Two thoughts: 1) we know that certain writings were not included in the canon prior to the KJV, so exclusion of texts for an agenda is nothing new. Gospel of Thomas, for example.
2) my father is a Calvinist minister (received his MDiv from Calvin College). We read the NIV - I was even gifted the study Bible version when I was 14. But I also attended a Mennonite school where the KJV was used daily (we had to memorized swathes of verses each week). Many of the things that you said were removed, I have specific memories of (alpha & omega in revelation, for example). I will pull out my NIV to corroborate, maybe I remember because of the KJV exposure. My father, while a minister was a very studios one who learned Hebrew, Greek and latin and was constantly attempting to get at the root of things, and I know he had several versions of bibles including the KJV in his study.
But most importantly I think it’s important to know that either version as we know it had agenda around it - refer to my first point.
All translators are biased. A comparison of translations, and the texts upon which they are based, and a scholarly analysis of the motives of the translators such as in this essay are in order.
Thanks for sharing this important revelation. Walter Veith's, videos, 'Battle of the Bibles' and 'What's the difference between Bible versions', shines even more light on the likely origins of Westcott and Hort's motivations.
My foundational Bible, and the one I use the most, is the King James.
However, no translation will do anyone any good if we do not obey the salvation commandments of Jesus Christ.
Laying hold of true, Biblical salvation is the only thing that matters in this world.
And, as far as I can tell, the basic salvation commandments given by Jesus in Matthew 7:13-14 are still intact in the many NT translations.
So, no one will have any excuse at judgment time.
Better to seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness; by taking up our own personal cross, and entering in at the strait gate, and walking the narrow way; rather than be distracted away from these salvation requirements from Jesus.
The strait gate/narrow way is the only way Jesus gave us for true salvation.
The modern church has redacted it, just as Jesus and Peter warned would happen.
_____
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. (Eccl 12:13)
If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. (John 7:17)
The Douay-Rheims translation, which was based on the Latin Vulgate, and that in turn based on the original Hebrew and Greek, predates the King James publication by almost 30 years. KJV was heavily based on the Douay, with several key changes made, perhaps most famously— or infamously depending on your belief — the change in the interpretation of Genesis 3:15. But you are correct in your thought that most modern translations are heavily wanting for accuracy.
Douay-Rheims translation of the Bible can be found with Latin and translated English at
annas-archive.org at no cost... In fact most all books can be downloaded as either PDF or epub books. It is interesting they print one chapter at a time Latin/English. I just downloaded it.
Thanks for writing this article. I have owned and adhered to the King James version AKA KJV for my entire life. I only became born again in the mid 90's but was always raised in church and we only used the KJV. I'm very blessed because most churches don't use the KJV and I was fortunate enough to find a church near to my house which uses only KJV and all preaching is directly from that Bible.
Why all this arguing and head banging about the validity of one Bible version over another? Christ taught us to do two things: Love God, love each other. It’s not complicated, but very difficult, evidently.
Agree...not complicated but nevertheless, extremely deep in the outworkings and following of. Arguing and head banging about various versions serves a very intentional purpose in my opinion - to create confusion and doubt and thinking it is all 'too hard', thereby throwing the proverbial baby out with the proverbial bath water.
(I do not, in any way, include here the genuine seekers of truth and desiring of protection of the living Word of God here, BTW)
I'm politically marooned and neither left nor right. In my opinion, the left-leaning sector of the political spectrum, on the whole, does far more damage to the body politic than those who align differently. Love isn't a factor in that equation.
This is a documentary called Gospel of Caesar where a priest and a linguist in two countries find that the word of Jesus matches a lot of what Julius Caesar said and did.
He was assassinated for his populist policies.
The story was taken and turned into some mystical one with a virgin birth story that makes him out to be a super human with god as his daddy.
