Westcott and Hort say: "If comparative trivialities, such as changes of order, the insertion or omission of the article with proper names, and the like, are set aside, the words in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly amount to more than a thousandth part of the whole New Testament" (Greek New Testament, p. 564f). This would be a total of a little more than a half page of the Greek Testament.

This is false claim! The only scripture in the Bible which EXPRESSLY TEACHES the trinity (three are one) is eliminated by the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts used by Westcott and Hort and followed by almost EVERY SINGLE new translation of the scriptures since 1880!!!

That verse is I John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

I do not involve myself in arguments that claim that the "KJV is inspired" and "all other translations are of the devil"! There are clearly faults in the KJV. (for example King James fobad the translators to change any of the old ecclesiastical words. So "baptism", "presbyter", etc did not get translated! They really mean "to place into" and "old/elderly"! Expressions like "office of a bishop", "them that have the rule over", and "office of a deacon" are really "overseer", "guides/examples", and "servant/slave"!!!

But I do take issue with those who claim that because the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts are the OLDEST, that they are therefore the BEST manuscripts available!

The reason why these two OLD MANUSCRIPTS survived was because they were rejected by the early church as corrupt documents! The ones which were recognized as being genuine were used and reused, copied and recopied and were literally worn out! The Sinaiticus manuscript was found in a trash heap of a monastery and the Vaticanus was found secloistered in the library of the Vatican! Both manuscripts have very clear evidence that they have been tampered with (sections erased and re-written, the two manuscripts disagree with each other in hundreds of places!) And both eliminate John 7:53-8:11! (The woman taken in adultery). There is not one translation committee (apart from some R.C. versions) which has ever expressed their confidence in these two corrupt manuscripts by eliminating these verses! They have all acknowledged the veracity of the manuscripts which were the basis of the KJV by including these verses in their translations!

These facts rarely appear in discussions of the manuscript basis for various translations. All one usually hears is the logical sounding: "The Oldest are the Best!"

So discussions of translations per ce or variations between manuscripts are NOT the big issues. The big issue is WHAT MANUSCRIPTS WERE USED AS AUTHORITIES FOR THE TRANSLATIONS! (Manuscripts which were accepted, honoured by the early church and worn out by continual use, or manuscripts which were rejected, discarded and thus preserved SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT USED!)

I had noticed that as well. Shocking, huh? Trinitarians, of course, do not base their beliefs solely upon that verse but upon many others. But 1 John 5:7 should throw up some flags, though.

>But I do take issue with those who claim that because the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts are the OLDEST, that they are therefore the BEST manuscripts available!>

Ditto to that, Bruce. Thanks for explaining why.

I keep encountering KJV only people who maintain that W and H were "avowed atheists." Have you heard that one?

David Anderson

But I am convinced that every scriptural doctrine is not only intimated but is STATED DIRECTLY in the very words of scripture.Therefore a doctrine is not a scriptural doctrine which cannot be stated simply in the very words of scripture alone!

I believe that every doctrine that is a scriptural one will be summarized clearly in one sentence of scripture which contains the Hebrew or Greek word or phrase for which that doctrine is known i.e. "virgin", "justification", "redemption", "inspiration", "atonement", "predestination", "election", "church of God". Of course, many prominent doctrines are mentioned in many texts, so the summary statement will be the most comprehensive sentence containing that word or phrase. Doctrines which are prominent in both Old and New Testaments will have such a summary statement in both Testaments. Then every other statement of that doctrine in scripture will be in complete harmony with the comprehensive summary statement(s).

I have mentioned these things for the purpose of demonstrating that while the doctrine that "these three are one" is intimated in many texts of scripture, this doctrine is only DIRECTLY STATED in one verse of scripture, I John 5:7! When the enemy wants to deny , attack or destroy a truth, his focus is upon the direct statement of that truth!

Brother, you have said that many "KJV only" proponents claim that Westcott and Hort, the fathers of all new translations based on the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts, were "avowed atheists". You asked me if I had ever heard this before.

First off, while I do most of my reading and studying from the KJV, I am certainly not a "KJV only man"! I haven't heard that W & H were atheists, but from things I've read I doubt that they were born again believers in my Lord and Saviour! I have a lengthy article, "The Thinking, Theories, and Theology of Drs. Westcott and Hort" by Cecil J. Carter of Prince George, British Columbia.
I'm just seeking to track down a web site where this material can be found. Will let you know when I locate it. Here it is: http://www.mag-net.com/~maranath/ttt.htm

Check it out for yourself and then decide whether such men are worthy of your trust.

Your brother because of Calvary,
Bruce

"The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except four, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate..." (the issue on this passage is not only, or even primarily, its exclusion from MSS A and B, but its exclusion from virtually every Greek text, except the four mentioned. Metzger lists the four Greek texts which include the passage, with some pertinent facts...) "ms. 61..sixteenth century...ms. 88..twelfth century...has the passage written in the margin by a modern hand...ms. 629...fourteenth or fifteenth century....ms. 635..eleventh century..has the passage written in the margin by a seventeeth century hand..."

Isa 28:11-12
Indeed, He will speak to this people Through stammering lips and a foreign tongue, He who said to them, "Here is rest, give rest to the weary," And, "Here is repose," but they would not listen.

Proverbs 25:2
It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.

Luke 9:44
"Let these words sink into your ears; for the Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men." But they did not understand this statement, and it was concealed from them so that they might not perceive it; and they were afraid to ask Him about this statement.

Matt 13:13
"Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand."

God said not many of us should be teachers. Now, if it were so easy to dissect the Bible into clear-cut doctrines then all of us would have this kind of wisdom, but God hid it from the wise of the world and revealed it to little children.

I believe the different translations are another means given the evil one to turn one Christian against another and to give people who do not believe a way out.