Bogus Bibles: A Complete Tangent to the Strange Fire issues but it was getting to me

It kept bothering me as I listened to the Strange Fire Conference so I'd like to register my objections:

BIBLE VERSIONS
I have a separate blog on the Bible manuscript controversies, The Great Bible Hoax of 1881,  and am probably hypersensitive to quotations from any of the modern Bibles, having come to regard them as based on the bogus Greek manuscripts that were introduced into all our new Bibles with the Revision of 1881.  At the Conference every time a lengthy quotation was read from -- presumably --  the New American Standard, I cringed.  The English is just plain awful in that translation, which is a different problem from the fact that it's also one of the modern versions that is based on the Critical Text, which includes the corrupt Westcott and Hort Greek text.  The NAS is considered to be a good "literal" translation, but in fact it is a klutzy rendering that is deaf to English, attempting to render the Greek in ways that are simply alien to the English language.   For one thing, it keeps on saying "keeps on doing" this that or the other, which is NOT the way ongoing action is normally conveyed in English.  John Burgon pointed out this strange mistreatment of English  -- yes it's a legacy from the 1881 Revision -- in his book, The Revision Revised, a massive critique of the 1881 Revision put out by the Westcott-and-Hort-dominated committee.

THE STRANGE FIRE CONFERENCE IS BASED ON ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY, IT IS BASED ON SOLA SCRIPTURA, AND THOSE WHO BELIEVE THIS ALWAYS AFFIRM THAT OUR BIBLE IS INERRANT.  BUT ALL THESE VARIOUS BIBLE VERSIONS, AND ESPECIALLY THE CORRUPTED GREEK TEXTS CONSIDERED TO BE THE "OLDEST AND BEST" ALTHOUGH THEY ARE FULL OF CORRECTIONS AND ERRORS, TESTIFY TO ERROR, NOT INERRANCY.  THE "SCHOLARLY" ASSESSMENT DOES LEAD SOME CANDID THINKERS TO THE FALSE BUT NOT UNREASONABLE CONCLUSION THAT THE BIBLE IS NOT TRUSTWORTHY.   THE CHURCH NEVERTHELESS CONTINUES TO AFFIRM BIBLE INERRANCY, WHICH WE SHOULD DO IN ANY CASE, BUT BECAUSE OF THESE FALSE MANUSCRIPTS THE DEVIL HAS BEEN BUSY USING ALL THOSE BOGUS BIBLES QUITE PLAUSIBLY TO TEACH SOMETHING ELSE. 

AEON
Burgon also pointed out the equally bizarre mistranslation of the Greek word "aeon" as "age" as opposed to the King James rendering, "world."   "Age" is now in most of the new Bibles and is staunchly defended as the "correct" meaning of the Greek term, at the Conference by Justin Peters if I recall correctly, although Westcott and Hort's insistence on it merely demonstrated their ignorance of nuances of translation from Greek to English (OR possibly a more sinister motive?  They DESPISED the Textus Receptus and the King James).  Of course it also bothers me that it wouldn't just be obvious that the King James translators were the highest caliber scholars who knew Greek far better than W and H did, but maybe you have to read Dean Burgon to have a sense of the difference. 

YAHWEH
And I also cringe at the name "Yahweh" as the Name of God in the place of "Jehovah."  As for the scholarly excuses for the change - the reasons are NOT as clear as is often claimed -- even at best they are not worth the confusion and disruption of the historical usage in the minds of millions of English speaking Bible readers, not to mention the disruption of the literary and cultural heritage of centuries.  Not only does it sound to me like the name of a tribal god, a lesser god, but it shows only too tellingly the lengths to which some "scholars" are willing to go to undermine the King James Bible in one way or another.  There was NOTHING wrong with "Jehovah" just as there was nothing wrong with MANY of the English words in that Bible that the Westcott and Hort Committee chose to change, some 36 thousand UNNECESSARY changes in the English alone, that went on to spawn more and more change-for-change's sake in subsequent translations (although much of that is due to the fact that a certain number of differences from other versions is necessary for a translation to qualify for copyright). 

