite, and
others.
a

J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (Peabody, Mass.: Prince Press, Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), p. 22.
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 22.
c
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 22.
b
d

J. A. Moorman, Early Manuscripts, Church Fathers and the Authorized Version (Collingswood, N.J.: The Bible for Today Press, 2005), p. 116.
James Bentley, Secrets of Mount Sinai: The Story of Finding the World’s Oldest Bible — Codex Sinaiticus (London: Orbis Publishing, 1985), p. 86.
f
William Henry Paine Hatch, The Principal Uncial Manuscripts of the New Testament (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1933), Plate XIV.
g
Wilbur N. Pickering, “The Identity of the New Testament Text” in Floyd Nolen Jones, Which Version is the Bible?, 19th ed., rev. and enlarged (Goodyear, Ariz.:
KingsWord Press, 2006), p. 163.
e

xTable of Contents

I.

Cover Page ..................................................................................................... 1

II.

Preface ............................................................................................................ 2

III.

Introduction .................................................................................................... 4

IV.

Verse Comparison .......................................................................................... 4

V.

Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 39

VI.

Explanatory Notes .......................................................................................... 40

VII.

Document Glossary ........................................................................................ 44

XIII. Endnotes ......................................................................................................... 58
XIX. Suggested Reading ......................................................................................... 59
X.

Colophon ........................................................................................................ 60

XI.

Index .............................................................................................................. 61

6The Majority Text & Textus Receptus Vs. the Critical Text 6
Editions and the Modern Bible Versions: ESV (5th Edition, Revised)
By EDWARD E. SCOTT
This notated comparison document serves to clearly identify and clarify some of the documented differences—here in 105 selected verses/passages—existing
between the King James Version—and its “legacy” precursors—and virtually every other New Testament version commercially available since the controversial
1881 release of the English Revised Version (ERV). Many of these alterations have been noted previously by both liberal and conservative theological scholars of
the past and present. The author of this document has invested portions of more than two years in conducting research, inputting data, and proofing, editing, and
augmenting this document. This comparison assemblage has been produced to the glory of God and for the edification of redeemed believers through Jesus Christ,
that the latter may be enlightened about the long-standing, well-disguised and -hidden activities transpiring beneath the massive, deceptive and misguided
overarching mechanisms of modern Bible translation and the Bible societies. Since largely the eighteenth century, liberal, naturalistic and spiritually remiss biblical
and theological scholars have attempted to undermine and even overturn the NT “Byzantine” text underlying classical Bibles—the KJV and those preceding it in the
sixteenth century. Many of these modern theological “naturalists” simply have perpetuated the twisted theories and the deplorable manuscripts and texts which led to the
alarming production of the new-age pseudo-Bible, the ERV. From this unholy spring has flowed the multitudinous new tradition of false Bibles. For this comparison
the ESV (2011), NASB (1995), and NIV (2011) were selected for contrast to the KJV (and its underlying Greek texts) because of their popularity, contemporary
representativeness, and identical NT textual base. (Other editions of this document have been produced to include modern alternatives to the ESV version.)
(The columns below illustrate the textual—and often doctrinal—differences among numerous selected verses of the New Testament. Analysis is in blue and red.)

KJV

ESV

NASB

NIV

PROBLEM

ESV reads: “. . . but knew her
not until she had given birth to a
son. And he called his name
Jesus.”

NASB reads: “. . . but kept her a
virgin until she gave birth to a
Son; and he called His name Je­
sus.”

NIV reads: “But he did not con­
summate their marriage until she
gave birth to a son. And he gave
him the name Jesus.”

(“Joseph” inserted to replace “he” (Although “but knew her not” is
for clarity only.)
correct, the minority Greek source
text ignores the fact that Jesus was
Mary’s firstborn son! “Mariam”
later had four additional sons with
Joseph.)

(The Greek ouk eginōsken, “had
no carnal knowledge” [did not
know her], is the same for the
NASB and the NIV, yet “kept her
a virgin” and “had no union with
her,” both dynamic equivalents,
are used.)

(The proven corrupt Greek manu­
scripts Aleph [Sinaiticus] and Vat­
icanus [B], ca. 325-360 AD, other
Greek Z, 071, and 33, plus most
Old Latin, much of the Syriac and
Coptic, and Families 1 & 13, vie
against at least 85% of the extant
[existing & usable] Greek mss.)

The Bible clearly identifies, in
five places in the New Testa­
ment, that Jesus had four other
brothers (step): James; John;
Joses; Judas (Jude) [Matt., 2;
Mk., 3]. Support exists in the
Majority Greek text, five signi­
ficant uncials, and in the Syriac
Peshitta (2nd cent.) and Harc­
lean (7th), plus the Latin Vul­
gate. A few other Byzantines
against these support belief in
Mary’s perpetual virginity.

NIV: “But I tell you that anyone
who is angry with a brother or
sister47 will be subject to judg­
ment. . . .” Footnote: “47 Some
manuscripts brother or sister
(The NA27 states that eikń, “with­ without cause.”
out cause,” is an insertion accord­
(Only Ì64 [papyrus], Aleph [‫] א‬, B,
(Underscored, italicized and/or red (The ESV footnote implies that
ing to Codices Í2 [Aleph-2/7th
2
th
text has been so presented for em­ “without cause” is a late interpo­ cent.], D [Bezae], L, W, Theta [Θ], D [6 ], all the Vulgate, a few Byz.
manuscripts,
the margin of 1424
lation [addition] by a scribe. The Families 1 and 13 [Ë1 . 13], 0233,
phasis and/or comparative argu­
[ca. 900], and Origen—the most
ment. [Some italicized text was so vast majority of existing and
and many more. Modern biblical heretical “Church Father” in
usable manuscripts disagree! [See text critics often cite these mss to Christian history—support the
emphasized in its source.])
proof texts at far right.])
support their preferred readings!) omission of “without cause.”)

Omission of the clause “with­
out cause” makes Jesus subject
to His own judgment, because
He, Himself, showed anger!
Support for the inclusion of
“without cause” comprise the
Majority Greek text [Ï]—at
least 85 percent—most of the
Old Latin (most = “it” or
“Itala”), all the Syriac, and all
the Coptic (Egyptian). “Some
manuscripts” (NIV) severely
misrepresents!

Matthew 1:25 — “And [Joseph]
knew her not till she had brought
forth her firstborn son: and he
called his name JESUS.”

Matthew 5:22 — “But I say
unto you, That whosoever is an­
gry with his brother without
cause shall be in danger of the
judgment . . .”

ESV: “But I say to you that
everyone who is angry with his
brother 3 will be liable to judg­
ment;” . . . “3 Some manuscripts
insert without cause.”

NASB: “But, I say to you that
everyone who is angry with his
brother shall be guilty before the
court . . .”

,

KJV
Matthew 5:44 — “But I say
unto you, Love your enemies,
bless them that curse you, do
good to them that hate you, and
pray for them which despitefully
use you, and persecute you.”
(Also see Luke 6:27, 28.)

ESV

NASB

NIV

Reads: “But I tell you, love your
enemies and pray for those who
persecute you.” Removed note:
“Some late manuscripts enemies,
(. . . Eulogeite tous katarōmenous bless those who curse you, do
(No footnote exists to notify the
reader that the verse—as accord­ [h]umas, “bless those who curse
good to those who hate you.”
you,” kalōs poieite tois misousin
ing to the Nestle-Aland [27] &
[h]umas, “do good to those who
(Minority source text support ex­
United Bible Societies [4] Greek hate you,” and proseuchesthe
apparatuses—ends at “who perse­ [h]uper tōn epēreazontōn [h]umas ists only in uncials [all caps] Aleph
cute you.” This is very deceptive, kai, “pray for those who despite­ and B, Family 1 [Caesarean], the
Syriac Sinaitic [4th] and Curetoni­
hiding from the reader how the
fully use you and . . . ,” despite
th
vast majority of existing and
being labeled a “motivated read­ an [5 ], the Sahidic [Egyptian]
usable [“extant”] manuscripts
some Bohairic [Egyptian], a few
ing” by the NET, nevertheless is
read!)
Byz. mss, and one Old Latin.)
backed by the vast majority.)
Reads: “But I say to you, ‘Love
your enemies and pray for those
who persecute you.’”

Matthew 8:29 — “And, behold,
[the demons] cried out, ‘What
have we to do with thee, Jesus,
thou Son of God? Art thou come
hither to torment us before the
time.’”

ESV reads: “And behold, they
cried out, ‘What have you to do
with us, O Son of God? Have you
come here to torment us before
the time?’”

Matthew 9:13 — “But go ye
and learn what that meaneth, I
will have mercy, and not sacri­
fice: for I am not come to call the
righteous, but sinners to repent­
ance.”

ESV reads: “. . . For I came not
to call the righteous, but sin­
ners.”

Reads: “But I say to you, love
your enemies and pray for those
who persecute you.”

NASB reads: “And they cried
out, saying, ‘What business do
we have with each other, Son of
God? Have You come here to
torment us before the time?’”

PROBLEM
The Majority (85+%—at least
4,856 mss) Greek says: “But I
say to you, love your enemies,
bless those cursing you, do well
to the ones hating you, and pray
for the ones mistreating you
and persecuting you.” Most Ï
manuscripts are later; “some”
is inaccurate. But other Major­
ity support exists in uncials D
(5th), W (5th), L (9th), and Theta
(9th), plus 33 (9th), Ë13 (11th -15th/
13 mss), some OL and all the
Latin Vulgate (“vg”), and the
Peshitta and Harclean.

The main issue here is that the
minority of early MSS separate
“Jesus” from “Son of God”—
an attempt to denigrate Christ.
Supporting this denigration are
uncials ‫א‬, B, C (5th), and L,
(As in Mark 5:7, the parallel pas­
(Again, “Jesus” is removed, based plus cursives Ë1 (five mss), 33,
(The word “business,” being a
sage among the gospels, Jesus is
modernistic attempt to appease an on a source text largely underlain 892, numerous Byz. mss, three
(Author replaced “they” with “the removed, based on a different
by corrupt Alexandrian Codices
Old Latin, the Syriac Sinaitic,
demons” for clarification purposes Greek source text—“lower Chris­ allegedly incapable reader, does
and part of the Bohairic. But
Aleph [‫ ] א‬and B—possibly a
tology.” The NET footnote states not appear in their source Greek.
backing the KJV are the Ï text
only.)
scribal
effort
to
subtly
degrade
the Greek idou was not translated Do most people not know what
(Byz.), uncials C3 (ca. 9th), W,
Christ’s
divine
status.
This
also
“because it has no exact English
“have
to
do
with”
means?
This
has been done numerous times in Θ (Theta), Ë13 (13 mss), most of
(Also see Mark 5:7.)
equivalent here.” This is absolut­ obviously is simply relational
the New Testament by separating the OL, the Syriac Peshitta (2nd)
ely false! Idou means “behold,”
association.
Note
how
the
NASB
and Harclean (7th), the Sahidic
“Lord” from “Jesus” or “Jesus
“see,” “look,” or “surprise.” Also,
does retain legonteς, “saying,” Christ,” or “Christ” from “Jesus,” (southern Egypt), and part of
the translators used “you . . . us”
the Bohairic (northern Egypt).
unlike all other translations here.) etc.—as is done in the NA27.)
rather than “we . . . you.”

(Also see Mark 2:17.)

NIV reads: “‘What do you want
with us, Son of God?’ they shout­
ed. ‘Have you come here to tor­
ture us before the appointed
time?’”

NIV reads: “For I have not come No 1: Modern versions fail to
to call the righteous, but sinners.” include “to repentance.” It does
not appear in their own Greek
source text. No. 2: The Major­
(The minority [Nestle-Aland/
ity (85+% of Greek) is sup­
United Bible Societies] text has
(NOTE: In The English-Greek
(Despite its omission from the
ported by C, L, Theta, 0281,
Reverse Interlinear New Testa­
minority source Greek for both the very broad and diverse testimony: Ë13, the Syriac Sinaitic, the Sa­
ment, English Standard Version,
‫ ;א‬B; D; N; W; D [Delta]; 0233;
NASB and the NIV, the Zonder­
hidic, and part of the Bohairic.
the Greek source does not include van Greek and English Interlinear Ë1; 33; 565; numerous Byzantines “To repentance” possibly was
“to repentance.” The Revised
omitted to reduce the severity
New Testament (NASB/NIV) in­
slightly different from the Ï
Standard Version [RSV], has pre­ cludes ≈“to repentance,” in
[“pm” ]; most Old Latin [OL] and of the message! Most are not
cisely the same reading, as, ac­
amenable to the fact that their
all the Vulgate; the Peshitta and
intrinsic, depraved nature re­
cording to the ESV preface, “ . . . English, underneath the interlinear
Harclean; and part of the Bohairic quires repentance before God
with the 1971 RSV text providing portion. Why?)
[“bopt”—five or more MSS].)
for justification.
the starting point for our work.”)

NASB reads: “. . . for I did not
come to call the righteous, but
sinners.”

KJV

ESV

NASB

NIV

Matthew 11:23 — “And thou,
Capernaum, which art exalted
unto heaven, shall be brought
down to hell . . .”

Reads: “And you, Capernaum,
will you be exalted to heaven?
You will be brought down to
Hades.”

Reads: “And you, Capernaum,
will not be exalted to heaven,
will you? You will descend to
Hades; . . .”

Reads: “And you, Capernaum,
will you be lifted up to the hea­
vens? No, you will go down to
Hades.”

(Only the KJV here precisely
translated the correct Greek
katabibasqhse [kah-tah-bibos-thay´-seh], “to cause to go
down,” “to bring down,” or “to
thrust down.” [Strong’s Exhaustive
Concordance of the Bible, Updat­
ed Edition, p. 1638] The etymo­
logy is from the Greek kata and
bathos, meaning “after the manner
of going down to the great
depths.” Only the KJV here uses
the future passive indicative form.)

(The minority Greek poses a ques­
tion in the first portion. But the
Byz. text states the fact that Ca­
pernaum had been exalted. The
Majority text reads, “And you, Ca­
pernaum, the one having been ex­
alted to heaven . . . ” Note vv. 20
and 21, which are referred to as
having benefited from great works
by Jesus. This clarifies.)

(“Hadou” is the literal translation,
from the Greek root word hades
[hah´-dace]. From Strong’s Com­
plete Word Study Concordance [p.
2013], “. . . The place [state] of
departed souls—grave, hell.” In
this context, the correct translation
is [h]adou, “Hell” is an idiomatic
—but effectively correct—tran­
slation. Anything but “hadou” [or
“hell,” though idiomatic] is ambig­
uous, deceptive, and “palatable.”)

(Again, the NU Greek poses a
question. The NIV translators did,
however, replace “the depths” with
“Hades” in the 2011 edition. The
NU also uses the future middle
deponent form, katabhsh [kahtah-bay´-say], rather than the future
passive indicative. All other
translations but the KJV use
[h]uψwqhsh, the future passive
indicative of “to exalt,” rather than
[h]uψwqeisa, the aorist passive
participle.)

Matthew 12:47 — “Then one
said unto him, ‘Behold, thy
mother and thy brethren stand
without, desiring to speak with
thee.’”

The ESV omits v. 47: “Some
manuscripts insert verse 47:
Someone told him, ‘Your mother
and your brothers are standing
outside, asking to speak to you.’”

NASB reads: “Someone said to
him, ‘Behold, Your mother and
Your brothers are standing outside
seeking to speak to You.’”60
Footnote: 60 12:47 This verse is not
found in early mss.”

NIV reads: “Someone told him,
‘Your mother and brothers are
standing outside, wanting to speak
to you.’” Removed note: “g47
Some manuscripts do not have
verse 47.”

(The Greek [transliteration] echō
[ekh´-o] here means “out,” or
“outside” [“without”].)

(The ESV does a relatively rare
thing by excising the verse. Al­
most all modern versions include
v. 47, then footnote about other
mss adding it. Here, also, the ESV
follows the RSV—which the 2005
does in 91 percent of its wording.)

(The NA27 apparatus reveals that
this verse is omitted by and char­
acterized as doubtful by ‫א‬, B, L,
Gamma [Γ ], a few Byz. mss, two
OL, the Syriac Sinaitic and Cure­
tonian, and the Sahidic. Gamma
[10th], L (9th), and the Byzantines
[12th-17th?] are not “early mss.”)

Matthew 16:3 — “And in the
morning, ‘It will be foul weather
to day: for the sky is red and
lowring.’ O ye hypocrites, ye can
discern the face of the sky; but
can ye not discern the signs of
the times?”

Reads: “‘And in the morning, ‘It
will be stormy today, for the sky is
red and threatening.’ You know
how to interpret the appearance of
the sky, but you cannot interpret
the signs of the times.” Removed
note: “Some manuscripts omit the
following words to the end of
verse 3.”

Reads: “And in the morning,
‘[There will be] a storm today, for
the sky is red and threatening.’
Do you know how to discern the
appearance of the sky, but cannot
[discern] the signs of the times?”

PROBLEM
Greek text, word form, and
translation issues exist. But the
evidentiary testimony resolves
the problems. “Having been
exalted to heaven” is supported
by the Ï text (at least 85%),
Ë13, 33, most of the Syriac, and
three OL. Opposing are ‫א‬, B,
D, W, Θ, most of the Latin, the
Syriac Curetonian, and the
Coptic. Supporting “. . . will be
thrown down” are the Ï text,
‫א‬, C, L, Θ, Ë1 , 13, 33, the Pe­
shitta and Harclean, and the
Bohairic. Against are B, D, W,
all Latin, the Sinaitic and Cure­
tonian (5th), and the Sahidic.

Divisive, confusing and decep­
tive footnotes accompany the
modern versions here. (And
“early mss” is somewhat mis­
representative.) Support for the
KJV includes overwhelming
evidence: the Majority Greek
(The footnote is nothing but con­
(85+%); uncials Í1, C, D, W,
fusing: What other manuscripts?
1 , 13
; 33; most
This was a modernistic scholarly Z, Theta (Θ); Ë
Old
Latin
and
all
the Vulgate
means of casting doubt on God’s
Word. Removal is appropriate. But (“lat”); the Peshitta and Harc­
lean; and the Bohairic. Manu­
why the removal of idou [be­
script weight and number favor
hold], which is in the NA-UBS
the KJV.
Greek?)

The NIV footnote indicts the
NU text and the scribes of its
sources by admitting that only
“And he answered and said”
appears in v. 2—the rest of vv.
2-3 being questioned as doubt­
ful. (??) Also supporting this
nonsense are uncials X and Γ,
(The Greek purrazi gar stugnazō
Ë13, 579, a few Byz., the Sinai­
(The KJV translators unnecessarily
[poo-rodd´-zee | garr | stoog-nodtic and Curetonian, the Sahidic,
added “O ye,” which does not
zō], “being overcast,” is not the
(Nevertheless, the source apparat­ and part of the Bohairic. Sup­
(The minority Greek text omits
appear in the Majority Greek text [h]upokritai, “hypocrites.” At least equivalent of “threatening.” This is us contains these verses! And
the Ï are C, D, L, W,
or the Textus Receptus. Lowring
“some early” is an adroit attempt porting
85 percent of extant NT Greek mss a bit of a stretch. Contemporary
1
Θ
,
Ë
,
33,
all Latin (“latt”), the
means “to be gloomy and overcast include it; yet, modernists’ two
idiom here increases severity to
to leverage the alleged weight of
with clouds.”)
Peshitta/Harclean, and bopt.
emphasize a “sign of the times.”) moderns’ favorite uncials!)
favorites, Aleph and B, do not.

Reads: “. . . and in the morning,
‘Today it will be stormy, for the
sky is red and overcast.’ You
know how to interpret the ap­
pearance of the sky, but you can­
not interpret the signs of the
times.”4 Footnote: “4Some early
manuscripts do not have When
evening comes … of the times.”

KJV
Matthew 17:20 — “And Jesus
said unto them, ‘Because of your
unbelief: for verily I say unto
you, If ye have faith as a grain of
mustard seed, ye shall say unto
this mountain, “Remove thee
hence to yonder place;” and it
shall remove; and nothing shall
be impossible unto you.’”

ESV
ESV reads: “He said to them,
‘Because of your little faith. For
truly, I say to you, if you have
faith like a grain of mustard seed,
you will say to this mountain,
“Move from here to there,” and it
will move, and nothing will be
impossible for you.’”
(“Little faith” must be erroneous
because Jesus said that even tiny
faith—like that of a “grain of mus­
tard seed”—will move a moun­
tain!)

Matthew 18:11 — “For the Son Omits the entire verse: “4Some
manuscripts add verse 11: For the
of Man is come to save that
Son of Man came to save the
which was lost.”
lost.”
(Also see Luke 19:10.)

(The “NA27-UBS4” [or “NU”]
texts, supported by their Greek
sources, do not include verse 11.
Once again, “some” is a gross
understatement of ms evidence!
[See testimony at far right.] Also
note that “add” implies scribal
interpolation.)

Matthew 18:15 — “Moreover if
thy brother shall trespass against
thee, go and tell him his fault
between thee and him alone: if he
shall hear thee, thou has gained
they brother.”

Reads: “If your brother sins
against you, go and tell him his
fault, between you and him alone.
If he listens to you, you have
gained your brother.”

(Eis, as in “unto,” also can mean
“against,” as here and in the Ï.)

NASB

NIV

PROBLEM

NASB reads: “And He said to
them, ‘Because of the littleness of
your faith; for truly I say to you,
if you have faith the size of a
mustard seed, you will say to this
mountain, “Move from here to
there,” and it will move; and
nothing will be impossible . . .’”

NIV reads: “He replied, ‘Because
you have so little faith. Truly I tell
you, if you have faith as small as
a mustard seed, you can say to
this mountain, “Move from here
to there,” and it will move.
Nothing will be . . .’”

Notice also that the NU reads
“He said,” rather than “Jesus
said.” The Ï text (at least
85% of Greek) reads Iēsous
eipen (“Jesus said”) and apist­
ian (“unbelief”). Also sup­
porting “Jesus” are C, L, W, Ë1,
six OL, and the Peshitta and
Harclean. The same, minus
three OL, Ë1, and the Peshitta,
support eipen. “Unbelief” is
supported by the Ï, C, D, L,
W, all Latin, and most Syriac.
All of these are opposed by Í,
B, D, Θ, Ë13, 33, and more.

(The NA-UBS read identically
with the Byzantine majority, os
(“Littleness of your faith” is literal kokkon sinapeōs, “like [or “as”] a
27
from the Nestle-Aland Greek, but grain of mustard [seed],” yet the
is incorrect. “Size of” was inserted translators add “small” for un­
necessary clarity.)
by the translators.)

The Ï text (85%+) includes v.
11: “For the Son of Man came
to save the lost.” The Byz. also
is supported by D, W, Θc, 078,
(“[ ]”—in the NA apparatus and the (Why is there no explanation ac­
most OL and all the Vulgate
NASB text—means “questionable.” companying verse 11’s omission
(“lat”), most of the Syriac, and
Yet the NA omits the verse, then
and footnoted content? And des­
part of the Bohairic (bopt). NA
brackets the number below. The two pite the overwhelming evidence
also divide over “early MSS.” The
support comprises Í, B, L, Θ,
for inclusion of the verse, the
NA admits that D [5th] and W [5th]
Ë1 , 13, 33, 892, a few Byz., two
support the Byz., then tosses in two translators do not even so much as
OL, the Sinaitic, and the bopt.
include the verse in brackets!)
OL manuscripts.)

NASB: [“57 For the Son of Man
NIV: “40 Some manuscripts
has come to save that which was include here the words of Luke
lost.]” Footnote: “57 Early MSS do 19:10.”
not contain this v.”

Reads: “If your brother sins 59 , go
and 60 show him his fault in pri­
vate; if he listens to you, you have
won your brother.” Footnotes: “59
Late mss add against you 60 Or
reprove.”

Reads: “If your brother or sister
sins 42, go and point out their fault,
just between the two of you. If
they listen to you, you have won
them over.” “42 Some manuscripts
sins against you.”

NASB reads: “And I say to you,
whoever divorces his wife, except
for immorality, and marries another
woman commits adultery.31 ”
Footnote: “31 Some early mss add
and he who marries a divorced
woman commits adultery.”

NIV reads: “I tell you that anyone
who divorces his wife, except for
sexual immorality, and marries
another woman commits adult­
ery.” (No note for ending!)

(As with all other modern transla­
tions herein, the Greek de—more­ (The minority Greek lacks
(Gender-inclusive language has
over, and, but, etc.—has been
“against you,” but is outnumbered been added to the 2011 edition.
dropped as a primary particle.)
by more than 9 to 1!)
The Greek reads “brother” only!)

Matthew 19:9 — “And I say
unto you, Whosoever shall put
away his wife, except [it be] for
fornication, and shall marry an­
other, committeth adultery: and
whoso marrieth her which is put
away doth commit adultery.”

ESV reads: “And I say to you:
whoever divorces his wife, except
for sexual immorality, and marries
another, commits adultery.”1
Footnote: “1 Some manuscripts add
and whoever marries a divorced
woman commits adultery; other
manuscripts except for sexual
immorality, makes her commit
adultery, and whoever marries . . .”

(Also see Mark 10: 11, 12, and
Luke 16:18.)

(“Some” is an abominable lie: A
staggering majority of Greek mss
include the last verse portion!)

The Ï (85%+) reads eis se,
“against you.” “Late mss” is
irrelevant because of over­
whelming witness: D; L; W; Θ;
078; Ë13; 33; all Latin (“latt”);
all Syriac; bopt. Only Aleph and
B, Alex. 0281 and 579, Ë1, the
Sahidic, a few Byz. cursives,
and part of the Bohairic, defy.

Overwhelming evidence favors
the KJV reading: Ï text; B; C;
W; Z; Θ; Ë1 , 13; 078; 33; almost
all Latin; the Peshitta and Harc­
lean; and the Bohairic. Why
have the moderns abandoned
(“Marital unfaithfulness” was
Codex B? Because not doing so
(“Immorality” long had been used to replaced with “sexual immorality” would not sell their “Bibles”?
in
the
NIV
2011.
It
simply
is
mean “sexual immorality.” Immorality
3
is underlain by the Greek porneia. A “fornication,” or “adultery.” God Opposing: Í; C ; D; L; 1241; a
does not take this lightly! Notice, few Byz.; the Old Latin (55-60
more accurate word is “fornicat­
mss); the Sinaitic/Curetonian;
ion.” Moichatai means “commits adul­ again, the absence of the final
and the Sahidic.
tery.” Notice stress on “early mss.”)
independent clause in the KJV.)

KJV

ESV
ESV reads: “And behold, a man
came up to him, saying, ‘Teach­
er, what good deed must I do to
have eternal life?’”

NASB

NIV

PROBLEM

Majority text (Ï) reads Didas­
kale agathe, “Good Teacher.”
“Good” is necessary here be­
cause it speaks to God being
good: If Christ is not God, then
(Notice how “good” [agathē ] has God (the Father) is not good—
God thus being a liar. Under­
(It is interesting that the minority (As always, no footnote exists for been omitted from all three mo­
(Also see Luke 18:18. Note that
lying the NU reading are the
the
Majority
reading.
Because
Greek source text underlying this
dern translations—absent from
“thing” does not appear in either
substantially doctrinally corrupt
modernists hold that the “best”
version
leaves
out
“Good”
their Greek. See their unconvinc­ Aleph [‫] א‬, B, D, and L, plus Ë1,
Greek source text, but, rather, has
ing evidence at right. [Also note
been inserted—unnecessarily—by [agathē ]. This omission confuses manuscripts are the “earliest” or
892 (850 AD), a few Byzan­
“early,”
these
translators
withhold
that 10 Old Latin—50-55 extant— tines, three Old Latin, and part
the
meaning
of
the
immediately
translators for clarity. “Master” is
support the Byz. Ï cursives, plus of the Bohairic (bopt). If “good”
mention of the vast majority of
clearly a better translation here
subsequent verse.)
Greek MSS outnumbering them. C, W, Θ, Ë13, 33, most Latin, all
than “teacher,” as in these modern
is omitted, then v. 17a, b—as in
versions.)
Inferior doctrine defies “best”!)
Syriac, the Sahidic, and the bopt.]) the NU—must be omitted.

Matthew 19:16 — “And behold,
one came and said unto him,
‘Good Master, what good thing
shall I do, that I may have eternal
life?’”

Matthew 20:16 — “So the last
Reads: “So i the last will be first,
shall be first, and the first last: for and the first last.”
many be called but few chosen.” (No footnote at all for witness
(The “called” are those who have
been invited, while the “chosen”
are those who have been genuinely
saved. —Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
Bible Commentary, Vol. 3, p. 100)
(Eklektoi means “chosen” or
“elect”: those who have been “cal­
led” by the Spirit and have come to
Christ for salvation.)

Matthew 21:44 — “And whoso­
ever shall fall on this stone shall
be broken: but on whomsoever it
shall fall, it will grind him to
powder.”
(The “spiritual builders” of Jesus’
time, the Pharisees, Saducees and
scribes, personally were being
“broken” by “falling” on [reject­
ing] the keystone of the kingdom
of God—Christ. Similarly, in their
final rejection of Christ, these Jew­
ish leaders would be “ground to
powder.” “The Kingdom of God is
here a temple . . . .” —JamiesonFausset-Brown Bible Comment­
ary, Vol 3, p. 104)

testimony, etc. Further, the note mark
in the text refers to the identical
Matthew 19:30, to which they
unnecessarily have added “[that are]”
and [shall be]” in that verse—often
not bracketed when they should be.
Also in the RSV, which the ESV
practically is intended to replace
and/or provide a “smoother-reading”
alternative for, the latter portion is
omitted—again, without footnote.)

NASB reads: “And someone
came to Him and said, ‘Teacher,
what good thing shall I do that I
may obtain eternal life?’”

NIV reads: “Just then a man
came up to Jesus and asked,
‘Teacher what good thing must I
do to get eternal life?’”

Reads: “So the last shall be first,
and the first last.”

Reads: “So the last will be first,
and the first will be last.”

(The first portion of v. 16 calls for
a further conclusion. It seems in­
complete. “This and that are true,
so something else must follow.”
This is not simply a retelling of the
earlier parable in Matt. 19:30.
[Moderns’ only recourse are ‫א‬, B,
L, Z, 085, 892, 1424, the Sahidic,
Lectionary [ℓ ] 844, a few Byz.
mss, and part of the Bohairic.])

(The NA27 implies that the last
portion of the verse is a [later] in­
sertion—based on Matthew 22:14
—according to the following: C;
D; W; Theta [Θ]; Caesarean group
Families 1 and 13 [Ë1 , 13]; “the
great cursive” 33; the Ï; all Latin;
all Syriac; more. So, moderns
essentially stand on Aleph and B.
But against 90%-plus of the mss?)

The last portion has been re­
moved from nearly every mo­
dern Bible version: A failure to
respond positively to the Gospel
does not sell, and moderns stand
by their favored MSS. Again,
the vast majority of witnesses
support inclusion: Ï text (at
least 4,800 mss); all Latin (10k+
ms); all Syriac (“sy”/ hundreds);
Ë1 , 13 (18 mss); uncials C, D, W,
Theta (Θ), and Delta (D); 579,
565, 1241 and 1505; plus 10
other “numericals.”

The Majority text (Ï) includes
the verse (85%+ of extant
Greek) but, more interestingly,
modern scholars’ two favorite
MSS, uncials Aleph and B, also
27
(According to the NA , only D,
include the verse. The only
“early” uncial that does not
cursive 33, many Old Latin, and
the Syriac Sinaitic do not contain include this verse is the notor­
(Again, why confuse the reader
iously corrupt Codex D (Be­
(Verse 44 is omitted from the in­ this verse! Hence, the NIV trans­ zae/Western). That’s right, the
with a partial truth: “Some ma­
lators
included
it.
Even
‫א‬
,
B,
C,
L,
terlinear Greek in The Zondervan
nuscripts . . . ”? “The majority of Greek and English Interlinear
and W include the verse, as do Z, academics have defied Aleph
and B. Why? (The verse even
Greek manuscripts” is the plain
0102, Ë1 , 13, some Old Latin and
New Testament [NASB/NIV]. As
has been removed in the Greek,
all
the
Vulgate,
most
of
the
Syriac,
and simple truth. This is another
for “to scatter like dust,” this is a
from a recent interlinear.) The
and all the Coptic. Why have the “harsh” tone? Doesn’t sell.
usage mentioned in Thayer’s
attempt to foist a proven corrupt
text upon a wanton public which is Greek-English Lexicon of the New translators repented and included Also notice the ESV footnote:
this verse when they did not in
“Some manuscripts.” This is
easily wooed by “modern scholar­ Testament, but it is one prefaced
versions of the NIV previous to
by “in a sense unknown to prof.
absolute falsehood and decep­
ship.” In addition, the NU Greek auth. [professional authorities],”
the 2011? [The voice should be
tion, as the vast majority of all
does not read, “and when if falls,” and it does not carry “like dust.”
active rather than passive: “it will manuscripts contain the verse
nor does it read “anyone.”)
crush him.]” “And” should begin.) —not just the Greek!
[References to the Septuagint.])

Reads: “And the one who falls on
this stone will be broken to pie­
ces; and when it falls on anyone,
it will crush him.” 5 Footnote:
“5 Some manuscripts omit verse
44.” (See evidence in NIV.)

NASB: “And he who falls on this
stone will be broken to pieces; but
on whomever it falls, it will scat­
ter him like dust.” The footnote,
“Some manuscripts do not have
verse 44,” has been removed from
the 95 Update edition.

NIV: “Anyone who falls on this
stone will be broken to pieces;
anyone on whom it falls will be
crushed.”

KJV

ESV

Matthew 23:8 — “But be not ye
called Rabbi: for one is your
Master, [even] Christ; and all ye
are brethren.”

ESV reads: “But you are not to be
called rabbi, for you have one
teacher, and you are all brothers.”3
Footnote: “3 Or brothers and
sisters.”

(The Greek kathēgētēs [koth-ay´gate-ace] means “teacher,” or
“master”—most appropriately the
latter in this context. The opposing
text reads didaskalos, “teacher”
only. “O” in Greek means “the,”
not “even.”)

(The footnote contradicts the NAUBS Greek, which, as seen above,
reads “brothers” [Gk. adelphoi ].
None of the Greek source texts
reads “brothers and sisters,” so this
suggestion means to neuter the
reading. The traditional meaning is
inclusive of all persons in Christ.)

Matthew 23:14 — “Woe unto
you, scribes and Pharisees, hypo­
crites! for ye devour widows’
houses, and for a pretense make
long prayer: therefore ye shall
receive the greater damnation.”

NASB

NIV

NASB reads: “But do not be
NIV reads: “But you are not to be The words “the Christ” (o
called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Cristoς) appear in the Maj­
called Rabbi; for One is your
Teacher, and you are all brothers.” Teacher, and you are all brothers.” ority Greek—at least 85% of
cursives. These words also are
(The NIV committee has been im­
(The NA27 labels kaqhghthς,
included in manuscripts K (9th),
prudent in translating kathēgētēs as Gamma (Γ/10th), Delta (Δ/9th),
“teacher,” or “master,” as an
“teacher,” and this version still is
alternative reading, based on ‫א‬,
0102 (650 AD), 579 (1200), 700
based on the substantially
2
Í , D, L, Theta [Θ], “zero uncials” largely
(1050), 892c (3rd copyist/ 850),
corrupt minority text. Hence, pre­
th
th
0102 and 0107, f 1 . 13, and the Ï
cisely as the other modern versions 1241 (1150), and 1424 (9 /10 ),
text! Why? Mostly because Í1, B here, it omits “the Christ. In pre­
as well as in the Syriac Cureto­
[Vaticanus], 892, 33, and some
nian (5th) and the Harclean (7th).
vious NIV editions, “Master” was
Byz. slightly differing from the Ï used rather than “Teacher.” Why the Again, see NASB for minimal
change?)
support didaskalos, “teacher.”)
NU support of “Teacher.”
The vast majority of manu­
scripts have verse 14—includ­
ing at least 85 percent of the
Greek. This comprises approx­
imately 90 percent of NT min­
(The above hints at “harmoniza­
uscules (cursives/9th cent. and
tion”. But no proof exists—just
(Three of the earliest NT Greek
later), and—according to lead­
modernistic theory. These mss are
uncials omit this verse: Í; B; D.
27
ing modernistic scholars Aland
Also supporting the NU text are L, clarified in the NA 13apparatus: W; and Metzger (both deceased)
1
0102;
0107;
892;
Ë
;
the
Itala
Z, Θ, Ë , 33, 892, five Old Latin, a
of Greek un­
Old Latin]; the Peshitta and —24.2 thpercent
few Byz. mss, the Syriac Sinaitic, [many
cials (4 -9th centuries). (Per­
Harclean; the Syriac Curetonian;
the Sahidic, part of the Bohairic.
part of the Bohairic. But why would centage is based on my per­
Testimony is diverse and broad,
sonal count of categorized ex­
any scribe add words of Christ He
tant manuscripts.)
but does not offset the Ï text.)
did not say?)

The verse is excluded entirely.
Footnote: “4 Some manuscripts
add here (or after verse 12) verse
14: Woe to you, scribes and
Pharisees, hypocrites! For you
devour widows’ houses and for a
pretense you make long prayers;
therefore you will receive the
(Also see Mark 12:40, Luke 20:47.) greater condemnation.”
(“Some” manuscripts do not add
the remainder of this verse! They
include it as authentic; and they
number the vast majority!)

Puts verse 14 in brackets to indi­
cate suspicion about authenticity,
then adds footnote: “46 This v not
found in early mss.”

Omits
verse 14 and adds footnote:
40
“ Some manuscripts include here
words similar to Mark 12:40 and
Luke 20:47.

Matthew 24:7 — “For nation
shall rise against nation, and
kingdom against kingdom: and
there shall be famines, and pesti­
lences, and earthquakes, in
divers places.”

ESV reads: “For nation will rise
against nation, and kingdom
against kingdom, and there will
be famines and earthquakes in
various places.”

NASB reads: “For nation will rise
against nation, and kingdom
against kingdom, and in various
places there will be famines and
earthquakes.”

NIV reads: “Nation will rise
against nation, and kingdom
against kingdom. There will be
famines and earthquakes in vari­
ous places.”

Matthew 24:36 — “But of that
day and hour knoweth no [man],
no, not the angels of heaven, but
my Father only.” (Also see Mark
13:32.) (“Man” should be “one.”)

ESV: “But concerning that day
and hour no one knows, not even
the angels of heaven, nor the Son,
but the Father only.” 2 Footnote:
“2 Some manuscripts omit nor the
son.”

(As in the other versions fol­
(The Greek kata [kah-tah´] means lowing, “pestilences” is omitted.
—among other things—“against” But isn’t the world being ravaged
or “in diverse” [manifold] places.” by pestilences even now?)

(Remember that Jesus is co-equal
to God the Father—hence, Mat­
thew’s not alluding to “the Son.”
“Even,” after “not,” was omitted.)

(Once again, not “some” mss, but
the vast majority, including 90%plus of the Greek cursives!)

PROBLEM

(The NA27 posits that “and pesti­
lences, and earthquakes” has been
harmonized to Luke 21:11, but the
only match is “pestilence,” itself!
Moderns uphold TC rules beyond
testimony—and reason.)

The Ï (85+% of existing Greek)
reads loimoi (plague, disease,
pestilence). Also supporting the
Byz. Ï text are C, Θ, 0102
(Alex.), f 1,13, two Old Latin, and
the Peshitta and Harclean. Sup­
(In the face of overwhelming
port for the NU text comprises
manuscript testimony, the NIV
modern favorite B, D, 892, a few
rides the NA27 in defiance. Also
among the minority evidence are a Byz., five OL, and the Syriac
few Byz. mss, the Syriac Sinaitic, Sinaitic and Sahidic—substantial
witness, but easily overwhelmed.
and the Coptic Sahidic.)

The vast majority of Greek MSS
(90%+) support the reading of
the Byzantine Majority text:
omission of [h]oude o [h]uios.
The Ï text is backed by Í1, L,
(Testimony for the NA27 reading
(“Some manuscripts”? No! Clearly the W, Ë1, 33, 1 (1150/Caesarean),
are Í and Í2, B, D, Theta [Θ], Ë13, vast majority of Greek and otherwise! all the Vulgate, all the Syriac,
Look at the paltry support for inclu­
a few Byz., and the Itala, others.
and all the Coptic (Bohairic and
Sahidic).
[See far right for more support.]) sion of oude o uioς, at left.)

Reads: “But of that day and hour
no one knows, not even the angels
of heaven, nor the Son, but the
Father alone.”

Reads: “But about that day or hour
no one knows, not even the angels
37
in heaven, nor the Son, but only
37
the Father.” Footnote: “ Some
manuscripts do not have nor . . .”

KJV

ESV

NASB

NIV

Matthew 25:31 — “When the
Son of man shall come[s] in his
glory, and all the holy angels
with him, then shall he sit upon
the throne of his glory.”

ESV reads: “When the Son of
Man comes in his glory, and all
the angels with him, then he will
sit on his glorious throne.”

NASB reads: “But when the Son
of Man comes in His glory, and
all the angels with Him, then He
will sit on His glorious throne.”

NIV reads: “When the Son of
Man comes in his glory, and all
the angels with him, he will sit
on his glorious throne.”

(The modern Greek text [NU], the
Majority text, and the Textus Re­
ceptus each read qronou doxeς,
which correctly is translated
“glorious throne” rather than
“throne of his glory.” Doxēs [doxāce], a singular feminine noun,
also can be used as an adjective, as
in “glorious,” to describe throne.)

(The ESV, based on the 1971 RSV,
reads precisely as the NASB, be­
ing founded upon identical Greek
minority texts. Each built upon the
previous version, as well—RSV
NT [1946] upon the ASV [1901,
after ERV], and NASB NT [1966]
upon the RSV.)

(This is the correct reading here,
except for the absence of “holy,”
according to the Ï text and the
TR. The overall majority of mss
support the NU reading—without
agioi—but not the overall num­
erical Greek testimony. The over­
all majority is misleading because
10,000 are of the Latin Vulgate.)

(“Glorious throne” is an improve­
ment upon the previous NIV’s “on
his throne in heavenly glory.” The
NA reads, “But when the Son of
Man comes in his glory and all the
angels with him, then He will sit
down upon his glorious throne.”
All that is missing here is the
conjunctive particle “when.”)

Matthew 26:28 — “For this is
my blood of the new testament,
which is shed for many for the
remission of sins.”

Reads: “. . . for this is my blood
of the 3 covenant, which is
poured out for many for the
forgiveness of sins.” Footnote:
“3 Some manuscripts insert new.”

Reads: “. . . for this is my blood
of the covenant, which is poured
out for many for the forgiveness
of sins.”

NIV: “This is my blood of the54
covenant, which is poured out for
many for the forgiveness of sins.”
Footnote: “54 Some manuscripts
the new.”

Reads “. . . they offered him
wine to drink, mixed with gall,
but when he tasted it, he would
not drink it.”

Reads “wine” rather than “vine­
gar.”

(Also see Mark 14:24 and Luke
22:20.)

Matthew 27:34 — “They gave
him vinegar to drink mingled
with gall: and when he had tasted
thereof, he would not drink.”

(Jesus’ blood was not shed for the
(“Some manuscripts”? Nearly all old covenant. It had to be for the
mss! Again, “insert” implies a late “new” covenant—an eternal prom­
scribal interpolation—an addition.) ise replacing a temporal one!
Kainῆς, “new,” appears in the Ï,
A, C, D, W, Ë1 , 13, all the Syriac, all
the Latin [“latt”], the Sahidic, and
the Bohairic.)

(The problem with the Greek word
used here in the “NU” text, oinon,
is that, though it is a fermented
(“Gall” is bile secreted from the
(“Offer” is a stretch of the Greek drink [wine], it is not sour wine.
liver, and, as such, a bitter sub­
edwkan [from didomi), which The Greek oxos is correct: sour
stance which biblically is used to means “to give,” “to bestow” [as a wine—vinegar. Even the Septua­
denote bitterness of spirit [Acts
gift], “to supply, furnish” [neces­ gint, the Greek Old Testament—
8:23, Lamentations 3:19].)
sary things], “to deliver,” “to reach which many moderns highly favor
out, extend, present,” “to entrust, above the Hebrew—reads oxoς
(By the most-accurate definition, commit,” or “to pay.” None of
[Ps. 69:21], “vinegar.” The NU
hqelen [ēthelen ] here means
these meanings equates to “offer” text source is outnumbered, but
Jesus “did not want” to drink it, or in this context.)
moderns use the Byz. to their
“did not intend” to drink it.
advantage when possible—K, The­
ta, and Pi being such. [See NIV.])

PROBLEM
The Byzantine (at least 85% of
extant Greek) reads agioi
(holy) before “angels.” The Ï
text is supported by A, W, Ë13
(11th-15th/13 mss), one OL, the
Syriac Peshitta and Harclean,
and part of the Bohairic. The NU
text of modern Bibles is sup­
ported by minority-text staples
Í, B, D, L, and 33, plus Ë1, Θ,
565, a few Byzantines, nearly
all the Latin, the Sahidic, and
part of the Bohairic—a diverse
and broad testimony, but not
enough to offset the Ï.

The vast majority of Greek
manuscripts include “new.”
Jesus is referring to the “new
covenant,” which, as ment­
ioned in Hebrews 8:6-13, ex­
plicitly replaces the old cove­
nant as being a better one! Mo­
(“Some manuscripts”? No! The
derns boast about the supre­
overwhelming majority—at least macy of the NU witness, led by
their preferred Aleph, B, and
85 percent of the total extant
Greek minuscule [cursive] manu­ 33, but these are substantially
corrupt! Also supporting the
scripts included. The translators
Greek are Ì37 and
did not want to “confuse the read­ minority
45
Ì , L, Z (Alex.), Theta (Θ),
ers with the facts”!)
0298 (Caes.), and a few Byz.
“Oinon,” fermented drink, is
incorrect! “Oxos,” rather, is
sour wine—vinegar. “Vinegar”
fulfills prophecy in Psalm
(See note at immediate left.)
69:21: “They also gave me gall
in my food; and in my thirst
(Moderns stand by Í, B, and D,
they gave me vinegar to drink.”
1 , 13
plus K, L, Theta [Θ], Ë
, 33,
Ï and specified uncial support:
some Byz. different slightly from A (5th); E (8th); F (9th); G (9th);
the Majority text [al ], most of the H (9th); N (6th); W (5th); Δ (Del­
Latin, the Sinaitic, the Sahidic, and ta—037/ 9th); Σ (Sigma—042/
the Bohairic. Diversity and broad­ 6th); Φ (Phi—044/9th); 0250
ness of support are won by the NU (750 AD); 0281 (7th-8th). Other
Greek, but oinon simply is incor­ support are four Old Latin (2nd),
and the Syriac Peshitta (2nd)
rect.)
and Harclean (7th). (The UBS4
does not even notate the text.)

Reads “wine” rather than “vine­
gar.”

