Failures of The NIV - Romans 8:1-14, Part 2 Episode 13

By Michael Pearl

Scripture: Topics: Romans Bible Study

Save for Later

Failures of The NIV

Romans 8:1-14

You are at the door tonight. This is the study of the book of Romans chapter 8:1-14. Now, if you saw the last one, you say, "It's Romans chapter 8:1-14 also," but notice this is part two. I didn't get a chance to finish last week, so we're going to finish up one through 14 in Romans eight. This is episode 13.

Jesus is the Door

Now the door is all about Jesus being the door. He said, "I am the door. By me if any man enter in, he shall be saved." John 10:9  So this is Jesus, the door we're talking about. Now, the Bible is what we're studying. Not just any book, but the word of God.

God’s Words

Proverbs 30:5-6 "He that rejecteth me and receiveth not my words," that's not the Bible, that's his words that the Bible is made up of, "...hath one that judgeth him, the word that I have spoken the same shall judge him and the last days."

So God is going to judge us by words that he's given us, words that we have written in a book, words that we can read, which are the words in the word of God.

To avoid condemnation, one must walk after the spirit

Romans 8:1 again, "There's therefore now no condemnation to them, which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit." To avoid condemnation, one must walk after the spirit, notice the conditional phrase there. There's no condemnation to a certain class of people, to those who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit. The implication which will be born out in later text in Romans 8 is that there is condemnation for those Christians who don't walk after the spirit, but rather walk after the flesh. Now that's a doctrine that is explicit and we will see many verses of scripture to point that out to you.

Under Condemnation?

Notice later when we come down to Romans 8:12-13, he says, "Therefore, brethren," so that means he's not talking to unbelievers, he's talking to Christians. "We are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For brethren, if you live after the flesh, ye shall die."  He's threatening that the Christian will die if the Christian walks after the flesh, rather than the spirit.

Natural Man vs. Spiritual Man

So we have a natural man who has a human spirit and he is in the flesh is the way Romans defines him as well as the other epistles. And he walks after the flesh. Notice that being in and walking after are two different things. In is about the state where one resides, walk is about the way that one walks his daily life. The spiritual man also has his human spirit, but in addition to that, the spirit of God has come in and the two spirits have become one, and function as one.

So we are in, not in the flesh, we are in the spirit. That's the terminology God uses. All Christians are in the spirit. When a Christian sins, he's still in the spirit, that's Bible terminology. If you're going to understand the Bible, you must understand its terminology as it uses it. Now a Christian that walks after the spirit, there's no condemnation, but if he walks after the flesh, he shall die, according to the words of God.

Walking after the Flesh

So here is a man walking along, walking after the flesh. What do we mean by that? We mean he's walking after his natural human lust, the same lust that Christ had. He lusted for bread when he was a hungry. He wanted comfort. He wanted to be praised and accepted. He wanted all the things that you and I want. And so we as human beings end up walking after those bodily appetites and drives, that's called walking after the flesh.

Walking after the Spirit

But then we turn and say, "I'm going to walk after the spirit." And so we turn away from the drives of the flesh and seek to follow our spirit that's inside. You remember Roman seven when he said, "That which I would, that do I not, that which I would not that do I." So we find that when we turn away from the flesh that very quickly, the flesh is right there again, shadowing us and wooing us with all kinds of appetites and drives and desires.

And for the Christian, even for the Christian, there are times when that flesh gets in front and takes the lead. And the Christian, though he is not in the flesh, and he is not after the flesh, Bible terms, he can walk after the flesh.

Natural man can walk after his own spirit

Now the natural man can walk after his own spirit and it's normal to try to do so. I went to a college, art college and my, before I went to Bible college, and there in that art college, there was a very sense of keenness for each man to walk after his own spirit. This was back during the hippy era. And so these college professors, unregenerate men, natural men, were into philosophy and into walking after their spirit, rather than their flesh. And oftentimes you saw a great deal of discipline among them. Whenever they did art, it was walking after their spirit. Whenever they did music, it was walking after their spirit, their philosophy. When they went out into the park and sat around, drank a little wine, ate a little cheese, they tried to walk after their spirit. It's natural for a human to do that.

You see, the only people that don't walk after their spirit are people like Charles Manson, or some of those mass killers who have no sense of care or compassion or empathy in any way. And they follow their flesh, do what they want to do when they want to do it, any way they want to do it, no matter who it hurts. Everyone else is partly controlled by their spirit. Every man, unregenerate man is, except for very few, are partly controlled by what they think is right and wrong. And they follow their spirit against the dictates of their flesh. They want to do something evil, and yet they don't. That's an unregenerate man.

“Live by their better angels."