This may tic off some readers out there but if you are old enough to be rounding third and heading for home, what ever you think home is, you might remember especially if living in the eastern U.S.A , a kids shoe on Saturday morning called Wonderama who's host was Sonny Fox. On that show they would occasionally play a game called telephone. He would line up a bunch of children and show the audience a sentence which he would whisper to the first in line . Each child would then whisper what he thought he or she heard to the next in line until they let the last one revel what he taught he heard. Of course the end result which drew laughs from the audience was nothing at all that resembled the original sentence. In the world of scripture though the game is done separating what one was told by another by hundreds of years or more .Add to the mix the ill intentions to change the words for an agenda for whatever reasons and what you wind up with is a book with some truth to be deciphered and a lot of interesting, colorful, and contradicting stories one who thinks for himself should challenge it's veracity. Compare that with the endless amount of ancient stone carvings , glyphs ancient architecture with Stories carved on and within their walls that could not for the most part have been altered and manuscripts that were sealed and buried at the time they were written . These accounts of history for the mainstreamers and bible believers are just myths, stories with no truth or just plain fanciful musings. I don't know about you but I tend to lean to what ever was written in stone as opposed to biblical telephone. Call me crazy.
The 'world of Scripture' is nothing like you are describing; nothing.
The cohesion and flow of both Old and New Testaments is nothing short of awe-inspiring ......and little wonder...it was divinely appointed and intentional from the Creator Himself and it all points to Jesus....from the get go to the end, in Revelation.
I think though that it is only be doing a deep dive and rather than mocking and denigrating and brushing off so-called 'inconsistencies', doing actual research into Scripture. God has no issue with your 'chaIlenging" anything and invites us to "come and let us reason together". I promise you, all your effort will be well worth it.....he says He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.. And he cannot lie.
Growing up Christian, I have examined the histories and origins of the faith. I’ve started on origins of the Bible and too have seen how the Bible is one piece of many works put together.
For one, I talk about how the Old Testament is vastly different than the New Testament, especially when it comes to Yaweh of the Old and “God” of the New
But an interesting question that I just had is, if the New Testament uses “God” instead of the Judaic names, like Yaweh or Jehovah, then we can say that the New Testament too was guilty of this “New Age” change as it was becoming more universal, especially since the Greek influenced it and it was during this time the modern Bible came to be.
Fascinating stuff to think about, but here’s that piece on the Two Gods of the Bible:
There's a theory that the old testament god is different because it was to govern people who were mostly herders. The rules had to be strict as herding requires security of property of the animals.
Later on when agriculture became big in Europe, the new testament was better suited to keep stewardship of the land. Jesus dies in winter and returns in the spring. Sounds like agriculture to me and is a version of Demeter and other pagan stories of death and rebirth.
The OT covers 4,000 years or so of history, the NT some 70 (?) at most. Yahweh is like 'Yes way', Jesus is the 'Yes way', the way the truth and the life.
The Old Testament was written by the Jews for the Jews. The New Testament was written by Christians for Christians. The crucifixion made the Torah obsolete.
I can’t follow you completely on this one. Even in the crappy NIV translations there isn’t enough “new age” to strengthen your argument 100%. And eg. In KJV version which uses the old manuscripts, the term Hades is used for hell because the Greek word is literally Hades. Etc
As a big fan of your work, I’d say you might have overstated your points on this one but brought up very interesting backstory on the guys who introduced the “new manuscripts”
So thank you for that. And as always, keep up the good work
I think so as that’s the conclusion I’m getting as well.
However I think the same rationale can be used for the KJV as well since King James was studied in Demonology.
Questions that arise are how do we know that King James himself didn’t similar changed as Wescott and Hort? Are we simply trusting that King James just copied what was revived by the Catholic Church and Vatican?
Because if we so, we’d then have to examine the early church and the origins of power they had as well.
Sorry for the long thought process. I’ll place another comment on more info on this topic.
This is a documentary called Gospel of Caesar where a priest and a linguist in two countries find that the word of Jesus matches a lot of what Julius Caesar said and did.
He was assassinated for his populist policies and demonized by the assholes that killed him!
Lots of information here. Thank you so much! My takeaway is knowing I must rely on the Holy Spirit’s direction, wisdom, and protection, since there is much that I am unable to discern on my own.
It is in fact the Holy Spirit’s discernment I find myself needing most!
I can’t thank Unbekoming enough for the breadth and depth of information you share. Recently I read Neil Lightfoot’s “How We Got the Bible” and it had little but high praise for Westcott-Hort. It is liberating to know better and sobering to realize that finding the facts requires more than just picking up any book that says it covers the subject. I should have known better. How Do You Do It?!