KJV

ESV

NASB

NIV

Mark 1:1 — “The beginning of Reads: “The beginning of the
Reads: “The beginning of the
the gospel of Jesus Christ, the
gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of
Son of God; . . .”
God.”1 Footnote: “1 Some manu­ God.”
scripts omit the Son of God.”
(The NA27 modern critical appa­
ratus states that Í, Theta [Θ],
(Why do modern text critics cast uncial 28 [Byz./ca. 950], a few
doubt on the overwhelming major­
more Byzantine mss, Lectionary [ℓ]
ity of manuscripts by adding this
2211, and one Sahidic MS do not
confusing tidbit? Shameless. At
include “Son of God.” So the com­
most, less than one quarter of the mittee was correct in leaving the
total NT Greek testimony omits
reading unmolested. They know—
this phrase! [See majority testi­
or at least have manifested—the
mony in “Problem,” far right.])
truth, here.)

Reads: “The beginning of the
good news about Jesus the Mes­
siah, the Son of God,”33 Footnote:
“33 Some manuscripts do not have
the Son of God.”

Mark 1:2 — “As it is written in
the prophets, ‘Behold, I send my
messenger before thy face, which
shall prepare thy way before
thee.’”

NIV reads: “As it is written in
Isaiah the prophet: ‘I will send
my messenger ahead of you, who
will prepare your way’”34 —
Footnote: “34 Mal. 3:1.”

(It is critical to note that this OT
quotation appears in two passages,
and by different prophets: Isaiah
40:3 AND Malachi 3:1. Both
verses speak of John the Baptist,
but it is two prophets—not Isaiah
alone—who proclaim this OT
prophecy!)

Mark 1:14 — “Now after that
John was put into prison, Jesus
came into Galilee, preaching the
gospel of the kingdom of
God, . . .”

ESV reads: “As it is written in
Isaiah the prophet, 2 ‘Behold, I
send my messenger before your
face, who will prepare your
way,’” . . . Footnote: “2 Some
manuscripts in the prophets.”

NASB reads: “As it is written in
Isaiah the prophet: ‘BEHOLD, I
SEND MY MESSENGER 49 AHEAD OF
YOU, WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR
WAY;’” Footnote: 49 Lit before
your face.”

(The NA Greek reading “Isaiah the
prophet” is incorrect according to
the manuscript evidence. Correct
is en tois prophētais, “in the prophets.” [See evidence testimony at
far right.])

(No footnote appears to mention
any other reading. This is decep­
tion, and the translators probably
did not include the Byzantine
reading because of their favorite
evidence: Í, B, and D. To many
moderns, the corrupt Aleph and B
are tantamount to absolute truth!)

PROBLEM

At least 4,400 of the extant
5,700-plus (76%) total NT
Greek manuscripts (incl. lec­
tionaries) contain “Son of
God”! Also containing these
words are Í1, Codex Vaticanus
(The NIV translators changed
(B), Codex Bezae (D), L, W,
“gospel” to “good news” and
“Christ” to “the Messiah.” Why? 2427, a few Byz., and all the
Firstly, “gospel” is traditional and Latin, Syriac, and Coptic.
a biblical term. Secondly, the Ï/ Opposing are no more than a
TR and NU texts all read Cris­ dozen or so manuscripts
toς, not Messiaς. [See footnote (NASB note). Evidence for
at right for testimony against
[h]uiou Theou thus is thor­
“Some manuscripts.”])
oughly overwhelming.
“Isaiah the prophet” probably
is a scribal error. The NU has
substantial support beyond the
NASB witnesses: Delta (D); Θ;
Ë1; 205; 565; 700; 892; 1071;
1241; 1243; 2427; some Byz.
(The NET refers to its nine speci­ cursives; the Peshitta; Harclean
fic MSS witnesses as “early,” but margin; Palestinian; all Coptic.
six are no earlier than 850 AD! As But the Ï text has much the
same: A; W; 28; 180; 579; 597;
for “ahead of you,” the Greek is
1006; 1010; 1292; 1342; 1424;
the same, but pro proswpou
1505; [E; F; G; H; P; Σ]
sou does not mean “ahead of
13
you.” It means “before thy face.” (disputed); f ; Lect; the Harc­
lean. Yet, the Byz. Greek ma­
And note how the NIV removes
idou, “behold,” “look,” “see,” or jority and Malachi’s prophecy
derail the opposition.
“surprise.” Why?)

NIV: “After John was put in pris­ “Kingdom of God” is the read­
on, Jesus went into Galilee, pro­ ing in the profound majority of
claiming the good news of God.” mss: a vast majority of the
Byzantines; A; D; W; the Pe­
(“Good news” and “gospel” have shitta; most Old Latin and all
of the Vulgate; and part of the
(Obviously, “kingdom of God” is
the same meaning, according to
pt
omitted here. Furthermore, the
(“Taken into custody” is literal
the Greek euaggelíō [you-ang-gel- Bohairic (bo )‡. The NU
Greek
is
supported
by very
(What is missing in these modern word here translated “arrested”
from the Greek paradothēnai [par- ee´-ō]. Nevertheless, the gospel of
broad and diverse evidence: ‫;א‬
translations is the clarifier “king­ comes from the Greek parado­
a-doth-ay´-nahee]. However,
Jesus Christ is a sacred thing, so to
1 ,13
dom of God,” which is specifically thēnai, meaning “to commit,” “to “imprisoned” or “put into prison” replace it with the pedantic “good B; L; Θ; Ë ; 28; 33; 565;
deliver
up,”
“to
put
in
prison,”
“to
579;
892;
2427;
a few Byz.;
more
accurately,
effectively,
and
the type of “good news” or “gos­
news” certainly seems irrespon­
four
OL;
the
Harclean;
the
give
over
or
give
up.”
Hence,
the
illustratively
describes
the
event.
pel” being preached!)
Greek has not been transmitted
“Gospel of God” less fully descri­ sible and disrespectful. Where is
Sinaitic; the Sahidic; and ‡bopt
the sense of godly reverence in
absolutely literally here. And the
bes the type of good news being
(5 or more mss); others. But the
essence of this independent clause is preached. Interesting that footnotes these NIV translators? And what
Ï text—at least 85% of Greek
not just the arrest—imprisonment!) fail to mention the Ï/TR ending.) about the longer ending?)
—still carries the day.
ESV: “Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee,
proclaiming the gospel of
God,” . . .

NASB: “Now after John had been
56 taken into custody, Jesus came
into Galilee, 57 preaching the gos­
pel of God, . . .” Footnotes: “56 Lit
delivered up 57 Or proclaiming.”

KJV

ESV

NASB

Mark 3:15 — “And to have
ESV reads: “. . . and have
power to heal sicknesses, and to authority to cast out demons.”
cast out devils: . . .”
(Excluding “to heal sicknesses”—
without footnote, especially—is
(In this particular case, the KJV
extremely irresponsible in the least
translators chose the best Greek
and, more likely, a modernistic ef­
word, daimonion (demon), but op­ fort to revoke Jesus’ and his dis­
ted for the less-appropriate English ciples’ power over bodily afflic­
word, “devils,” rather than “de­
tions—for whatever reason. Most
mons.” The Greek daimon also
moderns manipulate the source
could have been used.)
texts, centrally using the “NU,”
but also using Byz. readings when
essential and/or convenient. [The
committee removed the word “to”
before “have.” ??])

NASB reads: “. . . and to have
authority to cast out demons.”

Mark 3:29 — “But he that shall
blaspheme against the Holy
Ghost hath never forgiveness,
but is in danger of eternal dam­
nation: . . .”

Reads: “. . . But whoever blas­
phemes against the Holy Spirit
never has forgiveness, but is
guilty of an eternal sin.”

Reads: “. . . but whoever blas­
phemes against the Holy Spirit
never has forgiveness ⸁, but is
guilty of an eternal sin.”

Mark 6:11b — “Verily I say
unto you, It shall be more toler­
able for Sodom and Gomorrha in
the day of judgment, than for
that city.”

ESV: This last portion of verse
11 is completely omitted from
the NU text.

(The NA27 Greek source reads
amartēmatos [or amartias ], “sin,”
(The KJV translators chose to
rather than kriseōs, “damnation,”
leave out “in this age” [eternally] or “judgment.” Moderns do not
after “forgiveness,” evidently
seem to distinguish between “sin”
having decided that “in this age” and “damnation,” based on the
might confuse readers. But eiς
absence of any footnote. “Sin” [or
ton aiwna, “in this age,”
“missing the mark” (of God’s per­
appears in both the Ï & TR. They fection)] has significant support in
‫א‬, B, L, Delta [D], Θ, 28, 33, 565,
both also have “has not” after
“Ghost” [Spirit].)
892, and 2427 [19th].)

(Also see Matthew 10:15.)

(The NASB translators are being
selective about their footnoting.
Have they attempted to denigrate
the divinity of Christ by failing to
footnote, here—“power to heal
sicknesses”? Are only our physi­
cians, with modern technology,
able to heal sicknesses? Have
God’s chosen vessels no power to
do so—those given the gift of
healing by the Holy Spirit?)

NIV

PROBLEM

Some scribe(s) made a serious
error of omission here, leaving
out a key phrase in this verse.
(The NA27 apparatus states that “to It does not appear in the min­
ority Greek—here far less than
heal sicknesses” is an insertion,
one percent of extant NT mss.
according to nearly all available
manuscript evidence: Ï; A; C2; D; But the Majority text includes
W; Θ; Ë1 . 13; 33; 579; 700; 1424; θerapeuein tas nosouς
kai (“to heal sicknesses and”),
2542; and most of the Latin and
as does more than 99% of all
Syriac Harclean [the latter two
other extant manuscript testi­
with some slight variation].)
mony. (See Matt. 10:1 and
16:18, and 1 Cor. 12:9.) Why
do modern text critics doubt
the authenticity of this verse?

NIV reads: “. . . and to have au­
thority to drive out demons.”

Modern versions mitigate the
severity of the sense: “eternal
sin” rather than “eternal damn­
ation”—different Greek words:
amarthmatoς (sin) vs. kris­
(Again, no footnote to mark the
ewς (damnation). The Ï also
( ⸁ The NA27 states that “in this
age”—see far left—is omitted by different final word. Further, could reads—as noted at far left
not “eternal sin” simply mean to
—“has not” after “Ghost.”
D, W, Θ, 1 [ca. 1150], 28 [ca. 950],
readers—however confusingly—a “Damnation” is supported by:
565 [ca. 850], 700 [ca. 1050], 2542 sin that lasts forever [all other sin
Ï (at least 85%); A; C2; Ë1;
[ca. 1250], many Byz. mss, most being forgotten], rather than one
1424; two OL; the Peshitta and
or all of the Old Latin, and the
that is eternally punishable, hence Harclean; part of the Bohairic.
Syriac Sinaitic. But sin must be
warranting damnation? For the
But damnation doesn’t sell
wrong because “blasphemy against 2011 NIV “he” also has been
their “Bibles.” Most people do
the Holy Spirit” ultimately means changed to “they” for gendernot want to know and hear
rejection of Christ!)
inclusive purposes. Incorrect!)
about damnable sin.

Reads: “. . . but whoever blas­
phemes against the Holy Spirit
will never be forgiven; they are
guilty of an eternal sin.”

Again, the NU Greek text
makes a decent case here, with
a majority of 70% or fewer of
27
Greek mss opposing its read­
(Omission without at least the typ­ (The NA credits the Majority
reading with additional support by ing. It also has broad and di­
(This is done despite the paltry MS ical designation “other mss” is
1 , 13
verse testimony on its side. Yet,
evidence against the Majority
negligence! This exclusion evid­ A, Ë , 33, three Old Latin, the
a substantial majority of the
Syriac
Peshitta
and
Harclean,
and
reading, etc.: moderns’ sacred “old ently is based on “harmonization,”
Byzantines do read as the KJV.
part
of
the
Bohairic.
On
the
NU
uncials,” Aleph [‫] א‬, B, C, and D,
or “parallel influence,” the theor­
When combined with the rela­
side, primary witnesses Í, B, D,
plus four other uncials and several etical scribal practice of copying
and L have proven themselves sub­ tive reliability of witnesses A,
other lesser witnesses. [See NU
Scripture from one Gospel—in
Ë1 , 13, and the Peshitta, the Ï
stantially corrupt based on sub­
testimony in NIV notes, at right.]) this case from Matthew, in 10:15
standard biblical doctrine and other reading still is more credible.
—to another to ensure consistency. factors. Minuscule 2427 is a for­
And the same reading remains
Moderns uphold this theory.)
gery made no earlier than 1874!) in Matthew.

NASB: Verse 11b, at far left, is
omitted without footnote.

NIV: Verse 11b is omitted with­
out footnote.

KJV
Mark 9:29 — “And he said unto
them, ‘This kind can come forth
by nothing, but by prayer and
fasting.’”
(Also see Matthew 17:21.)

Mark 9:42 — “And whosoever
shall offend one of these little
ones that believe in me, it is
better for him that a millstone
were hanged about his neck, and
he were cast into the sea.”

ESV

(Also see Matthew 17:21.)

NIV

PROBLEM

On the basis of only five ex­
isting manuscripts, “and fast­
ing” is removed from this verse
by nearly every modern
(The vast majority of the Greek— (Only most modern scholars’
“Bible” version. Is fasting now
at least 85%—text includes “and ancient duo of Aleph [‫ ] א‬and B op­ unfashionable? Is it no longer
2
75
pose, along with 0274, 2427, and deemed important? The an­
(The NA-UBS [“NU”] Greek text fasting,” as do Ì , Í , A, C, D, L, one Old Latin manuscript. Con­
swers seem obvious. (The sig­
W, Θ, Y [Psi], Families 1 and 13
simply fails to include these two
temporary text critics’ lynch pin is nificance of fasting with prayer
1 , 13
[Ë ], 33, most Old Latin and all the ‫א‬/B combo. The modern criti­ is self-denial to enhance focus
critical words at the end of the
verse. Again, “some” is an abhor­ the Vulgate, the Syriac Harclean, cal apparatus’ foundation is upon on Christ and the invocation of
rent distortion of truth! [See NASB and some of the Coptic. No foot­ these two. [Remember that minus­ His healing power through
cule 2427 is a forgery.])
note here for “longer ending.”)
and NIV proofs.])
purity.)

Reads: “And he said to them,
‘This kind cannot be driven out
by anything but prayer.’”5
Footnote: “5 Some manuscripts add
and fasting.”

Reads: “And He said to them,
‘This kind cannot come out by
anything but prayer.’”

Omits “and fasting.” Footnote:
“39 Some manuscripts prayer and
fasting.”

Reads: “Whoever causes one of
these little ones who believe in
me to sin,7 it would be better for
him if a great millstone were hung
around his neck and he were
thrown into the sea.” Footnote:
“7 Greek to stumble; . . .”

Reads: “Whoever causes one of
these little ones who believe to
stumble, it 71 would be better for
him if, with a heavy millstone
hung around his neck, he had been
cast into the sea.” Footnote:
“71 . . . turned by a donkey . . .”

Reads: “If anyone causes one of
these little ones—who believe in
me—to stumble, it would be better
for them if a large millstone were
hung around their neck and they
were thrown into the sea.”

Based on the modern Greek criti­
cal text, the “NU,” the ESV com­
pletely deletes verses 44 and 46.
Footnote: “9 Some manuscripts
add verses 44 and 46 (which are
identical with verse 48).”

NASB reads: “[74 where THEIR
WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE
IS NOT QUENCHED.] Footnote:
“74 Vv 44 and 46, which are iden­
tical to v 48, are not found in the
early mss.” (—Author emphasis)

(Missing here is “if anyone” after
“And” and replacing “whosoever.” (The minority Greek includes
“great” [onikos ] before millstone.
(The Greek lίqoς [lee´-thos] is
The Greek skandalisē means “to
used just thrice in the New Testa­ stumble, “to offend,” “to entice to
ment to mean “millstone”—a
sin.” Correct: “If anyone who
heavy, flat stone.)
should entice to sin any one of
these little ones . . .”—Byz./TR
(Also see Matthew 18:6 and Luke [Or, “shall offend,” or “shall cause
17:2.)
to stumble.”])

Mark 9:44 — “Where their
worm dieth not, and the fire is
not quenched.” (Also repeated in
verses 46 and 48. —Author)

NASB

(The Greek omission of eis éme, “in
me,” is founded upon only uncials
Aleph, C, and D, the cursive Delta
[9th], four Old Latin manuscripts,
and about five Bohairic mss [bopt].
Note that the NA25 [1963] includes
eiς έme, “in me.” “And” should
begin this verse, according to the
NU text. The NU does bracket eis
éme.)

(The NIV translators have done
rightly by not footnoting with a ref­
erence to “some mss” or “early mss”
excluding “in me.” Rare wisdom for
them. But they did remove “and” at
the beginning. However, they rightly
changed “sin” to “stumble,” and
rearranged order of “a large . . .” and
“he [they ] were thrown . . . .” Note
the wrongful substitution of “them”
and “their” for “him” and “he.”)

Both Greek sources read “And
whoever entices to sin one of
these little ones,” yet the mo­
dern versions have transposed
the first clause with “believing
in me.” (“Entices to sin” is
clearly the correct translation
of skandalise here—not
“causes . . . to sin.”) “In me” is
supported by the Ï, A, B, C2,
L, W, Θ, Y, Ë1 , 13, almost all
Latin, all Syriac, the Sahidic,
bopt, and 19 numerical majus­
cules and minuscules, includ­
ing 28, 565, 579, 892, and
1241.

Translators distort the truth in
NIV omits the verse: Footnote:
“42 Some manuscripts include here the NASB footnote, as two
the words of verse 48.”
fifth century “old uncials”—A
and D—include the verse. Al­
(The NIV committee chose to be even so, the words appear in Theta
more irresponsible than that of the
13
th
NASB by deleting the verse entirely— (9 ), f , some Old Latin and
and the Sy­
more deceptive and sinister activity by all of the Vulgate,
(Essentially, modern critics have
Peshitta (2nd) and Harclean
the NIV translators. Removal here, in riac
foregone the true Greek reading—in
th
(The translators write “the early
effect, minimizes the penalty of eternal (7 ). The verse also appears in
the face of enormous evidence
damnation—but
it
corresponds
pre­
the
Ï text. Translators seem to
against such—because of their two MSS” in reference to only Í, B,
and C—three of the five “old un­ cisely to the revered Í and B. This is disapprove of the “repetition”
most-beloved MSS, Aleph and B.
whose
of this phrase, as well as of the
Another of their preferred sources, cials”—plus W [5th], again appeal­ decadent by the committee, 44
foreboding tone. Some early
ing to moderns’ liberal futility.
previous edition included, “ where
C, opposes, as do others. Moderns
also are absolutely convinced that
Also supporting omission are Delta their worm does not die, and the fire is scribes also took liberties in
45
their copying by “removing
any repetition is falsity. The UBS4 and Psi, f 1, two later uncials and
not quenched. Some manuscripts
repetition.” Satan is a master of
has no references to vv. 44 and 46 at two minuscules [cursives], the
hell, where their worm does not die,
partial truths—seen here!
all! NA27 has removed the verses.) Coptic, and some others.)
and the fire is not quenched.”)

KJV

ESV

NASB

Mark 10:21 — “. . . ‘One thing
thou lackest: go thy way, sell
whatsoever thou hast, and give to
the poor, and thou shalt have
treasure in heaven: and come,
take up thy cross, and follow
me.’”

ESV: “. . . ‘You lack one thing:
The independent clause “take up
go, sell all that you have and give thy cross” is omitted.
to the poor, and you will have
treasure in heaven; and come,
(The minority Greek omits the key
follow me.’”
phrase apas ton stauron [or apas
(The Greek in both the Ï text and ton stauron sou ], “taking up thy
the “NU” is identical, including
cross.” The cross here is the daily
word order, yet the ESV committee burden of obedience to God’s
(Note that the KJV does transpose transposes “You lack” and “one
the final two clauses, “follow me,” thing”—wholly unnecessary med­ Word—a command most unwel­
dling. Active sentence form ideally come to today’s “lukewarm”
and “taking up thy cross,” also
is preferred academically, but this believers!)
changing the tense.)
is God’s Word—and contemporary
(See Matthew 16:24, Luke 9:23.) writing calls for a mix of voices.)

Mark 10:24 — “And the dis­
ciples were astonished at his
words. But Jesus answereth
again, and saith unto them,
‘Children, how hard is it for
them that trust in riches to enter
into the kingdom of God!’”
(Also see Matthew 19:24, Mark
10:25, and Luke 18:25.)

Mark 11:26 — “‘But if ye do
not forgive, neither will your
Father which is in heaven forgive
your trespasses.’”
(Also see in Matthew 6:15, and
similar in Proverbs 21:13.)

NIV

PROBLEM

The independent clause “take up Despite the vast majority of
manuscripts (85%+) supporting
thy cross” is omitted.
the inclusion of “taking up thy
(The minority text’s opposition is cross” after “and follow me,”
very substantial, according to the modern versions have omitted
NA27: Aleph; B; C; D; Delta [D]; Θ the former. Omission reduces
[Theta]; Ψ [Psi]; three Greek un­ the burden of discipleship.
cials; two cursives; a few Byzan­ How convenient for the mo­
tines slightly different from the Ï dernistic critical translators and
their readers. Supporting the
[pc ]; some Old Latin and all the
Byz. text are A, W, f 13, some
Vulgate; the Egyptian Bohairic;
cursives (+ sou [thy]), and all
others.)
the Syriac.

The Majority text reads, “for
NIV reads: “. . . ‘Children, how
hard it is to enter the kingdom of the ones having put trust in
riches (chré-ma) to enter into
God.’”
the kingdom of God.” The
(Jesus mentions money and riches NA27, largely based on the W-H
(The bases for the omission of the at least 31 times in the New Testa­
1870 NT and Tischendorf’s
clause “for them that trust in
ment—one of His most-emphas­ 1872 NT, omits “for them hav­
(The translators omitted “answer­
riches” are only Í [Aleph], B, Delta ized topics. Yet, in a critical verse, ing put trust in riches.” Uncials
ing” before “said.” In the ESV re­
[9th], Psi [8th or 9th], the Sahidic
here, a modernistic text apparatus A, C, D, and Θ include this
verse interlinear, the Greek apo­
Coptic [3rd or 4th], and a few of the based on a minority of corrupt
phrase, as well as f 1 , 13, some
kritheis [apokriΘeiς] appears,
rd
th
manuscripts is used to defy one of Old Latin and all the Vulgate,
Bohairic Coptic [3 or 4 ].)
but is not translated in English.
the most-profound points in Scrip­ all the Syriac, plus part of the
What message are the translators
ture: that a preoccupation with
Bohairic. Including the omitted
and publishers trying to commun­
wealth often precludes salvation
portion would indeed offend
icate here? Objectivity? This
by distracting a person from other­ today’s wealthy. The true read­
would be unusual for the ESV.)
wise turning to the Savior.)
ing wouldn’t sell.

ESV reads: “. . . ‘Children, how
difficult it is 2 to enter the king­
dom of God!’” Footnote: “2 Some
manuscripts add for those who
trust in riches.”

NASB reads: “. . . ‘Children,
how hard it is to enter the
kingdom of God!’”

This verse is omitted by the ESV.
Footnote: “4 Some manuscripts
add verse 26: But if you do not
forgive, neither will your Father
who is in heaven forgive your
trespasses.”

Verse 26 is bracketed to indicate
suspicion about validity.
Footnote: “33 Early mss do not
contain this v.”

(The NA-UBS exclude this verse
despite its importance: The Father
will not forgive one’s sins until he/
she first forgives those of others
against him/her habitually, as a
true follower of Christ. Support for
inclusion partially comprises K, X,
Pi, 28, 1010, 1241, and most lect­
ionaries. [See more—far right.])

Only 10 Greek mss, plus a few
Verse 26 is omitted. Footnote:
26
“ Some manuscripts include here cursives, two OL, the Syriac
Sinaitic, the Sahidic, and part
words similar to Matt. 6:15.”
of the Bohairic, do not include
(The NIV 2011 translators changed this verse. The two earliest
tactics, here, going from the decep­ manuscripts (ca. 325-360 AD),
(The minority text’s omission is
tive “some manuscripts include this excluding “fragments,” do not
supported by nine uncials—‫א‬, B, verse” to more modernistic theory: include this verse (‫א‬, B). How­
the aforementioned “harmoniza­
L, W, D, Ψ, 565, 700, and 892—
ever, three of the earliest five
tion.” Were some of the committee manuscripts (A, C, D) include
and one minuscule, the forged
members also on the NET team, or the verse. Again, “some manu­
2427, plus a few Byzantines differ­ did they simply take a hint from
ing slightly from the Ï, two Old this version? Likely both. Modern scripts” is a major distortion of
the truth! Also supporting the
Latin, the Syriac Sinaitic, and part Bible translators have a habit of
Ï are Theta, f 1 , 13, 33, some
working on multiple versions—
of the Bohairic.)
OL and all Vulgate, the Peshitta
sometimes simultaneously. You
pt
see, they get paid more this way.) and Harclean, and the bo .

KJV

ESV

NASB

Mark 13:33 — “Take ye heed, ESV reads: “Be on guard, keep
watch and pray: for ye know not awake. 1 For you do not know
when the time will come.”
when the time is.”
Footnote: “1 Some manuscripts
(The KJV actually is a bit idiomat­ add and pray.”
ic here. The literal translation from
the Majority text is: “Be watchful, (The ESV translators have changed the tense in English. The Byz.,
stay awake [or “be attentive,” or
Textus Receptus and critical texts
“be ready”], and pray; for you do each read kairos estin, “time is.”
not know when the time is.”)
Obviously, this is a change for al­
leged “easier reading,” but it is in­
correct. The time when something
“is” is the time it will occur!)

NASB reads: “Take heed, keep
on the alert; for you do not know
when the [appointed] time will
come.”

Mark 15:28 — “And the Scrip­
ture was fulfilled, which saith,
‘And he was numbered with the
transgressors.’”

NASB contains the verse, with
question: “[49 And the Scripture
was fulfilled which says, ‘And he
was numbered with transgres­
sors.’”] Footnote: “49 Early mss do
not contain this v.”

NIV

PROBLEM

NIV reads: “Be on guard! Be
alert23! You do not know when
that time will come.” Footnote:
“23 Some manuscripts alert and
pray.”

The Ï text under girds the
KJV, as do seven significant
uncials (incl. L &W), f 1 , 13,
some Old Latin and all Vulgate,
plus ‫א‬, A, C, Θ, Ψ, and all the
(The liberty was taken to add
Syriac and Coptic! Thus,
“appointed” here. Why do scholars (The Greek blēpetē [blay´-peh“some” is outright deception!
think they have the authority to
tay]
means
“behold,”
“beware,”
(Most would be correct.) Do
tamper with the Word of God? Bill
“see,”
“take
heed,”
“perceive,”
or
these committees and their
Mounce explains one tenet in
“look on” [or “to”], not “be on
corporate owners not want
Greek for the Rest of Us: “The
guard.”
Agrupnite
means
“to
keep
people to pray? Minority de­
translators are trying to help you
fense exists only in uncials B
understand not only the words, but awake,” or “to watch.” The NU
does not contain kai proseuches­
and D, 2427, a few Byz. mss,
what the words mean.” [This is
modern translation theory.])
thē, “and pray.” “Some” mss?)
and three Old Latin.

NIV omits the verse. Footnote:
“27 Some manuscripts include here
words similar to Luke 22:37.

All five “old uncials” omit, as
do Psi (Ψ), 2427 (19th), a few
Byz., one OL, the Syriac Sin­
aitic, the Sahidic, and part of
the Bohairic. But the Ï text (at
(Bishop Charles Ellicott, who ser­ least 85%), L, Θ, 083 (6th) and
ved as the chairman of the 1881- 0250 (8th), Families 1 & 13
(Modern critics argue that this
85 ERV translation committee, yet (Ë1 , 13), 33, most OL and all
verse is an interpolation, a late
(Yes, the few “earliest” extant—
existing and usable—manuscripts, earlier admitted that the Byzantine Vulgate, and the Peshitta and
insertion by a misled scribe. But
Harclean, do include this verse.
(The footnote does not even allude from the second and fourth centur­ text dates back to at least the
the verse fulfills OT prophecy
ies
[papyri
and
uncials],
do
not
to
Isaiah
53:12!
Omission
and
fourth century. [See NASB note.] Again, moderns hypothesize
directly stated in Scripture—Isaiah
about the verse’s alleged
contain
this
verse.
But
the
Byz­
failure
to
acknowledge
Isaiah
53:
“Some” is disingenuous! See the “assimilation” from Luke 22:37
53:12b!)
12 is egregious, outrightly denying antine majority dates back to at
evidence at far right.)
(NET).
fulfillment of this Scripture!)
least the fourth century!)

The ESV omits this verse, just
placing a footnote, despite the fact
that the verse fulfills the prophecy
of Isaiah 53:12. Footnote:
“5 Some manuscripts insert verse
28: And the Scripture was fulfilled
that says, ‘He was numbered with
the transgressors.’”

The fact is, yes, the two oldest
manuscripts (excluding frag­
ments) do not include this pas­
sage. But out of the extant 5,700plus NT Greek witnesses, only
(“Add” refers to moderns’ belief
Aleph and B, one cursive, the
that some scribe[s] inserted the
Sinaitic, and several other MSS,
words into manuscripts normally
27
(In
the
NA
critical
apparatus,
do not have this passage. What is
dating back no further than about
moderns use 25 notation lines to
more, three of the earliest five
the
tenth
or
eleventh
centuries.
In
EARLIEST MANUSCRIPTS DO NOT
discredit
the
last
12
verses.
All
manuscripts do include the pas­
1
INCLUDE 16:9-20.] ” (“Some” are his A Student’s Guide to New Test­ manner of theories and postula­
sage! “Earliest manuscripts” re­
(Without this “longer ending,” the
ament Textual Variants [1998],
two.)
tions, however, do not overturn the fers to what conservative biblical
Gospel of Mark would end with,
Bruce Terry—in “APPENDIX:
bottom line: overwhelming evi­
scholars (for 500 years) have lab­
“[They] fled from the sepulchre;
The Style of the Long Ending of
dence of authenticity. The vast ma­ eled, in fact, as two of the three
(The footnote, whose marker
Mark”—debunks common mo­
for they trembled and were
jority of NT Greek, 29 specific un­
appears after verse 20, partially
most-corrupt extant “old un­
amazed; neither said they any
reads:“1 Some manuscripts end the dernistic theories most frequently cials [incl. A C D], nine OL, the
cials”—Aleph and B. Aleph and
used
to
discredit
vv.
9-20.
He
suc­
Vulgate,
most
Syriac,
all
Coptic,
book
with
16:8;
others
include
ver­
thing to any man; for they were
B are the only uncials omitting
cessfully refutes the focal four ar­ and four versions confirm them.
ses 9-20 immediately after verse
afraid”!)
these verses.
[Italics question authenticity!])
8. . .” Again, “some” are just two!) guments, and more.)

Mark 16:9-20 — This passage
details the appearance of Jesus
after His resurrection: first to
Mary Magdalene, then to Cleo­
pas and to another disciple, fol­
lowed by to all the disciples—
minus Thomas once—on three
occasions.

The ESV includes the entire pas­
sage, but inside double brackets,
to seriously question its validity
as “highly doubtful.” A note
header immediately precedes
verse 9 in the ESV reverse inter­
linear New Testament. The note
header reads: “[SOME OF THE

The NASB includes the passage
but, but in brackets. Footnote:
“9 Later mss add vv 9-20.”

The NIV also includes the pas­
sage, but questions its authenticity
by placing the entire passage in
italics. Removed note: “The ear­
liest manuscripts and some other
ancient witnesses do not have
Mark 16:9-20.”

KJV

ESV

Luke 1:28 — “And the angel
came in unto her, and said, ‘Hail,
thou that art highly favoured, the
Lord is with thee: blessed art
thou among women.’”

ESV reads: “. . .‘Greetings, O
favored one, the Lord is with
you!’” 3 Footnote: “3 Some manu­
scripts add Blessed are you among
women.”

Luke 2:14 — “Glory to God in
the highest, and on earth peace,
good will toward men.”

Reads: “Glory to God in the high­
est, and on earth peace among
those with whom he is pleased!”3
Footnote: “3 Some manuscripts
peace, goodwill among people.”
(“People” is truly undignified!)

(The Greek chaire means “be
well,” “God speed,” “greeting,”
(Actually, “thou that art highly
“hail,” or “rejoice.” It is obvious,
favored” is not entirely accurate
here, that “hail,” or “rejoice”
according to the Ï text. “Highly” clearly is more suitable. “Greet­
is optional and unnecessary, and
ings” to the woman who bore
“thou that art” simply is not in the God’s Son hardly is worthy. Also,
“blessed” is based on a different
Greek. This obviously was an
effort by the KJV reviser, Benja­ Greek word: eulogētos [eulogh­
menh]. The NU Greek actually
min Blayney [1769 Oxford edi­
begins with,“And he came to her
tion], to add majesty to the verse. and said . . .” Authn refers to the
This is the standard version, and
angel Gabriel, who in v. 19 had
“is reproduced almost unchanged spoken to Zechariah about the up­
coming birth of John the Baptist.)
in most current printings.”)

(The Greek in both the NU and
Byz. [Maj.]/Textus Receptus reads
anqrώpoiς [an-thrō-puh-eece]:
“men” or “mankind”—that is,
“people.” [But people is wholly
undignified in this context.])

Luke 2:43 — “And when they
had fulfilled the days, as they re­
turned, the child Jesus tarried be­
hind in Jerusalem; and Joseph
and his mother knew not of it.”
(Also in verse 33.)

NASB

NIV

NASB reads: “. . . ‘Greetings63
favored one! The Lord is with
you.’” Footnote: “63 Or woman
richly blessed.”

NIV reads: “. . . ‘Greetings, you
who are highly favored! The
Lord is with you.’”

(Based mostly on the Westcott-Hort
1870 text, Tischendorf’s 1872
[eighth], and Bernhard Weiss’ 1903
[NA3], the Nestle-Aland [Novum
Testamentum Graece] text was
formed. Eberhard Nestle published
the first edition in 1898. Essentially,
the content of this text was based
upon Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus [Í].
But the W-H text was used to
formulate the 1881 ERV, the 1901
ASV, the 1946 RSV [among 14
others]—then, later, the NASB.
Thus the last sentence absent from
corrupt mss!)

(The minority texts’ only recourse
for omission of eulogēmenē sou
en gunaizin, “blessed art thou
among women,” are Aleph, B, L
[9th], W [5th], Psi [8th or 9th], Family
1 [five mss], uncial 579 [ca. 1250],
three numerical majuscules, a few
Byzantine mss, and all the Coptic.
Meanwhile, supporting the Ï text
are: uncials A, C, D, and Theta; f 13;
Alexandrian cursive 33; all Latin;
all Syriac.

PROBLEM
The Majority text reads: “. . .
Rejoice, favored woman, the
Lord is with you, blessed are
you among women.” “The
angel” even is omitted by the
NA text. But 16 other uncials—
not mentioned in the NA appa­
ratus because of their alleged
unimportance—also support
the former clause. Uncials B,
L, W, Theta, X, Y, plus 565,
1241, a few cursives, all Sahi­
dic, and part of the Bohairic
support omission of “the an­
gel.” When including the Ma­
jority text, the evidence for
inclusion of both aforemen­
tioned is conclusive.

(The overwhelming evidence against
the NU text not only includes 90-95
percent of the extant Greek, but also
12 significant uncials, Families 1
and 13, the Peshitta, and more.
“Heaven” was removed after “high­
est,” in the 2011 revision, and “those
whom he favors” replaced.)

Reads: “. . . Glory to God in the
Firstly, the majority of mss
highest heaven, and on earth
have Greek text very closely
peace to those on whom his favor matching the KJV reading.
rests.”
Secondly, the “modern” read­
(Supporting the NA-UBS texts are ing, derived from four of the
only Aleph [Í ], A, B, D, W, a few
earliest five MSS, is incorrect,
(The NA27 refers to the majority
Byzantine mss, and the Sahidic
simply based on biblical doct­
reading as “an alternative rea­
[with some variation]. For the 2011
ding.” It records that “good will
NIV, the translators added “heaven” rine. God wishes good will to
2
2
toward men” appears in Í , B , L, to “highest,” which is not the mean­ ALL PEOPLE! (See Matt.
Θ, X [Xi ], Y, Ë1 ., 13, and in all
ing here for [h]uphistois. They also 18:11; Luke 19:10; Rom. 5:6;
2 Cor. 5:14, 15; 1 Tim. 2:1; 4,
Syriac and Bohairic, as well as in replaced “men” with “those” for
gender inclusion.)
6.)
the Ï text.)

ESV: “And when the feast was
ended, as they were returning, the
boy Jesus stayed behind in Jeru­
salem. His parents did not know
it, . . . ”

The NASB, also relying on co­
dices Aleph and B (plus only el­
even others), provides another
loose “translation”: “But his par­
ents were unaware of it,” . . .

Reads: “. . . Glory to God in the
highest, and on earth peace
among men 54 with whom He is
pleased.” Footnote: “54 Lit of good
pleasure; or of good will.”

The NIV is equally divergent from
its own source texts: “After the
festival was over, while his par­
ents were returning home, . . .”

(The NU text reads goneis, “par­
(“. . . The feast was ended” is not (All three Greek texts read the same, ents,” but the Byz. text, 85%-plus
of extant Greek, holds the fort,
correct according to the minority yet the translators evidently have
A; C; Psi; 0130 [ca. 850]);
Greek. The NU text in the ESV re­ inserted “feast” in verse 43 to clarify plus:
Ë13; the OL; the Syriac Peshitta and
the circumstances—not the mean­
verse interlinear New Testament
are: Í; B; D; L;
reads kai tas hēmeras teleiosanton, ing. The NA refers to Iēsous o pais, Harclean. Opposing
W & Θ; Ë1 ; 33, 579, 700 & 1241;
“and when they had completed the “the boy Jesus,” as an “alternative
reading”! [Ouk egnwsan more the OL/Vulgate [“latt”]; the Sahidic;
time [of the feast] . . .” “Other
more. [H]hmeraς does not mean
mss” include only about 5-10% of properly means “did not know”
rather than “were unaware.”])
Gk.)
“feast” or “festival,” but “days”!)

The “Majority text” (also
“Byzantine,” “Traditional,”
“Antiochian,” “Constantino­
politan,” or “Ecclesiastical”)
reads “Joseph and his mother ,”
as it should. Joseph was NOT
Jesus’ real father! God the
Father is Jesus’ father! (“Par­
ents” is probably a ruse to es­
cape controversy, as some var­
iants read “father.”) Mary
birthed Jesus. Joseph was an
earthly surrogate father. The
Holy Spirit provided the "seed!

KJV

ESV

Luke 4:4 — “And Jesus an­
ESV reads: “And Jesus answered
swered him, saying, ‘It is written, him, ‘It is written, “Man shall
“That man shall not live by bread not live by bread alone.”’”
alone, but by every word of
God.”’”
(With no support but the mod­
ernistically critically acclaimed
(Also see Matthew 4:3, 4.)
MSS Aleph [Sinaitic] and Vatican
(“Utterances,” or “sayings,” is a
[B], plus L and W, some Greek
more-accurate translation here, be­ cursives, the Syriac Sinaitic [4th],
cause the Greek is rhmati [rhē­
mati (ray-mah-tee)], which does the Sahidic, the Sinaitic and some
not mean Christ [logos ] or speci­ of the Bohairic, the remainder,
fic Scripture, but Scripture in gen­ nevertheless, is omitted. Notice no
eral.)
footnote about the longer reading.)

Luke 9:35 — “And there came a
voice out of the cloud, saying,
‘This is my beloved Son: hear
him.’”
(Also see Matthew 3:17.)

Luke 9:56 — “For the Son of
man is not come to destroy men’s
lives, but to save [them]. And
they went on to another village.”

Reads: “. . . ‘This is my Son, my
Chosen One;3 listen to him!’”
Footnote: “3 Some manuscripts
my Beloved.”
(It may be that many modern crit­
ics view this scribal error as a ref­
erence to Isaiah 42:1 [“. . . my
chosen one in whom my soul de­
lights”], but Matt. 3:17, Mk. 1:11,
Lk. 3:22 and 1 Peter 1:17 refer to
Jesus as “beloved Son.” Neverthe­
less, the Majority reading is sup­
ported by moderns’ favored co­
dices A and C, plus W, Ë13, 33, and
many of the OL.)
ESV: “And they went on to an­
other village.” Removed note:
(after verse 55): “6 Some manu­
scripts add and he said, ‘You do
not know what manner of spirit
you are of; . . .’” (—Author trunc.)

(Also see Matthew 18:11 and Luke (Many among the Byzantine texttype of mss—not an overwhelming
19:10.)

majority—include this verse in its
plus: the TR; seven uncials;
(The Hodges-Farstad Majority text entirety,
Ë1 . 13; several Old Latin [2nd]; the
version [1985] includes the first
Peshitta; others. TR/other versions
sentence unmolested. However,
containing this portion include:
Erasmus/1516; Stephens/1550;
the Robinson-Pierpont version
[2005] encloses it in single brac­ Beza/1598; Elzevir/1633; plus the
Geneva NT/1557; Tyndale/1526; the
kets to indicate doubt about its
1514/1517 Complutensian Polyglot;
authenticity. [??])
others.)

NASB

NIV

PROBLEM

NASB reads: “And Jesus answer­ NIV reads: “Jesus answered, ‘It is Two of the oldest five extant
Greek NT MSS, Í and B, omit
ed him, ‘It is written, “MAN SHALL written: “Man shall not live on
“but by every word of God.”
bread alone.”32 ’” Footnote:
NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE.”’”
However, another two of the
“32 Deut. 8:3.”
(The absence of “but by every
earliest five, A and D, include
word of God” possibly might be
(Again, the footnote only attributes the phrase. The Ï text includes
an error of haplography—a scribal the quotation to its scriptural origin the phrase. Without these
error of omission because of dis­ in Deut. 8:3. But the OT scriptural words the meaning is incom­
reference is truncated! Deut. 8:3
traction from copying, or simple
plete: What else does he live
reads, “man does not live by bread by? Man certainly must live by
fatigue. Otherwise, it is either a
direct copying from a corrupt scri­ only, but by every word that pro­
the Word of God, lest he be
ceeds out of the mouth of the LORD
bal exemplar [source mss], or a
hopelessly lost. Also support­
does man live.” “Shall” replaces
scribal interpretation [deletion]
“does” from the previous NIV ver­ ing the Ï are Θ, Ψ, and 0102,
based on belief. No footnote about sion. No footnote about the longer plus the Peshitta/Harclean, all
the longer reading!)
Latin, Ë1 , 13, cursive 33, more.
reading!)

Reads: “. . . ‘This is my Son, [My] Reads: “. . . ‘This is my Son,
whom I have chosen; listen to
Chosen One; listen to Him.’”
him.’”
27
(The NA labels agapētos
(Simply a more contemporary but
[beloved] as an alternative reading.
As always, the modernistic transla­ slightly less accurate, longer, and
less “biblical” variation of the
tion committees do not wish to
confuse the readers with the facts NASB reading.)
—only to present the Word of God (Note: Numerous Greek uncials
based on their own skewed theor­ often are not mentioned—evi­
ies, beliefs, and preferences. For
dently based on spatial consid­
whatever reason “My” has been
erations—in the NA because mo­
designated as added [] when it
derns consider them unimportant:
already is in the Greek—“mou”
e.g., E, F, G, H, K, P, R, S, U, Y, X,
[mou].)
and several others.)

NASB: Questions the authenti­
city of the last portion of verse
55 and all of verse 56 by sur­
rounding with brackets. Foot­
note: “32 Early mss do not contain
bracketed portion.”
(Single bracketing by modern
scholars denotes suspicion about
verse/passage validity. Double
bracketing means the material in­
side is considered “highly doubt­
ful” in validity, or wholly inau­
thentic.)

Only five significant Greek
uncials—Ì45 , 75, Aleph, B, and
L(Alex.)—plus X, four OL, the
Syriac Sinaitic (sys), all Coptic
(Egyptian—Sahidic/Bohairic),
four other Greek mss, and a
few Byzantine mss, replace
“beloved” with some variation
of “chosen.” The Ï text, along
with uncials A, C, W, E, G, H,
P, and D, Ë 13, 33 and 12 other
“numerics,” most OL, and the
Peshitta and Harclean, read
“beloved.”

Again, “some manuscripts” is a
profound understatement. The
verse is in a “great many” (pm)
pt
Byz. cursives (UBS4, “Byz ”—
1 , 13
“part” [??]), Ë
, 8 OL, the
Vulgate, almost all Syriac, 11
specified uncials, more. No sup­
port specifically is listed in eith­
er the NA27 or UBS4 for omission
of the last portion of verse 55
(Once again, the NIV continues to and all of verse 56! (Support, by
implication, of course, is “some”
deteriorate via degradation of
to “many” [“part”] of the Byzan­
God’s true word, as prescribed in tines.) The evidence proclaims as
the Ï and TR. Also note the con­ profound a Ï/TR victory here as
text of this verse, which clearly
anywhere else in this document!
justifies its appearance.)
Yet, text critics still cast doubt.

NIV: The last portion of verse 55
and all of verse 56 are omitted.
Removed note: d 55, 56 Some
manuscripts them And he said,
‘You do not know what kind of
spirit you are of, for the Son of
Man did not come to destroy
men’s lives, but to save them.’
56
And”

KJV

ESV

Luke 11:2a — “And he said
Reads: “And he said to them,
unto them, ‘When ye pray, say, ‘When you pray, say: “Father,
“Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be your name.”’”
Hallowed be thy name.”’”
(No footnote appears to explain
the absence of o en tois
(Also see Matthew 6:9.)
ouranoiς, “which art in hea­
ven”! This despite the overwhelm­
ing manuscript testimony favoring
its inclusion. This is simply unex­
plainable, and unacceptable. [See
witness proofs in NIV and “Prob­
lem” notes.])
Luke 11:2b — “Thy kingdom
come. Thy will be done, as in
heaven, so in earth.”

NASB

NIV

Reads: “And he said to them,
‘When you pray, say: “62 Father,
hallowed be your name.”’”
Footnote: “62 Later MSS add
phrases from Matt 6:9-13 to make
the two passages closely similar.”

Reads: “He said to them, ‘When
you pray, say: “Father,49 hallowed
be your name . . .”’” Footnote:
“49 Some manuscripts Our Father
in heaven.”

The Majority text reads “Our
Father in the heavens . . . Let
your kingdom come, let Your
will be done as in heaven also
upon the earth.” Not some ma­
nuscripts—the vast majority!
(“Some manuscripts” is highly
Furthermore, uncials A, C, D,
deceptive. The NA27 calls “Our
W, Θ, Y, and 070, Family 13
(This subjective remark in the
Father . . . heaven” an alternative
(13 cursives), cursive 33vid
footnote is little more than mod­
reading. But it is supported by
ernistic conjecture—nothing more overwhelming testimony! Only
(some doubt) and many Old
than an unproven theory regarding Ì75, ‫א‬, B, L, uncials 1 and 700, Ë1, Latin (“it”), plus nearly all the
gospel “harmonization”! [Interpo­ the Vulgate, a few Byzantines, and Syriac, and all Coptic, support
lation—addition—as well.])
the Byzantine text.
the Syriac Sinaitic oppose.)

