Does it matter which version of the Bible you read?

[Hobie]

Lets compare one verse in this study... 1 John 4:3:

NIV - but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

RSV - and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.

ASV and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already.

KJV - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

We see here in 1 John 4:3 that the NIV takes out the whole point in the text, "NIV leaves out the fact that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh"

So is it important, well lets look more closely at what scripture gives us on the 'antichrist' going back to 1 John 4:3..

1 John 4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

The antichrist has to deny Jesus came in the flesh. Let’s look up the Greek word “flesh” in the Greek Lexicon and see what it can mean..

Strong’s Hebrew/Greek Concordance:

sarx: Probably from the base of G4563; flesh (as stripped of the skin), that is, (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extension) the body (as opposed to the soul (or spirit), or as the symbol of what is external, or as the means of kindred, or (by implication) human nature (with its frailties (physically or morally) and passions), or (specifically) a human being (as such): – carnal (-ly, + -ly minded), flesh ([-ly]).

Thayer’s Greek Lexicon:

Thayer Definition:
1) flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts

2) the body 2a) the body of a man 2b) used of natural or physical origin, generation or relationship 2b1) born of natural generation 2c) the sensuous nature of man, “the animal nature” 2c1) without any suggestion of depravity 2c2) the animal nature with cravings which incite to sin 2c3) the physical nature of man as subject to suffering

3) a living creature (because possessed of a body of flesh) whether man or beast

4) the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God

So what is our human nature, what are all human beings guilty of according to the bible. They are all guilty of sin, they have the propensity or that which opposes God. The bible teaches that although Jesus never sinned, he became sin for us.

2 Corinthians 5:21
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Jesus came through the line of David, and we see what David said...

Psalm 51:5
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

This means that the whole line of David was a lineage individuals with a nature to sin, including Jesus. This is how Jesus, being God, could be tempted to sin as we see in the wilderness with the devil, Because he became man, and being made into a man he had the same human nature as man, the ability to sin. But yet He didnt sin...

So, how does the Roman Catholic Church teach that Jesus did not come in the flesh (human nature)? Well when they teach that the Virgin Mary was sinless at her conception of the baby Jesus, they in essence teach that Jesus has not come in the flesh, because Jesus came through her lineage, and as David had a nature to sin, she also had a nature to sin. Here is from the Catechism:

491. “Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, ‘full of grace’ through God, [Lk 1:28 .] was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854: The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of JESUS Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin. -Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (1854): DS 2803.

To say that Jesus came into the world this way, born of a virgin who was not of sinful “flesh” as we are all in our human nature, is to say he did not come in the “flesh” of sinful nature because he came through her lineage. That shows who is the spirit of antichrist and so its important which version of the Bible you have..

 

[Hobie]

So we can see how it matters as even small changes can shade or take out the meaning or leave one befuddled to say the least or they give up altogether trying to understand Gods Word. And we were warned of these things..
2 Corinthians 2:17
For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

So why would the NIV and other versions make these changes, well if one looks into the background of them we find, they are based on the corrupted Gnostic Alexandrian manuscripts which Hort and Westcott picked up.

Here is a good explanation on the affects of Gnosticism, "...Simon Magus, after his rejection by Peter, began to fashion his own "Christian" church -- a church of which HE was head -- a church designed to completely overthrow the True Church of God. His idea was to blend together Babylonian teaching with some of the teachings of Christ -- especially to take the name of Christ -- and thus create ONE UNIVERSAL CHURCH! But a church with Babylonianism as its basis.

Harnack, a church historian, states that Simon Magus "proclaimed a doctrine in which the Jewish faith was strangely and grotesquely mixed with BABYLONIAN myths, together with some Greek additions. The mysterious worship . . . in consequence of the widened horizon and the deepening religious feeling, finally the wild SYNCRETISM [that is, blending together of religious beliefs], whose aim WAS A UNIVERSAL RELIGION, all contributed to gain adherents for Simon" (Vol. 1, p. 244).

Simon can be classified among the major group of so-called Christians (and Simon called himself such), called by Harnack the: "decidedly anti-Jewish groups . . . . They advanced much further in the criticism of the Old Testament and perceived the impossibility of saving it [that is, the Old Testament] for the Christian UNIVERSAL RELIGION. They rather connected this [universal] religion with the cultus-wisdom of BABYLON and SYRIA" (VoI. 1, p. 246).
With this background, we can understand why Peter so strongly rebuked Simon for his Babylonian ideas. Peter prophesied that this was the man who was to be the "gall of bitterness, and bond of iniquity" to the True Church. Simon’ s attitude was corrupt in the extreme!