It's something of a puzzle why people do not simply HEAR the problem when all these different translations are compared, not to mention why we don't hear the confusion that is created by simply HAVING so many translations used by so many Christians, the cacophony, the confusion of tongues, even the simple inability to locate a verse because you've remembered its wording from a different translation.  The effect is to GARBLE THE BIBLE.  But I didn't hear it either once upon a time, I've had to learn all this stuff over the years. 

Chris Pinto is now the best source of information about what all this is REALLY about, at least the Greek manuscripts (he doesn't object to the English translations as I do).  Hint:  Vatican, Jesuits;  the Roman Catholic behemoth's plots to destroy the English Bible and ultimately whatever is left of the Protestant Reformation.  Westcott and Hort were at least Anglo Catholics, and so were/are many of the scholars who have been promoters of their Greek text.  I know, conspiracy conspiracy.  Well, you need to hear Chris Pinto and I've done some work myself toward demonstrating all this at my blogs including the Catholicism blog, nowhere near as much as needs to be done.  Pinto is the best source of all this information.

Of course this doesn't apply only to the Strange Fire Conference, it is just as true of most of today's Christian teachers, of Reformed teachers and Charismatics as well.  I do a lot of cringing these days as I listen to sermons by today's preachers.  It's just that I know MacArthur is a strong NAS guy and it started to get to me so I had to mention it.  I'd call it a "pet peeve" but obviously I take it a lot more seriously than that.

================

Later:  Listening to the Charismatic radio show host, Dr. Michael Brown, I encountered another common affront to the Church brought to us courtesy of the Westcott and Hort 1881 debacle, the belief that the last twelve verses of Mark are not authentic.  The vast majority of supposed Bible-inerrancy believers now accept this devil-wrought slap in the face of the Church.  Well, that's what we get for accepting the work of scholars who are unbelievers, who let their disbelief in the supernatural dictate their dating of the Bible among other things.  Not to mention scholars who are Jesuits.  How gullible today's Church is!  Is it too late to wake up?    

The Last Twelve Verses of Mark further defended

The post I wrote two weeks ago about the unwarranted doubt of the last verses of Mark was just a sudden inspiration I had on the subject, not expecting to have more to say. But I got a very encouraging comment on that post from a pastor James Snapp about it, with a link to his website where he has a summary of his own research into the manuscript evidence for the authenticity of the verses, and an invitation to write for his complete study. It looks very thorough and well worth reading but I don't think I have enough scholarly patience to pursue it myself right now, knowing that he has to address the many speculations and hypotheses about unknowable historical possibilities. I hope others will have the desire to follow it on out though.

Here is the manuscript summary at his own church site.

But it is also available for download at this address: Here's the site owner's introduction, and here's the whole manuscript.

(Some of the labels I've attached to this post reflect content in Pastor Snapp's study of the Bible manuscripts).

============

As I said in my own post on the subject, the only reason this passage is held in doubt is that Westcott and Hort happened to prefer a couple of early Greek manuscripts to those that had previously been accepted as the authoritative Greek text. Not only do the W&H manuscripts have really very little to recommend their authority over the traditional texts when you are aware of all the evidence, but they are notorious for throwing readings into doubt that had been accepted by Christians for all the centuries up until 1881 when W&H cast their spell over our Bible. Oh yes, there are many reasonings based on the texts themselves that support that doubting mentality, but it all started with those two men and their very questionable qualifications and their subterfuge in massively altering the Bible text when they were only commissioned to do a minimum of updating. Unfortunately those who defend this line of Bibles also manage to keep themselves from knowing about the arguments against it, such as the work of Dean John W Burgon, a contemporary of W&H.

The Last Twelve Verses of Mark

9 Now when he was risen early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. 10 She went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. 11 And they, when they heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, disbelieved. 12 And after these things he was manifested in another form unto two of them, as they walked, on their way into the country. 13 And they went away and told it unto the rest: neither believed they them.

14 And afterward he was manifested unto the eleven themselves as they sat at meat; and he upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them that had seen him after he was risen. 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned. 17 And these signs shall accompany them that believe: in my name shall they cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

19 So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken unto them, was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. 20 And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed. Amen

Why are we to doubt this passage? Don't we know for a fact, from the testimony of scripture itself, that the apostolic generation did have these experiences? Don't we know they cast out demons over and over and over? That they spoke in tongues? That Paul picked up a poisonous viper and shook it off without harm? Don't we know they healed the sick miraculously over and over and over? Why is there any doubt about this passage? Why do the scholars choose to believe the corrupted texts preferred by Westcott and Hort? Answer: They are trusting in their fallible minds instead of in GOD.