NASB: “Your kingdom come.”
62
(The TC notes in the NET version Footnote: “ Later mss add
phrases
from
Matt 6:9-13 to make
explain this truncated reading:
“The shorter reading is found, how­ the two passages closely similar.”
ESV: “Your kingdom come.”

ever, in weighty MSS [Ì75 B L pc ],
and cannot be easily explained as
arising from the longer reading.”
Moderns insist that the reading that
is believed to explain its alternative
is probably correct—usually the
shorter. [??] TC “praxis” No. 11 of
12— Kurt Aland. Also, the NET
translators refer to the few Byz.
mss here as “weighty.” Why now?)

PROBLEM

(Again, a theory commonly held by
modern biblical scholars—“har­
monization.” Modernists have in­
vented an entire vernacular in de­
fense of their clearly corrupted
manuscript base. This theory in­
volves the belief that some scribes
copied from portions of Matthew
for consistency with passages in
Luke.)

Luke 18:28 — “And Peter said, ESV reads: “And Peter said, ‘See, NASB reads: “Peter said, ‘Be­
we have left our homes and
‘Lo, and we have left all, and
hold, we have left 31 our own
[homes] and followed you.’”
followed you.’”
followed thee.’”
Footnote: “31 Lit our own things.”
(This
translation
committee’s
(Also see Matthew 19:27.)
Greek source reads, “See [or
(“Our own,” as attested to by the
“look,” or “behold”], we have left Greek ta idia, refers to poss­
essions. Opposingly, panta
our own [or “our possessions”]
and followed you.” The essential simply means “all”—possessions,
difference here is the use of idios relationships, way of life, philo­
[“our own,” or “our homes”] in the sophies, etc. In the NASB, “our
own [homes]” does not specifi­
NU Greek versus panta [“all”] in cally refer to “all things” in one’s
the Ï. “Our homes” neither is a
life. And the addition of “homes”
correct interpretation of the NA- by the translators is an abominably
UBS Greek, nor is it the correct
weak attempt to more specifically
render an incorrect Greek reading.)
Greek, period.)

NIV: “. . . your kingdom come.50 ”
Footnote: “50 Some manuscripts
come. May your will be done on
earth as it is in heaven.”
(Again, “some manuscripts” is a
monumental understatement. The
NA27 labels elthēto a Basileia sou
[“thy kingdom come”] an alternative
reading, then omits the remainder of
the verse, citing Ì75, B, L, numerical
minuscule 1, the Vulgate, the Syriac
Sinaitic [4th] and Curetonian [5th],
and a few Byzantine MSS for
support.)

NIV reads: “Peter said to him,
‘We have left all we had to fol­
low you!’”

The vast majority of manu­
scripts support the KJV read­
ing: the Ï text (all of them
cursives, as always); A; C; D;
W; Θ; 070; Y; Ë13; 33; many
Old Latin; the Peshitta/Harc­
lean; the Curetonian; all Cop­
tic. Note that “later” uncials
(6th-9th) support the KJV by a
margin of 80.2% to 19.8%!
(Nearly one quarter [24.2%] of
all NT Greek uncials are
Byzantine, as well.)

The ESV does follow its own
Greek source text. The NASB
and NIV, though close to their
underlying Greek sources,
(As seen in the NASB note, at
still are not entirely accurate
immediate left, “all we had” is a
thereto (“stylization”). The Ï
more socially palatable way of
text is supported by Í, A, W,
expressing “everything,” or “all”
Y, 33, two Old Latin, the
without specifically saying so.
Latin Vulgate, and the Pesh­
This is a compromise between the
Greek terms, one that soothes the itta and Harclean. Supporting
the critical text are Í2, B, L,
contemporary reader’s mind—a
892 (9th), three Old Latin, a
less direct and extreme termino­
few Byz. cursives, and the
logy and message. A shameful
Coptic Bohairic—a clear
concession to a “lukewarm”
minority of evidence.
public.)

KJV

ESV

NASB

NIV

Luke 21:36 — “Watch ye there­
fore, and pray always, that ye
may be accounted worthy to es­
cape all these things that shall
come to pass, and to stand before
the Son of man.”

ESV reads: “But stay awake at all
times, praying that you may have
strength to escape all these things
that are going to take place, and
to stand before the Son of Man.”

NASB reads: “But keep on the
alert at all times, praying that
you may have strength to escape
all these things that are about to
take place, and to stand before
the Son of Man.”

NIV reads: “Be always on the
watch, and pray that you may be
able to escape all that is about to
happen, and that you may be
able to stand before the Son of
Man.”

(“Be accounted worthy” means
that the redeemed, the children of
God, should live sanctified lives
which exude the “fruit of the spir­
it”—a signal to the world that they
already have been justified and re­
deemed through God’s grace.
These should be lives ordered after
Christ’s—lives consistent with
God’s requirements for those
already justified through faith in
His Son. [Ephesians 2:8, 9])

Luke 22:43, 44 — “And there
appeared an angel unto him from
heaven, strengthening him. And
being in an agony he prayed
more earnestly: and his sweat
was as it were great drops of
blood falling down to the
ground.”

(The Greek agrupneite [ag-roopnigh-teh] means “be awake,” and
“watch,” so “stay awake” is an
acceptable English translation—
though probably not preferred.
“Have strength to escape” appears
in only about 45 of the extant NT
Greek uncials. This reading—with
the Greek katiscushte [kahtis-khoo´-say-teh], here “to pre­
vail,” or “to be superior in
strength”—defies the pretribu­
lational Rapture! [See NASB note.]
But supporting the KJV are the
Majority text [Ï]; A; C; L; W;
Theta; Psi; Ë1 . 13; 33; the OL/
Vulgate [“lat”]; two other versions.
Minority support: ‫ ;א‬B; L; T; W;
Psi; 070; f 1; 33; 579; 892; a few
Byz.; the Coptic [Egyptian].)

Reads: “And there appeared to
him an angel from heaven,
strengthening him. 44And being in
an agony he prayed more earn­
estly; and his sweat became like
great drops of blood falling down
to the ground.”7 Footnote:
“7 Some manuscripts omit verses
(“As it were,” in this context, does 43 and 44.”
not signify that the intensity of
Christ’s angst compares his sweat (The translators have been judi­
drops to blood, as a simile, based cious, defying the RSV and other
moderns by leaving these verses,
on the subjunctive tense. Rather,
the Greek word egeneto [from
then footnoting. They also have
ginomai]—combined with
understated how many manu­
thromboi, “great blood drop”—
scripts omit these verses: a very
means His sweat literally “be­
substantial portion. See testimony
came” blood, or mingled with it.) in NIV notes.)

PROBLEM

The minority Greek sources for
the modern versions support
their readings but are incor­
rect. The Majority text reads,
“Watch therefore in every time
praying that you may be ac­
counted worthy to escape all
the things being about to hap­
(Note that this particular reading
pen, and to stand before the
(Once
again,
the
source
Greek
nullifies the pre-tribulational Rap­
Son of Man.” The ESV, NASB
here
nullifies
the
pre-tribulational
ture! The implied result is, as this
and NIV nullify the pre-tribu­
Rapture!
The
NIV
reading
also
verse reads in the NASB, that
lational Rapture, seeming to
misrepresents
the
source
text
with
those saved before the Great
indicate that ardent prayer and
Tribulation still must endure it! Al­ “. . . that you may be able to
watchfulness may—it is hoped
ternatively, the implication is that, stand,” possibly indicating that
—deliver believers from the
some meritorious human behavior Antichrist’s deadly persecu­
through prayer, the redeemed
may lead to believers’ redeemed
through Christ may be able to
tion. But the pre-tribulational
“hide themselves” from the Anti­ appearance before Christ. Notice Rapture is biblical! See these
christ’s wrath. The NA27 apparatus the difference in the KJV: “and to passages: Luke 17:34-36; 1
Corin. 15:51, 52; 1 Thess.
stand , . . .” rather than “. . . may
reads that katiscushte, “to
4:15-17; Rev. 3:10. It is scrip­
be
able
to
stand.”
No
Greek
have power,” “to have strength,”
tural fact that those accepting
minority
text
support
exists
for
or “to overpower.” The only other
Christ as Savior before the
“that
you
may
be
able
to
stand.”
support for this reading—beyond
Tribulation begins will be
27
that at immediate left—is cursive [Not listed in NA or UBS4.])
taken to heaven “to meet the
1241 (Alexandrian/1150 AD). The
Lord in air” (1 Thess. 4:17).
correct reading is kataxiw­
Overwhelming evidence sup­
qhte, “to be accounted worthy.”)
ports the Byzantine text.
Yes, some early manuscripts,
including at least three of the
oldest (including two ancient
papyrus fragments), omit these
verses—among a total of nineplus Greek in opposition to the
Byz. But the vast majority in­
clude the verses, including two
of the earliest five Greek MSS.
Jesus was God, but He also was
892, 1006, 1010, 1071, 1241,
such in human form: 100% di­
1243, 1292, 1342, 1424, and 1505 (Minority support for omission
vine and 100% human. In His
th
th
45
—from the 8 to 13 centuries—do comprises: Aleph-1; Ì ; A; B; N; humanity, he felt angst and need­
contain these words. Others: E; F; T; W; uncials 579 [ca. 1250 AD]
ed strength. This did not render
G; H; Q; Θ; Ψ; 0171; Ë1 ; 11 OL; and 1071 [ca. 1150]; and ℓ 844 [ca. Him less than God. See support
in NASB notes. (*A relatively
the Vulgate [10,000]; all Syriac;
861]; and a few Byzantine mss
rare medical condition called
part of the Bohairic.)
slightly different from the Major­ “hematohidrosis” causes con­
comes from stricted blood vessels around
(The NA27 includes vv. 43-44, but ity. Versional support
rd
th
the
Sahidic
[3
or
4
],
part of the sweat glands to burst under great
puts them in double brackets to
rd
th
stress, resulting in blood actually
indicate near certainty that they are Bohairic [3 or 4 ], and one Old
Latin manuscript. Not “many.”)
entering the sweat glands.)
spurious.)

Reads: “An angel from heaven
appeared to him and strengthened
him. 44And being in anguish, he
prayed more earnestly, and his
sweat was like drops of blood
38
(“Most early mss” [extant] is cor­ falling to the ground.” Footnote:
38
rect. However, numerical mss 13, “ Many early manuscripts do not
157, 180, 205, 565, 597, 700, 828, have verses 43 and 44.”
Reads: 53 “Now an angel from
heaven appeared to Him, strength­
ening Him. . . .” Footnote:
“53 Most early mss do not contain
vv 43 and 44.”

KJV

ESV

NASB

Luke 22:64 — “And when they
had blindfolded him, they struck
him on the face, and asked him,
saying, ‘Prophesy, who is it that
smote thee?’”

Reads: “They also blindfolded
him and kept asking him, ‘Prophesy! Who is it that struck
you?’”

Reads: “. . . and they blindfolded
Him and were asking Him, say­
ing, ‘Prophesy, who is the one
who hit You?’”

Luke 23:34 — “Then said Jesus,
‘Father, forgive them; for they
know not what they do.’ And
they parted his raiment, and cast
lots.”

ESV: “And Jesus said, ‘Father,
forgive them, for they know not
what they do.’2 . . .” Footnote:
“2 Some manuscripts omit the
sentence And Jesus . . . what they
do.”

NASB: “48 But Jesus was saying,
‘Father, forgive them; for they do
not know what they are do­
ing.’ . . .” Footnote: “48 Some early
mss do not contain But Jesus was
saying . . . doing.”

(NKJV footnote reads: “NU-Text
brackets the first sentence as a lat­
er edition.” NU refers to the cur­
rent, naturalistic “critical text,” an
apparatus containing editorial
changes incorporated into the
Scriptures by modernists of the
18th, 19th,, 20th, and 21st centuries.
[In this case the 19th and 20th
centuries, because neither of these
critical texts existed before 1898,
and the NA28 was released in
2012.])

(The vast majority of extant [exist­
ing and usable] manuscripts, Byz­
antine and otherwise—about 99
percent overall—include this
verse! So why is it considered so
dubious by modern liberal critics?
Because it opposes what they refer
to as “many important manu­
scripts” [NET note]. The “many”
[NET note]: Ì75 Í1 B D* W Θ 070
579 1241 pc sys sa. Ì75 is the pre­
decessor to B, “pc” [paucity] de­
notes a few of the Byz. cursives,
sys are the Syriac Sinaitic, the sa
are the Sahidic, and the others are
assorted uncials [Θ, 070], and
minuscules [579, 1241].)

NIV

PROBLEM

Reads: “They blindfolded him and The ESV, NASB, and NIV
demanded, ‘Prophesy! Who hit
omit any reference to the actual
you?’”
contact point [the face] of the
beating. The Majority text
(In the interlinear referred to at
reads, “And blindfolding him,
immediate left, underneath the
they were striking him on the
(“They” does not appear in either (The Zondervan Greek and Eng­
Greek“proφhteuson” (pro­
(Also see Matthew 26:68 and
face and were asking Him,
the Ï/TR or NU texts at all.
lish Interlinear New Testament
phēteuson — prof-ay΄-too-sun),
Mark 14:65.)
saying . . .” Only eight speci­
[NASB/NIV], which is based on
Rather, they is “implied” in the
meaning “prophesy,” the trans­
Greek, inserted for English clarity. the UBS Greek, does not renounce lators chose the word “tell”—how fied Greek uncials of the 5,700(Note that the KJV committee fail­ Both read, “And having blind­
plus extant Greek mss support
the Majority or TR readings dir­
pedestrian and inappropriate.
ed to precisely correctly translate
Within
this
context
the
English
the modern reading, plus some
ectly,
by
including
this
footnote:
folded [perikaluφanteς—
this verse, adding “they” in the
word prophesy is clearly the cor­ cursives differing from the
a

autou
to
prosopon
,
kai
aorist third-person plural parti­
first instance, and also adding
rect translation. Furthermore, the
included by TR after eparoton” NA27 reads that “they were strik­ Byz. Uncials A, W, Theta (Θ),
ciple] him . . . ” “They” then has
“when.” The team also used the
been added where it is implied
[“on the face, and” after “were
ing him on the face and” is a para­ Psi13(Y), Ferrar Group 13
wrong tenses for “blindfolded”
(Ë /Caesarean), most OL and
later
in
the
verse—before
“stri­
asking”].
Hence,
the
translators
llelism to Matt. 26:67, 68 and
and “struck.” “Were striking” is
all the Vulgate, and the Syriac
king,” as part of the verb, “were
did not deny the reading outright­ Mark 14:65. Harmonization is
correct [etupton]—imperfect
Harclean, support the Ï. The
striking” [etupton]: imperfect
ly. However, they footnoted it us­ implied. It also reads that “were
third-person plural indicative;
“having blindfolded” [perika­ third-person plural indicative.)
ing Greek, making it both cryptic asking him, saying” is an alterna­ NA’s central support are Ì75
tive reading. But both are support­
and almost unnoticeable to nearly ed by overwhelming manuscript
(3rd), Aleph, and B, plus K, L,
luφanteς] is correct—aorist
anyone not fluent in Greek.)
T, and 1241. Also the Bohairic.
third-person plural participle.)
testimony.)
NIV: 34 “Jesus said, ‘Father, for­
give them, for they do not know
what they are doing.’ And they
divided upon his clothes by cast­
ing lots.” Footnote: “34 Some early
manuscripts do not have this
(Note the consistency, by absence, sentence.”
between this verse and Mark
11:26: The modern versions omit (The footnote indicates the entire
the Luke 23:34a reference to
first part of verse 34 [a] is lacking
Jesus’ forgiveness of His murder­ in some mss. The result is that
ers, as well as omit Mark 11:16,
only the “b” portion, the second
God’s charge for humans to for­
half, “And they divided up his
give one another. The NA27 appa­ clothes by casting lots,” exists in
ratus says that v. 23a is a paral­
these aforementioned manuscripts.
lelism—to Acts 7:60, according to This is a heinous omission! Critics
a NET note—based on all of the
minority witnesses listed at imme­ assert that the first portion was
diate left. But, again, this modern­ added to what otherwise are mul­
istic theory is just that, and has no tiple verses, elsewhere, having just
part “b”—Matt. 27:35 and Mk.
basis in actual proof! This verse
15:24. This is the theory—and
can be only an extremely vague
nothing more—of “paralleliza­
reference to Stephen’s plea for
tion.” Why the note’s removal?)
mercy to his murderers!)

The translators in modern ver­
sions claim that this portion of
the verse may have been later
added by some. Modern trans­
lators also are mitigating God’s
command for forgiveness—
first by eliminating Jesus’ for­
giveness for His murderers,
then by omitting a reference to
biblical human forgiveness of
one another. The overwhelm­
ing lot of the Majority cursives
here are supported by uncials
‫ א‬and Í2, A, C, D2 (2nd cor­
rected), L, Psi, 0250 (ca. 750),
Ë1 , 13, modernists’ favorite cur­
sive, 33 (9th), 17 other numer­
ics, 8 Old Latin and all the
Vulgate, almost all Syriac, and
part of the Bohairic (northern
Egyptian). This overall testi­
mony is equally as diverse as
the minority!

KJV
Luke 24:12 — “Then arose
Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre;
and stooping down he beheld the
linen clothes laid by themselves,
and departed, wondering in him­
self at that which was come to
pass.”

ESV

NASB

NIV

ESV reads: “But Peter rose and
ran to the tomb; stooping and
looking in, he saw the linen
cloths by themselves; and he
went home marveling at what
had happened.”

NASB reads: “But Peter got up
and ran to the tomb; stooping
and looking in, he saw the linen
wrappings only; and he went
away to his home, marveling at
what had happened.”

NIV reads: “Peter, however, got
up and ran to the tomb. Bending
over, he saw the strips of linen
lying by themselves, and he went
away, wondering to himself what
had happened.” Removed note:
“Some manuscripts do not include
this verse.”

Luke 24:40 — “And when he
Reads: “And when he had said
had thus spoken, he shewed them this, he showed them his hands
[his] hands and [his] feet.”
and his feet.”

Reads: “And when He had said
this, He showed them His hands
and His feet.”

Reads: “When he had said this,
he showed them his hands and
feet.”

(The NASB translators’ source
texts, the NU [NA27 and UBS4],
include verse 40, with overwhelm­
ing support. Yet the Zondervan
Greek and English Interlinear
New Testament [NASB/NIV] fol­
lows several individual critical
texts by completely omitting the
verse from the Greek [and without
note]: Westcott-Hort [1870]—
highly doubtful; Tischendorf
[1872]—omitted; Tregelles [1857]
—doubtful. Why would they do
this? B includes the verse. Were
they perhaps going by W-H?)

(Notice the removal of the con­
junction “and” from the beginning.
Tischendorf—who produced eight
NT critical editions in the mid1800’s—indicted himself by
authoring an 1869 comparison of
the AV NT with variants from Í, A,
and B. Results reveal these “hal­
lowed” MSS contrary in at least
777^ places! [e.g., “for” for “and,”
“now” for “and,” “then” for “and,”
“now” for “therefore,” etc.] Ano­
ther modern obsessed with conj­
unction removal or replacement.)

PROBLEM

The Ï text reads: “and stoop­
ing to look in . . . and he went
off to himself marveling . . .”
The problem with the modern
versions, here, is that their
readings simply are incorrect!
Supporting the Majority—
according to J.A. Moorman’s
apparatus—are moderns’ fav­
(Once again a senseless deviation (The Greek parakupsas [par-akorite manuscripts, Aleph (Í)
(The KJV is a bit idiomatic, here, from what appears in the Majority oop´-sos] means both “to stoop
(“Some
manuscripts”?
Yes—
and B, plus their highly est­
Greek
source
text:
the
translators
with “and stooping down he be­
down” and “to look into.” “Only”
27
eemed Ì75 papyrus. In addition,
according
to
the
NA
[
D
,
Itala
]
held,” rather than “and stooping to using the English “went home”
is a poor translation of mόna
A (5th), E (6th), F (9th),
and J. A. Moorman’s digest [D, a codices
look in,” but the phraseology is in­ despite the Greek reading apēlth
[mah´-nuh], which means “alone.”
G (9 ), H (9th), K (9th), L (9th),
few Byz. cursives, six OL], in
then, “to go off,” or “to depart.”
consequential to the meaning.
“Wrappings” is a poor translation
M (8th), S (10th), U (9th), V (9th),
Nevertheless, the English transla­ The NA-UBS, the NT texts upon of oθ onia, which means “linen Early Manuscripts, Church
W (5th) and X (10th) support the
Fathers, and the Authorized
which the ESV is based [along
tion should be more accurate!)
Majority text reading, as well
clothes,” “pieces of linen,” or
Version. According to the UBS4,
with occasional help from the
as nine other specified Greek
“strips of linen cloth for swathing
however, only D omits the verse. mss, plus the Peshitta and
Syriac Peshitta]), read identically. the dead.” [Thayer’s GreekThe NA27 notes that numerous mss Harclean, Ë1,13, the Sahidic and
Aphlθen in no way means “went English Lexicon of the New
have the verse with minor variants Bohairic, three OL, all the Vul­
home,” yet the translators use this Testament])
—such as inclusion or omission of gate, and more. Only “some”
English terminology. Why? Is
source mss, led by Codex D,
keimena [kigh´-meh-nah],
“departed” too uncertain for the
oppose the Byzantine reading.
“laying” [“linen cloth”]. Why the Moderns have abandoned their
common English reader, not pro­
removed note? Is the committee
viding “closure”? What is wrong
revered “earliest manuscripts.”
“trying not to confuse readers,”
with “departed,” or “left”?)
Why—external pressure, per­
or is it reluctant to concede to the haps? They like to have it both
ways.
greater evidence opposing it?)

(Also see John 20:20.)

(Note that, as opposed to the verse
omission cited in the Zondervan
(A more-accurate translation is,
NASB/NIV interlinear at immedi­
“And having spoken this, he
ate right, the ESV Bible [2011],
showed them his hands and his
and The Greek-English Reverse
feet.” Eipwn, as a second aorist Interlinear New Testament,
participle, indicates a very recent English Standard Version, no
mention is made of verse 40’s
completion of an act—not the
absolute past tense. “This” refers deletion in the Greek. Both the
to what Jesus previously said in v. ESV and the NASB are based
partially on the same Greek critical
39, about his identity and his
text.)
fleshy appearance.)

Only the corrupt Codex D
(Bezae) represents the Greek
minority! In addition, just six
Old Latin (2nd), and the Syriac
Sinaitic (4th) and Curetonian
(5th) versions, omit this verse,
plus a few Byz. Greek cursives.
Those that include it are the Ï
cursives, 22 significant uncials
(including Aleph and B) and
six other Greek, Ì75, the Pe­
shitta/Harclean, all the Vulgate,
and all the Coptic. Regarding
the other modern “Bibles” cited
here, they are similar to the
Majority text, but their source
text does not contain Verse 40
—a shameful contradiction!

KJV
Luke 24:47 — “And that repent­
ance and remission of sins
should be preached in his name
among all nations, beginning at
Jerusalem.”
(The Byzantine Ï text and Textus
Receptus [Erasmus 1516, Estienne
1550, Beza 1598, Elzevir 1633,
etc.] each read kai, “and” [“repen­
tance and forgiveness”] in this
context. Nearly every Reformation
-era New Testament reads “and,”
rather than “for” [eij] in this
context.)

ESV
ESV: “. . . and that repentance
and forgiveness of sins should be
proclaimed in his name to all na­
tions, beginning from Jerusalem.”
(The Greek aphesin means “for­
giveness,” “deliverance,” “remis­
sion,” and “liberty,” so both remis­
sion in the KJV and forgiveness in
the ESV are correct. The Greek for
the verse in both versions reads
identically. However “should be
proclaimed” is a slightly adrift
translation of the Greek keruch­
thenai, which is in the aorist pas­
sive infinitive. Correctly, it should
read “is to be proclaimed.”)

NASB
NASB: “. . . and that repentance
40
for forgiveness of sins would be
proclaimed in His name to all the
nations, beginning from Jerusa­
lem.” Footnote: “ 40 Later manu­
scripts read and forgiveness.”

NIV

PROBLEM

NIV: “. . . and repentance for the
forgiveness of sins will be
preached in his name to all na­
tions, beginning at Jerusalem.”

Although the Greek reading
(kai ) underlying these modern
versions is the same, notice
how the NASB deviates. With­
out repentance and remission
(The NIV translators have defied
of sins, the intimation is that
27
the NA edition—which reads
(Despite the fact that the NA27
“acts of penance,” apart from
reads kai [here “and,” but always a identically to the Byz./TR here—
forgiveness of sins, can
for
their
translation.
“For”
between
conjunction], the translators use
achieve salvation. Repentance
“for” between repentance and for­ repentance and forgiveness is
giveness. Why? Because their cor­ incorrect! [The UBS4 reads eij
and remission are different
rupt favorite uncials and papyrus
acts! The Ï cursives, uncials
[“for”]
rather
than
kai
[“and”].
use eis [here “for,” but always a
75
The
reason
for
this
discrepancy
is
A, C, D, L, W, Θ, Ψ, Ë1 , 13, all
preposition]: ‫ ;א‬B; and Ì . Also
that
the
UBS
is
less-critical.
For
the Latin, and the Harclean
reading eis are the UBS and the
critical editions of Westcott-Hort, this updated version, the NIV
and Sinaitic, dominate. Only
Tischendorf [8th ed.], and Weiss [3rd translators have substituted “for”
Í, B, Ì75, the Peshitta, and the
ed.]. These editions directly under­ for “and.” Why? To conform to
Coptic, oppose.
lie the NU!)
other modern translations?)
NIV reads: “No one has ever seen
God, but the one and Only Son,
who is himself God and 54 is in
closest relationship with the
Father, has made him known.”
(“God” is incorrect here. As for the Footnote: “54 Some manuscripts
but the only Son, who.”
Byz. reading, most modern edi­
tions of the Majority text err here
by using the term “explained” ra­ (The only opposition to the Ma­
jority and its supporters here are
ther than “revealed.” The KJV’s
Ì66, [Ì75 ?], Aleph, Aleph-1
“declared” is closer to precisely
correct. However, in this unique
[Í1 ?], B, C, L, [33 ?], and a few
context, according to the Theolo­ Byz. cursives. This verse is a dra­
gical Dictionary of the New Testa­ matically different translation from
ment [one volume, abridged], only the previous NIV edition, includ­
here is the correct usage “reveal­ ing removal of “God” before “the
ed” [no object]. “Him” is not in
one,” and addition of “Son.” The
the Greek, but is implied and
footnote is incorrect! “Only begot­
necessary in English.)
ten Son!” is correct!)

The Ï text reads “only begotten
Son.” A, C3, Θ, Ψ, Ë1 , 13, most
OL and the Vulgate, plus the
Harclean, are correct. Greek in
the Alexandrians reads “only
begotten God,” or “the only
begotten God.” No. 1: “Only
Son” ignores reference to Jesus’
unique status as God’s incarnate
Son in the flesh (according to
Greek). No. 2: “Only begotten
God” originates from early
Gnostic heresy about types of
lower deities (“aeons”) and the
belief that Jesus was a “created
deity.” No. 3: “God the one and
Only” does not uniquely refer to
Jesus as God the Father’s Son.
Maj. evidence is overwhelming.)

Reads: “No one has ascended into Reads: “No one has ever gone into
heaven except the one who came
heaven, but He who descended
from heaven—the Son of Man.”36
from heaven: the Son of Man.”
Footnote: “36 Some manuscripts
Man, who is in heaven.”
(Only 10 specified Greek MSS
support this reading: Ì66 , 75 [3rd]; (The NU Greek reads anabebēken,
(Removing the last verse portion (This second edition rendition is
Í; B; L; T [ca. 450]; 33 [ca. 850]; “ascended,” and katabas´, “de­
different from the previous.
ignores the fact that Christ eternal­ entirely
It also is completely removed from 083 [ca. 600]; 086 [ca. 550]; and scended,” yet the English is so
ly remains in heaven: before His the NU Greek! Transposed phrases 1241 [ca. 1150]—plus a few of the pedantic—“gone” and “came.”
earthly incarnation and after.)
also are present. Wholly absurd.)
Katabaς means “descended.”)
cursives, and the Coptic.)

The minority Greek removes
reference to the fact that since
His ascension, Jesus has been
and will remain in heaven for­
evermore. Support for the KJV:
Ï text; 18 significant uncials
(incl. A, Θ, Ψ); all Latin; Ë1 , 13
(Caes./18 mss); the Syriac
Peshitta, Harclean, and Cure­
tonian (5th), and part of the Bo­
hairic (bopt).

John 1:18 — “No man hath seen
God at any time; the only begot­
ten Son, which is in the bosom of
the Father, he hath declared
[him].”
(The Greek monogenes means
“only-born” or “only,” specifically
in the sense referring to the unique
identity of God’s Son—p. 2116,
Strong’s Complete Word Study
Concordance. [See NASB notes for
explanation on “him.”])

John 3:13 — “And no man hath
ascended up to heaven, but he that
came down from heaven, [even]
the Son of man which is in hea­
ven.”

ESV reads: “No one has ever seen
God; the only God, 5 who is at the
Father’s side, 6 he has made him
known.” Footnote: “5 Or the only
one, who is God; some manu­
scripts the only Son. 6 Greek in the
bosom of the Father.”
(The reading “only God” defies the
Byz. text and simply is wrong. The
NA-UBS Greek does use the prop­
er word, monogenes, for “only,”
but, for full doctrinal impact, “only
begotten” is much-preferred. “Be­
gotten” means the Father generated
Christ in the flesh. “God” [Theos ]
should be “Son” [(H) uios ]. Also,
this reading simply is nonsensical:
In this context, why would Jesus be
called “God”?)

ESV: “No one has ascended into
heaven except He who descended
from heaven — the Son of
Man.”7 Footnote: “7 Some mss add
who is in heaven.”

Reads: “No one has seen God at
any time; the only begotten God
who is in the bosom of the Father,
He has explained [Him].”

KJV

ESV

John 3:15 — “That whosoever
believeth in him should not per­
ish, but have eternal life.”

NASB

NIV

PROBLEM

ESV reads: “. . . that whoever
believes in him may have eternal
life.”8 Footnote: “8 Some inter­
preters hold that the quotation
(“Should,” “may” or “will” [have] ends at verse 15.”
—Gk. έχω [ekh´-ō]— are used
variously in different versions of (What does this cryptic footnote
the Textus Receptus, Majority text mean? This is very suspicious.
Now modernism shows its true
and NA/UBS [“NU”].)
colors: Modernistic scholars are
more than translators, eagerly
indulging their collective role as
interpreters.)

NASB reads: “So that whoever 44
believes will in Him have eternal
life.” Footnote: “44 Or believes in
him will have eternal life.”

John 5:4 — “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 in
was made whole of whatsoever
disease he had.”

Verse 4 omitted. Footnote:
“3 Some manuscripts insert,
wholly or in part, waiting for the
moving of the water; (verse 4) for
an angel of the Lord went down at
certain seasons into the pool, and
stirred the water: whoever step­
ped in first after the stirring of the
water was healed of whatever dis­
ease he had.”

The last portion of v. 3 and all of
v. 4 are bracketed to indicate sus­
picion about validity. Footnote:
“24 Early mss do not contain the
remainder of v 3, nor v 4.”

Footnote: “19 Some mss include
here, wholly or in part, paralyzed
—and they waited for the moving
of the waters. 4 From time to time
an angel of the Lord would come
down and stir up the waters. The
(This notorious omission, depen­
dent largely upon four of the five
first one into the pool after each
“old uncials” [‫ א‬B C D], plus Ì66
such disturbance would be cured
and Ì75, is a fortuitous opportunity of whatever disease he had.”
for theological modernists simply
to deny the miraculous in the Bible.
(Not “some manuscripts,” but the Many contemporary biblical scho­ (The footnote is wholly deceptive,
vast majority! Once again, flagrant lars and theologians embrace this referring to the Majority text—and
deception by the translators, who unbelieving position. Other support much more—as “some mss”! Both
the NA27 and the UBS4 omit v. 4.
stand by their favorites, among
are 33, 3 OL, the Curetonian, the
[See overwhelming majority evi­
others: Ì66 . 75, ‫א‬, and B, plus other Coptic, a few cursives differing
dence at right.])
from the Byz.)
“earliest and best witnesses.”)

Supporting the Ï text are 20
significant uncials (incl. A C3
[ca. 9th cent.] L Θ Ψ), Ë1 , 13, the
Peshitta and Harclean, many
Old Latin and all the Vulgate.
Omission of these words
removes the divine miracle in
the healing of those immersed
in the pool! Moderns are prone
to accept this unbelieving view,
using textual criticism as a
science to disprove the miracu­
lous! Modern TC methods
show a clear derivation from
the first such critic, Origen, a
learned scholar and prolific
writer who also remained the
greatest heretic in the church!

John 6:47 — “Verily, verily, I
say unto you, He that believeth
on me hath everlasting life.”

Reads: “Truly, truly, I say to you, Reads: “Truly, truly, I say to you, Reads: “Very truly I tell you, the
whoever believes has eternal life.” he who believes has eternal life.” one who believes has everlasting
life.”
27
(No footnote appears in the ESV
(The NA apparatus indicates that (Text-critical scholars use five of
regarding this egregious omission. eiς eme [“in me”] is an insertion their favorite Greek MSS to de­
Why are the words “on me” not
fend their reading: Ì66 , 75 vid; ‫ ;א‬B;
based upon what amounts to the
included? Much because of five
and C—plus L, T, W, Θ, and uncial
opposing favorites. Unusually so, overwhelming majority of extant 892 [ca. 850]. Note that the critical
It is interesting that the sign “vid” follows Papyrus 75
some moderns argue against scri­ witnesses!
4
UBS
—apparently
in the face of
[Ì75], meaning that “the reading of
bal accuracy here. This in the face
a witness cannot be determined
the
monumentally
defiant
evidence
of more than 95 percent of extant
with absolute certainty.” They
—has
no
note
or
symbol
at
all
to
Greek manuscripts—and nearly all
refer to these MSS as the “earliest
other existing evidence. [See NIV flag this so-called “insertion.”)
and best.” Changed from “I tell
note testimony.])
you the truth . . .”)

The Majority text reads,
“Truly, truly, I say to you, the
one believing in me has eternal
life.” Without “in me” the
verse does not refer to that in
which belief must be held! The
KJV is supported by the Ï cur­
sives, 17 significant uncials
(incl. A C2 D D Ψ), Ë1 , 13, min­
uscule 33, most of the Latin,
the Syriac Peshitta and Harc­
lean, and the Sahidic, Bohairic,
and Proto-Bohairic (early 4th).

(The vital Greek eỉs èmé, “into
me,” “in me,” or “on me,” is
lacking in the modern versions,
based on the NA27 and UBS4
Greek source texts.)

NIV reads: “That everyone who
believes may have eternal life in
Him.”38 Footnote: “38Some inter­
preters end the quot. with v. 21.”

The modern versions’ Greek
source text reads: “So that
everyone who believes in Him
may have eternal life.” The ab­
27
(The NA again overemphasizes the sence of the words “should not
perish” mitigates the sense,
importance of its favorite two un­
(“Will in him” is incorrect
seeming less harsh for those
cials,
other
Alexandrian
uncials,
and
according to the NU, Majority and
who do not believe in Christ.
same
papyri—
‫א‬
and
B
leveraged
as
TR. Why the changed word order?
Only 29+ of the extant 5,70036
66 , 75
th
the best. Ì
and Ì (6 ), L, T,
. . . iva pas o pisteuon eis auton
plus Greek mss support this
1
mē apolatai all eche zoen aionion, four numeric uncials, Ë , two OL,
reading. The Ï text (cursives)
the
Curetonian,
Coptic,
and
a
few
th
63
“that whoever believes in Him
Byz. mss pitted against the Ï. The is supported by Ì (6 ), A, Θ,
should not perish, but should [will] translators also have “may . . . life” Ψ, 016, 063, Ë13, most OL and
have life eternal,” literally is cor­ and “in Him,” defying their source all the Vulgate [“lat”], and
Greek. “Interpreters”? Why? )
rect. The footnote is incorrect.)
nearly all Syriac.

KJV
John 8:59 — “Then they took up
stones to cast at him: but Jesus
hid himself, and went out of the
temple, going through the midst
of them, and so passed by.”

ESV

Reads: “So they picked up stones Reads: “Therefore they picked up
to throw at him, but Jesus hid
stones to throw at Him, but Jesus
47
himself and went out of the
hid Himself and went out of the
47
temple.”
temple.” Foot.: Lit. was hidden.

(The NA27 text omits “going
(Also see Luke 4:30.)
through the midst of them, and so
passed by,” eliminating Jesus’ su­
(Why did the translators not use
the aorist passive indicative “was pernatural power allowing him to
leave. The committee supports
hidden” instead of “hid”? “Was
what moderns refer to as four of
hidden” not only is literally cor­
rect, but it also is consistent with “the best and earliest witnesses.”
“going through the midst of them,” Scholars use corrupt mss that deny
which indicates that Jesus became critical biblical doctrine, and add
invisible to avoid premature
adroit arguments to justify such
capture and death.)
omissions. Doctrine is the key.)

John 13:32 — “If God be glori­
fied in him, God shall also glori­
fy him in himself, and shall
straightway glorify him.”

NASB

(Essential opposition to the Major­
ity comes from papyri Ì66 , 75, Í, B,
D, W [5th], and Theta [Θ, 9th]. Nine
Old Latin and all the Vulgate
[“vg”], the Sinaitic (4th), the Sahi­
dic and the Proto-Bohairic, plus
some Byz., also support the minor­
ity Greek. But they are outnumber­
ed by the vast majority of NT Grk
and more. Footnote is correct!)

NIV
Reads: “At this, they picked up
stones to stone him, but Jesus hid
himself, slipping away from the
temple grounds.”
(It is significant that Alexandrinus
[A], of the 5th century, is lumped in
with “later witnesses” by the NET
committee in supporting the “longer
reading.” As with the NASB, here,
no footnote is mentioned for any
other reading. The UBS4 has the
shorter reading, and supports it with
copious evidence—some contrary to
NA27—for several variants: some by
unreliable sources, such as Origen.
“Grounds” has been added. It
appears in no Greek!)

ESV reads: “If God is glorified in
him, God will also glorify him in
himself, and glorify him at once.”

NASB reads: “. . . 27 if God is
glorified in Him, God will also
glorify Him in Himself, and will
glorify Him immediately.”
(The NA-UBS Greek are separated Footnote: “27 Most early mss do
from the Majority text only by the not contain this phrase.”
(The KJV here is the only version type of pronoun [part of speech]
(Some of the UBS4’s additional key
for “himself”: reflexive [Ï]
that does not transpose “straight­ used
including the first
vs. personal [NU]. What is curious, evidence against
way [immediately]” [euΘuς] and however, is that both minority texts clause are: Ì66; L; W; 1; 579; and
most OL [it/Itala] manuscripts. Yet,
“glorify him” [doxasei
—based upon numerous specific
moderns essentially recognize
Greek mss, etc.—bracket the first what
auton].)
as an “insertion” in the Greek they
portion of the verse as doubtful.
still have decided to include in the
MSS include Í, B, C, and D. So
English. Moderns’ decision to be
why is this clause included? Would dissuaded by existing opposing
omission reflect as blasphemy?)
evidence is unlikely.)

NIV reads: “If God is glorified in
him,21 God will glorify the Son in
himself, and will glorify him at
once.” Footnote: “21 Many early
manuscripts do not have If God is
glorified in him.”

ESV: “Being therefore a prophet, Reads: “And so, because he was a
and knowing that God had sworn prophet and knew that GOD HAD
with an oath to him that he would SWORN TO HIM WITH AN OATH TO
set one of his descendants on his SEAT [one] 61 OF HIS DESCENDENTS
throne,” . . .
ON HIS THRONE.” Footnote: “61 Lit.
of the fruit of his loins.”
(Using the NU text, the ESV trans­
lators have been faithful: omitting (The omission of “raise up Christ” is
traced to the ancient argument that
“Christ” [Χriston] in the En­
(This verse is a reference to 2
Christ will return in the flesh—a
Samuel 12—God telling David the glish. Hence, the verse loses its
great divide between light and dark­
essential
meaning!
Christ
is
that
Messiah will emerge from his
ness . . . between God and Satan. It
bloodline. “Loins” signify “procre­ specific “fruit of [David’s] loins”! also is interesting that in the 1881
But moderns stand by Í, A, B, C, ERV, based on the Westcott-Hort
ative power,” according to
and D, the lat, a few Byz. mss, the Greek text, only “according to the
Strong’s Complete Word Study
Peshitta, and the Coptic. Are mo­ flesh” was removed. Note that the
Concordance, p. 2125. Also, the
perfect participle “having known” derns so stubborn—or nonspiritual footnote admits to a non-literal
is correct.)
—as to ignore the significance!)
translation.)

NIV: “But he was a prophet and
knew that God had promised him
on oath that he would place one of
his descendants on his throne.”

Acts 2:30 — “Therefore being a
prophet, and knowing that God
had sworn with an oath to him,
that of the fruit of his loins, ac­
cording to the flesh, he would
raise up Christ to sit on his
throne.”

PROBLEM
Ï text: “Therefore they picked
up stones so that they might
throw at Him; but Jesus was
hidden and went out of the
temple, having gone through
their midst, and passed by
thus.” The removal of the
clause in question omits the di­
vine miracle of Jesus’ super­
natural power (invisibility?).
Lower Christology. The Ï is
supported directly by 29 speci­
fied uncials (incl. A), Families
1/13, 2 OL, and Θc (3rd copy­
ist). Opposition is diverse but
outnumbered and outclassed.

The simple fact is, the majority
of Byz. mss support inclusion
of the first clause, as well as:
24 specified Greek mss; A; C2
Í2; Θ; Ψ; Ë13; 33; all Vulgate
and many OL; the Sahidic; the
Peshitta; and part of the Bohai­
(Translators here use “many early” ric. Furthermore, modern scho­
to offset the overwhelming major­ lars have defied their own man­
ity of manuscripts opposing their uscripts by including “If God
evidence. The UBS4 lists 24 spe­ be glorified in him . . .” Based
on their evidence, it is easiest
cific Greek mss opposing omis­
to conclude that they included
sion, as well as same versions.
[See ESV note.] Omission results the words for fear of an evan­
gelical backlash!
in incompletion and nonsense.)
Despite substantial opposition,
the Ï text includes “according
to . . . the Christ,” as do uncials
Psi (Ψ), P, 049, 056, and 0104
(7th), plus cursives 33 and 0142
(Based on the Westcott-Hort and (10th), the Harclean, and a few
NU texts, “according to the flesh, other Byz. Most of the Early
to raise up the Christ” is omitted. Church Fathers oppose. But,
Not only is this translation wrong­ Tertullian (Latin, d. 220),
ful in omitting words, but it is not whose extant writings number
even literal according to its own
36-8 (82%) for the Textus Re­
Greek. The NU has excellent sup­ ceptus, was for the Byz. Only
Tatian (77) has more extant
port from: Í; A; B; C; Dc; 81;
writings. Early Fathers (pre1175; most OL and all Vulgate
[“lat”]; a few Byz.; Peshitta; Sahi­ 400) favored the Byzantine 3 to
2—60% to 40%.
dic; Bohairic.)

KJV

NIV

PROBLEM

NIV Reads: “You see, at just the
right time, when we were still
powerless, Christ died for the un­
godly.”

(The NIV slightly misleads with
powerless,” based on the
(Only in this instance, in the New “still
27
NA
Greek. The meaning of
Testament, may the Greek word
“asthenes” does not so much con­
asthenes—note at far right—be
note a condition of varying power
properly used in this context. As
—a term usually associated with
for “the right time,” this is a cor­ advantage—as it does of passive
rect translation, as well. [However, weakness, or lack of strength.)
note that the NIV, at immediate
(The 1870 Wescott-Hort [W-H]
right, wrongly includes “just”
New Testament, which is the essen­
before “the right time”—just not
tial base for the NU, reads as B, ei
appearing in the Greek or being
ge, “if indeed.” This W-H reading,
carried with another Greek word.]) of course, questions whether or not
Christ did die for the ungodly!
[“You see” is not in the Greek!])

What doesn’t appear here is
that Codex B, the most-beloved
MS of most modern scholars,
actually reads “If indeed . . .”
rather than “For when . . .”
Modern translators have been
careful to abandon this reading
here, because support for this
variant is minimal. The Greek
word asthenes means “without
strength,” “weak,” “sick,” “im­
potent,” “more feeble,” and,
parallel to a lost sinner
(»TDNT, abridged, p. 84),
“helpless.” So, evidentially,
listing witnesses essentially is
irrelevant, because nearly every
extant manu. is identical in the
Greek. Hence, the problems are
in the English translations, and,
in this particular case, few.

Reads: “There is therefore now
no condemnation for those who
are in Christ Jesus.”1 Footnote:
“1 Some manuscripts add who
walk not according to the flesh
(Thomas Holland explains that Al­ (but according to the Spirit).”

Reads: “Therefore there is now no Reads: “Therefore, there is now
condemnation for those who are no condemnation for those who
in Christ Jesus.” (No footnote!)
are in Christ Jesus,” . . . Removed
a
(The minority text has substantial note: “ 1 Some later manuscripts
Jesus, who do not live according
support in nine specific Greek
to the sinful nature but according
mss, two Old Latin, all Coptic,
to the Spirit.”
plus a few Byz. cursives—the
exandrians believe[d] that “ditto­
latter just two, evidently, according
27
(No footnote serves to inform
graphy”—the repetition of text—
to the NA26. The specified Greek (The NA also lists the Greek mss
th
readers that more than 90 percent are: ‫ ;א‬B; D; F; G; 6 [13 ]; 1506; 6, 1506, 1739, 1881, and a “few
accounts for the final 10 words: a
others,” plus the Egyptian and
duplication of the words from verse of extant mss oppose this abbrevi­ 1739 [ca. 950]; 1881 [ca. 1350].
Note that the NA27 uses two “late” Ethiopic, and Origen [d. 254], as
4. But why move backward from v. ated reading. Again, moderns do
supporting the minority.)
4 to v. 1—major slip by moderns?) not recognize the Ï importance.) mss to support its case!)

Again, observe the NIV foot­
note referring to “some later
manuscripts.” Most of the mss
incorporating the last clauses of
the verse are later than the
authorities supporting its ab­
sence, but it is the Ï (85%+)
which includes this portion.
Also including these clauses
are A, Í2, D1 (6th-7th), D2 (ca.
9th), 33, K, P, Ψ, 049, 056,
0142, 0151, 81, 365, 629, the
Harclean, and the Vulgate.

Romans 10:15b — “As it is
written, ‘How beautiful are the
feet of them that preach the gos­
pel of peace, and bring glad tid­
ings of good things.’”

The Ï reading: “Just as it is
written, ‘How beautiful are the
feet of the ones proclaiming the
gospel of peace, of the ones
proclaiming the gospel of the
good (things/news)!’” The mo­
dern versions’ Greek source
combines the last two phrases to
summarize them as one. The
Byz. reading is supported by:
Í2; D; F; G; Ψ; 33; 049; 056;
0142; 0151; most OL (it) and
all the Vulgate; all the Syriac.

