Are all Bibles Valid?

In this series of articles I have sought to establish the fact that ALL Bibles cannot be 'valid' due to the vast differences and the testimony of the Bible itself. Those that oppose our Authorized Version and promote the modern versions seek to convince unsuspecting saints that ALL Bibles are 'valid'. If one will take a few hours and compare the various translations one will be instantly convinced that not all Bibles are saying the same things. It is an insult to intelligent Christians to make the claim that ALL Bibles are 'valid' when the texts disagree so greatly. We who stand for the inspiration and preservation of the Holy Scriptures boldly state that the Critical Text is not the inspired preserved words of God. We believe and defend our Authorized Version, which is based upon the Traditional Text. The Traditional Text varies greatly from that of Westcott-Hort/Nestle-Aland/UBS. Yet despite these enormous differences the modern version proponent will say that our AV is the word of God and at the same time say that the modern versions, which are based upon the Westcott-Hort text, are also the word of God. Beloved, this simply cannot be so! The texts are so diametrically opposed that one or the other has to be a fraud. It is asinine to continue to promote the idea that BOTH texts are right. In his massive work, Codex B and Its Allies, H. C. Hoskier quotes Dr. Salmon concerning this very idea. Dr. Salmon writes, "I am persuaded that critics will be forced to acknowledge that the Gospel as read in the 2nd century in the Church of Rome differed in a few particulars from that read at the same date at Alexandria. Critics may discuss which of these texts is authoritative, or whether both may be so; but I am sure that an arbitrarily created hybrid between the two is wrong; and this is the kind of text more than once exhibited by W-H in the closing verses of St. Luke."

Beloved, it is these two texts (i.e. The Traditional Text and the W-H Alexandrian Text) that are responsible for the debate that rages. This current series of articles has demonstrated that these two texts are utterly at odds one with another in practically every verse of the New Testament. It is my contention that the Traditional Text is the text that has been received and recognized by the church throughout history. The Critical Text (i.e. that of W-H/N-A/UBS) is that text which was known primarily in Alexandria, Egypt. This text was never recognized by the church, yea, rather, it was discarded as useless. Commenting on this Hoskier said, "W-H after nearly 1700 years merely wish to replace us textually in the heart of an Alexandrian text, which after A.D. 450 or thereabouts fell into discredit and disuse (Codex B and Its Allies, p. 9)." Sadly, this is exactly where we stand today with the plethora of modern translations. I hope to once again illustrate the fact that ALL Bibles are not 'valid' by continuing our study with Luke 24:44 & 49.

While omissions constitute the largest portion of corruptions in the manuscripts, printed Greek texts and modern translations it is an addition that I wish to discuss in verse 44. While some may find what I am about to discuss trivial I would remind you that adding one single word to God's words is a sin. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that we stick solely with what God inspired and not add to nor take away from those words. If Jesus guaranteed preservation of every jot and tittle surely He is concerned with every word as well.

If you have researched this matter of Bible translations at all then you are well aware of the great weight that has been placed upon the two Alexandrian Greek codices, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. While those of us that defend our Authorized Version are frequently accused of "worshipping" the Bible our love for God's words fall well short of the adoration that has been so wrongly bestowed upon these two manuscripts. We are incessantly told that these are the "oldest and best manuscripts" and that they "exhibit a text that is neutral". What the unsuspecting saint is not told is that these two mss. contain innumerable false readings, copious omissions and the fact that these two "best" mss. rarely agree one with another.

In Luke 24:44a we find the Traditional reading outoi oi logoi or 'these are the words'. This is the reading of Wycliffe (1380), Tyndale (1534), Geneva (1557), Authorized Version, NKJV, Young's, the Bible in Basic English, and others. However, the Westcott-Hort Greek text reads outoi oi logoi mou or "these are MY words". Likewise, the modern Critical texts read the same. This in turn has created a wide selection of divergent modern translations---e.g. the ASV/NASV, NRSV, NET, ESV and New World Translation all follow the W-H text in reading "These are my words". The Today's English Version reads "These are the very things" thus changing "words", which is clearly in every text, to "very things". The highly touted New International Version strays from EVERY known text in reading "This is what I told you". There is absolutely no support for such a ridiculous reading. This is not translation but rather interpretation! Additionally, the CEV and New Living Translation just omit the phrase all together. I can only suppose that the translators grew weary of trying to decide which reading to follow and just decided to drop the whole phrase.

So why such a problem on what seems to be a very insignificant phrase (though I don't believe there is such a phrase in the Bible)? As usual the problem lies with the two "best" (sic) manuscripts. Aleph is for reading "these are THE (oi) words" while B is for "these are MY (mou) words". B gains the support of its usual band of renegades---A, D, L, 33 and a few others. Aleph, on the other hand, deserts its usual companions by siding with the remaining 99.9999% of Greek manuscripts. Again the overwhelming Greek support is for the Traditional reading. Additionally, the only early church fathers (Irenaeus, Cyprian, Augustine) that cite the place quote "the words". Tatian's Diatessaron (200 AD) also has the reading "the sayings (or words)".

Despite which reading you believe to be right the point I am trying to make is that BOTH cannot be right. Either one has added to God's words or the other has taken away from God's words. We simply cannot continue to say that ALL Bibles are saying the same things. We pass on!

Now we turn our attention to Luke 24:49 to examine an omission. Again the Traditional text reads, "but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem". The W-H text reads, "but tarry ye in the city". 'Of Jerusalem' has been omitted by W-H as well as Tischendorf, Tregelles, Nestle-Aland and United Bible Society. Yet again the reason for the omission is certainly due to the fact that this phrase is lacking in p75, Aleph and B. The original hand of uncial C omitted the phrase but this was quickly corrected and now C reads "of Jerusalem". Uncials A, W and Theta along with every cursive copy agrees with the Traditional reading. In short-every Greek ms. (uncial and cursive) contains the expression while only 5 of bad character leave off the expression.

Both the Syriac Peshitta (150 AD) and the Syriac Harklean versions bear witness to the Traditional reading. Tatian's Diatessaron (200 AD) reads, "But ye, abide in the city of Jerusalem,". Cyril (386 AD) unquestionably read 'of Jerusalem' in his copies in the 4th century.

But the Savior when He promised Him, said to the Apostles, But tarry, ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. (Cyril, Lecture 16)

But though He bestowed His grace then, He was to lavish it yet more bountifully; and He says to them, "I am ready to give it even now, but the vessel cannot yet hold it; for a while therefore receive ye as much grace as ye can bear; and look forward for yet more; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be clothed with power from on high. (Cyril, Lecture 17)

Of the old versions Tyndale, Cranmer and Geneva all read "in the city of Jerusalem". The New Century version reads, "but you must stay in Jerusalem". The World English Bible reads, "But wait in the city of Jerusalem". While the Third Millennium Bible reads, "but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem". Conversely, the NIV, NRSV, NASV, NLT, ESV and New World Translation all omit 'of Jerusalem'.

Once again I have laid before you two examples of why ALL Bibles cannot be valid. In both instances either one has added to the words of the Bible and/or the other has taken away from the words of the Bible. We have also seen that the cause of all this mischief is the underlying Greek texts the modern translations are based upon. These Greek texts and the translations that have flowed from them have sought to do nothing but poison the River of Life at its source. Throughout this study my one objective has been to expose the modern translations and to defeat the abominable idea that ALL Bible are valid. Selah!