The KJV translators did not use the Majority Text. The translators of the New Testament of the KJV utilized a Greek textual tradition that is known today as the “Textus Receptus” (hereafter “TR”) which is Latin for the “received text.” The TR is not actually a group of Greek manuscripts. Rather, it is a series of 16th-century printed texts which were, in turn, based on the critical examination of a handful of (mostly late) Greek manuscripts. Like most translators, the men who produced the KJV did not travel about examining all the manuscripts directly. They looked at contemporary printed volumes for their data, just as translators do today. In the case of the KJV translators, they relied on the word of three key men: Desiderius Erasmus, Robert Estienne (better known by his Latin name, Stephanus), and Theodore Beza.
The TR is not actually a group of Greek manuscripts. Rather, it is a series of 16th-century printed texts which were, in turn, based on the critical examination of a handful of (mostly late) Greek manuscripts. Like most translators, the men who produced the KJV did not travel about examining all the manuscripts directly. They looked at contemporary printed volumes for their data, just as translators do today. In the case of the KJV translators, they relied on the word of three key men: Desiderius Erasmus, Robert Estienne (better known by his Latin name, Stephanus), and Theodore Beza.
The term “Majority Text” refers to a form of the Greek New Testament text that is based on the majority of existing Greek manuscripts. It is often associated with the Byzantine textual tradition, which underlies many later copies of the Greek New Testament. Proponents value its widespread attestation and continuity throughout centuries of manuscript transmission.
To call translation 'New Age' is not accurate and not helpful in my opinion. In reality no translation is perfect but amazingly they all preach the Gospel, that Jesus died for our sins, was buried and rose again because of our justification.
Two thoughts: 1) we know that certain writings were not included in the canon prior to the KJV, so exclusion of texts for an agenda is nothing new. Gospel of Thomas, for example.
2) my father is a Calvinist minister (received his MDiv from Calvin College). We read the NIV - I was even gifted the study Bible version when I was 14. But I also attended a Mennonite school where the KJV was used daily (we had to memorized swathes of verses each week). Many of the things that you said were removed, I have specific memories of (alpha & omega in revelation, for example). I will pull out my NIV to corroborate, maybe I remember because of the KJV exposure. My father, while a minister was a very studios one who learned Hebrew, Greek and latin and was constantly attempting to get at the root of things, and I know he had several versions of bibles including the KJV in his study.
But most importantly I think it’s important to know that either version as we know it had agenda around it - refer to my first point.
I’ve had these same thoughts myself!
All translators are biased. A comparison of translations, and the texts upon which they are based, and a scholarly analysis of the motives of the translators such as in this essay are in order.
Thanks for sharing this important revelation. Walter Veith's, videos, 'Battle of the Bibles' and 'What's the difference between Bible versions', shines even more light on the likely origins of Westcott and Hort's motivations.
My foundational Bible, and the one I use the most, is the King James.
However, no translation will do anyone any good if we do not obey the salvation commandments of Jesus Christ.
Laying hold of true, Biblical salvation is the only thing that matters in this world.
And, as far as I can tell, the basic salvation commandments given by Jesus in Matthew 7:13-14 are still intact in the many NT translations.
So, no one will have any excuse at judgment time.
Better to seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness; by taking up our own personal cross, and entering in at the strait gate, and walking the narrow way; rather than be distracted away from these salvation requirements from Jesus.
The strait gate/narrow way is the only way Jesus gave us for true salvation.
The modern church has redacted it, just as Jesus and Peter warned would happen.
_____
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. (Eccl 12:13)
If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. (John 7:17)
The Douay-Rheims translation, which was based on the Latin Vulgate, and that in turn based on the original Hebrew and Greek, predates the King James publication by almost 30 years. KJV was heavily based on the Douay, with several key changes made, perhaps most famously— or infamously depending on your belief — the change in the interpretation of Genesis 3:15. But you are correct in your thought that most modern translations are heavily wanting for accuracy.
Douay-Rheims translation of the Bible can be found with Latin and translated English at
annas-archive.org at no cost... In fact most all books can be downloaded as either PDF or epub books. It is interesting they print one chapter at a time Latin/English. I just downloaded it.
Thank you for this Archive!!!!