Romans 5:6 — “For when we
were yet without strength, in due
time Christ died for the ungodly.14 ” Footnote: “14 in due time: or,
according to the time.”

ESV

NASB

ESV reads: “For while we were
NASB Reads: “For while we
still weak, at the right time Christ were still helpless, at the right
died for the ungodly.”
time Christ died for the un­
(The ESV English reading is very godly.”

close to being absolutely correct.
(The Majority text, from the Byz­ Kata kairon [kah-tah´ |
antine Greek, reads, “For yet
kigh´-ron], these two words
Christ, when we were weak, in due together, literally mean “in [or
time on behalf of the ungodly
‘according to’] due time” or “in
died.” Hence, the KJV translators
re-arranged the word order, as have [or ‘according to’] the right time.”
Reads Strong’s Complete Word
most translators, doing so essen­
tially literally and based upon the Study Concordance, p. 2596 [kata
], “[B] Of time, i.e., of a period or
Majority text. Kata kairon
point of time . . . occasion, season,
literally means “according to due
opportune time, in due time.” As
time,” “according to [the] right
for “still helpless,” this essentially
time,” “according to [the] oppor­
tune time,” or “according to [the] is the meaning, but a lesserpreferred reading.)
seasonable time.”)

Romans 8:1 — “There is there­
fore now no condemnation to
them which are in Christ Jesus,
who walk not after the flesh, but
after the Spirit.”

(The Greek agatha´ at the end of
this verse literally means “good,”
but “things” is implied. The final
independent clause is redundant,
but, again, Greek is a language of
redundancy and repetition!)

Reads: “Just as it is written, ‘HOW NIV: “As it is written: ‘How
BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE beautiful are the feet of those
43 WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD
who bring good news!’”
THINGS.’” Footnote: “43 Or preach
(Did some misguided scribe re­
the gospel.”
(The footnote only provides the
move a “redundant” portion of this
source of the quotation, Isaiah
verse simply because it sounded
(Tωn euggelizomenωn
52:7. No modern Bible mentions
repetitive? Did he not know that
eirηnηn, “preaching the gospel it, but “preaching the gospel of
Greek uses repetition and double of peace,” is omitted from the NU peace” is listed in the NA27 critical
positives [and negatives] for em­ texts, based on a relative paucity
notes as an “insertion” [T]—a “late
phasis, as well? Some Egyptian
of evidence: Ì46; ‫ ;א‬A; B; C; 81;
scribes did not even know Greek! 630; 1506; 1739; 1881; a few Byz. interpolation” based on the Byz.
and other majority evidence.)
This is simple fact.)
mss; and all the Coptic.)

ESV: “As it is written, ‘How
beautiful are the feet of those
who preach the good news!’”

KJV

ESV

NASB

NIV

Romans 14:10c — “For we shall ESV reads: “For we will all stand NASB reads: “For we will all
NIV reads: “For we will all stand
all stand before the judgment seat before the judgment seat of God;” stand before the judgment seat of before God’s judgment seat.”
...
God.”
of Christ.”
(The NA27 designates God as an
(Christ
will
be
performing
both
“alternative reading” in its critical
(bήmati tou Qeou# [bayʹ-mah(Note that John 5:22 reads, “For
apparatus, using mainly Í, A, B, C,
judgments. Rev. 20:11, 12 de­
tee
too
thehʹ-oo],
“judgment
seat
the Father judgeth no man, but
and D to defend this reading. It also
scribes
the
“Great
White
Throne
hath committed all judgment unto of God,” is in the minority text, but Judgment,” that for the condemn­ lists Íc [third copyist], C2 [2nd cor­
it
simply
is
textually
and
theolog­
the Son.” Modern translations in­
ed. It details how earth and heaven
, Ψ, 33, and three other
ically incorrect! [See note at left.] It will flee from Jesus—reminiscent rector]
clude this verse, unchanged, yet
Greek, plus all Syriac, as support­
they omit the above reference to
should read Cristou# [khrisʹ-too] of unbelievers hiding at the
ing the Ï reading. Changed from
Christ!)
“judgment seat of God.”)
instead of Qeou.)
Second Coming.)

PROBLEM
The vast majority of extant mss
read “Christ.” Modern transla­
tors adopt the minority reading
because it is upheld by all of
their beloved “old uncials,”
plus F, G, 630, 1506, 1739, a
few Byz., most Latin, and Cop­
tic. (This may originate from
lower Christology’s genesis in
first-century Gnosticism.) Also
for the Ï are 048, 0209, 33,
1881, and all Syriac.

The Ï text reads as the KJV.
Others supporting it are Í2, D1,
F, G, Psi, four numeric uncials,
and all the Syriac. Omitting
“by law” complies with old un­
cials ‫א‬, A, B, and D. But omit­
(Again, what is missing in the
ting “by law” removes a speci­
(In
the
translators’
opinion,
the
(What is missing in the modern
(The Greek koimhqh literally
modern
versions
is
the
Greek
nom­
fic reference to God’s law (Sev­
testimony of four of the five “old
means “to cause to sleep,” or “to versions is the Greek nómō ephi , uncials” —plus four favored cur­
on [nom´-on], “regulation,” “law,” enth Commandment). Other
put to sleep.” [See NASB footnote.] “by regulation,” “by law,”or “by
minority support: Ì46; 0278; 6;
sives, among others—outweighs the “principle.” “Belong” also is in­
However, this Greek term also is principle.” Also, the ESV 2011 has Greek Majority and outstanding
correct—the Greek monon mean­ 33; 81; 1175; 1739; 1881; a
used metaphorically to mean “to drifted from its Greek source: “to overall witness, it seems. “Koi­
ing “only” or “alone.” “Wife” is
few Byz.; some OL and all the
die,” “to still,” “to calm,” etc.)
her husband”; “as long as he . . .”) mhqh” meta. means “to die.”)
the better translation here!)
Vulgate.

1 Corinthians 7:39 — “The wife
is bound by the law as long as her
husband liveth; but if her husband
be dead, she is at liberty to be
married to whom she will; only in
the Lord.”

Reads: “A wife is bound to her
husband as long as he lives. But
if her husband dies, she is free to
be married to whom she wishes,
only in the Lord.”

Reads: “A wife is bound as long
as her husband lives; but if her
husband 64 is dead, she is free to
be married to whom she wishes,
only in the Lord.” Footnote:
64 Lit falls asleep.

Reads: “A woman is bound to
her husband as long as she lives.
But if her husband dies, she is
free to marry anyone she wishes,
but he must belong to the Lord.”

1 Corinthians 9:22 — “To the
weak became I as weak, that I
might gain the weak: I am made
all things to all men, that I might
by all means save some.”

ESV: “To the weak I became
weak that I might win the weak. I
have become all things to all
people, that by all means I might
save some.”

NASB: “To the weak I became
weak, that I might win the weak; I
have become all things to all men,
so that I may by all means save
some.”

NIV: “To the weak I became
weak, to win the weak. I have be­
come all things to all people so
that by all possible means I might
save some.”

The Majority reads “as weak,”
plus Í2, C, D, F, G, Ψ (Psi), 33,
1881, four other numeric un­
cials, and all the Syriac and
Coptic. Opposing are Ì46,
(“Possible” is not in the Greek.
Aleph (Í), A, B, 1739 (10th),
Did
the
committee
or
stylists
think
(The simple omission of ōs [as]
plus most OL and all the Vul­
(The spiritually unregenerate—and
(“Men” was added by the KJV
here, most probably, is an acci­
gate, and a few Byz. cursives.
even some regenerate—may not that without this word readers
would confuse the meaning with (Paul became like-minded with
committee, but certainly was not dental scribal error, but it changes comprehend the difference be­
the common phrase used to convey
absolutely necessary for clarity of meaning dramatically! Also notice tween “weak” and “as weak.”
a modern sense of certainty? Un­ the weak to relate to them; he
the sentence’s meaning.)
no footnote for the Majority read­ Might worldly translators fail to
necessary tampering cited. “Men” did not backslide to become
weak!)
ing.)
properly discern, as well?)
has been changed to “people.”)

1 Corinthians 11:24b — “And
when he had given thanks, he
brake [it], and said, ‘Take, eat:
this is my body, which is broken
for you; this do in remembrance
of me.’”

Reads: “. . . ‘This is my body
which is for 5 you.’” Footnote: “5
Some manuscripts broken for.”

Reads: “. . . ‘This is my body,
which is for you; . . . ’”

Reads: “. . . ‘This is my body,
which is for you; . . . ’”

(NU evidence for “This is . . . ” is
substantial, yet outnumbered: Ì46;
Í; A; B; C; D; F; G; 33; 81; 12
other numeric Greek; six Old
Latin; the Coptic; the Palestinian
[6th?]. No footnote for the majority
testimony reading!)

(In both Greek source texts, the
word [h]upēr [hoop-ayr´] appears,
but a clearly poor contextual tran­
slation is made by moderns: “for”
is used, rather than “on the part of”
or “for the sake of.” Is this an
effort to conserve words? To sim­
plify?)

(“It” is implied in English, thus
added by the translators of every
version here, for clarity.)

(“Take, eat” also appears in Matt.
26:26. The NA27 marks “Take, eat”
as an insertion here according to
the majority of evidence! Myster­
iously, the NA27 evidently has
dropped 17 mss from the NA26.)

The Ï text (85%+) has “Take,
eat . . . ,” as do C3 (ca. 9th), Ψ,
12 specified Greek, lections
(maj.), and the Peshitta and
Harclean. The Majority text
also reads “broken,” as do Í2,
C3, D2, F, G, Ψ, 20 specified
numeric Greek, four OL, and
the Peshitta and Harclean.

KJV
1 Corinthians 11:29 — “For he
that eateth and drinketh unwor­
thily, eateth and drinketh damna­
tion to himself, not discerning the
Lord’s body.”
(“Unworthily”: without forgiving
one’s appropriate brother[s] and/or
sister[s] first; approaching this
sacrament without a pure heart and
due reverence for our Lord.”)

ESV

NASB

ESV reads: “For anyone who eats
and drinks without discerning the
body eats and drinks judgment on
himself.”

NASB reads: “For he who eats
and drinks, eats and drinks judg­
ment to himself if he does not
judge the body rightly.”

(The NA Greek reads falsely:
“without discerning,” from the
Greek mē diakrinōn, “to discern,”
“to judge,” etc. Again, this reading
is supported by less than 10% of
extant mss.)

(Opposing the Majority reading
are only Ì46, Aleph, A, B, and C,
plus 6 [13th], 33 [9th], 1739 [ca.
950], all the Coptic, and a few
Greek cursives.)

NIV

PROBLEM

NIV reads: “For those who eat and
drink without discerning the body
of Christ eat and drink judgment
on themselves.”

The Majority text reads “un­
worthily” and “body of the
Lord.” Partaking of the ele­
ments does not evoke God’s
(The NU reads “brings condemna­ judgment, obviously, but parti­
tion when not discerning the body.” cipating without due reverence
Note how different this literal tran­ for Christ, and without forgive­
Sup­
slation is from the modern versions ness of one’s fellow2 man.
porting the Ï are Í , C3, D, F,
herein. Changed from “anyone,”
G, Ψ, 1881, all Latin, and all
“recognizing,” and “himself.” “Of
Christ” is not in any Greek!)
the Syriac.
Again, the Majority text reads
“all things,” but modern com­
mittees are infatuated with
Aleph, A, B, C, D, and Ì46.
(The NU text has substantial sup­ “All” accentuates that Christ
port in Ì46, Í, B, C, and D, plus F, has spiritually regenerated and
G, uncials 048 and 0243, and four redeemed every believer from
numeric cursives. All Coptic and a otherwise eternal ramifications
of his/her depraved nature. In
few Greek cursives also support
the regenerate, all is new! Sup­
the minority text. “He is a new
the Byz. Majority are:
creation” has been changed to “the porting
2
new creation has come,” and “has D ; K; L; P; Psi; 33; 81; 10
come!” to “is here!” This transla­ other numerics; most other
tion is far from its own Greek!)
cursives; 2 OL; the Harclean.

2 Corinthians 5:17 — “There­
fore if any man [be] in Christ, [he
is] a new creature: old things are
passed away; behold, all things
are become new.”

Reads: “Therefore, if anyone [is]
in Christ, [he is] a new creation.
The old has passed away; behold,
the new has come!”

Reads: “Therefore if anyone [is]
in Christ, 29 [he is] a new creature;
the old things passed away;
behold, new things have come.”
Footnote: “29 Or there is a new
(“Anyone” or “any” [man] are the creation.”
same in Greek, tis, but the NU
(Again, the NU text omits ta
(The words “be” and “he is” are not Greek has kaina gegonon, “the
panta, “all things.” It also does
in any Greek, but were necessary
new has come,” rather than go­
not list the Majority text [Ï] in the
for a clear and proper translation. gone kaina ta panta, “all things
evidentiary testimony, despite the
[The author added brackets around have become new.” The ESV 2011 fact that it does read ta panta.
“is” in the other versions and “he
has, however, been dramatically
Instead, it prefers to quibble over
is” in the ESV. The other brackets improved over the previous ver­
which MSS have “new” [kaina]
before or after “all things.”)
sion.)
were added by the translators.])

Reads: “Therefore, if anyone [is]
in Christ, the new creation has
come: the old has gone, the new is
here!”

2 Corinthians 12:9 — “And he
said to me, My grace is sufficient
for thee: for my strength is made
perfect in weakness. Most gladly
therefore will I rather glory in
my infirmities, that the power of
Christ may rest upon me.”

ESV: “But he said to me, ‘My
grace is sufficient for you, for
my power is made perfect in
weakness.’ Therefore I will boast
all the more gladly of my
weaknesses, so that the power of
Christ may rest upon me.”

NASB: “And He has said to me,
‘My grace is sufficient for you,
for power is perfected in weak­
ness.’ Most gladly, therefore, I
will rather boast about my weak­
nesses, so that the power of
Christ may dwell in me.”

NIV: “But he said to me, ‘My
grace is sufficient for you, for my
power is made perfect in weak­
ness.’ Therefore I will boast all
the more gladly about my weak­
nesses, so that Christ’s power may
rest on me.”

(Note the Greek word episkenóō
has unique meaning in this NT
context, according to the Theolo­
gical Dictionary of the New Testa­
ment [Abridged], p. 1043.)

(The ESV deviates some from the
RSV, in line with the Byz. But in
line with the KJV, it has erred in
using “rest upon” me. [See left.])

(Omission—the most common
scribal error—of just the Greek
mou [“my”] between “for” and
“power” makes all the difference.
[See far right.])

The NU text has substantial testi­
mony, yet remains clearly over­
whelmed by 85%+ of extant
Greek. The NASB is gravely
erroneous: Not any power “is
made perfect in weakness,” but
only Christ’s power! (Greek
episkenÒωin this unique con­
text means “to enter or take up
(The NA27 critical apparatus cate­ residence”—not “rest upon” or
through,” etc.) Ï support:
gorizes “my” as a scribal insertion! “work
2
2
These text critics use four of their Í ; A; D ; Ψ; 33; 81; 1241;
five favorite uncials in reasoning, 1739; 20 other numericals; Lect;
the Peshitta and Harclean; the
“Scribes probably added the
pt
pronoun for clarity . . . .” [NET]) bo . Minority is overshadowed.

Galatians 3:1 — “O foolish Gala­
tians, who hath bewitched you,
that ye should not obey the truth,
before whose eyes Jesus Christ
hath been evidently set forth, cru­
cified among you?”

Reads: “O foolish Galatians! Who
has bewitched you? It was before
your eyes that Jesus Christ was
publicly portrayed as crucified.”

Reads: “You foolish Galatians,
who has bewitched you, before
whose eyes Jesus Christ was
publicly portrayed [as] crucified?”

Reads: “You foolish Galatians!
Who has bewitched you? Before
your very eyes Jesus Christ was
clearly portrayed as crucified.”

(“Evidently set forth” means that
Christ’s sacrifice clearly was mani­
fested before even the world!)

(Omitting the clause “that you
(“Among you” is significant
because it indicates that all people should not obey the truth” is a
critical blunder, here!)
share blame for Christ’s death!)

Bewitched them about what?
The truth! One of Satan’s
chiefest intentions is to sepa­
rate believers from the truth!
The Ï text (at least 85%) is
(The Greek proegráphē means
supported by C, D2, Ψ, 33c,
“evidently set forth,” “announc0278, 1881, and the Harclean,
ed,” or “written afore,” not “exhib­ plus other uncials 049, 056,
ited” or “clearly portrayed.”)
075, 0142, 0150, and 0151.

KJV

NASB

NIV

PROBLEM

ESV reads: “Now the promises
were made to Abraham and to
his offspring. It does not say,
‘And to offsprings,’ referring to
many, but referring to one, ‘And
to your offspring,’ who is Christ.
17
This is what I mean: the law,
which came 430 years afterward,
does not annul a covenant previ­
ously ratified by God, so as to
make the promise void.”

NASB reads: “Now the promises
were spoken to Abraham and to
his seed. He does not say, ‘And
to seeds,’ as [referring] to many,
but [rather] to one, ‘And to your
seed,’ that is, Christ. What I am
saying is this: the Law, which
came four hundred and thirty
years later, does not invalidate a
covenant previously ratified by
God, so as to nullify the pro­
mise.”

NIV reads: “The promises were
spoken to Abraham and to his
seed. Scripture does not say ‘and
to seeds,’ meaning many people,
but ‘and to your seed,’ meaning
one person, who is Christ. What I
mean is this: The law, introduced
430 years later, does not set aside
the covenant previously estab­
lished by God and thus do away
with the promise.”

(After substituting “offspring” and
“offsprings”—the latter not a legit­
imate word in English—the ESV
implements “to one” rather than
again using “offspring.” Why?
Variety? And why not encourage
learning, rather than purveying
palatability, by using “seed” and
“seeds” in the text, then footnoting
with “offspring”? This is about
selling “Bibles”! Throughout
English biblical history, until the
20th century, “seed” was the theo­
logical term used when referring to
an offspring or descendant—parti­
cularly in reference to Christ.)

(The NU Greek reading near the
end of v. 17 is Qeou [God] rather
than Qeou eiς Criston [God
in Christ]. Remember also that
John 1:3 says of Christ, “All things
were made through him, and
without him was nothing made
that was made.”)
(Regarding translating the implied
third-person singular masculine
pronoun before “does not say”
[either “He” for God, or “It” for
Scripture], remember that Paul
indirectly is referencing Gen. 12:3,
7—specifically, words God
actually spoke to Abraham!)

(Notice “in Christ” is omitted from
the phrase “God in Christ,” again
wrongfully dissociating God’s
Son. Christ is the promised seed
only through whom salvation
comes! This omission is incongru­
ous with the previous reference to
Christ. Also note that the words
“people” and “person” do not ap­
pear in the NU Greek, but, rather,
have been added by the translators
[or their “stylists”]. These terms
are unnecessary clarification. Nei­
ther is “The Scripture” necessary
for clarification. Finally, “set
aside” incorrectly translates akur­
oi, which means “to disannul,” “to
invalidate,” or “to make of none
effect.”)

The Majority reading in v. 17
is “God in Christ.” Many
modern Bible translators, much
like the Gnostic Docetists and
Adoptionists— largely of the
first through third centuries—
don’t seem amenable to the
concept that Jesus is, in fact,
God. Others rationalize the
supremacy of the NU text
based on its “widespread test­
imony”—mss and versions
representing various text-types
(Alex., Byz., Caes., Western,
etc.). (But many of these MSS
are corrupt, as well!) At least
85% of the NT Greek cursive
witnesses (Byz.) support the
KJV, along with uncials D, F,
G, and I, plus numericals 049,
056, 075, 0142, 0150, 0151,
0176, 0178, 0278. Many OL
and all the Syriac also support.
Evidence opposing the major­
ity are Ì46, Í, A, B, C, P, Psi,
and numerics 6, 33, 81, 1175,
1739, 1881, and 2464. Two
OL, the Latin Vulgate, a few
Byz. cursives, and all the Cop­
tic round out excellent NU
support.

Galatians 4:7 — “Wherefore
Reads: “So you are no longer a
thou art no more a servant, but a slave, but a son, and if a son,
son; and if a son, then an heir of then an heir through God.”
God through Christ.”
(Who has made us co-heirs with
Him through our belief in His
(Here, “heir of God through
vicarious, bloody sacrifice on the
Christ” is used similarly in Ro­
cross? Jesus Christ the Son!
mans 8:17: “joint-heirs with
Christ”—from the Greek sugklē ­ Klηronomoς dia Qeou, “heir
ronomai [soong-klay-ron-om´through God,” is correct, accord­
ahee].)
ing to the NA/UBS, but not theolo­
gically correct! “Heir of God
through Christ,” in the Ï text,
rather, is correct!)

Reads: “Therefore you are no
longer a slave, but a son; and if a
son, then an heir through God.”

Reads: “So you are no longer a
slave, but God’s child; and since
you are his child, God has made
you also an heir.”

Galatians 3:16, 17 — “Now to
Abraham and his seed were the
promises made. He saith not,
‘And to seeds,’ as of many; but
as of one, ‘And to thy seed,’
which is Christ. And this I say,
that the covenant, that was con­
firmed before of God in Christ,
the law, which was four hundred
and thirty years after, cannot
disannul, that it should make the
promise of none effect.”
(Verse 16 more literally reads,
from the Ï Greek, “Now to Abra­
ham were the promises made, and
to his seed. He does not say, ‘And
to his seeds,’ as of many, but as of
one, ‘and to your seed,’ which is
Christ.” [The term “seed,” sperm­
ati (spermati), is an especially
theologically significant one, as
referred to in the Hebrew-Greek
Key Word Study Bible: “sperma—
[II] Figuratively . . . of the seed of
conception . . . . Offspring. Gener­
ally, seed in the sense of poster­
ity.” —p. 2243])

ESV

Omitting “through Christ” is
a profound distortion of the
doctrine that all believers are
heirs to God through Jesus
(NU support does exist in the ma­ (Conversely, the vast majority2of
Christ—ONLY through
supported by Í
jority of extant MSS [not Greek]: Greek mss are
Christ! Five other NT verses
3
Ì46; Aleph [Í]; A; B; C; 33; lat [all [Aleph-2], C , D, 0278, and the
state this directly or imply it.
Armenian and all Syriac. “A son”
Vulgate (10,000) and many OL]; has been changed to “God’s child” Believers are, indeed, “cothe Bohairic. Hence, the total
heirs” with and through
and “his child” for the NIV 2011
numerical witness is more than
[“NIV2.”] The translators have
Christ, but it is only through
discarded the need for Bible read­ Christ that we receive our
10,200, but only six of these are
ers to read and explore the Word
Greek. [And remember that in
eternal inheritance. “Through
many places, the Latin Vulgate is thoroughly and comprehend con­ Christ” clearly establishes this
textually here by supplying “all
corrupt.])
doctrine here.
information”! This is harmful!)

KJV
Galatians 6:15 — “For in Christ
Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircum­
cision, but a new creature.”

ESV
ESV reads: “For neither cir­
cumcision counts for anything,
nor uncircumcision, but a new
creation.”

NIV

PROBLEM

Removing “in Christ Jesus”
nullifies the essential, critical
meaning of the verse because
the essence of it is that, plainly,
(Again, translators justify using
in Christ, circumcision has no
(Again, a loose and undignified
this reading based largely on the
true significance; it is a ritual
translation.
The
Majority/TR/
KJV
(Translators are well aware that
authority of Ì46 [3rd cent., Paul­
read that neither circumcision nor entirely disassociated from
something is missing—“in Christ ines] and Codex B. Because of
eternal kingdom applicability.
uncircumcision—also metaphors
sparse Greek ms testimony, they
for a purificational distinction
It is in Christ only that our
Jesus”—in their Greek, because
within the OT dispensation—have lives have true significance.
they add “anything,” which is not use the UBS’ six early Patristic
Fathers: Gregory of Nissa; Chry­ any spiritual significance among
But as very often is the case,
supported by the NA. Also, the
sostom; Theodorelat; Ambrosiaster; believers. “A new” changed to “the the modern text critics use
committee, just as in the RSV,
new” for the NIV 2011—not a
their 10-12 systematic critical
translates estin as “counts,” when Jerome; Augustine. Again, even
better reading.)
rules that support their prefer­
four of the five “old uncials”
a correct English rendering of
oppose B here. And remember that (Other minority evidence are cur­ red readings and mss. (E.g., an
their Greek is simply “is.” Again, many moderns willingly embrace
sives 075 [10th/mixed], 1175 [11th/ NET note refers to the “longer
this shows, here, that they know
the lower Christology promoted by Alex.], 1505 [12th/mixed], and
reading” as a “harmonization
their Greek is wrong!)
their predecessors.)
to Gal 5:6.”)
1739 [10th/Alex.].)

Ephesians 5:9 — “(For the fruit Reads: “. . . (for the fruit of light
is found in all that is good and
of the Spirit is in all goodness
and righteousness and truth);” . . . right and true),” . . .
(Note that agathosunē [goodness]
(All Greek source texts compared is translated as “good,” dikaiosunē
herein, the Byz. Majority, the Tex­ [righteousness], as “right,” and
tus Receptus, and the NU, do not alētheia [truth] as “true.” This is
translational deliberateness in
include a verb after “Spirit” or
replacing traditional theological
“light,” so the respective trans­
terms within what feigns being
lation committees have selected
their own preferences. However, God’s Word. This caters to alleged
“easier reading,” and, worse still, a
the most appropriate form prob­
deprecation of biblical majesty.
ably is the simple being form “is.”) Also note that tou, “the,” has

Ephesians 5:30 — “For we are
members of his body, of his
flesh, and of his bones.”

NASB
NASB reads: “For neither is cir­
cumcision anything, nor uncir­
cumcision, but a new creation.”

NIV reads: “Neither circumcision
nor uncircumcision means any­
thing; what counts is the new
creation.”

Reads: “. . . (for the fruit of the
Reads: “. . . for the fruit of the
Light [consists] in all goodness
light consists in all goodness,
and righteousness and truth),” . . . righteousness and truth) . . .”

(The NU text is consistent in
wrongfully using “light,” utilizing
some form of phōs [abstract light]
in several locations of the New
Testament—rather than the correct
pneuma [spirit, wind, life, breath].
Also, because the Holy Spirit is
the “agent” of activity in the be­
liever, “Spirit” must be correct!
Christ is the “light” of godliness in
us, but the Spirit directs and enabbeen omitted. The NU includes it.) les our righteousness.)

The source Greek for modern
versions is “phōs” (luminosity
—bodies, splendor around
God’s throne) rather than Pneu­
(Note that herein the NIV removes ma (Spirit). Majority testimony
is opposed by diverse and sub­
kai, “and,” from between “good­
stantial witness: Ì49 (3rd); ‫ ;א‬A;
ness” and “righteousness.” The
NIV is noted for its frequent omis­ B; D; F; G; P; 6; 33; 81; five
sion of conjunctions [and, but, or, cursives; all Latin; the Peshitta;
all Coptic. Galatians 5:22 lists
etc.] to improve “readability.”
the “fruit of the Spirit,” and it
Again, this committee thinks it is is the (Holy) Spirit which pro­
rightful in altering God’s Word— duces the “light” of Christ’s
in this case, for “stylistic” pur­
righteousness in believers’
poses!)
lives. (See later—1 John 1:7.)

ESV: “. . . because we are mem­ NASB: “. . . because we are
bers of his body.”
members of His body.”

NIV: “. . . for we are members of
his body.”

(The NU Greek source text—un­
derlying all versions herein except
(Note: This statement outrightly
for the KJV—reads, “. . . for we
identifies believers with Christ’s
are members of his body,” though
full humanity, and His passion,
death and resurrection. It is not in­ “because” is correct in modern
tended to be interpreted literally, English. Moderns hang their hats
46
as in Roman Catholicism’s celeb­ on Ì , ‫*א‬, A, B, and 33. These
support moderns’ shorter reading
ration of the mass.)
theory.)

(It is interesting that moderns
generally categorize any manu­
script dating to the ninth century
or later as “late,” unless it sup­
ports their cause and appertaining
reading. For example, 1739 [ca.
950], 81 [ca. 1050], and 1881 [ca.
1350] also are used to defend
moderns’ preferred reading.)

(NU textual authority for this read­
ing comprises Ì46, Í, A, and B,
four numeric uncials, three such
cursives, 1 Old Latin, all the Cop­
tic, and a few other Greek cur­
sives. This against the Majority,
Í2, D, F, G, K, Ψ, 17 numerics, 7
Old Latin and all the Latin Vul­
gate, the Syriac Peshitta and Harc­
lean, and the Lect [maj. lections].)

The KJV stays with the Major­
ity text again. The alternate
reading found in minority MSS
probably was an early scribal
attempt to remove an indica­
tion of Christ’s humanity—part
of early heresy. The Majority
reading does more than simply
refer to believers as the “body
of Christ.” This is the process
of sharing in Christ’s death
and resurrection!

KJV

ESV

NASB

NIV

PROBLEM
The underlying Greek, again,
is identical, so why the confus­
ing English translation? Evi­
dently, modern translators
think that “robbery” is too dif­
ficult for contemporary readers
to comprehend; thus, they add
three words to avoid using the
term. The Greek arpagmon
means “the act of seizing or
robbing.” Hence, “not grasp­
ing to be equal” might seem to
be a more appropriate “modern
translation.” Instead, moderns
have opted for ambiguous
translations.

Philippians 2:6, 7 — “Who, be­
ing in the form of God, thought it
not robbery to be equal with
God: 7 But made himself of no
reputation, and took upon him
the form of a servant, and was
made in the likeness of
men: . . .”

ESV reads: “. . . who, though he
was in the form of God, did not
count equality with God a thing to
be grasped, 7 but emptied himself,
by taking the form of a servant,
being born in the likeness of
men.”

NASB reads: “. . . who, although
He existed in the form of God, did
not regard equality with God a
thing to be 23 grasped, 7 but 24
emptied himself, taking the form
of a bondservant, [and] being
made in the likeness of men.”
23
(The ESV translators rectified their Footnotes:24 “ I.e. utilized or
asserted. I.e. laid aside his
earlier mistranslation of eauton
privileges.
ekénosē [“emptied Himself”]).”
(The Majority and TR both use the Ekénosē [ek-e´-noce-ay] means “to
word ekénosē [from kenóō ], “to empty” or “to abase.” This phrase­ (Note that the NASB does correctly
empty or abase,” or “to make of no ology easily can be misconstrued to translate the word ekénosē [ek-en´oce-ay] here—“emptied.” “And”
mean that Christ did not strive to
effect,” in verse 7, but the KJV
already appears in the Greek. Both
attain
equality
with
God—as
if
He
committee produced a more
of the footnotes simply present
were not equal! This simply is
idiomatic translation.)
incorrect alternative meanings!)
unnecessarily ambiguous!)

NIV reads: “Who, being in very
nature God, did not consider
equality with God something to be
used to his own advantage; 7 rath­
er, he made himself nothing; by
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.”

Colossians 3:6 — “For which
things’ sake the wrath of God
cometh on the children of dis­
obedience.”

Reads: “On account of these the
wrath of God is coming.”3
Footnote: “3 Some manuscripts
add upon the sons of disobed­
ience.”

Reads: “Because of these, the
wrath of God is coming.19 ”
Footnote: “19 Some early manu­
scripts coming on those who are
disobedient.”

(The NA Greek omits the last
clause, but the UBS includes it.
The translators chose the NA27
reading over that of the UBS4.
Omission follows the RSV, upon
which the ESV is based [91%].
“Some” is woefully deceptive, and
“add” suggests scribal insertion!)

1 Thessalonians 1:1 — “Paul
and Silvanus, and Timotheus,
unto the church of the Thessalo­
nians which is in God the Father
and in the Lord Jesus Christ:
Grace be unto you, and peace,
from God our Father, and the
Lord Jesus Christ.”

Reads: “For it is because of these
things that the wrath of God will
come 26 upon the sons of dis­
obedience,” . . . Footnote: “26 Two
early manuscripts do not contain
upon the sons of disobedience.”
(The footnote casts doubt—only
two specific MSS—on the validity
of the reading. Wrongfully confus­
ing! The NU refers to Ì46 [3rd], B
[4th]—the latter moderns’ “sacred”
manuscript—and one OL, plus the
Sahidic and Syriac Palestinian.)

ESV: “Paul, Silvanus, and
Timothy, To the church of the
Thessalonians in God the Father
and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace
to you and peace.”

NASB: “Paul and Silvanus and
Timothy, to the church of the
Thessalonians in God the Father
and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace
to you and peace.”

(The NA27 marks “from God . . .
Jesus Christ” as an insertion based
on the vast majority of Greek
manuscript testimony. Is that, in
(The 1550 Robert Estienne TR,
succeeding the Majority, reads “. . . and of itself, not sufficient proof
from God our Father and the Lord for the “longer reading”—the
Jesus Christ.” Erasmus [1516] pen­ words’ inclusion? Again the mo­
ned this before William Tyndale.) derns clearly demean the Ï text!)

(The NA-UBS are supported by
substantial and diverse testimony:
B; F; G; Ψ; 075; 0278; three speci­
fied Greek cursives and a few
others; some Old Latin and all the
Vulgate; the Syriac Peshitta [2nd];
the Coptic Sahidic [3rd or 4th].)

(God’s Son, Jesus Christ, did claim
equality with God—because He is
co-equal to God—and He did not
need to “cling to” or “grasp” it. As
for “nothing” here, this is a con­
textual misuse of the Greek kenóō.
Christ “emptied himself” by taking
“the form of a servant.” Changed
from “something to be grasped.”)

(Not many MSS. [See left.] But the
Ï also is supported by Í, A, C, D1,
F, G, H, I, Psi, 075, and cursive 33,
uncial 0150, and 20 specified
cursives [UBS4]. Additional Byz.
support comes from some OL and
all Vulgate, the Peshitta/Harclean,
and the Bohairic.)

NIV: “Paul, Silas and Timothy, To
the church of the Thessalonians in
God the Father and the Lord Jesus
Christ: Grace and peace to you.”
Removed note: “b1 Some early
manuscripts you from God our
Father and the Lord Jesus
Christ.”
(“Some early” is correct—but
“several” is better: Í; A; D; I; one
OL. Also later MSS K [9th], L [9th],
P [6th or 9th], 048 [6th], 049 [9th],
plus 056 [10th], 075 [10th], 0142
[10th], 0150 [9th], and 0151 [9th].)

The Majority reading is “chil­
dren of disobedience.” (Greek
for children and sons is the
same: “uihos” [hwee´-os].)
This same phrase also appears
in Eph. 2:2 and 5:6. “Children
of disobedience” are unbeliev­
ers who thus habitually behave
egregiously against God’s will
—the class of the lost doomed
to hell. How can the NU read­
ing hold any validity based on
its paltry manuscript support?
(See NIV note.)

The Majority contains the
entire last sentence (1b).
Aleph, A, (Dvid—some
doubt), I (5th), 33, one OL
(mvid—some doubt), the
Syriac Harclean (7th), and the
Coptic Bohairic (3rd or 4th)
also support the Byz. reading.
The shorter reading may have
been an early scribal attempt
to “eliminate repetition,” as
done, historically, by scribes,
some Fathers, and by some
modern translators.

KJV
1 Timothy 3:16 — “And
without controversy great is the
mystery of godliness: God was
manifest in the flesh, justified in
the Spirit, seen of angels, preach­
ed unto the Gentiles, believed on
in the world, received up into
glory.”
(Some Greek mss read “He who,”
but these are very few. In both
Greek source texts, the wording is
identical, except for the relative
pronoun [h]os appearing for The­
os. But oj would mean “who” in
this context. No “he” precedes it!)

1 Timothy 4:10 — “For there­
fore we both labour and suffer
reproach, because we trust in the
living God, who is the Saviour of
all men, specially of those that
believe.”
(See 1 Peter 4:14.)

NASB

NIV

Reads: “Great indeed, we confess,
is the mystery of godliness: He 5
was manifested in the flesh, vin­
dicated 6 by the Spirit,7 seen by
angels, proclaimed among the
nations, believed on in the world,
taken up in glory.” Footnotes:
“5 Greek Who; some manuscripts
God; others Which. 6 Or justified.
7 Or vindicated in spirit.”

Reads: “By common confession,
great is the mystery of godliness:
He who was revealed in the flesh,
was 32 vindicated in the Spirit,
seen by angels, proclaimed among
the nations, believed on in the
world, taken up in glory.”
Footnote: “32 Or justified.”

Reads: “Beyond all question, the
mystery from which true godliness
springs is great: He appeared in
the flesh, was vindicated by the
Spirit, 19 was seen by angels, was
preached among the nations, was
believed on in the world, was
taken up in glory.” Notes: “19 Or
vindicated in Spirit Removed:
c Some manuscripts God.”

Reads: “For to this end we toil
and strive,2 because we have our
hope set on the living God, who is
the Savior of all people, especially
of those who believe.” Footnote:
“2 Some manuscripts and suffer
reproach.”
(No basis for “have our hope set
on.” “Some” mss is outright de­
ception! The vast majority, total,
read in the Greek as in the KJV.)

The NASB, also milder than the
KJV, reads “strive.”

ESV

(Some other Greek manuscripts
read “He who,” as shown here, but
(“Great indeed” and “we confess” these are among the fewest extant.
have been transposed and the
“Who” has significant support in Í,
Greek omologoumέnωj, “con­
A, C, F, and G, plus 33, 365 [Byz.],
fessedly,” changed from an ad­
verb, to a verb, in the wrong voice. 1175 [Alex.], and 2127 [Byz.], and
The first footnote portion also is a few Byz. cursives. But the Ï
Greek outweighs and outnumbers.
confusing: The translators have
chosen “He” despite the Greek. ??) “Vindicated” is incorrect here!)

(The minority Greek source reads,
“toiling [kup-ee-ah´-ō] and strug­
gling [a´-gonid´-zuh-mahee]”
rather than “labour and suffer
reproach.” These are very different
meanings. To “suffer reproach,” or
“to be reviled” addresses the plight
of believers’ persecution!)

PROBLEM

The Majority text rebukes
nearly all modern versions,
reading “God.” The Greek for
“He,” “who,” “God” and
“Christ” each is different.
“Who” and “which” are the
same in Greek. Note how all
three modern versions use
“vindicated” for “justified.”
According to the ±“NAGL” (W.
J. Perschbacher), p. 102, vin­
dicated is only correct in Matt.
(Not only is “appeared in a body”
incorrect according to the Greek, but 11:19 and Luke 7:29. This is the
it also is plainly ignoble! And “He” foremost passage clearly estab­
lishing God’s manifestation in
[ὅ] only is supported by D, just
the flesh. The Ï is backed by
seven Old Latin, all the Vulgate, a
Í2 (ca. 7th), Ac, C2 (ca. 6th), D2
few early Church Fathers, and
(ca. 9th), Ψ, 075, cursives 81,
possibly 061. From “from . . .
great” has been changed heavily! 1739, 1881, 15 other numerics,
and the lections.
Why the removed footnote?)

The NIV also mitigates the con­ The Majority reading supports
“suffer reproach.” “Suffer re­
notation with “strive.”
proach” places the rightful bur­
(Uncials ‫א‬, A, C, F [9th], G [9th], K den of discipleship and sub­
[9th], and Ψ [8th] support the min­ sequent receipt of rebuke, etc.,
ority Gk., as do 33 and six others, on the believer. Jesus said that
and many Byz. Joining the Ï are faithful believers will be re­
Í2 [ca. 7th], D, 20 other specified proached for their faith. Note
that although Aleph, A, and C
Greek, and all the Latin [“latt”],
Syriac, and Coptic—overwhelm­ uphold the NU text, B (Vatica­
ing numerical testimony.)
nus) is conspicuously absent.

The NU apparatus labels the
last four words of the KJV/TR/
Ï reading as an insertion. But,
again, the Ï reading—at least
85% of NT Greek—supports
“from such withdraw thyself,”
(“Robbed” is both a legitimate
(Omitting the last phrase nullifies
as does the Greek of D2 and
(“Destitute” likely is the best
meaning and a suitable application
the doctrine of separation, upon
translation, here, from the Greek which believers are to center their (The Greek apesterēménōn means of the word apesterēménōn in this Psi, three Old Latin, and all the
Syriac. Some miffed scribe(s)
both “destitute” or “defrauded”— context. As for “financial gain,”
apesterηmέnωn. This is so
lives! Notice no footnote mentions the compound root words being
probably was/were offended by
that the absent sentence appears in apo, “to separate,” and steréo, “to again, this is debatable. The Greek the separatist doctrine pre­
because, although these false
porismon
specifically
denotes
an
teachers have been “deprived” of the majority of manuscripts! As for deprive.” Hence, combining the
or a “source of gain.” scribed by God through Paul
the truth by lies of Satan, said de­ gain, various Greek lexicons differ words, in effect, enhances the po­ “acquisition,”
—“‘Wherefore come out from
Wrote
Matthew
Henry, “Some
privation has resulted in the con­ about whether or not porismon tency of the Greek word. Thus,
among them, and be ye sep­
account Christianity an advantag­
carries the meaning of financial or here, the former word evidently
sequence of their destitution of
eous profession in this world. Those arate,’ saith the Lord, ‘and
godly truth. [Anqrώpωn literally other material gain. The same is
touch not the unclean thing;
can mean “destitute and deprived,” that make a trade of it . . . will be
true about whether apesterη­
and I will receive you.’”
resulting in committees selecting disappointed . . . .” “Men” was
does mean “human beings,” or
mέnωn can mean “deprived.”)
one or the other, differently.)
changed to “people” for the NIV2.)
“people,” rather than “men.”])
—2 Corinthians 6:17

1 Timothy 6:5 — “. . . Perverse
disputings of men of corrupt
minds, and destitute of the truth,
supposing that gain is godliness:
from such withdraw thyself.”

ESV: “. . . and constant friction
among people who are depraved
in mind and deprived of the truth,
imagining that godliness is a
means of gain.”

NASB: “. . . and constant friction
between men of depraved mind
and deprived of the truth, who
suppose that 30 godliness is a
means of gain.” Footnote: “30 Or
religion.” (No! Incorrect.)

NIV reads: “. . . and constant
friction between people of corrupt
mind, who have been robbed of
the truth and who think that god­
liness is a means to financial
gain.”

KJV
Hebrews 1:3 — “Who being the
brightness of his glory, and the
express image of his person, and
upholding all things by the word
of his power, when he had by
himself purged our sins, sat
down on the right hand of the
Majesty on high;” . . .

Reads: “He is the radiance of the
glory of God and the exact im­
print of his nature, and he up­
holds the universe by the word of
his power. After making purifica­
tion for sins, he sat down at the
right hand of the Majesty on high,
. . .”

Hebrews 1:5a — “For unto
which of the angels said he at
any time, ‘Thou art my Son, this
day have I begotten thee’?”

ESV: “For to which of the angels
did God ever say, ‘You are my
Son, today I have begotten
you’?”

(Neither the NA27 nor the UBS4
marks this verse.)

NASB

ESV

NIV

PROBLEM

The Ï text supports the KJV
reading “by himself purged our
sins,” plus Ì46, D2, Hc (3rd
copyist) and 15 other specified
Greek, three Old Latin, all Sy­
riac, and the Sahidic and Bo­
hairic versions. What is mis­
sing in modern versions is that
(Sinaiticus [Í], Alexandrinus [A],
Christ alone expiated our sins
Vaticanus [B], D1 [ca. 7th], H, P, and (“Word of his power” and “pow­
(“Radiance” [apaugasma ] is okay Ψ support this reading, along with erful word” differ. “The Word” is through His vicarious sacrifice.
33 [9th], 81 [11th], 629 [14th], 1175 from the Son’s authority: It is not This variant could be the result
in this instance. “Nature” [hupoth
th
stáseos ], rather than “person,” is [11 ], 2464 [9 ], 075, and 0150,
just a “powerful word,” but also a of early Gnosticism, promoting
and
some
Byz.
minuscules, plus
the Catholic doctrine that
acceptable. “Imprint” [charakter ],
some Old Latin, all the Vulgate, and “Word of His power.” —JFB Bible
rather than “image,” is okay. But the Syriac Palestinian. “Who being” Commentary, Vol. 3, p. 527.
works are part of salvation.
“he” [os ] is not in either the
Some of the “revered” early
“God’s” is not in the NU Greek.
is admitted, but not translated as
Ï/TR or the NU Greek.)
Church Fathers believed in this.
such!)
Neither is “in heaven.”)
Reads: “35 And He is the radiance
of His glory and the exact repre­
sentation of His nature, and up­
holds all things by the word of His
power. When He had made purifi­
cation of sins, He sat down at the
right hand of the Majesty on high,”
. . . Footnote: “35 Lit Who being.”

Reads: “The Son is the radiance of
God’s glory and the exact re­
presentation of his being, sus­
taining all things by his powerful
word. After he had provided puri­
fication for sins, he sat down at
the right hand of the Majesty in
heaven.”

The best English rendering is
“begotten.” The Greek gennao
(ghen-nah´-ō) means “to bear,
beget, bring forth, conceive,
father.” “Spoken of the rela­
(According to the often-corrupt
tionship between God and the
(Firstly, “God” does not appear in NU Greek text, “God,” in fact, is
Messiah, called His Son” (Heb.
any Greek text. This appears, un­ not included here, but, rather,
(The Greek gennao does mean,
“he.” In multiple interlinears the
necessarily, for clarity. “At any
lastly, “to father,” but the passive 1:5, et. al.), according to
Strong’s Complete Word Study
word “God” is inserted into the
time” [KJV] is a superior transl­
NIV reading [“have become”]
Concordance. (God had always
Greek—obviously
for
clarity.
But
ation of pote. The remainder of
almost seems to indicate that some
been Jesus’ father, but had “be­
the
context
makes
this
entirely
the translation if fine.)
event occurred to also somehow
gotten” Him in the flesh at His
unnecessary! This translation is
“make God Jesus’ father.”)
fine.)
earthly birth).

ESV reads: “. . . but this one was
made a priest with an oath by
the one who said to him: ‘The
Lord has sworn and will not
change his mind, “You are a
(Remember God’s warning, in Reve­ priest forever.”’”
Hebrews 7:21 — “(. . . but this
with an oath by him that said unto
him, ‘The Lord sware and will not
repent, “Thou art a priest for ever
after the order of Melchisedec:)”’”
...

lation, against “adding to” or “taking
away from” God’s words. The Scrip­ (Replacing “repent” with “change
tures are God’s words “breathed
his mind” is okay. However,
out” to elected men being His chos­
“repent” is a biblical word—a
en instruments.)

NASB: “For to which of the an­
gels did He ever say, ‘YOU ARE
MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN
YOU’?”

NIV: “For to which of the angels
did God ever say, ‘You are my
Son today I have become your
Father’?” Removed note: “Or
have begotten you.”

NASB: (“. . . for they indeed
became priests without an oath,
but He with an oath through the
one who said to him, ‘THE LORD

NIV: “. . . but he became a priest
with an oath when God said to
him: ‘The Lord has sworn and
will not change his mind: “You
are a priest forever.”’”