So the flesh will take the lead, and men try to live, you've heard the term, "by their better angels." That's what an unregenerate man says. What does he mean by that? He's recognizing there's something good and something bad inside. And so men try to live by what they call their better angels rather than what they call their demons. But the natural man tends to allow the flesh to take the lead most of the time. Most men will follow their spirit when they're constrained to do so by social concerns, that is they stand to lose more by following their flesh than they do by following their spirit.

Romans 7:16-18 "...for what I would,"  Paul said, "that do I not, but what I hate, that do I... For I know that in me, parenthesis, this is all scripture that is in my flesh dwelleth no good thing: for the will is present with me, but how to perform that, which is good I find not."  Now an unsaved man is right there in that condition.

The spiritual man has an assist from the presence of the spirit of God and is capable of an uninterrupted walk after the spirit.

Old Nature, New Nature

This is what most Bible teachers have missed. Most Bible teachers and students and preachers have oversimplified the Christian experience by boiling it down to what they, when I was a kid, they called the black dog and the white dog that we had, each one of us. And the white dog was the spirit of God or the new nature, they called it. And the black dog was the old nature, the evil self inside. And that the determined on which one you fed as to which one dominated. So if you went to church and tithed and went to Wednesday night prayer meeting and did all the things that you're supposed to do and confessed your sins, and read your Bible a little bit, then you'd feed the white dog, and he would overcome. But if you did other things and fed the old black dog, then he would overcome. That's an extreme oversimplification, which results in extreme error. But you can, you will see in the scriptures that it's an attempt to explain these realities that God explains in somewhat of a different way.

What does the NIV say?

So there's the New International Version on this Romans 8:1, "Therefore, there is now no condemn... What happened? We lost part of the verse. "... for those who are in Christ Jesus." Well, if you open your New International Version, you'll find that verse is missing those last 10 words of that verse one, it's just not there. Along with hundreds of others that have been removed and whole verses and two verses straight in a row that have been removed from the New International Version. Now why in the world would they do that? You know what the Bible says, "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought of it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you." He said you're not to diminish the word of God, they just diminished it by 10 words. What's that mean?

What happens those who remove words from the bible?

Revelation 22:19, "If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away as part out of the book of life and out of those holy city and from the things which are written in this book."  Now, if you're a Calvinist, that verse is not in your Bible. At least you'd rather not be, but it is what it is, and it says what it says. So if you take away from the, notice words, it didn't say ideas or thoughts, it said words. You know how many words are in the book of Revelation? I counted them, 12,000 exactly. And if you have a Bible that has less than that, or more than that, then it's not the words of God, if it's in English. So there's our New International Version and it is where it belongs, in the garbage dump.

What does the Bible say in the Original languages?

Now here's the Greek, Romans 8:1. Now will not embarrass my Greek professor by attempting to read that for you. I didn't excel in Greek when I was in college, but there it is, that last part removed.

Romans 8:1 in Greek

Bible corrector protest the passage's authenticity

Bible correctors protest the passage's authenticity, claiming it is doctrinally incorrect. Here's what they say, this comes out of a commentary. I went to my old library, which I don't use anymore, because everything's digital, but I went to my old library and fanned the spiders off of everything. And I've got about a row about this long, literally, on the shelf of Roman's commentaries. I bought every Roman's commentary I could find, at any time I could find it, and I've familiarized myself with the content of all of them. I did that after I wrote my own commentary, maybe I got some of them before I wrote it, but I just wanted to know what the other guys were saying.

What the Scholars are saying:

William R. Newell, Romans Verse by Verse.

"The revised version correctly omits, 'who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit.' Since the King James translation over 300 years ago,"

That's now 400 years ago,

"many, and the best, most accurate ancient Greek manuscripts, which we have, have been recovered; and earnest, godly men have gone steadily ahead with tedious, but fruitful work of correcting errors that had crept in copying. For, as we all know, God has been pleased to withhold these from creatures so prone to idolatry as the sons of men."

William R. Newell

So he says, God is pleased to allow inspired scripture to pass away and be replaced with significantly corrupted substitutes. You know, there are a lot of men who are a whole lot smarter than me, I'm sure William R. Newell is several times smarter than I am, and much more educated and much greater knowledge, but he was an ignorant man. A man who was ignorant because he didn't have faith. He based everything on what he objectively could see and understand. Now, 99% of his commentary is pretty good. 95, 99, somewhere in that neighborhood, it would be absolutely in agreement with what I would tell you. But there's several places he just ignores what God says. And one of those places is when he starts taking verses out of the words of God.

Does the Bible have errors?