Yes, I know the problem with this text comes in with applying it to the church after the apostolic age, but taking it just as written there is no need to insist on that application, since we know it is almost word for word prophetic of the ministry of the apostles. We know mostly of Paul plus some accounts of a few others, but from their experience we shouldn't have any trouble surmising that all the apostles experienced such miraculous powers. Some other time I might even be willing to argue that they are still available today under certain circumstances, but for now just on the face of it this much-disputed passage in Mark ought to be regarded as unimpeachably the word of the Lord.

And then if you read the evidence for its legitimate transmission in the following you should have no more doubts at all. This is a page about Mark 16 from Dr. Thomas Holland's Crowned With Glory which gives historical reasons to accept the passage and gets at the mutilating effects of the fleshly mind on God's word:

Most scholars believe the original ending to Mark's Gospel has been lost. [3] If this is true, the concept of preserving the words of Scripture is forever annihilated. The words cannot be preserved and lost at the same time. However, textual scholars usually call for its inclusion even if they question its originality. Dr. Bruce Metzger departs from the maxim of modern textual critics, Brevior lectio potior (the shorter reading is preferable), and supports the longer ending even though admittedly he does not regard the passage as genuine. He considers it to be a legitimate part of the New Testament because of its traditional significance to the body of Christendom. [4] The passage is not contained in the Alexandrian texts, minuscule 2386, the Syrian Sinaitic Version, and a few other translations.

However, it is in many of the Greek uncials (A, C, D, K, X, D, Q, and P) dating between the fifth and ninth centuries. It is also contained in later dated Greek minuscules (137, 138, 1110, 1210, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1221, and 1582). It is the reading found in the majority of Old Latin texts as well as the Coptic versions and other early translations. Finally, it is cited (at least in part) by many of the early church fathers such as Justin (165 AD), Tertullian (220 AD), Hippolytus (235 AD), Ambrose (397 AD) and Augustine (430 AD). [5]

In 177 AD Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies. In it he cites from Mark 16:19, establishing that the longer reading was in existence at this time and was considered canonical, at least by Irenaeus:

Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: "So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God; " confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: "The LORD said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool." Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein. (3:10:5).

The difference here is extremely important. If we conclude that this passage is not authentic, then we must question what happened to the original ending of Mark. It is not logical that the Gospel would end at this place so abruptly. Nor is it likely, as some scholars have suggested, that the Gospel was never finished, calling biblical inspiration into question. The conclusion held by most textual scholars, whether liberal or conservative, that the original ending has been lost over the passage of time certainly denies the doctrine of biblical preservation.

Seems to me the W&H defenders need to shake off their trust in the scholarly establishment, or more to the point shake off their fleshly intellect and open their spiritual eyes! If you exercise your fleshly mind on these things without immersing yourself in prayer in the fear of God and abiding in Him, you will end up discarding His very word and missing the spiritual riches He has given us.

Doubt about the passage is based completely on accepting Westcott and Hort's text and their despising of the Textus Receptus which was the traditional text on which the KJV was based. It also suggests the liberal prejudice against the supernatural we're so familiar with today. Both inclinations have brought about the mutilation of the Biblical text which had been passed down through the centuries, a mutilation apparently accepted today even by the most conservative scholars, even those who are usually alert to this kind of destruction. Following Westcott and Hort's mugging of the Bible, today conscientious studious pastors of even the most Bible-focused churches determine the canon of Holy Scripture by the flesh rather than the spirit. That is why they have either done away with Mark 16:9-20 or hold it in oh-so-fussy head-proud "doubt."

I know so many sincere Christians who will defend the Westcott and Hort profanation of God's word. Otherwise good preachers trust in their scholarly training and their carnal intellectual strengths for judging God' word. The church is so weak compared to what it seems to me the Bible shows us is possible and desired by the Lord. The flesh can preach the Bible, can even preach spiritual truth (and I am susceptible to the same mistake), but only what is preached in the spirit has value and has power to save.