HAS SWORN AND WILL NOT CHANGE
HIS MIND, “You are a priest for­

ever”’);” . . .

(Melchisedec was Abram’s and the
people’s first high priest, and he
represented all people—just as
Christ has replaced him to repres­
theological term. Furthermore, the ent all believers now! Jesus’ “ante(*Strangely so, both the KJV and
ESV reverse interlinear shows that type,” Melchisedec, here is simply
NASB committees chose to actually
the words “one was made a priest” left out of the priestly line that
begin this verse with the end of v.
20, as appearing here in the NASB.) were added in the English.)
ends with Christ.)

The Majority text [Ï] includes
“after the order of Melchizedek,” as do codices Í2, A, D,
Ψ, 075, 1241, 1739, 1881, and
15 other specified Greek. Other
(Vaticanus, C, and Ì46, cursives 33, support is in all Syriac and part
of the Bohairic. It seems clear,
81, 436, 629, and 2464, uncial
here, that some scribe commit­
0150, a few Byz. Greek slightly
ted the error of haplography:
differing from the majority, three
accidentally omitting words he
Old Latin and all the Vulgate, the
thought absent from the “exem­
Sahidic [Coptic], part of the Bo­
hairic [Coptic], and the Syriac Pal­ plar” (source)—or with which
estinian [6th?], testify to the NU text: he disagreed. Omitting refer­
substantial, but insufficient to over­ ence to the beginning of the
priestly line is a grave error!
ride the Byz. Majority!)

KJV

ESV

NASB

NIV

PROBLEM
The Ï text reads “having
come,” and “good things com­
ing.” In the NIV, “some,” again,
is outright deception—most
being correct! The NU text
reads “good things having
come.” The “good things” to
which the author of Hebrews
refers are “pardon, reconcilia­
tion, righteousness, holiness,
adoption, and glorious salva­
tion,” according to Matthew
Poole, as well as believers’
eternal inheritance. The modern
readings are supported by B, D,
1739, a few Byz. manuscripts,
and almost all of the Syriac.

Hebrews 9:11 — “But Christ be­
ing come an high priest of good
things to come, by a greater and
more perfect tabernacle, not made
with hands, that is to say, not of
this building;” . . .

Reads: “But when Christ appear­
ed as a high priest of the good
things that have come,5 then
through the greater and more per­
fect tent (not made with hands,
that is, not of this creation.)” . . .
Footnote: “5 Some manuscripts
good things to come.”

NASB: “But when Christ ap­
peared [as] a high priest of the
good things to come, [He entered]
through the greater and more
perfect tabernacle, not made with
hands, that is to say, not of this
creation;” . . . Footnote: “Two
early mss read that have come.”

Reads: “But when Christ came as
high priest of the good things that
are now already here22 . . .”
Footnote: “22 Some early manu­
scripts are to come.”

Hebrews 10:34 — “For ye had
compassion of me in my bonds,
and took joyfully the spoiling of
your goods, knowing in your­
selves that ye have in heaven a
better and an enduring substance.”

ESV reads: “For you had com­
passion on those in prison, and
you joyfully accepted the plun­
dering of your property, since
you knew that you yourselves
had a better possession and an
abiding one.”

NASB reads: “For you showed
sympathy to the prisoners and
accepted joyfully the seizure of
your property, knowing that you
have for yourselves a better
possession and a lasting one.”

NIV reads: “You suffered along
with those in prison and joyfully
accepted the confiscation of your
property, because you knew that
you yourselves had better and
lasting possessions.”

Reads: “By faith Sarah herself
received power to conceive, even
when she was past the age, since
she considered him faithful who
had promised.”

Reads: “By faith even Sarah her­
self received 41 ability to conceive,
even beyond the proper time of
life, since she considered Him
faithful who had promised.”
Footnote: “41 Lit power for the
laying down of seed.”

(The NRSV—herein not included—
footnote reads, “Other ancient author­
(Actually, the Byzantine Greek
ities read good things to come.” Yes,
(The translators here ignore the
and the Textus Receptus do not
again, the vast majority! The Byz. text
27
read “more perfect,” but, rather,
(“Appeared” is a tempting transla­ NA text and insert “He entered,” reads so, along with “old uncials” ‫א‬,
“complete,” or “perfect.” The
tion based on interpretation, but it which neither appears in any Greek A, plus D2. Other Byz. support are
nor is necessary for conveying
Greek teleioteras does not carry
is the wrong tense [second aorist text,
uncials K, L, and P, 075, 0150, and
the correct meaning. “Two early
the modifier “more.” “Having
participle]! “Have come” is the
0278, cursives 33, 81, 1241, and
mss” refers to B and D. Like the
come” is a better translation than correct translation of the wrong
1881 [and 15 others], plus some OL
KJV,
here,
“to
come”
is
correct.
But
“being come,” in the second aorist verb, appearing in the NA27.
and all the Vulgate, and all the Coptic.
“appeared” is the wrong tense. It
tense. “Coming,” the present
“Some manuscripts” is an outright, should be “having come”—second “Now” was added before “already” in
participle, is correct.)
aorist participle: the same Greek.)
disingenuous, abominable lie!)
the NIV 2011.)

(The KJV reading does transpose
the Majority text’s and Textus
Receptus’ “and remaining posses­
sion” and “in the heavens.” Note
that the Ï/TR includes mou, “me.”
Without mou, and with desmiois
rather than desmois, the NU trans­
lates as “prisoners” rather than as
“bonds”—a major difference.

Hebrews 11:11 — “Through faith
also Sara herself received
strength to conceive seed, and
was delivered of a child* when
she was past age, because she jud­
ged him faithful who had promis­
ed.”

(“For you showed sympathy to the
prisoners” is correct, according to
the NU Greek. But the Greek pre­
27
4
(The NA and UBS source texts position/conjunction kai is absent,
read differently from the Ï/TR
and the verb “showed” is not in the
about the focus on imprisonment: Greek. Also, “seizure” technically is
the former on a specific group of
not correct. “Plundering,” “spoil­
“prisoners”; the latter on the writer ing,” or “robbing” is correct, from
and his “bonds.” [See note at left.]) the Greek arpaghn.)

(The moderns have very substantial
support, yet they remain outweigh­
ed. “Compassion on me” is oppos­
ed by A, D, H, 6, 33, 81, 1739,
most Latin, and more. En
ouranoiς, “in heaven,” is opposed
by Ì13 , 46, ‫א‬, A, D, H, 33, most
Latin, all Coptic, and more. “Suf­
fered along” replaces “sympath­
ized” in the NIV 2011.)

Reads: “And by faith even Sarah,
who was past childbearing age,
was enabled to bear children be­
cause she considered him faithful
who had made the promise.”

The Byz. Ï text supports the
existence of “in heaven” (“in
the heavens”), which certainly
is different from the less-spec­
ific endings of the three mo­
dern versions. Again, on the
basis of the older but corrupt
Alexandrian (Egyptian) manu­
scripts Ì13 , 46, ‫א‬, D, and H, plus
33, 1739, most Latin, and all
Coptic, the “critical text” reigns
supreme in the modern ver­
sions, thereby supporting the
omission of “in heaven.” But
without these words, the length
of the “enduring substance” is
unspecified!

Ï loosely supports the KJV. All

other versions here vacillate re­
garding the NU text. Note how
the NIV transposes the second
and third clauses. Why? “Gave
(The NIV 2011 [“NIV2”] complete­
ly changes direction, following the birth” is supported by the Ma­
Greek—albeit a bit loosely jority text, Í2, D2, one OL, and
(The NA Greek reads spermatos, (The Zondervan NASB/NIV inter­ NA-UBS
—this
time,
replacing emphasis on all Syriac. Omission of eteken
(“* Or, ‘bore a child.’” [eteken]
“seed,” or “issue”—by implication linear inserts into the running in­
Abraham with it on Sarah. Why?
[Author’s note.] Eteken literally
and diverse
terlinear English “Abraham was
External pressure? But like the KJV, does have ample
means “gave birth,” so the KJV is “offspring”—after katabolēn [kuh- enabled to become a father . . . ,”
13 , 46
testimony:
Ì
; ‫ ;א‬A; D; Ψ;
it
transposes
clauses—second
and
tuh-bol-āyn], “conceive.” But for despite the NA Greek’s reference
not entirely literal here. There is
third, varying in each. The Greek
6;
33;
81;
1739;
1881;
most Lat­
no reason it should not be! The Ï comprehension and “stylization” only to Sarah by name! Then, in the also does not explicitly refer to
in;
Coptic.
But
the
Ï
—based
Greek reads “and when past the
purposes, the committee omitted English column, only Sarah is
“childbearing age.” [But the NIV
on 5,700-plus Greek—still
suitable age gave birth,” or “and
mentioned! This translation is a
2011 does footnote about Abra­
“offspring” from the English.)
ham.])
past the [fit] time of life . . .”)
hybrid of the Ï and the NU.)
dominates.

KJV
Hebrews 11:37 — “They were
stoned, they were sawn asunder,
were tempted, were slain with the
sword: they wandered about in
sheepskins and goatskins; being
destitute, afflicted, torment­
ed;” . . .
(“. . . They were ‘murdered’ [or
‘killed,’ or ‘slain’].”)

ESV
Reads: “They were stoned, they
were sawn in two,1 they were
killed with the sword. They went
about in skins of sheep and
goats, destitute, afflicted, mis­
treated—” . . . Footnote: “1 Some
manuscripts add they were temp­
ted.”
(The footnote indicates the trans­
lators were certain that “they were
tempted” was a later scribal inter­
polation—“add”. Manuscript sup­
port for omission is minimal: Ì46;
1241s [supplemental]; a few Byz.
mss; the Syriac Peshitta [2nd]; five
Church Fathers; possibly the Sa.)

NASB

NIV

PROBLEM

The Ï text supports the KJV,
as do Ì13vid, A, D2 (6th or 7th) Ψ
(Psi), 1739, 1881, 18 other
numerics, four OL and all the
Vulgate, the Bohairic, and the
lection majority. Most moderns
do not believe in “verbal” in­
spiration—the actual words of
God in the pure Scriptures.
(Because the Byzantine manuscript This allows them to manipulate
tradition dates back to at least the
and mix texts—even denigrate
(The Greek kakouchoumenoi
fourth century [and likely earlier
means “to maltreat,” “to suffer ad­ still], “some” probably is incorrect the supernatural. (This despite
lip service, by many, to verbal
versity,” “to torment.” But surely —with “early” referring to MSS
inspiration.) Note here that not
“tormented” is the most suitable
[uncials or papyri] of the seventh
English here! Also, despite its ab­ century or before. “. . . Put to death only does the Ï text support
sence from the NA27 Greek, epeir- by stoning” is okay. “Mistreated” the KJV, but also a broad and
diverse testimony from the
technically is correct, but it is a
ásthēsan, “they were tempted,”
poor translation here!)
third to fourteenth centuries.
has been added in the English.)

Reads: “They were stoned, they
were sawn in two, 61 they were
tempted, they were put to death
with the sword; they went about
in sheepskins, in goatskins, being
destitute, afflicted, ill-treated” . . .
Footnote: “61 One early MS does
not contain they were tempted.”
(That is, Ì46.)

Reads: “They were put to death by
stoning30 they were sawed in two
they were killed by the sword.
They went about in sheepskins and
goatskins, destitute, persecuted
and mistreated—”. . . Footnote:
“30 Some early manuscripts stoning
they were put to the test; . . .”

NIV: “You foolish person, do you
James 2:20 — “But wilt thou
ESV: “Do you want to be shown, NASB: “But are you willing to
you foolish person, that faith apart recognize, you foolish fellow, that want evidence that faith without
know, O vain [man], that faith
23
without works is dead?” (Auth. [ ]) from works is useless?”
faith without works is useless?” deeds is useless ?” Footnote:
“23 Some early manuscripts dead.”
(The Greek anθ rωpe literally
(The Greek gnōmai is used in all (Out of 5,700-plus Greek mss, only
means “human” or “person.” So,
four texts here, but it means “to
(Only two of the “earliest” [or
the corrupt B, plus C, support the
technically, the KJV translators
know,” “to understand,” or “to per­
“early”] mss, codices B and C,
minority text, along with six num­
substituted “man” for “person” or ceive,” not “to be shown.” “To
read the Greek argē´, “unprofit­
“human” [being]. However, indef­ know” and “to be shown” are very erics, led by 1739. Also, two OL,
able,” “inactive,” or “useless.”
two Vulgate, and the Sahidic, pay [For the “some” mss, see immed­
initely, as here, “someone,” “a
different types of action. The
misguided homage to the Alexand­ iate right.] For the NIV 2011
man,” or “one” [person] also is
Greek in the minority mss can
rian [Egypt] Vaticanus.)
“man” was changed to “person.”)
correct.)
mean “barren” or “idle.”)

The Majority reading is “dead”
(Gk. “nek-rōs´”), including
one of the modern “critical
text” keystones, Codex Sinai­
ticus (Aleph). A and C-2 (2nd
corrected) also support the
Majority reading, plus Psi, 15
other major uncials, Lect (lect­
ions maj.), the Peshitta and
Harclean, and the Sahidic.
Note that dead and useless
have very different meanings!

James 4:4 — “Ye adulterers and
adulteresses, know ye not that the
friendship of the world is enmity
with God? whosoever therefore
will be a friend of the world is the
enemy of God.”

The Majority supports “adulter­
ers and adulteresses,” as do Í2
(ca. 7th), K (9th), L (8th), P (6th),
Ψ (9th), 16 minuscules, and the
Harclean. Note how only the
NIV agrees, in meaning, with
the KJV and the Byzantine
text-type—but not in the
Greek. The three modern ver­
sions are close to correct.
These moderns use “wishes”
and “chooses” for boulhθh,
which are perfectly acceptable
translations. As for “hostility”
(NASB), it replaces a biblical
term—“enmity.”

ESV reads: “You adulterous
people! 3 Do you not know that
friendship with the world is en­
mity with God? Therefore who­
ever wishes to be a friend of the
world makes himself an enemy of
3
(The Greek boulhθh—“wishes to God.” Footnote: “ Greek You
adulteresses!” (Minority Greek)
be” here—is in the aorist subjunc­
tive here, expressing a wish in the
(The minority Greek reads moi­
ongoing present, not in the future.
chalides [adulteresses], omitting
Thus, “wills to be” would be correct.
The translators probably wanted the moichoi kai [adulterers and] before.
verse to sound more conclusive and Footnote is not included in the first
potent. Note that the precise mean­ edition of The Reformation Study
ing of “adulterers and adulteresses” Bible [2005, Ligonier Ministries].
here—though figurative—actually is Note that the precise meaning—
though figurative—is “unfaithful.”)
“unfaithful people.” [See ESV.])

NASB reads: “You adulteresses,
do you not know that friendship
with the world is hostility toward
God? Therefore whoever wishes
to be a friend of the world makes
himself an enemy of God.”
(Per the indications at far left, bou­
lēthē here has been translated cor­
rectly, based on precisely the same
Greek. The Greek word for “hos­
tility,” echthros, carries the mean­
ing of extreme “enmity with God
by (man’s) sin” [Thayer’s New
Testament lexicon, p. 265].)

NIV reads: “You adulterous peo­
ple,17 don’t you know that friend­
ship with the world means enmity
against God? Therefore, anyone
who chooses to be a friend of the
world becomes an enemy of God.”
Footnote: “17 An allusion to cove­
nant unfaithfulness; see Hosea
3:1.”
(Minority Greek support exists
more diversely in Ì100, Aleph, A, B,
33, 81, 1241, and 1739, plus a few
of the Byzantine mss, all the Latin,
all Coptic, and the Peshitta. “Is” was
changed to “means” from the prev­
ious version, and “hatred toward” to
“enmity against.”)

KJV
1 Peter 1:22 — “Seeing ye have
purified your souls in obeying the
truth through the Spirit unto un­
feigned love of the brethren, [see
that ye] love one another with a
pure heart fervently.”
(“Having purified” [hgnikoteς]
is correct, as seen only in the ESV
here. Of 47 instances of the root
word in the NT, only this occasion
uses the perfect active participial
form. “See that ye” is not in Greek;
nor is it even remotely necessary!)

1 Peter 2:2 — “As newborn
babes, desire the sincere milk of
the word, that ye may grow
thereby.”
(The Ï text and the Textus Recep­
tus each read “by it you may
grow.” That is, grow spiritually.
But note that according to the NT
Greek texts [TR] of Erasmus
[1516], Theodore Beza [1598],
Stephanus [1550], and others, and
even the Ï—all partial sources for
the KJV—the Authorized Version
[1611/1769/others] is partly poorly
translated as “of the word.” Also
note that the KJV and NASB omit
reference to the Greek logikos,
which, in this context, means “spi­
ritually logical,” “spiritually rea­
sonable, ” or simply “reasonable”
or “logical.” )

1 Peter 3:16 — “Having a good
conscience; that, whereas they
speak evil of you, as of evildo­
ers, they may be ashamed that
falsely accuse your good conver­
sation (behavior) in Christ.”

ESV
Reads: “Having purified your
souls by your obedience to the
truth for a sincere brotherly love,
love one another earnestly from a
pure heart.”
(A diverse array of Greek MSS
and versions do support omission
of “through the Spirit.” But “in
order to show” does not appear in
the NA27! This leaves a potentially
suspicious gap between “truth”
and “unfeigned.” No accounting is
made in the NA! [??])

NASB

NIV

Reads: “Since you have in obed­
ience to the truth purified your
souls for a 44 sincere love of the
brethren, fervently love one ano­
ther from 45 the heart.” Footnote:
“44 Literally unhypocritical. 45 Two
early mss read a clean heart.”

Reads: “Now that you have puri­
fied yourselves by obeying the
truth so that you have sincere love
for each other, love one another
deeply, from the heart.”23
Footnote: “23 Some early manu­
scripts from a pure heart.”

(The minority has excellent support
in four significant uncials and many
Byz. cursives, Ì72, cursives 33 [9th],
81 [11th], 323 [11th], 945 [11th],
1241 [12th], and 1739 [10th], plus all
the Vulgate, Syriac, and Coptic, and
many Byzantines. “Unhypocritical”
is incorrect! [Neither is it a word!])

PROBLEM

Though the most-ancient ma­
nuscript evidence (five of the
oldest extant MSS—Ì72 [3rd
century papyrus], Aleph, A, B,
C) supports the omission of
“through the Spirit,” the Major­
ity text includes it, as do K, L,
(Both the NA27 and the UBS4
P, and seven cursives. Katharas
question the authenticity of kath­
aras, “pure,” using single brackets. kardias, “pure heart,” also is in
But the text apparatus of each fails the Byz. text. Recall that the
to mention why. [??] In the NIV
Greek always holds the greatest
2011 “each other” replaces “your
brothers.” “Sincere brotherly love” weight because it is the origi­
nal NT source language.
is literally correct here.)

ESV: “Like newborn infants, long NASB: “. . . like newborn babies,
for the pure spiritual milk, that by long for the pure 59 milk of the
it you may grow up into salvation word, so that by it you may grow
60 in respect to salvation,”
—” . . .
59
(The NA text reads “. . . by it you Footnotes: “ Or spiritual (Gr
may grow up to (or “into”) salva­ logikos) milk. 60 Or up to salvation.”
tion.” Peter’s letter targeted recent
Gentile Christian converts, those
(The NA text reads “. . . by it you
who already knew Christ. Thus, he may grow up to (or “into”) sal­
was exhorting these “newborn
babes” in Christ to grow in the love vation.” The translators appear to
be unsure as to the spiritual state
and knowledge of the Savior by
of Peter’s readers, hence substi­
reading existing Scripture [Old
Testament]. Peter was not—as the tuting “in respect to” for “up in
ESV and its present brethren indic­ your.” The English translation
ate—commanding unbelievers to
does not match the minority
become saved by reading Scrip­
source. In addition, this appears to
ture! Salvation of the soul comes
be a hybrid compromise, an at­
only through personal interaction
with Christ: sin confession; repent­ tempt to bridge the gap between
the Byz./TR and minority read­
ance; and acceptance of Christ as
ings.)
sovereign Lord over one’s life.)

NIV: “Like newborn babies, crave
pure spiritual milk, so that by it
you may grow up in your salva­
tion,” . . .

Reads: “. . . having a good con­
science, so that, when you are
slandered, those who revile your
good behavior in Christ may be
put to shame.”

Reads: “. . . keeping a clear con­
science, so that those who speak
maliciously against your good
behavior in Christ may be
ashamed of their slander.”

(The NA Greek text reads “. . . by
it you may grow to (or “into”)
salvation.” The English is a some­
what sensible reading [“up in
your”], but it still is incorrect, the
words “to salvation” apparently
having been added by some
scribe[s] for unnecessary clarifica­
tion. [See KJV reading.] And a be­
liever does not “grow up to” [or
“into”] salvation—only an un­
believer. And this still would
represent an awkward reading.
These translators, too, have
reached a compromising reading.)

The Byz. Ï reads, “. . . by it
you may grow.” Writes J. A.
Moorman of modern render­
ings from very early MSS: “A
classic salvation by works
alteration which despite its
uncial and versional support
cannot possibly be right.” In­
deed, the NU text reads, “. . .
by it you may grow into salva­
tion.” (Salvation is a one-time
event at a fixed moment!) The
Ï, L (9th), and Byz. uncials
049, 056, and 0142 back the
KJV. NU support is vast and
diverse—but see Moorman
quote—for this doctrinally
wrong source reading. Support­
ing the NU are Ì72, majuscules
‫א‬, A, B, C, K, P, and Ψ, cur­
sives 33 and 81, eight other
specified, diverse cursives, and
all Latin, Syriac, and Coptic.

“As of evildoers,” as in the Ï
and TR, accentuates the signifi­
cance of the righteous believer
being falsely accused. The NU
only notates omission of its
opening clause and morpholog­
ical differences in “to speak
(The NASB includes “with gentle­
27
4
27
(The NA actually reads, “But with against,” and “eis” instead of
ness and reverence”—as in NIV
(Neither the NA nor the UBS
“en” before “Christ.” Majority
note—as
part
of
Verse
15.
Minor­
gentleness and reverence, having a testimony for “as of evildoers”
(“Behavior” inserted by author for addresses the omission of oς
ity witnesses for exclusion of “as good conscience, regarding he who is massive: the Ï; ‫ ;א‬A; C; K;
clarification of antiquated term
kakapoiωn, “as of evildoers.” of evildoers” comprise just Ì72, Ψ, is spoken against, those may be
P; 049; 056; 0142; part of the
“conversation.”)
But the evidential testimony is
some Byz. cursives, the Sahidic,
ashamed who accuse falsely your
Vulgate; three OL; the Peshitta;
available from the NA26. See right.) and possibly others.)
the Coptic Bohairic.
good behavior in Christ.”)

Reads: “. . . and keep a good con­
science so that in the thing in
which you are slandered, those
who revile your good behavior in
Christ will be put to shame.”

KJV

ESV

1 Peter 4:1 — “Forasmuch then as
Christ hath suffered for us in the
flesh, arm yourselves likewise
with the same mind: for he that
hath suffered in the flesh hath
ceased from sin;” . . .

Reads: “Since therefore Christ
suffered in the flesh,1 arm your­
selves with the same way of think­
ing, for whoever has suffered in
the flesh has ceased from sin,” . . .
Footnote: “1 Some manuscripts
(Matthew Henry: “As Christ suffered . add for us; some for you.”
. . do you . . . make your corrupt nature
suffer, by putting to death the body of (Not “some” manuscripts, but the
vast majority of of them.)
sin by . . . mortification; . . .”)

2 Peter 1:21 — “For the prophecy
came not in old time22 by the will
of man: but holy men of God
spake as they were moved by the
Holy Ghost.” Footnote: “22 in old
time; or, at any time.”

ESV: “For no prophecy was ever
produced by the will of man, but
men spoke from God as they
were carried along by the Holy
Spirit.”

NASB

(Although all of the versions
herein read “hell” here, this is a
mistranslation of the Greek for
reader-comprehension purposes.
The actual word is “tartarōsas”—
cast down to Tartarus.)

2 Peter 3:10b — “But the day of
the Lord will come as a thief in
the night; in the which the heav­
ens shall pass away with a great
noise, and the elements shall melt
with fervent heat, the earth also
and the works that are therein
shall be burned up.”
(The KJV translators used “great
noise” and “shall melt with fervent
heat” from the more-refined Textus
Receptus, rather than following the
shorter Majority text. “Terrible
noise” originated from Tyndale.)

PROBLEM

The Byz. text, Í2, A, and five
other significant uncials, plus
the Harclean and Bohairic, read
“for us.” Opposing minority
testimony on behalf of “for
27
(The NA provides no opposing
you” exists only in Greek cur­
evidence for the omission of “for” [or sives 69 (15th), 1505 (11th), a
“on behalf of”] us,” but only for “for
(The Greek ennoian means “intent,” you” rather than “for us.” “Suffered” few Byzantines, a single Vul­
gate MS, and the Syriac Peshitta
“mind,” “thought,” “will,” etc., not is incorrect, as is “whoever suffers”
“purpose.”)
(2nd), according to the NA27.
and “the.”)

Reads: “Therefore, since Christ
has 21 suffered in the flesh, arm
yourselves also with the same pur­
pose, because he who has 22 suffer­
ed in the flesh has ceased from
sin.” Footnotes: “21 I.e. suffered
death. 22 I.e. suffered death.”

Reads: “Therefore, since Christ
suffered in his body, arm yourselves
also with the same attitude, because
whoever suffers in the body is done
with sin.”

NASB: “For no prophecy was ever
made by an act of human will, but
men moved by the Holy Spirit
spoke from God.”

NIV: “For prophecy never had its
origin in the human will, but pro­
phets, though human, spoke from
God as they were carried along by
the Holy Spirit.”

(The NA27 reads thelēmati, “will,”
“resolve,” “purpose,” or “design”
(Word order is wrong in every trans­ (“Produced” is quite a stretch—
lation here. More accurate: “Because and unnecessarily—from “carried” —not “was ever made.” “For no
prophecy ever came by the will of
no man chose to bring prophecy of or “brought forth,” some of the
old, but, by the Holy Spirit, holy
meanings of the Greek ēnechthē, man, but, by the Holy Spirit, holy
men were led to speak by God.”)
men of God spoke” bests all these.)
from the primary verb pherō.)

2 Peter 2:4 — “For if God spared
not the angels that sinned, but cast
[them] down to hell, and delivered
[them] into chains of darkness, to
be reserved unto judgment;” . . .

NIV

(The Majority text has agioi, “holy.”
The NA omits “holy,” and adds apo,

“from.” “Had its origin” is not literal
from the NU; neither are “prophets,”
“human will” and “though human.”)

The vast majority of existing
Greek contain “holy”—includ­
ing codices Í, A, Ψ (800 AD),
and Θ, plus 33, one OL, all
Vulgate, and the Peshitta and
Harclean. NA is supported by
Ì72, B, P (6th), 323 (12th), 614
(13th), 630 (14th), 945 (11th),
1241 (12th), 1505 (11th), 1739
(10th), some Byz. mss, and the
Harclean (7th).

The difference between the
Ï/TR reading and that appear­
ing in partial support of the NA
is that A, B, C, and 81 use the
masculine form, while the Ï/TR
and NA use the feminine. The
(The Greek seirais zophou means (“Into gloomy dungeons” was
best testimony favors the Ï
“chains of darkness”—period. Yet changed to “in chains of dark­
72
ness”—correct. But “sent” should be reading: Ì ; P; Psi; 33; 1739;
some use the Greek reading ap­
Vulgate; Syriac. Some moderns
pearing in the partial source of the “cast,” and “putting,” “delivered.”
write such things as, “. . . In prof.
1881 ERV—Westcott’s & Hort’s— Similar to seirois, at left, Í, and a
(The Greek tartarōsas means
seirois, the masculine form. Sei­ few Byz., read sirois. A, B, C, and 81 writ. is a pit” (Thayer). Vincent
“hell,” or, the lowest part of Hades roς, reflected in the NASB
wrote, “The best texts . . . sub­
read seiroiς [masculine plural].
—not “pits.”)
English, is a pit, den, or cave.)
stitute . . . pits or caverns.” No!
This is an improvement.)

Reads: “For if God did not spare
angels when they sinned, but cast
them into hell 1 and committed
them to chains 2 of gloomy dark­
ness to be kept until the judg­
ment;” . . . Footnote: “1 Greek
Tartarus. 2 Some manuscripts pits.”

Reads: “For if God did not spare
angels when they sinned, but cast
them into hell and committed them
to pits of darkness, reserved for
judgment;” . . .

Reads: “For if God did not spare
angels when they sinned, but sent
them to hell, putting them in
chains of darkness to be held for
judgment;” . . .

The Ï reads, “heavens will pass
away with a great noise, and the
elements, burning with heat, will
be destroyed, and the earth and
the works in it will be burned
up.” The NU text reads “will be
(The
majority!)
discovered. (Uncials Í and B.)
discovered [or ‘exposed’].” The
(The Greek eurethēsetai, meaning Byz. is supported by A, 048, 33,
(The Greek word rhoizedon
(“Burned up and dissolved” is cor­ [rhoyd-zeh-donn] here literally
“will be discovered/found, observed 81, 1505, 11 other specified
rect according to the NU. “Being
or gathered,” here is substituted in
Greek, the Syriac Harc./Pal., the
means “loud noise,” and is used
burned up will be destroyed,” and
the NIV—and other modern ver­
Bohairic, and the Lections
uniquely
in
this
context
in
the
New
“will be completely burned,” are the
sions—for katakaēsetai, meaning (UBS4). Opposing are Í, B, K,
Testament. It also means “with a
Byzantine readings. “Loud noise”
“burned up,” in the KJV, TR, and
P, seven specified Greek, a few
great noise,” “whizzingly [hissing] Byz. NIV 2011 adds “done” after
replaced with “roar,” and “the ele­
Byz. mss, and the Syriac Phil­
with a crash,” or “with roaring
ments will be dissolved with fire”
“everything.” “Laid bare” is even
oxenian (6th). Major Ï victory!
changed. [See support at far right.]) speed.”)
wrong from the NU Greek!)

ESV reads: “. . . the heavens will
pass away with a roar, and the
heavenly bodies will be burned up
and dissolved, and the earth and
the works that are done on it will
be exposed.3” Footnote: “3 Greek
found; some manuscripts will be
burned up.” (Not “some”!)

NASB reads: “. . . in which the
heavens will pass away with a roar
and the elements will be destroyed
with intense heat, and the earth
and its works will be 15 burned up.”
Footnote: “15 Two early MSS read

NIV reads: “. . . The heavens will
disappear with a roar; the ele­
ments will be destroyed by fire,
and the earth and everything done
in it will be laid bare.11” Footnote:
“11 Some manuscripts be burned up.”

KJV
1 John 1:7 — “But if we walk in
the light, as he is in the light, we
have fellowship one with anoth­
er, and the blood of Jesus Christ
his Son cleanseth us from all
sin.”

ESV
Reads: “But if we walk in the
light, as he is in the light, we
have fellowship with one anoth­
er, and the blood of Jesus his Son
cleanses us from all sin.”

(All three of these modern ver­
sions, and others, are without
Criston, “Christ,” following
Ihsoun, “Jesus.” This likely is
the result of ancient scribal malice
deliberately to dis-join the two
terms which completely define
Christ’s identity: Jesus (his name)
—“the Lord saves”—and Christ,
His purpose: Christ and Messiah
[Messias] each meaning “Anointed
(About walking in this “light,”
Henry Alford [nineteenth century] One.” Indications of malice? Ex:
wrote that it is “. . . an identity in omission from ‫א‬, B, C [Alex. in
the essential element of our daily Cath. epistles], Psi [Alex. in Cath.
walk with the essential element of epistles], 1241 [Alex. in Cath.],
God’s being.”)
1739 [Alex. in Cath.].)

NASB

NIV

Reads: “. . . but if we walk in the
Light as He Himself is in the
Light, we have fellowship with
one another, and the blood of
Jesus His Son cleanses us from
all sin.”

Reads: “But if we walk in the
light, as he is in the light, we
have fellowship with one anoth­
er, and the blood of Jesus, his
Son, purifies us from all6 sin.”
Footnote: “6 Or every.”

PROBLEM

This is another of many ex­
amples of lower Christology
among the modern versions:
“Christ” is separated from “Je­
sus—possibly stemming from
early Gnosticism. Note how the
NASB committee completely
misinterpreted the meaning of
“walk in the light,” which—in
this context—is entirely re­
(The minority text actually has
greater overall support [but not in moved from some type of phy­
sical illumination in God’s
the Greek], including the follow­ presence. The NASB commit­
ing versions: the Syriac Peshitta
tee also misinterpreted “light”
[2nd]; the Sahidic [3rd or 4th—nor­ (God’s essence) as evidently
being a literal manifestation of
thern Egyptian]. Also: P [024/
“phōs”: luminescence. They
th
th
Byz./6 ]; 323 [Caes./mixed /12 ]; also capitalized Light, as if to
630 [mixed/14th]; 945 [Byz./ 11th]; further indicate that it might
1505 [mixed (Alex./Byz.)/12th]; pc represent the Holy Spirit, or
some manifestation thereof, or
[few Byz. differing slightly from some other “divine entity.”
the Majority]. [See ESV notes for (Again, Gnosticism?) The Ï is
supported by A, 33, three OL,
further Alexandrian support.])
the Peshitta, and the Bohairic.
(A and 33 are partially Byz.)

(Understanding “light” properly in
this context requires beyond super­
ficial word study, but the answer is
found in a good lexicon: “phōs”
(SRN 5457)—“(III) Figuratively,
moral and spiritual light and
knowledge which enlightens the
mind, soul or conscience. . . .” p.
2176, Strong’s Complete Word
Study Concordance)

(No footnote appears for the Ma­
jority reading. Again, the NASB
withholds information that its tran­
slators evidently think may con­
fuse the reader, concerning eviden­
tial weight—older manuscripts
versus number of manuscripts.
That is, the translators hold back
information because they are sold
on the “earliest manuscripts” ra­
ther than the overwhelming major­
ity that oppose. Also, “Himself”
does not appear in either Greek
source. [See evidential testimony
about “Christ” in NIV and “Prob­
lems.”])

1 John 2:20 — “But ye have an ESV: “But you have been anoin­
unction from the Holy One, and ted by the Holy One, and you all
have knowledge.4 ” Footnote:
ye know all things.”
“4 Some manuscripts you know
(As in both the Majority text and everything.” (Vast majority!)
the Textus Receptus [Stephens
(The UBS4/NA27 read oidate pan­
1550, etc.], translators have added tes , “you know all,” but the ESV
the English word “things” to
reverse interlinear mistranslates
clarify meaning, but the word
as, “You all have knowledge.”
obviously is not required for a
[Context is critical here.] The ESV
reverse interlinear committee mis­
complete understanding of the
understood the phrase, and/or they
verse.)
thought contemporary readers
would not comprehend. It took
(About “you know all” Matthew
more than 100 translators to get
Poole [1685] wrote, “all these
this wrong! [The translators appear
things concerning Christ and his
to have concluded their argument
religion. . . .” —Matthew Henry’s based largely on ‫א‬, B, and Egypt­
ian bishop Hesychius, who they
Whole Bible Commentary
[MHWBC] [See JFB agreement at allege was the architect of the Al­
exandrian text ca. 300. He gen­
far right.])
erally is credited as co-reviser of
the Septuagint and New Test.])

NASB: “But you have an anoint­ NIV: “But you have an anointing
ing from the Holy One, and you from the Holy One, and all of
all know.”
you know the truth.18 ” Footnote:
“18 Some manuscripts and you
(The NASB translators showed
know all things.”
sound judgment and wisdom in
this case, not altering “unction,” or (The translators deviated from the
NU Greek, which reads kai oidate
“anointing”—from the Greek
pantes, “and you all know.” In a re­
chris´-ma, meaning precisely
anointing or unction: Strong’s Ref­ cent Zondervan interlinear, they
simply ╗added the English “the
erence Number [“SRN”] 5545.
The NASB has no footnote. “You truth” into both the interlinear and
the NIV English column. In the
all know” what? [See far right.]
Despite the NU using pantes, the preface, Greek scholar and teacher
nominative masculine form, they Bill Mounce writes, “May our
work help all of you using this new
appear to have reached a hybrid
interlinear to understand the
translation between the Greek of
wonderful truths of God’s Word,
the Ï text and that of their own.
every word proceeding from God’s
The Byz. panta is in the accusative mouth. . . . ” Modifying Scripture,
neuter.)
then proclaiming verbal inerrancy,
is wretched duplicity!)

Some variation of “you all
know” may sound more cor­
rect, but it is the result of either
an inadvertent scribal error or a
deliberate alteration. Only ‫א‬,
B, P, Psi, a few Byz., and Hesy­
chius support this reading
(NA27)! The meaning of the
verse is that, as specified in the
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible
Commentary (Vol. 3, p. 635/
1871), John’s readers knew all
things “needful for acting
against antichrist’s seductions,
and for Christian life.” Again,
the NIV’s “some” is wholly
deceptive: Most, or vast major­
ity, would be correct. (Even mo­
dernistic text critic S. P. Tre­
gelles followed the Byz./TR
reading in his 1857-1879 edi­
tions!)

KJV
1 John 4:3 — “And every spirit
that confesseth not that Jesus
Christ is come in the flesh is not
of God: and this is that [spirit] of
antichrist, whereof ye have heard
that it should come; and even
now already is it in the world.”

ESV
Reads: “. . . and every spirit that
does not confess Jesus is not from
God. This is the spirit of the anti­
christ, which you heard was com­
ing and now is in the world al­
ready.” (Word removal/order change.)

(The essence of this passage is not
only to warn against those proph­
ets who do not acknowledge Christ
(“Spirit” appearing before “of
as the Son of God, but also to warn
antichrist” was added by the KJV against such persons and doctrines
translators—as well as those of the which do not recognize Him as
NIV—for comprehension purpos­ God in the flesh! This is the spirit
es. However, its usage here clearly of antichrist spoken of here, as
well—not just that Christ was not
is unnecessary for reader under­
God. From the first century, Do­
standing.)
cetists held that Christ came as a
“phantom” form who was replaced
by a separate, fleshy “man” on the
cross.)

NASB

NIV

PROBLEM

The Ï reading supports “. . .
Jesus Christ as having come in
the flesh.” Modern versions
hinge largely on A, B, 33, and
81. But supporting these also
are Psi (9th), five mixed cursives
(minuscules), and a few Byzan­
tines. At least one modern
(“Christ” [Criston] is omitted
(Note that v. 2, immediately
by the NU, as is “is [has] come in proceeding, reads, in the Ï, “By interlinear shows inclusion of
“having come in the flesh,” in
the flesh.” Tischendorf [1872]— this the Spirit of God is known:
the English below the Greek,
who idolized Aleph Sinaiticus [‫ ]א‬Every spirit that confesses Jesus
yet the translators omit them in
—and Westcott and Hort [1870]
Christ as having come in the flesh the accompanying text. Support­
ing the vast majority of Greek
omit both, as well. [Westcott and is of God . . .” According to the
Hort idolized Vaticanus B, as well practice of many ancient scribes, in reading “Christ” are K, L,
049, 056, 0142, and 0245, plus
as did influential critic Johann
“as having come in the flesh” may the Syp,h. As for “having come
Jakob Griesbach.] Tregelles’
have been removed deliberately
in the flesh,” the Ï, ‫א‬, Ψ, 33,
Greek edition also omitted both
from the exemplar [copying
and all Syriac support. Oppos­
Christon and en sarki elēluthota
source] with the thought that this ing are A, B, seven specified
[el-ay-loo-thah-tuh], “has come in clause accidentally was inserted
Greek, a few Byz. mss, all the
the flesh.”)
into v. 3 by an earlier hand.)
Vulgate (vg), and all the Coptic.

Reads: “. . . and every spirit that
does not confess Jesus is not from
God; this is the [spirit] of the anti­
christ, of which you have heard
that it is coming, and now it is
already in the world.”

Reads: “. . . but every spirit that
does not acknowledge Jesus is not
from God. This is the spirit of the
antichrist, which you have heard
is coming and even now is
already in the world.”

ESV: “. . . for the great day of
Revelation 6:17 — “For the
their wrath has come,” and who
great day of his wrath is come;
and who shall be able to stand?” can stand?” (Was “who is able to.”)
(This scribal error is so obvious,
that one would expect the correct
reading to take precedence. Whose
wrath is coming? Obviously
God’s, which will punish the wick­
ed. The unrighteous are terrified,
not wrathful. Yet modernists use
the masculine plural autōn [NU]
to read “their” rather than the
masculine singular autou [Ï],
“his” [God’s]. And why no foot­
note for the Majority reading?
Probably another example of Ï
disdain.)

NASB: “. . . for the great day of NIV: “For the great day of their 36
their wrath has come, and who is wrath has come, and who can
withstand it?” Footnote: “36 Some
able to stand?”
manuscripts his.” (Vast majority!)
(The NA27 fails to mention vital
(Related to the note at immediate

Revelation 22:14 — “Blessed
are they that do his command­
ments, that they may have right
to the tree of life, and may enter
in through the gates into the
city.”

NASB reads: “Blessed are those
who wash their robes, so that they
may have the right to the tree of
life, and may enter by the gates
into the city.”

details about particular Revelation
MS evidence. But in two books J.
A. Moorman addresses this ma­
terial. In When the KJV Departs
from the Majority Text, he meti­
culously describes the source for
the Ï/TR Revelation: H. C. Hos­
kier’s masterful collation of nearly
200 MSS. This work is based upon
Greek MS groups 046 [Alex.] and
the Andreas [Byz.], each compris­
ing about 80 mss—Ï support.)

left, for the NASB, very little Greek
manuscript evidence is extant. For
example, unfortunately, Erasmus—
who used only about nine select
MSS for his 1516 Greek NT transla­
tion—had few Revelation Greek
MSS available to him. Hence, for
most of the book, he was forced to
translate available Latin Vulgate into
Koine Greek. “Stand” has been
changed to “withstand it,” following
the modern tide of Bibles: NCV;
CEV; The Message.)

The Ï text (at least 85%),
joined by A, P, 046, more,
under gird the KJV. The Greek
word “autos” (ow-tos´), is a
personal pronoun used for both
the first- (my) and third-person
(his/their) cases, but note the
previous verse, 6:16, which
refers to “the wrath of the
Lamb” immediately before v.
17 begins. Conclusive. None of
the five minuscules opposing
the Ï reading—all Alex.—is
older than the tenth century.
(Greek-witness diversity is
poor: only Alex.)

The Ï reads “.they that do his
commandments.” A and ‫א‬
oppose (B truncated after Heb.
9:13), as do five Alex. cursives
and a few Byz., plus the Sahi­
dic. Supporting the Byz. text are
(Not
only
is
this
reading
out­
(Probably a reference back to Rev. weighed and outnumbered, but it is groups 046 and the Andreas, all
7:9 wrongfully repeated here.
the Syriac, and the Bohairic.
incomplete. Wash their robes in
(The robes of glorified believers are Most likely scribal error. No foot­ what? The Lamb’s blood? If so,
(See 046 and Andreas groups,
washed, but not by their merit!)
note for the Majority reading!)
why would this not appear here?) within NASB, above.)

ESV reads: “Blessed are those
who wash their robes, 5 so that
they may have the right to the tree
of life and that they may enter the
city by the gates.” Footnote:
“5 Some manuscripts do his com­
mandments.” (Most mss!)

NIV reads: “Blessed are those
who wash their robes, that they
may have the right to the tree of
life and may go through the gates
into the city.”

KJV
Although imperfect, like every
other existing NT version (other
than originals), the KJV translation
is based upon refinements of the
Majority text tradition (Textus Re­
ceptus) executed by matchless,
spiritually regenerate, orthodox
scholars of the 16th and 17th centur­
ies. The lineage of the KJV repres­
ents an overwhelming majority of
nearly identical Greek manuscripts
outnumbering the modern text
base by an 8-to-1 to 9-to-1 ratio.
The Byzantine lineage dates back
to the fourth century, if not earlier,
even according to nineteenth cent­
ury modernist F. J. A. Hort, hence
having a pure heritage extending
back more than 1,600 years.
The KJV was based on the content
of several earlier Reformation
Bibles, including Tyndale’s,
Coverdale’s, the Matthew’s (John
Rodgers), Taverner’s, the Great
Bible, the Bishops, and the Gen­
eva. Additionally, Theodore Beza’s
1598 TR was another source, plus
some of Erasmus’ mss (late cur­
sives).

ESV
Promoted as an “essentially literal”
(“Literal Translation”) translation
known for its gaining acceptance
worldwide among a variety of Prot­
estant denominations, the ESV
New Testament represents a mod­
ern extension of the ERV of 1881,
and a slight revision of the 1971
RSV (9% wording change [p. 13]
—2005), thus based on a markedly
different Koine Greek source text.
This critical text originally was
assembled through the singular but
similar efforts of naturalistic, un­
orthodox scholars of the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries (critical
texts of Westcott, Hort, Bernhard
Weiss [3rd Edition, 1901] and Tis­
chendorf [8th, 1872]). The source
texts of the ESV New Testament
are the NA27 and UBS4 Greek.
( NA28 since has been released
[2012].)

The preface in the 2011 ESV con­
tains typical modernistic conces­
sions and deceptions, as well as a
reference to the use of the Dead
Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the
Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac
Peshitta, the Latin Vulgate, “and
other sources” to help in translating
“difficult” NT passages. The edit­
ors outrightly lie to the reader by
claiming that “The English Stand­
ard Version (ESV) stands in the
The entire translation process for classic mainstream of English
the Authorized Version spanned
Bible translations over the past
seven years, from 1604 (some
half-millennium,” comparing the
work) to the final editing work in ESV to Tyndale’s 1526 NT and the
1610. Official work by the appoin­ KJV (1611)! Ultimately, the ESV is
a modification of the 1881 ERV—
ted translation body began in
contained 5,600 Greek
1607. The final initial version was which
changes from the KJV Greek! Two
presented to James I in early 1611. key footnotes have been removed
Note that no copyright ever has
from the immediately previous
been established for the KJV—
ESV. In addition, “some manu­
something uncharacteristic of
scripts” 33 times is used when
“many” or “most” is correct!
every modern Bible version!

NASB
Long regarded as one of the “most
accurate” and literal modern trans­
lations, the NASB, upon closer
examination, proves otherwise:
based upon the NU critical text;
often “stylized” against its Greek
source text and even defying it.
This version also takes liberties in
word and phrase order, based on its
own source Greek, and it often fails
to footnote significant variant
readings, such as those of the Ma­
jority text. It frequently has been
mistranslated from its own Greek
source, and it represents an “up­
dated” version of the 1901 ASV—
the ASV being an “Americanized”
version of the oft-corrupt 1881
ERV New Testament. Furthermore,
the translators often use “early
mss” adroitly to offset convincing
Byz. and other evidence.