So he said, "there's errors that have crept into copying." Now, how would that work? An error creep into copying? Okay, the average layman sees the Bible as one copy. Here it is. It's the only one copy in the world. And the scribe or Christian sits down to copy it, and he accidentally leaves out a phrase. Or in this case, he jumped down, several verses down and he saw that exact phrase, "Which walked not after the flesh, but after the spirit." And so he accidentally copied it back into verse one and then four verses later, he copies it again where it belongs. So an error crept into copying, that's the way he imagines it. But you know, the Bible existed from the first century in probably a hundred languages. The Peshitta, which is Arabic, which was spoken by the people in Jesus' day, even in Jerusalem. The Peshitta, a church has existed there in Syria until lately, and it's being killed off right now. But the church has existed there, with their scriptures and they claim that their scriptures were given to them by the apostles themselves, who wrote the autographs, who also made copies for them in their Peshitta language. And we do know that the Peshitta language dates back all the way to the first century, because we have pieces of it. So they said, "Error has crept into copying."

How could the Bible have been preserved?

Now, you know what safeguards the scriptures? If I were to write something in here today, and then make a hundred copies of it, and there's a Spanish speaking person here and he makes a copy into Spanish and we check it and we say, "Yeah, that's good. And that's right," because he knows my English and he understands it, so we correct it. And then another one makes us copy in German and Latin and so forth, and so we ended up with a hundred languages.

And then each one of us go our ways and we make another a hundred copies in these a hundred different languages. And then we make a thousand copies and then we make 10,000 copies. In the meantime, there are people memorizing the scripture in all these languages, and in some cases, one man speaks seven languages. So he reads it in all seven languages. If there's an error, a scribal error, he sees it and immediately it's excised from the text. And so the Christians in those early days, since some of them didn't have Bibles, but many, many did, they had portions of scripture, they gave themselves to reading. Meetings consisted of hours of reading and rereading. And the people memorized the scripture and quoted it and they sang it.

And so if someone were singing a verse of scripture or quoting a verse scripture out of some language and they got it in error, there are another dozen languages in an area like that who also know the scripture and can identify the error, and it would immediately be corrected. So the scriptures were safeguarded by putting, being put in multiple languages in the same generation, by people who spoke multiple languages and could read in those languages. And so it's preserved for us to this day in tidbits and pieces of multiple languages, not just one Greek text somewhere.

Do people really memorize large portions of the Bible?

Abraham, come up here. This guy right here, I want him to do Romans, let's see, he could start anywhere, but I'll just say Romans 8, start doing Romans 8 for them.

Abraham: “There is therefore now no condemnation to them, which are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh. But after the spirit for the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus have made me free from the law of sin and death for what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemns him. In the flesh that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit for they, that after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh. Bay they that are after the spirit, the things of the spirit-“

That's enough, that's enough. He could go on all night, see. Now let me ask you a question. If someone were to give you a copy of Romans chapter 8 with a phrase missing, would you know it?

Abraham: Yes, sir.

You would. What would you do with that?

Abraham: I'd get rid of it.

All right, go ahead, go sit down. I've heard him do all of six, all of seven, all of eight and his little sister's doing it with him. And so that's not unusual in many places in the world. And it certainly wasn't unusual in the first century. So you're telling me how an error could creep into copying. It could not.

Bible Critics

So let's continue. Here's Ironside, great man of God, great teacher, but little bit ignorant in some areas. He said, "A glance at the revised version or any critical translation," a critical translation, we'll talk about that more, but a critical translation is a product of Bible critics, not Bible believers, but Bible critics. "... will show that what I am pointing out is sustained by all the editors." The Bible is subject to editors?

Is The Bible subject to editors?

My wife writes something and I edit it. Sometimes she says, "I don't like the way you did that." I said, "Well, re write it back the way you want it." And then she writes it again, and I edit it. And sometimes I write something, I give it to her and she edits it. But you know what, neither one of us ever done? We've never edited the word of God. But there are people who think they're smart enough to edit the word of God. And they don't even ask God's permission. And then he says, "It was man's innate aversion to sovereign grace, I am certain, that brought these qualifying words into the text of the common version." Innate aversion to sovereign grace? It's a Calvinist writing that. So what about an innate aversion to a perfect book? Now he has the ability to be certain, but he's only certain of error in the words of God. I'm certain, there is no error. He's certain there is. We have a difference of opinion.

Spiritual Discernment?

Now, William R Newell's Romans verse by verse says,

"Spiritual discernment also agrees for the introduction of these words in verse one makes our safety depend upon our walk and not upon the spirit of God, but all in Christ Jesus are safe from condemnation as is plainly taught throughout the whole epistles. Otherwise our security depends on our walk and not on our position in Christ."

So to read the words of God, we must rely upon the spiritual discernment of men who do not agree with each other and keep changing their minds. So, I have spiritual discernment, but I trust it about like I trust a bridge built out of cardboard. I may have to walk across it, but I walk very carefully.

Has the Bible Been Corrupted?

