Love your Modern Bible Version? So does the Pope

Ouch. Yeah, sorry, that's kinda' hitting below the belt, I know. However, it's 100% true and historically accurate. You doubt? It's easily ascertained.

Anyone who's very familiar at all with the Bible version debate knows that there are two main families of manuscripts (mss.), the Byzantine or Antioch, known as the "Majority Text," and the Alexandrian, known as the "Critical Text." For almost 1800 years, the only Scriptures available to the people were those of the Antioch line (where they were first called Christians, etc.). Antioch is located in Asia Minor, the location of the vast majority of Paul's missionary journeys.

These mss. are found in dozens of different languages the world over, and have resulted in every Reformation-Era Bible besides Wycliffe's, from the Gutenberg Bible down through the Bishops, Geneva, Great and Authorized Bibles (KJB). These, while differing and varying somewhat among the 10,000 or so different scraps and portions in so many different languages, still exhibit an incredible coherence as a whole, and to any objectie observer have resulted in every major revival and awakening movement on the globe since the time of Christ.

However, this family of mss. has been villanized by modern Christian scholarship as being newer and more modified from the "Original Autographs." They in turn offer the Critical line of mss. in their place, but even a cursory examination of these raises an immense number of red flags. For instance, the proponents of the Alexandrian family of manuscript were from Alexandria, Egypt, a place that no Apostle nor church father of character came from nor even visited. Alexandria was a hotbed of corruption and debauchery from the political sphere down through its culture and even into its band of Christians. This group included Origen, who castrated himself, and other men whose philosophy came directly from the humanistic philosophers of Greece. It's clear from their writings (Origen was a most prolific writer) that they held very few of the "orthodox" or fundamental doctrines, instead many times believing in multiple paths for salvation and other hereisies.

To return to the title, however: in the middle 1800s, Christian scholars who had studied in humanistic German schools of philosophy began uncovering new manuscripts and codices that had never been seen before. These included Alexandrianus (A), the least-known of the three main mss., Siniaiticus (א), found in a garbage heap in a monestary in the Siniai desert, and Vaticanus (B), a script that no Christian scholar, liberal or not, has ever actually studied in person. Dean Burgeon, a great defender of the Majority Text in the late 1800s, described the aforementioned codices as sloppy and lacking the care that important documents of any type merited, let alone the Scriptures themselves. It's believed that Origin and others actually modified at least two of these codices, though there are contradictions and ommissions located throughout.

The reason that Vaticanus (B) has never been actively studied is because it is kept securely locked away in the Vatican library. While photocopies have been made available, on which the overwhelming majority of modern translations are based, the codex itself is unattainable.

But all this doesn't necessarily answer the customary query or the reader: why would the Pope and the Catholic system look favorably upon the modern versions, while by implication frowning upon traditional translations? Simple this: thousands of people, from unknown thousands during the Dark Ages down through John Huss and William Tyndale, died for hiding, reading, posessing or memorizing the words of Scripture from the Majority Text, and their deaths were completely at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church. While the "church" used political powers to carry out the public torture and executions, they were behind it and in control of it nonetheless.

After the Bible was out in the open and impossible for the Papists to control (thanks to men like Luther, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale and others), they decided on another tact: if you can't beat them, join them. So as a result, the Chamelion Catholic Church changed their stance on the Bible, and manipulated Christian "scholarship" to use their "older," extremely corrupt manuscripts and codices to produce new versions of the Bible. In essence, the NIV, NASB, NLT, ESV, and ASV are all based on the same source from whence came the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible, while the King James Bible, the Bishops, Tyndale, Great Bible, Luther's German Bible, and all other Reformation-Era Bibles, are based on the manuscripts that Bible-believing men ans women died for through the centuries.

Hard words, yes, but very true. Not only are "updates" to the Bible unnecessary, but the very foundation for those updates is the corruption that the Roman Catholic Whore has infiltrated Christianity with to undermine the Authority and Power of the Scriptures. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together wouldn't accept the doctrines of Purgatory, Infant Baptism or Transubstantiation, but those same individuals turn around and correct the words of God with the corruption that the Catholic Bible is based on. Hardly makes sense, does it?

The Cancer of Catholicism

I'm not going to get into the Great Whore issue or the relationship between Rome and the Antichrist in the end time, but I do want to rant a little and maybe inform some readers of some largely unknown church history.

Generally speaking, people understand the history of the church in the last 2,000 or so years to be something like this: Jesus died as per the story in the Gospels, the Gospel spread throughout most of the known world, 300 AD saw Constantine wed the then-corrupt Roman church with the state government, and then Luther threw a fit in the 1400s and sparked the Reformation, which led to the translation and printing of the Bible in European languages leading to the expansion of Biblical Christianity.

Now there is nothing really incorrect with this account; the problem is that it misses some key facts and issues that most Christians, even those that claim to believe the Bible, overlook. Among ecumenical groups today there is a push to find common ground between any and all groups of people that claim the name of Christ, but a look into the past of the numerically largest group of "Christians" reveals some truly chilling, disturbing things that most people have no clue about.