NIV

The most classic, deceptive literaldynamic equivalence version avail­
able, the NIV is a subtly comprom­
ising bridge between devotion to its
own vacillating, corrupt Greek
source text and its commitment to a
stylized, modernistic concession to
a wanton worldly readership. It
softens the Bible’s critical warnings
and harsh realities, alters biblical
doctrine, and aggregately constit­
utes a vitiated Gospel of positivism
eagerly embraced by both believers
and unbelievers. It is a version esp­
ecially designed for and appealing
to those having “itching ears” (2
Timothy 4:3). Because of these
qualities, the NIV has outsold every
other Bible version since 1986—
with the KJV second. (Marketing
and “stylization” = +sales.) In
addition, with the 2011 NIV, nine
footnotes have been removed, and
the translators often use “some
First released in 1966 by the
Lockman Foundation, supposedly a mss” rather than “many mss” to
offset much Byz. & other opposing
“nonprofit, interdenominational
testimony.
ministry dedicated to the transla­
tion, publication and distribution of
the New American Standard Bible, The original NIV Bible was first
published in 1978 by the Interna­
the Amplified Bible . . . ,” the
NASB also underwent a significant tional Bible Society, then in 1984.
Currently, Zondervan—a leader in
update in 1995. According to the
Lockman Foundation website, “In contemporary, modernistic Bible
translation—uses Bible “databases”
1995 the NASB was updated, in­
owned by the International Bible
creasing clarity and readability.
Vocabulary, grammar, and sentence Society (IBS). The NIV’s modern­
structure were carefully reviewed istic associations are examples of
the complexity and profit that have
for greater understanding and
infiltrated the Bible-publishing bus­
smoother reading. . . .” (Author’s
iness: For more than 200 years the
underlining.) It is certain that the
IBS had been “sharing God’s Word
changes, being modernistic, have
further degraded God’s Word. Just around the world.” But in 2007, the
look at the revealing quote. Among IBS adjoined the STL (Send The
the modern translations addressed Light) to become Biblica. Space is
prohibitive to fully describe how
herein, this one underwent the
commercialized the Zondervanfewest update changes—but most
NIV relationship has become.
are significant.

PROBLEM
Since the first century, heretics
have attacked God’s Word,
modifying it, adding to it and
subtracting from it. Successive
infidels established the Roman
Catholic Church based on noncanonical doctrine, human
constructs and self-serving ma­
nipulation of Scripture. One
result was a minority of older
manuscripts evolving into a
corrupt, false “Bible” based on
a “critically edited” NT Greek
text forced upon the public by
naturalistic scholars and ling­
uistic “stylists.” Bible societies
have become a collective corp­
orate, rich CEO.
Note that, according to the
“Biblica” web site, now repres­
enting the merged IBS and
“Send the Light” organizations,
more than 100 scholars repres­
enting 20 denominations trans­
lated the NIV “Bible.” The
same source states that for 30
years the Committee on Bible
Translation (CBT) “has labored
to bring the Word of God to
people in contemporary Eng­
lish.” (That is, pedantic, sim­
plistic, diluted and
mistranslated.)
Now nearly every modern
translation states it is based on
the “most ancient and best ma­
nuscripts,” and “according to
accepted principles of New
Testament textual criticism.”
These modernistic methods yet
have an opponent in the spirit­
ual form of textual criticism:
one well-supported since the
sixteenth century!

The critical editions (texts)
The modern “critical text” is a liberal, modernistic, scholar-edited apparatus based largely on the ancient uncial (all-capital letters) codices (facing pages, bound on one
edge) Aleph (Sinaiticus) and B (Vaticanus), circa 325-360 AD. (Most scholars estimate that Vaticanus is a few years older.) Numerous scholars of naturalistic “textual
criticism” (the science of applying modern analytical theories to ancient documents—in effect without due consideration for the Bible as
expressly God-inspired), particularly during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, produced their own “edited” versions based
substantially on these two early manuscripts—some of the most-famous biblical text critics being J. S. Semler (1725-1791), Johann Jakob
Griesbach (1745-1812), Samuel P. Tregelles (1813-1875), (Lobegott) Friedrich Constantine von Tischendorf (1815-1874), Brooke Foss
Westcott (1825-1901), and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892). The current critical apparatuses used as the basis for nearly every
modern Bible translation/version are the Nestle-Aland (NA) and that of the United Bible Societies (UBS). These two alternative,
modernistically and naturalistically “edited” texts purportedly are different from each other in about 400 places, but almost entirely
inconsequentially. Mostly, they differ in punctuation, grammar, use of personal pronouns and word order, according to the consensus of
contemporary text critics. Note that the “NA” now is in its twenty-eighth edition (late 2012). Both of these apparatuses very closely parallel
the Westcott-Hort NT edition first secretly disclosed in 1870, during the beginning stages of the English Revised Version’s translation
process: “Nearly every Bible written in English since 1881 has used as its basic New Testament text the Westcott-Hort edition (Origen
Adamantius’ [185-254] privately ‘edited’ N.T.).”1 (The W-H edition was based largely on Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Tischendorf’s eighth
edition. Tischendorf’s last edition [1869-1872] differed from his seventh version, of “mature conclusions,” in 3,572 places—mostly because
B. F. Westcott
of the contrasting readings in Codex Aleph, versus Vaticanus.)2
Richard Simon (1638-1712), a Roman Catholic priest of the seventeenth century, is generally credited as being the “forerunner of modern biblical criticism”—
utilizing analytical methods previously and typically applied to classical works of Greek literature. 3 (Karl Lachmann [1793-1851] highly popularized this methodology in
1831 with the release of his first “critical edition” of the “Bible.” “. . . Lachmann was not a theologian but had distinguished himself by critical editions of Latin and
German classics.”)4 The textual-criticism movement—which often is applied “naturalistically” with effectively little genuine regard for the Bible as being a God-breathed
work (Gk. theopneustos)—largely was less-pronounced in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, but gained momentum in the latter 1700s. J. S. Semler (1725-1791)—
often regarded as the “father of German rationalism”—was a chief proponent of this methodology in the late 1700s and early 1800s, followed by his prodigy, Griesbach. 5
Griesbach, like several of his theological predecessors, produced his own “critical edition,” followed by the likes of such nineteenth century philological (pertaining to the
study of language in written historical sources) analytical masters as Tischendorf, Tregelles and, of course, the classic duo of Westcott and Hort. Based on their own critical
text which was 14 years in the making (1857-1870), Westcott and Hort masterminded the development of the English Revised Version (ERV or “RV”)—the NT introduced
in 1881 and the entire Bible in 1885. 5 The ERV marked a deliberate, concerted motion intended to undermine—in fact, replace—the King James Version, but the efforts, of
course, were not ultimately and definitively successful.6 (Although the ERV and its American counterpart, the American Standard Version [ASV], never gained large-scale
acceptance, the modern versions are varying iterations of them, nevertheless.)
Tischendorf’s wild textual-criticism escapade after his seventh edition was based on his initial discovery of 129 or 130 (his accounts varying)—43 of which he was
allowed to borrow—leaves of the Codex Sinaiticus in a waste heap in St. Catherine’s Monastery, at the foot of Mt. Sinai, in 1844. 7 (These 43 Old Testament leaves from
the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) now are collectively referred to as Codex Friderico-Augustanus.) 8 He later acquired the bulk of the manuscript (303½ leaves—1,214
pages) during his third visit in 1859—never returning the manuscript on loan from the monks of the monastery/convent .9 All of this, including Tischendorf’s textualcriticism lunacy following his Aleph find, is well-documented. (Tischendorf was exceptionally proud of his discovery and detested the monks who accommodated him:
“Oh, these monks!” he wrote. “If I had the military strength and power, I should be doing a good deed if I threw this rabble over the walls.” 10)

Codex Aleph

As for Codex Vaticanus B (03) Gk. 1209, its known history is meager, with only its approximate date of origin (c. 325-350 AD), its “texttype” (Alexandrian) and its fifteenth-century discovery, to present, being known. The Vaticanus came into the possession of the Vatican in 1444
—hence its name—and the Vatican Library’s first registry entry was for Codex B, the entry dated 1475. 11 Now naturalistic text critics boast
interminably about the pristine condition—actually a detriment to manuscript character by indicating a lack of scribal use—of their ancient
treasures of alleged superior integrity. Just simply contemplate the futile concept of essentially a mere two documents being leveraged to
outweigh the vast majority of 5,773 Koine NT Greek manuscripts—the total “text-type” evidence being between 85-15 percent and 95-5
percent in favor of the Byzantine text. Nevertheless, most modern “Bible” versions’ New Testaments are based on the Koine Greek of only the
following: 1) Vaticanus B (90%); 2) Sinaiticus Aleph (7%); 3) Alexandrinus A (approx. 2.5%); 4) codices Bezae (D), L, M, and a few others
(one-half of one percent among them all).12

But the disproportionate manuscript numbers represent just one component of this multifaceted issue, some others being doctrinal errors, scribal blunders, text-type
considerations and nonsensical readings, scriptoral region of origin, area schools of thought, and more. The fact is, naturalistic text critics supporting this paucity of ancient
manuscript evidence still have no actual proof to back their suspicious critical claims, many of them based adroitly on phantom theories such as those generated by
Westcott and Hort—including the “Antiochian rescension” (or “Lucianic rescension”) the latter standing on absolutely no documented proof. (The Antiochian rescension
is the W-H premise theorizing that the Majority [Byzantine, Traditional, Antiochian, Constantinopolitan, Ecclesiastical] text is a fabricated, mixed text most probably made
by Lucian [d. 312] in Antioch during the third or fourth centuries, combining the Alexandrian/Western texts. But, again, this theory is entirely unsubstantiated.)13

Author’s sources
Information about verse attestation in this document mostly is derived from Novem Testamentum Graece, the Nestle-Aland 27th Revised Edition (Stuttgart, Germany:
The German Bible Society, 1993 [9 th corrected printing, 2006]), by Barbara and Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger, and The
Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition (The United Bible Societies, U.S.A.: Stuttgart, Germany [5 th printing, 2001]), by Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M.
Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren. Some witness testimony is taken from Earthly Manuscripts, Church Fathers, and the Authorized Version (Collingswood,
N.J.: The Bible for Today Press, 2005), pp. 124-311, by J. A. Moorman. Comparison verses cited from the KJV are taken from The Contemporary Parallel New Testament
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), pp. 30-1785, by John R. Kohlenberger III, ed., and “The Word” Bible software (Greece: Costas
Stergiou, 2003-2012), by Costas Stergiou. HCSB Bible text also was taken from “The Word” Bible software. Verse material cited from the
Majority text was used from The Majority Text Greek New Testament Interlinear (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2007), by Zane C.
Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad, eds., and The Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament of the Holy Bible, Second Edition
(Bloomington, Ind.: AuthorHouse, 2005), by Gary F. Zeolla. (The Majority text in this latter title was derived from The New Testament in the
Original Greek According to the Byzantine Majority Textform [Atlanta: Original Word Publications, 1991], by Maurice A. Robinson and
William G. Pierpont, 1991.) Other Byzantine text (Greek) was taken from Robinson’s and Pierpont’s 2000 edition, from “The Word” Bible
software. Scripture portions cited from the Textus Receptus were taken from The Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible, Vol. 4 (Lafayette,
Ind.: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1985), by Jay P. Green, Sr., from the 1550 version of the Robert Stephens (Estienne/Stephanus—15031559) TR, Copyright © 1976 by the Trinitarian Bible Society, London, England. In addition, Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible,
Vol. 3 (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1982), was used to look up parallel verses among the gospels. Other factual information has
been gleaned from numerous scholarly and authoritative resources, and some, such as the number of existing Greek NT manuscripts (5,700plus), is common knowledge in the biblical textual-criticism realm.

KJV (“Authorized Version”) content
More than 80 percent of the wording of the King James Version (1611) New Testament is derived from William Tyndale’s (1494-1536) famous 1526 Tyndale Bible
(NT only), the earliest of several versions among the proto-KJV legacy.14 Other Bibles of this tradition are Myles Coverdale’s (1488-1569) 1535 Bible (first complete Bible
printed in Modern English), the 1537 Matthew’s Bible (John Rodgers—1500-1555), the Great Bible of 1539, the renowned Geneva Bible (Pilgrims on the Mayflower) of
1560 (NT first published in 1557, with William Whittingham’s (ca. 1524-1579) verse numbers—a first in the English New Testament), and the Bishops’ Bible of 1568. 15
(The first-recorded NT version of the Bible to include verse numbering is Robert Stephens’ 1551 Greek NT, its 1550 predecessor called the Royal Edition (“editio regia”),
this being the Greek underlying most Textus Receptus-based New Testaments existing today. 16 Theodore Beza’s (1519-1605) 1598 NT version is the only other “TR”
popularly used today.
Interlinear Bibles
The Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible, Vol. 4 (New Testament only) is the culmination of exhaustive research and translation work
by a single individual, Jay P. Green, Sr. (1918-2008). More than 350,000 of its copies having been sold, the complete OT-NT interlinear (four
volumes or one large single volume) provides something invaluable to all interested in the Greek NT: the venerated 1550 Greek New
Testament of Robert Estienne (Stephanus), accompanied by an English translation (below) and Strong’s Reference Numbers (SRN—above) for
nearly every Greek word. Flanking the long, central Greek-English column are, at left, Green’s own Literal Translation of the Bible, and to the
right, the King James Version translation (1769 version, including replacement of highly antiquated terms). Stephanus (Stephens) was one of
the most-learned biblical scholars of the sixteenth century, and a French printer. He produced four Greek editions of the NT, based on Erasmus’
work—in 1546, 1549, 1550 and 1551. Stephens’ 1550 Greek New Testament followed Erasmus’ 1527 and 1535 editions, and added marginal
readings from the Complutensian Polyglot (completed in 1514/1517 and printed in 1522). 17 The Old Testament of the §“IHGEB” also is
translated into English, from the Hebrew Masoretic Text (Aleppo Codex/tenth century), and includes the accompanying Strong’s Reference
Numbers (SRN). No other interlinear Bible contains a truly unadulterated version of the NT “Textus Receptus,” and the truly pure OT
Masoretic Text—the latter founded upon the Aleppo Codex and its familial group of manuscripts. (This writer has no relationship with the
Complutensian Polyglot
publisher—except as a patron.)

All other existing interlinears are based on “critical editions” (essentially Aleph and B), compare the KJV text to that of a modern “Bible,” or have been found to have
some corruptions—e.g., G. R. Berry’s (1897) and Thomas Newberry’s (1877). Furthermore, Alfred Marshall’s popular NT interlinear (1958), for example, is based on
Eberhard Nestle’s (1851-1913) Novum Testamentum Graece—the Nestle-Aland apparatus—and compares this corrupt minority Greek to the NIV. The same is true of
William D. and Robert H. Mounce’s The Zondervan Greek and English Interlinear New Testament (NASB/NIV). Beware of the new breed of interlinears which have been
produced during the past few decades: Nearly all are based mostly on the ancient Aleph and B manuscripts, via the NU text.
By way of such a “comparison” purchase, the author has learned (from the preface) that—to his surprise—evidently many modern Bible scholars are largely ignorant not
only of the intricacies of the Majority text, TR and NU critical editions, but also have little or no knowledge of the study of textual criticism. For much of the past century,
seminaries and Bible colleges almost exclusively have been presenting students with a single Greek source text: the “NU.” It seems that many of the professors,
themselves, have not been aware of the chicanery that has been foisted upon them. They simply have been accepting the outrageously flawed conclusions of their
predecessors, and their teachings and conclusions, then passing them on to their students! Conversely, here is an excerpt from the
It seems that many of
“Preface to the Third Edition” of the Interlinear Greek-English New Testament (Vol. 4 of 4 of this complete interlinear Bible): “So it
may be clearly seen that our aim is exact correspondence between the English word and the original word, as far as God will bless us
the professors,
with the right choice. This is in contrast with those who claim they have the license to discern the thoughts of the original writers and
then to make up their own expressions of what they would have written if they were alive today.”18 (Emphasis mine.) The second
themselves, have not
sentence from this excerpt is a quite accurate description of the current trend in Bible translation: “dynamic equivalence,” or
“functional equivalence,” which is a “thought-for-thought” translation methodology based on Eugene Nida’s new-age communication
been aware of the
model (“SMR”—Source [encoded]-Message-[decoded] Receptor). Read the preface of virtually any modern “Bible” version and
chicanery that has
you’ll glean significant understanding of how these large interdenominational, ecumenical translation committees operate. Said
operational models in the prefaces of these “new-age” “Bibles” describe how interdenominational translation committees, with an
been foisted upon
excessive emphasis on unification among worldwide Christendom, work to eliminate discord (with the price of compromising the bold
truth of God’s Word), “bridge cultural gaps,” and provide “Bible” versions “in today’s language”—ones that sacrifice scriptural fidelity
them.
for alleged “easier reading.”

Common biblical vernacular
“Koine” (coin-ā´) means common. The vast majority of the New Testament was written in a style of Greek (“common Greek”—Koine) used by the general, common
folk. “Classical Greek” was the linguistic form of the learned, thus was not chosen by God to be used in communicating with the “common man.” The physician and
historian Luke, however, for whatever reason, wrote his Gospel to the Gentiles (“Hellane”—Greek for Gentile or Greek-speaking person) in Classical Greek. God knows.)

The ending of Mark’s Gospel
Omission of “the last twelve verses of the Gospel according to Mark,” vv. 9-20 of Chapter 16, is significant because, other than the plain
fact that this passage is attested to by the vast majority of extant NT Greek manuscripts (all but two uncials), without it, the Book of Mark
ends with the apostles being “afraid.”19 But, equally important, leaving out this passage also would have excluded the “Great Commission”
from the Book of Mark (v. 15): “And he said unto them, ‘Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature” (KJV). Subsequent
verses in the passage are critical, as well, discussing the significance of salvation and baptism, spiritual works, and God’s protection for
believers. The final verse vitally galvanizes this key passage with affirmative apostolic action: “And they went forth, and preached every
where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.” Most naturalistic text critics of both yesteryear
and today insisted and continue to plead that the passage should be excised from God’s Word on two grounds: 1) It is not attested to by their
beloved Codices B (primarily) and Aleph (secondarily); 2) they don’t think it “fits the sense” in the location of the book—that it is “out of
place”(a later interpolation). Conversely, the spiritually based text critics of past and present argue for its appropriateness in textual proximity,
its consistency with surrounding text, its majority reading, and its importance to the Scriptures. Imagine the Bible with only one gospel
reference, in another Synoptic, to the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19). (A fascinating side note is that Codex Vaticanus, upon which the
vast majority of the modern critical texts depend, contains an entirely blank column after Mark 16:8—a vacancy precisely matching the space
required for the “longer ending” of Mark. Furthermore, in this same space in Sinaiticus, the handwriting, ink, letter size, and spacing are
different in an obvious attempt to fill the space.20 “These circumstances testify that the sheet is a forgery.”21)

Edward F. Hills

Fortunately, thanks to among the most erudite biblical, theological, and linguistic scholars of the past 200 years, such knowledgeable, studious, resourceful, wise, and
conservative orthodox Christian figures of the faith as John William Burgon, Edward Miller, F. H. A. Scrivener, Herman Charles Hoskier (d. 1938), and Edward F. Hills
(pictured on previous page—d. 1981), most of the nineteenth century, peoples of today and tomorrow still have and will have access to the expositional evidence
overwhelmingly supporting the case for God’s true Word: His words “breathed out” through His appointed human vessels—whose canonical writings evolved into the
Majority text, their subsequent refinement in the Textus Receptus, and, ultimately, into the production of the KJV. (Unless God has a plan for a superior English translation,
which seems unlikely given the KJV was produced at the pinnacle of the language’s development.)

Verbal inspiration of KJV?
Many, many KJV advocates among both the ordained and laity—the “KJV-only” community—have emphatically maintained that the AV is divinely inspired
(plenarily). However, the truth is, the 54 (at onset—seven having died or resigned during the process) original members of the translation committee aggregately never
claimed that their work was divinely inspired, verbally. Essentially, these scholars, among the very finest of their time and of all time (but imperfect), believed that the time
was ripe—as did both the agreeable king (James I of England) and those clergy petitioning for a new translation—for a new version of God’s Word. Belief in the divine
inspiration of the KJV translators, and their work, in the original plenary sense, is wrongful! Only the original, plenarily inspired human instruments of God’s Word—the
respective biblical books’ writers—and their original output, actually were verbally (“plenarily”) inspired by God. 22 Moreover, many orthodox theological scholars through
the centuries have firmly held that the original biblical “autographs” not only were verbally “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16-17) but, subsequently, that the precise content
of the autographs has been providentially preserved, as well. “What value has inspiration without preservation?” (David W. Cloud, in his book Faith Vs. the Modern Bible
Versions, cites several Bible verses that very easily can be interpreted as proof of God’s preservation of the original manuscripts’ words—Psalm 12:6, 7; Psalm 119:89;
Proverbs 30:5, 6; Isaiah 40:8; Isaiah 55:11; Matthew 5:18; Matthew 24:35.)

The KJV foundation
However, such KJV opponents as learned modernistic scholars Daniel B. Wallace and Bruce M. Metzger (d. 2007) discredit or have discredited the AV on the basis of
Desiderius Erasmus’ (1466-1536) TR foundation, his first edition, in 1516. One problem with Wallace’s argument is that Erasmus’ 1516 edition—again, the very first
printed Greek edition—was not at all the direct basis for the 1611 KJV. (And Erasmus used nine Greek [total in all of his editions]—five from Basel [Switzerland] and four
from England—for his 1527 and 1535 editions, not four or five, as Wallace craftily has intimated. [Four or five may have been used for
Erasmus’ first edition.] A friend of Erasmus, Paulus Bombasius, researched Codex Vaticanus 23, and, based on Erasmus’ examination of
One problem
365 passages from Codex B provided by correspondent Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda, he excluded the manuscript from translation
consideration because of its Alexandrian [Egyptian] characteristics.)24 The original AV bases were the following: 1) William Tyndale’s
with Wallace’s
1526/1534 Bibles; 2) the Bishop’s Bible (1568—no more than eight percent in KJV); 3) Theodore Beza’s 1598 TR edition; 4) the
Coverdale Bible (1535); the Matthew’s Bible (1538); 5) the Great Bible (1539); 6) the Geneva Bible (1560); 7) a few of the Greek MSS
argument is that
used by Erasmus.25 (Erasmus, a Reformation humanist—one dedicated to learning and enlightenment, not to human merit before God—
who believed in large-scale Roman Catholic renovation from within the system rather than the necessary wholesale change that Martin
Erasmus’ 1516
Luther stipulated, produced two other Greek versions, in 1519 and 1522. His fourth and last, in 1535, he produced the year before his
death.)26

edition—again,

the very first
printed Greek
edition—was
not at all the
direct basis for
the 1611 KJV.”

In a 1987 television commercial promoting The Book, a condensed version of The Living Bible, Billy Graham said that The Book “reads
like a novel”—an intended compliment.27
CONCLUSION: In the final analysis of these issues, it is important to ask one’s self a single practical question, because, for
most of today’s biblical scholars, manuscript evidential age is tantamount to legitimacy: Should a paltry minority of older, betterpreserved documents take adoptional precedence over a numerically overwhelming, highly consistent but slightly eclectic
(variable) majority of manuscripts? (And should the “editorial judgment” of naturalistic scholars be accepted and commended
above God and His Word?)
Romanism’s structure, doctrine and practices are consistent with the fact that “revered” objects, especially “sacred” manuscripts,
traditionally were protected from public access of any kind. Hence the pristine condition of the ancient corrupted manuscripts,
such as Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus (B). (Remember that the Roman Catholic Church officially took form in the fifth century;
but its essential framework was begun by Constantine I [272-337] in 312. His reign marked the official adjoining of the c hurch
and state, a transaction that resulted in all manner of ills among the Church.)

A DOCUMENT GLOSSARY
Adoptionist—One who believes that Christ was a “mere man” until God’s Spirit had descended on him at baptism—hence, that God “adopted” Jesus
Christ, thus helping to explain how “God is one.” The doctrine of Adoptionism originated in the third century.
Aeons (ayh´-ons)—Spirit beings of differing importance residing within various “levels” of the supernatural realm. Belief in this phenomenon originates
in Gnostic heresy beginning in the first century AD. It was believed that persons could ascend to higher levels of status in this spiritual realm.
Aleph (ayh´-leff)—1: A codification designation for the fourth century Codex Sinaiticus, discovered by Friedrich Constantine von Tischendorf in 1844 in
St. Catherine’s Monastery/Convent on Mount Sinai. It is dated to approximately 325-360 AD. Aleph (seven percent) and Vaticanus B (ninety percent)
under gird approximately 97 percent of the Greek source text for nearly every modern Bible version; 2: The first letter of the Hebrew alphabet (‫)א‬.
Alexandrian—A classification term used to categorize biblical source manuscripts having specific characteristics identifying them with the general area
of Alexandria, Egypt. (Alexandria was the epicenter of early heresy.) Some examples of Alexandrian text-type members are codices Aleph, Alexandrinus
and Vaticanus, the three most-revered extant Christian codices by most contemporary biblical text critics.
Alexandrinus—The highly significant fifth century codex (also codified as “Codex A”) to which naturalistic biblical scholars often refer, often as an un ­
derlying support manuscript for the modern “critical editions” under girding most modern Bibles. It is dated to approximately 400-440 AD.
(Alexandrinus is “Alexandrian” in the gospels and “Byzantine” in the Pauline Epistles.)
Alford, Henry—An English (London) churchman, theologian, biblical text critic, and scholar, as well as a hymnodist, poet, and writer, Alford (18101871) was a graduate of Trinity College (College of the Holy, Undivided Trinity), Cambridge, and in the employ of the Anglican Church. A modernistleaning biblical text critic, he is best-known for his monumental edition of the eight-volume in Greek, on which he worked from 1841 to 1861. This work
was more “philological” (linguistically oriented) than theological in character, however. It involved “a careful collation of readings of the chief
manuscripts and the researches of the ripest continental scholarship of his day” (theological modernism). Subsequently, Alford published the four-volume
New Testament for English Readers (1868).
American Standard Version (ASV)—A modernism-based Bible version publicly introduced in 1901. The ASV was an “Americanized” version of the
notorious English Revised Version (ERV) of 1881 (NT only). The ASV translation was partially presided over by Unitarians.

Antiochian (ant-ee-ock´-ee-uhn)—1: A term referring to things associated with the city of Antioch in Syria. The Holy Spirit first indwelt believers on a
large scale (3,000) in Syria, as recorded in Acts 2; 2: a term sometimes used to refer to the Majority (“Byzantine”) text.
Argos (ahr-gōs´)—A Greek word meaning “unprofitable” or “inactive.”
Armenian—A fifth century Scripture version produced from a new alphabet, by Mesrob and some assistants, based on Bibles of Rome and Syria.
Asceticism—From the Greek askēsis (ass-kay-sis), a strict system of spiritual discipline whose chief preoccupation is the renunciation of the world and
the flesh as part of the great struggle against the devil: primarily poverty, chastity, and godly obedience. Although this rigorous ritualistic system
flourished in early Christian times, it rightfully became recognized—based on Scripture—as excessive in its motives and implementation.
Assimilation—A modern textual-criticism term used to described the process that critics believed biblical writers and scribes used to ensure consistent
reading between or among two or more portions of Scripture. (e.g., changing wording to assure parallelism between two verses.)
Asthenes (ass-then-ace´)—A Greek word meaning “without strength,” “weak,” “sick,” “impotent,” or “more feeble.”
Autos (ow-tos´)—The Greek reflexive pronoun self, used of the first and third persons—their, it, one, the other, my own, these things, this, together, very,
which.
AV (Authorized Version)—The British (UK) nomenclature for the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. (See “ KJV” definition on Page 48.)

B
Beza (bayz´-uh)—1: Codex Bezae (“D”) of the fifth century, a Greek-Latin diglot, is representative of the “Western” text group. Codex D is recognized
by many scholars as among the most-corrupt Koine Greek New Testament uncial manuscripts extant. Some modern, liberal scholars embrace D, because
of its age, as supportive of their “critical text”; 2: Swiss scholar Theodore Beza (1519-1604) of the sixteenth century, generally regarded by orthodox
scholars as among the most-learned biblical scholars and theologians, and God-fearing persons, of his day. (Codex Bezae [D] was named after Beza
because this book once was in his possession; but he did not use it significantly in producing any of his ten Greek text editions, from 1562 to 1604.)
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1967/1977/1983)—An Old Testament Hebrew version succeeding the Biblia Hebraica (1906, 1912, 1937). David W.
Cloud reports that conservative biblical scholar D. A. Waite estimates that 20,000 to 30,000 changes were made between the versions of 1912 and 1937.
Both the 1937 BH and the BHS (Stuttgartensia) are based upon the Codex B19a (“Leningradensis”), one of the oldest extant Hebrew biblical
manuscripts, dated to 1008 or 1009 AD—the complete OT text. The Biblia Hebraica (not Stuttgartensia) was originated by Eberhard Nestle (1851-1913)
in 1898, and he presided over its development, along with Rudolf Kittel (1853-1929), until Nestle’s death in 1913. Eberhard’s son, Erwin (1883-1972),
succeeded his father with the BH, and his successors gradually diverged from the original BH text to the BHS through the years, eventually switching to
the Leningradensis (BHL) as its sole OT base.
Bohairic (bow-hayr´-ick)—A “Northern” (“Lower”—geographic south) Egypt dialect of the Coptic language dating to the third or fourth century
characterized “by a number of reasonably full manuscripts.” Bohairic tends to support the Byzantine-text tradition, and it is the only Coptic dialect that
remains active in liturgical use within the Coptic Orthodox Church. The Bohairic was the the language of the common people during its time.
Bomberg Editions—Daniel Bomberg’s (d. 1549) 1516-1517 First Rabbinic Bible and in his 1524-1525 Second Rabbinic Bible, both of whose text long
was copied and presided over by the ben Asher Levite Jewish order, from the sixth through eleventh centuries, after which the ben Chayyim order
succeeded it. A descendant of this order, Rabbi Jacob ben Chayyim, served as editor for the second Bible, preceded by Rabbi Felix Pratensis, who
compiled this second Bible. Although the Bomberg Bibles—and their underlying text—generally are regarded as the OT basis for both modern and KJVlegacy Bibles, it has been proven that this claim is not applicable to the OT texts of the modern versions. ( See “Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia,”
immediately above.) The traditional Masoretic Text is based upon an older (tenth century) family of the Aleppo Codex, the OT basis for Reformation
Bibles.
Byzantine (biz´-uhn-teen)—1: A term used to refer to the “Majority text” group of manuscripts, comprising at least eight-five percent of extant (existing
and usable) Greek NT manuscripts; 2: a period of Greek dominance—the “Byzantine Empire” (“Eastern Roman Empire” during the Middle Ages)—
ranging approximately from 476 AD to 1453 AD and peaking in 550 AD under Emperor Justinian. The Byzantine Empire, with its capital in
Constantinople (previously Byzantium and now Istanbul), ruled the known civilized world under the first governmental Christian influence. Emperor
Flavius Constantinus I (“the Great”) drastically altered the legacy of powerful Greco-Roman authority by becoming the first such champion of
Christianity. Constantine I succeeded the abominable persecution of Christians under Diocletian’s ruthless rule. (Constantine I’s mother, Helena, became
an eminent Christian champion following his death in 337.) Constantine, however, was not entirely orthodox in his Christian views and conduct, and he
originated the union of church and state.

C
Caesarean (sayz-air-ee´-uhn)—A text-type being a hybrid of the Byzantine and Alexandrian types—a midway point between the two. (e.g., cursive Lake
Family 1 and minuscule Ferrar Group 13).
Campianus (kam-pee-ann´-us)—Codex “M” (Gk. 48) is an elegantly copied, well-preserved manuscript of the late ninth century. “M” also contains some
lectionary content in the marginalia, and it contains the “debated” pericope de adultera (the parable of the adulteress) which modernists maintain is a late
interpolation (false addition), yet appears in the vast majority of extant Greek NT manuscripts. Campianus is largely of the Byzantine text-type.
Christology—The study of the divinity, humanity, significance and mission of Jesus Christ—all things pertaining to Him.
Church Father—Strictly speaking, an early ecclesiastical authority of the second through fifth centuries, some of whose writings are extant, and whose
opinions and authorship helped develop and further influence early Christian church doctrine. Examples: Justin Martyr, 2nd—Greek; Irenaeus, 2nd—
Greek; Origen Adamantius (“Origen”), 2 nd/3rd—Greek/Latin; Tertullian, 2nd/3rd— Greek/Latin; Clement of Alexandria, 2 nd/3rd— Greek; Chrysostom, 3rd/4th
—Greek; Augustine, 4th/5th—Latin. (The “Apostolic Fathers” were those who lived within two generations of Jesus’ Twelve Apostles.)

Codex—A collection of biblical manuscripts which is bound, on one edge, to form a “book.” The codex was the successor to the papyrus scrolls whose
sheets first were made from the aquatic plant most dense in the Nile River. (Singular sheets were glued together horizontally to form the scroll.) During
the Reformation, codices were produced in three different formats: folio—10 in. by 13.5 in.” to 11 in. by 15.5 in.” per page; quarto—6.5 in. by 8.5 in. to
9 inc.by 12.5 in.; octavo—5 in. by 8 inc. to 6 in. by 9 in.
Complutensian Polyglot—The first printed polyglot (adjacent languages appearing on the same page) of the Bible, this title was initiated, financed, and
at least partially translated and edited by Cardinal Francisco Jimenez de Cisneros and finished in 1517. The New Testament, which has parallel Greek and
Latin Vulgate columns per page and comprises Volume Five of a six-volume set, was finished in 1514. The Old Testament, which was completed in 1517,
consists of four volumes, with each page displaying three columns of text—Hebrew (outside), Latin Vulgate (middle), and the Greek Septuagint (inside).
However, on each page of the Pentateuch (first five books of the Old Testament), the Aramaic text (Targum Onkelos) and its own translation of the Latin
Vulgate, were added at the bottom. The sixth and final volume of the set comprises various Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek dictionaries and study aids.
Critical text—Typically any version of a modernistically produced and edited New Testament based most-frequently on a minority of the most-ancient
extant manuscripts—e.g., codices Aleph, A, B, C, D and papyrus manuscripts P 45, P46, P66, P67, P72, P75—and founded upon naturalistic text-critical
theories. (e.g., numerous biblical scholars of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries assembled and/or edited such texts, such as Johann Jakob Wettstein
18th], Johann Jakob Griesbach [18th], Samuel Prideaux Tregelles [19th], Friedrich Constantine von Tischendorf [19th], and B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort
[19th].) Uncial, cursive, versional, lectionary, and Church Father support also often is used adroitly to argue against Byzantine text evidence.
Curetonian—A version of the Syriac—in a “bundle of manuscripts”—dating back to the fifth century that is much-characterized by Sinaitic (4 th)
readings such as those also appearing in Codex Aleph. The Curetonian was discovered in the Nitrian Desert (Egypt), in a monastery dedicated to St. Mary
Deipara, by William Cureton, and still is considered by some moderns to be the “Old Syriac”—a title that belies the later date of its origin.
Cursive—A term synonymous with “minuscule”: A lowercase, “cursive”-type form of writing used in later biblical manuscripts, predominantly
beginning in the ninth century. Letters were strung together, as in common handwriting, using capitals for proper nouns and at the start of sentences.

D
Diglot (dig´-lott)—A biblical text having a translation of two languages—e.g., Greek and Latin: parallel per page, or matching on contiguous pages. (i.e.,
Greek on one page, then matching Latin translation on the succeeding one, or vice versa.)
Dittography—The scribal process of error by which a letter, word or phrase was replicated in succeeding text during copying, caused by distraction, fa­
tigue or incompetence. It has been historically proven that some scribes (Egyptian) even were unable to read Greek, thus copied letter by letter.
Docetism (dos´-eh-tyz-um)—Characteristic of Gnosticism and some other early heretical belief systems (e.g., Adoptionism, Marcionism), the belief that
Christ appeared as a phantom form on the earth, exhibiting the appearance of flesh. Hence, holders of this doctrine believed Christ’s death was not
suffered by a bodily Christ, thus had no real significance for mankind. Docetism originated in the first century AD, along with many other major heresies.

E
Ecumenical—1: An interdenominational approach to Bible translation and other “unification”-based, Christian-specific activities. Essentially, unity is
embraced, if necessary, to the exclusion of pure scriptural truth; 2: General, non-specific; 3: Church-related.
Ellicott, Charles—A prominent, modernistic English Christian theologian, academician, and churchman (1819-1905) who served as a cleric at three
Christian institutions during the nineteenth century. Ellicott embraced conflicting views on the Greek New Testament text, first admitting that the
Byzantine text-type dated back to at least the fourth century, then serving as the chairman for the English Revised Version (ERV) of the Bible. This
version was finished in 1885 and, practically, was designed to replace the King James Version (KJV), despite the officially stated purpose of the
translation committee.
Elzevir (Elsevier/Elzevier)—1: A celebrated Dutch family (“House of Elzevir”) of printers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; 2: Dutch cousins
Abraham (1592-1652) and Bonaventura (1583-1652), of the seventeenth-century publishing firm Bonaventure and Abraham, who edited and published
two Greek editions of the New Testament; 3: Elzevir Greek New Testament versions of 1624 and 1633, the latter originating the term “Textus Receptus”
by including it on the title page as a reference to the actual production.

English Revised Version—The first printed Bible version based on a new breed of recently discovered manuscripts largely of “Alexandrian” (Egyptian)
origin. The “ERV” (or “RV”) New Testament publicly was released in 1881, and the Old Testament in 1885, the former after 11 years of highly secretive
deliberations by a Unitarian-led chair and functional heretical subversives (all recorded historical fact).
Ephraemi (eff-reh´-mee) Rescriptus—The designation given to the fifth century “Codex C,” a manuscript upon which modernistic biblical scholars and
text critics sometimes rely, because it occasionally supports some textual variants (words, phrases, verses and/or passages) of the “critical apparatus”
assembled and edited by liberal scholars—an assemblage under girding nearly every New Testament version produced since 1881. Ephraemi has been
codified as being diversely representative of the Alexandrian (gospels), Byzantine (Pauline epistles) and Caesarean (hybrid) text-types. (The designation
“rescriptus”—or “palimpsest”—refers to a manuscript whose original text was erased and replaced by scribal copying at a later time. This usually was
done because of the rare availability—at times—of parchment [animal skins] used for manuscript production in the post-papyrus period.)
Episkenoo (ep-ee-skay-nó-oh)—The Greek word meaning “to tent upon,” “abide with,” “rest upon,” or “enter or take up residence in” (2 Corinthians
12:9).
Estienne, Robert (French: et-yen)—The French printer, master typographer, classical scholar, and New Testament translator (1503-1559)—also known as
Stephens (English) or Stephanus (Latin)—who produced the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament, published in 1516. Estienne was bestknown for his four Greek editions of the New Testament, in 1546, 1549, 1550 (“editio regia”—Royal Edition), and 1551 (Greek/Latin polyglot). The
third version currently is the standard version of the “Textus Receptus” (“received text”) used for most such TR-based NT translations today. The last
version contains verse numbering—the first Greek New Testament ever to contain such divisions. Estienne was given the title “Printer in Greek to the
king” (King Henry II) in 1539. A notoriously prolific and ingenious printer who produced several highly elegant works, Estienne also was renowned for
printing numerous classic French and Latin titles, and grammatical and other school works. He started out as a Roman Catholic, but became a Protestant
later in life. Estienne’s father, Henri, and all three of his sons, also were celebrated printers.
Ethiopic—A fourth century (?) or sixth century (?) Bible produced by two missionaries from Alexandria, Egypt.
Exemplar (eggs-em´-plär)—The manuscript used by a scribe, as a source, in producing a new copy.
Extant (eggs-tont´)—1: A text-criticism term referring to a manuscript which is existing, documented, and usable; 2: existing.

F
Fragment—A small or even tiny portion of an ancient biblical manuscript. Major extant Greek fragments have been dated to the third century AD.
Several Hebrew fragments, however, have been dated to before the birth of Christ.
Friderico-Augustanus—The Greek Old Testament codex of the fourth century discovered by Friedrich Constantine von Tischendorf—in 1844—in the
St. Catherine’s Monastery/Convent, at the foot of Mt. Sinai (Egypt), in a bundle of waste papers destined to be used as fire fodder by monks there. This
collection of 43 leaves—a subset of the Codex Vaticanus (B)—chiefly comprises the OT books 1 Chronicles and Jeremiah, plus Nehemiah and Esther.
The codex was named after the king of Saxony, Frederick Augustus II, Tischendorf’s governmental sovereign, to whom he gave the manuscript.

G
Gennao (ghen-nah´-oh)—A Greek word meaning “to bear,” “beget,” “bring forth,” “conceive,” “regenerate,” “be born,” “make,” or “father.” (Used to
describe God the Father’s “generation” of Christ in the flesh: “For unto which of the angels said he at any time, ‘Thou art my Son, this day have I begot­
ten thee’?”—Hebrews 1:5a)
Gnosticism (noss´-ty-syz-um)—From the Greek root word gnosis, meaning “knowledge” or “science.” Gnosticism was an early heretical movement
proclaiming that only privileged individuals could attain eternal life through a “special, secret knowledge” of spiritual things which ordinary persons did
not have. This movement originated in the first century AD, but reached its peak in the second and third centuries. Gnosticism was the product of
syncretism among Jewish, pagan and Oriental beliefs. (The apostle Paul warned against such “empty words” in Ephesians 5:6.)
Gothic—A fourth century Scripture version translated using manuscripts largely of the Byzantine text-type, created by Ulfilas, a missionary to the Goths,
using a new alphabet he generated from Greek and Latin characters. The Goths were a warrior-class people who eventually conquered Rome in 410 AD,
having originally migrated from Scandinavia. The source Greek texts he used witness to the early antiquity of the Byzantine text.

Griesbach, Johann Jakob (Grihz´-bock)—A German, rationalistic biblical text critic whose first critical edition of the Greek New Testament was
published, in three volumes, in 1774-75. Griesbach (1745-1812), an astute disciple of “the father of German rationalism,” J. S. Semler, originated the
term and theory of the Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as being highly parallel in content, aside from John. He also formulated what
formerly was called the “Griesbach hypothesis,” which now is referred to as the “two-gospel hypothesis”: that Matthew was written before Luke, and that
both were authored before Mark. (Historically, conservative biblical scholars have believed that Mark was written first, followed by Matthew and Luke.)
Griesbach, who served much of his life as a professor at the University of Jena (Germany), rejected the divinity of Christ and the supernatural infallibility
of Holy Scripture. He also was the first to declare Mark 16:9-20 as spurious, and he omitted it from his 1796 Greek NT critical edition.

H
Haidou (hay´-doo)—From the Greek word “haides” (hah´-dace), meaning “Hades,” “hell,” the “grave,” or “the unseen place (state) of departed souls.”
(OT Hebrews believed in a single place for the dead, beneath the earth—“Sheol” (sheh-olé), or Hades. “The abode or world of the dead, hades, orcus. . . .
According to the notions of the Hebrews, Hades was a vast subterranean receptacle where the souls of the dead existed in a separate state until the resur­
rection of their bodies” (Strong’s Complete Word Study Concordance). The early Greeks believed in the upper part, for the souls of the good, as
specifically named “Elysium,” with “Tartarus” being the lying place for the evil. (See Ephesians 4:9—Christ going down “into the lower parts of the
earth” before His ascension into heaven, to release all souls of the OT dispensation, to heaven or hell, accordingly.)
Haplography—The scribal process of error by which a letter, word or phrase was omitted in the text of a copied manuscript, due to the copyist skipping
—accidentally or advertently—the appertaining content from the exemplar. (Modernistic scholars assert that this process was mostly or always
attributable to inadvertent scribal error rather than deliberate omission. But a twentieth-century scientific test proved that scribes were much more likely
to omit content rather than to add it [interpolation], verifying that the Majority/Byzantine and Textus Receptus, which are 2,135 and 2,577 words longer,
respectively [than the Nestle-Aland27], were not intentionally lengthened through faulty interpolation.)
Harclean (hark´-lee-uhn)—A seventh-century Syriac Bible version being a revision of its immediate predecessor, the Syriac Philoxenian (508 AD)—the
Philoxenian representing a late successor to the Syriac Peshitta. The Harclean (or “Harclean”) is purported to have been a seventh-century (616 AD) vari­
ation of the Philoxenian, by Thomas of Harkel (Heraclea), in Mesopotamia. Other Syriac versions are the Sinaitic (fourth century) the Curetonian (fifth
century), and the Palestinian (sixth century—??). The Harclean quite closely resembles the Peshitta and is extant in only about 60 manuscripts.
Harmonization—A modernistic theory among biblical text critics postulating that some scribes—usually ones who addressed earlier manuscripts—
adapted phrases or verses to match those elsewhere in New Testament Scripture. (Also called “parallelization.”) This has been used particularly to apply
to gospel phrases and verses.
Hodges-Farstad (text)—A modern edition of the Majority text edited by Zane C. Hodges (d. 2008) and Arthur L. Farstad (d. 1998), both of Dallas
Theological Seminary, The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, first was published in 1982, then revised and released in 1985. This text
still remains the most popular edition of the Majority text, and required seven years of labor to produce. Both men later served as two of the five editors
of the 2007 release The Majority Text Greek New Testament Interlinear. Earlier, Farstad was executive editor of The New King James Version, published
in 1982. This text differs from its chief contemporary competitor, The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine Majority
Textform (Robinson-Pierpont), largely based on different interpretations of the same textual data, as well as on orthography (language writing
methodology), vocabulary, and word division.
Hort, F. J. A.—Fenton John Anthony Hort was the lead force behind the infamous 1857-1870 New Testament—co-edited by B. F. Westcott—that under
girded the final 1881 English Revised Version (ERV or “RV”) New Testament. The ERV spearheaded a new, modern influx of Bible New Testaments
based largely on older but doctrinally inferior fourth- and fifth-century uncial manuscripts. A confirmed heretic Hort held such beliefs as salvation
through the vicarious life of Christ, rather than His death, that Christ, Himself, was not deity (but a created being), a spiritualized resurrection, scriptural
error, and much more.

I
Ide (id´-ayh)—A Greek word meaning “lo,” “behold,” “see,” or “surprise.”
Interpolation—A scribal addition (insertion) to a manuscript. This is a deliberate individual effort to alter the content exhibited in the exemplar
(immediate copyist source) manuscript. Scribes did this either to incorporate their own interpretation of existing manuscript content, or simply to append
their manuscript with doctrinal or phraseological falsities elsewhere proclaimed—representations of their own beliefs.

J
Jacobean—1: The era in English and Scottish history that coincides with the reign of King James VI of Scottland (1567-1625)—also known as King
James I of England. The Jacobean succeeds the Elizabethan era and precedes the Carolinean era; 2: a style very close to the “biblical” English used in the
King James Version (KJV), or “Authorized Version,” of the Holy Bible; 3: derived from the Latin Jacobus, meaning “James.”
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary—A conservative-orthodox, classic, authoritative, devotional and thorough Bible commentary originally
published in 1871—with a revision published in 1901—by authors Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown. This complete commentary is
available in a three-volume set (two Old Testament and one New Testament), and includes incisive explanatory remarks on most Bible verses.