The Bible shows he had been working through demons. And yet, he finally called himself a "Christian." Dr. McGiffert, speaking of Simon Magus, says: "His effort to rival and surpass Jesus very likely began after his contact with the Christians that Luke records. His religious system was apparently a SYNCRETISM of Jewish and Oriental elements" (Hasting's Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Vol. 2, p. 497)....."

While the church at Rome was allowing ancient religious ideas and paganism to creep into its teachings, the church in Alexandria was being corrupted by Greek philosophy and constructing doctrines influenced by Plato and the Stoics:

It is seen in the writings of Clement of Alexandria head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria. He united Greek philosophical traditions with Christian doctrine. He used the term "gnostic" for Christians who had attained the deeper teaching of the Logos which he felt was a lesser form of God, he taught that Christ was not really flesh but spirit. He developed a Christian Platonism, of which objects in the everyday world are imperfect copies. He presented the goal of Christian life as deification, or assimilation into God.

He arose from Alexandria's Catechetical School and was well versed in pagan literature which it seems he used to develop his doctrines. Clement is best remembered as the teacher of Origen who followed him as head of Alexandria's Catechetical School and interpreted scripture allegorically and showed himself to be a Neo-Pythagorean, and Neo-Platonist. Like Plotinus, he wrote that the soul passes through successive stages of incarnation before eventually reaching God. He imagined even demons being reunited with God. For Origen like his teacher Clement, God was the First Principle, and Christ, the Logos, was subordinate to him. He did not believe in the ressurection and taught against that the soul died along with the body, being restored to life only at the resurrection (see soul sleep).

His works were used in the formulation of the early churches doctrines, Origen wrote about 6,000 works. A list was given by Eusebius who studied them and seems to have continued some of the false beliefs which he passed on in his writings. He followed Origen later as bishop of Caesarea and spread his ideas as seen in the further development of the Arian controversies. For instance he was involved in the dispute with Eustathius of Antioch who opposed the growing influence of Origen, including his practice of an allegorical exegesis of scripture. Eustathius perceived in Origen's theology the roots of Arianism and fought against it. He was correct facts were to show, as Eusebius was intent upon emphasizing the difference of the persona of the Trinity and maintaining the subordination of the Son (Logos, or Word) to God. The Son (Jesus), as Arianism asserted, is a creature of God. This Logos, as a derivative creature and not truly God as the Father is truly God, could therefore change (Eusebius, with most early theologians, assumed God was immutable), and he assumed a human body without altering the immutable divine Father. The relation of the Holy Spirit within the Trinity Eusebius explained similarly to that of the Son to the Father. No point of this doctrine is original with Eusebius, all is traceable to his teacher Origen..."

So we see where the twisting of the nature Christ begins, and the sources that it came from. It was to confuse and mislead many which we see even to this day......

 

[Randy Kluth]

Lets compare one verse in this study... 1 John 4:3:

NIV - but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

My NIV Bible reads: 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God...
3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.

I do not see the importance of having "flesh" in both vs 2 and vs 3? Taken together both verses are suggesting that Jesus came "in the flesh." This is a translation, so that English speakers can understand better in their own language something that is said differently in another language. The meaning is the same, and there is no dilution.

 

[Hobie]

My NIV Bible reads: 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God...
3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.

I do not see the importance of having "flesh" in both vs 2 and vs 3? Taken together both verses are suggesting that Jesus came "in the flesh." This is a translation, so that English speakers can understand better in their own language something that is said differently in another language. The meaning is the same, and there is no dilution.

As you can see the context was in the flesh which, 'denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence,' and once you say like the Catholic church that the Virgin Mary was sinless at her conception of the baby Jesus, they in essence teach that Jesus has not come in the flesh. It makes a difference and they have raised it to a 'infallible' belief for all intents and purposes..

 

[Randy Kluth]

It is seen in the writings of Clement of Alexandria head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria. He united Greek philosophical traditions with Christian doctrine. He used the term "gnostic" for Christians who had attained the deeper teaching of the Logos which he felt was a lesser form of God, he taught that Christ was not really flesh but spirit.

Please cite your source on this, that Clement of Alexandria taught that Christ was not really flesh but spirit? I'm not sure that's true, but I need to hear where he says this?