King James Version!!❤️✝️🙏
Thanks for writing this article. I have owned and adhered to the King James version AKA KJV for my entire life. I only became born again in the mid 90's but was always raised in church and we only used the KJV. I'm very blessed because most churches don't use the KJV and I was fortunate enough to find a church near to my house which uses only KJV and all preaching is directly from that Bible.
Why all this arguing and head banging about the validity of one Bible version over another? Christ taught us to do two things: Love God, love each other. It’s not complicated, but very difficult, evidently.
Agree...not complicated but nevertheless, extremely deep in the outworkings and following of. Arguing and head banging about various versions serves a very intentional purpose in my opinion - to create confusion and doubt and thinking it is all 'too hard', thereby throwing the proverbial baby out with the proverbial bath water.
(I do not, in any way, include here the genuine seekers of truth and desiring of protection of the living Word of God here, BTW)
I'm politically marooned and neither left nor right. In my opinion, the left-leaning sector of the political spectrum, on the whole, does far more damage to the body politic than those who align differently. Love isn't a factor in that equation.
How do we know that the Bible wasn't manipulated in the first place? How do we know it wasn't manipulated later by the power elite?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=gvga-98x6Nk
This is a documentary called Gospel of Caesar where a priest and a linguist in two countries find that the word of Jesus matches a lot of what Julius Caesar said and did.
He was assassinated for his populist policies.
The story was taken and turned into some mystical one with a virgin birth story that makes him out to be a super human with god as his daddy.
The Bible is ideology. The Vatican itself makes similar claims since there is just too much contradiction in its engineered dogma.
Study the orthodox faith.
They have church fathers and Bishops that go back to the apostles.
Rome broke with Orthodox in 1050
Protestant made up their own religion
Schofield pushed the Israel canard.
This may tic off some readers out there but if you are old enough to be rounding third and heading for home, what ever you think home is, you might remember especially if living in the eastern U.S.A , a kids shoe on Saturday morning called Wonderama who's host was Sonny Fox. On that show they would occasionally play a game called telephone. He would line up a bunch of children and show the audience a sentence which he would whisper to the first in line . Each child would then whisper what he thought he or she heard to the next in line until they let the last one revel what he taught he heard. Of course the end result which drew laughs from the audience was nothing at all that resembled the original sentence. In the world of scripture though the game is done separating what one was told by another by hundreds of years or more .Add to the mix the ill intentions to change the words for an agenda for whatever reasons and what you wind up with is a book with some truth to be deciphered and a lot of interesting, colorful, and contradicting stories one who thinks for himself should challenge it's veracity. Compare that with the endless amount of ancient stone carvings , glyphs ancient architecture with Stories carved on and within their walls that could not for the most part have been altered and manuscripts that were sealed and buried at the time they were written . These accounts of history for the mainstreamers and bible believers are just myths, stories with no truth or just plain fanciful musings. I don't know about you but I tend to lean to what ever was written in stone as opposed to biblical telephone. Call me crazy.
Chinese Whispers is the name of that game....
The 'world of Scripture' is nothing like you are describing; nothing.
The cohesion and flow of both Old and New Testaments is nothing short of awe-inspiring ......and little wonder...it was divinely appointed and intentional from the Creator Himself and it all points to Jesus....from the get go to the end, in Revelation.
I think though that it is only be doing a deep dive and rather than mocking and denigrating and brushing off so-called 'inconsistencies', doing actual research into Scripture. God has no issue with your 'chaIlenging" anything and invites us to "come and let us reason together". I promise you, all your effort will be well worth it.....he says He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.. And he cannot lie.
Growing up Christian, I have examined the histories and origins of the faith. I’ve started on origins of the Bible and too have seen how the Bible is one piece of many works put together.
For one, I talk about how the Old Testament is vastly different than the New Testament, especially when it comes to Yaweh of the Old and “God” of the New
But an interesting question that I just had is, if the New Testament uses “God” instead of the Judaic names, like Yaweh or Jehovah, then we can say that the New Testament too was guilty of this “New Age” change as it was becoming more universal, especially since the Greek influenced it and it was during this time the modern Bible came to be.
Fascinating stuff to think about, but here’s that piece on the Two Gods of the Bible:
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/the-two-gods-of-the-bible
There's a theory that the old testament god is different because it was to govern people who were mostly herders. The rules had to be strict as herding requires security of property of the animals.