For instance, in 1534, Ignatius de Loyola founded the Society of Jesus, better known as the Jesuits. This group of fanatical papists has wreaked such havoc upon the world as to be almost inconceivable. From the infamous yet little-known St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre in which more than 10,000 French Huguenots were brutally tortured and murdered by a Jesuit plot, to the sponsoring of the attempted invasion of England by Spain via the well-known "Spanish Armada" (packing along hundreds of Jesuit priests and instruments of the Inquisition), to even more recently the Jesuit connection to the assasination of President Lincoln, the "Society of Jesus" is a no-holds-barred, lawless group of individuals whose main premise is that the ends justify the means, and they believe the church of Rome so fanatically that they are said to believe that white is black if the Catholic church were to say as much.

However, the most poignant and effective attack by the Jesuits and the Great Whore herself has been against our Authorized English Bible. From the get-go, the Catholic church banned possession or memoriztion of the Bible, though even their "scholars" and priests were accused of scareely knowing even the names of the books of the Bible! Even in England, dozens or perhaps hundreds of people were burned at the stake for simply teaching their children to memorize the Lord's Prayer in English! If at any time there was an organization more diabolical or satanic than Rome, history does not record it.

With the truth of the English Holy Scriptures defying every decree made at the demonic Council of Trent, the Catholic heirarachy knew that they had to counteract the effects of the AV if they were to have a chance to once again subdue England under the pope ("Bloody" Mary's Catholic reign of terror ended unsuccessfully and abruptly with her execution at the hands of Protestand troops, to be Providencially replaced by His Highness, King James the First of England). So in order to fight the sway that the King James Bible held over the English-speaking people, the Jesuits commissioned the Duay Bible, still the Catholic standard. Interestingly enough, this "Bible" perversion is based on exactly the same manuscript heritage as every new translation being spewed out of Nelson, Tyndale, and any other publishing house. I've dealt with Siniaticus and Vaticanus before on this blog, so I shan't revisit that topic. Suffice it to say that any version besides a King James Bible is based on the same corruption that the Catholic Whore employed to keep the world under bondage for several hundred years.

Ok, I now forget where I was going with this, primarily because I'm exhausted and about to fall asleep. Comments are great...maybe they would help motivate me to post more often.

To Canonize or not to Canonize

We received a comment recently, asking about the early Church, and where they went wrong, especially in regards to the Canonization of the Scriptures. Bear with me; this could get a little lengthy.

There is a belief among many denominations that the Apostles' positions were handed down to others: the view is commonly known as Apostolic Succession. This is a fundamental and essential part of the Roman Catholic Church's position, as their Nicolaitanistic clergy would have no justification without it. Likewise, many of the Protestant groups that came out of Rome (Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc.) or split off (Episcopal, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican) teach a similar form of Apostolic Succession, though not as fiercely as the RCC.

To fully understand the quandary that modern "Christianity" is in requires a little digging into the history of the Body of Christ, or the Church. While the universal Body of Christ actually began at Pentecost, when the Disciples were empowered with the Holy Ghost, some groups teach that Christ founded His church on Peter, using Matthew 16:18;

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

The only problem with that is that Jesus had just gotten done asking Peter who he thought Jesus was, to which question he responded, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Now, Peter's name means little stone, but Jesus is the Rock of Ages and the Cornerstone, so Jesus building His church on Himself (a rock) makes much more sense than Him building it on Peter (a stone).

Anyhow, that's how the Church started: Peter was the first spokesman, and later Paul was the main instrument to spread the Gospel of Christ. The Gospel began to spread when the Jews started persecuting the Christians, and they moved away, taking their relatively new-found faith with them. Eventually the Gospel reached Rome, where Paul wound up getting executed by Nero. When the number of Christians became a large problem for the Roman government, they were persecuted with all the fury of the Roman legions, yet they continued to grow even more.

By 300 A.D., Emperor Constantine realized that they would never be able to root the Christians out, and as the saying goes, "If you can't beat them, join them"; he did exactly that. He "Baptized" his troops by marching them through the river, after which he had his armies wear crosses on their armor. He cited a vision in the sky, where a cross stood bearing the inscription: "In Vince Hoc," or "With this conquor." Many church elders warmly welcomed the respite from persecution, though some feared the new union between the government and the body of Christ. Constantine's new religion began incorporating many of the trappings of the former pagan worship, including polytheism, ornate worship services, temple prostitution and other godless, profane things, under the guise of "Christianity."

There were many people, however, that fled this new abomination, and eventually were persecuted as the unholy union of church and state began to overshadow Europe and the entire Roman Empire. In an effort to stifle the resistance to their religion, the Roman church forbad the common people to own or possess any portion of the Scriptures, or writings of the apostles or the Hebrew Old Testament. In this they thought to control the people, and keep them in ignorance to the abominations they were perpetrating in the name of Christ.

Between 393 and 419 A.D., different councils and synods had declared the "Canon" of the Bible, or which books were and were not Scriptural. The Roman church, using the idea of Apostolic Succession, declared that since Jesus gave Peter the keys of the Kingdom of God, that they still held those keys and also had the right to declare what was God's word.

By contrast, however, the Bible states that God's word is settled forever in Heaven, negating the necessity of a canon. Just because a group of men gets together and declares something to be so does not establish it, just as their refusal to accept something does not negate its existence. Therefore, to claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the authority on the written word of God, when God had already settled it in Heaven in eternity past, is preposterous to the highest degree. The Catholic church simply wanted to keep the people in darkness to the word of God (hence the "Dark Ages") so their "Indulgences" and "Penances" and "Priests," "Monks," "Nuns," "Friars," "Cardinals" and "Bishops" wouldn't be uncovered as fraudulent, unblibical, paganistic trash.

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
(Isaiah 40:8)