His works were used in the formulation of the early churches doctrines, Origen wrote about 6,000 works. A list was given by Eusebius who studied them and seems to have continued some of the false beliefs which he passed on in his writings. He followed Origen later as bishop of Caesarea and spread his ideas as seen in the further development of the Arian controversies.

Some criticize some of the flawed theological writings of these early pioneers. And it's okay to critically examine anything--even from revered, studied Christians. But it's also nice to keep a balance...

There was no conspiracy to insert heretical teachings into Christianity. These were generally honest thinkers and exemplary Christian leaders. Their imperfections, over time, were corrected.

 

[Randy Kluth]

As you can see the context was in the flesh which, 'denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence,' and once you say like the Catholic church that the Virgin Mary was sinless at her conception of the baby Jesus, they in essence teach that Jesus has not come in the flesh. It makes a difference and they have raised it to a 'infallible' belief for all intents and purposes..

I'm not a Catholic, but don't see Catholics making this kind of theological distinction. They say Mary is sinless because the emphasis is on her ability to have a perfect Redeemer for a child. She was "the mother of God." As such, she had to be basically unstained and capable of doing something perfect.

I don't agree, but I don't at all think it has anything to do with Jesus coming in the flesh/human nature.

That being said, there is a heresy associated with this kind of thinking, that Jesus did not really manifest in human flesh. In fact, virtually all liberal Christian theology would deny that kind of supernatural change in our human nature that reflects a divine Christ.

The emphasis, rather, is on human works, and in our ability to emulate Christ externally, by our own works, rather than rely upon a mystical connection to Christ through his Spirit. Liberals may try to talk the talk, but in reality, they don't walk the walk and in their deeds deny what they might claim they believe.

Docetism was an early form of denying Christ came in the flesh. Ebionite belief was at the other end of the spectrum, claiming Jesus was just a man.

 

[Hobie]

We find that Polycarp does include the phrase 'come in the flesh' when he quotes this passage in his letter to the Philippians so it was there. CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Philippians (Polycarp)

Now lets look closer at what Simon Magus formed, as the Gnostics was basically a mixture of Greek Philosophy and Ancient Mystery religion, Zoroastrianism which was from Simon's magi background, and came to be known as Gnosticism. This Gnostic line of thought had certain characteristics which had serious moral and ethical consequences. Its basic belief was that matter was essentially evil and spirit alone was good. If as they thought, matter is evil, the body is evil; and the body must be despised and held down and we see where rigid asceticism came from. So following this line, if the body is evil, it does not matter what a man does with it. Another characteristic was the teaching that the realization of gnosis or the esoteric or intuitive knowledge, is the way to salvation of the soul from the material world. They mixed truth with falsehoods and Jesus is identified by some Gnostic sects as an embodiment of the supreme being who became incarnate to bring gnosis to the earth and the Gnostic sects develop the belief that Jesus was merely a human who attained divinity through gnosis and taught his disciples to do the same.

Gnosticism tried to blend the new religion but ultimately was against traditional Christian beliefs and attempted to combine Paganism with Christianity. The movement spread in areas controlled by the Roman Empire and especially strong in Egypt, but the one thing that they all had in common was that all of these groups departed from the truth, and the Gnostic mixed their beliefs into the manuscripts they made of the scriptures, putting changes of their particular beliefs or taking out what disagreed with it.

Now as the movement spread in areas controlled by the Roman Empire and especially in Rome and Egypt, it gets interesting. From Egypt we get some of their ideas and beliefs that were put into corrupted manuscripts and years later two of these manuscripts appeared. These were called Vaticanus & Sinaiticus since they were somehow 'found' in the Vatican Library and the other in a monastery in the Sinai. Neither was in the original Greek language, but in a Coptic translation, an early Egyptian language. Coptic placed the origin of these two texts in the region of Alexandria, Egypt the center of the Gnosticism heresy. Hence they became known collectively as the Alexandrian Codices.

And now it becomes even more interesting, as Anglicans Westcott & Hort undertook the translation of these Coptic copies back into their original Greek language and the differences began to suddenly appear. Gone was the resurrection story in the book of Mark and gone was Acts 8:37 where the Ethiopian eunuch confesses Jesus as the Son of God along with many other passages. All the modern translations which were written during this time frame are based on the Westcott & Hort Coptic Greek text including the American Standard Version , the New International Version , the New World Translation & many more picked up from the Gnostic corrupted manuscripts.... and now we know the rest of the story as they say...