Now, John Mac Arthur, Romans 8:1b, he says, "... is not found in the earliest manuscripts of Romans or in the most modern translations. It is probable that a copyist inadvertently picked up the phrase from verse four because the identical wording appears there. The meaning of the passage is not affected." Most of the Bible commentaries I read said the meaning was affected and that's the reason they didn't want it there. They took those 10 words out because they said it changed the meaning. They said it made it look like we weren't saved by grace, but that we had to walk after the spirit or we would face condemnation. Then he says, this is Newell again, "The evidence of the Greek manuscript is overwhelmingly in favor of the omission of the clause."

Do the Scholars really know better?

Now, I'm setting you layman free from so-called scholarship. Let me ask you, do you trust politicians that are really smart, really gifted, quite able, and tremendously informed when they tell you something? Do you trust them? No? I don't trust doctors. I don't trust lawyers. I don't trust business people. I don't trust car salesman or house salesman, or somebody selling a boat on the side of the road. Now, why would you trust somebody just because they put out all that stuff? Listen to what he says, "That the clause at the end verse one in King James is a gloss," that means a marginal note by some copyist, "appears not only from its omission, by the great unical manuscript." Unical, what in the world's that?" people would say. "Alpha, A, B, C, D," boy, he's educated, look at that. "... F, G; A and D," he can do his alphabet. "Corrected with some good cursives and ancient versions."

So you read those things and you think, "Boy, there's some really intelligent people. I can't, how can I disagree with them? If they say it doesn't belong in the original manuscripts and they thought all that stuff, well, I don't want to be a fool and continue to believe it's there." And so they scare Christians and back them down and they get afraid of ridicule and many young pastors and teachers and preachers go along with it because they don't want to be ridiculed either for not going along with such wise and intelligent men. Now, he said it's, "The evidence of Greek manuscripts is overwhelmingly in favor of the omission of the clause." Omission of the clause. Overwhelmingly in favor, is it? He's lying to you. Let's just put it plain, he is lying to you. You know why he is lying to you? It's because he was lied to, he was lied to by the men that he read.

Can we Trust the KJV Bible?

Now, here is the traditional text. The majority text, the textus receptus, the historical text. The one from which the King James Bible comes, the Italian Bible in 1649 has Romans 8:1 in it, all of it.

The Traditional Text:

(Majority, Textus Receptus, Historical, etc.)

  • 1649, Italian
  • 1611, AV
  • 1568, Spanish riena valera
  • 1565, Bishops’
  • 1557, Besa
  • 1557, Geneva
  • 1545, Luther
  • 1539, Cranmer
  • 1535, Coverdale
  • 1525, Tyndale
  • 1516, Erasmus
  • 1514, Complutensian Plyglot
  • 11th century, Theothytlact
  • 10th century, ps Oecumenius
  • 1000 Anglo-Saxon Gospels Manuscripts 140
  • 5th Century Speculum
  • 5th Century Thewdoret
  • Slavonic ancient versions, Syriac, Georgian

Now, these are just, this is just a representative. Of course, the King James does in 1611. The Spanish Reina Valera in 1569, predating the King James, also has that passage in it. The Bishops' 1568 has it in it. By the way, these Bibles didn't come about when somebody translated them from a single Greek text. These Bibles were available in multiple languages throughout Europe for the entire 1600 years from the time of Christ until the present time, when they made them. This were simply new printings, new additions of Bibles that people had handwritten copies of. When the printing press came out and they produced new ones, their name went on them because they're the one that collated the text, put it together.

And then the Beza, Greek text, 1565. Geneva. Luther's Bible in 1545 has Romans 8:1. Cranmer in 1539 has it. Coverdale has it. Tyndale 1525 has it. Erasmus, Greek text has it. The Complutensian Polyglot has it. The Theophylact has it in 11th century. The PS Oecumenius has it at the 10th century. And the Anglo-Saxon Gospels 140, has it in 1000 AD. And in the fifth century, the Speculum has it. The fifth century, Theodoret has it. And the Slavonic ancient versions and Syriac and Georgian versions up there, close to Russia, have it in it as well. And the fourth century Latin manuscript, predating the corrupted manuscripts, has it.

Fourth Century Scholar

And then Chrysostom, fourth century, this is before Aleph and B. You don't know yet know what Aleph B is, but that's the two Greek text that they use to correct the King James Bible. Before those Greek texts came about, this is what Chrysostom says, this is a quote from the fourth century writer,

"And as to our having received more abundant help, here thou Paul,"

in other words, listen to Paul. "... when he says," now he quotes,

"There is therefore now no condemnation of them which are in Christ Jesus who walked not after the flesh, but after the spirit: for the law, the spirit of life has made me free from the law of sin and death."