Later on when agriculture became big in Europe, the new testament was better suited to keep stewardship of the land. Jesus dies in winter and returns in the spring. Sounds like agriculture to me and is a version of Demeter and other pagan stories of death and rebirth.
Good to ponder. Thank you.
The OT covers 4,000 years or so of history, the NT some 70 (?) at most. Yahweh is like 'Yes way', Jesus is the 'Yes way', the way the truth and the life.
The Old Testament was written by the Jews for the Jews. The New Testament was written by Christians for Christians. The crucifixion made the Torah obsolete.
Jesus is throughout the whole Bible.
Father , Son, and Holy Spirit
Never separated.
Same yesterday today and tomorrow
I have to agree with that.
I can’t follow you completely on this one. Even in the crappy NIV translations there isn’t enough “new age” to strengthen your argument 100%. And eg. In KJV version which uses the old manuscripts, the term Hades is used for hell because the Greek word is literally Hades. Etc
As a big fan of your work, I’d say you might have overstated your points on this one but brought up very interesting backstory on the guys who introduced the “new manuscripts”
So thank you for that. And as always, keep up the good work
Is this article essentially saying that all versions except KJV are corrupted? KJV is the only version based on the Majority Text?
The article is actually a book summary as stated at the very top of this piece. So it’s actually not trying to claim anything.
I think so as that’s the conclusion I’m getting as well.
However I think the same rationale can be used for the KJV as well since King James was studied in Demonology.
Questions that arise are how do we know that King James himself didn’t similar changed as Wescott and Hort? Are we simply trusting that King James just copied what was revived by the Catholic Church and Vatican?
Because if we so, we’d then have to examine the early church and the origins of power they had as well.
Sorry for the long thought process. I’ll place another comment on more info on this topic.
Yes there's many things that point to manipulation.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=gvga-98x6Nk
This is a documentary called Gospel of Caesar where a priest and a linguist in two countries find that the word of Jesus matches a lot of what Julius Caesar said and did.
He was assassinated for his populist policies and demonized by the assholes that killed him!
Lots of information here. Thank you so much! My takeaway is knowing I must rely on the Holy Spirit’s direction, wisdom, and protection, since there is much that I am unable to discern on my own.
It is in fact the Holy Spirit’s discernment I find myself needing most!
I can’t thank Unbekoming enough for the breadth and depth of information you share. Recently I read Neil Lightfoot’s “How We Got the Bible” and it had little but high praise for Westcott-Hort. It is liberating to know better and sobering to realize that finding the facts requires more than just picking up any book that says it covers the subject. I should have known better. How Do You Do It?!
The KJV translators did not use the Majority Text. The translators of the New Testament of the KJV utilized a Greek textual tradition that is known today as the “Textus Receptus” (hereafter “TR”) which is Latin for the “received text.” The TR is not actually a group of Greek manuscripts. Rather, it is a series of 16th-century printed texts which were, in turn, based on the critical examination of a handful of (mostly late) Greek manuscripts. Like most translators, the men who produced the KJV did not travel about examining all the manuscripts directly. They looked at contemporary printed volumes for their data, just as translators do today. In the case of the KJV translators, they relied on the word of three key men: Desiderius Erasmus, Robert Estienne (better known by his Latin name, Stephanus), and Theodore Beza.
The TR is not actually a group of Greek manuscripts. Rather, it is a series of 16th-century printed texts which were, in turn, based on the critical examination of a handful of (mostly late) Greek manuscripts. Like most translators, the men who produced the KJV did not travel about examining all the manuscripts directly. They looked at contemporary printed volumes for their data, just as translators do today. In the case of the KJV translators, they relied on the word of three key men: Desiderius Erasmus, Robert Estienne (better known by his Latin name, Stephanus), and Theodore Beza.
The term “Majority Text” refers to a form of the Greek New Testament text that is based on the majority of existing Greek manuscripts. It is often associated with the Byzantine textual tradition, which underlies many later copies of the Greek New Testament. Proponents value its widespread attestation and continuity throughout centuries of manuscript transmission.
To call translation 'New Age' is not accurate and not helpful in my opinion. In reality no translation is perfect but amazingly they all preach the Gospel, that Jesus died for our sins, was buried and rose again because of our justification.
Correct.