 

[Wrangler]

Does it matter which version of the Bible you read?​

In general, no. God's word must be understood by the Spirit. So, you should read the translation you like to read the most.

If you want to get into a esoteric analysis of what does the 3rd word of the 8th verse of the 11th chapter say, then yea, it matters. I generally prefer thought translations for modern readability. The thought of the book, chapter and sentence is what I tend to be after not the word in the original language.

 

[Deborah_]

Lets compare one verse in this study.

And here lies the problem.

Scripture was never originally "chopped up" into verses. Verses should never be read or quoted in isolation.

"NIV leaves out the fact that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh"

As has been pointed out already, this is not true. It's there in the preceding verse, as large as life! It's not necessary to repeat it in verse 3, and leaving it out makes no difference whatsoever to the sense of the paragraph as a whole. Which rather kicks the argument that the NIV is "corrupted and Gnostic" out of the window.

 

[Wrangler]

And here lies the problem.

Scripture was never originally "chopped up" into verses. Verses should never be read or quoted in isolation.


As has been pointed out already, this is not true. It's there in the preceding verse, as large as life! It's not necessary to repeat it in verse 3, and leaving it out makes no difference whatsoever to the sense of the paragraph as a whole.

Well said!

That's the problem with those who adhere to literal translations, on top of the fact that the Bible is a highly figurative book. Valid interpretation is contextual.

For the sake of brevity, I often take words out of context while still applying it correctly, Examples include "be all things to all people" or "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom" or "To whom much is given, much is expected" and non-religious, "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" or "I regret that I have one life to give for my country."

I am so grateful for the flowering of Christianty from the Holy Spirit. Denominations and translations far surpass other religions, which show how far our great God goes to reach people. Amen! (Sad some treat these gifts as a cause for divisiveness or threat).

 

[Hobie]

And here lies the problem.

Scripture was never originally "chopped up" into verses. Verses should never be read or quoted in isolation.


As has been pointed out already, this is not true. It's there in the preceding verse, as large as life! It's not necessary to repeat it in verse 3, and leaving it out makes no difference whatsoever to the sense of the paragraph as a whole. Which rather kicks the argument that the NIV is "corrupted and Gnostic" out of the window.

The thing is that to the Jewish mind, this was the 'word of God', they would not add, take out, or changed any mark or letter. This meant that they were very careful when they copied it. The Jewish scribes when doing this work had a set of rules which were quite strict and had to be adhered to in the utmost. One of the most important rules include not copying even the smallest mark of letter from memory. They always had to look at the scroll or codex from which they were copying before they wrote a letter onto the scroll. They also had to make sure that the scroll or codex they were copying from was certified as a good copy, in other words confirmed in a unbroken line. So to take out any part of a divine word was we would call sacrilegious, so for this to be done was purposely changing one word here, and then another later, and then whole verses if not worse as was done....

 

[Deborah_]

The thing is that to the Jewish mind, this was the 'word of God', they would not add, take out, or changed any mark or letter. This meant that they were very careful when they copied it. The Jewish scribes when doing this work had a set of rules which were quite strict and had to be adhered to in the utmost. One of the most important rules include not copying even the smallest mark of letter from memory. They always had to look at the scroll or codex from which they were copying before they wrote a letter onto the scroll. They also had to make sure that the scroll or codex they were copying from was certified as a good copy, in other words confirmed in a unbroken line. So to take out any part of a divine word was we would call sacrilegious, so for this to be done was purposely changing one word here, and then another later, and then whole verses if not worse as was done....

This is irrelevant to the copying of the New Testament books and letters, which was done almost entirely by Gentile scribes.

But in any case, how do you know if the disputed words have been added, or if they've been taken away? By going back to the oldest available manuscripts! Which is what the modern versions do. So this is an argument against the KJV.

 

[Randy Kluth]

This is irrelevant to the copying of the New Testament books and letters, which was done almost entirely by Gentile scribes.

But in any case, how do you know if the disputed words have been added, or if they've been taken away? By going back to the oldest available manuscripts! Which is what the modern versions do. So this is an argument against the KJV.

Nearly all new versions of the Bible, including the King James, make use of these other texts, as well. So it's not KJV vs Alexandrian text--it's the more texts the better.