So before Aleph and B came out, this passage was being quoted liberally and written of and preached about by ministers. And then there are thousands of lectionaries. This is a copy, a picture of one of the lectionaries, one of the nicer ones, contained Romans 8:1. Say what's a lectionaries? Since it was difficult to have whole books, the Bible, what the churches would do is they would print portions of scripture, like if they're going to be a sermon out of Matthew 22, a parable or something, then they would take and print that whole parable out, maybe 25, 30, 40, 50 copies of it during the week, and then give them out to the congregation. And so over a period of time, the congregation, individuals would correct, would collect great portions of scripture. And as they passed that on, there ended up being tens of thousands and millions of copies of scripture, since they couldn't have whole Bibles, that they used to read and memorize. And so there are thousands of these around, and they have Romans 8:1 in them, and they date through many, many centuries.

The Majority Texts

And then the majority Byzantine manuscript, which comes out of the area from Antioch north up through all of Southern Europe, above the Mediterranean sea; Greece, Italy, Spain, all the way up to Britain, all the way out through all the Baltic states, all the way up to the edge of Russia. The Byzantine manuscript was the manuscript that produced the Bible in all of those languages, from which your King James Bible comes. And so all those numbers there represent different identified manuscripts out of 5,400.

In AD 150 an Aramaic text contains all of Romans 8:1

And so in AD 150, and remember the Bible, the last book in the Bible was written in 95 AD. So it could, this could be older, but there's a copy, a piece of the Aramaic which contains all of Romans 8:1, 250 years before the corrupted manuscripts they used to negate it.

“Correcting the Bible”

So here's the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament. When I went to Bible college in 1970, 1966, I think it was, the first year, I was all excited because the last several years before I went to college, I heard all the preachers correcting the King James Bible, especially where there was some passages. I had a difficult time understanding. They corrected it based on original Greek, where it made a whole lot more sense to me and made me feel a lot more comfortable. Like that one in 8:1, "Therefore now no condemnation than which in Christ Jesus who walked not after the flesh, but after the spirit,"  I was glad to get that out of there because I didn't always walk after the spirit and I didn't want any condemnation. And I believed internal security, so I didn't want to go to hell for not walking after the spirit. And so preacher says, "That doesn't belong." I said, "Hallelujah, I'm glad to know that."

Is the Original Greek Original?

But I was looking forward to going to Bible school where I could learn and be smart like those preachers I was hearing who were correcting the Bible and I thought, "Boy, I'm going to, I'll finally have me a perfect book. I'll be able to read the Bible, just like God gave it in the original Greek." So sure enough. I think it was the second semester I started taking Greek and I remembered after about six weeks, eight weeks into the class, I was reading, actually reading John 1, and I actually memorized it. And I was shocked that I was reading the original Greek, but then one day I asked the professor, I said, "Where did the definitions of these Greek words?" Because we had to remember memorize 20 words each for each class. I said, "Where did these definitions come from?" He said, "Well you can get them from Thayer or Weist, or different places." I said, "Where'd they get them from?" He said, "Well, Thayer got it from so and so, and got it from so and so." "Where'd he get it?" He got it from him, got it from him. I said, "Well, who thought this up? Where's the dictionary to all this?" And he said, "Well, it's just goes back into antiquity, different people come up with definitions and they write them down and other people copy what they wrote down. And so that's where you get your definition." I said, "How do we know they're right?" He said, "Well, we don't, there's some differences between, some people have one idea, some have another." I said, "Then am I really reading Greek? Or am I just reading English again? Is this just a difficult way to read English?"

Gods Words, or Mans Words?

I mean, after all I'm taking my Greek word and I'm reading the Greek word and then I'm going to a dictionary that somebody wrote, some man wrote, that's got a definition of that Greek word, and then I apply it. Only thing is there's sometimes they'd send us to study and we'd open five lexicons or five word, Greek word studies and try to figure out which one of these guys were right. Me, trying to figure out which one of these Greek scholars was right? So I was pretty troubled because I didn't have a Bible anymore. It was gone. I couldn't find it. And these guys who supposed to know where it was, couldn't handle it either. They disagreed with each other. And so I was kind of confused, but it was the 25th edition of Nestle-Aland's Greek New Testament, but it was the Greek Bible, and that's what they told me.

Is the Greek Bible still changing?