K
Kai (ka-hee´)—A Greek primary participle (kai) meaning “and,” “also,” “even,” “indeed,” or “but.”
Kenoo (kenn-ah´-oh)—A Greek word meaning “to make empty,” “abase,” “neutralize,” “falsify,” or “be in vain.”
KJV (King James Version)—Also referred to as the Authorized Version (in the UK), this is the landmark Bible petitioned for by thousands of
ecclesiastical leaders in England, and sanctioned—not officially authorized—by King James I of England. Unofficial work on the translation began in
1604, by just a few persons, but highly organized sub-committees—totaling 50-54 scholars in all—commenced work in 1607. The final first version was
presented to the King in 1611. The KJV was produced by among the most-qualified linguists and biblical scholars in Europe and England. Its content is
derived from Textus Receptus-based manuscripts and Bibles—those generated by leading Reformation theologians.
Koine (coin´-ayh)—A term for the “common” Greek vernacular, the language of nearly the entire New Testament, designed for practical spiritual
enlightenment for the laity—non-clerical persons. (Also called “vulgate,” which means “common.”) The Koine Greek originated during the postClassical antiquity period, between 300 BC and 300 AD.

L
Lachmann, Karl (Konrad Friedrich Wilhelm)—A German philologist (specialist in the study of language in written historical sources) and text critic
who was the first major editor to deviate from using the Textus Receptus in producing his own edition of the Greek New Testament. Lachmann (17931851) used the Alexandrian text-type in generating his first critical Greek New Testament in 1831, followed by his second edition, in two volumes (18421845?), and his third, in 1846. He also focused on using Western manuscripts and those of the Old Latin. Lachmann also was the founder of a critical and
philological society, in 1811, in conjunction with three others, in Lower Saxony, Germany.
Lacunose—An adjective describing a manuscript, some portion of whose original contents are absent. (e.g., “lacunose,” or “highly lacunose.”) See
Appendix III, Page 1, bottom, for application.
Lake Group, The—Also known as “Family 1”—abbreviated “Ë1”—originally a group of five (5) Greek Gospel manuscripts dating from the twelfth to
fifteen centuries. These manuscripts have a distinctive and independent character and have been codified by NT Greek text critic Kirsopp Lake as
Category III, or “mixed” (“electic”). More-recent text critics have referred to these manuscripts as “Caesarean”—something of a cross-breed between
Byzantine and Alexandrian. (For purposes of pure definition, a Family 1 manuscript—according to A “Survey of Manuscripts Used in Editions of the
Greek New Testament,” by James Keith Elliott—may be “assigned to this group for only part of the NT.” However, technically speaking, in this
document,only the original five assigned to this group are noted as such.) Family 1 strictly comprises cursives 1, 118, 131, 209, and 1582. (However,
minuscule 205 and its copy, “205abs,” very closely resemble 1, and have been paired with 209 by Frederick Wisse.)
Latin Vulgate—1: A frequently-corrupt Latin Bible version, finished about 405 AD, which was translated by Jerome—allegedly reluctantly—from the
Old Latin by commission of Pope Damasus. Ten Thousand manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate are extant. (The Vulgate’s genesis is in the works of the
pseudo-Christian “Church Father” Origen.); 2: Biblical manuscripts whose content is in the common Latin.
Lectionary—An assemblage of Scripture designated for the lection (liturgy) during OT synagogue and NT church worship services. Extant NT lectionar­
ies date back to the seventh century. (Also called “Synaxaria.” Gospel-specific lectionaries are referred to as “Evangelistaria,” while the Pauline-specific
ones are referred to as “Apostolos,” or “Praxapostolos.” Synaxaria also were daily lectionaries prepared for the entire calendar year.)
Lowring—An antiquated English word meaning “to be gloomy and overcast with clouds.” (Used in the King James Version.)

M
Majority text—A general term assigned to an overwhelming majority of extant Koine Greek NT manuscripts whose readings are nearly identical and
represent the Byzantine text-type. The Majority text also is referred to—with greater specificity to its “text-type”—as the Byzantine, Traditional, Antio ­
chian, Constantinopolitan, or Ecclesiastical text. The Majority text accounts for at least 85 percent of extant Greek NT manuscripts among: 2,882 cursives
(lowercase script); 2,453 lectionaries; 311 uncials; and 127 papyri (total of 5,773). With the addition of the commonly known and codified early Church
fathers’ quotations (239), a conservative estimate of the Majority represents at least 5,411 of the extant 6,012 Greek NT manuscripts (90 percent)—5,172
(86 percent) without the contemporarily accepted quotations. (See chart and accompanying notes below it.)
Majuscule—An ancient NT Greek manuscript—in biblical terms also called an “uncial”—comprising all capital letters, and usually containing no
punctuation (especially the earlier manuscripts) or spaces between words. Majuscules were the prominent NT Greek letter form until the ninth century.
Manuscript (“MS/MSS” and “ms/mss”)—The term applied to a partial or complete series of “leaves” (four pages/one fold) comprising a book or
books of the Bible. All extant manuscripts have been “codified” via specific formulas, for identification: e.g., ancient “uncial” (all capital letters)
“codices” dated as late as the ninth century were designated alphabetically, alpha-numerically, or by the “0” system. See the following table for various
classification examples:

CLASS. TYPE
Alphabetical
th

“0” (beg. 20 cent.)

MANUSCRIPT TYPE
Uncial (uppercase)
Uncials (beg. with “0”)

TIME SPAN
th

th

rd

h

th

th

4 through 10 centuries
3 through 14 centuries

EXAMPLES
A (V), B (IV), C (V), D (V), E (VI), F (IX)

# EXTANT LANGUAGE
45

Greek

048 (V), 0106 (VII), 0233 (VIII), 0142 (X)

266

(311 total)

Library: numerical

Minuscules (cursives)

9 through 17 centuries

Cod. 3—Regius 84, Cod. 18—Paris Nat’l Gk. 47

2882

Greek

P (papyrus)

Uncial fragment

2nd through 7th centuries

P45 (Gospels/Acts, 225 AD), P75 (Paulines, 200 AD)

127

Greek

None

Patristic fathers’ quotations

1st through 7th centuries

Tertullian (44), Cyprian (32), Origen (31)

239¬

Greek

L (e.g., L1)

Lectionaries (“Lect”)

4th through 17th centuries^

Various/anonymous Church Fathers/elders

2453@

Greek

Language/dialect

Version (uncial/cursive)

2nd through 9th centuries

Syriac Peshitta, Coptic (Egypt.), Gothic (Scan.),
Old Latin, Latin Vulgate (10,000), Armenian

19,030
(approx.)

Various

TOTAL GREEK >>

5773 (excl. quotes/versions)

¬ John W. Burgon assembled a massive collection of quotations by early Patristic Fathers. Associate Edward Miller subsequently tallied and logged the assemblage of 86,489 quota­
tions by seventy-six Patristic Fathers in a sixteen-volume, folio-sized (12 in. by 16 in.) set, by author. This mammoth Byzantine testimony currently resides in the British Museum.
Obviously, this vast total is excluded from the conventionally accepted sum of 239 fathers’ quotations, as cited above. Evidently, no one has researched and matched the logged
references to the appertaining documents, and/or the vast majority of the original documents referred to are not extant, for reference. Furthermore, modernistic text critics do not
recognize the validity of these additional referenced quotations. (In the second case, why would Burgon and Miller have lied? Both were highly respected orthodox scholars of
their time.)

Marginalia (mar-jinn-ayh´-lee-ah)—User notes inserted into the margins of biblical manuscripts. These notes generally consisted of scribbles and
editorial comments made in the margin of a book—not to be confused with “scholia” (singular: “scholum”), which are grammatical, critical, or
explanatory comments, either being original or extracted from a preexisting commentary. (Scholia are marginal remarks which were made to manuscripts
by ancient writers.)
Melchisedek (mel-kiz´-uh-dek)—The first biblical high priest, who presided over Abram (Abraham) and his people in OT Salem (later Jerusalem).
Melchisedek was a “type” (“shadow” or forerunner) of Jesus Christ, the latter being the Christian’s sole high priest, forever making intercession between
God the Father and every believer, for his or her sins.

Minuscule—The term synonymous with a Bible “cursive” manuscript—written in lowercase script characters. “Minuscules” began replacing the all-caps
“uncials,” as the primary biblical letter form, in the ninth century. This typographical form does include capital letters, as well, and punctuation eventually
appeared much more frequently with the passage of time.
Modernism—A comprehensive cultural movement affecting all aspects of American life, chiefly beginning here in the nineteenth century, which
challenged traditional manners and methods of thought, behavior and morality while emphasizing mankind’s ability to improve his own character and
conditions apart from God. Modernism essentially is a secularized, humanistic alteration of man’s perspective toward God, shifting from man’s reliance
on God to his reliance on himself. (Essentially, the same movement now is referred to as “postmodernism,” and is characterized more by materialism.)
Monogenes (mon-ah-jenn-ace)— A Greek word meaning “only-born” or “only,” specifically in the sense referring to the unique identity of God’s Son,
Jesus Christ: “God’s ‘only begotten’ Son.” (e.g., John 1:18.)
Moorman, J. A.—A long-time English, Baptist evangelist who has operated in the United Kingdom and third-world countries, who also is a conservative
Christian theologian and author, having distributed thousands of Bibles and gospel tracts in London, Europe, South Africa, and elsewhere. Moorman also
has been involved in church planting and Bible institute teaching. Moorman, of the Bible for Today Baptist Church (New Jersey), is author of Early
Manuscripts, Church Fathers, and the Authorized Version, a comprehensive work that “ . . . places before the reader an entire range of evidence, and
demonstrates how the early manuscripts, versions, and fathers bear witness to the doctrinal heart of the Authorized Version,” according to Paragraph 3 of
the “Preface, Acknowledgment, Dedication” in the text. This title explores modern textual criticism and ecumenism, ancient NT manuscript evidence,
and provides a thorough—though now somewhat outdated—manuscript digest providing support for the KJV versus the NIV (1984) and NASB (pre1995), and the manuscript sources for the latter two, in addressing 356 doctrinal passages in the Bible. He also has authored When the King James Bible
Departs from the Majority Text, 8,000 Differences between the Textus Receptus and the Critical Text, and several other books. Bible for Today Director
Dr. D. A. Waite has referred to Moorman as “. . . the world’s greatest living scholar who is defending the King James Bible and its underlying Hebrew,
Aramaic, and Greek Words.”

N
Nekros (nek-rōce´)—A Greek adjective meaning “dead,” or a noun meaning “dead body” or “dead person.”
Nestle-Aland (“NA”)—Also called Novum Testamentum Graece (Latin), this is a Koine Greek “critical text” (edition) of the New Testament, having
been assembled first by Eberhard Nestle in 1898. (His son, Erwin [d. 1972], succeeded his father [d. 1913] in perpetuating this apparatus.) Now in its 28 th
edition (late 2012), the “NA” is more recently based upon earlier critical editions penned by modernistic biblical scholars of the nineteenth century—B. F.
Westcott and F. J. A. Hort (1870), Friedrich Constantine von Tischendorf (last/eighth in 1872) and Bernhard Weiss (1901, third edition). Numerous other
theologically modernistic biblical scholars and theologians also created their own critical texts, officially dating back to the eighteenth century.
Previously, the most-ancient extant Greek NT manuscripts, codices Aleph and B (both fourth century), largely were used as the foundation for all of the
critical editions. (Aleph and B continue as the keystone sources for nearly every New Testament published since 1881, via the “NU” apparatus.) The
nearly identical UBS—the latter now in its fifth edition (2014)—also originally was founded by Eberhard Nestle [1898] upon the critical apparatuses of
Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf and Richard Weymouth (first and second editions). The NA 3 version subsequently was switched from Weymouth to Weiss
as a portion of its foundation.) The NA and UBS texts essentially differ in paragraphing, capitalization, punctuation and spelling. These apparatuses also
differ in their target market: NA—institutional teaching, more marginal material; UBS—translation. Hence, the NA is marketed for more-general use,
while the UBS is more-specifically designated for a smaller audience—mainly the missionary field.
New Analytical Greek Lexicon, The (±tagged “NAGL”)—A revision of George V. Wigram’s Analytical Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (1852), this
resource (eleventh printing—2010)—subsequently replaced by the current Analytical Lexicon of New Testament Greek, Revised and Updated (first
printing—April 2012)—contains “every word and inflection of the Greek New Testament arranged alphabetically and with grammatical analyses: a
complete series of Greek paradigms, with grammatical remarks and explanations,” edited by Wesley J. Perschbacher.

O
Old Latin—A mixed text extant in only fifty-five to sixty partially corrupt manuscripts and fragments, with origins in Syrian Antioch (Byzantine type—
purer) and North Africa (Western type—less pure). The Byzantine form of the Old Latin text, called the “Itala,” is a purer text having been used by the
Waldenses, a people of Southern France and Northern Italy who were brutally persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church during the twelfth through
seventeenth centuries. According to the early Church Father Tertullian (160-220 AD), the Old Latin dates back to the second century (157 AD). Old Latin
was the primary Latin form until Jerome, under charge of the Roman Catholic Church, first translated the much-corrupted Latin “Vulgate” (common) in
the late fourth century, finishing around 405 AD. (Jerome purportedly was disinclined to produce this version because of his confidence in the fidelity of
the Old Latin.) The Waldenses/Albigenses, who were nearly entirely destroyed—as well as their records—by barbaric Roman Catholic conquests, used
the Byzantine Old Latin throughout their history, despite Rome’s adherence to the Latin Vulgate—the Vulgate still largely serving as the textual
foundation for Catholic Bibles to date (also manifested in the English Rheims-Duoay version of 1582 [NT] and 1609 [OT] and its underlying
manuscripts). The records of the Waldenses today only exist in just a few bound volumes because of the Roman Catholic near-genocide of these people.
Old uncials—A term of honor conferred by naturalistic, modernistic biblical text critics on five (5) early codices believed to be of paramount value and
credibility to the Greek New Testament text. Comprising this quintet are codices: Aleph (Sinaiticus/ ‫)א‬, ca. 325-360 AD; Alexandrinus (“A”), ca. 400;
Vaticanus (“B”), ca. 325-360; Ephraemi Rescriptus (“C”), ca. late fifth century; and Bezae (“D”), ca. 440.
Origen—Origen Adamantius (185-254) of Alexandria, Egypt, was an abominably heretical but highly scholarly, contemporarily well-esteemed “Early
Church Father” who, despite his martyrdom “for the Christian faith” in Caesarea, was among the most egregiously non-biblical, pseudo-Christian figures
of the early centuries AD. Origen was an early editor of the Septuagint (Greek New Testament) and the compiler of the Hexapla (“sixfold”)—six parallel
translations (two Hebrew and four Greek) of the Old Testament in one volume. Although certainly among the most-learned theological scholars and such
fertile writers throughout history, Origen held numerous non-canonical beliefs: 1) allegorical interpretation of Scripture; 2) denial of literal bodily
resurrection; 3) textual criticism (first unofficial, prolific practitioner—editing several NT manuscripts); 4) Arianism (Jesus being a created entity); 5)
infant baptism; 6) Universalism (all are saved, including Satan); 7) salvation partially by works; 8) baptismal regeneration; 9) prayers to the deceased
“Saints”; 10) purgatory; 11) prayers to the “dead in purgatory”; and others.

P
Palestinian—A Syriac version of the Scriptures purportedly dating back to the sixth century, according to Syriac biblical manuscript and Syrian language
authority Arthur Voobus, of the Republic of Estonia (near Finland). The Syriac Palestinian comes from “an Aramaic dialect used in Palestine during the
earlier centuries of the Christian era,” and exists in only a bare manuscript witness. This version’s character most closely resembles the Greek Byzantine
type, yet also displays disparate leanings.
Papyrus (puh-pie´-russ)—1: Properly, the pulp from an aquatic plant, most notably having grown in the Nile River, but in stagnant river areas throughout
Egypt and in southern Europe; 2: an aquatic plant growing to as high as fifteen feet; 3: strips of dried aquatic pulp glued criss-cross to form sheets of
“papyrus,” which were used as “paper” for document production, used with a reed pen; 4: papyrus-plant biblical manuscript sheets dating from the third
century BC through about the fourth century AD. (All but about eight of the 118 extant biblical papyri are small-to-tiny fragments. After single-sheet
papyrus manuscripts were used in the late pre-Christ era and the earliest NT times, separate sheets were glued side-by-side to form scrolls.)
Peshitta—The earliest extant Syriac version of the Scriptures, dating back to the second century (some modernistic scholars saying fourth) and siding
largely with the Byzantine (Majority) text-type. According to C. R. Gregory’s list dated to 1902, 300 Peshitta manuscripts then were extant. However,
according to J. A. Moorman, in Early Manuscripts, Church Fathers, and the Authorized Version, “Their number is now known to be much higher.”
Philoxenian—The sixth-century Syriac-version translation of the Gospels apparently was commissioned by Mar Philoxenus, bishop of Mabbug
(southwestern Asia Minor), and was translated from Greek and finished in 508 AD. (Thomas of Harkel, more than a century later, collated two or three
Greek manuscripts and produced a more-reliable and complete NT translation called the Harclean.)
Phos (fōce)—A Greek word meaning “light,” “luminosity,” “fire,” “the heavenly sphere,” or “moral or spiritual light and knowledge which illumines the
mind, soul or conscience.” (For the latter example, see 1 John 1:7.)

Pneuma (noo´-muh)—A Greek word meaning “wind,” “breath,” “life,” “soul,” or “Spirit” (of God).
Poole, Matthew—An English, Presbyterian nonconformist theologian and author (1624-1679) during and beyond the Protestant Reformation (15171648). Poole edited and produced a condensation of the Critica Sacri (1660, London)—a nine-volume collection of disjointed, verbose Latin
commentaries by various writers—called (in Latin) the Synopsis Criticorum (five volumes), his version originally published in 1669. (Three other authors
also produced editions of the Critica Sacri.) He also authored the two-volume English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683)—the second edition
published in 1685 by some of his nonconformist brethren, with the final edition having been completed by others in 1840. Subsequently, this work has
been published under the title A Commentary on the Holy Bible (three volumes). (The Studylight.org website writes of the latter, “Perhaps the only true
rival to Matthew Henry! A standard for more than 400 years, Poole’s insightful commentary continues to be a trusted resource for pastors and laypeople.
Offering verse-by-verse exposition, he also includes summaries for each chapter and book, questions and answers, information on cultural context,
historical impact, and cross-references. Practical, readable, and applicable.”) Poole also published a tract against noted nontrinitarian and Unitarian John
Biddle (1658), but he was best known for his Synopsis Criticorum Biblicorum (five volumes fol., 1669-1676), in which he summarizes the views of 150
biblical critics. Poole authored other titles, as well.
Proto-Bohairic—Also known as Codex Bodmer III, or Papyrus Bodmer III (after founder John Martin Bodmer of Geneva, Switzerland), a single uncial
manuscript dating to the early fourth century—the earliest of the Bohairic type. This manuscript most-closely represents the Alexandrian text-type,
according to Bruce M. Metzger. (Many of the Bohairic more-closely represented the Byzantine type.) Originally containing the entire Gospel of John and
numbering some 239 pages, the first 22 pages are damaged, and only fragments remain, including those of the Book of Genesis and a one of the Epistle
to the Philippians—the latter in the Sahidic (southern) Egyptian dialect.

Q
No entries.

R
Rationalism—The doctrine that human reason, unaided by divine revelation, is an adequate or the sole guide to all attainable religious truth.
Regius (L)—Codex L (Gk. 62) is a poorly preserved uncial manuscript of the eighth century containing only the four Gospels, less five such passages
and sections. It also includes “lectionaries,” scriptural assemblages for use during worship services, produced herein as marginalia. Codex L was used,
minimally, in the development of the modernistic “critical editions” (NA-UBS, or “NU”)—accounting for less than one-half of one percent of this
apparatus. Writes F. H. A. Scrivener, a premier biblical and conservative orthodox critical scholar of the nineteenth century, “It is but carelessly written,
and abounds with errors of the ignorant scribe, who was more probably an Egyptian than a native Greek.” Also according to Scrivener, L has a “strong
resemblance to Cod. B.” (Codex M represents the Alexandrian [Egyptian] text-type.)
Rescriptus—A biblical manuscript whose original penned words have been erased and replaced with later writing. (e.g., Codex Ephraemi [“Codex C”]
of the fifth century.) The erasure process was achieved by scraping the writing off the medium used for penning. (“Reeds”—and later “quills”—were
used for transferring ancient black or brown inks onto papyrus or animal skin.)
Robinson-Pierpont (text)—Properly titled The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine Majority Textform, this modern edition
of the Majority text first was produced in 1991 by co-editors Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont (d. 2003), followed by the second edition in
2005. Although it is based upon the same NT Greek textual apparatus—Hermann Freiherr Von Soden (414 manuscripts) and Herman C. Hoskier (about
200 manuscripts of Revelation)—as that of the The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, its chief contemporary competitor, it differs
from this alternative edition much in data interpretation and not using the “stemmatic approach” (or “stemmatics”). (“Stemmatics” refers to the use of a
lineage—manuscript descendents—to compare manuscripts in establishing similarity or disparity of readings [textual variation].)

S
Seirais zophou (sigh-rahee´-iss | dzoff´-ooh)—A Greek phrase literally meaning “chains of darkness.” “Zophos” means “gloom,” “blackness,”
“darkness,” or “mist.”
Septuagint (sept-oo´-a-jint)—The Greek version of the Old Testament, whose origin has been dated by some scholars to be as early as 250 BC. Others
date this version to as late as 250 AD. Those who believe in its validity according to commonly predicated theory hold that the Septuagint was the result
of the copying of the Hebrew Old Testament by Hellenistic (Greek-speaking) Jews, to Greek, during the Babylonian Captivity of the kingdom of Judah,
which began in 586 BC. (It is popularly believed that during their long-term bondage under Babylonian authority, their original Hebrew language was
abandoned by necessity; thus these Jews learned Greek, and, subsequently, adopted Greek as their own language during the five decades of their
captivity. Following Cyrus the Great of Persia’s overthrow of Babylonia in 537 BC, the Jews were released, and some forty thousand are said to have
dispersed. (It also is noteworthy that some twentieth-century biblical scholars have rejected the Septuagint’s traditional validity, instead asserting that this
Greek OT translation simply is a fabricated text first penned sometime during the first three centuries AD, then used as the framework for a corrupt text
underlying or resulting from Origen’s Hexapla, and, in turn, serving as the foundation for the skewed New Testament versions of modern Bible
translations.
Simon, Richard—A French Roman Catholic priest, long-time Oratorian (self-governing communal society of priests), orientalist, and controversialist
who questioned the Bible’s authority and was the “forerunner of modern biblical criticism” (Catholic Encylopedia, Vol. 4, p. 492). Simon (1638-1712)
was ordained a priest in 1670, and taught philosophy and rhetoric at the College of Juilly (commune of Juilly), in Seine-et-Marne, France. An adherent to
the non-canonical views of Isaac Le Peyrère—imminent Messianic earthly reign in liberating the Holy Land, rebuilding the Temple, and ruling via the
king of France (Prince of Condé) as regent—Simon later became renowned as a “father of higher (biblical) criticism” (calligraphy, dating, and authorship
of ancient biblical manuscripts). He denied Moses’ authorship of the Pentateuch, his Histoire critique du Vieux Testament (Historical Critique of the Old
Testament, 1685) was seized and destroyed via a decree by the Royal Council, the charge of Jesuitism was brought against him, and he was expelled from
the Oratory in 1678.
Sinaitic—1: A fourth-century form of the Syriac language—as pertains to the New Testament—characterized by numerous biblically doctrinally unsound
readings (approx. 15 percent), ones much-representing those of Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph). (Codex B, or “Vaticanus,” is another representative of this texttype of NT manuscripts.) 2: An informal title for the famous/infamous Codex Aleph, or “Sinaiticus,” a complete Bible manuscript dating to
approximately 325-340 AD—the “Sinaitic manuscript.” Many of the readings of this class of NT manuscripts reduce Christ’s divinity, contain inferior
Greek variants, and have translation errors and omissions, among other flaws.
Syriac—An ancient language spoken by Arab natives residing in what is now the Syrian Arab Republic, in Southwest Asia. “Syrian Antioch” was a city
in Turkey, near the northern border of Syria, located near the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea. This city now is called Antakya. In the early
Christian era, Antioch had the third-largest population in the civilized world (400,000), behind Rome and Alexandria, but now only has approximately
145,000 residents.

T
Text-type—One of arguably two to four designations applied by biblical text critics to a manuscript(s) based on specific criteria, such as phraseology,
calligraphy, place of origin, scribe style and manuscript markings: Byzantine (region near what is now Istanbul, down to Syrian Antioch [modern
Antakya]); Alexandrian (Egyptian); Western (west of Alexandria); Caesarean (hybrid Byzantine-Alexandrian). (Many biblical text critics now recognize
only the Byzantine and Alexandrian as legitimate text-types. Some traditional biblical scholars of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries rejected this
categorization theory entirely, insisting that, rather than being characteristic of specific text-types, some manuscripts simply had similar kinds of readings
—not remarkably divergent types en mass. Many contemporary biblical scholars agree with the latter theory.)
Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, A (ʡtagged “TCGNT”)—A companion volume to the fourth edition of the United Bible Societies’
Greek New Testament (UBS 4), published by the German Bible Society and authored by notorious naturalistic text critic Bruce M. Metzger (d. 2012).
“One of the chief purposes of the commentary is to set forth the reasons that led the committee, or a majority of the members of the committee, to adopt
certain variant readings for inclusion in the text and to relegate certain other readings to the apparatus.”

Textual criticism (naturalistic)—The science of applying modern analytical theories to the discovery and analysis of biblical manuscripts. Textual criti ­
cism’s tenets include—but are not limited to—creating and editing (altering) modern “critical editions” (texts), critiquing ancient manuscripts/books (co ­
dices), and proposing theories about ancient manuscript/book creation and alteration, all of which ultimately culminate in insistence that, essentially, the
oldest manuscripts are purer and more reliable. Naturalistic textual criticism is applied without regard for God’s verbal (plenary) inspiration of the human
instruments chosen by Him to pen the canonical books of the Bible, hence rejecting the Majority (Antiochian, Ecclesiastical, Traditional, Byzantine) text
and the Textus Receptus. The Byzantine and the TR essentially were the universally accepted Greek basis for the New Testament until the mid-to-late
1800s—hence of all published Bibles until the ERV of 1881 (NT). Spiritual textual criticism, contrarily, recognizes God’s verbal inspiration and fully ac­
cepts the Majority text and/or the Textus Receptus as the God-ordained basis for the New Testament. It sanctions no “critical apparatus” (e.g., NA or
UBS), nor any other NT version succeeding the 1678 TR of the Elzevir cousins, Abraham and Bonaventure. (The standard TR versions used today are the
Robert Estienne 1550/1551 and the Theodore Beza 1598. It is commonly believed that the 1598 of Beza was much-consulted by the KJV translators for
production of the original AV of 1611.)
Textus Receptus—The Latin term meaning “received text.” The “TR” became the evolving Koine (common) Greek NT source text underlying all
printed English Bible versions produced until the ERV of 1881 (NT). Numerous variations of the Textus Receptus—all differing slightly from one
another—were penned by conservative orthodox biblical scholars during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, beginning with Desiderius Erasmus’
landmark Greek text in 1516—the very first printed Greek New Testament. Erasmus followed with subsequent published versions in 1519, 1522, 1527,
and 1535. The eminent Robert Stephens (Estienne/Stephanus) produced “TR” versions in 1546, 1549, 1550 and 1551, and the renowned Theodore Beza
followed with 10 of his own, from 1562 through 1604 (all based on Estienne versions of 1550 and 1551). Subsequently, the Elzevir cousins—Abraham
and Bonaventure—published seven Greek versions from 1624 to 1678 (all primarily based on the 1565 Beza). The 1633 (second) Elzevir text was the
first such version ever to officially claim and use the term “Textus Receptus.” Stephanus’ 1550 version is said to be the most-popular Textus Receptus in
use today, closely trailed by Beza’s 1598 “folio” (large) edition.
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (»tagged “TDNT”)—The most comprehensive Greek lexicon available, contained in a ten-volume
hardcover set, or published Abridged in One Volume (1356 pages), originally compiled and edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Current
editor Geoffrey W. Bromiley translated the work from German. Following the preface are the “Table of Greek Keywords” (transliterated letter by letter
directly from Greek) and the “Table of English Keywords,” allowing the user to search by Greek or English. Included terms contain explanatory
references to usage inside and outside the New Testament, as well as in the Septuaguint, the Old Testament, and other contexts, as applicable.
Tischendorf, (Lobegott) Friedrich Constantine von—The discoverer of the world’s oldest extant complete Bible, Codex Aleph Sinaiticus (325-360
AD), in 1844 in St. Catherine’s Monastery, Tischendorf (1815-1874) was a leading Greek New Testament text critic and theologian of his time. He
published 21 editions (including reprints and minor editions) of his own Greek New Testament critical edition, the first in the winter of 1849.
Tischendorf’s magnum opus was his Critical Edition of the New Testament, which he referred to as editio viii (Eighth Edition), published in 1869-1872.
Of the leading modernistic camp which believed that this Alexandrian NT text-type represented a purer biblical text than the traditional Byzantine
manuscripts, he borrowed 43 OT “leaves” (four-page [two bound sheets of paper—four sides] section inserts) of the Septuagint—by mutual agreement
with the monks of St. Catherine’s, from his initial finding of 129 or 130 (depending upon his conflicting accounts) leaves. During his third visit to the
Monastery, in 1859, he borrowed (on loan) 303½ leaves—the bulk of the NT content—for Russian publication, but never returned them to the monks at
Mt. Sinai, Egypt. Tischendorf presented them to Russian Czar Alexander II for publication and eventual archiving in the Imperial Library in St.
Petersburg (four-volume luxury edition, 1862). (The Czar awarded Tischendorf the “style” of von, signifying nobility.) Tischendorf gained his academic
degree and international acclaim by deciphering Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (“C”), the famed fifth-century manuscript, in the 1840s.
Transliteration—The process or the result of converting language characters (e.g., Greek) into those of another language (e.g., English) for the purpose
of practical reader usage. Transliteration allows the end user to, for example, look up the target word (here “answering”) in a Greek dictionary (lexicon)
to find the Greek-language equivalent. A transliteration example: the Greek word apokriΘeis (answering) converted to “apokritheis.” (This is opposed
to the process of “translation,” which involves direct conversion into the target language word meaning: here “break.” For the above example in this
document, see Page 14, Mark 10:24, within the ESV notes.)

Tregelles, Samuel P.—Largely a modernistic and naturalistic English textual critic (1813-1875) who also was a Bible scholar and theologian. Although
he was reared as a Quaker, then associated with the Plymouth Brethren, and later in life became a Presbyterian, Tregelles adopted the text-critical mindset
of the day, deciding that “the Textus Receptus did not rely on ancient authority.” He ventured forth by publishing an edition of the Greek New Testament
that relied largely on the still-coveted ancient biblical codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and many citations of Early Church Fathers. This work—18571872—thus paralleled that of German philologist Karl Lachmann, who produced his own such text in 1831. Rather a theological conundrum, Tregelles
was loyal to the highly corrupt manuscripts B and Aleph, but many of the readings that he inserted in his Greek New Testament mirrored those produced
by conservative biblical scholars and such text critics of the day. He was evangelical in heart and mission, and he wrote many Christian hymns, yet he
embraced the faulty text-critical theories of the day. (As a ninteenth-century biblical text critic, Tregelles, however, was fairly conservative.)

U
Uncial—A biblical manuscript penned entirely in uppercase letters. New Testament uncials (also called “majuscules”), varying in number of columns per
page from one (later) to four (earlier), are extant from the fourth through tenth centuries. Beginning in the ninth century, uncials largely were replaced by
“minuscules” (also called “cursives”), the latter being in uppercase and lowercase script characters. Today, extant cursives outnumber uncials 2,882 to
311. (See chart under “Manuscript” definition, p. 48.) Most uncials contain little or no punctuation.
Unitarianism—A theology based on the core belief in God as having one person, excluding Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit as the second and third per­
sons. This belief system also holds that Jesus was an exceptional teacher and human being, and a prophet—the earthly “exemplar” of Christianity.
Unitarians believe in Jesus’ moral authority, but not in his divinity.
United Bible Societies (UBS)—An (allegedly) non-profit, ecumenical conglomeration—a “fellowship,” according to the UBS website—of 145 separate
Bible societies in 200 countries worldwide that publishes and distributes “Bibles” and “New Testaments.” The major component organizations in the
UBS are the British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS—1804) and the American Bible Society (ABS—1816). The historical fact is, the BFBS was
founded in a pub in London, and it included members who were Unitarians—believing that Jesus is not deity. Twelve years later, in 1816, some BFBS
members branched out to form the ABS. This organization also included some Unitarians. Hence, because some conservative orthodox members of the
ABS were exasperated with the Unitarian folly, they, in turn, established an orthodox, Bible-based organization called the Trinitarian Bible Society
(TBS), which was formed in 1831. The TBS ardently labored to support and promulgate Trinitarian doctrine (the Triune God), in opposition to the
Unitarianism that had become so prevalent in the nineteenth century. (Today the TBS is the copyright owner—since 1976—of the 1550 Robert Estienne
version of the Textus Receptus.)

V
Vaticanus—The fourth-century codex (also called “Codex B”) whose earliest known reference goes back to 1444, when it was donated to the Vatican
Library. In 1475, Codex B is listed as having been the first registry entry of the Vatican Library. Codex B (Gk. 03 1209) is the single most-coveted
ancient biblical manuscript used by modernists as largely the basis (about ninety percent) for nearly every NT translation having been produced since
before 1881. Vaticanus is of the “Alexandrian” text-type. It is a pristine manuscript dated to approximately 325-360 AD, written in uncials (all caps)—
three columns per page.
Verbal (plenary) inspiration—The belief that the Bible consists of precisely God’s words directly given to and operating divinely through His chosen
instruments, the writers of the various canonical books of the Protestant Bible. This belief also is consistent with investment in God’s preservation of His
Word in the form of the Majority text, then in the more-refined Textus Receptus (personal belief). Some scholars believe in general divine inspiration of
the Bible, others in verbal inspiration, and still others hold that if the Bible has been plenarily inspired, then, consequently, by necessity, it also must be
precisely divinely preserved.
Vulgate (vull´-gate)—1: From the Latin word meaning common; 2: The term typically applied to the voluminously extant common-language Latin
biblical manuscripts (about ten thousand); 3: Any common-language version of the Bible or its underlying texts, regardless of language or dialect—e.g.,
the “Latin Vulgate.” The common Greek is called “Koine,” but also is the “vulgate” [lowercase] Greek—the Greek of the “common people,” as opposed
to Classical Greek.

W
Western—A relatively scarcely supported classification for NT biblical manuscripts having specific characteristics. Most manuscripts of the Old Latin
text—which were translated from Greek—purportedly (for those who accept the Western text-type) are of the Western type, as well as are the quotations
of several early Church Fathers of the second and third centuries. The Western text-form displays a tendency toward paraphrase and marked replacement
of words, clauses and entire sentences—the latter sometimes with an inclination toward “harmonization.” Many such Western-codified works as Codex D
(Bezae) clearly display the aforementioned characteristics, yet others (European) do not.

X
No entries.

Y
No entries.

Z
Zondervan Greek and English Interlinear New Testament (NASB/NIV)—Now in its second edition, this NT interlinear was edited and arranged by
William D. and Robert H. Mounce, and published by Zondervan. It uses the contemporary critically acclaimed UBS4 Greek text, and deliberately has
been arranged to comply as closely as possible to the NET Bible. (This is a profit-driven, strategically arranged association by a company widely known
for its promotional emphasis.) This Greek interlinear has the English equivalents of the Greek words arranged immediately below them, with the Strong’s
Reference Numbers (SRN) below the English, and the term’s basic linguistic morphology at the bottom of each line of Scripture. William Mounce is a
popular author and NT professor who has a long-running relationship with Zondervan, the company that also publishes the NIV. This title occasionally
strays from its own Greek source text and displays ≈inserted English words or both inserted English and ╗Greek words that do not appear in its own
Greek. [See pages 5, 33, and 37.] Its preface promotes one of William Mounces Zondervan titles, and the “Technical Comments” section plugs
modernistic text critics Bruce Metzger (d. 2008), Gordon Fee, and Daniel B. Wallace, as well as mentions another Zondervan Bible, the TNIV. This
“Bible” also implements the typical modernistic trick of referring to a majority of NT Greek manuscripts as “some manuscripts,” and other, similar
methods of deception used by nearly every modern Bible. In terms of learning tools, this NT interlinear is quite helpful to the user. (The user just needs to
be aware that he is the target of marketing hype and is being baited into the trap of modern textual criticism!)

^ Wikipedia, “List of New Testament lectionaries” (1,000 select)
@ Wikipedia,

“List of New Testament lectionaries,” latest figure calculated by the Institute for New Testament Textual Research (Münich)

1

David Otis Fuller, “Which Bible?” in Floyd Nolen Jones, Which Version is the Bible?, 19th ed., rev. and enlarged (The Woodlands, Tex.: KingsWord Press, 1999), p. 120.

2

John W. Burgon, “The Traditional Text” in Floyd Nolen Jones, Which Version is the Bible?, 19th ed., rev. and enlarged (The Woodlands, Tex.: KingsWord Press, 2006),
p. 105.

3

“The Catholic Encyclopedia” in David W. Cloud, Faith Vs. the Modern Bible Versions (Port Huron, Mich.: Way of Life Literature, 2005), p. 257.

4

Marvin Vincent, “A History of Textual Criticism of the New Testament” in David W. Cloud, The Modern Bible Version Hall of Shame (Port Huron, Mich.: Way of Life
Literature, 2005), p. 87.

5

Bruce Metzger, “The Text of the New Testament” in David W. Cloud, The Modern Bible Version Hall of Shame (Port Huron, Mich.: Way of Life Literature, 2005), p. 78.

6

John W. Burgon, The Revision Revised, Centennial Edition [1883-1983] (Fort Worth, Tex.: A.G. Hobbs Publications, 1991), p. 364.

7

James Bentley, Secrets of Mount Sinai: The Story of Finding the World’s Oldest Bible — Codex Sinaiticus (London: Orbis Publishing, 1985), p. 86.

8

Frederick H. A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, 4th ed. (Collingswood,, N.J.: The Bible for Today, 1985), p. 88.

9

James Bentley, Secrets of Mount Sinai: The Story of Finding the World’s Oldest Bible — Codex Sinaiticus (London: Orbis Publishing, 1985), p. 98.

10

James Bentley, Secrets of Mount Sinai: The Story of Finding the World’s Oldest Bible — Codex Sinaiticus (London: Orbis Publishing, 1985), pp. 84-85.

11

William Henry Paine Hatch, The Principal Uncial Manuscripts of the New Testament (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1933), Plate XIV.

12

Wilbur N. Pickering, “The Identity of the New Testament Text” in Floyd Nolen Jones, Which Version is the Bible?, 19th ed., rev. and enlarged (Goodyear, Ariz.: KingsWord
Press, 2006), p. 163.

13

Floyd Nolen Jones, Which Version is the Bible?, 19th ed., rev. and enlarged (Goodyear, Ariz.: KingsWord Press, 2006), p. 178.

14

Ira M. Price, “The Ancestry of Our English Bible” in David W. Cloud, Faith Vs. the Modern Bible Versions (Port Huron, Mich.: Way of Life Literature, 2005), p. 577.

15

David Daniell, The Bible in English (London: Yale University Press, 2003), p. 289.

16

J. A. Moorman, 8,000 Differences between the N.T. Greek Words of the King James Bible and the Modern Versions (Collingswood, N.J.: The Bible for Today, and Dean
Burgon Society, 2006), p. vi.

17

Moorman, 8,000 Differences, vi.

18

Jay P. Green Sr., Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible, Vol. 4, 2nd ed. (Lafayette, Ind.: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1985), p. xii.

19

J. A. Moorman, Early Manuscripts, Church Fathers and the Authorized Version (Collingswood, N.J.: The Bible for Today Press, 2005), p. 170.

20

Jones, Which Version is the Bible?, 31.

21

Jones, Which Version is the Bible?, 31.

22

David W. Cloud, The Bible Version Question/Answer Database (Port Huron, Mich.: Way of Life Literature, 2005), p. 161.

23

Preserved Smith, “Erasmus: A Study of His Life, Ideals, and Place in History” in David W. Cloud, The Bible Version Question/Answer Database (Port Huron, Mich.: Way
of Life Literature, 2005), p. 183.

24

Frederic Kenyon, “Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts” in David W. Cloud, The Bible Version Question/Answer Database (Port Huron, Mich.: Way of Life Literature,
2005), p. 184.

25

Adam Nicholson, “God’s Secretaries” in David W. Cloud, Faith Vs. the Modern Bible Versions (Port Huron, Mich.: Way of Life Literature, 2005), p. 540.

26

Moorman, 8,000 Differences, vi.

27

Cloud, The Bible Version Question/Answer Database, 411.

Bentley, James. Secrets of Mount Sinai: The Story of Finding the World’s Oldest Bible — Codex Sinaiticus. London: Orbis Publishing, 1985.
Burgon, John W. The Revision Revised, Centennial Edition [1883-1983]. Fort Worth, Tex.: A.G. Hobbs Publications, 1991.
Cloud, David W. The Modern Bible Version Hall of Shame. Port Huron, Mich.: Way of Life Literature, 2005.
Cloud, David W. The Bible Version Question/Answer Database. Port Huron, Mich.: Way of Life Literature, 2005.
Cloud, David W. Faith Vs. the Modern Bible Versions. Port Huron, Mich.: Way of Life Literature, 2005.
Comfort, Phillip W. Essential Guide to Bible Versions. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2000.+
Dewey, David. A User’s Guide to Bible Translations: Making the Most of Different Versions. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004.#
Fuller, David Otis, ed. Which Bible? Grand Rapids, Mich.: Institute for Biblical Textual Studies, 1990.
Green, Jay P. Sr. Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible, 2nd ed., rev. Lafayette, Ind.: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1985.
Green, Jay P. Sr. Unholy Hands on the Bible, Vol. II: A Comparison between Six Major Bible Versions. Lafayette, Ind.: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, 1992.
Hatch, William Henry Paine. The Principal Uncial Manuscripts of the New Testament. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1933.
Hills, Edward F. The King James Version Defended, 4th ed. Des Moines, Ill.: The Christian Research Press, 1984.
Jones, Floyd Nolen. The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis, 2nd ed., rev. and enlarged. The Woodlands, Tex.: KingsWord Press, 2000.
Jones, Floyd Nolen. Which Version is the Bible? 19th ed., rev. and enlarged. Goodyear, Ariz.: KingsWord Press, 2006.
Miller, Edward. A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. Collingswood, N.J.: Dean Burgon Society Press, 1979.
Moorman, J. A. Early Manuscripts, Church Fathers, and the Authorized Version. Collingswood, N.J.: The Bible for Today, and The Dean Burgon Society, 2006.
Moorman, J. A. When the KJV Departs from the “Majority” Text. Collingswood, N.J.: The Bible for Today, 1988.
Price, Ira M., William A. Irwin and Allen P. Wikgren, eds. The Ancestry of Our English Bible, 2nd rev. edition. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1953.
Scrivener, Frederick H. A. A Plain Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, 4th ed. Collingswood,, N.J.: The Bible for Today, 1894 (reprint).
Waite, D. A. Theological Heresies of Westcott & Hort: Man’s Liberal Attack upon God’s Word. (Item #595) Collingswood, N.J.: The Bible for Today, 2001.

+ Warning: The author of this title is a modernist, and his contemporary, “new evangelistic” views are highly evident in this text. Please do not read this book until you have

read at least some of the others listed above. (Tyndale House, Inc. also is known for producing NU-based “Bibles” and “New Testaments,” and this publisher is located in
Wheaton, Ill., the home of the modernistic Wheaton College. Even some contemporary “Bibles” include marketing material in them, for other products made by the same
publisher (Zondervan, for example). A Bible should not contain such salesmanship! (The Bible is God’s Word!) Comfort’s book, on the copyright page, reads (at the top),
“Visit Tyndale’s exciting Web site at www.tyndale.com.” (Why not simply list the URL at the top of the page?) This book should serve as an opposing view exemplifying
modernistic viewpoints and operation—versus an orthodox view.