 

[Hobie]

Please cite your source on this, that Clement of Alexandria taught that Christ was not really flesh but spirit? I'm not sure that's true, but I need to hear where he says this?

Some criticize some of the flawed theological writings of these early pioneers. And it's okay to critically examine anything--even from revered, studied Christians. But it's also nice to keep a balance...

There was no conspiracy to insert heretical teachings into Christianity. These were generally honest thinkers and exemplary Christian leaders. Their imperfections, over time, were corrected.

St Clement of Alexandria – True Gnosticism 1​

For intensification of the righteousness which is according to the law shows the Gnostic. So one who is placed in the head, which is that which rules its own body-and who advances to the summit of faith, which is the knowledge (gnosis) itself, for which all the organs of perception exist-will likewise obtain the highest inheritance.

The primacy of knowledge the apostle shows to those capable of reflection, in writing to those Greeks of Corinth, in the following terms: “But having hope, when your faith is increased, that we shall he magnified in you according to our rule abundantly, to preach the Gospel beyond you.” [2 Cor. x. 15, 16] He does not mean the extension of his preaching locally: for he says also that in Achaia faith abounded; and it is related also in the Acts of the Apostles that he preached the word in Athens. [Acts 17] ]But he teaches that knowledge (gnosis), which is the perfection of faith, goes beyond catechetical instruction, in accordance with the magnitude of the Lord’s teaching and the rule of the Church. Wherefore also he proceeds to add, “And if I am rude in speech, yet I am not in knowledge.”...https://catholicgnosis.wordpress.com/2008/12/30/st-clement-of-alexandria-true-gnosticism-1/

Here is a good study..
'Clement of Alexandria’s interpretation of the Bible is based on his theological understanding of divine progress. This progress, or divine pedagogy, begins with faith (πίστις) and culminates in knowledge (γνῶσις) – that is, acquaintance with God. Clement refers to the one who has acquired this γνῶσις as the “true Gnostic.” By examining Clement’s interpretation of three Old Testament passages (Psalm 1, Genesis 1:26-27, and the Ten Commandments [Exodus 20:1-17; Deuteronomy 5:6-21]) various facets of his gnostic interpretation become evident: his biblical interpretation is affected depending on the stage of the spiritual journey; the true Gnostic has privilege to interpret over and against the heretics; and Scripture is full of gnostic truths.'..https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/67423/3/Edwards_Robert_G_T_201411_MA_thesis.pdf

 

[Randy Kluth]

St Clement of Alexandria – True Gnosticism 1​

For intensification of the righteousness which is according to the law shows the Gnostic. So one who is placed in the head, which is that which rules its own body-and who advances to the summit of faith, which is the knowledge (gnosis) itself, for which all the organs of perception exist-will likewise obtain the highest inheritance.

The primacy of knowledge the apostle shows to those capable of reflection, in writing to those Greeks of Corinth, in the following terms: “But having hope, when your faith is increased, that we shall he magnified in you according to our rule abundantly, to preach the Gospel beyond you.” [2 Cor. x. 15, 16] He does not mean the extension of his preaching locally: for he says also that in Achaia faith abounded; and it is related also in the Acts of the Apostles that he preached the word in Athens. [Acts 17] ]But he teaches that knowledge (gnosis), which is the perfection of faith, goes beyond catechetical instruction, in accordance with the magnitude of the Lord’s teaching and the rule of the Church. Wherefore also he proceeds to add, “And if I am rude in speech, yet I am not in knowledge.”...https://catholicgnosis.wordpress.com/2008/12/30/st-clement-of-alexandria-true-gnosticism-1/

Here is a good study..
'Clement of Alexandria’s interpretation of the Bible is based on his theological understanding of divine progress. This progress, or divine pedagogy, begins with faith (πίστις) and culminates in knowledge (γνῶσις) – that is, acquaintance with God. Clement refers to the one who has acquired this γνῶσις as the “true Gnostic.” By examining Clement’s interpretation of three Old Testament passages (Psalm 1, Genesis 1:26-27, and the Ten Commandments [Exodus 20:1-17; Deuteronomy 5:6-21]) various facets of his gnostic interpretation become evident: his biblical interpretation is affected depending on the stage of the spiritual journey; the true Gnostic has privilege to interpret over and against the heretics; and Scripture is full of gnostic truths.'..https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/67423/3/Edwards_Robert_G_T_201411_MA_thesis.pdf

Again, "Please cite your source on this, that Clement of Alexandria taught that Christ was not really flesh but spirit? I'm not sure that's true, but I need to hear where he says this?"