So 1967, I was reading the original Greek, I thought. 1968, before I got out of Bible college, the very next year, a few important changes appeared. I'm taking this quote from a site that promotes the Bible Greek text, "A few important changes appeared." Well now, I didn't know that at the time, I got out of Bible college before I figured that out. But in 1975 substantially different text with over 500 changes, most of which were back to the traditional text, the King James reading. So that original Greek Bible was changed 500 places, 500 words changed that were no longer part of the original Greek. The original Greek was originally different now. Are you with me? So who do I trust now? And you say, "Well, it's over with," well, in 2012, they made over 30 changes to that original Greek text. They're still doing it. I have in writing where they say, "We will never be able to recover the original Bible, it's lost, but we do the best we can." And they make a good living off of it, by the way. So it's a thriving business. And there are somewhere close to 1000 Bibles in the English language. You can't find them all, but they've been made, translations. Every nine months they come out with a new one, and they differ one from the other, and they're all going back to so-called same Greek text.

How old is the “original Greek” Bible?

Now I discovered my original Greek Bible was only 69 years old. It wasn't original Greek at all. I discovered it was an invention, a recent invention in the late 1800s by two unbelievers who consulted mediums and denied the virgin birth and deity of Christ. And condoned evolution and worship with the Virgin Mary, Westcott and Hort.

The History of The Bible

So look here, 5,000 Greek manuscripts from the first century, it's actually 5,400, I got 5,000 plus. And then that's in question because there are tidbits here and there and different libraries all over the world they're stored, but the scholars have come up with somewhere around 5,400 Greek manuscripts have been preserved somewhere. And that represents 95% plus of all ancient Greek manuscripts. Now those manuscripts are called, "The received text," because it's the text, the Bible we received in English, Latin, Spanish, Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Ethioptic.

It was the Bible reading the same in multiple languages, that's been received by the church for 2000 years. So it's called the "received text." The one we received from our father's. It's also called the "majority text" because it's 95% plus of all of the text. It was the only Bible used by the church for 1800 years. And it's also called the "Byzantine" because it was moved north into Antioch and up into Byzantium and then spread out over all Europe, all the way up into England over the first century. And it's also called the "traditional text" because it is the one that's been known. It's called the "historical text" because historically that has been the Bible. And it's the authorized version, the King James Bible is the one that expresses that. Now there's another one. Notice down  at the bottom, look down the bottom right corner.

There it is, 2%. It's little bitty and that's too big for representative for the size, but in the late 1800s, a couple manuscripts were found. And since then they've uncovered about eight pieces that would go along with those two manuscripts. And that 2% mine is called the "conceived text" instead of "received text" because they conceived of it in the late 1800s. It's called the "minority text" because it represents a small minority. It's called the Alexandrian instead of the Byzantine, because all those that text came out of north Africa, it was preserved in a monastery there in one of them on Mount Sinai and it's preserved because it never rains there and it's real dry, and so it didn't rot. And also it was never thought to be scripture, it was always rejected as being worthy. And so it was never used. And it's also called the "critical text" because the critics invented that text less than 70 years before I started learning to read original Greek. And it's also called the "come lately text." I it's called that by me, by the way, that's as opposed to the historical text, it's the "come lately text."

Oldest and Best?

The Bible correctors promote two manuscripts from the 4th  century – “oldest and the best,”

  • Sinaiticus, (Aleph) -- Minority text, Egyptian
  • Vaticanus (B)

Aleph and B disagree among themselves over 3000 times in the gospels alone

Now the Bible correctors promote two manuscripts from the fourth century as the oldest and the best, the Sinaiticus, which is all called also called Aleph, first letter and the alphabet. It's called the minority text, it's called Egyptian text. And then the Vaticanus. And it is a similar text with only about 6,000 differences that is preserved in the Vatican library. And so the Catholic church had these manuscripts, and their Bibles were different from the reading of the traditional text because they relied somewhat on these manuscripts. But the evangelical church, the Bible believing church, never used those manuscripts.

But Tischendorf, in the middle 1800s, went down and got this manuscript out of the convent, not convent, a place where all these, where they hang out, a monastery. Went down to the monastery and got this text and then discovered the one in the Vatican. And they put those two together and came up with a brand new Bible it's called Aleph and B, Sinaiticus Vaticanus, Sinaiticus Aleph and B, so it's the letters of the alphabet, disagree among themselves over 3000 times in the gospels alone. There are 30,000 changes in all in new Testament, in those two manuscripts, compared to the traditional text. Aleph has been corrected to read as the traditional text. Corrections were made to it. Not all of them, but some, and when they were made, they were made to read back to the traditional text, the King James text, the Byzantine text, so forth.

The Sinaiticus

Okay, here's an actual picture of one of the pages of the Sinaiticus. Look at that picture of Sinaiticus, and let me go right here and get my little pointer. Right here. There we go. I'm I'm cooking now. All right, notice that there's a whole line erased right there. Can you see the faint images of that line? And then down here is a word erased. And down here is some erased and then another writer wrote into it. And then down here is one erased, another writer wrote in. Over here, all of this, this, this, and this have been erased. And then two different writers wrote into it down here. All of this has been erased and this was added to it instead. Up here, some rewriting of it was made. That is the sacred manuscripts that they used to make every translation except the King James Bible in the English language. That's the manuscript right there. That, and another one like it, which is equally corrupt. Now, here's what they actually say. Let me get rid of my little pen here. 