# Warning: The author of this title also is a modernist, and his contemporary, “new evangelistic” views also are very evident in this text. Please do not read this book until you
have read at least some of the others listed above. This book also should serve as an opposing view exemplifying modernistic viewpoints and operation—unorthodox.

he assembler, writer and editor of this document is Edward E. Scott, age 50, a native of Jamestown, N.Y., and a current resident of Jefferson City, Mo.
Mr. Scott is a humble, biblically based believer in the Lord Jesus Christ who has exhausted much of the past several years in extensively and intensively
researching, reading, and studying the following urgent, complementary issues:

V English and versional (different languages/dialects) Bible history
V Bible manuscript history and characteristics (genealogies, paleography, writing and recording materials, etc.)
V Textual criticism (“higher” and “lower”)
V Christian church history
V Early heretical movements
V Content of modern Bibles (beginning with the controversial English Revised Version New Testament in 1881)
V Biblical and theological scholarship in the modern age
V Theological modernism’s early mass movement in the nineteenth century
To wit, Mr. Scott has read 38 books and papers during recent years about the above issues, while also undertaking much critical Greek word study. Furthermore,
during early stages of the document (87 verses/passages) both Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones, a leading authority on OT chronology and events (The Chronology of The
Old Testament), and Dr. D. A. Waite, an eminent Greek scholar and prodigious author, provided encouraging reviews of the work.
He currently is a freelance computer graphics specialist and writer, and one who has written published feature articles for online content
providers, as well as on professional athletes for newspapers and magazines. Mr. Scott once produced 3D, still and motion graphics for
the U.S. Marine Corps, and he has done some post visual effects for film. He has worked with computer graphics in virtually every ap­
plication since 1995, and he has been a published writer since 1989.
It is the writer’s goal—only God willing—to publish further material similar and complementary to that contained in this document.
This assemblage partially may represent a capsulization of future bound works exposing the truth behind the translation, emergence,
promulgation, and pervasive public use of contemporary “pseudo-Bibles.” All honor and glory go to the Lord Jesus Christ, and I thank
Him for implanting the insatiable desire to consume and apply the aforementioned content. God be praised.
I am grateful for and indebted to the following publications: The Revision Revised, Centennial Edition [1883-1983] (Fort Worth, Tex.:
A.G. Hobbs Publications, 1991); Which Version is the Bible?, 19th ed., rev. and enlarged (Goodyear, Ariz.: KingsWord Press, 2006); The Interlinear HebrewGreek-English Bible, Vol. 4, 2nd ed. (Lafayette, Ind.: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1985) ; Early Manuscripts, Church Fathers, and the Authorized Version
(Collingswood, N.J.: The Bible for Today Press, 2005); Faith Vs. the Modern Bible Versions (Port Huron, Mich.: Way of Life Literature, 2005); Thayer’s GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2007); The Majority Text Greek New Testament Interlinear (Nashville: Thomas
Nelson Publishers, 2007); Strong’s Complete Word Study Concordance (Chattanooga: AMG Publishers, 2004); theWord Bible software (Greece: Costas Stergiou,
2012); Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged in One Volume (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985); NestleAland Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th Edition (Stuttgart, Ger.: Deutsch Bibelgesellschaft, 2006); The Greek New Testament, the United Bible Societies Fourth
Revised Edition (Stuttgart, Ger.: Deutsch Bibelgesellschaft, 2001); and several others.
May god richly bless you in all your affairs as you endeavor to please and honor Him.
Yours in Christ,

A

B

A (Codex), 10-38, 40, 46, 61
Abraham, 28, 33, 50
Abram (Abraham), 32, 50
Academic (s, -ian), 8, 41, 46, 55
Acts (The Book of), 2, 10, 20, 24, 44, 50, 60-63, 67, 69
Adamantius, Origen, 4, 23-25, 40, 45, 49-50, 52, 54
Agathe (Gk.: -os, -osune), 8, 25, 29
Agioi (Gk.), 10, 36
Aionion (Gk.), 23
Aland (Nestle-Aland), 3, 5, 7, 9, 16, 18, 40-42, 48, 51, 59, 65
Aleph (Codex), 2, 4-8, 10-17, 19-22, 26-28, 30-31, 34-35, 38, 40,
42-44, 46, 51-52, 54-56, 59-60, 63, 65, 69
Aleppo (Codex), 41, 45
Alexander, coppersmith the, 2
Alexandria, 44-45, 47, 52, 54, 62-64
Alexandrian (s), 5, 16, 19, 22-23, 25, 33-34, 37, 40-41, 43-45, 47,
49, 53-56, 60, 62-64
Alexandrinus (Codex A), 24, 32, 40, 44, 52, 60-61, 65, 69
Alford, Henry, 37, 44
American Bible Society (ABS), 56
Amplified, Bible the, 39
Angel (s), 9-10, 16, 19, 23, 31-32, 36, 47, 69
Angry, 4
Anointed (One), 37
Antichrist (’s), 19, 37-38
Antioch (-ian), 16, 41, 44, 50, 52, 54-55, 64
Apistian (Gk.), 7
Armenian, 28, 44, 50
Astrology, 2
Authorized Version, the (AV), 2, 21, 35, 39, 43-44, 49, 51-52, 55,
65-66, 69-72
Auto (Gk.: -u, -n, -s), 20, 23, 38, 44
B (Codex), 2, 4-31, 33-38, 40, 42-44, 46, 50-51, 54, 56, 59-60, 65,
69
Babylonian, 54
Basel, 43
Bentley, James, 2, 70-71
Berry, G. R. (George Ricker), 42
Beza,
Codex (Bezae), 4, 8, 11, 17, 21, 40, 45, 52, 57, 60
Theodore, 17, 22, 35, 39, 41, 43, 45, 55
Bible, 2-8, 10, 12-13, 21, 23, 25, 28, 32, 34, 37, 39-57, 65, 69-72

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 45
Bohairic, 5-24, 28-30, 32, 34-38, 45, 53, 59
Book, The, 43
Bombasius, Paulus, 43
Bomberg, 45
British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS), 56
British Museum, 50
Burgon, John W., 2, 43, 50, 70-71
Byzantine (Byz.), 4-12, 14-41, 44-50, 52-55, 59-64

C
C (Codex), 5-10, 12-20, 22-36, 34-37, 46, 61
C2, 12-13, 23-24, 26, 31, 34
C3, 5, 7, 22-23, 26-28
Caesarean (Caes.), 5, 8-10, 20, 22, 28, 37, 45, 47, 49, 52, 54, 59-64
Campianus (Codex M), 45, 61
Capernaum, 6
Catholic (-ism, Roman), 2, 29, 32, 39-40, 43, 47, 52, 54, 61-63
(epistles), 70
Chaire (Gk.), 16
Chayyim, Jacob ben, 45
Children, 14, 19, 30, 33
Chosen, 8, 12, 17, 32, 42, 55-56, 67
Chrema (Gk.), 14
Chrisma (Gk.), 37
Christ (’s), 3-5, 8-13, 17, 19, 22-33, 35-38, 44-52, 54, 65-68, 72
Christian (s, ’s, -ity), 2, 4, 35, 37, 43-46, 49-52, 54, 56, 62, 71-72
Christology (’s), 5, 24, 26, 37, 45
Church (-man), 2, 4, 23-24, 29-32, 39, 41, 43-46, 49-52, 56-57, 64,
70-72
Cleanse (s), 37
Cleopas, 15
Cloud, 6, 17
David, 43-45, 70-71
Codex (codices), 2, 4-5, 7-8, 11, 16-17, 21, 24-25, 29, 32, 34, 36,
40-47, 50-57, 59-61, 63, 65, 69
Colophon, 3, 63
Commandments, 38
Conceive, 32-33, 47
Conclusion (s), 3, 8, 40, 42-43
Constantine, 43, 45
Constantinople, 45, 60-63
Constantinopolitan, 16, 41, 50

D

E

Contemporary, 2, 4, 6, 13-14, 17-18, 23, 30, 32, 37, 39-41, 44, 48,
53-54, 57, 65, 71-72
Convent, 40, 44, 47
Coptic (Egyptian), 4, 6, 8-9, 11, 13-19, 21-36, 38, 45, 50, 59, 62
Covenant, 10, 28
Coverdale, 39, 41, 43
Critic (s), 2, 4, 11-13, 15, 17, 20, 23, 27, 29, 37-38, 40-42, 44, 4750, 52-57, 65
Critical apparatus, 3, 11, 13, 15, 23, 25 (notes)-27, 40, 47, 55, 59
Critical text (edition/apparatus), 2-4, 10-11, 13, 15, 18, 20-22, 23
(sign), 25-27, 29 (rules), 33-35, 39-40, 42, 44-49, 51, 53, 55,
59, 62, 65
Cross, 14, 28, 38
Curetonian (Syriac), 5-7, 9, 18, 20-23, 46, 48, 59
Curse, 5
Cursive (minuscule), 5, 7-11, 13-33, 35-36, 38-39, 45-46, 49-51,
56, 59, 61-62, 64
Cyrus the Great, 54
D (Codex), 4-18, 21-33, 45-46, 50, 57, 59
D1, 25-26, 30, 32, 34
D2, 4, 20, 25-27, 31-33, 60
DC, 24
Daimonion (Gk.), 12
Damnable, 2, 12
Danger, 4, 12
Darkness, 24, 36, 54
Delta (D), 5, 9, 11-14, 17, 23, 58
Dead (-ly), 19, 21, 26, 34, 48, 51-52, 69
Destroy (-ed), 17, 36, 52, 54
Diglot, 45-46, 60-63
Dittography, 25, 46
Docetist (-ism), 28, 38, 46
Doctrine, (s, -ally), 2, 8, 12, 24, 28, 31-32, 38-39, 43-46, 53, 56, 68
Document (s, -ed), 2-4, 40-41, 43, 47, 49-50, 52, 55, 65
Diocletian (’s), 45
Doxes (Gk.), 10
Drink, 10, 27
E (Codex), 17, 21, 50, 59-60
Ecclesiastical, 16, 41, 45, 49-50, 55
Ecumenical, 16, 42, 46
Egeneto (Gk. ginomai), 19
Egyptian (Egypt.), 4-5, 14, 17, 20, 25, 33-34, 37, 43, 46-47, 50, 5354, 59-60, 62

F

Elzevir(s), 17, 22, 46, 55
Emperor, 45
Empire, 45
Enemy (-ies), 5, 34
English Revised Version (ERV), 2, 4, 10, 15-16, 36, 39-40, 44, 4648, 72
Eparoton (Gk.), 20
Ephesians (Eph.), 19, 29-30, 47-48, 60, 68
Ephraemi Rescriptus (Codex C), 47, 52-53, 55, 60
Episkenoo (Gk.), 27, 47
Erasmus, Desiderius (texts), 17, 22, 30, 35-36, 38-39, 41, 43, 55,
70
Estienne (Stephanus/texts), Robert, 35, 41, 47, 55
Eternal (-ly), 8, 10, 12-13, 22-23, 27-29, 33, 47
Ethiopic, 25, 47
Eurethesetai (Gk.), 36
Exalt (-ed), 6
Exemplar, 17, 32, 38, 47-48, 56
Extant, 4-12, 15-17, 19-20, 23-28, 31, 35, 38, 42, 44-52, 55-56, 60,
64
F (Codex), 17, 21, 25-31, 50, 59
Faith (-ful, -fully, -fulness), 7, 19, 24, 31, 33-34, 43, 52, 67, 69-72
Family, 45-46
1 (Ë1), 4-13, 15-23, 45, 49, 59, 62-63
13 (Ë13), 4-13, 15-24, 59, 62
1424, 63
1739, 62
2127, 63
Farstad, Arthur L., 41, 48
Father (s), 2, 4, 8-9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 29-33, 40-41, 45-52,
54, 56-57, 64, 67-68, 70-72
Ferrar (Group), 20, 45
Fifteenth (15th, century), 5, 10, 36, 40
Fifth (5th: century), 5, 10, 13, 18, 21-22, 24, 30, 45, 48, 59
First (1st: century), 26, 28, 38-39, 44, 46-47, 50
Firstborn, 4, 66
First Rabbinic Bible, 45
Flesh (-y), 22, 24-25, 29, 31-32, 36, 38, 46-47, 67
Forgive (s, -ness), 10, 12, 14, 20, 22, 27
Fornication, 7
Fourth (4th: century), 2, 5, 9, 12-15, 17-19, 21, 23-24, 30, 32, 3435, 37, 39, 41, 44-48, 50-54, 56, 59
Friderico-Augustanus, 40, 47
Functional equivalence, 42

G

I
G (Codex), 17, 21, 25-31, 59
Ghost (Holy), 12, 36, 68
Ginomai (Gk.), 19
Glory (-ious), 2, 4, 10, 16, 27, 31-33, 72
Gnostic, 22, 28, 44
Gnosticism, 2, 26, 32, 37, 46-47
God, 2, 4-9, 11-12, 14-17, 19-20, 22-24, 26-32, 34, 36-40, 42-45,
47, 50-51, 53, 55-56, 67-68, 70-72
Gothic (version), 47, 50
Grace, 19, 27, 30
Greek, 2-65, 69-72
Apparatus (-es), 3, 5-7, 9, 11-16, 19-21, 23, 26-27, 31-33, 35,
40, 42, 47, 51, 53-55, 59
Manuscripts, 2, 4-11, 14-16, 18-19, 21-25, 30-31, 33-35, 37,
39-57, 59-60, 62-65, 69-72
MS/MSS (ms/mss), 4-26, 28-31, 33-36, 43, 50, 59-62, 64
NT, 2, 4, 6-7, 9-12, 17-19, 21, 24, 27-28, 31, 35, 38-42, 45,
50-52, 54-55, 57, 60, 65, 69
Source (texts), 4-10, 12-13, 18-19, 21-23, 25-26, 29, 31, 33,
35-36, 38-39, 42, 44, 47, 51, 55, 57
Text (s), 2-29, 31-57, 59-65, 69-72
Griesbach, Johann Jakob, 38, 40, 46, 48

H
H (Codex), 17, 21, 30, 32-33, 59
Hades, 6, 36, 48
Haplography, 17, 32, 48
Hate, 5
Harclean (Harc., or Harklean), 4-7, 9-18, 20-27, 30, 34, 36, 48, 59
Heaven (s, -ly), 6, 9-10, 14, 16, 18-19, 22, 26, 32-33, 36, 48, 52,
67-68
Hebrew (s, s’), 2, 10, 28, 32-34, 38, 41, 44-48, 51-52, 54, 60-61
Hell, 6, 13, 30, 36, 48
Heresy (-ies), 2, 22, 29, 44, 46, 71
Heretic (s), 2, 23, 39, 48
Heretical, 4, 46-47, 52, 72
Hexapla, 52, 54
Holy (un-), 2, 4, 10, 12, 16, 29, 36-37, 41, 44, 48-49, 53-54, 56,
67-68, 71
Hodges, Zane C. (Hodges-Farstad), 17, 41, 48
Hort, Fenton John Anthony (F. J. A.), 38-41, 46, 48, 51, 71
Hoskier, Herman C., 2, 38, 43, 53, 65
Hymenaeus, 2
Hypocrite (s), 6, 9
Hippolytus, 2

J

I (Codex), 28, 30, 59-61
Ide (Gk.: ido, idou, idios, idia), 5, 11, 18
Identical (-ly), 4, 7, 10, 13-14, 21-22, 25, 30-31, 39, 50-51
Illumines, 52
Image, 32
Immorality, 7
Impotent, 7, 25, 44
Inactive, 34, 44
Insert (s, -ed, -ion), 4, 6-8, 10, 12, 15-17, 20, 23-27, 30-33, 35, 38,
48, 50, 55-57
Inspiration, 2, 34, 43, 55-56
Intentionally, 48
Interdenominational, 39, 42, 46
International Bible Society (IBS), 39
Interpolation (s), 10, 15, 17, 25, 34, 42, 45, 48
Interpret (-ed, -ers, -ation [s], mis-), 6, 18, 23, 29, 33, 37, 43, 48,
52-53
Instrument (s), 32, 43, 55-56
Irenaeus, 2, 45
James
An apostle (brother of Jesus or “James the Lesser”), 4
King (England/Scotland), 39, 43, 49
The book (epistle) of, 34
Jeremiah, 47
Jerome, 49, 52
Jerusalem, 16, 22, 50, 64
Jesus (Christ), 4-12, 14-17, 19-20, 22, 24-32, 37-38, 44-45, 50-52,
56, 66-68, 72
Jew (s, -ish), 8, 45-46, 50
John
The apostle, 37, 48
The Baptist, 11
Jesus’ step-brother, 4
The gospel (book), 21-24, 26, 28, 53, 60-62, 65, 67-68
1 & 2 John (books), 29, 37-38, 52, 62, 68-69
Jones, Floyd Nolen, 2, 70-72
Joseph, 4, 16
Joses (Joseph), Jesus’ half-brother, 4
Judah (kingdom of), 54
Judas (Jude, Jesus’ half-brother), 4
Judgment, 4, 12, 26-27, 36-37, 43, 68
Justify (-ies, -ied, -ication), 5, 17, 19, 24, 29, 31
Justinian, 45

K

L

K (Codex), 9-10, 14, 17, 20-21, 25, 27, 29-31, 33-36, 38, 59
Kai (Gk.), 5, 12, 15-16, 20, 22, 29, 33-34, 37, 49
Kairos (Gk.), 15
Kardias (Gk.), 35
Kata (Gk.), 6, 9, 25
Katabolen (Gk.), 33
Katharas (Gk.), 35
Kathēgētēs (Gk.), 9
Kenóō (Gk.), 30, 49
Kingdom, 8-9, 11, 14, 18, 29, 51, 54
King James Version (KJV), 3-4, 6, 12, 14-16, 19-23, 25, 27, 29,
31-36, 46, 48-49, 55, 71
Kittel, Rudolph, 45
Gerhard , 55
Kriseos (Gk.), 12
L (Codex), 4-24, 27, 30, 33-35, 38, 40, 53, 59
Lachmann, Karl, 40, 49, 56
Lamb, 38
Lamentations, 10
Language (s), 25, 31-32, 35, 40, 42-43, 45-46, 48-50, 52, 54-56, 72
Latin, 45-47, 49, 51-53, 55-56, 59-61, 63
Old Latin, 4-15, 18-21, 24-26, 29-32, 34, 49-50, 52, 57, 59,
63-64
Latin Vulgate (common), 4-11, 13-26, 28-36, 38-39, 46, 4950, 52, 56, 59, 62-63
Vulgate (common), 49, 56
Law (s, -less), 15, 26, 28, 69
Lection, 26, 29, 49
Lectionary ( ℓ, -ies), 8, 11, 14, 35, 45-46, 49-50, 57, 64
Leningradensis (Codex), 45
Levite, 45
Liberal, 4, 13, 20, 40, 45, 47, 71
Life, 2, 8, 18, 23, 29, 33, 35, 37-38, 47-48, 51, 53, 56
Light, 24, 29, 37, 39, 52
Lord, 2, 5, 16-17, 19, 23, 26-27, 30-32, 35-37, 42, 66-69, 72
Love, 5, 35
Lowring, 6, 49
Lucian (Lucianic), 41
Luke
The apostle, 42
The gospel (book) of, 5, 7-10, 13-22, 24, 31, 48, 61-62, 65, 67
Luminosity, 29, 52
Luther, Martin, 43

M
M (Codex), 21, 40, 53, 59
Magus, Simon, 2
Majority (text), 4-6, 8-12, 14-39, 41-45, 48, 50-53, 55-56, 59, 7172
Majuscules (uncials), 16, 20, 35, 50, 56
Man, Son of, 7, 10, 17, 19, 22, 67
Manuscripts (MS/MSS, ms/mss), 2, 4-57, 59-65, 69-72
Marcionism, 46
Marginalia, 45, 50, 55, 61-62
Mark, the gospel (book of), 5, 7, 9-15, 20, 42, 48, 55, 61-63, 65, 67
Mary
the mother of Jesus, 4, 16
Magdelene (of Magdela), 15
Marry (-ies, -ieth), 7, 26
Masoretic, 41, 45
Master, 8-9, 67
Matthew
The apostle, 9
The gospel (book) of, 4-10, 12-14, 17-18, 20, 42-43, 48, 6063, 65
Matthew’s Bible, 39, 41, 43
Melchisedec (Melchisedek), 32, 50
Mesrob, 44
Messenger, 11
Messiah, 24, 32, 37
Metzger, Bruce M., 43, 53-54, 57, 70
Miller, Edward, 2, 43, 50, 71
Millstone, 13
Minority (text), 2, 4-10, 12-14, 16, 18-19, 21-22, 24-27, 29, 31, 3435, 37, 42
Minuscule (s [cursive]), 9, 12-14, 18, 20, 23, 32, 34-35, 38, 45-46,
49-51, 56, 62-63
Modern (s’, s), 2, 4-40, 42, 44-48, 51, 53-55, 57, 59-60, 62-63, 65,
70, 72
Modernism (’s), 23, 44, 51, 72
Modernist (-ic, -ically), 5-6, 8-9, 12, 14-20, 23, 37-41, 43, 45-48,
51-57, 71-72
Moichatai (Gk.), 7
Monastery, 2, 40, 44, 46-47, 55, 62
Monogenes (Gk.), 22, 51
Moorman, J. A., 21, 35, 38, 41, 51-52, 65, 70-71
Mother, 6, 16, 45
Mounce
Robert, 42, 57
William (Bill), 15, 37, 57

N
N (Codex), 5, 19, 55
Name, 4, 18, 22, 37, 40
Nation (s), 9, 22, 31
Naturalistic (-ally), 4, 6, 20, 39-45, 51
Nestle-Aland (NA), 3-9, 11-27, 29-30, 33-36, 38-42, 48, 51, 55,
59, 65
Never, 2, 12, 36, 40, 43, 55, 60
New Testament, 2, 4-5, 8, 13-16, 20-22, 25, 27, 29, 34, 36, 39-42,
44-49, 51-57, 65-66, 69-72
NT, 7, 9-12, 14-15, 17-19, 21, 24, 27, 31, 35, 44-45, 47-57,
60, 65, 69
Nile River, 46, 52
Nineteenth (19th: century), 2, 12, 15, 20, 37, 39-40, 43, 46, 51, 5354, 56, 72
NU (NA-UBS text), 6-18, 20-33, 35-39, 42, 51, 53, 71
Number (s, -ed, -ing) , 6-7, 9, 15, 24, 37, 41, 45, 47, 52-53, 56-57,
64
Numerous, 4-5, 17, 21, 24, 40-41, 46-47, 51-52, 54-55

O
Oath, 24, 32
Obedience, 14, 35
Oinon (Gk.), 10
Oldest, 4, 9, 14-15, 17, 19, 23, 35, 44, 51
Old Testament, 10, 35, 40-41, 45-46, 47, 49, 54, 72
OT, 11, 15-17, 22, 29, 41, 44-50, 56
Omission, 4-5, 8, 12-14, 16-17, 20-21, 23-24, 26-30, 35, 42, 47
Omit (s, -ted, -ting), 5-15, 17, 19-21, 23-24, 26-28, 30-36, 38, 47
Onikos (Gk.), 13
One (s), 2, 5-6, 8-10, 12-25, 27-28, 31, 35, 37-45, 47
Only (Son, God), 22, 67
Oppose (s, -ing ), 7-8, 10-13, 18, 20-30, 37-38, 52
Osei (Gk.), 19
Outnumber (-ed, -ing), 7-8, 10, 24, 26, 31, 33, 38-39, 56
Oxos (Gk.), 10

P
P (Codex), 17, 24-25, 27-30, 32-38, 59
Pagan, 2, 47
Paleography, 72
Panta (Gk., -es), 18, 27, 37
Papyrus (-ri)
Papyri, 15, 17, 23-24, 34, 50, 52, 59-60, 64
Papyrus, 4, 19, 21-22, 35, 46-47, 50, 52-53, 59-60
Parable, 8, 45

Paradidomi (Gk.), 11
Paradothenai (Gk.), 11
Paradothomai (Gk.), 11
Parakupsas (Gk.), 21
Parallel (-ed, -ism, -ization), 5, 12, 20, 25, 40-41, 44, 46, 48, 52
Parchment, 47, 60-63
Parents, 16
Partial (-ly), 8, 13-15, 21, 35-37, 44, 46, 50, 52, 66
Pass (-ed, -ing), 19, 21, 24, 27, 36, 42, 67
Passage, 5, 15, 18-19, 31, 38-39, 42-43, 46, 50
Passion, 29
Patristic, 50
Paul, the apostle, 2, 26, 28, 30-31, 47
Pauline (s, Paul.), 29, 44, 47, 49-50, 60-63
Peace, 16, 25, 30
Pen (-ned, -ning), 2, 30, 51-56
Pentateuch, 46, 54
People (’s, s), 2, 5, 12, 15-17, 26-28, 31-32, 34, 39, 43, 45, 47, 50,
52, 56
Percent (%), 2, 5-16, 18-28, 31, 38-45, 50, 53-54, 56, 60, 64
Perfect (-ed, -ion), 12, 27, 33, 35
Pericope (Latin), 45
Perish, 23
Perpetual, 4
Persecute (-d, -ing, -ion), 5, 19, 31, 34, 45, 52
Persia (’s), 54
Person (s), 2, 9, 20, 28, 32, 34, 38, 42, 44-45, 47, 49, 51, 56, 67-68
Peshitta, Syriac, 4-7, 9-18, 20-24, 26, 29-30, 34-37, 39, 48, 50, 52,
59
Pestilence (s), 9
Peter
The apostle, 2, 18, 21, 35
1 Peter, 17, 31, 35-36, 60, 68
2 Peter, 2, 36, 60, 62, 68
Phantom, 38, 41, 46
Pharisees, 8-9
Phērō (Gk.), 36
Philetus, 2
Philoxenian, Syriac, 36, 48, 52, 59
Philological, 40, 44, 49
Philosophy, 2, 54
Phos (Gk.), 29, 52
Physician, 12, 42
Pieces, 8
Pisteuon (Gk.), 23

Pit (s), 36
Plenary (-ily), 43, 55-56
Pneuma (Gk.), 29, 53
Polyglot, 47
Complutensian, 17, 41, 46
Poor (-ly), 14, 26, 35, 38, 53, 61-62
Popularity, 4
Popularized, 40
Popularly, 41, 54
Population, 54
Porneia (Gk.) 7
Portion (s), 4, 6-8, 12, 14, 17, 20, 22-25, 41, 44, 47, 49, 51, 63
Positivism, 39
Possession (s), 18, 33, 40, 45
Pour (-ed), 10
Powder, 8
Power (-full, -less), 12-13, 19, 23-25, 27, 32-33, 40, 45
Pratensis, Rabbi Felix, 45
Prepare, 11, 49
Preservation, 43, 56
Preserve (-d), 43, 45, 53, 56
Preside (-d), 44-45, 50
Pretense, 9
Priest (s, -ly), 32-33, 40, 50, 54
Print (-ed, -er), 41, 43, 46-47, 51, 55
Prison (-ers), 11, 33
Pray (-ing, -er), 5, 9, 13, 15, 18-19, 52
Preach (-ed, -ing), 11, 22, 25, 31, 42
Process, 29, 39-40, 43-44, 46, 48, 53, 55
Prodigy, 40
Produce (-d, -ing, -tion), 2, 4, 21, 29-30, 36, 40-44, 46-49, 52-53,
55-56, 72
Prōegraphē (Gk.), 27
Profane, 2
Profit, 39, 57
Promise (s, -d), 10, 18, 24, 28, 33, 69
Prophecy, 10, 15, 36
Prophet (s), 2, 11, 24, 38, 56
Propheteuson (Gk.), 20
Proponent, 40
Proseuchesthē, 5, 15
Prosopon (Gk.), 20
Protestant, 39, 47, 53, 56
Prove (s, -d, -n), 2, 4, 8, 12, 39, 45-46, 48
Proverbs, 14, 43

Provide (s, -ing), 8-9, 16, 23, 25, 32, 36, 41-43, 51, 72
Providentially, 43
Psalm (s), 10, 43, 63
Pseudo-, 2, 4, 49, 52, 72
Psi (Y), 13-20, 22-36, 38, 58-59, 61
Public (-ly), 8, 18, 27, 39, 43-44, 47, 72
Publication (s), 39, 41, 55, 70-72
Publish (-ed, -ing, -er, -ers), 2, 16, 39, 41, 46-49, 51, 53-59, 70-72
Pulp, 52
Pure (-r), 27, 34-35, 39, 41, 46, 49, 52, 55, 64
Purgatory, 52
Purged, 32
Purified (-ies), 35, 37
Purpose (s), 10, 29, 33, 36-37, 46, 49, 54-55
Purrazi (Gk.), 6

Q
Quarto, 46
Quenched, 13
Quote (-ation [s]), 11, 17, 23, 25, 35, 39, 50, 57

R
R (Codex), 17, 59
Rabbi, 9, 45
Rabbinic,
First (Bible), 45
Second (Bible), 45
Radiance, 32
Raise (-d), 24, 67
Rapture, 19
Ratified, 29
Rationalism, 40, 48, 53
Reader (’s, s), 8, 12, 14, 17-18, 21, 25-26, 30, 36-37, 39, 44, 51,
55, 65, 69
Readership, 11, 39
Reading (s), 3-5, 8-9, 11-42, 44, 46, 50, 53-54, 56, 59-61, 64-65,
69, 72
Real, 2, 16, 46
Rebuke (s), 31
Receive (-d), 9, 28, 31, 33, 47, 55
Receptacle, 48
Receptor (decoding), 42
Receptus, Textus, 4, 6, 10, 15-17, 22-24, 29-33, 35-39, 41-43, 4649, 51, 55-56
Records, 16, 52
Redeem (-ed), 4, 19, 27

Reduce (s, -ed), 5, 14, 54, 66
Refer (s, -ring), 15, 17, 19-20, 22-23, 25, 28-30, 32, 34, 38, 40, 4449, 52
Reference (s), 2-3, 8, 13, 17, 19-20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 33, 37-39, 41,
46, 50, 53, 55-57, 59-60
Regenerate (-d, -ion), 26-27, 39, 47, 52
Region, 41, 54, 64
Reign (s, -ed), 41, 54, 64
Reject (-ed, -ing, -ion), 2, 8, 12, 48, 54-55
Release (-d), 2, 4, 39-40, 47-48, 54
Reliable, 20, 52, 55
Reformation, 21-22, 34, 39, 43, 45-46, 49, 53
Rejoice, 16
Remain (s, -ed, -ing), 2, 22-23, 27, 33, 45, 48, 53
Remembrance, 26
Remiss, 4
Remission, 10, 22
Remove (s, -ed, -al), 5-8, 11, 13, 16, 22-23, 25-26, 29, 37-38, 67
Repent (-ance), 5, 22, 32, 35
Repetition, 13, 25, 30-31
Replace (s, -ed, -ing, -ment), 8, 10-11, 17, 21, 32, 38, 40-41, 46-47,
51, 53, 56-57, 68
Represent (s, -ed, -ation, -ative, -ativeness), 2, 4, 10, 21, 28, 32-33,
37, 39, 41, 45, 47-48, 50, 53-55, 72
Reproach (-ed), 31
Reputation, 30
Research (-ed, -ing), 4, 41, 43, 50, 57, 72
Rescension, Antiochian, 41
Rescriptus, 47, 53
Ephraemi (Codex C), 47, 52, 55, 72
Climaci, 62
Reserved, 36
Residence, 27, 47
Resident (s), 54, 72
Respect (-ed), 35, 50
Rest (s), 6, 15-16, 27, 64
Resurrection, 15, 29, 48, 52
Revelation (Rev.)
the book of, 32, 38, 53, 61
divine, 53
Reveal (-ed, -ing), 6, 21-22, 31, 39
Revere (-d, -nce), 11, 13, 21, 27, 32, 43-44
Revile (-ed, -ing), 31, 35
Revise (-d, -r), 2, 4-5, 37, 40, 44, 46-49, 51, 64-65, 70-72
Revision, 39, 48-49, 51, 70-72
Revoke, 28

Rheims-Duoay (Bible), 52
Rhoizedon (Gk.), 36
Rich (-es), 14, 39
Righteous (-ness), 5, 29, 33, 35
Rise, 9
Roar (-ing), 36
Robbery, 30
Robes, 38
Rodgers, John, 39, 41
Roman Catholic (-ism), 2, 29, 32, 39-40, 43, 47, 52, 54
Roman Empire, Eastern, 45
Romans, the book of, 25-26, 28, 67-69
Rome (’s), 44, 47, 52, 54, 69
Rose, 21

S
S (Codex), 17, 21, 59
Sacred, 2, 11-12
Sacrifice (s), 5, 28, 32, 42
Saducees, 8
Sahidic, 5-11, 13-17, 19-21, 23-24, 30, 32, 34-35, 37-38, 53, 59
Saint Catherine’s Monastery/Convent, 2, 40, 44, 47, 55, 60
Salem, 50
Salvation, 8, 14, 22, 28, 32-33, 35, 42, 48, 52
Samaritan Pentateuch, 39
Samuel, II, the Book of, 24
Sanctify (-ied), 19
Sara (Sarah), 33
Satan (’s), 13, 24, 27, 31, 52
Save (s, -d), 7-8, 17, 19, 26, 35, 37, 52
Savior (or Saviour), 13, 19, 35
Sawn (sawed), 34
Say (s, -ing), 4-5, 7-9, 12, 15, 17-18, 20, 23, 28, 32-33
Saxony, 46
Scandinavia, 47
Science, 2, 23, 40, 55
Scholar (s’, s, -ly, -ship), 2, 4, 6-9, 13, 15, 17-18, 23-25, 37, 39-43,
44-56, 65, 72
Scribe (s, -al), 2, 4-6, 8-13, 15, 17, 23, 25-27, 29-32, 34-35, 37-38,
40-41, 44, 46-48, 53-54
Scripture (s, -al), 2, 9, 12, 14-15, 17, 19-20, 28, 32, 34-35, 37, 39,
41-42, 44, 46-49, 52-53, 57
Scrivener, F. H. A., 2, 43, 53, 70-71
Scrolls, Dead Sea, 39
Seat, 26, 68
Second Coming, 26

Secret (s, -ly), 2, 40, 47, 70-71
Secretive, 47
Sect (s), 2
Seed (s), 7, 16, 28, 33
Seirais (Gk.), 36, 54
Selective, 12
Semler, J. S., 40, 48
Send The Light (STL), 39
Separate (-d, -ing), 5, 24, 27, 31, 37-38, 48, 52, 56
Septuagint, 8, 10, 37, 39-40, 46, 52, 54-55, 60, 71
Sepulchre, 15, 21
Sepúlveda, Juan Ginés de, 43
Servant, 28, 30
Seventeen (-th, 17th: century), 20, 39, 46, 50, 52, 55
Seventh (7th), 2, 4-5, 7, 9-10, 13, 24-25, 30-31, 32, 34, 36, 50, 59
Sheepskins, 34
Showed, 4, 21, 33
Sick (-ness, -nesses), 12, 25, 44
Significant (-ly, -ance), 4, 7, 12-13, 15-17, 21-24, 27-29, 35-36, 39,
42, 44-46
Silvanus (Silas), 30
Simon, Richard, 40, 44
Sin (s, -ned, -ful), 7, 10, 12-14, 22, 32, 34-37, 50
Sinai (Mt.), 2, 40, 47
Sinaitic
(-us), Aleph, 2, 4, 16-17, 32, 34, 38, 40, 42-44, 52, 54-56, 5961, 65, 69-71
Syriac, 5-10, 12, 14-15, 17-22, 24, 46, 48, 54, 59
Sinner (s), 5, 25
Sixteen (-th, 16th: century), 4, 39, 41, 45, 50, 55
Skandalisē (Gk.), 13
Slain, 34
Slave, 28
Smote, 20
Society,
American Bible (ABS), 52
British and Foreign Bible (BFBS), 56
International Bible (IBS), 39
Trinitarian Bible (TBS), 41, 56
Sodom, 12
Son (s), 4-5, 7, 9-10, 16-17, 19, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 37-38, 45,
47, 51, 66-67, 68
Soul (s), 6, 17, 35, 37, 48, 52-53
Source (s), 4-7, 9-10, 12-13, 16, 18-19, 21-26, 29, 31-33, 35-36,
38-39, 40-42, 44, 47-49, 51, 55, 57
Sovereign Grace Publishers, 41, 70-72

Spare (-d), 36
Speak (s, -ing), 6, 8, 11, 35-36, 42, 45 ,49, 54
Special, 2, 31, 47, 58
Specific (-ally, -ity), 11, 15, 17-18, 22, 24-26, 28, 30, 33, 44, 46,
48-51, 54, 57
Specified, 20-22, 24-26, 29-32, 35-38
Spirit, 8, 10, 12, 16, 19, 25, 29, 31, 35-38, 44, 53, 56, 68
Spiritual (-ly, -ized), 2, 4, 8, 26-27, 29, 35, 37, 39, 42, 44, 47-49,
52, 55
Spoiling, 33
Spoke (-n, spake), 2, 21, 28, 32, 36, 38, 54
Stand (s, -ing), 6, 8, 10, 19, 26, 33-34, 38, 41
Status, 2, 5, 22, 44
Stauron (Gk.), 14
Stephanus (Stephens), Robert, 35, 41, 51
Stepped, 23
Stereo (Gk.), 31
Stone (s, -d), 8, 24, 34, 69
Strength (-ening), 19, 25, 27, 33, 40, 44
Strong’s, 6, 22, 24-25, 32, 37, 41, 48, 57, 72
Struck, 20
Stugnazo (Gk.), 6
Stuttgartensia, Biblia Hebraica, 45
Stylist (s, -ic), 10, 26, 28-29, 39
Stylized, 39
Subject (s), 4, 68
Subjective, 18, 34
Substance, 10, 33
Substitute (-d, -ing, -ion), 6, 11, 28, 34-36
Suffer (-ed), 31, 34, 36, 46
Sufficient, 27, 30
Sugklēronomai (Gk.), 28
Support (s, -ed, -ing, -ive), 4-14, 16-24, 26-39, 41, 43-47, 51, 5657, 59, 63
Sware, 32
Sweat, 19
Swiss, 45
Sword, 34
Sworn (sware), 24, 32
Synagogue, 49, 69
Synaxaria, 49
Syncretism, 2, 47
Synoptic (gospels), 42, 48, 64
Syria, 44, 54, 64
Syriac, 4-23, 25-28, 30-32, 33-39, 46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 59
Syrian, 52, 54

T
T (Codex), 19-20, 22-23
Ta (Gk.), 27
Tabernacle, 33
Take (s, -n, -ing), 11, 14-15, 19, 26-27, 31, 39, 47
Tarried, 16
Tartarus, 36, 48
Tartarosas (Gk.), 36
Tas (Gk.), 12, 16
Tatian, 24
Taverner’s Bible, 39
Teacher (s), 2, 8-9, 31, 37, 56
Teaching (s), 2, 42, 51
Teleiosanton (Gk.), 16
Teleioteras (Gk.), 33
Tell, 4-5, 7, 20, 23-24
Temple, 8, 24, 54
Tempt (-ed), 34
Tent, 33, 47
Tertullian, 2, 24, 45, 50, 52
Testament, 10 (covenant)
New (NT), 2, 4-5, 7-22, 25, 27, 29, 31, 34-36, 39-42, 44-46,
51-54, 56-57, 60, 65-66, 69-72
Old (OT), 10-11, 15-17, 22, 29, 35, 40-41, 45-47, 49, 52, 5455, 72
Testamentum, Novum (Graece), 16, 41-42
Testimony, 5-7, 9-12, 18, 20, 23, 26-31, 33-34, 36, 41, 50
Text (s), 2, 4-13, 16-17, 19, 25, 27-29, 37-38, 40-42, 44-52, 54-57
Alexandrian (s, Alex.), 5, 7, 9-10, 16-17, 19, 22-23, 25, 28-29,
31, 33-34, 37-38, 40-41, 43-45, 47, 49, 53-56, 60, 62-64
Byzantine (Byz.), 4-12, 14-41, 44-50, 52-55, 59-64
Caesarean (Caes.), 5, 8-10, 20, 22, 28, 37, 45, 47, 49, 54, 6061, 63-64
Critical (edition), 2, 4, 10-11, 13, 15, 18, 20-22, 26-27, 33-35,
37, 39-40, 44-49, 51, 53, 55, 59, 63, 65
Majority (Maj., Ï), 4-39, 41-45, 48, 50-53, 55-56, 59, 71-72
Masoretic, 41, 45
Mixed (eclectic), 10, 29, 37, 49, 52, 60-64
Old Latin (OL), 4-34, 36-37, 49-50, 52, 57, 59, 63-64
Received, 47, 55
Western, 8, 28, 41, 45, 49, 52, 54, 57, 60, 62, 64
Text-type (s), 3, 28, 40-41, 44-47, 49-50, 52-57, 60, 63-64
Textual, 4, 15, 23, 26, 29, 35, 42, 47-48, 52, 54, 56-57, 65, 71
Textual criticism, 3, 23, 39-40, 42, 51-52, 55, 57, 64, 70-72

Textus Receptus, 4, 6, 10, 15-17, 22-24, 29-33, 35-39, 41-43, 4649, 51, 55-56
Thanks, 26
Thelemate (Gk.), 36
Theologian (s), 23, 40, 44-46, 49, 51, 53, 55-56
Theological (-ly), 4, 22-23, 26-29, 32, 40, 43-44, 48, 51-52, 55-56,
71-72
Theopneustos (Gk.), 40
Theory (-ies), 4, 12, 15, 17-18, 20, 29, 40-41, 46, 48, 54-55, 56
Thessalonians
The books of (1, 2), 30
The church of the, 30
Theta (Codex, Θ), 4-20, 22-24, 36, 58
Thief, 36
Thing (s), 8, 14-15, 19, 25-32, 35, 37, 44, 67
Third (3rd: century), 2, 28, 34, 41, 44-45, 47, 52, 57
Throne, 10, 24, 26, 29
Great White, 26
Throw (thrown), 6, 13, 24
Time (s), 2, 5-6, 14-16, 19, 22-23, 25, 32-33, 35-36, 47, 66
Timothy (Timotheus)
The apostle, 2, 30
The books of (1, 2), 31, 39, 43
Tis (Gk.), 27
Tischendorf, Friedrich Constantine von, 2, 14, 16, 21-22, 38-40,
44, 46-47, 51, 55, 65-66
Titus (the book of), 2
Today, 32, 41-42, 51, 70-72
Toil (-ing), 31
Tomb (s), 21
Took, 24, 30, 33, 69
Torment (-ed), 5, 34
Touch, 31
Traditional (-ly), 16, 29, 41, 43, 45, 50-51, 54-55, 59, 65, 70
Translate (s, -d), 5-6, 10-11, 14, 20, 28-30, 34-35, 38-39, 41, 4647, 49, 52, 55, 57, 64
Translation (s, -al), 4-8, 11, 13, 15-27, 29-31, 33-35, 37-43, 46-47,
49, 51-52, 54-56, 65, 67, 71-72
Translator (s), 2, 5-8, 10-31, 34-38, 43, 47, 55
Transpose, 13-14, 31, 33
Tree (of life), 38
Tregelles, Samuel P., 21, 37-38, 40, 46, 56
Trespass (-es), 7, 14
Tribulation, the Great, 19

Trinitarian, 56
Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS), 41, 56
Triune, 56
Troubled, 23
Truly, 7, 23, 41
Truncate (-d), 17, 38
Truth (s), 2, 7, 13, 23, 27, 29, 31, 35, 37, 42, 46, 53, 68, 72
Turkey (the country), 54
Twentieth (20th [century]), 2, 20, 28, 48, 50, 54
Tyndale (’s), 17, 30, 36, 39, 41, 43, 71

Unorthodox, 49, 71
Unproven, 18
Unregenerate, 26
Unrighteous, 38
Unseen, 48
Unsound, 2, 54
Unsubstantiated, 41
Unworthily, 27
Update (-d), 6, 39, 51
Uper (Gk.: [h]uper), 5, 26
Upholding, 32
Upper, 48
Uppercase, 50, 52, 58
URL, 71
Usable, 4-5, 15, 20, 45, 47
Useless, 34

U
U (Codex), 17, 59
Ulfilas, 47
Ultimately, 12, 39-40, 43, 55
Unadulterated, 41
Unanswered (-able), 2
Unbelief, 7
Unbeliever (s, -ing), 26, 30, 35, 39
Uncertainty, 11
Uncial (s [minuscule(s)]), 4-6, 8-9, 11-15, 18-23, 27-36, 40, 42,
45-46, 48, 50-53, 56, 59-64, 70-71
Uncircumcision, 29
Unclean, 31
Unction, 37
Underlying, 2, 4, 8, 18, 22, 29-30, 41, 44-45, 51-52, 54-56, 65
Undermine, 4, 40
Underneath, 5, 20
Understand (-ing), 7-8, 15, 34, 37, 39, 42
Understatement, 7, 17-18
Underwent, 39
Undignified, 29
Unfaithfulness, 7
Unfashionable, 13
Unfeigned, 35
Ungodly, 25
Unholy, 4, 71
Unification, 42, 46
Unique (-ly), 22, 27, 36, 51
Unitarian (s, -ism), 44, 47, 53, 56
United Bible Societies (UBS), 5, 7, 9, 13-14, 16, 18, 20-24, 30, 33,
35, 37, 39-40, 51, 53-55, 56-57
Unity, 46
Universal (-ly, -ism), 2, 52, 55
Universe, 32
Unofficial, 49, 52

V
V (Codex), 17, 21
Vacancy, 42
Vacillate (-ing), 39
Vain, 2, 34, 49
Validity, 14-15, 17, 23, 30, 50, 54
Variant (s), 9, 11, 15-16, 21-22, 24-25, 30, 32, 39, 47, 54, 65-66, 69
Variation (s), 12, 16-17, 37, 48, 53, 55, 64-65
Various (-ly), 2, 9, 23, 28, 44, 46, 50, 53, 56, 65, 69
Vast (-ly), 4-5, 8-11, 13-14, 18-20, 23-24, 26, 30-31, 33-34, 36-38,
40, 42, 45, 48, 50, 64-65
Vatican, 17 (Vaticanus), 40, 56, 69
Vaticanus (Codex B), 2, 4, 9, 11, 16, 31-32, 34, 38, 40, 42-44, 47,
52, 54, 56, 60-61 (codices S, 046, 048), 65, 69
Verbal (-ly), 2, 34, 37, 43, 55-56
Verily, 7, 12, 23
Verse (s), 3-4, 6-26, 28-30, 34, 37-38, 41-44, 47-49, 53, 64-65, 67,
72
Version (s), 2, 4-10, 12-15, 17-29, 31-33, 35-56, 65, 69-72
American Standard (ASV), 10, 16, 39-40, 44
English Revised (ERV), 2, 4, 10, 15-16, 36, 39-40, 44, 46-48,
55, 72
English Standard (ESV), 15, 21, 24, 36, 39-40, 44, 46, 51
King James (KJV), 4, 6, 12, 14-16, 19-22, 23-27, 29, 31-36,
38-44, 46, 49, 51, 55, 65, 70-71
Revised Standard (RSV), 5-6, 8, 10, 16, 19, 27, 29-30, 32, 39
Versional, 19, 35, 46, 72
Vessel (s), 12, 43
Vicarious, 28, 32, 48

Vincent, Marvin, 36, 70
Vinegar, 10
Virgin (-ity), 4
Void, 28
Volume (s), 22, 41, 44, 46, 48-50, 52-55, 72
Vulgate (Latin), 4-11, 13-26, 28-36, 38-39, 46, 49-50, 52, 56, 59,
62-63

W
W (Codex), 4-14, 16-24, 59
Waite, D. A., 2, 45, 51, 71-72
Waldenses, 52
Walk, 25, 37
Wallace, Daniel B., 43, 57
Wandered, 34
Wanton, 8, 39
Wash (-ed), 38
Watch (-ful, -fulness), 15, 19
Water, 23
Weak, 25-27, 44
Wealth (-y), 14
Weather, 6
Weight, 6, 18, 35, 37
Weiss, Bernhard, 16, 22, 39, 51
Westcott, B. F., 21-22, 24, 36, 38-41, 46, 48, 51, 71
Western (text-type), 8, 28, 41, 45, 49, 52, 54, 57, 60, 62, 64
Wettstein, Johann Jakob, 46
Weymouth, Richard, 51
Wheaton, 71
Whittingham (’s), William, 41
Whole (-ly), 23, 37
Whosoever, 4, 7-8, 13, 23, 34
Wicked, 38
Widow (s’), 9
Wife, 7, 26
Wind, 29, 53
Wine, 10
Wisdom, 2, 13, 37
Witness (-es), 7, 9-12, 15, 20, 22-26, 28-29, 38, 47, 51-52, 59-60,
64, 68
Woe, 9
Woman (en), 7, 16, 26
Word (of God, Christ), 2, 6, 14-15, 17, 29, 37, 39, 42-43, 56, 68,
71
Works (God’s, man’s), 6, 32, 34-36, 42, 52

World (’s, -ly), 9, 19, 26, 31, 34, 38-39, 42, 45, 48, 51, 54-55, 67,
70-71
Worm, 13
Worthy, 16, 19
Wrath, 19, 30, 38
Wretched, 37
Written, 2, 11, 17, 25, 27, 40, 42, 48-49, 51, 53, 56, 60-61
Wrong (-ful, -fully), 12, 20-22, 24-25, 27-31, 33-35, 37-38, 43

X
X (Codex), 6, 14, 17, 21

Y
Ye, 5-7, 9, 14-15, 18-19, 27, 31, 33-35, 37-38, 42
Year (s), 2, 4, 15, 28, 39-40, 43, 45, 47-49, 53, 56, 69, 72
Yield, 2
Yonder, 7

Z
Z (Codex), 4, 6, 8-10, 59
Zoen (Gk.), 23
Zondervan (’s), 5, 8, 20-21, 33, 37, 39, 42, 57, 71
Zophou (Gk.), 36, 54