The word gnosis is just a word for "knowledge," and Christians have generally understood that they receive special revelation when they embrace Christ as their Lord. Clement was not throwing his hat in with the Gnostics, if that's what you're implying?

You didn't come close to showing me evidence that Clement taught that Christ was not really flesh but spirit. If you're going to publicly claim something you should certainly have proof to back up your claims.

 

[Hobie]

I think you may need to look and study it for yourself as it seems anything you are given you just ask for more or claim you can see anything, not much I can help you there...

 

[Hobie]

Now here are a few tidbits of Westcott and Hort ideas...


1. Westcott's Views:
He denied the historicity of Genesis 1-3. He wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury, March 4, 1890, the following:

"No one now, I suppose holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did."

2. Hort's View:
…Agreed with Charles Darwin's false evolutionary theory. On April 3, 1860, he wrote:


"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 contemporary with…My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable."


3. Hort's View:
He denied a literal Eden and a real fall of man.

"I am inclined to think that no such state as "Eden" (I mean the popular notion) ever existed and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants, as Coleridge justly
agrees."

4. Hort writing to Westcott calls atonement "immoral.”
"I entirely agree--correcting one word--with what you there say on the atonement, having for many years believed that "the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself" is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit...Certainly, nothing could be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death: but indeed, that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy.”


5. Westcott believes that visions of the Virgin are merely God changing form. In a letter to a cohort
from his séance club he writes:

“As far as I could judge, the idea of La Salette (France) was that of God revealing Himself now,
not in one form, but in many.”

Note: (Our Lady of La Salette (French: Notre-Dame de La Salette) is a Marian apparition reported by two children, Maximin Giraud and Mélanie Calvat to have occurred at La Salette-Fallavaux, France, in 1846.) His view on visions now appears on pages of all new versions.

6. Hort believes in the Sacraments.
"I am a staunch sacerdotalist…the Sacraments must be the center. The band of a common divine life derived in Sacraments is the most comprehensive bond possible". (The Life and Letters of
F.J.A. Hort, p. 99)

7. Westcott: No separation from worldly lusts.
"There was a time when it was usual to draw a sharp line between religious and worldly things.
That time has happily gone by.”


8. Hort admits he knows little about church history, in a letter to a friend.
"I am afraid I must have talked big and misled you when you were here, for I really know very little of church history." (Arthur Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. 1,
P. 233)

9. Hort believes in the worship of Mary.
"I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and Jesus-worship have very much in
common in their cause and in their results.” (The Life and Letters of F.J.A. Hort, Vol. 2, p. 50)


10. Hort concerning Salvation - Not by faith.
A. His desire: He “pleaded for the social interpretation of the Gospel.”

B. His vision: When “the crude individualism of common notions of salvation is corrected, as

expressed in 'too purely personal Evangelical hymns.”

C. His belief: “Without any act of ours, we are children of the Great and Gracious Heavenly

Father.”

D. His denial of Christ's sacrifice: "Christ bearing our sins ... [is] an almost universal HERESY.”

(The Life and Letters of B. F. Westcott, Vol. 2, p. 158, 373 334, 401, 224, 57. Vol. 1, p.428-430. F.J.A. Hort, The 1st Epistle of St. Peter, 1:1-2:17. The Greek Text with Introductory Lecture. Commentary and Additional Notes, p.77, by James & Klock Publishing Co.,Minneapolis, MN, reprint 1976).

 

[Hobie]

Now lets go into Wescott's and Hort's Greek translation of the Bible and how Hort and Westcott persuaded scholars of the Revision Committee to switch to the corrupted Alexandrian text for a new version which is what led to the changes in many of the versions today. Most everyone show know who they were but, just for reference, lets give a brief overview of them. Westcott and Hort were Anglican theologians in the latter part of the 1800's who exerted influence on the members of a Bible committee for revising a new translation being done at that time, which forms the basis of most modern versions. There was a rise of many ideas including Darwinism and Humanism in the 1870's, and this led to a challenge to the Majority Text or Textus Receptus and came from these to two men who were officially Protestants as we see in this explanation....

"The crux of Westcott and Hort's theory was that the New Testament was preserved in almost perfect condition in two manuscripts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. (The Sinaiticus was discovered in a wastebasket in St. Catherine’s Momentary near Mt. Sinai in 1844 and the Vaticanus was first documented in the Vatican library in 1475 and was 'rediscovered' in 1845.)