What do the Scholars say about the Codex Sinaiticus?

Now here's what they say. Codex Sinaiticus Project. Codex is like the manuscript. And so this is a very pro Sinaiticus Vaticanus corrupt Bible organization.

"Codex Sinaiticus is one of the most important books in the world. Handwritten well over 1600 years ago, the manuscript contains the Christian Bible in Greek, including the oldest complete copy of the New Testament. Its heavily corrected text is of outstanding importance for the history of the Bible in the manuscripts. The oldest substantial book to survive antiquity is the supreme importance for the history of the book."

And he calls it, "the book." He said, "it's heavily corrected." He admits that. Now he says, and this is that Sinaiticus Project,

"Scribe B was a poor speller and scribe A was not very much better; the best scribe was D. Scribe A had made some unusually serious mistakes."

Now he's not talking about all the corrections there, he's talking about the original four scribes who wrote the thing, different scribes.

"Scribe A made some unusually serious mistakes. Scribe A was a worst type of phonetic error. Scribe B was careless and illiterate. In the sixth or seventh century many alterations were made."

Now this is the guys that support the text.

"It appears to be the work of a number of penman from the fourth to the seventh century."

Now this is not anti, this is not pro King James writers, this is the guys who support this corrupted text, and this is their brag.

Wikipedia says

Now the Wikipedia says this,

"The critical text is a Greek text of the new Testament that draws from a group of ancient Greek manuscripts."

See that word, "group," freaks you out, doesn't it? You can see this big, big library full of manuscripts. Not telling you that group is two.

"A group of ancient Greek manuscripts and their variants,"

That’s the six or eight little pieces of copies they found that went along with it,

"in attempt to preserve the most accurate wording possible. Other Greek texts besides the critical text used for producing English Bibles are the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus."

That's the Greek Bible from which the King James comes.

"Until the late 1800s, the Textus Receptus, or the 'received text' was the foremost Greek text from which the new Testament was derived. The King James and the New King James version are based on the Textus Receptus."

By the way, the New King James is not based on it, it is altered to go back to the new text. Where it's not altered, yeah it's based on the King James, but where it is altered, it goes back to the corrupted text.

"In 1881 two Prominent scholars, Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton J.A. Hort, printed their New Testament in Greek, later known as the critical text.”

This is that Bible I said was invented in the late 1800s by Westcott and Hort.

"Dismissing the Textus Receptus as an inferior text rife with errors."

These two guys did that. Two guys, unbelievers dismissed the text,

"With special focus on two fourth century manuscripts, the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. As a result of Westcott and Hort's work, their Critical Text became the standard Greek text used for modern interpretation and translation for nearly two generations. The Critical Text was the one chiefly used for the English Revised Version and the later American Standard Version. Today, the updated and revised Critical Text,"

They update it and revised it, They keep changing it.

"The updated and revised Critical Text is the Greek manuscript basis for the New International Version and the New American Standard Bible, the English Standard Version, and virtually every other modern English translation of the Bible."

All of them.

"Though, the critical text was not without its fault. It has been accepted,"

And that's all, it has been accepted,

"on the whole as being the most accurate in duplicating the original text to the New Testament. Modern biblical scholars have adjusted and adapted Westcott and Hort's theories of translation."

Now, does that, is that not astounding to you? The depth of corruption and ignorance and stupidity? To take two such corrupted texts?

Why Did they Change the Bible?

Now the 26th edition, 1978 of this Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, this original Greek that was only 60 something years old at that time, the apparatus says, “the only reason they emitted the last 10 words,” the apparatus is where they explain why they did what they did, the words they used says, "“the only reason they emitted the last 10 words, was because Westcott and Hort rejected the reading." That is their, you know, what they do? They give you manuscript evidence is why they show chose this text or not.

Well, the only evidence they had in 1978 was that two men, Westcott and Hort, rejected the reading. No reason why, just they rejected it. So they threw it out.

Siniaticus, The Hoax Bible

But the 28th edition in 2012, excludes that admission and admits that the majority of manuscripts contained the phrase. So now here in 2012, that this theory has been widely accepted, they'll admit, "Oh yeah, the majority of manuscripts contain it." It's kind of like the Piltdown man in evolution, where one of the scientists got a pigs, some pigs, teeth, and monkey skull, and used some acid and burned it and glued it all together and came up, "Oh, I got this Piltdown man," and scientific world held it. And they created a whole new species of ancient man, the Piltdown man, and about 40 years later, another scientist got looking at it and figured out it was a hoax. They all admitted it's a hoax, but you know, you can still read about the Piltdown man in all the evolutionary books. He still exists by the way, because once he gets to be a part of the system, you can't throw him out. It's now part of the whole scheme of things. And that's the way it is with the Bible folks. They know better now, but they're making a living at it. And so most of you never heard of it. You don't realize you're being taken. You don't realize this is a scam.