Westcott and Hort, abhored the King James Bible and even after its widespread use now declare it an inferior translation. Westcott and Hort determined to replace the King James Bible and the Greek Textus Receptus. In short, their theory was that for fifteen hundred years the preserved Word of God was lost until it was recovered in the nineteenth century in a trash can and in the Vatican Library.

Hort showed a bias against the Textus Receptus, calling it "villainous" and "vile". Hort aggressively taught that the School at Antioch (associated with Lucian) had loosely translated the true text of Scripture in the second century A. D. So this supposedly created an unreliable text of Scripture which formed the Textus Receptus. This was called the Lucian Recension Theory.

Hort did not have a single historical reference to support that the Lucian Recension took place. He simply theorized that it must have taken place so the Textus Receptus must be discarded. In spite of the fact that there is not a single historical reference to the Lucian Recension, but it became held as fact.

The great textual scholar of the time, Dean John Burgon, referred to Westcott and Hort’s "violent recoil from the Traditional Text" and "their absolute contempt for the Traditional Text". He refers to their theory as "superstitious veneration for a few ancient documents."

Another famed textual scholar and contemporary of Westcott and Hort, F.H.P. Scrivener wrote, "Dr. Hort’s system therefore is entirely destitute of historical foundation. He does not so much as make a show of pretending to it; but then he would persuade us, as he persuaded himself..."

From what I have come across, it appears Westcott and Hort slowly fed others the changes they were making and so were ready when the Revision Committee of 1871-1881 met and steered it away from the Textus Receptus and Antiochian text and into the Alexandrian codices and its changes.

They had compiled their own Greek text from Alexandrian manuscripts, which, though unpublished and inferior to the Textus Receptus, they secreted little by little to the Revision Committee with what can only be called a intent to keep the members in and the dark and deceive. The result being a totally new 'Alexandrian' English Bible instead of a "revision" of the Authorized Version as it was claimed to be. When they finished, the text was changed in 36,191 places to say nothing of the result of the texts taken out....

 

[Hobie]

Now some claim that modern translations actually use Nestle-Aland and thus the changes and deletions from Westcott-Hort does not apply. But need to look at what Nestle-Aland is based on...

"Nestle, according to Aland-Aland Text des Neuen Testaments, based the text of his first two editions on Westcott-Hort and Tischendorf's eighth edition (Weymouth being the decider in case of a difference), and from the third edition on Westcott-Hort, Tischendorf, and Bernhard Weiss (and this was done consistently only from the 13th edition of 1927). I have no reason to doubt the Alands' report on the history of the Nestle-Aland edition, and therefore it is just as wrong to say that the old Nestle-Aland text was that of Tischendorf, or Weiss, than to say it was that of Westcott-Hort."Evangelical Textual Criticism: Was the old Nestle-Aland text basically Westcott-Hort?

Even their own site admits it...."The first edition of the GNT appeared in 1966. Its text was established along the lines of Westcott and Hort and differed considerably from Nestle’s 25th edition."Nestle Aland Novum Testamentum Graece :: History

 

[Hobie]

Well, lets look at a few more basic comparisons and see what are some important doctrinal truths that are attacked by these 'Alexandrian' versions. We see here where they even refutes the idea that the Bible is the preserved, inspired, Word of God. Note:

Psalms 12:6-7 (KJV) The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Psalms 12:6-7 (NIV) And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times. 7 O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever.

Can you see how the meaning is completely blurred by this supposed improved "Bible".

Now lets look at how just changing "God" to "He" they remove the fact that Jesus is God.

1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

1 Timothy 3:16 (NIV) Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

1 Timothy 3:16 (NASB) By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh,
Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world,Taken up in glory.

Now look how by changing "Christ" to "God" they deny that Jesus is God.

Romans 14:10 (KJV) But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. Romans 14:12 (KJV) So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

Romans 14:10 (NIV) You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. Romans 14:12 (NIV) So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

Romans 14:10 (NASB) But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. Romans 14:12 (NASB) So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.

Now what happened here...

John 9:35 (KJV) Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?

John 9:35 (NIV) Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"

John 9:35 (NASB) Jesus heard that they had put him out, and finding him, He said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?”

Its a shading of the truth of His divinity, what Jesus directly lays claim to.