What did Wescott and Hort Think of Darwin?

All right, now here's Hort wrote to Westcott, here's what he said,

"Have you read Darwin?"

He was contemporary with Darwin, now.

"How I should like to talk with you about it. In spite of difficulties, I'm inclined to think it unanswerable. In any case, it is a treat to read such a book."

This is, Westcott, created this new Bible. Hort writes to John Ellerton. He says, Hort writes to John Ellington says,

"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be a contemporary with... my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable."

Here's the phrase. "If so it opens up a new period."

A New Age, with New Thinking

And opened up a new period, it did It did open up a new period regarding the way some scholars viewed scripture. During the 1800s, rationalism challenged Bible faith with ever expanding sciences. By the way, I'm the author of this. By mid-century Charles Darwin's origin of species met with widespread approval from the scientific community. As science supposedly proved the Bible to be an error regarding creation, there was a frenzy of glee among the skeptics and a new boldness among Bible critics to publicly challenge the inerrancy of scripture.

At the same time, Darwin was propounding his theory of evolution, Tischendorf was developing his theory that the Bible is corrupted and in need of restoration. Discovering the existence of two fourth century Greek manuscripts that differed from the standard historical text, unbelieving scholars, mostly in Germany, saw an opportunity to throw open the question of the accuracy of the traditional text. Critics hailed these two texts, dubbed Aleph and B to be the oldest and best copies of the Bible. So based on their new Greek text, professional scholars came to our rescue with an alternate Greek Bible, and its bastard child, the Revised English Revised Version, published in 1881, first one. It is very different from the historical text with over 30,000 changes, 5,000 of them, which are changes in words, Greek words, derived from newly created Greek text. And I have read that there are Greek words in Westcott and Hort's Greek Bible that appear in no Greek Bible, not even in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. They took the Liberty to create their own text and write it as they felt it should be written.

Which do you Believe?

  • “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” 2 Timothy 3:16
  • All scripture was given by inspiration of God, but was, has been altered in over 30,000 places and is subject to correction by men of God who are thoroughly furnished with a doctrine of textual criticism.

Now, let me ask you, which do you believe? Do you believe all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction and righteousness, all scripture is given? Or do you believe all scripture was given by inspiration of God, but was, has been altered in over 30,000 places and is subject to correction by men of God who are thoroughly furnished with a doctrine of textual criticism?

Do you Trust the Bible, or the Scholars?

Now that's tongue in cheek, but that's exactly what most all preachers coming out of Bible colleges believe today, they believe the latter. They believe, "Yes, the Bible was inspired originally, but it's not now, it's just a translation and it's corrupted. And the best text has got 30,000 changes in it." And so we can correct the Bible because they do it every Sunday. So we believe that men that we have to go to rely upon for those corrections are men who thoroughly furnished with the doctrine of textual criticism. They know more about the Bible than we do. So you believe one or the other.

Which do you Believe?

  • God has continued to give his inspired words to his church in multiple languages, from the autographs to the present and his words will never pass away.
  • God gave inspired scripture to only a small number and then abandon his words to the carelessness of men where it became increasingly corrupted until the 19th century, when two men who did not believe it began the process of restoration, it now being understood that the original inspired texts will never be restored.

I'm going to ask you, which do you believe? God has continued to give his inspired words to his church in multiple languages, from the autographs to the present and his words will never pass away. That's what I believe. Or do you believe this, God gave inspired scripture to only a small number and then abandon his words to the carelessness of men where it became increasingly corrupted until the 19th century, when two men who did not believe it began the process of restoration, it now being understood that the original inspired texts will never be restored. You believe one or the other, because that's the only two alternatives. And by the way, the latter is what the majority of preachers you hear on the radio and from the pulpit, believe.

“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

Luke 21:33

I like this, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words," not word, not thoughts, not just a book, but the words composing that book, "... shall not pass away."

Could God really Preserve his Words?

Don't you think of God who's powerful enough to inspire Paul to sit down and write a book and it come out to be God's words is also powerful enough to make sure that it stays protected and preserved down through the centuries? What kind of God have you got?

Now back to our text. I cannot believe I'm back in Romans 8:1 again. All right. I'll tell you what I'm going to have to do, I'm going to have to quit. And so next week we'll go through the text again, because I took longer on that than I thought I was going to take. All right. So I guess as Bugs Bunny said, "That's all folks."

Bible teaching with Michael Pearl.
Learn more about The Door